so I want to try a 338 lapua -will a small shank receiver work ? or are they a special 338 only receiver's thanks
Printable View
so I want to try a 338 lapua -will a small shank receiver work ? or are they a special 338 only receiver's thanks
I know savage 111 In 338 LM is large shankQuote:
Originally Posted by Willoughby
Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk
Are you wanting to buy like a target action for. A precision build?Quote:
Originally Posted by Willoughby
Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk
Do some serious research/due diligence before assembling a chambering with high bolt thrust like the .338 LM on any receiver/bolt not designed for it.
That aside, I am not aware of any manufacturer offering a "prefit", chambered Savage barrel in that chambering. Ostensibly, so that relatively inexperienced individuals screwing parts together don't end up with a bolt blown through their forehead.
They dont have them orechambered but you can get them with bore and rifling and have a gunsmith ream the chamber I do believeQuote:
Originally Posted by tobnpr
Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk
A standard small shank action is not a good idea. The Lapua should only be built on the action specifically made for it. Many say that Savage should have increased the overall size of the action for the Lapua but they didn't. They did, however, change to a better heat treatment and thicker locking lugs, as well as making the ports smaller in the receiver for added strength. There are barrel makers that will make pre-fit barrels for them. I have 2 McGowen barrels in my safe right now chambered for 338 Lapua. If you do it on a regular action, you're risking lug setback which can lead to headspace problems and the small shank barrel doesn't have chamber walls thick enough for the pressure either. I have two of them, a 110 LRH, and a 112 Magnum target. But they are made from the factory specifically for the Lapua round, and I say again, you should not do it with a regular action, but do it with the Lapua specific action only.
I was doing testing with 338 Lapua back around 2009. I put a barrel on a older single shot 112V J series. That one gun is my test rifle. I set it up with out the barrel nut so the breech diameter of the barrel at the receiver was 1.250” o.d and being a single shot it gave me more confidence with the bolt lug engagement vs. Rem. 700’s where you have to open up/rework the feed ramp which I don’t like. That makes that bottom lug area have less support.
I opened up a mag bolt face to 338 Lapua and polished the extractor so it would snap over the rim. It chambered and ejected empty cases with no issues.
When Savage came out with they’re factory rifle....yes it’s a large shank but the receiver o.d. And lug area is the same. So it’s not any stronger per say.
The large shank is 1.120 vs. the 1.055” thread on the small shank (which is only about .005” smaller than a Remington thread. If you use the factory Savage barrel nut even on a large shank that still limits you to a 1.120” breech diameter. By not using the barrel nut like I did at least I could go up to a 1.250” breech diameter. Heck you can even go up to 1.350” diameter on the barrel. I’ve done 1.3” before on a Savage.
That all being said it was for testing I did prior to PSR1. If I was going to have a dedicated 338 Lapua or Norma I’d build it on a bigger receiver.
Later, Frank
Bartlein Barrels
Interesting post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shortbox4x4
I agree on the Rem action as for the larger cases, and it puzzles me as to why the cartridge designer of the 300/338 Norma chose to use a 700 action?
Explain large? As in custom? Or as in bolt diameter?
No clue as to your question on why a cartridge designer of the 300/338 Norma and or Lapua cases would’ve used a 700 type action. If memory serves me right the first commercial type rifle chambered in 338 Lapua was the AI L115a3. I don’t recall the receiver/barrel thread specs off hand but I do know even the older AI rifles had bolt with larger body diameters than a Rem700 or a Savage 110 or Win.70. The AI bolt and again going off of memory has like a .775” or .800” bolt diameter. I’ll have to measure one to be sure but that is bigger then the .700” diameter of the Rem. Or Sav. Bolt body.Quote:
Originally Posted by yobuck
You have actions now a days with a larger receiver tenon thread like the Stillers Tac30, Surgeon XL etc...that use a 1.125” diameter thread. So usually the breech diameter of the barrel starts out at 1.3” to 1.350” and can usually go up a little more. The BAT Model M action has a 1.125” thread as well. My take on having a larger receiver/barrel thread gives you more meat (wall thickness) from the id to do of the bore to the barrel. Some actions with the larger tenon threads also ending up having a larger diameter to the bolt as well.
To me having this extra meat from the bore to od of the barrel and a bigger bolt diameter/bigger lugs gives you more surface area for strength. Also with the pressures that some of these rounds are running at with the larger case diameter....the larger barrel diameter to me gives/stretches less per say. So case/chamber expansion is less or per say equal to a standard caliber/action set up. This helps keep case expansion in check and to me helps reliability and you will see it at times when you reload/resize the cases.
Apply the same logic to reloading/sizing dies. When you start getting into the 338 Lapua and bigger cases the standard 7/8-14 threaded sizing dies are known to crack. Also the more problems with guys getting the cases stuck in the sizing die. It’s usually not if they will it’s when they will. It’s all stress and something has to give.
Which also means a new larger loading press, $250 custom dies, new trimmer, new hand priming tool, not to mention the brass cost for a real 338.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shortbox4x4
And count on about 3 loads at peak performance before chucking the brass anyway
But then you wont need good eyes to see the difference between 2850 and 3250 with 300 grains at 1500 or more either if your into that stuff.
It’s a shame that everybody wanting a long range gun cant go watch them fly first, before they commit to buying one.
All good points. My point about the large shank is not that it makes it any stronger at the receiver ring. My thought is that Savage did it be able to keep the barrel nut and still have thicker chamber walls for that portion that extends beyond the receiver ring. I agree that a larger action overall would be the better option. However, I've seen quite a few Savages in 338 Lapua (their factory action designed for the Lapua that is) with quite a number of rounds through them with zero issues. Something makes me think that if people are having issues with lug setback etc, (when using the actions that came from the factory made for the Lapua, not putting a Lapua barrel on a regular Savage action) are using over loaded rounds, or have oil in their chamber restricting the brass from gripping the chamber, etc. I say that because I can't imagine Savage continuing to make them and not recalling them if it was found to be inherently dangerous.
As kind of a side note, does anyone know the dimensions of the RPR that's chambered for the Lapua in comparison to the Savage? I'm curious because I've thought about getting one of them too and haven't heard of any issues with them and Ruger has always been know for building stout actions.
Actually, your breech diameter was still 1.055", just the shoulder abutment of the barrel (where it contacts the face of the action) is 1.250".Quote:
Originally Posted by Shortbox4x4
Also, All of the factory .338 LM's use the new heavy magnum bolt head which has longer (front to rear) lugs for additional sheer strength. Unfortunately this change did nothing to make the action stronger as it added zero surface area to the lugs where they contact the ramp abutments.
There's a reason all of the custom action makers make specific actions for the .338 Lapua Mag size cartridges to prevent lug setback - which is a common problem with .338 LM's built on Savage actions.
Evidence of this claim?Quote:
Originally Posted by J.Baker
so it is a 338lm specific receiver ,this may be the best answer to original question -- is it a 338:LM specific receiver-or ? Savage uses a better heat treatment and thicker locking lugs, as well as making the ports smaller in the receiver for added strength-
is it a 338:LM specific receiver - It would have to be a Savage - so I know what I need now thanks
Yes the one that Savage makes for the Lapua is specifically for it with different heat treatment, smaller ports, and thicker locking lugs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Willoughby
As Tobnpr said, I'd like to see the evidence too. I've said this on several threads. I respect the knowledge of those on here and understand the concern but have yet to see any proof or hear of it anywhere else other than this forum. I see people shooting them many many rounds to no detriment and no one talks of any headspace or lug setback issues. And again, I ask, if it's so dangerous (I'm referring to the receivers that Savage makes specifically for the Lapua round), then why hasn't Savage recalled them?
I have also ordered a Ruger Precision in 338 Lapua and out of curiosity, will measure the 3 lugs on its bolt and as well as the 2 lugs on my Savage Lapua bolt and compare surface area measurements to see if it is any more than the Savage overall.
You are correct and I should’ve made the point/clarified that in my post. Thanks for bringing up that point as it is important.Quote:
Originally Posted by J.Baker
Later, Frank
Even if the receiver were 2" in dia, the first ring of steel around the chamber is what will stretch. Having a smaller tenon will add to bolt thrust. The bolt thrust for a .338 Lapua is aprox 12,000 psi. The bolt thrust for a standard magnum, i.e, .300 win mag is 9400 psi.
That is per square inch. Now when you concentrate that pressure down to the area of the bolt lugs ( .135 square inches) is produces over 91,000 lbs of load to that area (for the Lapua) and 70,000 for the .300 WM.
To make things worse, take into consideration that a Savage bolt head floats. Unless the receiver is a single shot, all repeaters will have a weaker lug abutment on the bottom. This weaker abutment flexes upon firing, and subsequently the bolt head follows it, transferring the majority of the load to the top lug abutment. The bottom lug abutment on the .338's are actually weaker than a standard caliber, as the feed ramp was moved ahead about .050" to accommodate the longer case.
I have spoken with several custom action makers and all have came up with the bare minimums they would use for a case the size of a .338 Lapua. Bolt body dia. of .750", barrel tenon of 1.125, and bolt lug diameter of 1.125. These specs result in another 33% of surface area and reduce the pressure on the lugs by the same amount down to 68,000.
Now this big question: Is lug setback dangerous? In cases of "normal pressure levels", the amount of setback, or the depth of the foot print is usually less than .001", but I have worked on receivers where it was in excess of .004". Is this going to cause a dangerous situation and maybe a catastrophic failure? In reality...probably not because nobody shoots one enough to get it to the fatigue point, but it will get hard to extract cases, that is a sure bet.
I have seen lug set back in all of the larger cases calibers, RUM's, WSM's and especially the .338's. You don't have to take my word for it, take your barrel off and you will find a lug impression on the top lug abutment, and maybe on the bottom. It may not be very deep at this time, but it will be there none the less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharpshooter
Thank you for the elaboration Sharpshooter. Do you have an estimate of how many firings it would take to finally fail? I will be sure to check mine when I change barrels as well but since I haven't pulled the barrel off of my Lapuas yet, do you have any photos of ones you've worked on? I'd be curious to see just how bad it looks.
There are way too many variables to consider before one could could even make an estimate. All the ingredients have to be present for a "perfect storm". For example: I witnessed an Axis rifle "grenade" at the local shooting range. A guy was shooting a 30-06, when the rifle exploded, causing the barrel to disconnect and launch forward 10 feet, while the receiver whizzed past his head the other way. Unfortunately he was holding the rifle right under the magazine, (which by the way is escape route for uncontained gas )and when it came apart, it broke 2 of his fingers and split his hand. He also suffered a few more minor cuts and contusions. Lucky for him nothing hit him in the face, and the fact that his son was with him, who just happens to be an EMT.
Initial investigation showed that the the receiver had split in the lower right hand corner of the raceway, the same place they always split, through the guide fin cut. The bolt was still in lock position, with the lugs wedging the receiver apart. The barrel, though detached, was unscathed other than a scratch at the muzzle where it hit the concrete. The threads were never smeared or disturbed and the chamber had no swell. The first thing I looked for was a barrel obstruction, and there was none, only the front end of the case still in the chamber.
I know from speaking with several of the engineers, it takes a minimum of 100,000 psi for the receiver to fail, and at least double proof pressure ( 150,000 psi) for lugs to shear. At that point it makes no difference once the receiver fails, it's already catastrophic.
Final investigation revealed 3 factors that contributed to the accident. The shooter said he was shooting some factory loads and some hand loads. I found 3 rounds that blew out of the magazine when it went. One was a Remington factory 150 gr., and the other 2 were handloads. The handloads consisted of 57 grs. of H380, in a 1966 LC case and a Hornady 150 bullet.
While H 380 would not be my choice for 30-06, he stated he also had a 22-250 and wanted to use it in both rifles. I checked several reloading manuals and none of them have any loads with over 53 grs. He showed me the Hogden powder canister that had a load listed on it for a 165 gr. bullet, with 56.4 grs. This threw up a red flag, indicating this could be a misprint, no only that, being a novice reloader, he did not begin with a starting load and work his way up. Typically in normal circumstances, an over load like this would not normally cause this kind of damage, but it would lock up the bolt and rupture a primer, still something I want no part of.
The next thing was the cartridge case. Lake City 1966 that was purchased at a local gun show. "The guy told me these were already sized, cleaned, and ready to reload." is what he told me. The fact is that the brass was older the he was. Old brass tends to work harden just with age, and besides that, who knows how many times they were fired and did they have any defects like a partial case seperation? Being a novice, he didn't know any better, to him, brass is brass and cheaper is better.
The 3rd nail in the coffin was the fact that the cases were sized to the point the shoulder had been bumped back .014", creating a headspace problem. That unto itself will cause a case separation, but not necessarily a catastrophic failure, but when you add up all the contributors it spells disaster.
Sory, no pics...my camera took a crap about 6 months ago.
OK so this brings another question to my mind Sharpshooter. If the Savage, and Remington too from what I hear, are marginal for this size cartridge, why is the Weatherby Mark V considered to be strong enough for cases this size? It's not a bigger action so I've never understood that. It has the same size receiver diameter IIRC, or very close. It also has the same size barrel shank and thread pitch as a Remington. And from what I've read about the measurements taken on the surface area of the 9 locking lugs, there's no more bearing surface area there than with a dual lug bolt. So what's the deal with it? Some sort of super duper heat treatment? That's about all I can think of. I read a lot of writings by, I believe it was Kirby Allen, who had done a lot of testing and his measurements were showing the Remington lugs to actually have more surface area than the Mark V's 9 lugs. Not trying to be argumentative, but am just genuinely curious and want to learn more.
Kirby Allen is correct, the Remington has more surface than a Weatherby. The strength of the Weatherby is mostly hype, but you have to consider in a factory Weatherby caliber, they use a lot of freebore to reduce pressure.
9 lugs over 2 is nothing more than marketing hype, because I've never seen one that had more than 3 bearing at any time. The lugs are so shallow, I actually seen one that "jumped a row" from a high pressure load. The bolt actually wedged the receiver apart enough that it backed up one row of lugs. I've heard more horror stories about Weatherby actions coming apart that were rebarreled with big caliber wildcats, than anything else. About 25 years ago, I was in PA hunting wood chucks when I stumbled upon a local gunsmith. I stopped in just for a chat, and discovered he built a lot of long range rifles. In our conversations, the subject came up about action strength. He pulled out a photo album he called "The survivors book of shame". It was filled with pictures of shooters holding their fragmented rifles, blood and all, taken at local ranges. There musta been at least a dozen Weatherby's in pieces, a few Winchesters, and one Remington. Most of them, he built.
You can push things right to the limit, but you still need a "safety window" for when people make mistakes. I had a lengthy conversation with Carl Hildebrandt when he was still head engineer at Savage. One of the questions was why they changed the WSM's over to a large shank barrel. They originally built them with a standard shank for about a year, then went to the large shank. He explained to me about their "window of safety". This is the area between proof pressures and destruction pressure. The standard shank versions only covered 98% of that window. In his opinion, that was actually past what a realistic situation would entail. If something catastrophic would happen and they had to appear in court, 100% would sound a hell of a lot better than 98%. At the same time, they were getting complaints about sticky extractions, and he contributed that to some of the Winchester ammo that was circulating about at the time. Winchester themselves had a problem with model 70's and proof loads that had to have the bolts hammered to open.
So the solution to problem was to increase the breech diameter. It was easy to change production over to the large shank at the time, as the large shank (1.120") was already in use in their 210 shotguns, so they already had the tooling.
Made this a sticky as there's a wealth of good info here.
Thanks Sharpshooter. You confirmed my suspicions about the Weatherby. I've suspected for years either marketing hype, or some sort of strange metallurgy that I didn't know about. And your speaking about Savage's safety margin, still makes me think that they must feel it's beefy enough to handle the Lapua. Otherwise it seems they'd make more changes, go to a larger action, or stop production all together, and possibly even recall them if it appeared to have a high likelihood to fail. I've got a set of Lapua headspace gauges on the way since I was planning to rebarrel mine, but will keep a close eye on them even before changing barrels to see if there's a noticeable increase in headspace. I've also got a RPR on the way in 338 Lapua. I'm going to measure it's receiver, lugs, barrel shank when it gets here to compare to the Savage and see if it's any bigger. I would think Ruger, being known for making strong actions anyway, would build theirs large enough to have plenty of a safety margin. Appreciate the info.
Don't forget to have the metallurgy checked also.......
what you mean? Check for setback? Cracks? I will be sure to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robinhood
Ruger's RPR in .338 LM is the same receiver as used in the .300 Win Mag model... no clue, though how those dimensions would compare to Savage.
Short of sending a receiver to a testing lab, you're not going to be able to determine the metallurgy /alloy composition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tobnpr
My thoughts exactly about the metallurgy part. I think he might have meant the headspace part of it though but not sure and is why I asked. I will keep an eye on my headspace and have replacement barrels planned to put on mine so I will check the lug abutments for set back signs when I take the factory barrels off of them. As for the RPR, I knew the 300 win mag and 338 Lapua were the same size. All they say is that they've up-scaled them from the short action models (308, 6.5cm etc) to accommodate the larger rounds. However, that's the most I've heard, no exact measurements. It's ok though, I'll find out soon enough. I've ordered an RPR in 338 Lapua so I'll measure it myself when I get it.
Unless you have access............. With modern technology and a clean spot you can get all but the grain structure.Quote:
Originally Posted by tobnpr
Well unfortunately, I don't have access to that sort of thing. So I guess I'll just have to take Savage's word for it that it is tempered properly, etc. and keep an eye on headspace myself.
Maybe a university can do it.. Purdue university here will analyze about anything you take to them. I took them powder from a factory load that shot really well in my 338 win mag and 5 samples of powder and they told me the one that was closes to the factory powder . The had colored printouts of each one, it was really coolQuote:
Originally Posted by Robinhood
Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk
We Have a PMI(handheld XRF analyzer) gun at the JOB. We also have a Brinell and Rockwell hardness testing equipment. Metal composition is critical in my line of work.
I don't have access to that, though I wish I did. So I'll just have to take the manufacturer's word for it that it is tempered properly.
Of interesting note, I did receive my RPR in 338 Lapua yesterday and I compared the bolt side by side with my Savage Lapua bolt tonight and measured the locking lugs with my caliper. Depending on which side I measured the height of the lugs (from the rear bearing side or from the front side at the bolt face), the Ruger has between 20% to 30% more surface area. The Ruger's lugs are a little smaller than the Savage, but they're big enough that the 3 of them combined offer greater surface area over the Savage's two locking lugs. They are also a little shorter front to back as well. But again, the 3 of them combined added up to more than the two lugs of the Savage. Also the width of the receiver measured 1.43" as well which is about a tenth, give or take, of an inch wider than a Savage or a Remington Receiver. I didn't have time this evening but tomorrow I will pull the handguard off and measure the barrel shank as well. I have always been a Savage and a Ruger fan but so far it looks like Ruger up-sized this receiver enough to better accommodate the Lapua case than the Savage. I still like my Savage for hunting though as it is much lighter and will continue using both my Savage Lapuas as well as this new Ruger.
Pulled the handguard off last night. The barrel shank in front of the nut measured 1.211". Again, almost a tenth of an inch larger. This thing is built like a tank. The barrel nut is huge and is like a regular hex head nut so it can be removed with a regular wrench. Still love my Savages too but hopefully this thing shoots as good as it looks. So far, I'm impressed.
Savageshooter, to your point on the Savage about the feed ramp being thinner thus making the lug abutment weaker. On the Lapua actions, since they're put through a better heat treatment, would that offset the thinner abutment some? In other words, would that make it strong enough to keep it from flexing too much? Also, the 112 Magnum Target single shot models, since there is no mag cutout, have you ever seen lug set back on them? Was thinking on it that maybe since the bottom wouldn't flex due to being thin, that the force would be more evenly dispersed on both lug abutments?
Just for comparison, my sons barely used Remington 7mmRM has setback on the bottom lug also. To the tune of .0025"-.0030". So the industry standard can't handle a little ol' 7mag itself.
That’s interesting and surprising too if it’s just a regular belted mag. I’ve heard of it happening with any cartridge if too much oil is left on the chamber walls prohibiting the case to grip. But aside from that, I haven’t. Thanks for the info.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robinhood
I was mistaken about the barrel nut on the magnum RPR. It is made like an AR barrel nut. I'm not sure how much bigger, but imagine it's larger than a regular AR nut on the magnum version as there's a magnum specific barrel nut wrench available. The hex head I was seeing actually holds the mounting piece for the forearm. The barrel nut is underneath it and has multiple splines in it like an AR nut.
Just wandered on to this thread as I have a Stealth 338 Lapua.
I must respectfully disagree with many statements made about action strength. There are very few persons who really know how much an action can take before deforming/breaking and those people are not saying a word. Why? What do you think would happen if a Savage engineer said the 110 actions were good to 80,000 psi? Bubba would be loading up rounds to that level the next day.
Years past I remember reading constantly how Ruger No. 1's could not handle the 416 Rigby based cartridges because chamber walls would be too thin. Guess what, Ruger started making them. There are loads of No. 1's around now in the big Weatherby rounds, 338 Lapuas, 308 Warbirds, and even bigger. I have never heard of one going up.
When Weatherby started making 378's, he did so on standard FN Mausers with the actions milled out to handle to 378's length. There isn't much bigger or hotter than a 378 yet I have never heard of a strength problem with those actions.
Even when manufacturers talk about action strength you cannot believe them either. For years (not sure if they are still doing it) Remington touted the 700 as having "3 rings of steel" for extreme strength. (barrel, receiver ring, and the ring on the end of the bolt). But when they started making 338 Lapuas the ring on the end of the bolt was not longer complete because they had to go to a Sako extractor. So they did away with the "3 rings of steel" when they went to the largest cartridge they ever chambered in the 700? What does that tell you about their original claim?
If anyone is having lug setback issues its from a manufacturing or modification defect, not from the original action design.
As I previously stated very few people really know what an action can handle, but that doesn't seem to stop people from offering their opinion. Unfortunately that is all it is, an opinion.
That all being said, I love my Stealth. And that's an opinion.
Well I must respectfully disagree with a few of your points as well. Many references can be found about how much an action can handle to the point of destruction. Several times over the years I've read of engineers for manufacturers destruction testing their actions. Mos bolt actions will go to around 120k PSI before they completely blow, but you'd likely start seeing lug setback before that.Quote:
Originally Posted by 9x23w
As for the 378 Weatherby case. I could be wrong because it has been a while since I've read up on it and am not currently researching it while responding, but I'm pretty sure I read that Roy went with the Magnum Mauser action for those cases, which is a bigger action than the standard.
As for the Savage action, it's not their standard action either. Yes it is the same outside dimension but that's about where it ends. If there wasn't something to that size case needing more strength they wouldn't have built them the way they do and just went with their standard long action. It undergoes a better heat treatment to make it stronger/harder. The locking lugs are longer front to back for better shear strength. The ejection port is much smaller to give it a more solid top behind the top lug abutment making the action more rigid and stronger. And the barrel tenon is larger for the Lapua's and WSM's (1.125" vs 1.055")
I have no proof, but personally think Savage made the right steps to make their Lapua action strong enough to handle it. However, I do take to heart what experienced gunsmiths say about it being marginal. To my knowledge, only Savage, Remington, and Weatherby make them on their same size actions. Any other manufacturer goes to a larger size action, including customs like Stiller. I have 3 Lapuas. Two Savages and one RPR and I can tell you that Ruger must have taken it to heart as well because the Magnum RPR receiver is larger than the Savage and it has more bearing surface area with the 3 locking lugs (I've measured and compared them). Again, they must be just strong enough though because Savage, Remington, nor Weatherby have ever recalled them that I know of. So as sort of an agreement with your point, if it were a liability to where they were afraid of getting sued, they'd likely recall them which hasn't happened.
Now does that mean the Savage is no good? No. But there is something to the greater amount of bolt thrust generated by this larger case head or they wouldn't beef up the action like they do and Ruger wouldn't have gone to a larger action. I've always suspected Weatherby's claims of being the strongest to be mostly a crock. The receiver is no bigger than a Remington or Savage, neither is the barrel tenon. The 9 locking lugs are so small, their actual bearing surface area is less than a Remington's or Savage's when all 9 are in contact which is rare.
Hello,
Thinking multi-caliber, if I purchase a 110 Elite in .338 Lapua, can I later shoot .300 WM by swapping barrels, bolt head, and maybe magazine ? or will I have troubles feeding rounds ?
Also, for the small action models, if I purchase a 110 Elite in 6.5 CM, can I use the same action to shoot .223 Rem swapping barrel, bolt head, mag ?
As for the Mark V action, the gunsmiths ive known who use them for the larger cartridges like the 30x378, (claim) they lap the lugs.Quote:
Originally Posted by efm77
And the reason they prefer them over other non custom actions is bolt diameter. That said i do know gunsmiths like Bruce Baer for example who dont care for them, claiming them to be no stronger than a Rem.
Ive never heard of a Rem having setback issues with a factory magnum cartridge however.
I have one Mark V chambered in 300 Norma, which has become my favorite LR hunting cartridge.
Note that i didnt say best, just favorite.
Actually, its nothing more than a shortened case version of the 30x378 with a traditional shoulder.
Being a curious person who has always had the bad habit of asking why, my question to you would be why three 338 Lapuas?
Would not just one 338 built on a custom action make more sense?
We can talk about hype, and i certainly agree that a whole lot of it takes place with the marketing of long range equiptment.
Including some of the cartridges, the 338 Lapua being one of them imop.
And every gun maker has clamored for a seat on the LR band wagon.
Arguably at least Wetherby started out there. But even they for example have recently introduced the 6.5x300 cartridge.
50 years ago it was the most popular long range hunting gun cartridge on the planet, which at that time consisted pretty much of only Pa.
And by about 1975, it was dead and buried there as being a good long range hunting cartridge, and you simply wont find any being used there today.
Ditto for all the other hot 6.5s, and why would you when there are better ones costing the same to buy or build.
Id suggest you sit behind and watch as a few different 338s are being shot at serious distance one after another at the same target.
You might be asking yourself why one of these, when i could have one of those ?
But not on a Savage action.
I wound up with 3 because I kind of went down a rabbit hole with them lol. I like the round and started out with the 112 Magnum Target because of the price of the rifle and didn't mind it being a single shot since I wasn't planning on shooting high volume or rapid fire with it anyway. Then I got to thinking I wanted one to hunt with that was a repeater and a little lighter so I got a 110LRH. Then I started getting interested in the RPR because the looks and design of the rifle grew on me. I also liked how Ruger had actually up-sized the action to better suit this cartridge size. It's about 1/10" larger in diameter. Might not sound like much but in terms of added strength with steel it's pretty significant. It's more along the size of some of the custom actions. It also has around 30% more bearing surface area with its locking lugs vs the Savage (I measured both to compare).Quote:
Originally Posted by yobuck
I too have heard of gunsmiths lapping the lugs on a Mark V and said it was very difficult if not downright impossible to get even contact with all 9. And even so, the lugs are so small the actual surface area is no greater. I don't believe the size of the bolt body contributes anything to strength as all of the force is on the lugs and their abutments. It does make for smooth cycling though. As for the Remington 700, I have heard some smiths say the same about it as some on here say about the Savage when it comes to the Lapua size cases about lug setback. Never witnessed it myself, but there are some out there that are concerned about it. It's not just about the PSI as the Lapua and 378 size cases operate at similar pressures as smaller cartridges. But when you have that same amount of pressure spread out over a larger surface area due to the case head size, it puts greater thrust force on the bolt face. Not being argumentative, just stating my observations, and what I have read from others more knowledgeable than me.
As for watching others shoot their different 338's, I have no desire to do that other than for the fun of it. I don't plan on using a custom action nor do I compete. I shoot for the fun of it and I just like the 338 caliber. Always have. To each their own. The actions I have serve me just fine.
Just started reloading for the Savage M112 Target action in 338LM. Bought this rifle a few weeks ago and have not yet shot any rounds through it. I used the Hornady tool to measure seating depth for the Sierra 250MK and the round looked very short with OAL of 3.526" I think SAAMI spec has 3.681". Is the throat to short for this bullet? Has anyone else shot this rifle?
I have the 112 Magnum Target. I've been shooting 250 grain Hornady BTHP match bullets. I think they're similarly shaped to the SMK. I'm at work and don't have my notes with me but I have just been loading them to the OAL listed in the Hornady Manual and they've been chambering fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by steve_podleski
Savage believes that the new Impulse Hexlock 6 ball Straight-Pull action is strong enough for 300 WSM and recently added the 6.5 PRC, 300 PRC and 338 Lapua. All four of these cartridges use the Large Shank (1 1/8" -20 thread) barrels as used in some of the 110 rifles. However, the Impulse has these barrels thread into a steel barrel extension, which is bolted and pinned into the aluminum receiver. Bolt-heads are changeable, and the headspace is set between the Barrel extension and the barrel.
The 338 Lapua, 6.5PRC and 300 PRC are available in the Impulse Elite Precision Models, which use an MDT ACC Adjustable Core Competition chassis.
The 300 WSM is available in the Impulse Big Game Models.
Savage has a very strong action with the capability of changing cartridges with different barrel, extension and bolt-head trios. Headspace could remain preset for each trio.