- Location
- Chilliwack
Can I re-chamber a 7MM-08 to a 284 Win.?
7mm-08/284
- Thread starter bearhunter338-06
- Start date
- Location
- Chilliwack
If I did this little project I think I would use a Remington Model 7/700 or a Ruger M77
I would check to see it feeds first. I had a m7 built in 25-284 which took a significant amount of feed rail and follower work to get it to feed properly. I have read many need nothing - but mine did and if I had known that, I would never have gone down that road.
Yes it will rechamber EASY But as DG says and i have one the 284 Win needs rail work and follower plate mods to feed properly ! Its Time consuming as you can only do a little bit and then try and then do a little bit and try it - ETC The 284 Win a fatter case then the 7 -08 - Cheers RJ
RJ- Location
- Ottawa origanally Muskoka
Remington Jim; the. Floppy one described below is the Rugger
From: bartb@hpfcla.fc.hp.com (Bart Bobbit)
Subject: Re: action stiffness
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Fort Collins Site
John Snick (johnsn@ecs.comm.mot.com) wrote:
: I've seen it posted that the Win 70 action is 2-3 times "stiffer" than
: the Rem 700 action. Does anyone have data to back this up? I'm curious
: how this was determined (measured, calculated, guess? etc.) and how
: stiffness is defined in this case.
I took one of each action, clamped a dial indicator tightly on the
receiver ring, then hung a 40-pound weight on the tang at the bolt
notch. This bent the receiver vertically. As the plunger on the dial
indicator was the same distance back on each receiver resting on the
receiver bridge to indicate how much it was deflected, and both of
the receivers were resting on their recoil lug, the comparison was
valid. The M700 bent almost three times as much as the M70. I also
measured the Ruger M77; it bent more than the M700 Rem.
In one of the bolt action rifle books, the author had made moment of
inertia calculations based on the cross sectional area of both receivers.
Those fourth-order equations produced numbers for the receiver stiffness
showing the M70 to be much stiffer than the M700; about 3 times. This
article also listed the numbers for a few other receivers but I don't
remember which ones they were. I think some of the popular benchrest
actions had calculations done on them, too.
From: bartb@hpfcla.fc.hp.com (Bart Bobbit)
Subject: Re: action stiffness
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Fort Collins Site
John Snick (johnsn@ecs.comm.mot.com) wrote:
: I've seen it posted that the Win 70 action is 2-3 times "stiffer" than
: the Rem 700 action. Does anyone have data to back this up? I'm curious
: how this was determined (measured, calculated, guess? etc.) and how
: stiffness is defined in this case.
I took one of each action, clamped a dial indicator tightly on the
receiver ring, then hung a 40-pound weight on the tang at the bolt
notch. This bent the receiver vertically. As the plunger on the dial
indicator was the same distance back on each receiver resting on the
receiver bridge to indicate how much it was deflected, and both of
the receivers were resting on their recoil lug, the comparison was
valid. The M700 bent almost three times as much as the M70. I also
measured the Ruger M77; it bent more than the M700 Rem.
In one of the bolt action rifle books, the author had made moment of
inertia calculations based on the cross sectional area of both receivers.
Those fourth-order equations produced numbers for the receiver stiffness
showing the M70 to be much stiffer than the M700; about 3 times. This
article also listed the numbers for a few other receivers but I don't
remember which ones they were. I think some of the popular benchrest
actions had calculations done on them, too.
Thats WHY they use way more Mod 70 `s and Ruger M77 `s for building Accurate benchrest guns and sniper rifles and long range target guns. Remington actions are just Junk - ! 
LOL 
RJ
LOL RJ
