Both those rifles were iron-sighted single shots.
A bolt-action adds weight as well as making the OAL longer than a single shot. It's also not in keeping with the classic 'Woods-Walking' rifle concept which was based on a single-shot falling block action.I would like to get an American version, lightweight bolt action, with a cartridge based on 222/223 brass, capable of taking turkey and coyote. I will probably get either a Savage 25 or the CZ527. I don’t care if it is factory or wildcat as long as it can be formed from 223 brass.
The English 'Rook'/'Rabbit' rifle was a light-weight affair, chambered for a small bore cartridge, and in concept the modern .223 cartridge fits that program just fine. The Rook & Rabbit rifles were dedicated for the hunting of small game, upland and forest birds, and no doubt plinking at targets of opportunity. Usually zeroed for one load and bullet-weight, they were always shot with the irons.
Single-shot candidates today which might fill the old Rook Rifle role might be one of Ruger's small-bore #1s chambered in, say, .223 or .22 Hornet (if you can still find them), or perhaps one of the new single shots from Henry Repeating Arms in a similar small-bore caliber (.223; .243). Even a single-shot .22 rimfire could be adapted to the Rook/Rabbit 'Walking Rifle' role, being easily carried over hill and dale and through glen and forest.
No doubt the Ruger #1 will be waaay spendier than a Henry single-shot in the same caliber. And it's too bad CZ doesn't offer a line of single shot rifles built along the classic lines of the old Farquarsen. I'm sure their accuracy would be much better than the Ruger #1s I've had and eventually sold off.