The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Gunsmithing Progress PhotosGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Progress Photos | Login/Join |
| One of Us |
The evaluation of the strength reduction is a matter of simple MATH. Hov many % do you reduce the shear area that supports the lugs. And hov many mm2 do you increase the internal presurearea inside a magnum, compared to a 8x57 case. Then you also include the increased max presure in those 2 types of calibers. Vola now you have a formula to evaluate thrust and strength before and after the surgury. I have not done any evaluations of your particular rebuild, as i dont know the yield and rupturestrength of the actual action. According the flying bolt we performed 2 tests, where we remooved the lugs, and just inserted a loos fieringpin . We posistioned the barreled action verticaly, loaded it with a factoryloaded 6,5x55, i hammered the firingpin with an old riflestock to gain a little distance, from the eksperiment. Ther vas a loud boom, the but of the hammering stock was split longitualy. And the bolt flew. My colegue was standing on a roof 5 meters abov. He described that he heard the boom, and some woodsplinters hitting some trees beside. he saw the bolt flying higher than he was able to see. When the bolt was out of sight, he counted slowly to 3, then the bolt apeared from the sky, and apx 3 seconds later it hit the ground. I must admit, that the 50yd was a guess. Rethinking it might be quite a bit higher(sorry for my poor estimating) | |||
|
| One of Us |
OK...so you removed the lugs and the bolt went flying...I believe that! A couple questions: Why on earth would you remove the lugs unless you EXPECTED the bolt launch...Certainly you don't do this to a useable rifle????two: When you load up to 6500 bar....a "normal" range is around 3500 bar???close enough? A proof load would be somewhere around 4000 bar (correct the numbers if you wish) But 6500 bar?? give me a break! Oh by the way, still haven't soiled my underwear. Best regards, Duane | |||
|
| One of Us |
The reason i did the test with removed lugs, vas to test what would happen if a firingpin breaks in the springloaded area, before the bolt is fully closed. This because we have expierinced that on 1 of our rifles. Among others this ultimate test led to recaling 9000 rifles for changing of firingpins, to a mutch tougher material. The 6500 bar load was during a testsesion, where we tryed to compare the strength of several diferent types of actions. We made a series of completly identical 6,5x55 barrels, chambered them with the same reamer, and installed them on 6 diferent actionstype. We loaded with Norma n200 powder and a 160grains bullet, constantly incresing loads by 1 grain of powder. Then we fiered 1 round with the lowest charge in each rifle(the chamber was oiled, to provide max boltthrust) If the action survived, it continued to next round, with 1 grain extra powder. We continued till all actions was destroyed, or unable to function. The m96 and m98 blew at 6500 bar Most likely becaus of the CRF lacking to support the casehead. There was complete casehead seperation, major lugsetback, and cracked reciever. On the m98, the lugsetback led to the third lug engaging, resulting in the reciever was pulled apart in the thumbcut. The next 2 rifles blew at 9000 bar. It was a PF Varberg and a PF tikka 695. A PF remmington 700 and another PF rifle blew at 10500bar. Actualy at the presure wher the mausers blew, you could hardly feel heavy boltlift at the other rifles. BTW the reason i asked the safetyquestion, was absolutely not to be offencive. But i find your work so beautyfull, impressive and talented, that i expected you to have done some test or calculations | |||
|
| One of Us |
Interesting...but I really don't see the point in increasing pressure approx 300%....except to prove a point I guess?? Put a quarter pound of dynamite in a jar of pickles and you'll probably end up with pickle relish. No offense taken. Enjoyed the conversation... Best regards Duane | |||
|
| One of Us |
The reasons for the extrem test was an interest in knowing if there were diference in the strenght of diferent actions types. Basicaly to se how they reacted in case of total failure (a reloader using wrong powder). You can compare those tests to what the automobile industry does when chrashtesting new models. There are indications from this test, that althoug a m98 withstand the same static bolt thrust(delivered from a hydraulic press) as the modern actions. It failed way earlier. My best guess is because of the CRF lack of support of the casehead.. This might be a bigger issue on standard cases with large primers, compared to magnum casehead diameters. When testing standard cases with high presuer loads, the casehead will float out to the unsuported side in the CRF boltface. Leading to highly increased presure area ( from .75cm2 to 1.7cm2) While the PF rifles was able to support the casehead way longer, keeping the presure aerea intact. The remmington with its original extractor was one of the two best, while the PF rifles with Sako type extractors stod up for somthing in betwen a CRF and a ultimativ PF. During the testsession we also videofilmed the blowup, to evaluate "passive safety". Does, or how does a blowup harm the shooter, when shitt happens. This including flying parts, leaking gas and powder, and brass residues. | |||
|
one of us |
Your "extrem test" bears no relation to automotive crash testing. Removing the locking lugs and increasing pressure to 6500 Bar is the equivalent of driving a car off a 1,000 foot cliff; it's no longer a test its a stunt. Anytime metal is removed from an action, the margin of safety is reduced by some amount. If too much metal is removed from behind the lug recesses of a M98 and one continuously fires over-pressure ammunition two things occur: first, the lugs will progressively setback and eventually you might get enough excess headspace that the cases rupture. Somewhere in this process, any shooter with half a brain will notice the progressive malfunction and cease shooting the rifle. A hundred years of real-world experience with thousand upon thousands of rifles has proven that catastrophic failure (with projectile bolts) is not in the cards. ______________________________ "Truth is the daughter of time." Francis Bacon | |||
|
| One of Us |
DRSS: HQ Scandinavia. Chapters in Sweden & Norway | |||
|
| One of Us |
A wise man once said "absens of evidence, is not evidence of absence" There are at least 5 documented cases in Denmark and Norway within the last 2 years of flying bolts, 4 caused by fieringpinns breaking when starting to close the bolt, but before the bolt was locked enough to stand the presure. 1 person lost a toe 1 person broke his thumb 1 person damaged his hand and had particles in his face 2 persons were unharmed. The removal of the lugs was to test worse case senario. If 6500 bar of presure is the equivalent of driving a car off a 1000 foot cliff. Please tell me why 4 of 6 rifleactions handled the presure with no problems????? Tell me of any car falling of a 1000foot cliff unharmed. Fiering a rifle with normal loads equals driving your car every day, without crashing. Crashtest is not performed to test avarage daily driving. It is performed to se what hapens when things suddently goes wrong. Not when sombody slowly pushes the limmit. With your complete rejections of preforming highpresure test, please tell me, have you ever tested your ideas of what hapens when altering actions, or are you just guessing. Guess you never heard of a reloader using wrong powder, by accident. Guess you never expierienced a load developed in cold weather showing excessive presure if stored in a hot car in summer. Guess you never heard of a bullet stuck in the barrel, and then the shooter fieres another. That is all possible things to hapen, Thats why manufactures of firearms , and competent gunsmiths performs tests. Instead of just relying on what they never heard of. In your world a gunsmith living on an island, with no contact to the rest of the world, could concider everything safe, as he never heard of anything going wrong | |||
|
| one of us |
YOU SAID YOU REMOVED THE LOCKING LUGS AND LUBRICATED THE CHAMBER. Are you telling us that 4 of the 6 action with their locking lugs removed and chambers lubricated didn't fail? How is that so? You are hereby crowned king of the absurd. I'm not interested in contesting your reign. Long live the king. ______________________________ "Truth is the daughter of time." Francis Bacon | |||
|
| one of us |
Locking lugs are for sissies...a real man just holds the bolt closed.  | |||
|
| One of Us |
I prefer to look at your total misunderstanding of my testing, as a result of my poor writing. I will try once more werry slowly. The test with removed lugs was performed with standard factoryloaded ammo, to evaluate what would happen if a fieringpin breaks near the cockingpice, while starting to rotate the bolt at the end of a reloadingcycle. The high presure tests was a totaly different senario, performed to compare the strength of different action types, and evaluate what hapens if a total failure occured. The Highpresure sests was as i described with fully funchional actions WITH INTACT LUGS (at least before failing.) If your misunderstanding is caused by a interest in unfruitfull discussion of no real substance, please tell, so i dont need to waste your time. I hope the first is the matter Best regards Jørgen | |||
|
One of Us |
We should probably start a new thread rather than destroying this one. But, while we're here,  I understand what Jorgen is saying about removing the lugs to simulate a firing pin break with the bolt out of battery, but Jorgen, I'm wondering why there were no "built in" stops on those firing pins that broke, that would prevent excess protrusion that would result in a hard primer strike while the bolt is out of battery.  _______________________________________________________________________________ This is my rifle, there are many like it but this one is mine. My rifle is my best friend, it is my life. | |||
|
| One of Us |
On 99% of modern firearms, where the fieringpinn is joined to the cockingpice by treads or crosspinns, it is dificult to locate a type of stop, that directly block the firingpin. this function is done by the cockingpice and the cammingspiral. One of the few where there is a function as described, is the m98, But even here it is posible to overrule the function, if the fieringpinn breaks under the middle of the spring | |||
|
One of Us |
First; I hate to see this thread ruined by this discussion. I wish a moderator and Jørgen can agree to moove this discussion to a new thread. Second; Jørgens testing should be interesting for all of us, as they are pretty genuine. He might have problems to express himself, but if we try to read what he writes, instead of trying to find faults in his presentation, it is - as a gun-nut - hard not to be interested. Bent Fossdal Reiso 5685 Uggdal Norway | |||
|
one of us |
Bent, I agree with you...BUT, it felt like he was "testing" Wiebe. It's a bit difficult, not to respond to that! I hope it's a translation thing. Roger Kehr Kehr Engraving Company (360)456-0831 | |||
|
| one of us |
Juergen, Pimping your Schulz and Larsens again? Oh no, you're not. Are you?  Mehul Kamdar "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."-- Patrick Henry | |||
|
| One of Us |
If this part should be mooved to another thread it is fine for me. The reason i asked Duane, is that this issue interest me, and as i find Duane extremly qualified and talented(those people are hard to find) I was wery interested in what thoughts he has done about the issue. It could easily have ben, that he has done some kinds of calculations or tests. To be a little offencive , many of the participants on most of those internet debates, "dont know shitt from shinola". But that certainly dont stop them from pretending. And manny becomes insecure, when confronted, whitch often leads to a unplesand responce. I have no chance to dothe calculations as i dont know how mutch material he has removed, or excactly where it has ben removed. The facts that a so skilled person does the conversion, might leed others to do somthing that they BELIVE is the same. Perhaps removing more material at critical points, or using actions of poorer steelquality. I se the actions used her is DWM mausers, whitch is accepted to be of high quality, compared to many other makes. The fact that this conversion has ben performed many times, and only a few has heard of failures, and the more it is described without propper warning, about not remowing to mutch material forwards, and only to do this on actions of wery high quality. Could lead to many less expieienced rebuilders dooing it. Thinking this is newer a problem, as we have seen it so many times. | |||
|
| One of Us |
No i dont need to do that, as i always have my good friend Mehul, promotintg the brand name. You might lead someone to thing that i pay you to always promote the name. You know that many marketing peoples has the idea that the more a name is mentioned, the stronger the brand. But please dont expect us to send you a check for the promotion job, as we dont need to spend money on that kind of stuff. It would be exelent to moowe those 2 post to another garbagecan, as i dont want to negotiate marketing fees publicaly. PS are you still pissed of that we never qoted you the rifles you inquired about 7-9 years ago?? | |||
|
| one of us |
I agree in part, again. Once again, though... Because you have completed these test compared to those who haven't doesn't indicate that we/they are obvious idgits. I'm sure that your test have proven something in very broad terms. Not exactly the most scientific form of testing though. Good luck to you Roger Kehr Kehr Engraving Company (360)456-0831 | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia