Jorgen,

Please excuse me if I missed this being previously addressed. You mentioned that you finish your stocks with linseed oil and a bit of alkanroot. I tried looking up both alkanroot and alkan root with no results. What is alkanroot (I assume some type of root extract??), is it known by any other name, and what is the purpose of adding it?

Thank you.

quote:

Originally posted by mehulkamdar:
Interesting that a gunmaker who has not been able to convince his own country's 300m shooters to buy his brand of rifle - and Schulz and Larsen have been touting their new match model without any major sales success - comes in and acts as if he is the ultimate repository of knowledge on firearms.

No wonder Joergen prefers anonymity as far as his own business is concerned. This dog won't hunt as they say in several parts of the USA.

Hi Mehul
By answering your as always friendly remarks, you unfortunatly again makes me answer in a way that could be rather promoting.

A little history.
In skandinavia(Denmark, Norway and Sweden) Up to 1989 used former militaryrifles for targetshooting (m96, m98 and Kragh Jørgensen) Those rifles were equipped with 6,5x55 barrels, mainly supplyed by Kongsberg, Carl Gustaf and Schultz & Larsen.
In 1989 there was made a decicion to standardize, and they decided to go for the Sauer 200 STR as the only aproved model ahead.
At the beginning the contract granted Sauer 100% monopoly of both complete rifles, and also sparepart barrels.
Some years later Sauer was exposed to a political presure forcing them to accept other barrels, but only after Sauers aproval. They aproved a combinatoin of a small norwegian company to do the luckingpart on other barrels (Heym) When we contacted Sauer about the same aprowal, the answer was "Schultz & Larsen would never be aproved".
A couple of years later after the heym sales went high up, and later low. Norma asked us to contact the Norwegian company, as they have found a loophole in ther contract with sauer, not beeing specific about who to deliver the barrelblanks.
The situation today is that we supply about 50% of the sparebarrels, and have for the last 5-7 years taken from 50-80% of the podiumplaces in the major competitions.

So for a mediocre and poorly managed company, with a uneducated and unskilled person in charge for production and design. One could say we have done pretty ok

quote:

Originally posted by mehulkamdar:
Interesting that a gunmaker who has not been able to convince his own country's 300m shooters to buy his brand of rifle - and Schulz and Larsen have been touting their new match model without any major sales success - comes in and acts as if he is the ultimate repository of knowledge on firearms.

No wonder Joergen prefers anonymity as far as his own business is concerned. This dog won't hunt as they say in several parts of the USA.

dear mehul

i dont know what it is about jørgen you dont like, and it is not that importent, BUT please dont try to argue about S&L quality with so little knowlegde beforehand.
i dont know jørgen or get any money from sales of S&L rifles, but they are damn fine HUNTING RIFLES. i know that in the states the actions are measured on how many bench rest shooters uses them NOT SO IN DENMARK.
I usually like your posts both here and on NE but this is a mostly uninformed and resentful way of hazing, you should know better.

This dog won't hunt as they say in several parts of the USA.

in denmark most of those dogs get run over by cars, because they dont understand them !

peter

jørgen,

Having the locking lugs at the rear of the bolt allows for shorter bolt travel, but is prone to bolt compression. For example, the bolt on the 788 Rem locks in the rear and compresses when fired. This causes shorter brass life due to case stretching. The rem 788 was discontinued in 1983. Bolt compression leads to case stretch and eventually excessive headspace especially on the .473" head, high pressure models (eg the .308Win and .22-250Rem). Needless to say that hot loads exacerbate the situation.

The same is true for the rear locking 303 Br Lee-Metford.

I have read somewhere many years ago that the 7x61 Schultz & Larsen also featured rear locking lugs with similar complaints. I am not sure if this is still the case; hence my question if they have been moved to the front in later years. If so in which year?

I noticed that the Mark V Weatherby has 9-lugs on the front of the bolt, and it is claimed to be the strongest bolt action by the manufacturer. Local machinists told me that it is very difficult to machine these lugs for an even grip on all 9 surfaces. In 1957 Roy Weatherby designed his Mark V bolt action with 3 rings of steel surrounding the casehead, a fluted bolt with three gas ports, 9 locking lugs and a short 54-degree bolt lift. It is also claimed that Roy's design is one of the most mimicked actions today.

The Sauers I have seen featured flimsy spring-loaded pins at the back, and thus I have always doubted their strength; perhaps mistakenly so, as we do not have a clear yardstick or relative comparisons. Definately the smoothest feeding action that I ever used.

In what way does the Schultz & Larsen differ from the these designs.

Would love to get your feed back on this issue.

Warrior

Dear Warrior, I feel that I should have responded already to your previous post, where you argued very comprehensively and learnedly; nevertheless, I would have disagreed with much of what you had stated or assumed. Regardless of this still "open task" so to say, allow me to answer to your present posting first:

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:
Having the locking lugs at the rear of the bolt allows for shorter bolt travel, but is prone to bolt compression.

One can hardly argue with the statement as worded, because you covered it with a cautious "prone to", so one cannot call it wrong. Just maybe misleading :-).
It is true that guns as the Italian Vetterli-Vitali and the two Lee-Enfields can exhibit such case-stretching issues, but this is due more to their not overly sturdy receivers stretching elastically under the pressure and backthrust, rather than to bolt compression (though this last element is also present).

The aforementioned two bolts are not very thick. The French MAS-36 is enormously sturdy, and the early Schultz & Larsen M. 38, M. 42 etc. bolts also were quite heavy (though these latter bolts - unlike the genially simple MAS-36 - were IMO badly overengineered and not very practical). Neither rifle have any problems in specific regard to case stretching.

The modern Schultz & Larsen DL 97 uses three frontal locking lugs. I feel no particular need to motivate or "defend" this very sensible choice, it will suffice to point to Grünig & Elmiger as a shining example.

quote:

I noticed that the Mark V Weatherby has 9-lugs on the front of the bolt, and it is claimed to be the strongest bolt action by the manufacturer. Local machinists told me that it is very difficult to machine these lugs for an even grip on all 9 surfaces.

That was rather correct in the past; modern machining facilities have changed this.
As to multiple rear locking lugs, the newer Steyr-Mannlichers do also have them. But hot-rodding idjits have managed to break these rifles too.

Regards,
Carcano

Hi Warrior
There is a destinkt diference betwen the old S&L rifles, that was discountinued in about 1970, and S&L rifles produced the last 10 years.
The old one had 4 rearlugs in 1 row, giving you a boltlift of apx 45deg. and as you said a wery short bolttravel, and also the casestretching issues, and was sencible to oil or water on the case or in the chamber.
The recent productions has as told 3 lugs, that locks directly in the barrel. (that obvius indicate frontlugs ) so the action itself is no longer presurebearing.
Basicaly the same is for Sauer 202, but in most of them the sauer has 2 rows with 3 lugs also giving you an openingangel of apx 60deg.

The Sauer you describes is the model 80 or 90, with 3 rearlugs, with a flipout function.

If you promis not to tell anybody, you can se a litle on a website www.schultzlarsen.com

Jorgen.....a beautiful rifle.

Is there a way to get one of those into the USA? And of course with your new scope mount bases and rings with the quick release levers.....they're very good rings and bases!

quote:

Originally posted by peterdk:
[
i dont know what it is about jørgen you dont like, and it is not that importent, BUT please dont try to argue about S&L quality with so little knowlegde beforehand.

peter

PeterDK i think there is basicaly 2 reasons.
1: Mehul did write , email and fax us several times, telling us his importance as an advicor of someone ritch, dont remember who.
He asked for some qotations and literatur of our products.

Regretably we didnt reply him.

Another incidence was once in a debate, where i lured him into exposing himself as a tru ekspert, and then pulled his panths
As far as i remember, he was a bit grumpy afterwards

For the future i must try not to do so again

According Jens the bricklayer something equaly has hapened, just because i once told him how impressive i feld knowing that he spend 4 years learning to place small burned claybricks in a line, and on top of each other. Most of them actualy on 1 straight line 2 by 2.
This impressive learningcurve shurely makes him a truly ekspert, specialy regarding old ratteling mausers
Best regards

Jørgen

now jørgen you really dont play nice, i know both guys to be nice and friendly people, thats why i called them out on this subject.

regarding your current line of guns i really like the m 97, although i do think you will run into problems with the stock shape if you start to chamber big bores.

keep up the good work, i actually like the idea that denmark makes one of the best production rifles in the world.

and be nice when you draw peoples pants down, it allways work better with a smile.

best regards

peter

quote:

keep up the good work, i actually like the idea that denmark makes one of the best production rifles in the world.

Denmark did very well in the field of high-end ISSF target pistols too. I own an Agner, and it is a work of art.

Carcano

jørgen and Carcano,

Thanks for the info - only by sharing do we learn new facts.
The new S&L seems to lead the way.
I would still love to see a picture of the S&L bolt if it is possible at all.
So I can compare it side by side with the Wby Mark V.

Thaking you.
Warrior

Jorgen,

I had oportunity to cycle several new manufacture Hartmann&Weiss mauser actions within the span of two days(both magnum and Kurz versions) I found they still had a good margin of slop between bolt and receiver, more than I imagined they would have for a new receiver.
However it was explained to me by Otto Weiss that the perceived looseness forms part of the benchmark reliability of the m98.
I have no doubt in my mind that H&W know full well how to build an fine M98 true to the nature of the original designers intention.
Most sensible and seasoned DGR folk would prefer that somewhat loose nature m98 reliability over a more potentially tempermental-very close bolt to receiver fit setup.
Ive yet to see better finished new M98 than an H&W creation,the ones I viewed at SCI & ACGG were impeccable....and several of the long and well respected USA gunbuilders give them the supreme thumbs up.

I would not be concerned about Mehulkamdar post, he could well be of those folk that got burned by an W.F.Hein hot metal chip that flew off the milling machine in that companies dedicated rush to get some product out , but all he may have now is chip on his shoulder in regard to action/rifle builders..... ...
moral of the story; dont count,sell, or buy your receivers before they hatch.

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
I had oportunity to cycle several new manufacture Hartmann&Weiss mauser actions within the span of two days(both magnum and Kurz versions) I found they still had a good margin of slop between bolt and receiver, more than I imagined they would have for a new receiver.
However it was explained to me by Otto Weiss that the perceived looseness forms part of the benchmark reliability of the m98.
I have no doubt in my mind that H&W know full well how to build an fine M98 true to the nature of the original designers intention.
Most sensible and seasoned DGR folk would prefer that somewhat loose nature m98 reliability over a more potentially tempermental-very close bolt to receiver fit setup.
Ive yet to see better finished new M98 than an H&W creation,the ones I viewed at SCI & ACGG were impeccable....and several of the long and well respected USA gunbuilders give them the supreme thumbs up.

Dear Trax,
thank you for sharing your impressions of Hartmann & Weiss' rifles with us. These are not factory products, but works of art, made one by one (with a long waiting time, presently two years I believe) by Germany's most reputed gunsmithing firm, fully on a par to the very best UK and US custom gunmakers.

Obviously, such guns can and must cost a lot more than even very high-quality factory rifles (such as Schultz & Larsen), so any kind of comparison - licit as it may be - will tend to spotlight the differences more than the similarities. Hartmann & Weiss' sky-high pricing puts them out of the range (pun intended) of ordinary mortals though, just like Holland & Holland and Purdey.

The loose-appearing bolt tolerances of the M 98 actions are intentional, and the explanation given was fully correct. No Model 98 Mauser can exhibit the slickness of a Model 1888 commission rifle action (and its civilian offsprings), of a Mannlicher-Schönauer or of a Krag. As to finish, the modern produced CAD-designed M-98 receivers are way better made than the old Zivilmauser in their best times (sorry, it's a fact - I have handled and compared the parts), and this high standard of manufacture in outsourced parts manufacture, combined with supreme craftsmanship in assembly and finish, can of course produce exceptional rifles of the highest order.

It should be added that Hartmann and Weiss (and maybe Max Ern in Cologne) also have this rare gift that so often is absent with even expensive German gunsmith work, namely TASTE. I will readily state that I find the US "guild" custom guns of today made a lot more elegantly and tastefully than most of their German and Austrian counterparts. This is doubly and triply true for the engravings.

Carcano

Hi Trax
A Hartman & Weiss, is in the world of avarage m98 EXCELENT, and with a for m98 very tight fitt.
At many time said, there is no single truth. So for an open reciever like a m98, with a lot of oportunities for dirt to enter an even closed action, some loosnes can be a benefit.
An other way of solving the dirtissue, is to make a reciever werry closed, so dirt is obstructed to enter the action. This allowes you to make a verry tight fitt, as it would be to some degre selfcleaning.

As a n excample, look at a hydraulic piston on a escavator (soilmooving equipment) they would never have a chinamans chance if not extremly tight and selfcleaning.

I once was almost exposed to fysical violens, demonstrating the 2 theories.
After a whole day at a shootingrange in a fairly sandy area, listening to the same guy constantly telling about the benefits of the mauserdesign, in harsh areas. I honnestly got a little tiered, so i asked him to load 5 rounds in the magasines, and close the bolt on top, and place rifle on the ground. Mine rifle was also loaded vith 5 rounds in the magasine, and placed just next to his miracle mauser.

Before he could react, i picked up a handfull of fine and dry sand, tossed it on the bolt/ reciever of both his and mine rifle. Then clapped my hands to get rid of the rest of the sand, saying who it the first to fire those 5 rounds.

I turned my rifle upside down, and cyckled the bolt, and firerd the 5 rounds in less than 10 seconds.

He didnt realy understand the consept, and cyckled his mauser normaly, resulting in that sand was everywhere, he managed to fire the first round, resulting in that he had to almost hammer the bolt open, as a lot of sand had ben pushed into the chamber with the first cartridge, there was also a lot of sand in the magasinse causing the rest of the rounds to jam.
Actualy it took him a quater of an hour to make his rifle function acceptable afterwards.

After his cleaningsenario, he was pretty grumpy, and i actualy choose to keep a sufficiant distance to him the rest of the day

Jørgen has already answered Timan's question briefly and succinctly on the preceding page. I am afraid I cannot contribute much of true originality on top of that (especially since I have not conducted my *own* destruction test series unlike Jørgen, but have only examined and digested existing accident reports). Nevertheless, maybe an additional perspective can be helpful.

quote:

Originally posted by Timan:
As we well know, when the case head blows in the 98 most of the escapeing gases go to the left. This is where the case head is unsupported
as the bolt is rotated 90 degrees. Naturally the gasses are going into the LH lug raceway of the receiver.
M-98 receivers generally are not ported at the breech like the m-70 and others.
Do you believe it would be better to port the receiver of the 98 at the breech on the LH side to get the pressure out of the front ring sooner.
Do you find that ported receivers get less damage from case head rupture. or
Do you find that a port size of 2.5mm effective or ineffective and basically overwhelmed at the point of rupture.

When Grisel was into making 98 actions he ported them all. I find the port displeasing to the eye but in the end could actually help save the eye.

1.
As to porting the receiver ring, it does not help much and can actually harm.

a) In the case of a minor gas escape (as listed in acceding order of comparative severity):
- due to a punctured primer,
- or to primer blow-by,
- or to gas blow-by on the sides of an insufficiently sealing case,
- or to small axial case cracks, even when comparatively near to the bottom,
- or stretched and torn off case bodies from the case bottoms),;
with such cases - English pun intended - the gun's action has to deal with both low gas volume and comparatively low pressure of the escaping gas.

In these (comparatively common) instances, most existing bolt action rifles handle the situation very very well even without any receiver ring porting. In fact, a Turkish rework Model 88/05/35 commission rifle, several Italian Carcanos and an Italian Vetterli-Vitali 1870/87/15 conversion have all handled such minor gas escape incidents better and less noticeably (!!) than my Mauser M 98 and Arisaka Type 99 actions. Go figure :-)

While receiver ring porting can seem to work in such situation, it is not necessary.

b) Among existing catastrophic failures of Blaser R93 actions, in at least one legal case where I have personally examined the materials science metallurgical analysis (done by a German technical university), the receiver ring cracks started at the port opening. With all due caution, I believe that this fact may bear a generalization. We have copious comparable instances in aircraft accident and failure analyses, by the way.

2.
We should very vividly keep in mind that under high pressure (as in case of these catastrophic failures), it is nearly always the brass case that is the weak link, and whose giving way then causes further damage to the action. We are then dealing with a large volume of escaping gas at a very high pressure (and thus gas speed). Under these pressures, brass does not react like a cracking or splintering solid substance, but it flows like a fluid or even like gas.

That is the reason for the oft-encountered golden colour on various remnants of destroyed actions: it is a coating from the high-pressure spray of molten brass, not unlike an airbrush spray.

3.
This is the reason why mere hydraulic pressure tests, or tests with overloaded but intact cases (purporting e.g. to assert the "solidity" of locking lugs and the shear strength of lugs and recesses) are fairly useless at best, and purposefully misleading at worst (as in the case of the Blaser R93 factory statements after several accidents).

In the past, only the analysis of real accidents and/or the conduct of a number of (non inexpensive) destruction experiments, such as also Schultz & Larsen in Denmark and Heym in Germany have undertaken then, could yield more information.
Today, as the horse buggy and the ox cart are slowly, very slowly, taken over by those newly-fangled self-propelled combustion automobiles (with a to Jørgen here), computers and their programs are mighty enough to simulate such conditions and their effects with a reliable degree of certainty. Again however, this knowledge is not born nor much employed within the firearms industry, but must be imported from the outside where the study of gas dynamics and fluid dynamics has flourished in other contexts (including a lot of technical failure analysis).

Best regards,
Carcano

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:

After a whole day at a shootingrange in a fairly sandy area, listening to the same guy constantly telling about the benefits of the mauserdesign, in harsh areas. I honnestly got a little tiered, so i asked him to load 5 rounds in the magasines, and close the bolt on top, and place rifle on the ground. Mine rifle was also loaded vith 5 rounds in the magasine, and placed just next to his miracle mauser.

Before he could react, i picked up a handfull of fine and dry sand, tossed it on the bolt/ reciever of both his and mine rifle. Then clapped my hands to get rid of the rest of the sand, saying who it the first to fire those 5 rounds.

I turned my rifle upside down, and cyckled the bolt, and firerd the 5 rounds in less than 10 seconds.

He didnt realy understand the consept, and cyckled his mauser normaly, resulting in that sand was everywhere, he managed to fire the first round, resulting in that he had to almost hammer the bolt open, as a lot of sand had ben pushed into the chamber with the first cartridge, there was also a lot of sand in the magasinse causing the rest of the rounds to jam.
Actualy it took him a quater of an hour to make his rifle function acceptable afterwards.

That is a very good story!!
And quite hard to argue about!

quote:

Originally posted by gunmaker:
I've been involved with a 98 test where we filled the barrel with molten lead and a 338 Mag case full of bulleseye or reddot in an 09 arg barrel.
The bolt held in the receiver and the only thing that broke was the thin section in the front ring adjacent to the extractor. About .5 X .75".

Something must have been very wrong with the metallurgy in the pic above.

they just used a stick of dynamite...

This is an extremely interesting thread!

I would appreciate if I may ask a few questions: -

Have any of you folks done destructive tests on Lee Enfields? Or perhaps just overload tests? And other rear-locking designs?

Can a bolt be driven out the receiver rearwards?

What effect does excess headspace have on bolt face and locking lug loading?

How does the case adhering to the chamber walls influence how the thrust is transferred to the bolt face? I have a theory that a lubricated case will still grip the chamber walls but will seat firmly against the bolt face at a lower pressure, thus reducing the shock load effect. It certainly prevents case head separation and examining of the fired case shows a progressive creeping of the case against the chamber walls with longer slide marks at the rear of the case. I have also seen a lubricated case that did not seat against the bolt face at all – it left the primer protruding by the amount of excess headspace! (303 Brit - the case was not exactly polished).

Does case head separation cause any serious problems? This I ask because the few times I have experienced it there seemed to be no problem.

What difference does bore size make to bolt face thrust? (Meaning, 243 versus 308 and 358 etc).

Thanks.

I must say that I enjoyed this thread enough that I read all the posts, some that weren't needed (with the exception of shootaways as he's been on my ignore list so long I can't even remember why).

nobody mentioned though not overloading their damn rifles. Mausers may not be the strongest actions out there, but if you load right you're likely never going to have a problem. I know people that insist on loading their guns till the primers start to flatten and want to squeeze every bit of juice out of a round without seperating the case head. I think that is no good. I'd rather have lower velocity and longer, safer rifle life.

I know somebody that wants to go shoot some ammo he has because he can't remember what the load his brother used was and wants to find out if they are too hot. granted he only wants to fire a couple of rounds of each batch and if high discard them. personally I'd chuck the whole batch if I didn't know for sure, before risking even a bit of set back to one of my rifles.

thanks to everybody that share their experience and research. I really liked hearing about the production times that Jorgen is getting. amazing really. I have a friend that owns a big production company, he said for years they outsourced the cutting of some of the parts because they didn't think the cost of a CNC laser cutting machine was justified (I think he said something like 1.5mil) he said it ended up cutting the cost they were paying to have it done by 40%. and I saw the 4x8 sheets that were left, almost no waste, amazing.

Red

To Seafire and gunmaker.
Testing action strength with extremly fast pistolpowder, might seems wise, but the problems with those powders, is there pretty low bulkdencity, witch results in a limited energy contens even in a full case, resulting in a maximum presure of apx 8000-9500 bar, compared to the maxpresure in the mutch more dense riflepowder, capable of producing up to 20.000bar.


To 303

quote:

Have any of you folks done destructive tests on Lee Enfields? Or perhaps just overload tests? And other rear-locking designs?

Can a bolt be driven out the receiver rearwards?

I have a few blown old S&L rearlocking actions.
The locking didnt break, but the front recieverring split, and the barrel poped forwards.
Basicaly, a bolt on a rearlucking action wouldnt fly, because mostly the reciever would be torn at the midle, or the front ring would split, sending the barrel forward. To get a bolt flying backwards requires an acceleration ramp, witch is nonexcisting as soon as the presure is released, by the ring splitting, or the reciever torn.
One of the only systems maintaining an intact acceleration ramp, after the locks break is the action carcano had inspected in a legal issue.. After the locks let go the bolthead has an 3/4" of "barrel" to accelerate backwards out of.

quote:

What effect does excess headspace have on bolt face and locking lug loading?

Basicaly no efect, unless the casehead blows out.
To be frankly, the casehead hystery, is just an overexcadurated way of impressing customers, unless you go for extreme accurasy.
Gunsmiths brag about installing barrels with 0.001" of headspace, witch for accuracy is fine, then not telling that a lot of factory and especialy reloaded ammo might be up to 0.02" to short.
A to big headspase is primarily a problem for caselifetime. If the headspace also result in excessive caseheadprotrution, it would reduce the levels where the casehead would burst sidewards.
But on the other hand casehead protrution can vary from 0.1" up to .16" I suspect the onse designing with the big protution, looks at as a sort of safetyvalve. Not exposing their actions to an fatal thrust, maintaining the illusion about a wery strong luckingsystem.

quote:

How does the case adhering to the chamber walls influence how the thrust is transferred to the bolt face? I have a theory that a lubricated case will still grip the chamber walls but will seat firmly against the bolt face at a lower pressure, thus reducing the shock load effect. It certainly prevents case head separation and examining of the fired case shows a progressive creeping of the case against the chamber walls with longer slide marks at the rear of the case. I have also seen a lubricated case that did not seat against the bolt face at all – it left the primer protruding by the amount of excess headspace! (303 Brit - the case was not exactly polished).

Casefriction to the chamber, doesnt matter mutch to the overall situation, as a case is not capable of bearing more than max 1,5ton, compared to the capabilities of many actions to bear up to 10-20 ton of thrust.
Case sticking may though have a destinct effect on point of impact, specialy on asymetrical lockingsystems, rearlucking systems and systems with uneven lugbearing.

quote:

Does case head separation cause any serious problems? This I ask because the few times I have experienced it there seemed to be no problem.

If the case seperates as common with very excessive headspace, or to many reloads of the same case, normaly it has very little or no efect, as the bottompart of the case act as a casket, or sealing of the chamber, letting wery limmited or often no gas backwards.

quote:

What difference does bore size make to bolt face thrust? (Meaning, 243 versus 308 and 358 etc).

None at all. As the boltthrust is basicaly a product of internal buttompresurearea inside the case multiplied with the presure, minus the casestretching strength.

Best Regards

Jørgen

To Dango Red

You are right that this discussion might seems useless and only of theroretical value.
People could just stop making reloading mistakes, or have barrelobstructions, mix ammo, and all those things.

But it is human to make mistakes, thats why there are so many humans.

Passive safety only has an walue, when "shit Happens".
Then sudently it is nice that sombody bothered thinking earlier.

In the carindustry, it is actualy a main issue with passive safety, and has over the last many years saved many lifes, with "idiotic and unnecceceary" things, as safetybelts, airbags, deformationzones and so on

Cac91,
Is my pleasure to share the H&W experience.
It was not my intention to make a direct comparison to whole complete finished H&W product to whole complete finished S&L product.
My words were to simply discuss the issue of mauser action tolerance, and which m98 receiver example to better study and discuss than H&W? ..it just turned out that the receivers I had the chance to view happen to be complete rifles.
Jorgen,
I understand the hydralic ram principle, but essentially, the inside working of ram remain totally sealed sytem, whereas that is not the case with a bolt sliding in a receiver like weatherby MkV(there is easy chance that particles can get in receiver lug grooves&bolt head)
Maybe a little off topic, but If memory serves me correct, germans found the close tolerance WW2 MP submachinmegun somewhat troublesome if not kept clean, and came to prefer other more loose design/less required maintenance SMGs' for battlefield situations? and even today is not the more slaphappy AK47 design prefered over the more precise close tolerance AR15, for reliable function in harsh environment?
Here to discuss and learn the subject,not argue.

quote:

But it is human to make mistakes, thats why there are so many humans.

that's great, I've gotta use that.

just to clarify, I never said the discussion was useless. quite the contrary. I'm only pointing out that there are many actions that are suitable if you'll just keep the loads reasonable.

I'm sure everybody will agree with me that no matter how great the action is at handling case failures and overloadings the habitual mis-loading of them will eventually cause something to fail. like you said, good to know, for the mistakes that inevitably happen, how a given action will protect you or not.

And an off shoot of all the passive safety systems, there now exist many warnings on lots of things that "attempt" to keep stupid people from doing stupid things. enough stupid people die and their families sue these companies that we now deal with extra warning literature, extra safety this and that. anybody ever thought that stupid was a safety check God built in to keep the population down? 100 years ago stupid people took themselves out of the gene pool given enough time. I say there's something wrong with the system

Red

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
Cac91,
It was not my intention to make a direct comparison to whole complete finished H&W product to whole complete finished S&L product.
My words were to simply discuss the issue of mauser action tolerance, and which m98 receiver example to better study and discuss than H&W? ..it just turned out that the receivers I had the chance to view happen to be complete rifles.
Jorgen,
I understand the hydralic ram principle, but essentially, the inside working of the ram are totally sealed sytem, whereas that is not the case with a bolt sliding in a receiver.

As i always said, nothing is perfect, and there might be many variations of the truth.

The pretty closed reciever having a tightly fitted bolt, is not a total insurance of not getting sand into the action, but an almost sealing combined with an easily cleaning surface, is another way of handeling the dirtissue. After testing and comparing the 2 totaly diferent ways, it is up to ones personal preferences to choose.

Over the last 33 years i have tested both ways of handeling the dirt in the reciever, more heavily than most others. Basicaly as TC1 wrote

quote:

Just a bitter old crippled piece of shit

I have always hunted from a manualy weelchair, that normaly leads to a lot of sand and dirt from my hands on the weels, ending all over my weapons.
For the first 15 years i mainly used mauser type actions, then for 5-7years i used a HVA 1900 typeaction, and for the last 10 years i used a pretty closed fatbolttype actions.

My personal conclution is that the last is the most reliable, and easiest to keep working

Hi Dango Red

Please bear with me, i didnt intend to give the impresion that YOU found the discussion useless.
It is just my poor english

And yess most actions are suitable, as long as no mistakes happens, and yes many ctions is pretty forgiving even if mistakes happens

best
Jørgen

Jorgen,
I have not intentionally implemented any harsh testing programs for any type receiver for reliability in dirty conditions, and I reckon many here on AR have not done so either.
But I do like to study what other folk do in the professional receiver manufacturing arena.
Surgeon build an extreme accurate manufactured and improved version of the rem 700. The level of precision of there manufacture is high( microns rather than .000"). Now,quality and high precision of their individual components aside, they still find the need to offer two versions of the same receiver,
one with a closer fitting bolt for simple bench work,
and another version with a more loose fitting bolt(but still high precision) for tactical/field situations.
I reasonably assume they have done their homework & offer a looser bolt option for sound practical reasons.

quote:

What effect does excess headspace have on bolt face and locking lug loading?


Basicaly no efect, unless the casehead blows out.

Thank you for your reply, jørgen. With the case that remained forward off the bolt face, there were no signs of the case having moved against the chamber walls but that does not mean that it did not reverberate in the chamber or something. The thing is, this rifle pretty soon began to jam up on cycling of the bolt. The locking lug abutments had peened out to the point that they were binding on the bolt body! That would take some hammering effect and this is what motivated my question. Perhaps this was due to the flexibility of the Lee Enfield action. I thought it was the 'suddenly applied load' principal, causing the 'hammering' damage.

So the forward thrust against the shoulder can be considered relatively insignificant. What mechanism thrusts the barrel forward in the case of a split receiver ring? The barrel is not that light-weight and I know they can travel a fair distance forward (several meters).

I have been told that the Lee Enfield action does not 'break' as such, but flexes and stretches to the point that the bolt head unhooks from the breach face and breaks over backwards.

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
Jorgen,
I have not intentionally implemented any harsh testing programs for any type receiver for reliability in dirty conditions, and I reckon many here on AR have not done so either.
But I do like to study what other folk do in the professional receiver manufacturing arena.
Surgeon build an extreme accurate manufactured and improved version of the rem 700. The level of precision of there manufacture is high( microns rather than .000"). Now,quality and high precision of their individual components aside, they still find the need to offer two versions of the same receiver,
one with a closer fitting bolt for simple bench work,
and another version with a more loose fitting bolt(but still high precision) for tactical/field situations.
I reasonably assume they have done their homework & offer a looser bolt option for sound practical reasons.

Hi Trax
The Surgeon is as you say an Remmington clone with tight tolerences.

The tolerences is tight, but not in the microns, maby in repetability, but never in gap betwen bolt and reciever.

The surgeon a nicely manufactured action, but is not what woult call a sealed reciever, as dirt has acces tru raceways, directly to the lockingarea, and chamberarea and also to the magazine, if present.

Brefly i guess, that the Tompson Center Icon, and Smith and Wesson I bolt has some kind of sealing efect.

Best regards
Jørgen

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:
Hi Trax
The Surgeon is as you say an Remmington clone with tight tolerences.

The tolerences is tight, but not in the microns, maby in repetability, but never in gap betwen bolt and reciever.

The surgeon a nicely manufactured action, but is not what woult call a sealed reciever, as dirt has acces tru raceways, directly to the lockingarea, and chamberarea and also to the magazine, if present.

Brefly i guess, that the Tompson Center Icon, and Smith and Wesson I bolt has some kind of sealing efect.

Best regards
Jørgen

Jorgen,
I did not claim the gap between the bolt and receiver was just a few microns, just that surgeon manufacture to such accurate micron measures:
http://www.surgeonrifles.com/homepage/
Hass TL1 Lathe .0001" = 2.5 micron.
EDM wire machine .00005" = 1.25 micron

I dont know any bolt action that is completely sealed. Cycle any bolt action and you open up the locking lugs and recesses to potential contamination.
Try this: -Why not open your rifle action, throw some sand on the bolt lugs and tell me how well it closes.
Also a question:
Why does Surgeon offer receivers with two different level of clearance between bolt and receiver?
If they are wasting time making two versions instead of one, best you call them and tell them.

Hi Trax
I ame not quite shure, what info i shall fokus on from their webside.

They make excelent actions, but suffers from the same decease as almost all other manufactores. " We make the worlds finest rifles, and has mashinery capable of keeping tolerenses tighter than everybody else"

I can se that they recently bought an Mazak identical to what we have ben running the last 21.000 hours.
They also describe the repositionings ability of their Haas lathe.
With my limited expierince of production, repositionings ability, is absolute not the same as ability to produce items with the same tolerences.
Production is often "spoiled" by factors as varying temperature of the part, flexing of the part under mfg. wear of tooling, flexing of the mashinery and a whole lot of other factores.

The EDM mashinery is one of the absolute better ways of keeping tolerences, but it is often wery slow and inefecient in production.

Please dont read this post as a criticism of Surgeon, only as a remark of beeing realistic. And that paper and webpages is wery forgiving, when describing posibilities.

I have seen , measured and supplyed barrels for 1 Surgeon action, and found it for a "Hardly Ableson" clone extremly wellmade, but no overhumanly miracle.

The bolt/reciever fit was definitly looser than what found on a Sauer 202, or Sauer 80/90

The reason Surgeons produces to 2 diferent tightness,(a tight for accuracy, and a more loos for "peace in mind") could be the same as why Sako equipped their m85 with this hopeless version of a controled feeding gimic.

The reason is basicaly, that the customers requires it. Then why waste time discussing, if it is easier produced.
It is dificult to save the world anyway

The test of throwing sand in a open actions, can cause problems for all actions, but again, the cleaner smoother and the less corners edges ant so on, the easier it is to clean. Basicaly you just blow or wipe out the dirt, before atempting to close.
But still the design alowes space for a litle dirt in the lockingarea itself.
Please read my comments on nothing beeing the only truth, and there might be several ways of skinning a kat
Looking about ability to handle dirt, we can surely agre that the total amount of dirt entering an closed/sealed action is less than what under the same conditions can enter an wide open action.
Imagion you one day in a sandstorm, having two options.
1: you sit in a car with closed dors and windows, only having to leave the car breefly on the oposit side as towards the wind.
2: You sit in a car with open dors and no windows, also having to leave the car breefly.

Whitch car do you think contains the most sand at the end of the day

By the way, can you ask Surgeons, what special requirements is for "hardened aircraft steel"
For many years i have read a lot of marketing "bullshit" about "Aircraft aluminium".

In my simple world there is only diferent cemical compositions, and heattreatments of both steel and aluminium. Often they are equipped with a national coding system, to idnetify ist tecnical features

Dear Jørgen,

thanks for your very substantial and informative additions. By the way, I have lengthily answered your message via board PM.

quote:

They make excellent actions, but suffer from the same disease as almost all other manufactores. " We make the world's finest rifles, and have machinery capable of keeping tolerances tighter than everybody else"

I can see that they recently bought an Mazak identical to what we have ben running the last 21.000 hours.
They also describe the repositioning ability of their Haas lathe.
With my limited experience of production, repositioning ability is absolute not the same as ability to produce items with the same tolerances.
Production is often "spoiled" by factors as varying temperature of the part, flexing of the part under mfg. wear of tooling, flexing of the machinery and a whole lot of other factors.

The EDM machinery is one of the absolute better ways of keeping tolerances, but it is often very slow and inefficient in production.

Please dont read this post as a criticism of Surgeon, only as a remark of being realistic. And that paper and webpages are very forgiving, when describing possibilities.

I have seen, measured and supplied barrels for 1 Surgeon action, and found it for a "Hardly Ableson" clone extremely well made, but not an overhuman miracle.

I can fully agree with Jørgen. A client has just steered me to an extremely interesting maching website (a German technical university website on high speed milling - HSC) which fully corroborates and underlines the statements above. For exception's sake, I shall quote it in the original language:

Genauigkeitssteigerung beim Hochgeschwindigkeitsfräsen

Ausgangssituation

Die wirtschaftliche Situation des deutschen Maschinenbaus erfordert Maßnahmen zur Sicherung der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit, zu denen auch die Steigerung der Produktivität bei der mechanischen Fertigung gehört. Vor diesem Hintergrund gewinnt die Hochgeschwindigkeitsbearbeitung (HSC), insbesondere das HSC-Fräsen, in der Zerspanungstechnik zunehmend an Bedeutung.
Gegenüber dem konventionellen Fräsprozeß werden beim HSC-Fräsen Vorschub- und Schnittgeschwindigkeit um den Faktor 5 bis 10 erhöht. Dadurch wird bei zerspanungsintensiven Fertigungsprozessen eine erhebliche Reduzierung der Hauptzeitanteile erreicht. Daneben lassen sich so sehr hohe Oberflächenqualitäten erzielen.

Die Anwendungsgebiete der HSC-Technologie liegen deshalb vor allem dort, wo hohe Anforderungen an Zerspan-Leistung und Oberflächenqualität gestellt werden, also insbesondere im Werkzeug- und Formenbau. Eine weitere typische Anwendung im Formenbau mit komplexen dreidimensionalen Konturen sind z.B. Blasformen für Kunststofflaschen. Durch Design, definierte Füllmenge und Anforderungen der Blasanlagen sind hier höchste Genauigkeiten und Oberflächengüten erforderlich. Große Einsparpotentiale gegenüber konventioneller Fertigung liegen sowohl beim Vorschruppen (durch hohe Zerspanleistung) als auch beim Schlichten (durch hohe Oberflächengüte). Daneben wird das HSC-Fräsen auch bei der Bearbeitung von Aluminium-Werkstücken mit kleinen Wandstärken, die z.B. in der Luft- und Raumfahrt benötigt werden, eingesetzt.

Die hohe Oberflächengüte wird durch Bearbeiten der Konturen mit Kugelfräsern bei kleinen Abständen der Fräserbahnen (im Bereich weniger hundertstel Millimeter) erreicht. Zum Schruppen werden dagegen vorwiegend Werkzeuge mit Eckradius eingesetzt. Häufig finden gewendelte Fräser Anwendung. Für spezielle Fertigungsaufgaben sind verschiedenste Formfräser einsetzbar.

Als Schneidstoffe haben sich verschiedene fein- und feinstkörnige Hartmetallsorten, je nach Werkstoff meist mit Beschichtung, etabliert. Daneben finden auch CBN und PCD Anwendung.

Die Entwicklungen auf dem Gebiet der HSC-Technologie sind noch nicht abgeschlossen, so daß in allen hier angesprochenen Teilbereichen für die Zukunft teilweise erhebliche Veränderungen und Innovationen erwartet werden können. Neben der weiteren Erhöhung der Zerspanleistung wird hier insbesondere die Steigerung der Fertigungsgenauigkeit im Vordergrund stehen.

Lösungsansätze

Um die Fertigungsgenauigkeit beim HSC-Fräsen zu verbessern, werden zur Zeit mehrere Ansätze verfolgt. Unter anderem sind hier die Verbesserung des dynamischen Verhaltens von HSC-Fräsmaschinen und die Kompensation der Abdrängung des Fräsers infolge von Zerspankräften zu nennen. Ein weiterer wichtiger Aspekt der Genauigkeitssteigerung ist die Werkzeugvermessung, denn die Genauigkeit, mit der ein eingesetztes Werkzeug vermessen werden kann, beeinflußt direkt die Genauigkeit des gefertigten Werkstücks. Ein Ziel des Projektes ist es deshalb, Verfahren zu entwickeln, mit denen die beim HSC-Fräsen eingesetzten Werkzeuge genauer vermessen werden können, als dies mit den bisher zur Verfügung stehenden Hilfsmitteln möglich ist.
Bei jedem Fertigungsverfahren, das der Gruppe „Spanen mit geometrisch bestimmter Schneide“ zuzuordnen ist, ist für die maßhaltige Fertigung eines Werkstückes die Kenntnis von geometrischen Kenngrößen des Werkzeugs unabdingbar. Bei Fräsprozessen wird üblicherweise eine Werkzeugvoreinstellung vorgenommen, um die erforderlichen Daten zu ermitteln. Die hohen erzielbaren Genauigkeiten in der Werkzeugvoreinstellung von bis zu ±2 mm sind allerdings nicht ausreichend, um eine entsprechend hohe Fertigungsgenauigkeit sicherzustellen. Dies liegt daran, daß das Werkzeug für sich allein und nicht innerhalb des Systems „Werkzeugmaschine“ betrachtet wird. Als unberücksichtige Fehlerquellen sind u.a.

• Schneidkantenversatz eines neuen Werkzeugs,
• Rundlauffehler des Werkzeugs,
• Verschleiß des Werkzeugs,
• Spannfehler durch Toleranzen der Werkzeugaufnahme und des Werkzeugspannfutters,
• drehzahlabhängige Effekte wie Biegung des Werkzeugs infolge von Unwuchtkräften und
• Rundlauffehler der Hauptspindel zu nennen.

Die Überlagerung dieser Fehlerquellen führt u.a. zu einem veränderten, für die Zerspanung relevanten Wirkdurchmesser des Werkzeugs. Weiterhin können so auch Schwingungen des Systems „Werkzeugmaschine“ erregt werden.
Eine Erfassung des Wirkdurchmessers erfolgt bisher nicht. Eine Vermessung des Wirkdurchmessers findet also beim HSC-Fräsen bisher nicht statt, obwohl diese ein Potential zur Steigerung der Fertigungsgenauigkeit eröffnen würde. Im Rahmen des Projektes werden deshalb zwei Verfahren zur Vermessung rotierender Werkzeuge entwickelt:

Beim ersten Verfahren wird das rotierende Werkzeug durch den Strahl einer Laser-Lichtschranke hindurch bewegt. Mittels eines externen Wegmeßsystems wird die Position des Werkzeugs beim Eintritt in bzw. Austritt aus dem Laserstrahl erfaßt. Aus der Differrenz dieser beiden Werte kann der Wirkdurchmesser bestimmt werden (s. Bild 1).

Beim zweiten Verfahren wird zunächst mit einer CCD-Kamera das Bild eines rotierenden Werkzeugs aufgezeichnet. Durch die anschließende Auswertung des Bildes wird die Wirkkontur des Werkzeugs automatisch ermittelt (s. Bild 2).

Durch Integration eines dieser Verfahren zur Vermessung rotierender Werkzeuge in eine HSC-Fräsmaschine kann die Fertigungsgenaugkeit deutlich verbessert werden. Die verbesserte Fertigungsgenauigkeit trägt dazu bei, die Einsatzgebiete von HSC-Fräsmaschinen zu erweitern, und den Einsatz von HSC-Fräsmaschinen z.B. durch Verringerung von Ausschuß und Nachbearbeitung effizienter und witschaftlicher zu gestalten.

Dipl.-Ing. J.Findeklee

Technische Universität Hamburg-Harburg

Arbeitsbereich Fertigungstechnik II
Dipl.-Ing. J.Findeklee
Denickestraße 17
21073 Hamburg
Tel. : (040) 428 78-2253
E-Mail: findeklee@tu-harburg.de

Source: http://www.tu-harburg.de/ft2/AbgeForschungen/Hochgeschw...ndigkeitsfraesen.htm

Regards,
Carcano

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:
To Seafire and gunmaker.
Testing action strength with extremly fast pistolpowder, might seems wise, but the problems with those powders, is there pretty low bulkdencity, witch results in a limited energy contens even in a full case, resulting in a maximum presure of apx 8000-9500 bar, compared to the maxpresure in the mutch more dense riflepowder, capable of producing up to 20.000bar.


Jørgen

So what you're saying is that the case full of fast burning powder produces a realistic overload amount???? 116,000-137,786 psi

The test I was talking about started with a Chinese copy of a 98, German made bolt and a 7.65 Argentine barrel. The action was overloaded many times.

IIRC the tests were started with the barrel chambered to 30-06 and all ammo fired was filled with bullseye.

1)overload with bullseye powder
2)Barrel heated red hot at muzzle and hammered flat & quenched in water
3)Barrel heated about 7" from muzzle and bent 90deg.
4)drilled clearance for pilot and re chambered to 338Mag
5).250" brass rod left in barrel
6)Barrel filled with lead

While the lugs set back along the way and the barrel had to be set back to get it to go bang, the only time something broke was on the last shot. The bolt was covered with brass early on in the testing and the flange on the shroud did it's job well.

Hi Gunmaker

You are quite right abot the estimated presures of fast burning pistolpowders.

BTW this Chinese m98 copy, Was it with a C ring or a H ring action
Did you expierience casehead blowout on the 30.06 cases.

Your test no 2 and 3 would never show any type of stress on the actions, only the strength of the barrelsteel. Except from the bullseye powder, independent of the muzzleobstruction. As all powder is transformed to gas within the first 1 - 5" of bullet travel, after that the presure just drops when the bullet mooves further out, as with hot compressed air.
Best regards
Jørgen

Pretty sure it was a C ring.
You say tests 2&3 wouldn't stress the action????
116,000-137,786 psi isn't hard on an action????
IIRC all the case heads were blown.

The guy who purchased the parts for this test wanted to show everyone how worthless and weak the 98Mauser was. Needless to say he failed to convince anyone at the school(Trinidad State JC) that Mausers are junk. He did however change his own mind about the safety designed into system 98.

Hi Gunmaker
About 2 and 3 i said it would stress it no more than caused purely by the bullseye alone.

You are pretty sure, but not 100%
Because if it is a H ring, or the C ring is of poor fitt, the caseheadleak would act just as a safetyvalve, limmiting the presure to about 6000bar and letting the rest out.
On the belted magnum, my guess is about 9000bar
And if the barrel is totaly filled, the safetyvalve isnt big enough to let presure out fast enough to keep that level.
I just made a fast count of m98 actions laying down in my basement , damaged by highpresure, and i found 6, beside the once i personaly has blown. The 6 is gathered over years when the company produced targetrifles in 6,5x55. This was before i bought the company.
All 6 had split boltface, some cracked lugs, all sever lugsetback, some hat torn the reciever at the thumbcut. The boltstop was misshaped or missing on all

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:
I just made a fast count of m98 actions lying down in my basement, damaged by high pressure, and I found 6, beside the one I personally have blown. The 6 were gathered over years when the company produced target rifles in 6,5x55. This was before I bought the company.
All 6 had split bolt faces, some cracked lugs, all severe lug setback, some had torn the receiver at the thumbcut. The boltstop was mishapen or missing on all

Oh Jørgen, now you just threw a melon into my punchbowl, when I was preparing to feast (common joke around here: "water melon sorbet with whole fruits").

Your description of the damages inflicted to these presumably former German Kar 98k actions (which the old Schultz & Larsen company had converted into target rifles) sounds awfully close to the initially described damage of the Turkish Mauser, and that just when I was setting out to deconstruct it presumptuously ;-).

Now the rug under my feet feels a bit more slippery. I shall try to spread my feet a bit better and to crouch low (combat stance), so that I do not topple over when I present my attempt of a failure analysis.

Best regards,
Carcano