It is good to have someone who has a CDG and at least zermatts to be able to give a view point. I like the swappable boltheads with the Zermatt actions, but like what I see on paper with the CDG just never had one in my hands to compare.
First builds action questions?
- Thread starter ptran93
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
c_bass16
Well-Known Member
swap-able on the CDG as well.
I must have missed that. I've been kicking around a new action and it has been between the CDG and a SR3. Maybe leaning towards a CDG for something new to me
Troutslayer2
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2010
- Messages
- 756
In a blind test I couldn't tell if I were looking through a 0 or 20 MOA scope so I don't really see a downside to the 20. Maybe one day you'll want to build that action into a different cartridge.
Man you and I are on the same wavelength. I've spent the past few months figuring out this exact build, with the slight nuance being that mine is going to be setup for 300BLK initially with the ability to quick swap bolt heads and barrels to 8.6BLK later on since I have the 300BLK suppressor in hand versus my 8.6BLK can which is still in jail. This is going to be a longer post, but hang with me. I've spend three months pinging some of who I consider the sharper minds in my ecosystem for advice on exactly what you're also trying to do here so hopefully I can pass off everything I've learned in a much quicker and succinct way then how I went about aggregating it.
To start with, a friend of mine put together a 300BLK subsonic bolt gun in a Cadex Dual Strike Chassis and chopped a barreled Rem700 action, direct threaded the suppressor and called it a day. This was a couple years ago and while I had always liked how it looked, I only recently got to shoot it and it was then that I had the idea for doing a 2.0 version of his build if you will. I wanted to stick with the same Cadex Dual Strike chassis and liked the barrel length to pair with a Sig SRD762 Ti Direct Thread tucked inside the handguard, but I quickly found out a couple months ago that not only are Remington 700 actions hard to find in stock right now, even if you can find one, the affordability of clone actions like the Zermatt Origin and ARC CDG, combined with how bad the quality on new production (RR serial number) Remington actions is, makes going the clone action route make way more sense.
Given I want the ability to be able to easily swap from 300BLK to 8.6BLK when my 8.6-intended suppressor clears, this ruled out the Remington action as it doesn't have swappable bolt heads, nor are you able to buy prefit barrels for them (since the tolerances aren't held to a tight enough spec). I haven't purchased an action for this build yet, but have ultimately settled on the Zermatt/Bighorn Origin. The reality is you're not going to shoot out a 300BLK or 8.6BLK bolt gun barrel, so an integral lug isn't a huge deal when you compare the Zermatt Origin to their more expensive TL3. The ARC CDG has an integral top rail which while often desired by most compared to a screwed or pin rail, made it a dealbreaker for me since the Cadex chassis I'm planning to use has a monolithic top rail that runs the length of the forend and action. The other thing about the CDG that I wasn't crazy about was the trigger hanger, but that's purely personal preference; so is the straight bolt handle of the CDG vs the Rem700 style swept bolt handle of the Origin vs the straight bolt handle of the TL3. It should also be mentioned that the TL3 is DLC coated (slightly harder and smoother technically) versus the Origin which is nitrided (still good but academically not as great as DLC). The CDG is DLC like the TL3.
Ultimately, on paper you're getting more bang for your buck with the ARC CDG vs the Zermatt Origin, with features like an integral recoil lug, integral top rail and trigger hanger, but in my case these were all things that I didn't want so my personal use case here steered me towards the Origin. This is a great example of why user-intended purpose is so important when shopping for things like an action. I was sold on using the CDG at first, but further research about what I specifically needed led me to the Origin. This isn't a huge deal, but the Origin has also been around for much longer than the CDG and has been validated by hundreds of thousands of rounds to be an extremely dependable action versus the CDG which is a newer product.
Hope this helps and the wall of text was worth reading. Super curious to see what you come up with. Here's a couple pics of my buddies setup (in 300BLK) that inspired my build.
Attachments
Forgot to add to my essay above, the 20MOA action rail versus 0 will not matter in this case. Given we both want to lob subsonic rounds, the extra elevation of a 20MOA rail is actually desired. Here is a great thread comparing the Origin to the CDG if you're interested: Zermatt Origin vs. ARC CDG
20moa rail and 20moa rings backwards will cancel out. Just put mortar sights or grenade launcher sights
Last edited:
rogerstv
Well-Known Member
This is true. I have the 20 MOA on a 6.5 PRC. Have no issues with 100 and 200 yard targets / zero.
Why use a Picatinny rail at all. I've had them and don't understand why 90% of the guns I see today have them installed. Sure, if you have a situation where it's needed for certain scope mounting scenario. Why not use a proven lightweight system like Talley and get your cheek down tight to the stock. And keep the whole thing lighter and cleaner.
Depends on your choice of optics. I run a red dot on one of my rifles and the picatinny rail allows me to put it where it works best for me. Where not having the pic rail wouldn't work as wellWhy use a Picatinny rail at all. I've had them and don't understand why 90% of the guns I see today have them installed. Sure, if you have a situation where it's needed for certain scope mounting scenario. Why not use a proven lightweight system like Talley and get your cheek down tight to the stock. And keep the whole thing lighter and cleaner.
Totally, that would be 1 of those "certain scope mounting scenarios"
Rick Richard
Well-Known Member
Happy the Talley rings work for you, but the only rings I have ever had an issue with slippage is those...more than once and on different rifles.Why use a Picatinny rail at all. I've had them and don't understand why 90% of the guns I see today have them installed. Sure, if you have a situation where it's needed for certain scope mounting scenario. Why not use a proven lightweight system like Talley and get your cheek down tight to the stock. And keep the whole thing lighter and cleaner.
Now, I prefer the rail and rings because it gives more mounting adjustment for either distance between the bells and/or LOP when that is a tad too long or short.
Also, since I shoot with 50 mm scope objectives I have no issue getting the scope as low as possible to the barrel with the rail/ring combo.
Happy your choice works well for you.
c_bass16
Well-Known Member
You're going to be in for a rude awakening if you plan to use a Cadex chassis that has the monolithic top rails that run from the action to the hand guard...the scope rail holes on a Zermatt Origin are not the same as the Rem700. Not gonna happen.
You could make it work, but you're not going to like the cost. If you're going to use an Origin, you're going to have to have a gunsmith fill and drill new scope base holes....OR have a custom rail made. You're not going to like either one.
c_bass16
Well-Known Member
1) Maximum compatibility of your system. Id have dificulty counting how many different times I've switched barrels, scopes and stocks on a few of my different actions.Why use a Picatinny rail at all. I've had them and don't understand why 90% of the guns I see today have them installed. Sure, if you have a situation where it's needed for certain scope mounting scenario. Why not use a proven lightweight system like Talley and get your cheek down tight to the stock. And keep the whole thing lighter and cleaner.
2) If done correctly, (with a recoil lug or pins) then it's stronger than simply screwing rings to an action. Period, not even a debate.
