Hello,

Wanted to get some opinions. I have a couple of Cooper M52 rifles that both have Leupold VX-III, 2.5x8 scopes in low rings on them. I have noticed that occasionally I will have a failure to eject spent brass, leaving it lying in the raceway. Seems to occur mostly at the range, have not had it happen in the field. Anyway, last weekend I was at the range and it again happened a couple of times and as I was looking things over, I noticed that the underside of the scope and the right turret cover are marred up a bit. Makes me think that the brass it striking the underside of the scope and causing the failure. Anyone had this problem? Should I just buy a set of medium rings and see if it helps? Thanks.

This was a very common problem with the Remington 788 too. If the case is striking the scope turret and falling back into the action one way to fix the problem is to rotate your scope in it's rings 90 degrees counterclockwise. Of course your elevation knob becomes windage and you windage becomes elevation. It's a cheaper fix than new rings. Good Luck, and let us know what works for you.

Will also allow you to keep the low scope mounting.

Von Gruff.

I'd use whichever height ring that gives you a natural line of sight straight down the center of the scope tube when using good form with a proper spot or cheekweld. Sometimes we tend to chase after the lowest mount combination we can make mechanically fit without giving any thought to the design of the stock or good form. When I'm on the fence for ring height, I use an alignment rod which has a small hole bored down the center through its length. I use the height combination that allows a natural line of sight to see through the small hole when using good form. I can tell if the mounts are too low because I must stock crawl and tilt my head down to line up with the hole. If the mounts are too high, I must raise up off my cheekweld to line up with the hole. Whichever mounts brings me closests to center, that is the mount I use.

Your lows may be the correct height for you and you'll then need to figure a way around the scope turret crowding the port. On the other hand, your lows may indeed be too low for you and crowding the port is unnecessary.

Food for thought,
Best

Just went through this battle with a Sako A7. Ended up having to go to high rings to fix the problem. I tried using a Leupold VXII in Medium rings, due the the turret caps on Leupies being a bit lower than most other scopes, but the brass still hit frequently. Moved to high rings, and the problem is finally solved. Since I was in high rings, I also switched scopes to a Monarch with a 50mm bell. I had tried moving a few different scopes as far forward as possible to keep the turret housing toward the front of the ejection port, but I was still having problems. The high rings was all I cold find to resolve it. This seems to be a common problem with A7's. I guess some rifles are just designed to eject brass on a higher arc than others.

IMO the problem is the fixed blade ejector at 6:00 and the extractor at 10:00, on a 3-lug bolt. This is also a common problem with Sako 85's. Going to a higher ring might help, might not. The blade is flipping the case up faster than the extractor can pull it sideways.

How high do you want to go to alleviate a design problem though?

The A7 does not have a standing ejector, it is a 75 push feed with an ejection plunger. The plunger is at 2:30 being slightly lower than the push feed extractor blade which is at about 10:00.

The 85 has an extractor blade that looks like a push feed, but it extracts the empty case like a Mauser. Take your 85 and chamber an emtpy case. When you slowly extract the empty from the chamber, the case stays straight with the chamber and flat against the bolt face. Gently draw it back until the case head just touches the 6:00 standing ejector. If you slowly pull it back against the the ejector, the case will initially tilt upward towards 12:00 until the case necks rises slightly above the edge of the port, but as you continue to pull back against the ejector, the grip of the extractor blade forces the case towards it's 10:00 position on the bolt face, which is the exact direction the case needs to go to clear between the scope tube and the edge of the port. Like any standing ejector, the force of the ejected empty is proportional to the force applied to the standing ejector as the bolt is drawn to the rear.

Based on my personal experience with 75s, A7s and 85s chambered in 243, 30-06, 9.3x62, and 375HH, the factory design does not work well with a crowded ejection port. If you prefer to stock crawl where you crank your face down requiring very low mounts to bring the scope down to your eye, you can run into problems, especially if you're using a scope with a bulky turret. The USMC at Quantico put an end to my old habit of stock crawlilng, and as a result, I find the ergonomics of the Sako design near perfect for a natural cheekweld where the sights are brought up to the eye. As such, the scope center does not need to be in the max low position and the ejection port does not need to be crowded.

Now this is based on my experience using the above noted standard chamberings. I have no personal experience with any of the shorter fat magnum chamberings which may have issues of their own.

Best

If a rifle will not eject fired cases with a scope mounted as I like it, I would sell it.

Any rifle with an ejection system that will not accomodate a properly mounted scope,regardless of ring height,is a flawed design IMHO.

Geezus for the money they charge for a Cooper or Sako, you'd think this stuff would be sorted out before the rifle hits the market.

+1.

Had the exact same problem with my Cooper Jackson Hunter in 25-06! Sent the gun back first time because of poor reliability on ejection. Got it back and it was hitting my cap just as yours, so I sent it back again. Neither time did they offer 2 pay for my shipping, which I should have demanded, but I just wanted my gun fixed before the up comming season. The gunsmith for Cooper sent a letter along with the rifle, stating that I was using 2 low of a mounting system, even though thier manual states 2 use the lowest mounting system possible, or something 2 that affect. I love the accuaracy and ergo's of this rifle but I was pretty angry that I had 2 shell out so much money, and have the problems that I had!

Send those guns back and make them fix them! Also tell them you want them 2 pay shipping!

HeavyBarrel

If you have a large windage turret on an X-Bolt short action this can happen as well.

Heavy - that is interesting. Was the letter from Mike H. at Cooper? Did you go with higher rings and did that solve the issue?

The brass seems to ding up both the bottom of the scope as well as the windage turret cap.

I agree with GaryVA in that the fixed ejector is in the wrong position. I have some older Sako's (L691 and AIII Classic) that are 2 locking lug rifles with the fixed ejector in the 8:00 position, and low scopes are no problem. When Sako went to a three locking lug design (75&85) they had to move the fixed ejector hence the problem with low scopes. I have an 85 Finn Light with Leupold QD bases and low rings with a Leupold VX 3 3.5X10 and it works OK if I eject the fired round with authority. I have no knowledge about Cooper rifles, except I would love to have one.

G2

My 85 has yet to be tested as a repeater. My engagements are one shot, one kill.

duckster, I was using Warne bases, with Leupold low rings. The first time I sent it back, it was not extracting reliable even without a scope, also had a burr somewhere that was making a mark on the brass. They did work on both problems so I thought I was good. Mounted scope with said ring/base, was extracting and didnt notice marks on windage cap until a week or so. I had mounted a brand new VX3, and while sitting in the deer stand admiring the gun, I noticed the marks on the turrent cap so after further investigation, I saw what was going on. Man was I mad! Got down out of stand and sent it back that day, I believe the letter stated that they re-timed extraction? I think the letter was from Mike. When I got the gun back, I ordered a low Talley aluminum ring/base, which is a little higher than what I had, seems 2 have fixed the problem. I insist on low rings, I like my cheek planted on the stock. If this had not fixed it, I would have sold gun, or kept sending it back!!

HeavtBarrel

Had the same problem with a Sako I bought on this board. Looking at the extractor I noticed the shell was popping off very easily. I had the gunsmith make a stronger extractor spring to hold the shell on a little longer. Just got a call from him that it works great now.

The 6 oclock position is not ideal but it must be able to work since so many people don't have problems with it. So by going off that fact, the upward ejection has to be a solvable issue. With mine, by the shell staying on the bolt that millisecond longer it was able to finish the "english" and tilt towards 2 oclock. If that hadn't worked I would have looked at the extractor shape and size, than the ejector.

I have sent a email to Mike H. at Cooper to ask him this same question that we are discussing. No reply as yet. Will be interested if this has happened to others besides HB and I?

duckster, please let us know what u find out.

Thanks
HeavyBarrel

Will do

Update:

I had this email back from Mike at Cooper:

"I have seen this as an issue with super low mounted scopes. Other than going with a different optics setup, there's not much we can do to keep the cases from hitting the windage turret, at least in current state of your rifle.

We do have a new ejection system we are going to in the M52. It is a plunger style ejector located in the bolt face, as opposed to the blade type you currently have. This new ejector provides for a more horizontal ejection path, as opposed to what you're experiencing. If you'd like, you can send your rifle in and we can fit a new style bolt to your rifle. The cost of this would be $200.

If you prefer not to replace the bolt, I'd suggest playing around with the height and location of your scope.

Mike"

So, I think I am going to try to raise the scope first and if that doesn't fix it, then go the new ejector route.

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.

duckster,
Could you post a video of you shooting this rifle at the range as you cycle though a mag box full of ammo. A video showing your rifle failing to eject, jamming up the action and failing to feed, especially if it occurs half the time, would be quite compelling. Once you have it on display here with all the added comments on how the rifle repeatedly fails, send a link to this thread in an email to Cooper. I'd imagine such email would motivate Cooper to make a quick correction.

Best

I would but the rifles are actually at Cooper right now. Good thought on the video, I should have thought of that!

Hope they get it fixed at N/C to you.

That is my goal as well. I hope that they will make this right, if so, then customer loyalty goes way up, if not, well....

duckster, What did you find out about your rifles? You said that you were suppose to talk to them this morning.

Thanks
HeavyBarrel

So, an update:

I spoke yesterday with the head gunsmith at Cooper and explained the issue, especially the fact that this had been occurring since the first rifle was new. He agreed that this was a issue, but did say that they had not had every rifle come back for the issue. Not sure if some don't do it or what the situation is in that regard. Anyway, he said that the new bolt with the plunger ejection will solve the issue. He agreed that it because the current ejection system raises the brass too high, striking the underside of the scope. So, after some discussion, he agreed that Cooper holds some responsibility to make this right and agreed to replace the bolts on both rifles for labor cost - $75.00 per gun. Much better than the original $200.00 per gun that I was quoted.

I am happy to have this resolved. I would have been ecstatic if they would have said "our issue, we make it right at no cost to you!" but I am happy. So, that is where we are today, both rifles will be getting a new bolt with plunger ejection (like what is on the current M52) and I should have them back in a couple of weeks.

Glad they have satisfied you duckster, to some extent. They should have repaired them for free! Last email corrispondence I had with them, the price was $125 to fix mine. Seems like they are trying to get what they can from each individual! Pretty shady if you ask me. I prob have $100 dollars in shipping for the three times I sent mine back, without the first offer from them to cover my shipping exspences.

Probably the reason that others have not noticed, or care, is they could be possibly using a higher ring/base combo, and not having the issues? My spent brass cleared fine, after the second return from Cooper and slightly higher rings, I did not notice the brass ticks till they started adding up and really becoming noticeable, as you could not actually see it hitting it was happening so fast. Some might not care about the tick marks but it was unacceptable to me. I also had a Interarms Mauser that did the same thing, but out of the hundred or so rifles I have owned or shot, these were the only two that did. The gunsmith at Cooper told me that a lot of rifles did, maybe thiers, he didnt specify! Who would buy, or think it was acceptable, for a $1600+ rifle to do that??

Will let yall know how my situation turns out! They have had my rifle for over a month now and I have not heard a thing.

HeavyBarrel

Hate to say it duckster, but you're being screwed.. Ask the smith just what YOU did to cause the problem....and is the redesigned bolt now standard or an option?

I don't disagree with you guys, but at this point, my rifles are out there and the shipping is covered, so I am going to get things taken care of now. I have not had to pay any shipping for either this time or the last time that I sent the .280 out there, as both times I went to Scheel's where I purchased the rifles and they took care of it. The smith mentioned that the design of the blade extractor was not the right size/shape to get the ejection arc correct.

GeoW - then plunger ejection is now a standard thing, so I am betting that there is more incidences of this than they are saying, otherwise why redesign something that is only about 5 years old?

I guess at this point I am cutting my losses. I may be going back to Sako or to Hill Country Rifles for my next gun. On the other hand, I look at all the accuracy complaints regarding Kimber that come up in these forums and I will say that the Coopers certainly do shoot!

My(15YO) son & I just checked 4 of my rifles........ X-bolts(325WSM) hits VX3 turret. NULA(30-06) the same. Kimber Montana270Win 84L) hits but only every now & then. T3 not even close. Our old Nosler 48 used to hit & leave empties backwards on top of the mag, jammimg the rifle....... The former 4 rifles mentioned above did not hinder the rifles in anyway other than hitting the VX3's turret caps. 3 have Talley UL LOWS on them, the T3 a LOW gamereaper & the Nosler EXTRA LOW Talley UL's. I did also have trouble with a Remington XCR in 375, but again, that was with extra low mounts......

Good day.

I have a 7mm-08 Cooper M54 with low Talley LWs and a L'pold 3.5-10 VX III and have no ejection problems. Mine does have the newer plunger style ejector; that may be the reason. Yes, it shoots great.

My disgust was not directed at you, even though it did sound that way, but at Cooper. I was on the fence, thinking about a Cooper in 7-08. That's not happening now. I will not accept that kind of CS from anyone by choice.
Best thing to come from your last post is there are actually good companies, like Hill Country Rifles, to fix Coopers screw ups.



Geo

I tried my Kimber .308 with Talley Integral low mounts and 2.5x8 Leupold, no contact. My Savage 25-06 and .250 with Talley lows and leupold scopes, no contact. My two coustom remington action rifles with Talley lows and leupold scopes, no contact. My seven Savage praire dog rifles with Medium Burris rings and Weaver style bases, and various scopes with target knobs, no contact. My CZ 22LR with low Weaver 4x4 mounts and leupold scope, no contact. My Savage 22-250 Sporter with Talley low and Nikon scope, no contact. My two custom LR Remington rigs, Medium Rings and Warne bases and Leupold Scopes with target knobs, no contact. No contact on any of these rifles, nor is the brass leaving any kind of tick marks on the reciever, so I think it is safe to say that my Cooper, which cost more than most of my other rifles, should not be having any kind of ejection issues! Oh I forgot my Weatherby UL in .308 with 3.5-10x40 leupold and Talley lows, no contact, not to mention the numerous other rifles I have owned in the past, from various manufacturers, that had no ejection issues. I could live with the fact that they had a design flaw, but I bought this rifle with the understanding, that Cooper's customer service was second to none. That was the rumor that was started around my shooting circle. Now I am finding that my understanding was wrong, and I am pretty dissapointed in the direction that Cooper is going in regards to their customer service. But what do I know, they sure are selling alot of rifles it seems, they just want be selling any more to me! I hate the fact that they are getting more money out of some of us with the ejection issue, because of their flawed design! I love the ergo's and the accuracy, but for 1600+ and bad customer service, I think i will look elsewhere from now on!

Heavybarrel

HB - have you spoken to Mike Hudgins directly? I have his number if you would like me to PM?

I know a couple of guys that have bought Coopers, both M52 and M54 and have not had any problems, but this is with the new plunger ejectors.

duckster, thanks but he is whom I have been corrisponding with via e-mail. Let me know when you get your rifles back and how they eject.

Good Luck

HeavyBarrel

Will do, HB

Sorry to hear about the problems with the Coopers.

I am picking up a new Excaliber Model 54 tomorrow. How can I tell if I have the new or old design?

If it is a new rifle it will be the plunger style. They are nice rifles, just pretty disgusted with their customer service! Good luck with your new rifle.

HeavyBarrel

The test target is dated 4-10-11. That's what concerns me. How do you tell the difference in the two styles?

Well, both rifles are back from Cooper. They replaced the bolts with the new plunger style ejectors and also reblued the rifles so everything matched up. After some discussion with the folks at Cooper, they did the repair for what they said was their cost - $75 per rifle. Not free but better than the original quote of $200 per rifle.

So, Cooper did make it right, but it did cost me a bit of time and some money out of pocket.