yep, I'm wrong again. Must be the better resale value
is why the "image" people have extra cost personal car
number plates.
And i suppose if Holland & Holland put out a "best" grade with a cast reciever,(heaven forbid,) cricky, no one would buy it? Unless it was dearer of course. Ain't I a pain:-)
JL.

If you were to have an expensive custom rifle made would the "image" of an investment cast action put you off using such an action. Could this be the reason that seems to be no high end rifles on the Ruger action including offerings from Ruger themselves.

What about 2 piece bolts. I am thinking of a 2 piece bolt like the current M70 where is splined and brazed so I guess for all practical purposed it is as good as a one piece. BUT would you prefer a one piece bolt on an expensive custom rifle.

Mike

To me it's all in the quality of the execution of the processes you mentioned.

Mike375,

To answer your question directly.....yes.

If I just wanted an off the shelf type rifle or one that can be modified with minimal work into a good working rifle then a Ruger or any well made investment cast action is fine. I personally have no problem with Ruger or MRC actions. I think they are well made and do the job they were intended for!

However, if you are going to spend many thousands of dollars and hire highly skilled craftsmen to build you a rifle then we are talking a whole new ball game! I would not use a cast action for a top dollar project. Firstly, in my eye a custom rifle embodies many factors not the least of which is the rifle builders individual skills as well as the art & craft of gunmaking in general. All things being equal....to me< !--color--> a cut rifle barrel is a better example of the art of barrel making than a button barrel...machined from bar stock actions, bottom metal, mounts, fixtures and the like are better examples of gunmakers skill than cast parts. The sum of using these hand made parts makes the finished rifle a better example of best quality work.

Regards,
Dave

Custom gun makers push the use of actions that lend themselves to the creation of work for said gunsmith.

I'd wager that more "hi grade" custom rifles are built on Mausers and M-70s than all the others put together.

Howard,

I appreciate that fact perfectly well and agree with you.

I have been "guided" to actions, barrels, mounts etc etc...that a particular smith has on hand or can get easily and often at a discounted rate or they have built a ton of rifles from said action so they have all the fixtures/tooling necessary for a relatively quick turn around. ie...quicker turn around time with less fooling to get it all right means more money in their pocket. Reminds me of more than a few hunts I have been on where the outfitters just happens to know a "great taxidermy man who can do that deer right up for you..." I have no real problem with these suggestions from gunsmiths howerver, since I am the dude writing the check I will be the one who decides on the action, barrel, mounts and the like...within reason of course.

Back to Mike375's original question. Bottomline I think hand made/machined is more appropriate for high dollar custom rifles...at least any that I am interested in having built.

Regards,
Dave

David Sir,
All rubbish, machines are going to do nearly all work
and some of them may be computer controled. Jeepers man
the cut rifleing is done by a machine, as is button or
broach. Same with actions, hand built would be done
with lathes etc. The most human part I think would be
engraving, and would look as good on a cast action.
Prob better than a dolled up clapped out ex war clunker.
John L.

Mike,
at some point, ALL, and i repeat ALL receivers are cast...
They may be cast into a 3"x10"x10" billet, or they may be cast into a shape basically like the receiver... but they are ALL cast.... even "hammer forged" still works with the same theory...


"no, jeffe, it's not the same"

Sure it is, you are only actually talking of the manner is which a cast metal source is machined into an action, not if it's inject molded to +.050 and then turned down

The only difference is what it machined away... and, frankly, you can have just a good a reciver either way. Case in point, even the "best" machined 1891 nagant looks like CRAP compared to the WORST ruger mark II

You may be misunderstanding what's done to them after they are roughly shaped to "receiver" (either cast or machined)

they are rough shaped (machining or casting)
they are finish machined
they are polished
they are heat treated
they are polished and inspected
and they come to the end user

By design, a cast receiver would cost less, due to closer weight controls of scrap and swarf.... but the startup cost is higher...

This is like someone telling me that they can tell the difference, 100% of the time, between hand and handheld machine cut checkering...

if it's the same pattern and line, the only difference you can tell is SKILL not HOW

jeffe

jeffe

It is strictly an image thing.

I could not have a high end rifle on an investment cast action. Perhaps because it is associated with cheap guns.

I am also the same with Made in Japan. No problem with a run around shopping car or a cheap rifle or computer/electroinics. But once the gun or car starts to move up the ladder of importance for me then Made in Japan stops me cold.

In fact I have always had a strong attraction to Weatherby rifles and a couple of times in the past I have almost gone to the higher level ones but Made in Japan stopped me. I have a pair of 378s via the custom shop that are now in Australian and awaiting our stupid gun laws paper work so I can bring them home....Made in the USA

Mike

Mike,
AH!!

now, image gets into taste.. and I have a 100% openmind for "Taste"...

Ditto on the made in japan...

On the cast part,,, heck, that just don't matter to me.. but it can matter to others.

cheers
jeffe

For myself I would accept an investment cast action and bolt as I am familar with the process and results. Many however have a different opinion.



Ruger does offer a "Magnum" series and the same pattern was called the "Express" in the recent past. This is an upgraded M77 with better wood and other features. Just because the "Express" does not cost a grand more than a Winchester custom shop product does not mean it's not as fancy.



Ruger Express 270 Win. $900 with rings.

Mike, I look for quality and performance in any firearm. That's my priority.

I prefer a forged and machined action such as the current Model 70 because forging creates a better grain structure in the steel, and this machined forging becomes a very smooth action internally, with no excess material where it isn't needed. Colt found this out a long time ago, and so did Winchester and Marlin, and of course, they have the extensive resources at their disposal to carry this process out (as well as precise heat-treating) to perfection -- a big-little secret the small start-up outfits would rather you didn't know about or appreciate for what it really is. For another thing, Winchester's superb chrome-moly steel has always been one of the best features of that action, and with Winchester's precise, exacting heat-treating processes, it's just about unmatched in terms of strength and durability.

The two-piece bolt handle of the current Model 70 doesn't put me off at all. If you study the post-64 Model 70 chapter in Stuart Otteson's book, "The Bolt Action", it becomes pretty clear that the two-piece bolt system as done by Winchester has some very distinct advantages in terms of precision and alignment over the one-piece system, and that Winchester's two-piece design is also incredibly strong. There's no comparision as far as strength goes between Remington's and Winchester's whatsoever; the Model 70 handle is far stronger.

I don't care for investment-cast receivers for the most part. They end up being rougher internally, and thicker because they HAVE to be. Ruger's shallow, slanted recoil lug gets sold as providing bedding advantages, but in reality it's a production expedient that works better in the investment casting process.

I also appreciate an all milled-steel action, just as long as the heat-treating is carried out properly...........

AD

That was pretty good Allen. Of course you are good. It's one of the best yet at putting a smiley face on a copper brazed investment cast bolt handle!



Keep in mind that the pre 64 Winchesters bolt is a one piece forging! Now I don't mind the action on my M70 Classic. I only paid $550 for it anyway but it's no smoother or lighter in any way than a M77 Ruger.



The Montana design is heat treated by Ruger and it has a full ring inside for gas sealing something that even Paul Mauser could not manufacture!

You're trying to degrade what I've said, and you're doing so out of ignorance.

AD

JAL,

You are not educating me....

I am quite farmiliar with HOW everything I mentioned in my two previous posts are made. Maybe you objected to my use of the term "hand made"..? I suppose hand made should mean an old guy sitting at a work bench with a lump of steel and a file. I was referring to the use of CNC machines, as well as lathes and the like rather than poured into molds. Also, in my first post, I mentioned that I thought investment cast actions were fine.....just not for top dollar rifles.

The question put to us in the opening post was...would the IMAGE of investment cast put you off such an action?
To me yes, it certainly would. If I am going to spend top dollar on a rifle I will not be using cast anything.

Regards,
Dave

Dave

We are not the only ones where image is important.

When the first Made in the US of A Wbys were released they had all steel bottom metal.

Then Wby quickly realised that some peolple would be prepared to pay a lot extra to have the all steel, inlcuding me

If there is one thing (apart from cast) that really loses me big time it is the detachable recoil lug and especially the type used by Sako and also Ruger in their 375 and up rifle.

If I lived in America I would probably have the Echols rifles.

Mike

"Impossible to non-existent"? Horseshit! I have seen enough Winchester bolts which were loose to know the process is certainly not foolproof. In all cases the real cause was, as in the Remington examples, a poorly executed joint. Failure is failure though so it is certainly not non-existent.
Warpage during heat treat of an asymetric piece is also a potential reality but probably not all serious given the location of the potential warpage. It seems to me to be a case of coming up with a justification of a given manufacturing method.
Perhaps the use of a mechanical attachment similar to that used by Savage could be one of the best methods. Especially if the attachment was a little more robust than that of the Savage.
As far as cast vs. everthing else is concerned, I don't care. As long as the work is well done the result will be fine. A poorly machine receiver is junk as is a poorly cast or poorly forged one. A perfectly cast and machined receiver can be rendered worthless by crappy polishing.
Rugers have not been that popular mostly because of other shortcomings than the method of primary manufacture. Early models were not a CRF. Bottom metal was aluminum garbage. Polishing was usually poor. Triggers an example that different doesn't mean better.
While on the subject of Rugers, I think Ruger came up with some great design features. The angled guard screw was (and is) a neat idea. I agree the lug is undersized but the idea is sound. The Ruger bolt stop with it's spring cushion is another great idea. It doesn't damage the locking lug, is robust, and easily made and fitted. It could be more attractive but so could most. The tang safety was a popular feature and, I think, a good one.
A Ruger action, if finish machined by a company like Williams, for instance, and fitted with a sensible trigger machanism, could be a great action for custom use. As it is, it (like the MRC or the Kimber)needs a lot of work to make it nice. The Winchester needs less and the work is more easily done.
The pre-64 M70's were usually far short of perfection but they and the commercial FNs were the best commercial actions ever available to the trade IMO. For accuracy work, the Remington is still the best commercial grade action and many custom accuracy actions are base on it. Regards, Bill.

I would say about a half dozen instances, Matt. In some cases the joint simply lacked adequate silver solder which, in combination with generous tolerances, allowed the whole joint to fail and the handle piece spun around on the bolt. In one case a stuck cases contributed to the failure but perhaps it just revealed a weakness. In two cases, the joint failed right under the root of the handle so the handle and that section of the ring adjacent to the straight side of the cocking cam cut, broke out. This was over the course of about 10 years where I did a good part of Winchester's Canadian warranty work. Most occured during about a 4 year period( late 80's) which may say something.
The other problem I have with the system is that it puts the joint right in the middle of the cocking cam surface. I think I would have been inclined to put the joint ahead of the cam if I were to do this. Still, the joint could fail if it was improperly done. When such methods are used quality control becomes even more critical IMO. Regards, Bill.

Bill

I have been under the impression that the M70 handle was on a spline and was not dependent on the solder to stop the handle going around the bolt. Sounds like my impression was wrong

Mike

I had been told many years ago they were splined as well, and without seeing one fail, I hadn't heard or seen anything to disprove that theory.

Another option would have been to make the mating parts oblong.....This would prevent the bolt handle from rotating as well, providing that the joint was a about a .002" heat-shrink fit. Silver soldering would have been only a reassurance, rather than a dependency of the joint's integrity. Of course, that type of process would require engineering expertise that them Yale graduates don't study........Hard Knocks 101.

Thanks for the info Bill!

While on the subject of M70 a mate of mine just got a Coyote in 223 WSSM. The barrel was replaced with a match grade barrel and the thread on the M70 is now bigger, at least that is what I was told.

I seem to remember Bill posting sometime ago about problems with the WSM and the M70 thread size.

Mike

I posted that the receiver thread as it existed on the M70 constituted a flaw in design and execution. The combination of a small thread tenon on the barrel, an incomplete thread in the receiver, and excessive clearance between the two, resulted in distortion of the chamber when the barrel was tightened onto the receiver. If Winchester did increase the diameter of their threads, that's as it should be. They have responded in a positive manner to address a fault. If they made no change, they have their heads in the sand to put it politely.
The handle is not splined. The bolt body is straight knurled and the handle pressed onto this knurled portion. Sometimes pressing was obviously not necessary. Again, it comes back to quality control. Those pieces could easily have been made to much closer tolerances with a superior joint resulting.
There are very many good ways to attach the handle to the bolt if they are seperate pieces. The Tikkas, the Savages, are examples of decently engineered attachments. Neither Winchester nor Remington took the high road in this case.
The Mannlicher M72 also uses a cast handle which is sleeved onto the bolt body. The sleeved portion is ahead of the cocking cam (and here I thought that was my idea. I'm usually several years behind the curve!)The joint is very close and the handle is soldered and pinned. If the bolt stop groove didn't run through the middle of it, it would be a pretty good system.
If I were to make a bolt on a production basis, I would make the bolt handle root and the extraction cam an integral part of the bolt. This root could be made the same height as the locking lugs. The handle itself could be attached via silver solder and a screw or it could be TIG welded. I'm not doing it though! Regards, Bill.

The handle is not splined. The bolt body is straight knurled and the handle pressed onto this knurled portion.

That is depresssing

I read they were splined in Stuart Ottesons book but that was a long time ago so maybe he was right but M70 has changed since his book.

As by the way, the 223 WSM I mentioned above has the barrel so crooked (downwards) that if it gets worse with some of these M70s the barrrel and action will finish looking like a set square

Mike

The new Nosler Custom Rifle is an investment cast action, limited production rifle and sells for US$4,000. That is the most expensive investment cast "custom" I know about, but perhaps Ruger's new Custom Shop has some dandy rifle I don't know about.

I have used the investment cast M99 action to build rifles, but the goal is to keep the price below US$2,000.

One of my favorite sayings is "If you can't fix it, feature it". I think you can make a good custom rifle on an investment cast action, but the real key is to be like Winchester's gnomes and their dimensional control with their heat treating strategy.

I have been doing research to support an article on the best design for a hunting rifle action, and I haven't found a reason to prohibit investment cast actions. My experience with other firearms though is forged steel can be made lighter and less massive at the same strength. You can investment cast some things that you could not forge or machine according to the metals experts.

My bias is forged actions for custom rifles.

jim

I'm almost afraid to ask this.But what's you guy's opinion on the Dakota action? Other than there not cheap! That's what I'm going to be using for my rifle.A .375 H&H. Pac-nor match barrel witch will be here next week.To be honest part of the reason for going with the Dakota action is "image". I know silly huh? It will have NECG one standing w/two folding rear island sight, banded masterpiece front,& barrel band, Dakota's four round drop box Going for the classic look. Allen

If you don't like an investment cast action, then you'll be put off by Sako, MRC, and most of the others, along with Ruger. Most of the actions today are cast, the only ones I'm sure are not are Remington and Savage because they're made from tube stock.
By the way, it's the way the action is finished, more so than the method that concerns me. I wouldn't hesitate to use any quality action cast or not.

I think the Dakota is a real nice $850.00 action. It's not nearly so nice at nearly double that. Aside from the cost, I think they are a fine action. Regards, Bill.

I think the Dakota action comes to the fore when someone wants a M70 style receiver and a 416 Rigby

Mike

"Image" is almost never backed up with reason......The "image" of owning a Rolex that doesn't keep anywhere near as accurate time as a Timex and costs 100 times more has no reason. But put a Rolex and a Timex on the table, and you can have either one, what one are you going to take? And if you say the Timex, then I would suggest a qualty handmade watch isn't important to you. No problem with that. I know folks who will spend $1000 on a flyreel and then go hunting with a POS rifle that they have had for 40 years and haven't taken very good care of. To them, the flyfishing stuff is much more important. The gun is just a tool.

The "Image" of an investment cast receiver is one of "less Expense" "Mass Produced" "Make Millions of them to defray the huge upfront costs" They are not necessarily inferior, to the contrary. In many cases I would bet they are better than many "turned" receivers. But the "image" of a receiver made from a 20 pound block of raw steel is much more appealing........To someone that can appreciate it.

Cars are the same way. There is no "reason" to own a Porche or a Mercedes......A Toyota will do the same thing, get you from point A to B. But you have to admit, there is great image in a MB, wether you accept it or not, there is.

I also agree with the Made in Japan thing. I've owned hundreds of rifles over the years, but never one made in Japan. No Weatherby, Browning, Interarms, etc. It has nothing to do with reality, it's just me.....But I'd own cars, stereos, and machine tools made in Japan with no problem. But to me, guns are made in the USA or Europe..It's just the way it's supposed to be!

what are SAKO AV's? cast or something else?

When did sako start using cast? i have a 75 that is about 4 years old, pre-beretta, and was curious if this changed with beretta?

I know the 75 has 1 piece bolt, the handle is not seperate

i thought the whole action was machined from bar stock?