I remember reading about a controlled round feed/positive extraction conversion for Remington model 700's here somewhere. Is this economically feasable and/or reliable? If so who does this? Thanks.--JM.

Why?

Buy a Winchester and send me that junky old Remington.....

A common modification is where a Sako extractor is installed on the Remington bolt.

George

------------------
Shoot straight, shoot often, but by all means, use enough gun!

I heard of something like this being done to a Rem bolt many years ago. It was quite expensive (it wasn't a conversion to a Sako extractor), and results were not uniformly acceptable.

Just curious I guess. Thanks.--JM.

helidriver72---

It's not only not feasible, it's also dangerous.

The difference between CFR and push feed is MUCH more than the extractor and bolt face. It's also how the action is designed to handle excess pressure.

CFR guns use a fast gas release in a safe direction to keep the shooter from leaking fluids. Push feed guns try to keep the gasses from escaping for as long as possible.

The difference is like the difference in fireworks plants. M98/M70 are like the flimsy roofs and walls used to allow the energy to escape up and outward while being diverted and slowed by surronding dirt berms.

Push feeds are more like a concrete building that holds on longer, but tear up more once a certain point is reached.

They don't mix and match well.

The M700 doesn't have enough room in the action to allow a non-rotating extractor without cutting away half the right lug. The whole receiver is NOT suited for rapid gas release.

Blindness can be just one leaking primer away.

I had a claw extractor done on a 375 H&H Imp.
done by Brown Precision about 15-18 years ago. It is NOT controlled feed. It does replace the Remington factory extractor (if anyone thinks this is advisable). You do lose your "3 rings of steel". The extractor used seems to be a standard 98 Mauser. The main reason that I had it done is that the donor action was originally a 30.06.

I don't know if they are still doing this.

Bob

Remember, in order to make it a true CRF action the ejector has to be altered as well. The concerns about gas handling are misplaced because by the time any such conversion is done the action will handle gas much like a Win M70 (poorly) anyway. That is it will dump gas into the left locking lug raceway from where it can be directed toward the face! This is the "venting gas in a safe direction" method the pre-64s used. The newer winchesters have improved on this somewhat with their neat little gas block. The rest of the gas will follow the extractor out the right side. Many will warn of the danger of the Sako style extractor becoming a missile in a case failure situation but apparently the mauser or Winchester extractor winging through the air(and they do)is of no concern!
To get back to the original question, it could be done but you would easily have the price of a Dakota invested by the time you were finished (if you include the cost of the Remington action)and with the Dakota you would have a better action since it was designed that way from the start.

Bill, I like your comment about the Sako extractor becoming a missile and the M70/Mauser not being a concern if it's flying thru the air.To all the push feed versus controlled feed debaters,consider this;why is the 700 Remington not referred to as a "push-feed Remington"?, the way that the Model 70's are designated as "pushfeed Winchesters" or "controlled feed Winchesters"? Afterall didn't Remington make the move,for cost's sake,same as Winchester,from controlled feed to push feed when they dropped Model 30 and went with the 721 in 1948?

[This message has been edited by rembo (edited 05-06-2002).]

[This message has been edited by rembo (edited 05-06-2002).]

Even if you make a Rem 700 a CRF, you still have the poor primary extraction caused by the wide locking lugs.

Mike

Mike,
The poor primary extraction noted in many Rem 700s comes less from the wide locking lugs than from the poor workmanship which mis-locates the extraction cam. In other words the bolt handle is often located in the wrong place both radially and lengthwise. The relocation of the handle is a frequent necessity on the 700s when building a rifle. At the same time you can end up with the locking lugs in the vertical position at lockup which is as I think it should be in a two lug action.

Sorry guy's didn't mean to open such a can of worms. Rest assured that I will not be pursuing this in any way.--JM.

Bill,

I agree with you on bolt handle placement but those lugs do contribute.

Some of the stainless ones are bad by the time the cam is all galled up.

Mike

Mike---

How are the lugs messing up? Galling? That's a sure-fire sign of not enough lube or a bolt face out of square.

The lugs in no way affects extraction. That's done by the extraction cam, on a bolt action.

The Remington 700 uses the root of the bolt handle against an angled surface on the rear of the bridge (just like the M98/M70) to cam the bolt to the rear. As Bill said, the handle is almost always in the wrong place and instead of being hardened, like a Mauser, they are silver soldered in place which anneals any heat treatment they had.

It's a design flaw, in my opinion.

Do ya'll have STP oil treatment for engines down there? Try a small smear on each lug.

Stain the rear of a cartridge and fire it. Check the base for smearing. If the base is smeared on one side and not as much on the other it means the face is angled. That means the case has to be �resized� so the bolt can rotate. That resizing of the case puts tremendous pressure on the lugs as they grind against the recesses when the bolt is opened. Galling will happen MUCH quicker in stainless actions than chrome moly and chrome moly will gall MUCH quicker than a case hardened action where galling is never seen.

Jack,

Width of lugs most definitely affects the amount of primary extraction you can have, either in amount of travel or force.

A Rem 700's wide lugs mean that more of the bolt rotation must be used for the lugs to clear their seats. You have real problems if the extraction cam engages when the lugs have not cleared their seats

By the way, did you see this thread on HA....Mike

http://www.huntamerica.com/wwwthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB13&Number=196219&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=

Mike---

All turn-bolt action rifles rotate 90 degrees if the number of primary lugs is divisible by two. Sixty degrees of rotation if the lugs are multiples of three. There�s no way around that.

On everything BUT the Pattern 14 and 17 �Enfield� rifles, and the Remington M30 based on that action, there's no advancement of the bolt on rotation. Rifles don�t have �progressive� lock-up. They�re square with the bore line.

There is no extraction at all on any of them until the lugs are disengaged.

If the bolt *rotates* with difficulty after firing it means the face is out of square. Simple as that.

Yes, I saw the thread on HA.

I wrote the results of some testing I did with a fireform gun on HA several months ago.
You�re right. The primer can resize a case considerably in the chamber. I see now why the Brits put the belt on the long tapered cases. I "resized" the shoulder by .013 on a 300 H&H with a magnum primer when I turned the belt off the case first. Thanks!!

[This message has been edited by JBelk (edited 05-08-2002).]

Jack

[/b]There is no extraction at all on any of them until the lugs are disengaged.[/b]

That is the point. The Rem must use up more of the rotation before extraction can start which in turn means that the extraction cycle will involve less bolt rotation.

Thus, if the cam angle is the same then the Rem bolt will move back less during extraction. Alternatively, to get the same rearward bolt movement the cam angle would have to be greater and of course leverage less.

Mike

Mike---

I'm really puzzled at what you're saying.

What are you comparing to? More rotation than what?

The M98 and the M700 are essentially the same. The M98 has a slightly steeper angle, but it doesn't affect the force needed because the handle is slightly longer.

The amount of rotation is the same during the extraction process even though the cam itself is much longer on the M98. The bolt doesn't touch the cam until late in the rotation.....exactly where the Remington does.

The lugs are within .010 of being the same width. The bolts are the same diameter (.705) and they both rotate 90 degrees. The lugs can only be half the dimension of the bolt and work at all..... and both are.

The difference is in WHERE the cam on the root of the bolt is located.

Remington is usually wrong. Mauser is always right. Winchesters are also the same but I don't have one handy to measure right now.

Jack,

Imagine if the lugs were only .1" wide. Then the extraction cam could be engaged just after bolt rotation started, which would mean if the cam angle was the same the bolt would come back further during the course of the 90 degrees.

I do not disagree on the accuracy of the bolt handle placement. However the Rem must start the cam engagement further into the rotation of the bolt because of wider lugs.

The cam on a Model 70 is higher. Open both bolts while pushing them forward at the same time and see how much further the M70 bolt has come back. I imagine Mauser will be the same.

Mike

mike--

The lugs on opposed front lug rifles are the same.....about .440 wide.

The lugs have NOTHING to do with extraction. The lugs clear the recesses as the extraction cams engage. The Mauser has more extraction because the clearance angles of the lug and recesses are double the M700 which allows the lugs to clear earlier, not because the lug is narrower.

If it bothers you the Remington can be changed to do the same thing.

It's one of the multitude of details compromised in the Remington design. Maybe it was done to save money and for ease of manufacture, or it could have been another engineering oversight by those not familiar with how bolt action rifles were supposed to work.

Whichever it was, the combination of a short extraction with a soft bolt root sure mabes it hard to extract borderline hot loads.

Jack,

I have often seen Remingtons at the range where primary extraction was not quite enough to fully break the case free. A light tap on the bolt handle was required to complete the job.

Even since Jew triggers became available for Model 70s I ceased to be the owner of any Remington actions.

However, I think the thing that use to cause me the most pain with Rem actions was that rivoted in extractor on the magnums and also with some examples the extractor not easily going over the case rim.

Mike