Check out this older thread.

36 vs 57M

Would anyone be able to tell me the differences, plus or minus of each model 22 ? Thank you jay

www.rimfirecentral.com

 

The 36 preceded the 57, followed by the 57M. A primary difference was that the 36 had a two-piece bolt. Some folks here were not enamored with the 36. A 36 was my first Cooper -- a Featherweight. It was very accurate, but as I recall was a bit fussy about feeding. I sold it to a friend who had shot it and was impressed with its accuracy. All my subsequent rimfire Coopers have been 57Ms. There are, I'm sure, some here who can get into the details.

Doug

 

Actually, the 36 has a three piece bolt. Very different from the current model, the 57M, which is loosely based on the Anschutz action.
Having owned a couple of 36s back in the day, that day being the early nineties, count me as one who is less than enamored.
One thing to keep in mind is that the 36 was a product of two Cooper companies ago.
It wasn't supported by the last Cooper company, and neither will it be supported by the currently reforming Cooper company.

 

Forgot that three-piece bolt detail, Cam. I do know that the 36 is not suported by anyone, so if there's a significant problem, better know a good 'smith. Even then getting any parts is a big problem (Cooper isn't even named as a supported brand by Numrich). So if you want a Cooper, go with the 57M.

Doug

 

I guess I'm stating the obvious, but if the 36 were a good design, there would have been no need for the 57 (1999) and the 57-M (2001). You can take from that what you will. There were not that many 36s made, and I have only owned an older repeating M-38 in .22 CCM from the same era, but as an engineer and firearms student, the problem with those early Coopers, I believe, was lack of thorough engineering analysis, also known as debugging.

The barrel and wood quality, stock work, fit, and checkering were better than maybe even recent Coopers, but the early action design was unrefined. This happens with many small start-up companies that just do not have the budget. I remember talking with someone at Cooper years ago about the company's action design, heat-treating, and manufacturing processes, and the guy (he will remain unnamed) told me they didn't employ a single engineer, almost proud of the fact.

This lack of thorough design analysis is doubly important when a new detachable magazine is involved...think ULA/NULA, Kimber of NY, Dakota (actually a slightly modified and tweaked Marlin design), etc. This is why it makes perfect sense that Cooper went with the proven Anschutz magazine with the 57-M. I mean, why reinvent the magazine?

Anyway, as an extreme example, Springfield Armory's army of engineers analyzed and tweaked every possible aspect of the M-1 design for at least a decade before finalizing the design, then completely threw out a fundamental element, the gas trap, in favor of a gas port, as production ramped up. Many other improvements followed based upon input from the battlefield, and they made 5.5 million of those!

So, I always take a skeptical view of new designs from small companies. On the other hand, Dakota seems to have gotten it very close on its M-76 and M-10 designs, despite very low production numbers. You obviously have to start producing sometime, but a good design analysis will probably save untold heart ache.

 

I guess I'm stating the obvious, but if the 36 were a good design, there would have been no need for the 57 (1999) and the 57-M (2001). You can take from that what you will. There were not that many 36s made, and I have only owned an older repeating M-38 in .22 CCM from the same era, but as an engineer and firearms student, the problem with those early Coopers, I believe, was lack of thorough engineering analysis, also known as debugging.

The barrel and wood quality, stock work, fit, and checkering were better than maybe even recent Coopers, but the early action design was unrefined. This happens with many small start-up companies that just do not have the budget. I remember talking with someone at Cooper years ago about the company's action design, heat-treating, and manufacturing processes, and the guy (he will remain unnamed) told me they didn't employ a single engineer, almost proud of the fact.

This lack of thorough design analysis is doubly important when a new detachable magazine is involved...think ULA/NULA, Kimber of NY, Dakota (actually a slightly modified and tweaked Marlin design), etc. This is why it makes perfect sense that Cooper went with the proven Anschutz magazine with the 57-M. I mean, why reinvent the magazine?

Anyway, as an extreme example, Springfield Armory's army of engineers analyzed and tweaked every possible aspect of the M-1 design for at least a decade before finalizing the design, then completely threw out a fundamental element, the gas trap, in favor of a gas port, as production ramped up. Many other improvements followed based upon input from the battlefield, and they made 5.5 million of those!

So, I always take a skeptical view of new designs from small companies. On the other hand, Dakota seems to have gotten it very close on its M-76 and M-10 designs, despite very low production numbers. You obviously have to start producing sometime, but a good design analysis will probably save untold heart ache.

The greatest engineering monster of the early Cooper years, was the very seldom seen Model 40. From what I’ve heard, I think even Dan thought so.
Of course, a fan boy or two exist, who think it’s great.
Their strength was as a stock maker.Period.

 

Don’t know about some folks but ai had 3 36’s including their semi custom IR50/50 sporter which won many matches.
All of them were great guns, all bought from Tom Thomas at the Outdoorsman who had many special Coopers made, still have my early 38 in 17CCM( Tom had 1000’s of rounds of the good Fiocchi brass).
They went to the 57 for one big reason and it had nothing to do with engineering/design…….the bolt, in particular, was far less costly to produce…..that’s it folke.

 

Don’t know about some folks but ai had 3 36’s including their semi custom IR50/50 sporter which won many matches.
All of them were great guns, all bought from Tom Thomas at the Outdoorsman who had many special Coopers made, still have my early 38 in 17CCM( Tom had 1000’s of rounds of the good Fiocchi brass).
They went to the 57 for one big reason and it had nothing to do with engineering/design…….the bolt, in particular, was far less costly to produce…..that’s it folke.

Tom was a very decent guy, and a great enabler. I made the pilgrimage from NY to PA gun shows, really just to see, and purchase, his guns. Also visited his store on one occasion.
A pity what became of his son, and the store.

 

Just goes to show, experiences vary. As I said, I never owned a 36 (handled and worked on quite a few, which is why I never bought one), but I know from personal experience, the early repeating M38s in .22CCM and 17CCM were poorly engineered. Mine would not feed from the magazines and the extractors would just fall off. The brass was inconsistent, and, even with the Fiocchi brass and RCBS dies, I could never get any consistency in neck tension. The lathe-turned brass was worthless; some would not accept primers, while others would not hold primers. The fit and finish on metal and wood were superb, but that's where the quality ended. The magazine was such that the rims of later cartridges would fall in front of those inserted earlier.

That extractor would stay in with the bolt installed, but it would just fall off when the bolt was removed from the action.

On the other hand, the later single-shot M38s are one of my favorite rifles.

I'm glad someone got some good 36s, but, FWIW, Rob Behr told me the 36 was one of Cooper's poorer designs, and that's why Cooper went to the 57-M, a design he described as their "most solid action design."

 

The only thing that the Cooper 57M action lacks is bolt closing cam.

 

And spring loaded detent.