Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Low mount rings and ejection problem?

So, an update.

I went and bought some medium rings for one of the two Cooper rifles. I figure I will give this a chance before sending both rifles and spending $400 dollars.

Makes me think that if they have a new bolt design, I was not the only one that was having some problems.

Have not shot the rifle with the new rings yet.

Had a friend who just purchased a new M52 Classic and I had a chance to look it over, it has a different bolt face with a plunger type ejector rather than the slot for a fixed blade. Looks more like the M700. This makes me think that others have had this issue.

had the same problem with a sako 85 grey wolf 30.06! Shot it once, sent it back, they said they fixed it. Took it out and of course it did it Again! Took it back To Gunshop and they had a lenghty talk with sako. Sako ended up taking the rifle back. Its silly to have a 40mm scope in high rings, like sako wanted me to. Now they tell anyone who wants a sako that it must have taller mounts, pref. High.

Why not just rotate the scope?

Because it doesn't hit the turret only, it strikes the underside of the scope itself, rotation will not fix that part of the problem.

Then higher rings is what you will need.

I have switched one rifle from low to medium rings. Going to see what that does. If not, may have to go with the reworked bolt/ejector but I am not anxious to fork out $300 per rifle to do so.

So, a update. I went to the range with the medium rings and no change. Still leaves the brass in the raceway about half of the time. I still think it pops the brass up too fast and strikes the underside of the scope, knocking it off the bolt face.

So, new Cooper M52 now have a plunger type ejector. So I take the rifles into the local Scheel's where they were purchased and explain the issue. They say they will call Cooper and discuss with them and then let me know what they will do. Today I get a call from a gunsmith at Cooper wanting to know if I want to switch out the bolts for the new plunger style, which he says will fix my problem. But, it will be $200 per bolt! I ask, "has you seen a lot of this issue?" He answers "Yes".

Now I have to call back tomorrow to speak with the head gunsmith there at Cooper to see if they will fix this issue on their dime or mine.

Is it unreasonable for me to expect them to change out to this new design? It would seem that if they changed the type of ejector after just a few years of production, that they realized this is a issue and the gunsmith that I spoke with seems to confirm that as well. What say you on the 'Fire??

I say you are absolutely correct here. Redesign of the ejection is admitting that the original design was flawed. Sako should make this issue right with their customers too, even though it would cost them millions.

You lost me on that one, what does Sako have to do with Cooper?

duckster,
Originally you said the rifle would occasionally fail to eject spent brass when at the range, but that it ejected properly when used in the field. This made it sound like a bolt operation issue where it partially failed when the bolt was operated slowly at the range like a push-feed, whereas in the field it functions properly when the bolt is operated with force. But here at the end you say the rifle fails to eject 50% of the time, which makes it sounds like it fails regardless the force applied to the bolt.

If the rifle is new and covered by warranty, and is having this later described 50% failure, I�d say it would be on Cooper�s dime to correct. On the other hand, if the rifle is out of warranty, and is having the partial range issue as you originally described, it will probably be at Cooper�s discretion. I could see where Cooper would charge if this rifle ejects with forceful bolt operation and is out of coverage.

Best

Geezus what a fiasco...per Cooper it is OK to peddle a clearly defective design that won't even function ( basic stuff),charge you almost $2k for the thing, then when you are smart enough to discover the design is seriously flawed,the have the audacity to charge you $200 to fix it....if you have to resort to silly shenanigans like using rings you don't want, putting scopes on ass backward to make a flawed rifle work the way a rifle should, you been "had"....

Feel like a guinea pig? R&D,design engineering for Copper on your dime.

I would dump that POS, liquidate my losses,and move on and never look in the direction of a Cooper again....what you have there is an expensive paperweight.

I wouldn't spend another 5 minute of my time on it....course what do I know? I only expect a rifle to work properly.

Are you shooting at the range loading single rounds or feeding thru the magazine?I have seen this problem before single loading rounds at the range but with a cartridge underneath the fired round it ejected fine.

GaryVA wrote "You lost me on that one, what does Sako have to do with Cooper?"

It doesn't have nothing "to do", with a cooper. But, Sako owners are having the same damn problem with their 85's. That's why I said what I said.

duckster, My rifle is at Cooper right now, for the third time, concerning this issue. I have been e-mailing the gunsmith, I think his name is Mark, at Cooper about this on-going issue. As I stated in an above post, I thought I had the problem fixed by going with the slightly higher Tally integral mounts (Low), but shooting it the other day, I got to noticing tick marks on the reciever, right behind the ejection port. Further investigation I found that the brass was spinning around, and hitting the reciever when spent cases were ejected. Needless to say, I was very aggrivated! I promptly contacted Cooper and was told that the new plunger style bolt would cure the problem, so I boxed it up and mailed it to them. During a confirmation that it had arrived e-mail, I was informed that they were going to charge me for the repair. I am in the process of arguing my point, and am waiting to see how they handle the situation. If they try and charge me for this repair, I will not buy another. Coustomer service is very important in my decision in buying anything, exspecially a 1700 hundred dollar rifle! As a matter of fact, I am looking at buying another Cooper Model-54 in .308, which has the plunger style ejection, but my decision hinges on how they handle my issue.

Good luck duckster, I hope that they handle this issue for you to your satisfaction. It is obviously a design flaw or they would have never changed the ejection design, even though the gunsmith told me it was not a design flaw and was working properly. How many people would buy a 1700 dollar rifle that wouldnt eject properly? When you buy a 1700 hundred dollar rifle, you expect near perfection! And good customer service! They should not charge you or me for this repair, and if they do, I will never buy another, and I think that it will hurt thier business in the long run! I hope that the new owners have not forgot the little man, like so many other companies have done.

HeavyBarrel

Experienced the same problem with a Browning short action X-Bolt with 30MM scope sitting in Deadnutz low mount.

A large part of the problem was a windage knob that was the size of a truck tire.

Still pisses you off.

Sorry, I was unclear. It will do it in the field, but it has not been a issue as I have not had to shoot more than once,(luckily) but it has had incomplete ejection in the field. It is just much more noticeable at the range, where I am shooting multiple times.

Both rifles have done this from new, the .280 had even been back to Cooper once before and they said it was fine.

I could see if it had the big target turrets, but both these rifles have VX-III, 2.5x8 with 36 mm obj, so not a big scope.

I had spoke to a smith, Garrett, at Cooper and he said that they have had to work on this a lot. Luckily, I have a list of emails going back a couple of years where this was a issue and I had kept all of those notes.

I am only loading from the magazine, not singly.

Wish I had saved my e-mails, somehow I erased them! Let us know what they say. They started out wanting to charge me $200, but after complaining a little, they said they would drop it to $125. I told them if they felt it was fair to charge me for a design flaw then go ahead and fix the gun, just want the damn thing right. The gunsmiths reply was that it was not a design flaw, and thats the last I heard from them. They have had my rifle for over a month now.

HeavyBarrel

Okay, I gotcha now, thought you were saying Sako was responsible for Cooper.

Best

I am supposed to call their head gunsmith this morning. I have emails going back to 2009 documenting the issues.