Why TIG Remmy bolt handles?
- Thread starter REDDOG
- Start date
LAST EDITED ON Aug-12-10 AT 06:43PM (MST)[p]Looks to me like somebody had a bolt handle replaced and may have had a hot load or they didn't do as good of job as they needed to soldering it back on. You have to be careful with temps when tig welding them, (not recommended) because you can warp the bolt body and then that blue printed action can have issues with the firing pin, lug engagement, function and other things and then you get to buy a new bolt body and relap it etc.
But their Mc swirley made it!
But their Mc swirley made it!
T
Thebarrelman
Guest
Thats an original remington bolt handle that has been threaded on the end for a bolt knob. I dont see any indication that it has been tig welded just the original remington solder job combined with a stuck bolt they probably tried to beat open with a hammer and a piece of wood then wondered why the silver solder job didnt hold. If it would have been tig welded the handle would have bent before the weld broke.
RELH
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 17,480
Hate to tell you guys, but that is more common then you might think. Remington sometimes have a quality control problem with silver soldering their bolt handles on. I have seen about 5-6 in the last few years come off like that and they were not hammered on.
Just another short cut to bring the manufacturing price down for profit margin.
RELH
Just another short cut to bring the manufacturing price down for profit margin.
RELH
LAST EDITED ON Aug-13-10 AT 05:52PM (MST)[p]
didnt say it was tig welded barrelman, but your right, its just a threaded remmy bolt handle..and I agree RELH...those lovely remmy extractors are a thing of beauty also.
Boskee,The McSwirly do look good dont it?
didnt say it was tig welded barrelman, but your right, its just a threaded remmy bolt handle..and I agree RELH...those lovely remmy extractors are a thing of beauty also.
Boskee,The McSwirly do look good dont it?
Gees...Here we go again. I bet if I new what kind of pick up you guys drove I could find 20 examples of blown motors too. They all have their issues.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I remain a remington fan, but i'm not ignorant to a few inherent flaws the 700 has..A guy could go a lifetime w/o issue with the bolt handle or extractor on their remmys, and many do.
But for a cheap fix, its a no brain er for me to have a sako extractor and the handle tiged on my big game rifles.(like Bokskee pointed out, take it to a guy that knows guns, not your local weld shop). I have had an extractor shear off of a 700, while hunting, and have had a bolt handle break off, it was an extreme situation..but broke off nonetheless.I've also seen extractors rusted shut, WHILE in the field..just so you understand my point of view.
I didnt mean this as a remington bashing thread, just a heads up.
But for a cheap fix, its a no brain er for me to have a sako extractor and the handle tiged on my big game rifles.(like Bokskee pointed out, take it to a guy that knows guns, not your local weld shop). I have had an extractor shear off of a 700, while hunting, and have had a bolt handle break off, it was an extreme situation..but broke off nonetheless.I've also seen extractors rusted shut, WHILE in the field..just so you understand my point of view.
I didnt mean this as a remington bashing thread, just a heads up.
T
Thebarrelman
Guest
My opinion for what its worth is I like the rem extractors but then again I always have a few on hand and they are very easy to change at least the newer ones anyway. I personally dont like the sakos as they can become a projectile in the event of a case head seperation. If you have a sako installed make sure you take it to someone who really knows what they are doing as they are very easy to mess up.
LAST EDITED ON Aug-14-10 AT 10:14AM (MST)[p]It's important that we point out issues on here so that people will see that no guns are perfect. But we also have to be mindful of some of the issues are caused by operator error (not referring to you REDDOG with this example). I've seen way too many guys shooting loads that are too hot and then they want to blame the gun and the manufacturer. In their frustration they get excited and don't think about how much pressure they're exerting on a bolt handle and I saw a guy using a 3ft piece of pipe slipped over the handle to open up his gun which was held in a vise on his truck and then wondered why it didn't work the same. Fact is there are very low incidents of failure when using safe loads in the action or it would have went out of production decades ago.
Modifications to an existing action can also be hazardous because that action wasn't designed that way especially for venting gases etc. When installing the Sako type extractor they can modify the cocking piece housing and the rails to help divert the pieces & gases in the event of a case failure. But once some people experience an extractor failure they don't have confidence in the old style that has proven capable over time. When the new parts fix costs less than $20.00 for the Remington extractor and odds are it won't fail in the future is it a big really that deal.... depends on the situation. Most knowledgable hunters always have a backup rifle on their hunts but in comparison a new string & cables for a bow costs many times more to replace yet is far more prone to failure and a lot of bows cost more than these guns yet we accept string & cable wear with little to no regard. Yet the majority of us have spent many times less keeping our Remingtons in service. The same can be said for Winchesters, Weatherbys etc. but they aren't perfect.
Maybe just maybe the manufacturer actually designed it to be a weak link in the action (extractor then bolt handle in that order). Think about it if you're shooting loads that are too hot and have to beat the hell out of your gun to get the bolt open in todays liability prone world wouldn't you want to keep that individual from shooting his gun any further until you have somebody look at it that may be able to detect an issue better than joe consumer (like a gunsmith)? It protects you as a company and the consumer who really doesn't know how dangerous things can actually get. I'm NOT saying that RELH & others may not have some valid points because they certainly do, but in the big picture when millions upon million have been sold it's a design that has stood the test of time and many have worked flawlessly for their owners from generation passed on to generation.
When you build anything you're going to have some failures along the way and no product on earth doesn't. But when you can fix the issue at a relatively low cost and it's still serviceable that's a plus in my book. That doesn't excuse the fact it happened because in reality your gun is out of service until you get it fixed but it may shed some light on why the design wasn't changed in the big picture production costs aside.
Modifications to an existing action can also be hazardous because that action wasn't designed that way especially for venting gases etc. When installing the Sako type extractor they can modify the cocking piece housing and the rails to help divert the pieces & gases in the event of a case failure. But once some people experience an extractor failure they don't have confidence in the old style that has proven capable over time. When the new parts fix costs less than $20.00 for the Remington extractor and odds are it won't fail in the future is it a big really that deal.... depends on the situation. Most knowledgable hunters always have a backup rifle on their hunts but in comparison a new string & cables for a bow costs many times more to replace yet is far more prone to failure and a lot of bows cost more than these guns yet we accept string & cable wear with little to no regard. Yet the majority of us have spent many times less keeping our Remingtons in service. The same can be said for Winchesters, Weatherbys etc. but they aren't perfect.
Maybe just maybe the manufacturer actually designed it to be a weak link in the action (extractor then bolt handle in that order). Think about it if you're shooting loads that are too hot and have to beat the hell out of your gun to get the bolt open in todays liability prone world wouldn't you want to keep that individual from shooting his gun any further until you have somebody look at it that may be able to detect an issue better than joe consumer (like a gunsmith)? It protects you as a company and the consumer who really doesn't know how dangerous things can actually get. I'm NOT saying that RELH & others may not have some valid points because they certainly do, but in the big picture when millions upon million have been sold it's a design that has stood the test of time and many have worked flawlessly for their owners from generation passed on to generation.
When you build anything you're going to have some failures along the way and no product on earth doesn't. But when you can fix the issue at a relatively low cost and it's still serviceable that's a plus in my book. That doesn't excuse the fact it happened because in reality your gun is out of service until you get it fixed but it may shed some light on why the design wasn't changed in the big picture production costs aside.
RELH
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 17,480
Remington designed the model 721, 722, & 700 with one important thing in mind. That was to lower the cost to machine the receiver in order to lower the price out the door to the customer, and they did that.
There was a market and demand for cheaper priced rifles as compared to the cost of a Win. M-70 or similar rifle that required more machining steps to produce.
The design does have some flaws that show up more in the Remington then it does in other brands of rifles.
If you find this hard to believe, break the Remington, Winchester and some other brands dwon to their basic parts and take the parts to a top notch machinest and ask him to look at the parts and decide which rifle will be the cheapest to produce based on the steps required to machine the various parts.
When the Remington 721 came out in 1948, and the M-700 in 1962, they were price quite a bit lower then the Winchester and other similar brands. This was there big selling point to thousands of hunters that wanted a lower price hunting rifle.
By 1988, the Remington 700 gained enough in price that it was no longer that much cheaper then the other brands even though the M-700 had not changed in basic design and still cheaper to build. Some 1988 prices:
Remighton M-700 BDL-----432.00
Winchester M-70 sporter---444.00
Ruger M-77 ---------------498.00
It seems that the Rem. 700 has gone up to the point that it is no longer that great of a price break. For my money the new Savage is very similar to the Rem. 700 and a heck of lot cheaper and a good reputation for excellant trigger and out of box accuracy.
I have owned two Remingtons in the past, but I feel there is better bargains out there along with better design features.
My personal choice and others are free to allow their personal choice to choose what rifle that makes them feel best.
RELH
There was a market and demand for cheaper priced rifles as compared to the cost of a Win. M-70 or similar rifle that required more machining steps to produce.
The design does have some flaws that show up more in the Remington then it does in other brands of rifles.
If you find this hard to believe, break the Remington, Winchester and some other brands dwon to their basic parts and take the parts to a top notch machinest and ask him to look at the parts and decide which rifle will be the cheapest to produce based on the steps required to machine the various parts.
When the Remington 721 came out in 1948, and the M-700 in 1962, they were price quite a bit lower then the Winchester and other similar brands. This was there big selling point to thousands of hunters that wanted a lower price hunting rifle.
By 1988, the Remington 700 gained enough in price that it was no longer that much cheaper then the other brands even though the M-700 had not changed in basic design and still cheaper to build. Some 1988 prices:
Remighton M-700 BDL-----432.00
Winchester M-70 sporter---444.00
Ruger M-77 ---------------498.00
It seems that the Rem. 700 has gone up to the point that it is no longer that great of a price break. For my money the new Savage is very similar to the Rem. 700 and a heck of lot cheaper and a good reputation for excellant trigger and out of box accuracy.
I have owned two Remingtons in the past, but I feel there is better bargains out there along with better design features.
My personal choice and others are free to allow their personal choice to choose what rifle that makes them feel best.
RELH
RELH I'm not disagreeing with you that's why I said production cost not withstanding. As usual you make some very valid points but seeing how many clones there are of that Remingtom action with safe mods you and I both know they could have done so because the technology and machining methods and economy of scale are there. But why didn't they? You think any company attorneys would have had the brains to suggest that they have some liability issues here? Savage bolts cost less to make because of their component design. You don't mess with one of the top selling designs in firearms history because in reality those things are easy to fix and not as problematic as some may want you to think. I don't see where I told anybody not to buy anything that seems to be your take on what I wrote not clearly what's written. I like you have suggested other brands on these forums. Show me where I told them not to buy any specific brand firearm they want and I'll send you a case of beer!:^)
RELH
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 17,480
Boskee, Maybe I worded my thread wrong, I am not slamming you or even thinking that you are advocating REM only.
Like you I am somewhat at a quandary as why Rem. has not taken steps to improve on the design as I feel that hunters will be more incline to purchase the M-700. It would be another marketing point to promote the new improvements. The only reason I can think they have not done it is pure "cost" and keeping their profit margin so high.
The Remington M-700 is not the poor man's rifle any more as it was in the 60's. I think Savage has taken that role and for the price is putting out a darn good rifle like Rem. did in the 60's.
RELH
Like you I am somewhat at a quandary as why Rem. has not taken steps to improve on the design as I feel that hunters will be more incline to purchase the M-700. It would be another marketing point to promote the new improvements. The only reason I can think they have not done it is pure "cost" and keeping their profit margin so high.
The Remington M-700 is not the poor man's rifle any more as it was in the 60's. I think Savage has taken that role and for the price is putting out a darn good rifle like Rem. did in the 60's.
RELH
sageadvice
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 11,849
Boskee & RELH,
+1, Well said Gentleman, Thanks!!
Joey
+1, Well said Gentleman, Thanks!!
Joey
T
Thebarrelman
Guest
LAST EDITED ON Aug-15-10 AT 08:32PM (MST)[p]Rems definately have there problems but we know what they are and like was said above the parts are cheap and the fix is easy. Theres a reason most of the customs are either remington clones or take the same stocks, firing pin assemblies and triggers. Quality aftermarket parts are abundant. I would personally rather build off a winchester if the same parts were available as remington. As far as cost goes I would be willing to bet by the time all the wholesalers and dealers ad their mark up there isnt a huge profit margin in it for remington. Savage I think saves a little money their design. The barrel nut makes it very easy for someone to headspace an individual barrel without it being in a lathe. Screw it down against the gauge tighten the nut and send it through the engraver. Remington has to either go through a bunch of bolts to find one that headspaces correctly or headspace each rifle individually on the lathe as the chamber is cut.
RELH
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 17,480
I do not believe that Remington headspaces individually or tries different bolts. they have leeway on headspacing to SAAMI specs of +or- that their CNN machinery should stay within those specs most of the time. Every now and then one will slip though that is out of spec for headspace. But that goes also for just about any other firearm manufactor.
RELH
RELH
T
Thebarrelman
Guest
LAST EDITED ON Aug-16-10 AT 05:40AM (MST)[p]
Ill loan you some gauges and try them in a rem 700 with three bolts from different rifles and see what you find out. Leeway on some chamberings is only a few thousandths of an inch. come by my shop Ill show you 20 or so take off barrels and you can measure them yourself youll quickly see how tight the tolerances are. CNC machines are nice but two different reamers of the same caliber will not be the same and then they wear to boot changing them more. If you dont believe me try using someone elses unsized fired brass in your rifle and see how well it works.
Ill loan you some gauges and try them in a rem 700 with three bolts from different rifles and see what you find out. Leeway on some chamberings is only a few thousandths of an inch. come by my shop Ill show you 20 or so take off barrels and you can measure them yourself youll quickly see how tight the tolerances are. CNC machines are nice but two different reamers of the same caliber will not be the same and then they wear to boot changing them more. If you dont believe me try using someone elses unsized fired brass in your rifle and see how well it works.
RELH
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 17,480
LAST EDITED ON Aug-16-10 AT 01:02PM (MST)[p]Thebarrelman;
I was building and blueprinting custom rifles 15 years ago and even guaranteed them under one inch with factory ammo. 1/2 to 3/4 inch was the norm with Federal ammo.
Did you not consider that Remington uses a seperate recoil lug that is sandwiched between the barrel and receiver that can be used the same as the headspace nut Savage uses to set headspace.
All you need is bin full that varies in thickness to set the headspace and far cheaper then having a bin full of complete bolts to try. Take the time to mike those Remington lugs and you will find that they are not all the same thickness.
As for the reamers, you are not telling me anything I do not know. I still have a drawer full of Clymer and Manson reamers that I payed 75-125 bucks for each to go along with the Forster headspace gauges.
RELH
I was building and blueprinting custom rifles 15 years ago and even guaranteed them under one inch with factory ammo. 1/2 to 3/4 inch was the norm with Federal ammo.
Did you not consider that Remington uses a seperate recoil lug that is sandwiched between the barrel and receiver that can be used the same as the headspace nut Savage uses to set headspace.
All you need is bin full that varies in thickness to set the headspace and far cheaper then having a bin full of complete bolts to try. Take the time to mike those Remington lugs and you will find that they are not all the same thickness.
As for the reamers, you are not telling me anything I do not know. I still have a drawer full of Clymer and Manson reamers that I payed 75-125 bucks for each to go along with the Forster headspace gauges.
RELH
T
Thebarrelman
Guest
I guess we could compare I know all about the 130 dollar reamers as I have 134 different ones along with the gauges to go along with the lathe the mill and all the other stuff to go with it. I barreled 18 last month alone let alone the 10 years prior to that. Your earlier post said the tolerances were so good that there was no need for headspacing which is it the tolerances are really good or they use the recoil lug. I bet all that screwing barrels on and off while aligning the recoil lug to the action is a real time saver. Much faster than tightening the barrel nut against the gauge. I have a very good friend (and gunsmith) that toured Remingtons factory and thats how he said they did it. Try to get Remington to sell you just a bolt and youll find out how much faith they have in tolerances.
RELH
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 17,480
I would appreciate it if you want to put words in my mouth, you at lease get it correct. No where in my post did I state, "tolerances were so good that there was no need for headspacing" as you have stated in your post above.
What I stated was that there is a + and - allowed by SAAMI spects for the headspacing and that the computer controlled machinery could get very close within those spects.
When I was rebarreling Rem. 700 actions 15+ years ago, I found that the shim type recoil lug varied up to 3-10 thounsands difference in thickness which led me to believe that Remington used that methold to correct barreled actions that were out of specs for headspacing. A very economic way to correct the headspacing instead of chucking the barrel into the lathe and recutting then rechambering if the headspace is only out by a few thousands. Due to a mishap while chambering and the bolt drops on a "no go" gauge. Unscrew the barrel and use a thinner recoil lug to take up that few thousands and not close on a "no go" gauge. This would be hard to do if Rem. used a crush fit on both the barrel shoulder and the rear of the barrel. Rem seems to leave a little slop at the rear of the barrel that a custom rifle builder would not be prone to do.
As for your statement about "screwing barrels on and off and aligning the recoil lug is a real time saver". If you are in fact a gunsmith you should be aware there has been a jig made for that purpose and that cheap costing jig has been around for over 30 years. Keeps that recoil lug aligned perfectly when you tighten the barrel down in the barrel vise. I always installed a aftermarket lug that was thicker to prevent possible flexing in heavy mag calibers. Just a minor job of recutting the barrel shoulder.
If in fact Remington is head spacing each individual rifle on the lathe, did your gunsmith friend state they are doing the intire chambering after attaching the barrel to the receiver. Or are they short chambering the barrel and only doing the finshing chambering after the barrel is attached.
Either way, there will be a few that gets out out of spec and has to be corrected. And Remington will find the most economic way to do it as they pioneered the 700 series rifles for easy machining and reducing the machining steps to complete a rifle.
That is why the Remington is built on a logated cylinder with a seperate recoil lug. Far easier to chuck into a lathe and center prior to machining. Even with that easy setup, on the older Remingtons I have found the barrel threads on the receiver to be off centered by as much as 30-35 thousands when blue printing. One reason I switched to the Howa 1500 action, Those Japanese held better torances on their actions.
Hopefully with the computer controlled lathes, Remington has cured that problem, I do not know since it has been at lease 15 years since I worked on a Rem. 700 action and I do not know if Brownells is still selling a lot of oversized receiver threading dies to custom makers to correct the off centered threads in that action.
RELH
What I stated was that there is a + and - allowed by SAAMI spects for the headspacing and that the computer controlled machinery could get very close within those spects.
When I was rebarreling Rem. 700 actions 15+ years ago, I found that the shim type recoil lug varied up to 3-10 thounsands difference in thickness which led me to believe that Remington used that methold to correct barreled actions that were out of specs for headspacing. A very economic way to correct the headspacing instead of chucking the barrel into the lathe and recutting then rechambering if the headspace is only out by a few thousands. Due to a mishap while chambering and the bolt drops on a "no go" gauge. Unscrew the barrel and use a thinner recoil lug to take up that few thousands and not close on a "no go" gauge. This would be hard to do if Rem. used a crush fit on both the barrel shoulder and the rear of the barrel. Rem seems to leave a little slop at the rear of the barrel that a custom rifle builder would not be prone to do.
As for your statement about "screwing barrels on and off and aligning the recoil lug is a real time saver". If you are in fact a gunsmith you should be aware there has been a jig made for that purpose and that cheap costing jig has been around for over 30 years. Keeps that recoil lug aligned perfectly when you tighten the barrel down in the barrel vise. I always installed a aftermarket lug that was thicker to prevent possible flexing in heavy mag calibers. Just a minor job of recutting the barrel shoulder.
If in fact Remington is head spacing each individual rifle on the lathe, did your gunsmith friend state they are doing the intire chambering after attaching the barrel to the receiver. Or are they short chambering the barrel and only doing the finshing chambering after the barrel is attached.
Either way, there will be a few that gets out out of spec and has to be corrected. And Remington will find the most economic way to do it as they pioneered the 700 series rifles for easy machining and reducing the machining steps to complete a rifle.
That is why the Remington is built on a logated cylinder with a seperate recoil lug. Far easier to chuck into a lathe and center prior to machining. Even with that easy setup, on the older Remingtons I have found the barrel threads on the receiver to be off centered by as much as 30-35 thousands when blue printing. One reason I switched to the Howa 1500 action, Those Japanese held better torances on their actions.
Hopefully with the computer controlled lathes, Remington has cured that problem, I do not know since it has been at lease 15 years since I worked on a Rem. 700 action and I do not know if Brownells is still selling a lot of oversized receiver threading dies to custom makers to correct the off centered threads in that action.
RELH
T
Thebarrelman
Guest
they are all still out of true some more than others. I dont true with a tap so I dont know how many brownells sells. I use the GTR method so I recut the threads single point. I did not say that remington headspaces every one on a lathe. The barrel tennon is cut and the chamber is cut into a known range then bolts are tried in each individual rifle. When a bolt is found to work the tech scribes the last 4 of the serial number on the bolt. Thats why the bolts have the roughly scribed numbers instead of engravings. Im have several different alignment jigs for the rem recoil lugs but it still takes time to screw the jig into the action screw then thread the barrel on and check the headspace. The Savage barrel nut cuts their manufacturing cost simply because it saves time.
feddoc
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 7,239
Here is my tale of woe and the Sendero bolt. Year 1 after purchase: The extractor failed 3 days before elks season. Dropped it off at the gunsmith's place and had a Sako style put on. Year 2 after purchase: A few days before elk season this happened. Nope, not hot loads and not beat on with a hammer. It just came off. Looks like a poor solder job.
Compromise, hell! ... If freedom is right and tyranny is wrong, why should those who believe in freedom treat it as if it were a roll of bologna to be bartered a slice at a time?
Compromise, hell! ... If freedom is right and tyranny is wrong, why should those who believe in freedom treat it as if it were a roll of bologna to be bartered a slice at a time?
