Examining the 710

Gatehouse

Gatehouse

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
144   0   0
Location
Pemberton BC
Like many shooters, every time i have encountered a Rmington 710 in a shop or at the range, I've been less than thrilled. Frankly, all the ones I've seen suck, but they do shoot okay.

What about the idea they use for using 3 locking bolt lus that lock up inside the barrel, instead of the reciever?

Does this idea have any merit, assuming that it was put together in a gunt hat actualy inspried confidence? :wink:
 
HERETIC!
Burn him I say! Burn Him! :twisted:

YOU SIR! should have Jesus in your life!























here's Jesus:
287167818ou.jpg
 
shhhhh, no one should name The Rifle That's Built Like Crap!

Regarding the locking mechanism, i'm no gunsmith, so i wont comment.I wonder what remington claims is the benefits of that? anything other than cost reduction?
 
I am planning on building a 50 BMG rifle myself, and one idea I am bouncing around is making it with a quick removable barrel for easier transport. I am wondering about the benefit or problems with a bolt locking into the barrel.
I am guessing the reason Rem uses it is becuase the barrel on TRTBLC is press-fit into the receiver, and if the bolt locks to the barrel/chamber, then there is less chance of the barrel coming loose and blowing straight out the front of the receiver. Just my guess.
Anyway, if someone actually has REAL valuable insight into the pros and cons of bolt/barrel lock-up systems, I would like to hear more.
 
I've read that shotguns became much cheaper to buy and easier to make when they changed the bolts to lockup into the barrel. Receiver strength is much less critical.
On a threaded barrel, I would think that headspace would be a nightmare. The bolt lug position in the barrel would have to be set, then the chamber cut. A replacement barrel would be difficult. A barrel could not be setback. I would imagine that the only way to make it work with manufacturing tolerances would be a lock nut system like the old Savages.

I guess a press fit barrel would work better. Since the barrel and bolt are one piece while firing, the barrel shouldn't walk out of the receiver. Safety lugs would be a problem, assuming a low strength receiver.
 
Regarding the locking mechanism, i'm no gunsmith, so i wont comment.I wonder what remington claims is the benefits of that? anything other than cost reduction?
Click to expand...
Its the only way to keep the press in fitted barrel from moving forward out of the reciever during firing.

Tootall better to use coarse thread and a lock screw, its easy to do and works just fine. The M2 thread is 8TPI, on some take downs I set them up so that the barrel will thread in hand tight and lock up against the action, the have an index hole that a thumbscrew that threads through and into a recess in the side of the barrel shank to prevent it from moving and to asure alignment/headspace.
Milling out lug recesses in the barrel could be tricky, depending on what equipment you have. :mrgreen:
 
I'm not a gunsmith nor any kind of engineer, but for what it's worth, I think on the face of it the idea of the bolt locking in the barrel has merit. While I haven't tried a 710 myself, I think all of the complaints and criticisms of it that I have heard are unrelated to how the bolt locks into the barrel.
 
I think if you checked the original Ultra Light Arms rifles were built this way. If memory serves the action and barrel were one solid piece of steel (kind of like the old Savage Model 23). This precluded rebarreling them. I know the 710 has a lousy reputation, but ULA, although rare, seems to be quite well made.

Just my$.02
 
I've got a shooting buddy thats had one since they first came out, 30-06, he's so cheap he squeaks when he walks. That being said, we know why he bought the rifle. He has fired about 500+ rounds through it without a hiccup, and cleans it religeously after every 30 or so rounds. Da?n does that thing shoot. Right out of the box, 3/4 in groups at 100 yds with any factory ammunition thats been put through it. It shoots handloads well to. The thing is a real sleeper. Now, that being said, a couple of other aquaintances bought one as well. They don't shoot nearly as well, but are still acceptable, 1 1/2 - 2 in at 100 yds. I suspect that is the norm. The Bushnell 3x9 scopes that are mounted on them aren't jewels and the paralax is, again, acceptable. Overall, if a 710 package fits your budget, it will be fine right out to 250 yds. On the other hand, you can probably buy a used rifle, in any acceptable calibre you choose for the same money, that you can upgrade later when finances are less restricted. :D
 
What about the idea they use for using 3 locking bolt lus that lock up inside the barrel, instead of the reciever?
Click to expand...

Nothing new here, Sportco M44 actions were made that way back in the 60's and 70's. Some of the ones that were re-barreled had Neilson adaptors installed. This allowed the bolt to lock up in the Neilson adaptor and the barrel threaded itto the adaptor.
 
maynard said:
What about the idea they use for using 3 locking bolt lus that lock up inside the barrel, instead of the reciever?
Click to expand...

Nothing new here, Sportco M44 actions were made that way back in the 60's and 70's. Some of the ones that were re-barreled had Neilson adaptors installed. This allowed the bolt to lock up in the Neilson adaptor and the barrel threaded itto the adaptor.
Click to expand...

What exactly is the Neilson Adaptor? From your desciption, it sounds as though it is a barrel stub, in other words, a machined piece that contains the actual locking lugs that threads onto the barrel. The advantage is that it would be far easier to machine the small piece, as you could get to both the front and back of the stub. If the barrel was to be made in one piece, the locking lugs would be very dificult to make without elaborate tooling, as ATR mentioned above.

It should be noted that I am NOT a machinist (Yet! I am taking some training right now.), or a true gunsmith. Just a guy that reads far too much.

The method I descibed above is the way I am thinking of building my 50BMG takedown.
 
Tootall,

The Nielson adaptor just makes the Soprtco 44 action into a conventional "mauser" type action with the lugging lugs at the front of the action, and with 90deg. camming I think. Its more of a front of an action, than a barrel stub.

Barrels are a wear item, as you willl undoubtably find out. Why machine the lugs in a piece that you will eventually replace. Machine them once and place them in the front of the action.

Also with three lug actions primary camming to extract a cartridge is performed over 60 degrees of bolt lift. With a two lug action you have an additional 30 degrees of bolt lift to acomplish this. With a hot cartridge, and minimum body taper, I would rather have the "multiplier effect" of the extra 30 degs.

I tried working a quad lock type once (extraction 45degs)... I thought it was broken, compared to the opening feel of a Remington 700.

NormB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom