Author Topic: Rear lug bolts (Read 598 times)

BattleRifleG3 · « **on:** March 16, 2005, 11:06:03 AM »

I've read that some bolt action rifles have a rear locking lug for added strength. This would be great if I wanted to use one as is, but unfortunately I have a freakish project in mind that requires no rear lug, only front locking lugs. So could anyone tell me which bolt actions to stay away from for this reason? Particularly among the affordable common selection of Win M70, Rem 700, Weatherby Vanguard, Savage,

Thanks!

corelokt308win · « **Reply #1 on:** March 17, 2005, 03:37:33 AM »

The Rem 788 only used rear lugs. I understand the Rem 700 requires the bolt handle be used to stop the bolt turning in the right place. I may not have the technical jargon right on that, however I know it recieves mention in relation to stock fitting.

gunnut69 · « **Reply #2 on:** March 17, 2005, 09:59:50 AM »

The M700 has no rear locking lug, nor do most rifles. A few such as the mauser 98, springfield have a safety lug at the rear of the bolt, in case the front lugs fail catastrophically. The British enfield has all it's locking bolts at the rear as do the Remington m788, schultz&larson, Colt Sauer and some models of the Mannlicher's. Many rifles use the root or base of the bolt handle as a safety lug to catch the bolt in case of failure.

Kingfish · « **Reply #3 on:** March 17, 2005, 10:10:14 AM »

I have a Rem. 788 in 7-08 caliber and it has nine small locking lugs at the back of the bolt. It is a fine rifle but not quite as strong as the front locking bolts.

Bill

BattleRifleG3 · « **Reply #4 on:** March 17, 2005, 05:05:52 PM »

9 lugs???

How far is the bolt throw? Sounds sweet.

Kingfish · « **Reply #5 on:** March 18, 2005, 09:09:14 AM »

Quote from: BattleRifleG3

9 lugs???

How far is the bolt throw? Sounds sweet.

It's got three rows of three lugs. The bolt throw is about like my Browning A-Bolt with the three front lugs.

Bill

BattleRifleG3 · « **Reply #6 on:** March 28, 2005, 05:24:30 PM »

Sounds alot like the Weatherby MkV I examined last week. Looked pretty nice.

Don Fischer · « **Reply #7 on:** March 29, 2005, 04:48:13 AM »

I've owned a number of 788 rifle's and although I can't call them fine rifle's, they were good shooting rifle's. Some said the action wasn's strong enough, but for what, overload's? Some say it wasn't good looking, have you seen some of the thing's, custom included, out there today? It had a hardwood stock with a brown finish on it, pretty ugly but it come's off. I took it off mine then re-shaped the pistol grip and gave it some definition added nice detachable sling swivels and re-finished it with a walnut stain, still came out rather light color but a vast improvement. They all take the pressure generated by factory ammo, so I'm sure that while their not a Mark V, they are more than adequate. They also have a detachable magazine, which I find no fault with, the release button is between the magazine and the trigger guard so it doesn't just bump and drop the thing.

Boy have I gotten off the subject, sorry!

retiree · « **Reply #8 on:** March 29, 2005, 09:55:27 PM »

I too have owned several of these rifles, and since the receiver was a bit thicker than the 700 models AND the total area of the nine lugs surpassed those of a 700, I believe that they had no problems with strength. Where this myth got it's start was when people started really overloading the rounds and the steel bolt started COMPRESSING between the bolt face and the locking lugs. This caused shorter case life and the rumor of less strength. There was a huge rear locking action made by Shultz and Larsen that was popular with the benchresters at this time, but despite a great deal more steel in the bolt, it too allowed hot loaded cases to stretch and shortened their life. This soon resulted this action losing favor in benchresting circles.