Rem 700/Weatherby Vs Mauser 98/M17 with overloads

Let's assume we have each one chambered in something like a 264 Winchester and we start off with what would be full pressure/maximum load of Varget.

We now start increasing the load for each shot.

How would you rate the "safety" of each action as we increase the load.

We will also assume that if a given load damages the rifle and prevents the next increase in pressure load from being fired, then we can get another rifle out.

Also, which action would you rate the safest when using the more common overload situations such as...loading 140 grain bullets (264) over the maximum laod for 100 grain bullets....Forgetting to take 3031 or Varget out of the powder measure after loading for the 308 and then setting the measure for the 264 Winchester or 300 Wby laodings, that is, using Varget in the 300 Wby at powder weights you would use for H4831.

Mike

Shooter fired a .300 Win mag handload in a 700 but used the powder that was for his .223 Win. The pressure per the NECO program was about 105,000 p.s.i. The bolt wouldn't open. I removed the barrel for the owner and found that the chamber had swelled to about .518 ahead of the belt. The primer was gone! The case head had filled the recesses in the bolt snout. There was about .001 of setback in the lug abutments. The owner had a gunsmith install another .300 Win barrel taken from a new 700 and is now a more careful reloader. The "three rings of steel" held everything as it was designed to do.

Mike, Depends on who made the 1917. There is no evidence that they were checked by the Hardness testing methods in vogue since the mid 1920's or the Brinnel testing from before or since. When they let go you can think hand grenade going off 14 c/m from the end of your nose. They were checked by what were known as hardness testing files on a random basis,more frequent testing at start of each new melt lot of steel, and or forging run. Proof testing was supposed to raise questions if the rifles started blowing up. Hell, there was a war on. I have had a policy of saying no to anything on a Winchester, dragging my feet on the Eddystone, and being content with the Remington. The Eddystones went through the forge shop with the primma donna - no damned electrical whatzis is gonna tell me the correct forging temperature- crew running the furnaces and many develop forging related lengthwise cracks in the ring, because they were over stressed in barrel breeching and retaining the latent accident waiting to happen throughout the receiver. Out of 1.6 million there is a fair per cent that are ok, but must be checked. There are occasional Remingtons that are on the soft- read set back of lug seat side- but these are re-hardenable, and most seem to be in the 500,000 range (and up). The soft ones just set back and stretch. The Winchesters tend to be hard, sometimes brittle enough to fragment when trying to remove the barrel without preparatory strain relieving procedures.
Mausers with the full internal reinforce ring- not slotted through the left side, stretch and usually setback, but don't destroy the nut on the end of the buttplate, can most often be put back in service with a few new parts.

Jay's call on the 700 is similar to my experience, although in many cases a new bolt body was required. The ejector seems to survive.

Mike375---

Are we into re-runs already?? You ask the same thing 2 years ago. I still have my reply if you want me to re-post it.

JBelk

It is a different version and especially the last part.

Mike

The Eddystone receiver in my 458 Lott was very hard, according to my gunsmith. It had a tendency to re-engineer the cutting end of any mill that wasn't carbide (and good carbide at that). I don't believe in hot rodding any cartridge, and will probably never load this to exceed 2200 - 2250 fps with a 500 gr bullet. Should I be worried?

Enfield #2 is a Remington, and will be a 416 Rigby for use at original Rigby pressures, so no concern there.

Todd

I new this guy once, he and some classmates took a 8mm Turk M98, and started a bullet into the barrel from the breach, untill it would chamber a round behind it. Then they pulled the bullet on a Turkish surplus 8mm round, scope filled the case with bullseye and reseated the bullet. They then fired this cartridge in the Turk M98 with a bullet already lodged in the barrel.

This situation is almost impossible to duplicate 'accidently'. The action held, the lugs did not shear. The bolt head was 'rivited' and the bolt body bent. We..er..they nearly broke the bolt handle off trying to open the action after ward. It did not seem that the shooter would have been seriously injured. Splinters from the stock seem to be bigest problem.

My faith in the Mauser '98 design was cemented after this. Quickload estimates this load @ 135,000 psi+(not acounting for the bore abstruction). Running up pressures past a certin point yelds very little reward. I truely do not under stand some people's need to hot rod for a 100 fps. But if a rifle can stand up to this, I know the little reloading accidents should be contained well.

I do not consider Rems or Weatherbys worth blowing up.

Kristofer

[ 04-03-2003, 09:08: Message edited by: KBGuns ]