Author Topic: toughest sporting bolt-action (Read 3699 times)

PaulS · « **Reply #30 on:** December 20, 2003, 06:13:30 PM »

Gray dog,
My comparison was between the Weatherby and Remington not the Winchester.

My bet is that your p-14 was sporting a modified or aftermarket trigger and a lightend firing pin and heavier spring if it beat out everyone else on the line. Those are the two appologies that Mausers have to make to the newer guns - slow locktimes and direct acting triggers

PaulS

PaulS · « **Reply #31 on:** December 20, 2003, 06:25:21 PM »

Lawdog,
In the "Light Gun" class they have to be factory rifles (actions and barrels) with a weight limit of 14 pounds?(I think) They have to use factory stocks and triggers (as I recall). I would think that most of the weapons have had some work done to them but nothing like what goes on in the heavy rifle and unlimited class.

PaulS

azshooter · « **Reply #32 on:** December 21, 2003, 03:35:28 AM »

From http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/P-CategoryRiflesCBA.html

Quote

Its one-piece bolt has proven to be one of the strongest on the market, standing up over the years to such magnum cartridges as the .375 H&H and .416 Rigby.

Also an interesting read "Your Best Bolt Action"
at http://www.shootingtimes.com/longgun_reviews/st_0302_boltaction/

PaulS · « **Reply #33 on:** December 23, 2003, 09:09:59 AM »

Az,
The only information I have on the Ruger is that their bolt is a casting and not a forging. I don't know what the alloy is but does it have the compression strength of chrome moly steel?

============================

The Remington company was kind enough to email me this response to the question of bolt handle failures:

Chris said

Quote

All Remington bolt handles are direct and indirect force tested at 250lbs PSI. The test mark can be seen on the bottom of the bolt handle as a "prick punch" mark.
As to the question of do we see a lot of bolt handles separating, a little more than 1/2 of 1% of all repairs seen on the 700 had this problem, and 99% of the bolt handles that separated was caused by abuse.

I don't see 1/2 of 1% of all the repairs on any rifle as an "inherent weakness" of that design.

Let's face it - like I said in my first post - the choice is based on belief and not on testing and quantifiable evidence. That is why they make so many different brands in so many different ways.

PaulS

azshooter · « **Reply #34 on:** December 23, 2003, 02:31:25 PM »

Apparently the Ruger bolt is good enough to patent. An article here seems to make the point it is much stronger than the Mauser and Springfield bolts. Quoting from the article

Quote

one feature that set the M77 far and above any of the other competition was its one-piece investment cast receiver and bolt. Many tests on the strength of an investment cast bolt were done and it was found that when the bolt finally failed, at about 40,000 p.s.i., only a piece of the bolt lug and its locking surface were broken away. Comparable tests on Mauser & military Springfield bolts sheared their bolt lugs away at only 19,000 to 29, 000 p.s.i.

http://www.rugermania.com/CF/CollectorsNews/StoryDetail.cfm?StoryID=22

savageT · « **Reply #35 on:** December 23, 2003, 02:58:50 PM »

Before retirement, I worked for an investment casting firm that had done contract work for Remington Arms, Illion NY, making various gun parts (1911.45ACP). I can't say if their rifle receivers and bolts were also done at that time, because I wasn't with the foundry then. I only say this because Remington at least at some time considered going the same way Ruger has done successfully with investment castings instead of forgings.

DirtyHarry · « **Reply #36 on:** December 23, 2003, 04:38:18 PM »

Now I am no metallurgist but I do know that forged steel is superior to cast steel. The only reason you would have something cast is if you are looking to save money, NOT to improve on quality.....

savageT · « **Reply #37 on:** December 24, 2003, 03:09:37 AM »

Quote from: DirtyHarry

Now I am no metallurgist but I do know that forged steel is superior to cast steel. The only reason you would have something cast is if you are looking to save money, NOT to improve on quality.....

Dirty Harry,
In the past I would have to agree, but that is no longer the case............Our foundries are now making turbine blades and buckets for some of the world's biggest power turbine companies. I'm sure you'd be amazed at the operating conditions those parts are exposed to. Just think about that the next time you step on a wide-bodied jet liner equipped with two very large turbine bladed engines. :eek:
As you stated, the general common opinion today is that investment castings are inferior to forged. It just is not true any longer. Just look at the custom maker Montana Rifle.....want to take a guess at who makes their investment cast receivers?

HINT: it begins with R and ends with R.
Blessing and Good Wishes for the season.

Jim

Lawdog · « **Reply #38 on:** December 24, 2003, 08:03:10 AM »

DirtyHarry,

I believe you are thinking about sand casting. Ruger does investment casting which has proved as strong or stronger than forged. Lawdog

PaulS · « **Reply #39 on:** December 27, 2003, 05:40:36 PM »

Azshooter,

WILSONS RUGERMANIA's site that states:

Quote

Quote:
one feature that set the M77 far and above any of the other competition was its one-piece investment cast receiver and bolt. Many tests on the strength of an investment cast bolt were done and it was found that when the bolt finally failed, at about 40,000 p.s.i., only a piece of the bolt lug and its locking surface were broken away. Comparable tests on Mauser & military Springfield bolts sheared their bolt lugs away at only 19,000 to 29, 000 p.s.i.

must have forgotten that the 308 and many other cartridges today routinely generate over 52000 PSI - how is it that two rifles routinely chambered in modern cartridges failed when exposed to half their rated working pressures?

========================================

Dirty Harry,

you are right - with all things being equal - heat treating and alloy the same a forging will always be stronger than the cast

========================================
Lawdog,

Casting whether it is investment or sand makes a product with a random grain pattern while a forging forces the grain into a pattern that strengthens the piece. Investment castings are much better than sand castings due to dimensional tolerances and the smooth finish.
Investment casting has been used in jewelry for years - "lost wax" casting is an example of investment casting (the "investment" is a vacuum formed mixture that holds the lost medium until it is heated)

A quick note here - turbine compressor blades have been sand cast for years.

PaulS