Printable View
What say you oh guru's of the barrel nut? Is it all gimmick like I've been hearing? Or is there some validity to a Large Shank action with high pressure rounds? Lets hear it. I will be back to stir the pot every so often. Mind you this is for my education and curiosity only.
I have a large shank and only find it to be a liability, parts are much harder to find for a large shank than for a small shank. Also, many guys have built some of the higher pressure/power magnums on a small shank and it was fine, so I don't see why a large shank is necessary.
I have, and have had, both large shank and small shank Savages.
For my uses I find no liability at all with the large shank.
I also tend to trust the engineers at Savage who believed strongly enough that the large shank barrels offered more strength and a higher level of safety than the small shank for fat cartridges that they convinced the bean counters to raise production and inventory costs. Convincing bean counters to raise costs isn't very easy.
As to the statement that some people have successfully done the fat cartridges in a small shank. That's true but some people have done small ring Mausers in the short fats too.
May work fine but it isn't the best practice to adopt.
All the rest of the parts are the same except for barrel shank size, nut size, and recoil lug size and they're easy to find so I see it as no liability either. I wish they made more large shanks but that's just me. I had both my long action magnums converted to large shank. I have no problem with the small shank for standard calibers but wish they made the large shank even for the belted magnums. May not be necessary but I like it better having thicker chamber walls for that portion that is outside the receiver ring.
O its not a gimmick, it does serve some purpous. It dont deal with the pressure of the round, but the size of it. WSM cartridiges need to be on a large shank barrel, it just gives them a bit more meat, for expansion. Other than that it make little to no difference.
762x51, Kinda like howitzers - Bigger Boom,Bigger Chamber 105mm 155mm 175mm etc. FFE
What does everyone think Savage's reasoning is behind making the new 338LM actions as well as the Target actions and WSM actions Large Shank?
The WSM, and 338 Lapua need to be a large shank, they are big cartridges. The target action, there is no rime or reason, my only guess is because they had no idea what people was going to build on them.Quote:
Originally Posted by 762frmafr
Why do they "NEED" to be?Quote:
Originally Posted by 82boy
As stated in my post above . "It dont deal with the pressure of the round, but the size of it. WSM cartridiges need to be on a large shank barrel, it just gives them a bit more meat, for expansion."Quote:
Originally Posted by 762frmafr
The cartridge is very large around, when it is fired it expands, the larger shank gives the case more suport. When you place a WSM on a small shank the case expand, and wear out quicker, do to less suport.
Small shank has more action metal and large shank has more barrel metal. Would it not be a wash as there is essentially the same amount of metal around the case.
Since the chamber extends out from the action there is more support for the fatter cartridges ahead of the end of the action in a large shank.
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by 762frmafr
Ok so more strength and more support around the chamber for a Large Shank. But, is it NEEDED or is it just overkill? Or over engineered? And why?
Depends on what cartridge you are chambering it for. Anything other than WSM or RUM case size is more than safe in a small shank. If you are going to use fatter cases such as WSM or RUM then you would be wise to use the large shank. They are iffy on the small shank.
Over engineered? Maybe... But I'm okay with rifles being too safe if given a choice.
Remember Savage first made 300 RUM on small shank barrels and actions
Yep, then they went to large shank for safety.Quote:
Originally Posted by teele1
The large shank simply provides more chamber wall thickness from breech to neck.
The same total receiver/shank thickness exists in both large and small shank actions but since the threaded portion is an imperfect fit that juncture cannot be relied upon to contain the expansion of the chamber upon firing. The thicker uninterrupted steel around the chamber of the large shank does a better job of containing that expansion.
Was there a recall of these small-shank WSMs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie
Theoretically - considering the thread size on several other brands that offered the RUM and WSM as factory chamberings I doubt there's much worry with using either in a small shank action. That said, I'm also one to recommend playing it safe and would say go with the large shank and never have to worry about whether it's going to hold up or not.
Browning A-Bolt = 1" x 32
Remington 700 = 1.0625" x 16
Ruger Model 77 = 1" x 16
Winchester M70 Classic = 1" x 16
That's why I think the Savage design is stronger than the Remington because the Savage has a smaller/finer thread which translates to thicker/meatier chamber walls even with the same shank size. However, neither company has recalled them and I'm pretty sure Remington uses the same shank on all of theirs so it's probably not a huge danger. However, with the larger cases and thinner chamber walls I bet that the chamber temporarily swells too much upon firing which could lead to sticky extraction issues and maybe even metal fatigue on the barrel eventually. Granted the Remington is a shouldered barrel, but there is a portion of just the threaded shank exposed from the receiver that's under the recoil lug. That's the area I would worry about letting go on one of them because the recoil lug is not going to be a tight enough fit around the barrel to add any additional strength. I personally feel better with the large shanks for all magnums which is why I had my belted magnums converted to large shank. But for standard size cartridges I don't care either way.
How did you get them converted to large shanks?
Sent the action to a gunsmith who opened up the front receiver ring. Basically bored it out and re-threaded to the large shank size. It's the same thread size of 20 tpi but the large shank is 1.125 inches versus the small being 1.055 or 1.06.
Thanks. I will have to look in to that.
Jim See at Centershot Rifles did both of mine and he did an outstanding job. He trued/blueprinted the actions while doing the conversion too.
Considering that a factory large shank sporter barrel in 300WSM (my example just because I have one here) has the step in front of the threads (that's still chamber area) and that steps down smaller than a Small shank O.D., I think you would be perfectly safe with a Small Shank. But JMO.
Boots, the step on the LS barrel is over the neck of the .300 WSM and not over the body.
Probably right, I'll do some quick measurements later for my own educational purposes. Course what about say a factory Sporter Barrel chambered for a RUM Cartridge? I have never had one, but if it steps the same then that would be much further down the case.
Just spit-balling here.
Although it's very slight on the RUM's there's probably enough body taper to where the chamber walls are enough thicker at that point to where it's still meaty enough past the step down. My belted mags though have custom barrels so they taper straight off of the large shank with no step down.