Studying Bolt Action Designs
- Thread starter sirgilligan
- Start date
- Status
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
No bolt head is ever deep enough for the expanding part (i.e. hollow portion) of a case to act on it as described. The brass will flow out in all directions around those 'three rings of steel' between the bolt head and receiver ring and out through the drilled holes in the bolt face long before the side-load component of breach pressure gets to where it flexes that little ring of material outward. I'd bet bending of the bolt between the lugs goes critical long before that ring does (which it would in order to expand as described), and that's not figuring in bolt-shear or bolt bearing-failure (more likely) as failure modes.
The most important thing in the 700 is that hole in the receiver alongside the bolt, which will vent a good chunk of the gasses once that overstressed brass does let go, before it can act fully on the much greater surface area of the receiver interior. That situation is how you get actions peeled apart like bananas. There's still only so much one can do, and Remington has done about 95% of what is possible to make the gun bomb-proof simply by putting the locking lugs up front. It's hard to blow up any bolt action of modern design, now that all have front locking surfaces.
As far as accuracy goes (the actual target of the discussion), I've never seen how any forward-lug bolt gun is intrinsically going to lock up more consistently than others, all else being equal. Luckily, there are so many other variables between action designs that can't be held equal --recoil lug setup, barrel attachment, barrel design/harmonics, magazine openings-- that we're sure to be entertained for a long time to come trying to hash them out. At least with the Mouse-in-field we'll know if a CZ-style split lug changes anything for a similarly-nicely finished 700-style action's capacity to be accurate. At the very least, the Mauser claw has to be an improvement over the puny Tikka claw, for those who must have that style of extractor.
I didn't see it mentioned anywhere; is the rifle still a cock-on-open design, or did they go full retro and make it close-cock?
TCB
The most important thing in the 700 is that hole in the receiver alongside the bolt, which will vent a good chunk of the gasses once that overstressed brass does let go, before it can act fully on the much greater surface area of the receiver interior. That situation is how you get actions peeled apart like bananas. There's still only so much one can do, and Remington has done about 95% of what is possible to make the gun bomb-proof simply by putting the locking lugs up front. It's hard to blow up any bolt action of modern design, now that all have front locking surfaces.
As far as accuracy goes (the actual target of the discussion), I've never seen how any forward-lug bolt gun is intrinsically going to lock up more consistently than others, all else being equal. Luckily, there are so many other variables between action designs that can't be held equal --recoil lug setup, barrel attachment, barrel design/harmonics, magazine openings-- that we're sure to be entertained for a long time to come trying to hash them out. At least with the Mouse-in-field we'll know if a CZ-style split lug changes anything for a similarly-nicely finished 700-style action's capacity to be accurate. At the very least, the Mauser claw has to be an improvement over the puny Tikka claw, for those who must have that style of extractor.
I didn't see it mentioned anywhere; is the rifle still a cock-on-open design, or did they go full retro and make it close-cock?
TCB
243winxb
Member
Remington model 700 in .243
See photos starting at post 20 http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=579068
See photos starting at post 20 http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=579068
OP
OP
sirgilligan
Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2010
- Messages
- 895
I have no idea.
- Status
