338 lapua Build advice sav 110/stevens 200

[NFG]

Thanks anyway AJ, but really not needed for my purpopses. Would be good to post the information on the net for informational purposes. I've been scratching for those numbers and if they are out there, I just haven't found them yet. I just think ANY specific information relating to the hows and whys of NOT doing the 338 Lapua would be of great help because I KNOW this will come up again and again as people find the Lapua and start wondering. A very specific statement would present the information and stop most of the questions...I think or I hope anyway.

Your H1000 load according to my LD is running right at 57KCUP, close to the max. BUT as you probably well know the're are a lot of variables going on that many don't understand. That load might NOT be actually producing that amount of pressure in YOUR gun. The only way to know is to do a pressure test, maybe with RSI's pressure system.

Try the Fed 215's if you haven't already. They are more consistent than any other primers I have used. I use them in most of my large capacity, slower burning powder cals.

I don't get out that far much anymore...body all shot to H...eyes and finger work about as well as a cat and a rat together. 5-600 yds with the 243 and 22-243, sometimes I break out the 7mm RM or get fancy with the 375. I'm getting all antsy to try the 500 AR with some A Max or solid brass match. Velocity will be so low it will be like shooting my 45-120, rainbow all the way.


And thank you Edge. That is a very good example, and Dan presented the facts and numbers to back them up. High pressures are what kills using the large based cases. I remember reading that article sometime past.

BUT, and this is a very large BUTT, you can use large cases to attain higher velocities with lower pressures IF you understand HOW and stay within specific parameters...it always cost you more powder to get the same velocity as a smaller case but you can get the higher velocities and lower pressures. There is a point of very quick diminishing returns that approaches very fast when you start playing in that yard.

You can take a look at some of the Gibbs cartridges and see that happening. But with those hogs you usually run into recoil problems WAY before you run into pressure problems at least for the average, "normal" mortal.

To do this king of 'catting you also need a software program like Load from a Disk or Quick Load.

You need to do the low, slow belly crawl in your ghillie, up on ANY kind of wildcatting and that includes the reloading end.

A couple years back I built a 458 WM using a SMLE 2A action. Jeez, you would have though I had jumped on the Pope after I posted what I had done. WITH ALL the specifics relating to reloading for that receiver and how to go about creating a safe 458 WM load right out of the Hornady 2006 manual, and how easy it was to do.

Not withstanding it isn't the most desirable receiver most people think about but it is a STRONG action in many ways. I can also shoot 45-70 and 45-90 rounds in it.

I did it because the 458 WM case is MUCH easier to get to feed in the standard 303 or 308 mags...I won't even try a large rimmed 45-70 even by cutting down the rim to .575". I ran all kinds of case lengths and bullet seatings for a COAL of 3.02". The 458WM fit well so I used it.

If I had done a 450 Marlin or something based on the 444 M case I don't think there would have been ANY redazz. And yes it will handle a few factory loads, but not recommended. My loads are well within safe limits for the action at 40,000 psi taking into cosideration the bolt head size.

These examples all relate in some way to the question of a Lapua case based cartridge for the Savage. It might work even better by going up to 50 cal as long as the pressures were kept down. The RUM can be taken up to 45 cal easily enough and the 500 AR is nothing more than a necked up to .510 Lapua case, which was based on the Rigby case, shortened to 2.65" and a COAL around 3.4-3.6". Running the pressure aroung 45KPSI will give me way more thump and both ends than is needed except for those immortals who can take it.

Thanks Geargrinder...it takes me a while to get wound up and really cut loose and I've never been know for my patience. I usually don't suffer fools at all. I usually get P.O. with the usual garbage and blow it off. This time I just hung it out there and kept punching. I included a lot of information I usually never bother to put in, most of it hard earned and paid for out of MY pocket. There is so much information available and sooooo many walls. So much immediate gratification and not much swapping. I got mine, forget you BS. It's a pity we go defensive most of the time, way too soon. Life teaches us that tho'. Plus many of the forums are populated with a macho-man mentality and no way are you going to tell a hard head how to lick an ice cream cone. I come from the John Wayne era. You hold your water and don't whine when someone jumps in your face, on or off the net, but I'm also fairly well educated in many areas and slightly mild manored, but I'm a junk yard dog at heart. I don't bark, I just jump and bite. Another of lifes lessons that saved my bacon many times. I like John Travolta very much as an actor and a person, but Dancing???? Hahahaha, I liked him best in movies like "Swordfish" and "Face off".

The point being, as I have stated in the other posts, there are many ways to get to Disneyland.

Luck on your quests.

 

[PEI Rob]

... The problem is with the very small area of support at the upper and lower area inside of the receiver. When I looked at that a little harder, it dawned on me and I finally understood the whys of the problem. NO ONE mentioned that little bit of data and I missed it by looking too hard at other possibilities. Those two very small and thin cresents of steel and the small support area behind the bolt head are all you have between you and oblivion. ...

I understand now why Savage went to the larger diameter barrel shank. I see now that the lugs and barrel were not the problem. By going to a larger barrel shank and keeping the rest of the dimensions OEM, Savage in effect increased the size of the abutments and that small increase was all that was required to solve the problem.

The action is 1.355" OD. Lets say the large shank threads penetrate to a max of 1.125". That gives us a .115" thick ring equal to .498" square, say 1/2 an inch to make the math easy. She aint going to stretch because of thrust. The action lugs are being pushed on and the metal is thicker behind the top lug and I'd need VarmitAl to figure out what goes on behind the bottom lug, but I doubt it has anything to do with the shank diameter. You can increase the "size of the abutments" all you want but unless you increase the bolt lug diameter with it, there is no point, the shear forces start at the lugs. Savage increased the shank diameter to increase the amount of "meat" around the chamber and they stopped at the threads. The diameter of the area in front of the action lugs and before the threads remain the same, slightly larger than the bolt head at about 1" and that's about .785" square.


The combined surface area of both lugs in theory is .126" square. Bolt head OD is .990", action ID is .702" which leaves .288" Half that is .144" per lug times the width of .440" equals .063" square, two lugs gives .126" square. In reality considerably less because the bolt heads are tumbled leaving rounded edges and don't forget the action cam surfaces are partially under the bolt lugs. More likely around .100" - .110" square. The bolt handle has nothing to do with lug set back. .585" case/chamber gives a .26878" square area. You say 68kpsi. Thats about 18,277 lbs of thrust on .100" - .110" square area or 166,154 psi - 182,770 psi on the lugs. The Rc of the 41L40 lugs is 36-38 which has a yield strength of 165,000 - 173,000. The brass grips the chamber wall and lowers the effective thrust somewhat, good thing too.

Is this the "KRAP" you mentioned?

Oh, yes, the action is not as hard as the lugs 32-34Rc and about 147,000 psi - 156,000 psi.

 

[NFG]

I don't know whether it is KRAP or not, now do I??? I've only been on this forum for a few days and I don't know you from squat doodly, but thank's for the data. I must have rubbed your fur the wrong way, Hoss.

I apologized for my brusqueness in the earlier post, gave the reasons and requested some numbers.

If you would have ponyed this specific information up a few days ago when I ask for it, it would have made my efforts much easier. I had no way of knowing the Rc values of either the lugs OR the receiver so I was working through the problem like I've done for many years...trial and error, guestimation, working with knowns to attempt to find unknowns.

I was using ROUGH number guesses and rounding off to crunch some of the numbers and actual measurements for some of the others, just as you are, so what's the problem.

My contention that the only way to actual come up with accurate numbers is with a stress analysis is still correct, and using a pressure testing system like RSI's PressureTrace is a sure way to establish the actual pressures.

I think I succinctly stated my views and the reasons and they are still valid.

From what you're saying the setback was on the abutments NOT on the lugs if the receiver is softer, BUT, that information hasn't been presented so it's still a guess.

68KPSI is the SAAMI spec for the Lapua case, that is what I used.
0.588" for the bolt head as that is the number I extracted from case drawings.
64KPCI is the SAAMI pressure for a 300 WM, used as a comparison because there are LOTS of those being used including myself.

And you can STILL use a Lapua case as a basis as long as you keep the pressure down to where the action will handle it.

I'm guessing there is something else going on here that hasn't been fully explored, the differential pressure between the 338 Lapua and a 300 or 338 WM doesn't seem high enough to cause lug setback or the two WM cartridges are running on the ragged edge of the capabilities of the Savage all the time. I will also bet NO ONE will bother to explore this area.

AND because it was designed to handle higher pressures originally, the Lapua case would be an excellent case to use at a lower pressure even with the difference in bolt head thrust between the 300 WM and the Lapua, because case strength might offset the thrust difference.

The KRAP is always the same, someone getting ****y and a defensive position even though by now this question has been answered from several perspectives and becomes moot.

I'm done with this forum...go jump up on the couch and...there, that's a nice doggy...everything will be all right.

 

[AJ Peacock]

...

I'm done with this forum...go jump up on the couch and...there, that's a nice doggy...everything will be all right.

NFG,

I hope you stick around. I for one appreciated your inputs to this discussion. There are a ton of knowledgable folks on this site; sometimes there is friction between opposing views and sometimes there is more friction while posters wrestle around and decide they are in agreement!

Regardless, have a great day.

AJ

 

[BountyHunter]

NFG

You DON'T have to load to the 68KPSI Lapua pressures ALL the time.

You DON'T have to load to the 3.8" factory COAL.

You are correct in that statement, however you miss the point. When people here YOU CAN do that mod, THEY WILL run 68 PSI or more every dang time. They never hear or see the restrictions. We have people here pressure testing by increasing powder until the bolt locks up and then back off 2 grains and telling others to do it, so mild loads are not the norm.

No one is going to the trouble of building a 338 Lapua to run 338 Win Mag ballistics. That just does not pass the common sense test EVEN though you can.

In this thread we have info that it has been done successfully twice, and yet ZERO restrictions were mentioned. So the clear implication is that there was none! "Go for it and load to max" is what the uninformed person hears.

I spent 24 years pushing the envelope in SF. I walked away from most of them (carried away more than once also) and since retired. Most others would not make it. I would never tell them they can do certain things because I know they will not make it and do not have the experience to follow the necessary restrictions/rules even though IT CAN be done.

The internet is a wonderful tool but a little common sense has to be used with promoting "questionable practices", as all the novice will hear is "I can do that!" and he will never hear the restrictions, otherwise you are doing nothing but helping select candidates for the next Darwin awards.

BH

 

[PEI Rob]

If you would have ponyed this specific information up a few days ago when I ask for it, it would have made my efforts much easier. I had no way of knowing the Rc values of either the lugs OR the receiver ...

I did in fact post that info, in the link on page 2. The action hardness was not posted but the lugs are at the limit anyway. I was planning to verify the hardness on some of the Savage/Stevens actions and bolt heads through a local independant tester but learned I couldn't because it is a destructive test on the action. Being a hollow tube, deflection will give false high readings and I'm not willing to cut a sliver off.

I'm not ruffled with you NFG, just very concerned for those that may jump into this thinking its safe while several engineers say it is not safe and one well respected gunsmith stating actual experience with lug setback. These guys are simply not wrong and their professionalism stops them from posting specifics. I'm sure they would need to run many tests before they would be willing to post data.

 

[AJ Peacock]

Rob,

Maybe I missed something in the other posts, but NFG's explanation is what moved this discussion from "it shouldn't be done" to "this is why it shouldn't be done".

AJ

 

[NFG]

AJ has hit it almost precisely and again thanks for the confidence. BUT with the additional concept of "But this is HOW It can be done safely including a few pertainant additonal bits of knowledge".

But not even and no way, enough is enough and a few parting comments.

There has been NO QUESTION about the fact the Savage action isn't really suitable for doing a 338 Lapua at FULL PRESSURE. The fact that this question keeps coming up and NEEDS to be addressed with a short, simple, COMPLETE, factual answer seems to be wasted even on those who continually scream bloody murder that is shouldn't be done...I agree...and MAYBE if the questions I asked were answered fully as I requested, a summation could be compiled, canned and presented anytime it came up. As I said before and appearantly missed, once that information hit the net the question would probably go away. A canned statement put in a sticky with LARGE, BOLD letters would end it for all intents and purposes.

But that doesn't seem to be happening even though, I would guess, EVERYONE WOULD AGREE IT WOULD BE A GOOD THING.

I've been kicked in the balls too many times on forums for putting out information not in the normal realm, I've had enough. I expected more from this forum but see that people continue to carry around excess baggage, trot out the "expertise" and run in circles and waving their arms.

PEI: I went back to check because I didn't remember any major reference to lugs...it was buried in the link and only stated "the lugs were overstressed." nothing more.

Again, that doesn't mean diddly squat to me and probably the same to someone of limited knowledge or understanding. I've already ran lug area calculations on at least a dozen different bolts. While "our" actual numbers were different, the results were statistically similar and workable. This time I approached it from the shear modulus aspect, not quite as simple, but will supposedly give a closer approximation to the actual happening, so the results would be different.

That is why I wanted to know the ACTUAL, measured thickness of the upper lug abutment of the "large" receiver, so I could compute and compare it with what the measurements of my "small" receiver. You were so busy keep'n' on that you just "guestimated".

I already said at least once the what YOU or I say or scatter all over the flowers has a value just about as high as that material. It is nothing but conjecture, maybe based on an "assumed expertice", but still conjecture.

And the AMOUNT or the WHERE of the setback STILL hasn't reared it's ugly head.

NO factory does such a radical change just to get some extra "meat" around the chamber UNLESS there was something else going on...the whole process entails extra material being removed from the barrel, and a larger diameter barrel also. More waste and more cost, plus a fairly long and extra cost R&D process, not to mention the decision making process at the upper management level. I know a little bit about that process, but I won't toss out any war stories of that time. The 7mm and 300 magnums were alive and well and still functioning as far as I can tell.

It might also be of note that IF the change in shank size change solved the problem completely or not and the whys, but that information would come from the factory and they WON'T turn that loose for sure.

I don't know for sure if all the magnums and WSM's are large shank now or if only the WSM chamberins. That would be good to know for a certainty.

Anyone looking at this from a purely speculative view has got to be laughing at all the total, complete and many times useless BS, mine included.

BountyHunter: You are right about most of what you say, and I agree with you, but not about me missing the point, I hardly ever miss a point, but I do offer alternative suggestions for those who might use them, or DID. Not any more.

Your assumption about no one wants a 338 Lapua WM may have merit, but it also missed the point of what I said about using larger cases to achieve higher velocity at lower pressures, albeit at a higher powder cost. Velocity isn't everything to everybody, only to SOME bodies. We did it all the time in the "olden days". And I think I also covered many if not all the reasons pro and con...It is/was used with blackpowder.

I'm glad I didn't start into my next Q&A of bolt head size reduction to reduce thrust, "rebated rimmed" cases. "What would reducing the Lapua bolt head to 0.550, or 0.532" dia do to bolt thrust and lug pressures and would it make any difference?" There is a lot of that going on around the block right now and in the past.

In any event.....

 

[AJ Peacock]

NFG,

I'd like to drop you a PM, but you have that turned off. If interested in an offline discussion, drop me a PM or an email at don_peacock at hotmail dt com

Later,
AJ

 

[NFG]

I'm like a pit bull, once I get my teeth locked, I can't turn loose. I cant' turn loose here either, at least without this (last?) illustration. This forum has a small number of people and I think they are more motivated than most of the other forums, probably more knowledgeable and experienced, but still are letting the bigger picture get away from them. Not that I'm all that smart or expert except in maybe some areas.

I'm not making a case FOR or AGAINST the use of ANY cartridge in ANY receiver. I'm pointing out the holes, sometime gaping, in the arguments/opinions, some ways of looking at how to go about problem solving, some alternative ways of looking at (THIS) problem if it can be called a problem, and I base it is on EXPERIENCE and EXPERIMENTATION over 40 odd years.

I just might do that, AJ...I've been burned several times passing my email around...once burned, twice shy, Hey. I live 43 mile out in the boonies from a large town at the end of the OLD phone lines and have dial up. This forum is so graphically intense that it takes 5 minutes sometimes to load a page, and that doesn't include the problems of getting dumped for various reasons.

It take so long, basically, I don't have the time to keep doing this. As it is I usually start up then go fix my meals or do my toilet duties and so forth, then come back..When the weather is lousy I'm on the net, otherwise I'm in my shop, out shooting/testing, making pieces and parts, etc. I can go make a "something" to test, go reload/install, etc., go out to my range(100M, 155M and 340M), and test it, THEN go back and do whatever mods need done and test again. I'm NOT an expert in anything, but I can do just about anything I want within this shooting field

I don't know whether I will do a 338 Lapua or a RUM/EDGE, OR smoke test a Savage action just to destruction, it is a moot question to me, but it would be interesting to do. I might also add the fact that Savage did a Lazzeroni once and Rem is doing a 338 Lapua Police/militay right now. Comparing the data is an interesting aside, and certainly expected to stir the pot somewhat.


Here is some Load froma a Disk data for the 338 RUM, 338 Lapua and 338 WM. It illustrates what I've been saying, the gaping holes in many of the arguments, at least from my perspective and is apples to apples comparisons, except with the WM's powder use. Smaller case needs a slightly faster burning powder. BUT, for those who can understand ALL the nuances, powder use is also a variable use item.

Same BULLET, same COAL, same PRESSURE, same POWDER, just different cases.

You should also note the difference in case capacity is only 10gr H2O, which translates to about a 2.5% velocity increase (but not necessarily so) all other things being equal.

It also points up the WHY's the RUM case works much better for all the reasons, but also points up the fact that by turning the Lapua base to 0.550" you essentially have a RUM, BUT, with the extra strength the Lapua case has designed in, it would be my choice over the lower SAMMI specs of the RUM, but shot at the lower pressure.

You might just notice the small difference in velocity also AT THE SAME PRESSURES. You and I can start spliting flea hairs here, but it would be of little or no value. Keeping apples to apples would prove that.

BountyHunter, please note that going to a larger case at the same pressure as the 338 WM doesn't make it a 338RUM/LAPUA 338WM...it takes an extra 10% of a slower burning powder to give you an additional 200 fs...!!!

One other argument dissing "smoke testing" needs to be spoken to...way in the old days that's one of the methods of ascertaining MAX loads...it is still valid today as long as those doing it understand what the hell they are doing. It is done with all kinds of other calibers, has been done for the past 40 odd years that I KNOW of, it is safe as long as you approach it in a logical, safe manor and keep the stupidity to a minimum. And those doing the "stupid" doesn't make the process null or void. Mother nature has a way of dealing with those that need to learn the hard way.

I know for a fact that benchrest shooters, in the old days AND today(but less and less and we learn more and more), loaded a tight fitting chamber/receiver/bolt to well over max pressures to achieve a certain velocity. Because of the tight fit, the brass didn't have too many places to go and it lasted quite a few firings, but did "wear out" in time. Because of the "loosy-goosy" Savage fit, doing the same thing is totally uncalled for and probably is closely tied with the "setback problem". And there are ways to mitigate this problem.

For those that want an excellent visual presentation or pressure vs bolt/receivers, GOTO Varmint Al's website, you might learn something.

No one seems to get to upset about using the 338 RUM in a Rem OR a Savage, so here is the data.

No one has presented FACTUAL, EMPIRICAL, LOGICAL, SCIENTIFICALLY PRESENTED evidence including all the parameters, i.e., headspace, case data including number of times fired, powder, primer, COAL, tight or loose chamber, barrel brand or tightness, seating, throat depth, etc.

Many gunners don't have a clue that once the case fills the chamber, the brass has actually been over stressed and has passed the point of max yield. That you need to use a new case for EACH firing test, although I don't always and neither does all the "bigboys", plus using a factory cartridge to establish the amount of base expansion. This has bee cover many times in many books and publications, but NO ONE has mentioned following a logical step by step process to ascertain WHY one or two Savage actions experienced lug or receiver setback.

If you can't speak to me in this language then don't make a flat statement, make it a question or an opinion(not really worth a dam either) or an observation concerning YOUR experience with YOUR rifle and YOUR load and INCLUDE all the other pertainent information...THAT will go a long way in working through ANY problem with ANY cartridge or receiver.

I you want the pictures, save them as a picture NOT a URL because I don't leave pictures in Photobucket very long.

The wiggle words. I IN NO WAY CONDONE THE USE OF ANY RECEIVER FOR ANY WILDCAT OR FACTORY CARTRIDGE OUTSIDE THE PRESSURE RECOMMENDATON OF THE MAKER AND IN NO WAY RECOMMEND ANY FORM OF RELOADING BEYOND SAAMI RECOMMENDED PRESSURES.

Luck on your projects.

 

[Extreme454]

I'd like to kinda revive this thread. Since this thread, Savage has released several rifles chambered in 338 Lapua. So, now, since things have changed a little since the original OP, the question is...

Will a Stevens long action work for a 338lm rifle build?

 

[geargrinder]

I'd like to kinda revive this thread. Since this thread, Savage has released several rifles chambered in 338 Lapua. So, now, since things have changed a little since the original OP, the question is...

Will a Stevens long action work for a 338lm rifle build?

The Lapua actions are not regular Savage 110 actions or Steven's 200 actions.

If someone was going to build a Lapua on a regular action, I would recommend doing it without the nut to get more meat around the chamber.

 

[joe0121]

Here is my plan. Buy 10/110 FCP HS Precision. Sell the barrel and stock could get 500+ for both. Rebarrell in .338 Norma Mag. Slap on a McCree stock. I ran the numbers. Complete rifle with optics for 4500 bucks. Not too bad. I spec out a full build with aftermarket actoin and it's around 6 grand including gunsmithing.

 

[Bodywerks]

Lets revive this again!!
I just went to the local gun shop and eyed and eyeball measured a 110 chambered in 338lm compared to one in 300wm. Only difference i saw was the bolt face diameter (obviously), baffle, and size of ejection port.
You can buy a lapua faced bolt head from pt&g, the baffle can be easily modified to show the extra bolt stroke, and a mill will make short work of the ejection port.
Are we still of the opinion that converting a 110 to 338 isn't a good idea?? I ask because i am looking fir a sacrificial rifle to use the action for a custom 338lm build and the cheapest savage i can find already set up in 338lm is the model 111 at about $1k. I can find 110s in the $500 range. If i can use it and spend a couple hundred to make it 338lm capable I'd rather go that route.