Reply With Quoteor you could do what Savage did and mill slots and flats everywhere.
Hello,
First off, this is just a thought, I have not touched any of my rifles, just thinking out loud so to speak, trying to get other brains going here, other than mine, which I occasionally soak in beer or black velvet.
I would like to ask everyones opinion on taking a 110 or a Stevens 200 action, and drilling lets say 1/8" or 3/16" holes in some areas, to remove weight.
I would start by putting 4 in the top of the reciever, 2 by each scope base threaded holes, maybe even 4, in a sq pattern.
Then, maybe 2 more on each side of same area, below the scope base threaded holes, maybe not the front, where the " oh **** gas escape" holes are.
Then, lets put 6 along the "lug slide" opposite of the ejection port.
Then, lets put 6 or 8 on the bottom of the reciever, 2 rows of 3, or 2 rows of 4, on row on each side of back action screw hole.
?
OK, Let me have it.
Thanks
maybe
Let him grow, Shoot a doe !
or you could do what Savage did and mill slots and flats everywhere.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is alive and well.
What are you trying to do Magna-Port your action? Personally I would be worried about losing strength and stability.
If you really want lighter and stronger go with a Ti. custom action, about triple the cost.
FROGGY
See profile for fire arms
Do it today there maybe no tomorrow
So what are going to remove by doing this? Couple of ounces? Maybe 3? Compromising the integrity would not seem worth it.
If it ain't broke don't fix it.
JMAO ;-))... To save rifle weight, take it from the barrel, the stock, the scope, the bolt handle, shoulder the barrel eliminating the nut(oh the pain) etc. Oh, and eliminate the magazine. The action is light enough as it is. What Savage did to the action of the LWH is just a very "precious" marketing ploy...again, JMAO. For bolt rifles that I want to be "light carry", lately I have taken the barrels down to 19", and I have decided that the front 3 1/2" of a bolt rifle stock is useless to me, so I have been cutting it off and reshaping the end.
Much better ways to reduce rifle weight ;-))
Milling slots, yes that would be great, closest thing I have to that is a dremal, if I had a milling machine, and could run one, yes, much better than drilling holes.
I have a drill press, and a set of drill bits.
I have several 110 and 200 rifles.
Honey combing has, is known to be a way to lessen weight and keep the strength.
Just thinking out loud here, the 110/200 is a strong action, the factory puts holes in them, albeit in the places they want, for things they want, why not a few more.
They don't put plug screws in the scope base mounting holes, to keep the action from failing, they don't plug the holes on the front part of the action, these are for case rupture to give the "blast" a place to go, just not in your face.
Anyone else have any thoughts?
Let him grow, Shoot a doe !
When we balance rotating assemblies we will use trial weights when possible. That weight is removed from the rotor to bring the imbalance in to acceptable limits. We have a chart that tells us what weight can be removed by using fractional drills to a given depth. If I can remember to run a copy for chrome-molly and one for 416 I will post it. It might look like swiis cheese when your done though. Just for gins take a piece of steel about the same weight as your receiver, then drill a bunch of 3/16 holes in it and then weigh it.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is alive and well.
"Life' is tough. It's even tougher if you're stupid." ~ John Wayne
“Under certain circumstances, urgent circumstances, desperate circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer.” —Mark Twain
My guess is that you wouldnt even save an ounce, and you may ruin your receiver or hurt yourself. You decide if that's worth it to you or not.
I agree with FW Conch. There are much better places to reduce weight on a rifle other than the action/receiver.
Wouldn't it be more effective (and possibly safer) to just tie off a mess of helium balloons to your scope?
Seriously?
Last edited by wbm; 08-01-2016 at 04:13 PM.
Here's my question. The half ounce or maybe even a full ounce of metal removed from the receiver will make what kind of difference in the long run? How many extra steps are you going to be able to take because you removed an ounce of weight from your rifle. And what about the increased recoil? I would suggest getting the thinnest profile barrel and carbon fiber stock with iron sights only if you really want to remove weight from the weapon that badly. Wear lighter shoes. Get lighter binos. Lots of places to reduce your load.
"And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” John 8:32 (New King James Version)
WoW,
It's like I am back in high school.
Thanks for those who responded with actual information and actually thought about what was asked.
Let him grow, Shoot a doe !
like others have stated your removing material from the wrong area. balance is key. a balanced rifle of greater weight feels lighter in my opinion. barrel would by #1 spot for weight removal. and length is the fastest weight loss. follow that by a light profile and your helping both balance and weight. next you may want to consider higher quality optics with less magnification (optical clarity will help you see at distance) say a high end 2-7x33 vs a entry level 3-9x40. go aluminum or Ti on the bases/rings. heavy for caliber high bc bullets with a adjustable elevation knob will help with the handicap of the shorter barrel. they will retain energy better and help buck the wind. and based off your signature it sounds like you may be in brush country so if a long shot isn't necessary a 16" lightweight barreled, short action cartridge with a 1-4 or even fixed 4 scope would be the ticket.
Originally Posted by Monkeymaster
1) Yes, but what type of strength? There are lots of angles and directions of force to contend with, not just a simple case of totally altering an engineered design by drill bit.
2) Because they do all the milling PRIOR to heat treating. It's about designed specs. Also be careful with how "strong" an action is. Salvage doesn't tell you what they design them to. While it is vogue, it is also completely stupid when a reloader thinks they can "read pressure signs" by looking at brass. From the Strain gauge pressure system I use, many of todays cases begin to show "signs" of something around the 75,000 psi mark. Gun makers design a receiver to survive XX number of pressure cycles, for the highest SAAMI operating pressures for which they will chamber. But we don't know how many cycles that is. How much do you shorten it's lifespan by "watching for signs" and over pressuring the system? How much will you hurt the design by drilling in it? Only way to know is to test a few receivers for a benchmark, then drill and re-test. Without some serious equipment, you can't measure it.
3) Covered this already, before hardening, and as a design parameter.
4) Unless you really just want your rifle to look a certain way, why such a endeavor? You are talking saving such a miniscule amount of weight, I don't get the point
I'm a firm believer in the theory that if it bleeds, I can kill it.
Yep
This is the way I would do it. Much safer than drilling a perfectly good receiver that Savage spent millions on doing R&D.
If you have several 110/200 actions to work with, you need to sell me one - seriously I'm looking for a LA for a 30-06AI build.
That being said, I would not touch anything on the front receiver ring!! You could flute your bolt (or send it to Twisted Barrels), skeletonize your bolt handle, drill a hole in your bolt ball, even drill holes in the rear part of your receiver (I wouldn't go this far). The best way to reduce weight is the barrel contour and length as well as the stock.
I too obsess over weight on some rifles. What I did is I bought a Colt Light Rifle (CLR), they were made in long action cals. They run $500 for a shooter to $750 for a NIB. Once you get the CLR, send it to NULA and have him fit a stock or stock and barrel to it. The stocks are about $500 and worth every penny!!
Funny how you and I obsess over 2-15 oz on a rifle but forget about the extra 22 lbs I carry around my waistline :-)
My CLR in 6.5-06 w/ 24" barrel
Last edited by cowboybart; 08-07-2016 at 04:06 PM.
I'm sure everyone else will flame me for saying this but theoretically it's completely doable but I wouldnt do it or recommend it without understanding how it would affect the action structurally. Find some stress analysis plots of a rifle action. On my phone at the moment so I can't link very well. It will show you the main stress points. Mostly the front half around the chamber as you would expect. I'm sure it could be done and safely but the benefit really isn't there. I personally wouldn't recommend it. Very little to be gained. Like others have said easier to take from the barrel, stock etc. You could probably save more weight but loading one or two bullets less in the rifle.
Also look at F1 firearms and their AR15s. Similar concepts for the absolute extreme in weight reduction. Shot a DMR match with a guy who had one. Super cool to watch it shoot and it functioned flawlessly.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
The Dunning-Kruger effect is alive and well.
I wouldnt get all upset about people's responses... You did ask for people's opinion on this idea you have. Most people here will say "don't do it". There are better ways to reduce weight then to drill holes in your receiver. If 1-3 oz will make or brake your rig then go for it. But you are taking the risk not us and that's fine by me. Good luck.
Russ
Posting Permissions
The sole purpose of this site is to provide an online community for those who wish to interact with other Savage firearm enthusiasts.
The information and opinions expressed within this site are those of its contributors, and in no way should be viewed as the opinions or recommendations of Savage Arms.
This site utilizes affiliate programs to generate revenue and as such purchasing a product reached by clicking on a link on this site may earn us a small commission on that sale.
Bookmarks