http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=183178;artic...eder%20Custom%20Guns

"Gary Reeder
another piece of shit cartridge
Tue Jul 26, 2005 17:33
216.19.36.81


We have been working hard for 2 weeks now trying to get a 270 WSM to shoot in a Ruger #1. This cartridge is such a piece of crap. No matter what you do it totally flattens out the primer, craters it and in some instances blows it completely out of the case. The Ruger #1, not having a locking bolt, will simply not handle such pressures and back thrust. I called a tech friend of mine and asked if he had any such problems. About half way theu the explanation, he started laughing and said he knew exactly what we were going thru. he said he wouldn't touch that cartridge or any of the WSMs, no matter what. I also called a good friend who builds $5000 rifles and he said almost exactly the same thing.
What an overloaded piece of shit the 270 WSM is. I can't believe they actually sell any of them.
gary"


Guys,

According to a post from the above link, this custom gun builder named Gary Reeder trashing the Ruger No 1 for not being strong enough for the 270 WSM simply because it does not have the locking lugs like a bolt action rifle. Does he know what the hell is he talking about? I thought that the Ruger falling block action is one of the stronger actions in a rifle, if not stronger than a bolt action. Does anyone have any insight about this subject? Thanks!

Not enough for the .270 and my Lott shoots fine? I think he was trashing the .270WSM and the others as well.
Gene

Maybe he should punt?.....

Actually the Ruger #1 is strong enough that
you can run dangerous pressures and the
breech will still open.It will handle any
pressures that the best brass will handle.
As for WUSSAMS,SAUMEES.
and all the other short crap, from gun companies,and some shooters, etc, fostered on gun owners, they are like unto
crap. The idea of shorter cases to
save action weight of
4 ounces, by shortening bolt actions a 1/4 inch, to replace a whole slew of cases that
worked fine for years, boggles the mind.
And with higher pressures to be comparable!!Ed

quote:

What an overloaded piece of shit the 270 WSM is. I can't believe they actually sell any of them.

Ruger again!!!!

I too have always been led to believe that the Ruger falling block action was stronger than a bolt action and could handle things loaded pretty hot.

Red

I don't understand Gary Reeder's logic. Is the Ruger No. 1 failing? Is it still functioning? What on the Ruger isn't working? Since they are seeing indications of such high pressure perhaps they had better look at the custom work they did before they blame the rifle or the cartridge. Did they chamber the rifle with insufficient leade? Is the bullet being pressed into the rifling leaving no room for bullet jump and pressure release on firing? Have they done something as dumb as using a 6.5 barrel for a .270? Are they using factory ammo or some bozo's reloads? I really see no use for the rants without the physical facts. He needs to tell us exactly what is happening instead of just venting his frustrations. I find little value in his writing.

If this is instead a pure factory gun, then ship it back to Ruger!

Ed-I know you ususally build rifles that are literally too large fo rme to hold up, and DEFINITELY too large for me to shoot, but there is a palce for short actions and their acrdiges. Try building a true sheep rifle that goes 5# even with a 3-9 scope attached on a long action-damn near impossible. I know that true Alpine hunters are not that common and most folks don't care, but there is a small niche with a legitimate need for the short actions. I do imagine that niche is slightly alrger than the one for the folks with cods big enough to shoot 2 bores! I know I sure don't qualify for the second group of shooters!!!

I think that Gary needs to defend his take on the Number 1. I'm not sure his whole view on the Number 1 action is presented.
As for the WSM's, that's another issue. I won't own any, but for other reasons. I have enough feeding trouble with my 22BR.. Don't need any more.
Don

Not to defend the posted comments attributed to Mr. Reeder, but I see some potential for validity in his remarks. Whether my conjecture is valid is up to the engineers amongst you to evaluate.

The short mags are little more than a marketing ploy IMO, and at that they provide no discernable ballistic advantage over the same caliber rounds they are intended to supplant. The .300 SAUM essentially replicates the performance of the .300 Win, the 7mm does the same to the 7mm Rem. They do this with in the main with shorter cases, larger diameter cases and apparently a lot of pressure, else the case walls would not be measurably thicker.

Increase the case head diameter and you increase bolt thrust in absolute values. So too with higher pressures. I'm guessing that the thicker brass makes it less likely that the case walls will grip the chamber walls as well as thinner brass, especially with nickle plated brass. Given those assumptions it is not unreasonable that unless the headspace is accurate within very small tolerance that a lot of primers are going to be very flat after shooting. This seems to be a common Q&A issue on the forums in regards the short mags, people used to the old way checking in and saying "WTF?".

In regards the #1 action, I am in general a believer in its strength and assume it equivalent to the average bolt gun if not superior. What I do not know, nor have I ever seen discussion on is the tolerances of the bolt/receiver interface and what happens to the action when it is substantially stressed. In other words, how does it flex, and what does this cause? I assume that such yielding of the action(they all do) is a function of absolute force applied to the block face by the case head, just as bolt guns transfer it to the receiver rings via the lugs. The designs are quite different, and I must assume the dynamics are different as well.

Somewhat like OEH I wish Mr. Reeder would flesh out his thoughts on the subject, but I would caution you all that he is no Johnny-come-lately to the gun building business and I doubt his posted comments are properly dismissed as the rantings of a fool.

Adjusted for inflation based on 1976 valuations, that is my .02 worth.

Good points Dan. It's not enough to just say it's crap we have to know exactly what's happening.That's like the 40S&W and kabooms.It's an excellent cartridge but a number of handling, reloading and gun design problems have given it a bad name by some.

While I am not a fan of all the new "Super" cartridges, I think the comments about the Ruger are way off base. For one thing, I'm not sure what a "locking bolt" is. Bolt action rifles no more lock up than a falling block. The only difference is rotary vs linear engagement of the lugs. In the case of a falling block, it is one huge lug. The bolt cams into place, but generally so do falling blocks. The block generally travels at slight inward angle to force a tight fit in the chamber. I have never measured, but the locking surface on a No. 1 seems much larger than the total locking lug area on a M98, for instance. Finally, the distance from the breech face to the action cuts (which is the critical dimension for flexing) seems to be similar in the No. 1 and bolt actions. Only when you get into something like a rear locking bolt ala the Remington 788 of something unsupported like a double rifle or TC Contender do you get a much increased chance of action flex.

I have seen No. 1's take some enormous loads, and a lot of experts have opined that it is likely the strongest rifle action in existance.
If you are getting flattened primers and high pressure signs with action functioning normally, the action is certainly doing its job. The problem lies in the ammo or the chamber.

I tend to agree with Digital Dan and his theories. I sense a lot of frustration in Reeders post. Been there too. I do feel the Ruger #1/#3 is a strong action having put some awfully potent cartridges into them in the past but never the WSM or SAUM. Done several in the Rem Ultra-Mag with no problems. I recently built a 6.5 SAUM. The bottom line was to see if a SAUM could meet/beat a 264 Win Mag with a shorter barrel and less weight. Two barrels later and a lot of #$^%^%$ etc mission accomplished. I think the SAUM ans WSM were designed to operate at a whole lot more pressure than a common cartridge like the 30-06 etc. I am told 60,000 psi and such. Same with the little PPCs. With the weakest link in the chain being the case high quality brass should be tantamount, is the present production Rem/Win brass up to the task? I don`t know! Fortunately I am getting the required velocities and accuracy from my 6.5 SAUM at middle of the chart loadings. Straight wall might cause more back thrust to the bolt but Ackley thought different I believe I read in one of his books somewhere. I think there is a place for ALL endeavors of the manufacturers. A short light rifle is fine for me. With 3 back surgeries, COPD, a bad leg I most likely shouldn`t be out hunting at all but if I can somehow manage to make it through the day and still not need anything stronger than a Tylenol so much the better. Hence a light weight rifle helps a lot. Media HYPE!! Certainly! Remember the fins on the old Caddies and Plymouth Furys?? Sold a lot of cars. Stagnation of a market is bad too. I wonder just how long a company can stay alive selling the same old stuff year after year even if it REALLY is all that most hunters will ever need? I kinda look forward to the "New Additions" as time goes on. More cases to wildcat!! This is just me speaking and my .02.

Aloha, Mark

I've got a portion of a 22/250 case from a guy who sort of overloaded a #1 by not checking his powder measure and loading up a case full of unique. It bent and cracked the extractor, split the stock down the center, blew off the forend, but the action held just fine and was no even harmed. I think the #1 should hold the 270 short mag just fine.

It seems to me that the Ruger No. 1 has held the various Weatherby Magnums for many years with no problems, and we all know that these are noted for being loaded to some pretty high pressures.

However, I do recall that when the No. 1 first came out, it was chambered for the .308 Winchester as well as the many other popular cartridges of the day. For some reason, Ruger could never get the .308 chambering in the No. 1 to produce acceptable accuracy, and they dropped that chambering. I assume that the problem had nothing to do with pressure, since the No. 1 was handling other cartridges with high pressures quite acceptably. There was just something about the .308 ....

I believe the key to the current problem is summarized by

quote:

What an overloaded piece of shit the 270 WSM is. I can't believe they actually sell any of them.

Which pretty much applies to ALL the new "super" short fat magnums.....

I have a #1 in 7mm mag and have "overloaded" it and noticed no problems withextraction or with the brass.

I think it was about 7 grains over max of H1000 behind a 175 Nosler Partition.

Twas to be my "Elk Hunting" load

Just a comment on the short magnum cartridges. If they had never been developed I don't think we would have missed much. I am having good luck with the 300 WSM I built, but if I hadn't had the magnum bolt faced short action I don't think I ever would have built one. The 300 Win Mag easily does more than what the 300 WSM will ever do. I think of my 300 WSM as a hot 30-06 only. If someone offered me a plain jane 300 Win Mag in trade I'd take it and have no regrets.

I didn't read Ruger bashing into his comments as much as disparagement for the cartridge.

There are a couple of guys on the Shortmag forum that have built WSM's on falling block Browning actions without problems . Think they've done Rugers as well .
My bedded model 70 featherweight 7mm WSM shoots 5 shots under MOA with Nosler ballistic tips and velocities close to factory specs . No problem with overly flat primers , feeding or extraction .
A world record group was shot at 1000 yds with the 7mm WSM a year or so ago. Sorry , but unlike some of the traditionalists here I'm not convinced that all the cartridges developed in the last 20 years are a POS . Sure , in many cases there are older cartridges that will do the same thing just as well .
Some of the Winchester .270 WSM factory loads that I have seen were so hot in a friend's Savage that you could hardly read the headstamp when extracted . Primers were seriously flat . Could this be the source of the problem ?
I bought some factory loads when starting out as I couldn't get brass . Having seen how hot the factory loads were I dropped 1 1/2 grains of powder out of each before I fired them . Still chronographed within 50 or so FPS of factory specs and required FL sizing to rechamber .

He said flattened primers, cratered primers and in some case blown primers. Either he has a REALLY poor chamber or they're handloads and he needs some lessons.

Maybe (since he's known for pistols) he just isn't familiar enough with the gun to get it right.

Sorry for coming so late to this discussion...

Am I getting older or does no one else remember the experiment Bill Ruger did on the Model 1 (and I believe was writen up by the late John Amber) back in the '60's.

They took a Model 1 in either 270 Winchester or 30-06, and loaded the case full (compressed) of Bullseye powder, pulled the trigger with a (long) string, and then examined the rifle.

The action and barrel held together just fine...they couldn't open the falling block, and I think later cut it open with a band saw...brass was disintegrated.

The point being it is probably one of the strongest actions out there.
There might be problems with that particular rifle, but it's not the strength of the action that is the issue.

Garrett

Thanks guys for all the replies. I was originally planning to have Gary Reeder build me a custom handgun and have followed his comments closely posted on his Internet board. However, after reading some of his gun building comments (actually not just this particular one but many others previously), I have decided to stay away from him. Obviously, he can build custom guns and has a royal group of followers, but so what, as some of his gun related comments are jus plan ridiculous and I almost fell off the chair from laughing every time.

Obviously there is a lot of personal bias in his remarks.

The only thing I see wrong with the WSM's is the hype. Otherwise there is nothing wrong with them. Compared to other Mags they are really not fat at all, just short and beltless. I consider that an improvement over many of them.

Digital Dan always posts what I would post, if I were that smart.