MacD

When I shot it at Brady on Tuesday, from the berm. ( ~ 40 - 45 yds ) it was 8" apart with Factory ammo. Each barrel grouped lovely.

Not acceptable.

2 - 3" sure no problem.

Nitro

quote:

Originally posted by nitro450exp:
MacD

When I shot it at Brady on Tuesday, from the berm. ( ~ 40 - 45 yds ) it was 8" apart with Factory ammo. Each barrel grouped lovely.

Not acceptable.

2 - 3" sure no problem.

Nitro

I remember you telling me that at the ranch! If that is the case a simple re-regulation may do the trick! Those rifles are pretty nice looking, and I've been tempted to buy the case colored one chambered for 45-70, and rechamber it to 45-120 sharps!

I think in your case I'd see if they will simply replace your with one that is better regulated, or send it back for the factory to re-regulate it! I believe the spread is too wide for a load to fix!
I guess you know that your baby has become the mascot for DRSS!
Good luck!

MacD

Yeah, I saw that, she will be tickled pink to know.
Does that mean she will inherit all the DRSS doubles ?

Nitro

Well it is over.

The Cabelas Dundee Gun Library manager handled himself to a truly professional manner, I have nothing but praise for the Cabelas staff.

He offered to exchange the gun for another 500, but upon opening and examining that gun it had been "Regulated" also the exact opposite then mine towards the center of the bores, and the target showed verticle stringing.

So I opted for a full refund.

He commented that he would contact corporate and see what they said, he felt that this should be disclosed to purchasers before they purchase, I agreed.
We also looked at a 470 and a 45-70 in the store, all had been "Regulated" 4 out of 4 guns.
100 %.

Thanks for watching the Nitro450exp reality show, now back to our regularly scheduled program.

Cheers
Nitro

I am glad you didn't have a hassle getting a full refund.

It really is a shame about your .500NE, I wish it could have worked out for you.


I am very glad your show was alot shorter than mine.


I would take the refund money, and contact Peter about getting one of his double rifles... but that is just me.

Nitro: let us know if they get back to you on the regulation and policy issue. How long did you have the gun?

Jorge

A month and a few weeks, but I contacted them as soon as I found the issue less than 30 days after purchased.

Nitro

quote:

Originally posted by nitro450exp:
Hello All,

Well the Sabatti haters will have a field day with this, but I want to make it known to the DR community, If you intend to buy a Sabatti please study the muzzles very closely before buying, I did not. I was not expecting this sort of an anomily.

Well these pictures are of my new Sabatti as purchased from Cabelas.









I will take this issue up with Cabelas and see what happens.

Nitro

I had the pleasure of speaking with Mr. Sabatti today at the SHOT Show. I described the above photos, attempted to make a drawing showing the "stripes", gouges" or what ever you want to call them. Based on my description, he said the marks probably represented a flaw in the tooling process, since, if the crowns would need to be re-regulated, the crowns would be specially polished to re-regulate, not scratched or gouged. I looked at all barrels on display and they were pristine.

Told him he could get good feed-back on his US success if he had a staff member assigned to monitor the AR forums. Some discussion of the need to get Cabelas better trained. Probably another year before all Cabelas have the full line. Sabatti has doubled production of the doubles this year and probably will again next year, such has been the reception in the US. In the interest of quality they don't want to increase production rates any more rapidly.

He also stated that the doubles were regulated such that the cross-over of the bullets would be at 50 to 75 meters, depending on the type of cartridge used.

And thats the new from Lake Wobegone

Sounds like a failure to communicate or comprehend on his part. Too bad you couldn't show him the pictures and I wonder if all the calls we've made to the head of Cabelas' Gun Library had anything to do with the pristine barrels all of a sudden showing up. Lastly, the cross-over rationale is surprising. One of you experts correct me if I'm wrong, but the barrels should never cross?

Thanks for the great update. jorge

I think it is more like a BS response. This has nothing to do with Tooling....it is a method used to do regulation.

I personally dont know why they would hide from this. If done properly, it will work and most folks will still have a double that will kill stuff and a very resonable cost.

I think they shold simply own up to the practice and move on.

Like most things in life, you get what you pay for. This is nothing different.

I am glad Cabelas is backing their guns and allowing returns. That is worth a lot!

Can't argue with the BS response Roscoe, it's certainly within the realm of probability, however the crossing over issue makes one wonder as to whether Mr. Sabbati has a clue!

quote:

Originally posted by jorge:
makes one wonder as to whether Mr. Sabbati has a clue!

Very true Jorge! BUT when you run the company you don't need to know all the details of everything.
Just the basics and the overall goals.

Is Mr. Sabatti not admitting that the regulation is achieved by machining the muzzles? In reading the post by Interested, I thought that he was merely stating that the final finish on the machined muzzles was meant to be more nicely done than some owners have seen. Or am I misunderstanding the post?

Mr. Sabatti's English was somewhat limited, so I want to be careful that I do not misstate what I thought he was intending to say. I interpreted what he was saying was that the doubles are regulated in the normal manner, but that sometimes some "fine tuning" (my words) was needed and that was when the barrel(s) was/were polished. He specifically used the word "polished." Again, his English was somewhat limited and perhaps, had he been more fluent, he might have chosen a word different than polished. But he was adamant that my sketches of the photo in this forum had to be a tooling flaw. Since he was unaware of the issue I did not pursue how the double could have passed quality control.

Perhaps we can take it up with Cabelas at SCI.

quote:

Originally posted by ROSCOE:
I think it is more like a BS response. This has nothing to do with Tooling....it is a method used to do regulation.

I personally dont know why they would hide from this. If done properly, it will work and most folks will still have a double that will kill stuff and a very resonable cost.

I think they shold simply own up to the practice and move on.

Like most things in life, you get what you pay for. This is nothing different.

I am glad Cabelas is backing their guns and allowing returns. That is worth a lot!

Roscoe, I don't think that was a means of regulating the barrels, but simply sloppy crowning, or using too much pressure in the regulation yoke when pressing very hot steel in the muzzles together when soldering the wedges in the muzzle!

My worry is that the wear of the rifling at the muzzles will change the regulation in a short time and low number of shots, especially with solids.

I've been around double rifles and the building of double rifles for some years, and I have never heard of regulating a double rifle by making the muzzles egg shaped or reducing the length of the rifling on one side of the muzzle.

I'm not saying that it can't be done that way, but what I am saying is, it is a very poor way of doing it. First off with the standard regulation practice, if at first you don't get it right, it can be changed easily. Simply melt, and reposition the wedges. With the moto-tool actual steel is removed, and if you don't get it right, you have to cut some of the barrel off, and start over, Mistake, start over, mistake start over......and so on! Pretty soon you end up with a snub nosed double rifle!

Of course all the above is just my opinion, and worth only the price you paid for it, but I'll stick with the traditional regulation practice!

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:
I don't think that was a means of regulating the barrels, but simply sloppy crowning, or using too much pressure in the regulation yoke when pressing very hot steel in the muzzles together when soldering the wedges in the muzzle!

Now that IS funny!

I think there might just be a bit more to it than "simply sloppy crowning".

quote:

Originally posted by 5seventy:

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:
I don't think that was a means of regulating the barrels, but simply sloppy crowning, or using too much pressure in the regulation yoke when pressing very hot steel in the muzzles together when soldering the wedges in the muzzle! as

Now that IS funny!

I think there might just be a bit more to it than "simply sloppy crowning".

What you are seeing is what Sabatti describes as "Final Tuning" on their regulation targets; filing the crown, sometimes this apparently works and produces an acceptable result and mostly it doesn't, hence the varied results with purchasers shooting the factory ammo the rifles were regulated with (I use the term "regulated with" loosely in this instance).

If a Sabatti shoots acceptably that is fantastic and I would be happy with it but the old adage that you get what you pay for seems to hold true with doubles as with most things.

quote:

Originally posted by 5seventy:

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:
I don't think that was a means of regulating the barrels, but simply sloppy crowning, or using too much pressure in the regulation yoke when pressing very hot steel in the muzzles together when soldering the wedges in the muzzle!

Now that IS funny!

I think there might just be a bit more to it than "simply sloppy crowning".

quote:

Originally posted by Cane Rat:
What you are seeing is what Sabatti describes as "Final Tuning" on their regulation targets; filing the crown, sometimes this apparently works

You certainly could be right 5seventy. However IMO, which I understand you automatically disagree with, it is nothing more than a shade tree plumber's piss poor way of attempting to regulate a double rifle!

The price is no excuse for this hit & miss crap. A real regulator once that close would take no more than a few shots, and adjustments to do it right, while the outcome would be far more predictable without damaging the barrels beyond repair requiring shortening the barrels, and starting over.

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:
You certainly could be right 5seventy. However IMO, which I understand you automatically disagree with, it is nothing more than a shade tree plumber's piss poor way of attempting to regulate a double rifle!

It's true that I disagree with some of your claims, but not on everything. I do agree that method is not the "proper" way to do it.
The only way I'd ever accept grinding or filing inside the bores at the muzzles, as a method of regulation, is on a double where there is absolutely NO other way it can be done.

The wedge system is (in my experience) the established way, and the best way, to achieve barrel adjustment for regulation on a (fixed regulation) DR.

In my previous post I was disagreeing with your claim where you suggested that the muzzles had NOT been deliberately modified, but had just been poorly crowned.

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:
I don't think that was a means of regulating the barrels, but simply sloppy crowning