If you had to fire a huge overload in a rifle, which bolt action would you choose? Or do you think a Ruger Number 1 might be superior. Say something like a full case of 4198 in a 300 Win or 300 Wby. In other words, the sort of load where the rifle will not be usable after the shot is fired.

Mike

[ 10-12-2002, 11:40: Message edited by: Mike375 ]

M98 mauser.

Ruger#1

M38 Arisaka, according to P.O. Ackley's blowup tests.

(Don't try this at home or in the fields)

Some guy I read in one of the books "rechambered" an M38 Arisaka to 30-06, and went on a hunt and killed a deer with the rifle but was "suspicious" about the heavy recoil from the rifle. He brought the rifle to a gunsmith, the gunsmith examined the gun closely and told him that he just shot a .30 caliber through a .264 bore and killed a deer.

The hunter probably confused M38(6.5mm) with M99 which is a .311 bore. Some M99 near the end of war is crude and not as safe, avoid them.

Pyrotek

Most any of the falling block designs can withstand a much greater amount of pressure and abuse than a typical bolt-action, including Mausers.

Mike---

I'm not sure you can put enough of any reloading powder in a Ruger No 1 to make it fail enough to hurt you.

A M-98 will scatter parts away from the shooter but a ricochet might hurt you.

I would agree with the Ruger #1, but dear God I don't want to be the one to find out. I did have a brain fart the other day and get two boxes of ammo mixed up. I then proceeded to shoot a .338 Win Mag in a .300 Jarrett chamber. First time I ever did anything like that in 20 some years of reloading. Id got my attention, but did no damgage whatsoever to the Remington 700 or the chamber. So, I would say the 700s are pretty strong also.

Both these were shot in Remington bolt actions.

The nickle case is a wildcat 6mm with a tight neck that was shot without enough clearance. The bolt wouldn't open or close with the cartridge partially chambered so the customer hammered it closed and fired it. It broke the Sako-style extractor and set the lugs back .002.

The brass 6mm Remington case was shot in a M-721. It was loaded with 42 grains of some unidentified flake powder. It swelled the bolt face, broke the factory extractor and set the lugs .004.

The ammo was given the shooter by a widow. Makes me wonder how her husband died!!

I'd use an old military Mauser, because you can get them for $40 to $50 each. A Ruger #1 is too expensive and too nice a gun for me to blow up intentionally.

H. C.

Arisaka type 99

Mike, the strongest action for a strong overload is a liberal dose of common sense.

It's a lot easier to keep yourself out of trouble than to have to bail yourself out of trouble......

AD

Excellent action choice Allen!

Mike375, I have a serious question for you.

Why are you so obsessed with what effect an overloaded/overpressure cartridge would have on various actions?

I am serious. Do you routinely overload cartridges and are just wondering when to unload the rifle?

Axel

Allen,

I am interested to see peoples perceptions of the srongest actions.

So far it seems with the Arisaka actions that Ackleys books have had more influence than the stuff put out by Remington and Weatherby.

Mike

Jack,

In Australia we had a gunsmith called Jack Black who was then followed by his son Don. Jack was very much the bloke that got the 303/25s and 303/22s going and also 22/06s. Powders were not real available out here in the 60s. We had 4740 which was the powder Canada used to load 303 and the old 4831. 4740 was the most available.

Don Black was always of the opinion that for "testing purposes" an M17 with the extractor removed was the best action for the "most pressue and least gun damage"

I have often wondered if there was a huge overload would an open action like the M17 be better than those that "seal off" like Rem 700 and Wby Mark 5.

What are your thoughts.

Mike

They probably liked the M17 because of its big barrel thread - usually too much pressure in a single shot (like filling a case with unique or bullseye) splits the barrel just in front of the receiver. To get the lugs to let go usually takes several shots at slightly less pressure to open up the headspace first. With the P14 & M17 barrels having a bigger thread than any other common action they can take the most pressure before they blow.

If you really want something that can take high pressures get one of the universal receivers that the pressure labs use with test barrels for verifying test ammo loads - the "proof" loads and test loads used to delibrately blow up guns (100,000+ psi levels) to find out just how much the guns design can take. I don't know who makes these receivers, but several of the barrel makers internet sites state that they make barrels for these receivers and would likely tell you if you asked.

If I had to choose a rifle to deliberately destroy I would choose one of yours Mike.

I once saw 2 fellows put a cleaning rod in the barrel of a P-17 then load a military issue hardpoint cartridge and fire it. The barrel was blown out of the action but the action appeared unhurt. Also saw a hunter fire a P-14 300H+H with mud in the barrel. About 6" blew off the barrel,he sawed the end square and kept hunting. I would use an Enfield for sure.Mark

From evidence I had come into the shop, the Remington 700s are very good as are the Savage 110s. With both of these a severe overload, while it make render the rifle unusable, does not usually put the shooter in peril.
The No 1s may be stronger than any of the bolt guns.
I think thread diameter (within reason) is of less importance than some may think. Regards, Bill

I can't find it right now, but I remember reading on Mosin-Nagant about a couple guys who decided to blow up a M-N. They loaded it hot enough to extrude primer material into the bolt far enough to break the firing pin and had to use a hammer to open the bolt. There were no adverse effects on the action. I think they had pictures too.

Ryan

You guys want to conribute a few bucks, we all pitch in and buy some old guns and try to blow them up?

Take photos, put it online?

not to be outright destructive, but for the learning experience that you could share with others?

I mean, we all only have anecdotal evidence to go from....

GSXR7/11,

That is an excellent suggestion. We could get a M1917, Arisaka Type 99, Moison Nagant, M70, M77, M700, etc, etc. Load them up till they blow.

Once this is completed we can share all this very important information with the cyber world.

The question is, as I see it, do we limit our experiments to bolt actions, or do we include the lever and falling/rolling blocks as well?

Axel

P.O. Ackley already did this, he found the Type 38 Arisaka the strongest.

PO Ackley "tested" actions like a kid test firecrackers. What he found is absolutely useless to the shooter.....but fascinating to the student of early gunsmithing. He never tested an alloy Mauser, nickle steel Springfield, or any modern chrome-moly action.

You might want to rethink the blow ups. There have been some very serious injuries from fire on bolt closures with stock-less actions.

Besides, I've already blown or studied blow-ups of everything we've discussed so-far. The Japs are nothing special and can put out your left eye with deflected gas.

There are two general types of actions....they handle blow-ups totally different.

One "contains" the gas, Like the Remingtons, Weatherbys, Sakos, etc. Mostly push-feeds. They have limited ability to release gas in large amounts. The swell and lock up, but usually don't hurt you, but when they do it's very serious.

The other is built like a fireworks plant. The gas is turned loose early and deflected away from the shooter. Most controlled feed rifles are of that type. The very best of the bunch is the pre-war Model 98. The P-14 and P-17 works exactly the same way, but with much less protection to the shooter.
These rifles will often blow an extractor off and split the stock, but the action is usually totally unhurt and reuseable.

Jack,

Let's take a 270 as an example using a Mauser 98 and the current Model 70 Vs Weatherby Mark V or a Rem 700 if you prefer.

Now we will kick off with 60 grains of Varget or 4064 with 130 grain bullet. That will be at least 7 grains over a primer pocket loosening load. Then we will increase the pressure. maybe 60 grains of 3031 for the next load and so on.

We also use a different action for test load, so previous damage is not an issue.

In your opinion, at what points along the pressure graph will the Mauser 98/Model 70 be both superior and inferior to the Wby/Rem 700. We are also assuming that the rifle is being fired from the shoulder, so both shooter and action damage is to be considered.

Mike

Mike375, please do this. I suggest you video tape the experiment digitally and then Saeed can post it here for all to see.

Back many years ago I recall much bad press about Japanese "Mausers". You call them Arisaka type 38 and type 99. These rifles were "bigger" but hit and miss stronger. The Japanese increased the design safety factor, SIZE, of the action due to their horrendous steel quality. So if you happen to get one with a consistently good steel quality it is a very strong rifle. If you get one of the average steel quality, Japanese average is junk by the way, you have a rifle that is literally no stronger than a German M98. If you get one that was from a bad day, well use at your own risk. The Japanese reported many blow-ups of these guns in service. This was NOT a concern of a German soldier. A Mauser did NOT blow-up. It just did not have the rate of fire of the allies guns, this was the German soldiers complaint.

The Japanese are often credited with "inventing" steel. This may or may not be true. This is true however, the Japanese have only very recently, like the mid to late 1980's, learned what quality control is. The Japanese cars of the 70's rusted out in near desert conditions in a year. This was due to galvanic corrosion becasue the "steel" was so dissimilar it attacked itself! For the record, we Germans were making highly purified and alloyed "iron" 700 years ago.

Of course you continue to believe your vaunted PO Ackley. I have personally never understood what he did that was so great. Most of his writings are scary and full of crap. He seemed to have a VERY limited knowledge of physics and engineering, even though he was supposedly an engineer! His improved cartridges do not have enough additional powder capacity to achieve the velocity advances he claims unless of course you increase your operating pressures by 25% or more! If you are going to increase pressure, why bother rechambering to the Ackley improved chamber in the first place.

To use some good old American slang. PO Ackley was a HACK!!!!!!!!!!

Axel

Mike 375---

I went back nearly two years and re-read the thousands of words I've already written on exactly this question.....mostly from you, and I can't figure out if your memory is bad or you don't read answers, just ask questions.

As a lawyer would say, "Objection, ask and answered."

One more time---- The CRF action will let you know you've screwed up by blowing smoke and maybe opening the magazine box for you at a LOWER pressure level than a push feed. The action is still good. Some parts may be lost or damaged.

A pushfeed gives very little sign that you're stretching it's capability. Some have been tempted to continue shooting hot loads because the warning is not serious enough.....but when a push feed action gets to a certain limit, it can HURT you. A M-98 doesn't.

The difference is in the path the gas takes. Look at the two gas ports in a M-98, 03, M-70, M-77 bolt and compare it to the Mk-V or M-700. Smaller escape routes means higher velocity gas. Higher velocity means more concentrated heat, too.

Catastrophic failures are a result of bad metallurgy or improper ammo. That usually happens in pre-64 M-70s, small ring/large thread M-98s and the whole host of '91, 93 and 95 Mausers, Carcanos, and the miserable cast copys of 1903A3s by Sante Fe Arms.

BTW- I'm a FIRM believer in a case plumb full of slow powders. There is NO way to wreck a good action with the proper powder if the bolt closes normally.

JBelk,

From your posting:

A pushfeed gives very little sign that you're stretching it's capability. Some have been tempted to continue shooting hot loads because the warning is not serious enough.....but when a push feed action gets to a certain limit, it can HURT you. A M-98 doesn't.

I have always felt that in the process of working up loads as opposed to double charges, obstructions etc., all actions will bring the shooter to a stop because of hard extraction and in fact it would be actions like the Model 94 and SMLE that would be the safest as extraction difficulties will occur at lower pressures.

Perhaps in real world use, the Wby Mark V with its combination of cases with very little taper and the action having small primary extraction, maybe the most trouble free of all??

Mike

This is a job for Saeed and company.

There is this fellow (Clark M) over at H&R/NEF Talk (MarlinTalk forum) that has done things like this, even claiming to have done so working with (but not working for) various arms makers. He's blown up various types of actions, to see where their respective strengths are.
Athough I found this foolish, it still made for interesting reading. ~~~Suluuq

[ 10-20-2002, 11:44: Message edited by: Rusty Gunn ]

Rusty Gunn--

I found out many years ago that what happens to the action really isn't an issue. All my test have been to find out where the injury-causing debris goes and at what energy level.

When I was a teen-ager I blew up a gun a week, "testing" different cheap actions trying to figure out how actions worked and how they failed. Looking back on it those test were no better than Parker Ackley's and therefore nothing but entertainment.....very little actual knowledge once the basics of the various actions was determined.

Overload testing is best done with a registering medium that represents the injury probability of the debris.

The absolute strongest, toughest, most blow up proof action in the world is still a useless, dangerous SOB if the first leaking primer puts out your shooting eye.

The Safety of an action has little to do with strength.

[ 10-20-2002, 18:50: Message edited by: JBelk ]