I have a rem 700 in 375 H&H. It has a sako type extractor on it. Extraction is good and have never had a problem with it. Since the extractor has been put in the ejection is weak at best with live rounds. Empty cases are better but not great. opening the bolt slowly the cases kinda just teeter out of the mag well, fast and the back of the case hits the rear reciever ring and end up laying on the next round to go in. Do I need me ejector spring, more extractor spring or both?

Put the extractor back in the sako and shoot that gun. No more problems.

Sorry man, I just couldnt resist.

I'm sure a better member than me will chime in shortly and help you out. Good luck.

quote:

Originally posted by skog:
I have a rem 700 in 375 H&H. It has a sako type extractor on it. Extraction is good and have never had a problem with it. Since the extractor has been put in the ejection is weak at best with live rounds. Empty cases are better but not great. opening the bolt slowly the cases kinda just teeter out of the mag well, fast and the back of the case hits the rear reciever ring and end up laying on the next round to go in. Do I need me ejector spring, more extractor spring or both?

It depends on how it was installed. Remove the ejector and slip a case in the bolt face and under the extractor. See how loose of a grip it has. That extractor should have a fairly good grip on the case. You should be able to manipulate the bolt some without the case falling out. Solve that problem first and then look at the ejector.

Here is my take on it after trying what Westpac said to do. I learned a long time ago that the Sako extractor conversion with the Sako Magnum extractor don't work. It does what you are saying it does; it knocks the ejected case back into the loading port. The cure for the problem is to narrow the extractor's lip so the angle of ejection is changed. The relationship between the ejector and the extractor angle has to be changed. I have solved this by grinding a bit off the side of the extractor.

Knowing that this is a problem, the conversion should be made using the 308 size extractor in the first place.

Another problem with that sort of conversion is that if the extractor does put a good "bite" on the case and the undercut groove of the bolt (where the original extractor was) was not "bushed" or filled in, the case can hang up in that groove. The best way to install these SAKO extractors is to cut the inside groove symetrical and bush it first so that you have a solid lip around the bolt face. That will usually cure most ejection problems. You may also have to slightly file a relief in the bushing to allow the ejector to function smoothly.

I've always been curious about the exact thought processes of anyone who would even want a Sako extractor in the first place, UNLESS they were using the shallow-head PPC brass. It's always been my information that the Sako conversion was first developed to cure the problem of hot-loaded 6PPC brass blowing the case web out, especially with the deep Remington bolt face construction.

Since the factory Remington extractor is no more prone to problems than any other and less so than many, I always figured that this was strictly a Benchrest mod on the Remington actions. It's quite understandable once you've sectioned some PPC brass and compared the floor and web thickness to other cases, both are noticably thinner on the PPC brass. Unfortunately this thinner spot is almost directly in line with the Remington bolt nose and so if the bolt-to-barrel gap isn't made minimum or less, then the thin spot will blow out under the extremely high pressures used in BR with the 6PPC. Using the Sako extractor allowed the Remington bolt nose to be cut back to a position behind the thinner-web spot and thus solved the PPC blowout problem.

So I've always wondered why anyone would convert a rifle if it didn't use PPC brass?
Regards, Joe

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
I've always been curious about the exact thought processes of anyone who would even want a Sako extractor in the first place, UNLESS they were using the shallow-head PPC brass. It's always been my information that the Sako conversion was first developed to cure the problem of hot-loaded 6PPC brass blowing the case web out, especially with the deep Remington bolt face construction.

Since the factory Remington extractor is no more prone to problems than any other and less so than many, I always figured that this was strictly a Benchrest mod on the Remington actions. It's quite understandable once you've sectioned some PPC brass and compared the floor and web thickness to other cases, both are noticably thinner on the PPC brass. Unfortunately this thinner spot is almost directly in line with the Remington bolt nose and so if the bolt-to-barrel gap isn't made minimum or less, then the thin spot will blow out under the extremely high pressures used in BR with the 6PPC. Using the Sako extractor allowed the Remington bolt nose to be cut back to a position behind the thinner-web spot and thus solved the PPC blowout problem.

So I've always wondered why anyone would convert a rifle if it didn't use PPC brass?
Regards, Joe

Let me give you one good reason; to convert the Remington bolt to a different cartridge case size, ie. 223 to 308 or visa versa.

To make a comment like you did about the Remington extractor being "..no more prone to problems..." tells me you have never seen a Remington extractor fail. They do,at usually at a most inoportune time. The Sako extractor is one tough cookie. I have heard all of the stories about them failing and blowing the extractor down the right bolt raceway and I think that, as Westpac says, the failure can be traced to the meathead who does not bush the bolt face from the begining.

In another life, I was a Remington Warranty Gunsmith..I kept LOTS of extractors in stock and re-ordered frequently.

I was not "allowed" to replace with SAKO since it broke the "three rings of steel"

I've used a couple of the "large" extractors on the magnum case heads (0.540" diameter iirc) and they spit empties fine. I've also opened up a .223 bolt face to magnum using a "medium" size extractor and this has been working fine also. I've also converted a 308 face to sako, using epoxy as filler. As others have mentioned, I would make sure the groove from the remington extractor is filled in. Also, the sako extractor should be installed far enough back that case has to rotate a good bit before the hook can slide off the rim. The trade off here is that if the extractor is installed too far back it may not snap over the rim on a short (head space) round. Then you could have problems removing a live round without shooting it. Good luck and let us know what you figure out.

My thought would be to pull the ejector pin and spring. Make sure there is no brass imbedded in the hole, the hole is clean and the spring tension was adequate to push the case off the extractor.

I agree that the original extractor groove must be filled in some manner to prevent the case rim from hooking in the old groove.

I'm forever learning, thanks guys.

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Kobe:

To make a comment like you did about the Remington extractor being "..no more prone to problems..." tells me you have never seen a Remington extractor fail. They do,at usually at a most inoportune time.

Sorry Jim, not saying that they don't fail, in over 40 years I've seen many, many failed 740/742/7400 extractors. But no more, percentage-wise, than the Winchester 100 and M70 push-feed types. I've seen only 1 failed 700 extractor and no failed 760 extractors. And have never seen or heard of a failed Remington magnum extractor. I know they fail but I don't see that the Sako is necessarily any more reliable, especially considering the obvious familarity some of you guys seem to have with the Sako's anticipated problems!

I just figured that some folks had seen the Benchrest Boys' accuracy results and so thought that the Sako extractor conversion was A Good Thing for them too, without them knowing the precise reason for the conversion in the first place.

I figure that if the Remington extractor was all that unreliable then the USMC snipers would probably not use Remingtons....
Regards, Joe

Joe, the USMC snipers fire one shot then polish their tool. Some shooters myself included sometimes put off gun cleaning that shouldn't be.

I think any rotating extractor is 2nd rate to the non rotating 98,

The Sako conversion may be an improvement...but then again...nobody wants a 700 Rem. custom, so I can't judge.

The 700 has a lot going for it. Cheap and does the job and..oh yeah: it's cheap!

I've never seen a hunter in Africa with a 700..not even the piss poor game scouts...they all had 98's...well used 98's.

I've replaced dozens of 700 extractors...maybe more. Never replaced a 98 or for that matter a pre 64 70 due to any "fialure".

The 700 is what it is. the 721 was selling for $79.50 when the M-70 was $135.00. Pretty good deal in the 50's and the 700 type became ingrained in the hearts of US sportsmen...still is!

With the dismal extractor failure rate I've personally seen, I consider the 700 as a damn accurate varmint and deer action, but would have no confidence facing a snorting buff.

My point: Every "improvement" on the 98 is really a step backward.

I know...I know....My "opinions"

Duane
You're absolutely correct CRF was the advancement at the time. I'm not sure what year Paul Mauser went from a rotating extractor to a non rotating extractor But my 1891 Arg. has Remington's "3 rings of steel" Why is it that a lot of people that don't like CRF are so confident that push feed is an improvement when Paul Mauser him self saw a reason to change it. Now we don't now for sure why he did but it was changed none the less.

And someone in their signature has something like the M1 Garand, M14, M16, M4, Ak-47 all push feed and hunts the most dangerous game of all.
Well a semi auto is not a bolt gun and the operation of the action precludes it from being a CRF weapon. But Belt feed MG's are CRF actions that the belt controls the round along with other parts of the feeding mech.

A double rifle is considered the standard by which all other are measured when it comes to DG hunting and a DR is by far the most controlled when it comes to CRF guns

Yep...go figure!

I worked on two firearms that experienced similar problems to the one you mention. One case was where the extractor lacked clearance and was holding the case too tightly to the bolt face to allow it to pivot out to the right under ejector spring pressure. Replacement of the ejector spring cured the problem. The other was simply a weak ejector spring, that being said, I think you made a good decision to have the different style extractor for the following reasons.
I have a great deal of experience with military arms since it was my job to accurize and repair them (or oversee the accurization/repair process) for the better part of 20 years. Without respect to what ever type of feed you want to classify them, my comments about the extractors on all types of U.S. military weapons compared to the M700 extractor is: in comparison, the military extractors are MASSIVE. If one looks at the percentage of the cartridge rim contacted by the extractor on a military arm, compared to that of a M700, there is a great deal of difference. The only exceptions to this are most of the pistols/submachine guns, and the M-16, which still has more contact area. This said, when maintained well, they still feed and extract well with (IMO) no design related failures. The instance where this can be challenged is in the case of the M-16 type/family of weapons. The springs on early M-16 type rifles seemed to get weak and required inserts to make them function reliably for longer periods; now standard production includes inserts. Also, the early powder incompatibility issues caused several failure to load and failure to extract incidents that cost many soldiers their lives. These two issues were compounded by the lack of training on how to adequately maintain the early issue weapons. This seems to have since been addressed. My son (currently serving in the U.S. Army) is pleased with the functionality and reliability of his issue M-4 Carbine; his only complaint is that they make him put all kinds of crap on the rails.

My OPINION is; though I think the M700 design is weak, I also realize that it seems to function adequately if the rifle is maintained well (e.g.; Factory or correctly reloaded ammunition is used, with bore and chamber cleaned regularly). In spite of the previous seeming endorsement, I have replaced more M700 extractors than all other types combined (excepting rimfire rifles), so I am leery of them where the weapon is going to see high usage in an environment where a malfunction means will result in the user losing their life. I suspect, I will never be in that situation again so I can probably safely use a M700 should I choose to do so. The worst that will happen is that I will miss a second shot if I need one and will have to track a wounded animal. Still, I prefer Mauser actions for many reasons, the not the least of which are sentimental.

Please remember, my opinion is worth only as much as you paid for it. I urge those with concerns about M700 extractors take a serious look at under which of your hunting situations a failure to extract or feed would prevent you from a successful hunt, and in which of the situations a failure would endanger your life. If you can only afford one rifle and you use it in critical situations, choose your rifle according to the highest risk you will encounter; 99% reliability is not enough in life critical situations. If you can afford more than one rifle, used the rifle best suited for the purpose. What ever you do, enjoy life and only worry about the things that are actually likely to affect you. There is no percentage in planning to cross bridges you will never see.

Apparently you guys have had a lot more negative experience with Remingtons than I have. I have SEEN:

1 broken or unservicable 700 extractor
4-5 broken or unservicable 742 extractors
4-5 broken or unservicable Win 100 extractors(50%+)
2 broken or unservicable Win 70 push-feed extractors
3 broken or unservicable Mauser extractors

Small potatoes, I know, compared to those of you who do repairs and professional smithing for a living, but it's my basis for comparison. And, based upon the actual numbers of the various rifles I've encountered, I'd hafta say that the 700s didn't appear to be any worse than the Mausers, to me anyway. However as always, YMMV.

IMO the Sako/700 extractor conversion in most cases falls into the realm of Jeff Cooper's famous definition of a double-action version of the Colt Government Model: a questionable solution to a nonexistent problem. In the South we call this 'trading a turkey for a jaybird'. If you gotta have controlled feed then convert to a Mauser-type extractor with M70-type ejector! JMO.
Regards, Joe

quote:

a questionable solution to a nonexistent problem

I like that!

quote:

My point: Every "improvement" on the 98 is really a step backward.

My sentiments, exactly!