quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:
Vapodog i think you should rethink your conclution about what split the reciecer.
After several deliberat blowup tests i ame 99% sure that the reason for the split reciever is High preasure making the chamberend of the barrel expand, and therby splitting the reciever. Basicaly because the casediameter is pretty large compared to wallthiknes in the chamber.
If the casehead has punctured earlier it would prevent the preasure to rise further, and imediatly after caserupture the preasure would drop dramaticaly, because the accesable volume is more than dubbeled. With the untightnes about lugs in raceways and the gasescapeholes in reciever it is not possible to split reciever because of gass efecting on reciever surfaces.

Jorgen
the most perplexing thing I've seen in recent history is the photos of the blown up Sakos.....a fine gun (normally) but the barrels was split and they did seem to suggest your theory that the splitting barrel also took the receiver ring with it and so went the action as well.

They did not seem to show restricted as that usually looks different and bulged foreward of the hearty part of the barrel steel ahead of the chamber.

We never got a explanation from Sako on this except to say it was fairly clear that metallurgical issues were to blame. They was made of defective materials. It's very rare to see split barrels.....but not so rare to see blown up actions.

I must discount the barrel splitting theory.

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

quote:

the reason for the split reciever is High preasure making the chamberend of the barrel expand, and therby splitting the reciever.

If that was true then explain why this bolt face was removed from an undamaged receiver.....as Fjold stated on another thread. It had a .308 round detonated in a 25-06 chamber.....The pressure had to be astronomical yet since there was no pressure released to the innerring (there was no place for the brass case to rupture to release gas) there was no damage to the receiver.

The main diference is that the split reciever was exposed to an 375 ultramag, as i understod, and the boltface with the case stil in, was a 308 in an 06 chamber, and to be honnest i dont think there is enough powder in an 308 to produce enough gas to blow up a 06 chamber

quote:

The main diference is that the split reciever was exposed to an 375 ultramag, as i understod, and the boltface with the case stil in, was a 308 in an 06 chamber, and to be honnest i dont think there is enough powder in an 308 to produce enough gas to blow up a 06 chamber

when we try to push a .308 bullet thru a .257 diameter hole there's more than enough powder to raise pressures to do exactly that.....and I mean far more than enough.

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:
Vapodog i think you should rethink your conclution about what split the reciecer.
After several deliberat blowup tests i ame 99% sure that the reason for the split reciever is High preasure making the chamberend of the barrel expand, and therby splitting the reciever. Basicaly because the casediameter is pretty large compared to wallthiknes in the chamber.
If the casehead has punctured earlier it would prevent the preasure to rise further, and imediatly after caserupture the preasure would drop dramaticaly, because the accesable volume is more than dubbeled. With the untightnes about lugs in raceways and the gasescapeholes in reciever it is not possible to split reciever because of gass efecting on reciever surfaces.

Jorgen
the most perplexing thing I've seen in recent history is the photos of the blown up Sakos.....a fine gun (normally) but the barrels was split and they did seem to suggest your theory that the splitting barrel also took the receiver ring with it and so went the action as well.

They did not seem to show restricted as that usually looks different and bulged foreward of the hearty part of the barrel steel ahead of the chamber.

We never got a explanation from Sako on this except to say it was fairly clear that metallurgical issues were to blame. They was made of defective materials. It's very rare to see split barrels.....but not so rare to see blown up actions.

I must discount the barrel splitting theory.

I ame not sure what you meen by discount the theory?

From what i hawe seen of the blown up Sako's and tikka's, they were all Stainless and also fluted, that might in my vue be the basical reason.

Your statment on only having seen CRF actions split, is that not revieved now

quote:

when we try to push a .308 bullet thru a .257 diameter hole there's more than enough powder to raise pressures to do exactly that.....and I mean far more than enough.

From the tests i have performed, i have never ben able to blow up an 308, with just 4 inch of free barrel, even with 2 extra bullets pushed into the barrel before firing,.
With the extra volume in the 06 chamber i dont think that a strong action will give way

Other than the word of a guy that used to work at Remington in the 1940’s and 50’s I have no proof of this...but I was told by this guy that Remington only put the gas vent hole in the side of the receiver to please the lawyers and the public. Rather than trying to control or vent gas that has made its way into the receiver area due to a blown case, Mike Walker’s design goal with his 3-Rings of steel and counterbored bolt nose was to prevent it from ever getting there in the first place.

You can hate their quality control, the “flimsy†extractors, and those pesky brazed on bolt handles, but for utter strength and containment of gas they are pretty damned hard to beat.

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:

quote:

when we try to push a .308 bullet thru a .257 diameter hole there's more than enough powder to raise pressures to do exactly that.....and I mean far more than enough.

From the tests i have performed, i have never ben able to blow up an 308, with just 4 inch of free barrel, even with 2 extra bullets pushed into the barrel before firing,.
With the extra volume in the 06 chamber i dont think that a strong action will give way

have you ever tried firing a .308 in a .25-06 barrel on a '98 mauser action?.....try it.....but have a block wall between you and the gun!!!

quote:

Your statment on only having seen CRF actions split, is that not revieved now Wink

with the exceptions of the Sakos (which had obviously defective materials) that statement stands as I made it.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
Rather than trying to control or vent gas that has made its way into the receiver area due to a blown case, Mike Walker’s design goal with his 3-Rings of steel and counterbored bolt nose was to prevent it from ever getting there in the first place.

My fear with this design is that in the case of a barrel obstruction the gas is contained much longer, resulting in a much higher pressure at the rupture point and a bigger bang in your face.

Working in an industrial environment for my entire career thus far, I much prefer controlled failure at lower pressures to trying to contain the (occasionally) uncontainable!

quote:

Originally posted by CDH:

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
Rather than trying to control or vent gas that has made its way into the receiver area due to a blown case, Mike Walker’s design goal with his 3-Rings of steel and counterbored bolt nose was to prevent it from ever getting there in the first place.

My fear with this design is that in the case of a barrel obstruction the gas is contained much longer, resulting in a much higher pressure at the rupture point and a bigger bang in your face.

Working in an industrial environment for my entire career thus far, I much prefer controlled failure at lower pressures to trying to contain the (occasionally) uncontainable!

I can understand that, but the design is not “air tight“...and almost 60 years has proven that it is one of the strongest designs ever made. It may have happened, but I haven’t seen any 700’s with a receiver that looked like that Savage. I’ve seen them with the bolt nose destroyed, and/or badly damaged, but the receiver wasn’t damaged at all.

I think a barrel obstruction in a 700 would bulge/split the barrel way before the receiver would let go.

Oh, and FWIW, concerning the original thread subject, my M77 MKII (.280 REM) acts as a perfect CRF unless the bolt is operated painfully slow and the muzzle is pointed nearly vertically down.

Work the bolt at anything approaching a normal pace, even when pointing down, it works as CRF for all 4 rounds in the magazine. Work it slow and it does fail to capture the cartridge as it snaps up. Point it near horizontal and it works CRF every time.

That's the problem I have with experiments like this...they don't represent anything approaching real world situations. For 99.999% of the time, it works as CRF just fine. In panic mode with fast bolt operation, it works BETTER!

My apologies to JJHack for the hijacking of his thread.....

quote:

Originally posted by CDH:
Oh, and FWIW, concerning the original thread subject, my M77 MKII (.280 REM) acts as a perfect CRF unless the bolt is operated painfully slow and the muzzle is pointed nearly vertically down.

Work the bolt at anything approaching a normal pace, even when pointing down, it works as CRF for all 4 rounds in the magazine. Work it slow and it does fail to capture the cartridge as it snaps up. Point it near horizontal and it works CRF every time.

That's the problem I have with experiments like this...they don't represent anything approaching real world situations. For 99.999% of the time, it works as CRF just fine. In panic mode with fast bolt operation, it works BETTER!

If you operate the bolt of your Ruger rapidly in “panic mode†how would you knoow, and why would you even care, if the extractor had snapped over the case rim at point A or at point B? Either way, it seems as though your Ruger works quite well so what difference would it make other than being able to tell people you have a CRF rifle?

Like I said, these experiments don't represent the real world operation of most rifles.

As to why I like true CRF, I got into the habit of unloading by operating the bolt since my first 2 rifles were converted military Mausers without hinged floorplates. Push feeds sometimes (usually?) require bolt closing for the extracter to grab and allow cartridge ejecting. True CRF doesn't, making it that little bit faster and safer. Without the bolt closed, it CAN'T fire... A Remington ADL (as an example, nit bashing!) can while unloading because the bolt has to be closed on each round.

Immaterial for 99.999% of us, yeah, but most personal preferences are that way, aren't they!?!?

9.3x62

I think the RSM's CRF perfectly, the standard ones are spotty. Mine will control it when it leaves the mag., the problem is that is contained until it's over halfway closed. The .416 bolt has the case under control before the bolt moves an inch or less and feeds perfectly even with North Fork solids with the flat point.

quote:

Originally posted by jstevens:
9.3x62

I think the RSM's CRF perfectly, the standard ones are spotty. Mine will control it when it leaves the mag., the problem is that is contained until it's over halfway closed. The .416 bolt has the case under control before the bolt moves an inch or less and feeds perfectly even with North Fork solids with the flat point.

Just curious, where is the tip of the round when the extractor snaps over the case rim?

quote:

Originally posted by CDH:
Push feeds sometimes (usually?) require bolt closing for the extracter to grab and allow cartridge ejecting.

Now I've heard everything.
The story here on AR is that to unload a PF you'd only have to lie on your back and cartridges will fall out before they get into the chamber. (Or cant it a bit, or run with the action open, or just pluck the rounds out as they pop up out of the magazine, etc.etc.)

CDH, try holding the muzzle up, tip the rifle over towards the ejection port a bit, work the bolt about half way, and give it a little shake.
These PF's are hopeless.

I have a Ruger 77MkII, a M70 (1957) and a Mauser - all behave exactly the same... they feed flawlessly, UNLESS I feed real slow while pointing the muzzle straight down while I'm lying on my back whilst rolling down the side of a hill while being chased by aggressive koala bears...

I make a point of using my rifles the way they were intended to be used... and in every case, they all work flawlessly.

Am I doing something wrong?

Rugers and Winchesters are hit or miss. I have never viewed them as being CRF because of this.

The only rifles I consider to be guaranteed CRF designs are Mannlicher-Schoenauers and model 98 pattern Mausers in their original chambering.

M77's and M70's fall into the "everything else" category, along with push feeds, lever actions and muzzle loaders.

The CZ550's made in the Czech-Republic seem to have about a 99.9% CRF approval rating. The ones that have been screwed with by CZ-USA fall into the "everything else" category.

Jim,

send it back to Ruger and see what they do. It will cost you about $11 from Washington. What have you got to loose?

quote:

Originally posted by KurtC:
Rugers and Winchesters are hit or miss. I have never viewed them as being CRF because of this.

The only rifles I consider to be guaranteed CRF designs are Mannlicher-Schoenauers and model 98 pattern Mausers in their original chambering.

So,
unless it's an original MS or m98 in their "as built" confirm, you think these are the only "real" crfs.

Okay, I disagee, but heck, I ain't buying anyone's guns but my own.

Rugers, btw, should contained to mkII as CRF, and mkI as PF ...

much like winchesters, with a PF about the same time frame.


of course no one has ever had an original mauser fail to feed

jeffe

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso


of course no one has ever had an original mauser fail to feed

jeffe

Yeah, jeffe but just look at all the wars Germany won with those Mausers, and look how bad the USA did with those stupid PF M1 Garands, and those low numbered 03’s that blow up when fired!!

JAL

What he is talking about is having to close the bolt down before the extractor will pop over and pull the round out. All the Rem 700's are like this and it is a real pain when using a blind magazine, you have to unload on fire and 3 times I've seen the discharge while unloading. I think the trigger was hit with the little finger when they closed the bolt. I didn't do it, but saw it done and modified the Remingtons I have to not lock the bolt while on safe because of it. With the Mauser type extractor, you can unload just moving bolt forward and back eliminating this problem. I think the newer Remington I have in .223 doesn't lock the bolt down when on safe.

quote:

Originally posted by jstevens:
JAL

What he is talking about is having to close the bolt down before the extractor will pop over and pull the round out. All the Rem 700's are like this and it is a real pain when using a blind magazine, you have to unload on fire and 3 times I've seen the discharge while unloading. I think the trigger was hit with the little finger when they closed the bolt. I didn't do it, but saw it done and modified the Remingtons I have to not lock the bolt while on safe because of it. With the Mauser type extractor, you can unload just moving bolt forward and back eliminating this problem. I think the newer Remington I have in .223 doesn't lock the bolt down when on safe.

You don't have to close the bolt on the case to unloading a Remington ADL. Point the muzzle in the air, advance the bolt just enough to free the round from the magazine, slide the bolt back and retrieve the round. Pretty simple.

Funny, I thought all you had to do was hold the Remington sideways and the rounds would fall out????

quote:

Originally posted by malm:
You don't have to close the bolt on the case to unloading a Remington ADL. Point the muzzle in the air, advance the bolt just enough to free the round from the magazine, slide the bolt back and retrieve the round. Pretty simple.

Exactly true. An accidental discharge "caused" by this feature of a 700 is completely avoidable by unloading an ADL (or any blind mag PF for that matter) as malm describes, as nearly all 700 ADL users know.

Also, any post-1982 700 allows you to open the bolt with the safety engaged. Moreover, any pre-82 or even 721 or 722 can be thusly retro-fit for a nominal charge.

CRF = controlled-round feeding

Decided to try my M77Mk2 in .257 bob, works just like my 98K, every time. Then I never got a round to fall out of my Sako 75 either, or my Vanguard .25-06. Must just be me.

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

quote:

Originally posted by Poleax:

In fact, the Rem 700 supports less of the casehead than a Mauser does. The so called "safety breech" Mausers actually support more of the casehead than any other action I am familiar with.

this is pure
it's so wrong it's absolutely laughable.

I believe what he is referring to is the fact that the Remington's can have as much as .150" protruding, and thus unsupported from the chamber, where is the Mauser's are normally around .100", or as low as .095".

This will cause case failure quicker than the CRF-type design.
Supporting the rim of the case doesn't buy you much, since it's the strongest section of the case. Supporting the base of the case within the chamber does however help considerably.

If you think you're gonna contain the gases from a ruptured shell, you'll only fooling yourself.....The only way to safely deal with it is to redirect it to a safer location in the event of catistrophic failure.

The more you contain an explosion, the more intense it becomes when it finaly does burst through and Remington has never been known for handling gas escape very well.
Mausers are one of the best for this because of the bolt and bolt shroud design.

Keeping this gas away from the shooters face is the ultimate goal and not letting it bottle up to the point of a grenade before it can be redirected into a safer position.

So lets see all the pictures of 700’s with the receiver blown up and split open like a peeled banana.

The law of averages tells me that it must have happened at least once.

In the last couple of years the pictures posted on AR of blown-up rifles (that I have seen) have been Sako’s, Savages, and one M1A.

Considering the feelings allot of guys posting on here have toward Remington I can’t believe that someone would not have posted pictures or accounts of a 700 blowing up if they had them.

quote:

Originally posted by tnekkcc:
CRF = controlled-round feeding

Last saterday a mate turned up with a Swede '96.
Is it a CRF I asked. Oh yer, deffinatly he says

I put a round in, pointed it at the ground and the cartridge was in the chamber with the bolt half way. How much of this goes on one wonders?

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

quote:

Originally posted by Poleax:

In fact, the Rem 700 supports less of the casehead than a Mauser does. The so called "safety breech" Mausers actually support more of the casehead than any other action I am familiar with.

this is pure
it's so wrong it's absolutely laughable.

I have to agree with Vapodog on this particular post. However, the fact is, neither the Mauser nor the 700 even come close to the place where any case support is effected. The cases, if the fail, blow out in front of the web of the cartridge, which is it's weakest point. The case web is buttresed by the walls of the chamber, not the bolt.
The so-called "THREE RINGS OF STEEL" are bean counter hype, nothing more. Any bolt rifle, PF, or CRF is likely to blow the reciever ring into grenade parts if you fire a 308 in a 25-06 chamber. The value of CRF has absolutely nothing to do with pressure, normal, or over pressure. A true Mauser has more re-dirrect features to handle blown cartridge gas, than any bolt rifle made by anyone, period!

PUSH FEEDS are OK for deer hunting, but in the tight stuff where you are faceing a real bite-back, there is no need to exasorbate the danger by choosing a rifle action that is inferior, like a PUSH FEED 700 Rem!