The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Gunsmithing Different Dakota action for Rigby?Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Different Dakota action for Rigby? | Login/Join |
| one of us |
Dakota chambers the 76 (is it?) in 416 Rigby. I understood this to be basically a copy of th M70 (dimensionally, at least.) And isn't the concensus that the M70 is too small to handle the Rigby boltface? Maybe they have a "Magnum" size, or maybe the actions are all biiger than the M70, or maybe thye don't feel there's a problem chambering a M70 in 416 Rigby.... Anyone know the answer? Thanks! | ||
|
| one of us |
My copy of Brownells lists the Dakota 76 as the 64 style. It offers the action in the normals but they also offer it in the Dakota Safari - gives one more in mag and what I think you are looking for the ---- Dakota African - Dropped floorplate and handles 404 Jeff, 416 Rigby/Dakota and 450 Rigby. Brownells lists them at 2500.00. Described as a LONG MANGNUM ACTION- MAG BOLT FACE. | |||
|
| one of us |
triggerguard1, Please spare me ALL the marketing hype. Your statements are not born out by facts. Yes it is true that a larger ring diameter and larger thrust surface created by a 0.800" diameter bolt system (provided that the lugs are actually scaled up too) would REDUCE the stress. This fact DOES NOT mean that a 0.700" diameter bolt Mauser deriivative like say a Brevex Magnum Mauser action, is not perfectly capable of handling a 505 Gibbs. I know I shot several hundred, if not a thousand, rounds out of one. Finally, for your information, since you do not seem to be "in the know", bolt lug shear isn't the primary overload failure mode of a Mauser style action. In the M70 Winchester through the comercial Mausers (IF properly heat treated) the front bridge splits DUE the combined effects of a triaxial strain state which is the resultant of internal pressures acting upon the inside of the barrel. For the record, the thrust force acting upon the bolt face (and therefore the lugs) is not a huge component of that combined strain state. If you do not mind my asking, what is the shear capacity of your new action, the one with the 0.800" diameter bolt? What is the burst pressure for the action as well? What is the perpendicularity specification on your lug races both receiver and bolt? What is the total shear area of the bolt lugs? What material and heat treatment are you using? Thanks, ASS_CLOWN | |||
|
| one of us |
The Dakota Rigby Action is a much longer action than the pre64. I THINK the Rigby is around .400" longer. It has a much longer feed ramp than the 375 Receiver. Lots more safety margin. gunmaker | |||
|
one of us |
Quote: It may be longer, but is it larger in the bolt body diameter?? The model 70, with it's .700" bolt body is too small to safely use the Rigby with a case head of .586. That's only .057 per side at best. Winchester was planning on doing that same thing, ordered custom bottom metal from us, then later decided that it wasn't such a hot idea.FWIW. A .750" diameter bolt would be bare minium, and we opted for a .800" bolt on our upcoming receiver. That's a lot of cartridge to be gambling with on minimal material. | |||
|
| one of us |
Triggergard1, The bolt diameter of 0.700" isn't a problem with the Rigby case head diameter. If it were there would be Ruger, CZ, and many many old Magnum Mausers that were unsafe. The reason one doesn't use a M70 for the Rigby case head is the miniscule barrel shank diameter at the thread clearance cut, remember a M70 uses a 1" X 16 TPI barrel shank thread. It can be done, just don't crank that Rigby up past about 49,000 psi, even on accident.  The extra metal you are speaking of around the rim of the bolt only serves to keep the rim under the extractor i.e. not allowing the cartridge to slip off the bolt face opposite the extractor claw. Thus allowing for the vaunted CRF. It isn't at all structural. Having said that I really do like the idea of a 0.800" bolt for cartridged based off the 577 NE and even the 505 Gibbs. By the way, the M76 African has a 0.750" bolt diameter so it is set for the 505 Gibbs case head. ASS_CLOWN | |||
|
| one of us |
Thanks for the info, guys. Sounds like Dakota has two lengths, but if I remember right, I talked with someone their last year, and they mentioned they were the same bolt/shank/ring size - though it was in the context of their 338 Lapua. And I'm not so much concerned with boltface per se, as lug bearing surface. | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: To each is own when it comes to their lives, and what they feel is safe, but .057" wall thickness on a cartridge producing that much bolt thrust is really playing the lottery on your life. With an increase in bolt body diameter, must come an increase in receiver ring diameter as well, which is necessary for that class of cartridge. Placing that class of cartridge on a .700" diameter bolt is not sound advice, hence it shouldn't be encouraged to those who don't understand it's repercussions. Placing your faith in the major gun companies for proper engineering could prove to be a fatal mistake. It wouldn't be the first time such an incident occured. | |||
|
| one of us |
Marketing hype has nothing to do with it ASS CLOWN....it's called a margin of safety. It would be a bit asanine to increase the bolt body diameter, as well as the receiver ring, without increasing the lug diameter as well. I figured that would be obvious, but apparently not. Since my qualifications don't seem to be up to par for what you consider "in the know", what are yours???  Ever built rifle components on machine equipment??? Ever engineered mechanical parts??? Ever designed fixturing for holding parts in CNC machines that were under the severe stress and strain from machining processes that had to hold tolearances of less than .0005"??? I'll fill you in sometime on the specs on our actions when they have been thoroughly tested by H.P. White labratories. As for now, it would only be theoretical calculations that would, and probably have a margin of error depending on many factors that would include, but not limited to, tolerance stack, final assembly, heat treat discrepency(there is always some), and whether it was 416 stainless, or 4140 chromoly steel. It was an amusing response, especially after the "perpendicularity specification" request. If you're gonna try to talk the talk, try to learn the language first. It makes weeding out the bullshitters a little harder.  I see now why so many on this board have exercised their right of the ignore button when you start posting. | |||
|
| one of us |
Matt, To answer your questions: Quote: Yes I have built rifle components on machine equipment. Yes I have engineered mechanical parts Yes I have both designed and made fixturing for holding parts. How about to tolerance of 0.0004", with CpK of 1.67. Since you think "perpendicularity" is amusing I can only assume you have NO CLUE WHAT THE ACRONYM GD&T MEANS! Perpendicularity is something I WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED IN WITH REGARD TO BOTH BOLT LUGS AND LUG RECESSES! By the way SAE 4140 is a PISS POOR material to make firearm receivers from. That means there are FAR better alternatives. Hey, keep talking though. I am sure all those H&H, Rigby, Jeffery, etc, etc, etc big bore magazine rifles built on those 0.700" diameter bolted Magnum mausers are falling in value, or exploding. I personally, think it is rather obvious who the "wannabe" is. Good luck with your new actions. ASS_CLOWN | |||
|
| One of Us |
Hey Turd Boy, Runnin' off at the mouth again, bullshit just a dribblin' down your chin. Keep up the good work, every village needs an idiot, and you fill the bill quite well. | |||
|
| one of us |
Craigster, Quote: Do you hate yourself? I mean seriously you have got to be one of the most ignorant posters on this site. So I ask again, do you hate yourself? Keep up the good work though, all of ya! We haven't gotten such a good laugh as this thread has/is providing in quite sometime! PS - Matt what is better with the SAE4140 receiver you are making, a harder Rc45 or a softer Rc30? Are you through hardening them and drawing back or simply induction hardening strategic places? If induction hardening are you single shot or scanning them? ASS_CLOWN | |||
|
| one of us |
Well Asswipe, you've really stumped me with your acronym challenge.LOL But wait......Drumroll please....could it be Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing??????? If you weren't so ignorant about what really is important on an action as it relates to Concentricity, Parallelism, Flatness, and Squareness, it would be easier to explain why I found your use of "Perpendicularity specifications" so amusing. It also appears that you've talked to at least one person in your life that's used SPC(Statistical Process Control) in case you weren't aware of that acronym. Quote: I'm curious, what parts are you talking about???? Also, what kind of "equipment" did you run your parts on....Please tell me it was CNC. One of your funnier comments was the one that went something like this..... "By the way SAE 4140 is a PISS POOR material to make firearm receivers from. That means there are FAR better alternatives." On one hand, you believe that the major gun companies have it all figured out, and I'm blowing smoke, but in the next breath, your condeming the use of 4140 for rifle receivers. Do you have any clue of what the rifle companies are using for their receivers and why???? So what is your answer to us that aren't "in the know" as to what is the best material for building recievers???? And don't forget to give a detailed answer as to why. We'll all understand if this takes a couple of days of research before you answer. On the other hand, you could just save your breath......you'll need it to blow up your date later. | |||
|
| one of us |
Matt, Well since you know what GD&T is what version are you using? You should also know that there is no such GD&T as "squareness", in GD&T terminology it is "perpendicularity". Parallelism would be the best method for holding the lug race face to the bolt face, what is your parallelism specification? I am fully aware of SPC. Actually, it is a bit of a joke in my opinion, as it fails miserably to comprehend the SIGNIFICANT effects associated with indexable insert changes. You do know the tolerance on an indexable insert is FAR greater than your quoted 0.0005" total tolerance don't you? How do you compensate for that? A short list of CNC I have worked with: Mazak, Makino, Cinninati Millicron Jones & Lamson Mori Seiki Warner Swasey Toyoda Excello Guildemeister Heid Sheffield Detroit - custom built from old tracer lathes they ROCK! Zeiss Brown & Sharpe I personally like the control interface on the Cinncinati Millacrons (even though it is proprietary) with the GE Fanuc being second. I never liked the Allen Bradley's though. Some of the European machines are a real pain, for me anyway, their controllers seemed to be written in hierogliphics (spelling???). I have machined firearms components primarily on manual machines which would include: Monarch (personal favorite) Atlas American (close second) Enco (POS IMHO) Emco Clausing South Bend Nardini Kearney Treker Gorton Bridgeport If we discuss wood firearm parts Rigid Delta Rockwell Porter Cable Custom homemade lathe Custom home made band saw misc hand tools (chisels, rasps, files, etc) I would use SAE 8620 or SAE 1340 before I ever opted for SAE 4140. With the 8620 I would case carburize, and quench and temper to achieve a case hardness of Rc 57 - Rc62, an effective case depth of 0.015" to 0.028", and a core hardness of Rc 30 to Rc 40. With the SAE 1340 I would: If through hardening, achieve a through hardness of Rc30 to Rc 37 with the bolt 1 to 3 points higher than the receiver. Personally, I would not induction harden. With regard to what the mainstream manufacturers use, why would you handicap yourself to using the cheap crap they use. I thought, and admittedly I could be wrong here, that you were going to offer a true custom level action for the discriminating buyer, not another copy of a M70! I guess what I am saying is, If you are going to do it, THEN DO IT RIGHT! I sure hope by Magnum Mauser style rifles don't grenade shooting those Rigby and 500 Jeffery case headed cartridges I hunt with, afterall these rifles only have 0.700" diameter bolts. By the way, I strongly recommend you contact Saeed and inform him of the GRAVE PERIL he is placing all the shooters of his 577 T-Rex in! Afteralll, Saeed's 577 T-Rex is built on an Enfield action with a tiny 0.700" bolt, and the 577 T-Rex has a case head diameter of 0.688"!!!! OMG!!  Again good luck with you new rifle actions. I think I have answered enough of your questions, why don't you answer mine. ASS_CLOWN | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: Ansi Y14.5M Didn't say that there was a symbol for squareness....you're still missing the point. Paralellism would be within .0001-.0002", considering it would be accomplished with the same tool in the same setup. SPC is a Joke, but you're the one that added it to your ability to hold tolearance on fixtures. Indexable inserts are normally good for about .0002-.0004" on the average....some better, but most are within those specs. The use of tool probes and cutter compensation fix the troubles you speak of, but then again, that's apprentice machinist trouble shooting, something that anyone with at least six months experience should already have a handle on. With regards to machinability, hardness specs, availability, and overall product quality, it's hard to beat 4140, and it's for these reasons that it has been the standard for many parts manufactured for firearms as well as other facets of the machining industry. Case hardening was great on a Mauser 100 years ago, but while it will provide a harder surface than through hardening it lacks the ability to modify the receiver later without having to reheatreat the receiver. You've kinda jumped from one extreme to the other with your heat treating plans. On one hand you want the receiver to be extremely hard on the surface, but when through hardening you're talking about a much lower RC. Our first plan was to use preheattreat 4140, but we've later changed our plans to use unhardened, rough it to within .030" on all critical surfaces, heat treat to 40-42, then remachine it. Essentially, a factory blueprint done better than obtainable on conventional equipment. The bolt would most likely be slightly higher on the C scale, but your limited to within a couple of points at the most. The same technique of rough machining would be used on it as well. With integral talley bases, and fully blueprinted to exceptionally tight tolearances, as well as offering wire edm'd triggers and sears with custom Oberndorf bottom metal, I don't see how you could call our receiver anything but a "true custom". As far as anyone building rifles on the .700" diameter bolt receivers, I never said that it hasn't been done, and people aren't shooting them, but I for one would not, nor would I recommend to anyone to do it themselves. As I posted earlier....To each is own. That is my opinion, regardless of who is pulling it off. | |||
|
| one of us |
Matt, Those are some MIGHTY tightly controlled indexable inserts you have there! You must be paying top dollar for those bad boys (for more information see end of post )!As far as probing goes, at it's very best it is accurate to ~ 0.0002" and gets worse from there as the machine's scales and/or encoder begin to "wear". By the way, are you using redundant scales and encoders? If you are what allowable error does your machine controller allow for? That error will tell us what the machine REALLY is capable of repeating with the probe. Also, don't forget once you probe, you have the stack-up error in the system of repeating that with the tool trace. So you are at best set to 0.0004" error, without influence from tool point tolerances, wear, etc. I find it VERY difficult to believe that your machining can hold 0.0002" parallelism on bolt lugs, 0.001" is FAR MORE BELIEVEABLE (that would be 25 microns to those in the metric system). The cat's meow is case carburized SAE8620. You will finish machine after heat treat, so you leave a little extra stock for finishing and cook it a little longer to drive the "rough" case deeper. Once finished, by either hard turning, grinding, EDM, etc, the effective case depth should be as I stated in my previous post. Believe me, I know what the machining centers on the market are capable of. Most CANNOT hold a true position of 0.001" of an inch. They simply cannot do it, and as they are used and wear they get worse. By the way the tolerances for indexable inserts are as follow: Tolerance / Tolerance from Nominal Class (letter) A through E, & G +/- 0.001" F and H +/- 0.0005" J through L 0.0002" to 0.0005" M and N 0.002" to 0.004" U 0.005" to 0.010" Those are the industry standards. Of course that is only the tolerance on the inscribed circle, the thickness tolerance is either +/- 0.001" or +/- 0.005" . I'll let you do the trigonometry, but none of the inserts will have a tolerance of your claimed 0.0001" to 0.0002" . Any insert supplier's website should provide the data I just posted. I got my information from a Sandvik catalog, it matches what is printed in the "Machinery Handbook". A partial list of insert manufactureres: Sandvik Valenite Sumitomo Mitsubishi Kennametal Again good luck with your new rifle actions. ASS_CLOWN | |||
|
| one of us |
I hate to burst your bubble and all, but part of being a machinist is using the proper tools for the proper jobs, as well as being able to accurately measure parts "off the machine" and making adjustments accordingly. Any other method would be quite foolhardy. Second of all, 99% of all the finish work that I do on parts, whether they be, firearms, or aerospace work, is done with solid carbide coated endmills. Indexables are great for some roughing applications, but are rarely used by me for fine finish work. Third, accuracy, or lack there of, is determined by the finished part not necessarily by tool probes and encoders, providing they are in good order. Deviations that can occur, and do, will hamper the quality of the end product if they aren't fully inspected both on, and off the machine. Then again, that's the difference between a CNC machinist and an operator of CNC equipment. The most accurate machines in the world can produce junk, unless the man behind the controls is capable of compensating for the error that is always present in each machine. If you find the paralellism tolearance hard to believe, you'd have a hard time making parts for Allied Signal, who subcontracts work out for the major players in the aeorspace industry. If .001" is the best you can do, you'd better go back to your book reading. Better yet, get some on-the-job experience where there are machinist that could show ya a thing or two. In about 5-10 years we could have a better conversation. As far as holding true position to within .001" with most machines....Sounds as though if you've ever ran any, they were turds....plain and simple. I've fixtured parts up to as many as 225 on a table at one time with less discrepency than that between any and all of them. It's pretty easy with most equipment that hasn't been crashed or abused, but then again, you must be able to fixture parts properly, as well as being able to program in such a manner that the parts can be individualy tuned if there was a positioning problem. Again, that's part of being a machinist. Thanks again for the luck on the action, but I've never relied on luck too much thus far. | |||
|
| one of us |
Matt, Quote: The only "bubble that has burst" is your fantasy! You may recall the list of CNC machines I have worked with. Well the MACHINE MANUFACTURERS on that list WILL NOT GUARANTEE THEIR MACHINES TO HOLD TRUE POSITION ACCURACY BETTER THAN 40 MICRONS, WITH ONE EXCEPTION AND THAT ONE WILL GUARANTEE 25 MICRONS (and that is for one piece at a time)! So you had better go and tell them how to do it, NOT ME! You are truly pathetic my friend. Like I said in the beginning, it would have been best for you to stop with the marketing hype bullshit! Now everyone with one ounce of knowledge knows what you are. I have worked with Allied Signal by the way. Actually, a good friend of mine, and former co-worker, is a Chief Engineer at Allied Signal. What do you make for them, I would like to share the information in this thread with him. Good luck with your new action. ASS_CLOWN | |||
|
| one of us |
Blue, I have to agree with you that most of the tolerances on a rifle's action should be loose. The level of precision IS most definitely a matter of machine capability and has nothing to do with operator "skill". If the machine cannot hold 0.0001 of an inch, NO LEVEL of skill will make it do so, this is a fundamental and inherent property of the machine. The entire reason for the discussion, for me anyway, has to do with establishing credibility. When someone starts off by saying that an action, which has been used for almost 100 years, is unsafe RED FLAGS go up in a hurry! So I decided to call the guy's bluff, and specifically told him to drop the marketing hype. Did he? No, he only DUG HIMSELF A DEEPER HOLE! He as full of it on the safety of the old Mauser, full of it on the tolerance of indexable inserts, full of it on the accuracy/precision achieveable with a CNC machining center, full of it on "carbide coated endmills" (they are either carbide inserted or solid carbide for the record), basically the guy is just full of it! Actually, I think it would be of interesting to take one of his actions and lay it out with a CMM (coordinate measuring machine, which I just happen to have access to a few of) and see just how good his machining is. This thread is/was/probably will remain, a mountain of marketing hype aka BS from triggergard1. Seriously, you do not have to rely upon anything I have said. One simply needs to contact the manufacturers of the tooling and machines to get the same answers I have provided. Finally, and having said all that, I look for to the introduction of their 0.800" diameter bolted actions as well. I still believe they could do FAR better from a material standpoint, but SAE4140 is the industry standard and will work, it just isn't optimum. ASS_CLOWN | |||
|
| one of us |
Alright ASS Munch........for the record they are solid carbide endmills that are coated with TICN, TIN, or Talon coated. Again, not something that I thought I'd have to explain to such an expert, but apparently you're just good at bullshitting. Please explain to me if a CNC that is being manufactured today cannot hold true position tolearances to less than .0005, how in the hell did you do it to your acclaimed .0004" you so eliquently described earlier in the thread. The fact of the matter is, they can, and they do, day in and day out. The fact that the machine manufacturers don't guarantee the accuracy of their machines any closer than that is the same reason that most gunmakers won't guarantee the accuracy of their groups any closer than 1MOA, but most rifles being built today by top builders are far exceeding that with good ammo. When those machine tool companies put a "guarantee" on the accuracy, it doesn't mean that that's is good as it gets, it means that they have a buffer zone to ensure that their customers aren't going to be beating down their door because they can't hold tolearance on critical parts. That's common sense, and if you were as experienced as you say you are, you'd know better than to say that tolearances that I speak of can't be held on CNC equipment. If that were the case, nearly 75% of all aerospace parts would be unable to be manufactured. As far as parts that we've made for Allied Signal, for the most part they consisted of Impellers for the pressurization of the cabins on 737's. Also, turbine adapter outlets. The bore diameter had to be held within +/-.000075. Have your buddy at allied signal check that out, of course don't forget the bore tolearance isn't given in plus or minus, rather a high and low. Thought I'd clarify that so you can tell your buddy what to look for. At the time we were doing that work, our name was Williams Manufacturing of Oregon Inc.. We also did numerous parts for Stanley Hydraulic Tool, most of which weren't as hairy as the Allied Signal work, but still much more envolved than any thing the gun industry gets to fool with. By the way, since you've been so quick to point out the problems with CNC equipment, would you please explain how it is that you're going to check my receiver on a CMM (Coordinate Measuring Machine) and obtain such a high degree of accuracy???? The CMM is no better than the operator of the equipment, or the setup procedure involved to get into proper position. We fight this phenomenon with USRAC on a weekly to monthly basis. They are a very accurate piece of equipment, when they're setup right, but you can produce crappy QC results with them just as fast as you can produce crappy parts with a good cnc. To clear this up....this isn't marketing hype, it's called stating an opinion of what's suitable for handling a cartridge the size of a Rigby or Gibbs. I have my opinion, and have stated it quite thoroughly I believe....If you don't like it, fine....wasn't trying to force it on ya. That's all this was about in the first place, but I don't appreciate being called a liar about things I routinely do on a day to day basis and have been over 15 years, as well as my father for over 47 years. I really don't give a damn whether you believe it or not, the fact is, it get's done in machine shops all over the world everyday. Just because you lack the knowledge to acheive those results, don't assume that it can't be done. | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: LOL....You're probably right Blue, it's not worth dealing with this guy...He's a bit notorious for starting trash on the forum. I'm done. | |||
|
| one of us |
Matt & Blue, I did not see your last post Blue. Fine It is a DRAW! I have deleted the body of this post for that reason. Good day, ASS_CLOWN | |||
|
| one of us |
| |||
|
| one of us |
Credibility, credibility ? Lets see.... Ass or Mr Williams? I gotta go williams - see he has some and AC doesn't - we all remember your little run in the big bore section AC. Nothing like going up against a guy who owns a company in the industry with pics of ratty 30-30s, Jack daniels, and bad t-shirts in your mom's basement. Seriously this thread is over but I couldn't help it when I say you call into question Credibility. | |||
|
| one of us |
teal, You claim to be a member from May of 2004. How would you know about my run in the big bore forum? I also believe you wouldn't know credibility it if kicked your face in!! ASS_CLOWN | |||
|
| one of us |
See AC there is this little button on the top called "search" - when I want to know something I look for it. Came across your "big bore" 50 Beowolf. Thats how I noticed you. As for credibility - I have NEVER portrayed myself as anything other that what I have said. | |||
|
| one of us |
I also thought of something - I used to lurk here for a long time too. No need to register till I had something to say. To think I just joined in May cuz it is there is a bit wrong. | |||
|
| one of us |
Blue, Let us just say I enjoy the handle "ASS_CLOWN". I find that it causes me to be "less threatening" to some posters here. In the final analysis, I believe it is better that way. By the way, I have never cut chips for Allied Signal. A old friend of mine is a Chief Engineer for them, although he is in a different division than that for which triggergard provided parts. Teal, like I said before, it would seem that you would not know credibility, facts, or truth most likely, if any of all of them kicked your face in. Have a nice day, ASS_CLOWN | |||
|
| one of us |
Sorry guys I just couldn't keep from stepping in this one. It's pretty clear that our class clown really does have a clue when it comes to manufacturing. It's also pretty clear to me that Mr Williams is trying to market "again" tight tolerances that are not necessary in manufacturing the finest custom rifles available today. I'm assuming here that Matt is looking to build something to compete with the custom Mauser rifle builders, not the bench rest rifle builders/shooters. I hope Matt understands what happens when you take the closely clearenced receiver out on a real hunt and just happen to get it a little dirty. I'm not trying to pick on Matt here, just trying to point out my 2cents.. Matt W With regards to machinability, hardness specs, availability, and overall product quality, it's hard to beat 4140, ....................... It's hard to beat the price, but it's easy to make it smoother with case hardened 8620. It just requires more money to manufacture. From my notes from a TSJC NRA summer class Mausers are similar to 1330 or 1030 case hardened, pre64 M70 and Rem-- 4140, but I'm guessing that Rem took the cheaper way out and used pre hard around 32-35 RC. Ruger, Older Sako, & Husky are 4130. Dakota has used pre hardened P2"yuuuukkk", 4142, and 4140 in a variety of quality grades. Matt Case hardening was great on a Mauser 100 years ago, but while it will provide a harder surface than through hardening it lacks the ability to modify the receiver later without having to reheatreat the receiver....................................... Why would you want to modify on a new custom action when you have the ability to machine stuff to such close tolerances????????????? Matt to AC You've kinda jumped from one extreme to the other with your heat treating plans. On one hand you want the receiver to be extremely hard on the surface, but when through hardening you're talking about a much lower RC......................................... Looks to me like class clown is just documenting manufacturing processes that rifle manufacturers have been using for years. Case hardened "the best!!!" are allways harder and 4140 type actions are allways softer and not as smooth. Matt Our first plan was to use preheattreat 4140, but we've later changed our plans to use unhardened, rough it to within .030" on all critical surfaces, heat treat to 40-42, then remachine it............................ Why don't you use the forging process you use in the manufacture of your guards???? Doesn't 4140 machine like $h!t in it's unhardened state? Vs. the finish quality of Pre Hard. Matt's Marketing Essentially, a factory blueprint done better than obtainable on conventional equipment. The bolt would most likely be slightly higher on the C scale, but your limited to within a couple of points at the most. The same technique of rough machining would be used on it as well. With integral talley bases, and fully blueprinted to exceptionally tight tolearances, as well as offering wire edm'd triggers and sears with custom Oberndorf bottom metal, I don't see how you could call our receiver anything but a "true custom". The first part here kind of makes me think you have little respect for those very talented individuals who still turn the handles by hand, and you allways point out that CNC is so much better. Another one of those ever present marketing plugs. I'm not saying the marketing is wrong, just obvious. EDM is another cool thing to promote, but I don't think it can produce a better trigger/sear surface than the best abrasives. If you can produce an action that equalls the quality of fit, finish, function, and tolerance of the Commerical Mausers made on Manual machines without even high speed steel cutters then you really will have something. If you're looking to get them into $10,000+ rifles then they better look & work like a Mauser or M70, or the deep pocket collectors may not be so receptive to the "Latest and Greatest" Action design regardless of the tolerance! Not sure if you care, but the Dakota's ran around 32-35 C on the Rec and ~45C for the bolt. If you try to get these two #s too close like 1-3 points, you will get galling on the bolt. gunmaker | |||
|
| one of us |
Er, uh... yeah. So... is the Dakota African action larger than the standard 76 other than in length? Anyone know? | |||
|
| one of us |
When I worked there they were .700". They didn't have any problems with actions coming apart. Rec ring is the standard 1.350" OD. Other than being longer It's pretty much the same as a Pre 64 M70 short mag action. gunmaker | |||
|
| one of us |
Allen I've seen you post your complaint about the ball detent before. When I started in Dec. '92, they had replaced the detent with something more on the lines of the origional M70. I doubt they went back to using the detent after I left. As for the bolt stop, it does a much better job of sealing up the left raceway then the M70 style when a case lets go! It's pretty clear that Mr. Echols has the best taste when it comes to actions. Doesn't the H&W still have the .700" bolt? That was the origional question of this thread. I think that Granite Mt. uses a larger diameter for their big action. gunmaker | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Gunsmithing Different Dakota action for Rigby?
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
| View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Buddies |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Ignore List |
| Invite $GS_USERNAME to a Private Topic |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |