Savage 110 too small for 338 Lapua?

Hi...new to the forums but I would like to get your folks opinion on something that was just told to me.

I have my eye on a Savage 111 LRH in 338 Lapua. It's really dirt cheap and I though what the heck. I could turn it into a project, re-barrel it, maybe put a PTG bolt in it. You know, a nice project gun.

I emailed a very renowned barrel maker about their pre-fit Savage barrels and here is what their reply was:
"We do not offer the 338 Lapua chamber for our action, Savage or any actions 1.350 or smaller. We feel it is too strong for the action. If you would like another chamber:

I'm not going to "out" the barrel maker...I did notice that neither McGowan nor Shaw chambers their pre-fit Savage barrels in 338 Lapua.

I've not heard of any issues with the 338 Lapua in a Savage....

Savage themselves released a 338lm in a 111.

http://savagearms.com/firearms/models/ Look at the 11/111 long range hunter. The 110 and 111 use the same action. There is the possability that they are playing it safe.

Shilen offers that chambering, and prefit savage barrels. I dont know if he'll do it or not, but there is NO indication on his website that he wont.

Call Savage and tell them what you got and they'll tell whether or not if your rifle can be used. I think it was small shank verses large shank... based on the serial number they'll tell you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flatshooter

Call Savage and tell them what you got and they'll tell whether or not if your rifle can be used. I think it was small shank verses large shank... based on the serial number they'll tell you.

---

Here's some additional info that they replied with: Savage comes in two shank sizes, either 1 and 1/16 x 20 TPI or 1 and 1/8 by 20 TPI. If your action has one of those thread dimensions then
yes you can use our Savage Drop In barrels (if you are not sure then
call Savage 413-568-7001 with your serial number and have them let you
know the shank dimensions). That means that even the large shanks don't seem to meet the 1.350.

And as far as Shilen goes...unfortunately they they don't make their pre-fit Savage in 338 Lapua either....I asked.

Yes Savage makes one themselves on the large shank (1.125 or 1 & 1/8"). That barrel shank size is large enough. However, the action itself isn't the same as the normal Savage Actions. It has a smaller ejection port for more stiffness, different heat treatment for added strength, as well as thicker locking lugs and thicker lug recesses for additional strength. Some have built their own on standard 110 actions but most will advise you that it isn't wise.

Skip the Lapua and go with 338 Edge...98% of the horsepower with less cost & aggravation.

Actually the EDGE has they "edge" numbers wise over the Lapua.

Dean

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scythefwd

Savage themselves released a 338lm in a 111.

http://savagearms.com/firearms/models/ Look at the 11/111 long range hunter. The 110 and 111 use the same action. There is the possability that they are playing it safe.

Shilen offers that chambering, and prefit savage barrels. I dont know if he'll do it or not, but there is NO indication on his website that he wont.

---

As efm77 states the LM action is different than any other action Savage makes. You would be foolish to put a Lapua on a standard 100 or 111 action

:deadhorse:

This subject has been covered often. Do a search and find what all has already been said.

Hi Apache,

as an owner of the 111 in 338 lapua, This subject interests me and I have tried searching with no luck. Rather than ask for a handout, could you assist me with some key words I can use to make my searching more efficient? Thank you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamie

You would be foolish to put a Lapua on a standard 100 or 111 action

---

Ouch! I am the kind of fella that would go with a custom action on a remington footprint for something like that.

They probably don't sell prefits chambered in 338lm because they don't want people to be enticed into rebarreling their standard 110 actions and having owners holds them accountable for the failures that may soon follow.
As others have said, "word on the street" is that 338lm specific receivers from savage are stronger than standard long action receivers.
But if you buy the 111 already chambered in 338lm, you're gtg. Just buy a barrel blank and have a Smith thread and chamber it for you.

I guess that extra .1xx inches really makes a difference?

edit: I can see why someone would want to buy the 111 in 338 and put a 338 barrel on it. It's a *****cat round, the brake is effective, the rifle is light and easy to carry, the stock is robust and the trigger is great. But the barrel is .75". Pretty pencil thin ... it takes 3-5 rounds and the barrel is hot enough to burn your hand. I could see the value in a bull or straight taper replacement.

Two things to ponder...

1. When none of the major aftermarket barrel makers want to make a 338 LM barrel for a Savage it should tell you something.
2. When Jerry Stiller (Stiller Precision) insists that the Savage 110 design does not have the surface area on the locking lugs to stand up to and adequately distribute the rearward bolt thrust created by the 338 LM, you should probably listen.

This idea that Savage somehow beefed up their standard action for the 338 LM is complete hogwash. All they did was make the locking lugs on the bolt head thicker, thus increasing the sheer strength of the lugs. This minor change did nothing to increase the thrust surface area of the lugs where they contact the action to better distribute that energy to the action, which is the real issue presented by the 338 LM. As a result lug setback becomes an issue which ultimately will lead to excessive headspace.

Savage would have to do one of two things to have an action that would adequately and properly handle the 338 LM.

Option 1: Increase the O.D. of the action to a minimum of 1.35" (sound familiar?) to allow the locking lugs to be a larger diameter and thus increase their thrust surface area. Jerry Stiller is the one who did the math and came up with that dimension for a 2-lug/90-degree action.

Option 2: Create an all new action using a 3-lug/60-degree design to get the additional thrust surface area on the lugs.

So in other words, Savage just did a band-aid fix to allow the 110 design to questionably handle the 338 LM. That's what happens when you have engineers designing guns who have a piece of paper from a fancy school that says they're smart but have little to no practical experience with guns or gunsmithing.

Hard to argue with that. My stiller TAC338 action is 1.4" in diameter. Glad i went that route...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFurious

Two things to ponder...

1. When none of the major aftermarket barrel makers want to make a 338 LM barrel for a Savage it should tell you something.
2. When Jerry Stiller (Stiller Precision) insists that the Savage 110 design does not have the surface area on the locking lugs to stand up to and adequately distribute the rearward bolt thrust created by the 338 LM, you should probably listen.

This minor change did nothing to increase the thrust surface area of the lugs where they contact the action to better distribute that energy to the action, which is the real issue presented by the 338 LM. As a result lug setback becomes an issue which ultimately will lead to excessive headspace.

So in other words, Savage just did a band-aid fix to allow the 110 design to questionably handle the 338 LM. That's what happens when you have engineers designing guns who have a piece of paper from a fancy school that says they're smart but have little to no practical experience with guns or gunsmithing.

---

I'd like to play devil's advocate, if you don't mind? I have no emotional horse in this race. Bottom line, your "two things to ponder" stand as is and cannot be refuted. Now, beyond that: :)

First, the fancy school paper is what lets them calculate the paper reasoning why the longer lugs should be strong enough, yes? Rhetorical question.

Here's where I'm really coming from. We do know that stress and strain are related, and reducing strain means we have reduced stress. Thicker lugs require more stress to produce the same strain, yes? This assumes no change in metallurgy. But let's assume you are right. Let's assume thicker lugs ARE a bandaid, let's assume the engineers lied to the lawyers, or the layers and engineers were both railroaded by marketing to get a 338 lap out with savage's name on it.

Let's say you are right. The result is passing yield stress on the locking lugs. This leads, over time, to increasing headpsace. It's metal, so unlikely to fail catastrophically in one shot. More likely to fail incrementally, measurably, then finally reach the tensile strength and give way. (catastrophically.) yes?

As you predict.

That means I should be able to shoot a 338 lapua in savage and actually measure an increase in headspace. Shouldn't I? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I HAVE a Savage in 338 lapua. Let's also say that I have the no-go gauge, and that it doesn't currently fit my rifle. Technically, if you are right, then at some point, my no-go gauge should fit and let the bolt close, right?

10 rounds from now. 25. 50. 500. 1500. At some point, the lugs stretch (plastic deformation) enough for the no-go gauge to close. yes?

IF you are right. Then we should be able to prove it this way, even without having any paper degree or using any math. proof is in the pudding. Right?

Remember, devil's advocate here. Just trying to spark friendly conversation and also provide stuff to ponder.

seems to me enough stop signs have popped up here. there are other factory actions more capable.
but with the ammount of custom actions now available the cost difference isnt mind boggeling.
and if you go that route why not something that would toss a 300 gr bullet at 3000 fps easily?

Where is biged when you need him....Ooops, he got banned.

"This idea that Savage somehow beefed up their standard action for the 338 LM is complete hogwash. All they did was make the locking lugs on the bolt head thicker, thus increasing the sheer strength of the lugs. This minor change did nothing to increase the thrust surface area of the lugs where they contact the action to better distribute that energy to the action, which is the real issue presented by the 338 LM. As a result lug setback becomes an issue which ultimately will lead to excessive headspace."

While I agree with you Mr. Furious that the size of the action is marginal, it is not hogwash that they beefed up the action. I've probably thrown the magazine away now but when the review article came out in American Rifleman, the specifics were listed as to what was done to the action. It was more than the locking lugs. The lug recesses were also thicker than a standard action and the ejection port is smaller to make the action stiffer. They also said that the receiver did undergo a different heat treatment to make it stronger. Now, maybe they're lying but that was what was said in the article.

I think this is the article that you are referring....

http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/savage-110-ba/

Yep, that looks like the one.