1290 wrote:Bridged actions? hoohaa. Benefit of a ported action, as in one with a small loading/ejecting window depends on so many factors, material, type of action - front or read locking, type of bolt head fixed or floating.
I wouldn't call it 'hoo haa' but there's a distinction to be made between "better" and "beneficial" which I think the majority of people overlook.
From an engineering standpoint:
Does bridging an action make it more rigid? Yes.
Potentially, would a more rigid action shoot more accurately than a more flexible one? Yes.
Do either of those things have any bearing whatsoever on the intended result of using the firearm? In some cases - yes. In the majority of cases - I expect not.
For the sake of argument lets say that bridged and non-bridged versions of the Sako rifles where available and bridging turns a 0.3 MOA rifle into a 0.25 MOA rifle (totally making these numbers up here).
If you're shooting the TRG-42 at 1500m for best possible groups then yes, the bridged action is "better" because there is a measurable benefit.
If you're hunting deer at up to 100m with an Sako 85 Hunter though... In this situation is a bridged 85 shooting 0.25 MOA "better" than an un-bridged 85 shooting 0.3 MOA?
The purpose of hunting is to bag the deer; at this distance, with either rifle, you place the cross hairs over the deer's heart, you pull the trigger, the shot will hit and the deer is caught.
Some people will obviously still say the bridged rifle is better because it shoots more accurately but from a pragmatic, practical, measurable and results based viewpoint neither rifle is superior because the end results from both are identical.
"Better" vs "Beneficial".