Glass-Bedding a Schultz and Larsen Rifle

South Pender

South Pender

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
75   0   0
Location
Vancouver
I guess I could have put this thread in the "Gunsmithing" sub-forum, but let me try it here.

I have acquired two Schultz & Larsen rifles--a M65DL in .264 Win. Mag. and a M68DL in 7x61 S&H (the 1960-1970 versions, not the newer ones) and am wondering whether glass- or pillar-bedding them would be a good idea. So I'd be interested in hearing from owners of S&L rifles about how they have dealt with the bedding and their results. The rifles I have are wood-bedded, with the barrel in contact with the stock all along the barrel channel. That's presumably how they came from the factory.

The usual theory is that by free-floating the barrel, accuracy can be improved. But I'm also interested in getting some glass into the action area (particularly just behind the recoil lug) because there are no cross-bolts in the stocks to mitigate stock damage from recoil. So I'm contemplating having the action glass bedded (and possibly with pillars) and the barrel free-floated.

I should note that I haven't fired either rifle yet, and so some would probably advise shooting them first and making the decision later. But in the absence of any shooting data, what do you all think of the above alterations? Am I better just to leave things as they are, or would you recommend the bedding alterations I'm contemplating? Any and all advice will be greatly appreciated. Have any S&L owners on this forum altered the bedding of their rifles, and, if so, what were the results?
 
I have a S&L Model 60 in 7x61 S&H, and I have not altered it from the factory bedding. I worked on an acquaintance's M65 (I think - maybe it was an M68) that needed a really good cleaning, but again, was simply put back into the factory stock / factory bedding. Is a thing, I think, about "free floating" - many old time rifles were solidly bedded barrels - would be a very hard thing to do by smoking and setting and scraping - and then pray that the wood does not change pressures - so much easier for gun maker companies to tell us that free floating is "just as good" - I think that became "is better" - but none the less, free floating is certainly easier (cheaper) to do than is "solid bedding". And I will be the PITA guy to tell you to dismantle, clean, torque properly and shoot it, before you alter what S&L did - by and large, they actually did know what they were doing. You have very high quality hunting rifles - not bench rest rifles. Is different needs.

As I recall on my acquaintance's, was as if 30 years of oil or spray had gone down the trigger sear hole - trigger box was just full of grunge and dried oil - As per the Timney website, I think - thorough cleaning, using solvent and compressed air - then hosed it down with Ronson lighter fluid - most of it evaporates and leaves a very fine lubricating residue - about all that an enclosed trigger really wants or needs. The condition of the trigger box suggested to me that a thorough cleaning involves actually removing the grunge from the piece - not just flushing some of it lower down into the mechanism where a casual user no longer sees it.

My numbers are likely out a bit, but I had seen an older ad - so Win 70 and Rem 700 were priced like $129 and $139, and the S&L and the Weatherby were in the mid-$300, as I recall. I also read that Roy Weatherby used S&L actions for some of his early boomers - remarkable today the external styling similarities - large over-size bolt body, etc. A bit convoluted loading sequence - likely want to find and read the User Manual - S&L designed that you load the magazine through the bottom (through the floor plate), not through the "ejection port". At least the two that I played with had "ambidextrous" followers, so did not matter if first round was to the left or to the right in the "stack" in the magazine.
 
Last edited:
I once had a Model 65DL in 7x61 S&H, never altered or messed with, it remains one of the most accurate ( and heavy) big game caliber rifles I’ve ever owned. I never did hunt with it, it was just too long, heavy and awkward for the type of hunting that I was doing but I used it very successfully in Hunter Class competition out to 1000 yards and won my share of hardware with it. You potentially have a very accurate rifle and if it’s anything like mine was you won’t improve it by tinkering with it. Shoot it! And if it ain’t broke don’t try to fix it.
 
:)I have three, at present. My first was a model 65DL in 308NM. I decided to go for a;) small collection, to match the three cartridges shown on the red cover of an old Norma reloading manual. The three were apparently the result of a collaborative effort between Norma and Schultz & Larsen. Mine are;
- model 68DL in 7x61 S&H
- model 65DL in 308NM
- model 68DL in 358NM.
NO accuracy complaints as is.
:d:d:d
 
Last edited:
Here is a link to some history of the S&L rifles. https://revivaler.com/schultz-larsen-rifles/

I know my old 54J chambered in 7x61 S&H is capable of shooting sub 1/2 MOA groups from the bench and with it's long barrel it easily matches 7mm Rem Mag velocities using reloads in 7x61 Super Cases.

These rifles - especially the M54 & 54J - are also unbelievably strong and safe. I know when Roy Weatherby engaged S&L to build rifles for his then new cartridges he was concerned about the rear locking bolt. To prove this action was not constructed like most rear lockers of the era S&L repeatability "proofed" the action to 90,000+ psi to show Mr. Weatherby just how strong the M54 was. The bolt design with the gas control vents was one item the Weatherby took with him when he eventually moved to a cheaper manufacturer.
 
'Boo said:
Here is a link to some history of the S&L rifles. https://revivaler.com/schultz-larsen-rifles/

I know my old 54J chambered in 7x61 S&H is capable of shooting sub 1/2 MOA groups from the bench and with it's long barrel it easily matches 7mm Rem Mag velocities using reloads in 7x61 Super Cases.

These rifles - especially the M54 & 54J - are also unbelievably strong and safe. I know when Roy Weatherby engaged S&L to build rifles for his then new cartridges he was concerned about the rear locking bolt. To prove this action was not constructed like most rear lockers of the era S&L repeatability "proofed" the action to 90,000+ psi to show Mr. Weatherby just how strong the M54 was. The bolt design with the gas control vents was one item the Weatherby took with him when he eventually moved to a cheaper manufacturer.
Click to expand...

Hey 'Boo',:) it's been a while. These days, many of my purchases at gun shows are accessories and components. For brass storage, I have plastic stackable trays, one for each calibre I reload for. With the 7x61, I separated out those headstamped 7x61 S&H and went with just those stamped, Super 7x61. Apparently, the Super 7x61 brass came about by small changes to the inner profile and metalurgy of the original 7x61 S&H case. This served to increase the case capacity and was done to level the field with the then newly introduced 7mm Remington Magnum. My young son was living in Horsefly in the B.C. central interior a while back and a gentleman he knew was interested in the older brass and set of dies. So, now I just go with the Super brass.
 
Yep - from what I read the original 7x61 S&H designed by Phil Sharpe in 1950's was head stamped "7x61 S&H" with "NORMA Re" on the headstamp - thicker walls, thicker head to the case. By early 1960's Sharpe had died - no longer had much say - Norma engineers believed they could improve the case by using better brass alloy / perhaps better brass heat treat - and were able to increase case capacity - did not quite catch up to the 7mm Rem Mag - but most S&L rifles had 26" barrels and most Remington's had 24" barrels - so essentially no difference between the factory products. The improved cases were head stamped "7x61 Super NORMA". Perhaps 5% difference in internal capacity between the two flavours of Norma 7x61 brass.
 
I would shoot the rifles first if they shoot accurately then they are fine .
If the rifles are from the 60’/70’s and have not developed cracks then not likely they will the wood is cured and dried by now
 
Boo mentioned the pressure testing done on the S&L action. It was done, I believe, by the H.P. White Laboratory (who did a lot of ballistic testing). They found that the S&L action could withstand 129,000 psi pressure and still function. Evidently, the Mauser actions they tested topped out at about 90,000 psi. I'm not sure which S&L action they tested (54J, 60, 65, or 68), but all were very similar with respect to lock-up and strength.

In 1953 when Roy Weatherby brought out his super-magnum .378 Wby Magnum, he needed a super-strong action for it, and S&L provided it with a slight modification of their 54J action--lengthening it slightly. They called it the 56A action. Weatherby .378 Mag rifles built before 1958 (when their Mark V action appeared) were all built on this action by S&L and had the name Weatherby stamped on the left side of the receiver.
 
My 308 NM has field experience on a few Moose in the B.C. central interior and one Mule Deer hunt on draw in Alberta. The 7x61 S&H got the call for an Antelope hunt on draw, also in Alberta. Now/next,;) to get the 358 NM some field experience.
 
Johnn Peterson said:
My 308 NM has field experience on a few Moose in the B.C. central interior and one Mule Deer hunt on draw in Alberta. The 7x61 S&H got the call for an Antelope hunt on draw, also in Alberta. Now/next,;) to get the 358 NM some field experience.
Click to expand...
Load that .358 NM with 250-gr. (or even 280-gr.) Swift A-Frame bullets and you're up for anything that walks in North America. The A-Frames have a bonded front core and a heavy partition and would be my choice for anything really large and, particularly, snarly.
 
Johnn Peterson said:
Hey 'Boo',:) it's been a while.
Click to expand...

Hi Johnn, good to hear from you. :)

My old S&L would not be my first choice as a sheep rifle but it is very hard to beat when sitting on the edge of a clear-cut or alfalfa field. Even with it's relatively slow twist it will stabilize flat-base bullets up to 160 grains and absolutely loves 140 grain partitions. I own way too many rifles but this old girl built in 1955 still has the nicest trigger of any other rifle I own or have owned in the past. To describe it as "breaking glass" would be an understatement.
 
South Pender said:
Load that .358 NM with 250-gr. (or even 280-gr.) Swift A-Frame bullets and you're up for anything that walks in North America. The A-Frames have a bonded front core and a heavy partition and would be my choice for anything really large and, particularly, snarly.
Click to expand...

In my search for the three Schultz & Larsens, the one I found hardest to obtain was one in 358 NM. I put out an advert for one and received the offer of one in a model 1651 Husqvarna presentation grade from a gentleman on site. Thanked him but explained I wanted one in a Schultz & Larsen. He sent me photos and :redface: being weak willed, after seeing it, I needed it. A short while later I was able to locate a Schultz & Larsen. However, as GOOD as the Husqvarna looks, I haven't yet parted with it. And, at gun shows, I've acquired a small supply of Norma factory ammo. Getting to reloads, I was thinking I'd go with some Barnes 225gr TSX FB, and/or Barnes 250gr "X", and/or some Woodleigh 310gr Weldcore RN SN that I've gradually 'accumulated'. We'll see:). Also, there's a variety of Speer GS and Hornady bullets I have available but just listed the biggies.
 
Last edited:
Relieve some of the wood behind the tang and glass bed , it’s honestly never a bad idea with so many wonderful results possible
 
We had a 65DL S&L in 308NM back in 66. Best I could do with reloads was 1.25 inch 3 shot groups and no better after bedding. With 1 hot load something happened with the action and bolt was difficult to open and close after that. Had acquired 18 boxes of new brass and sold rifle and brass for 1200 back in the 80's. Then acquired a 7x6i which I rechambered to 7RM. My biggest complaint was the narrow loading port which was difficult to use with gloves in cold weather. Beautiful rifles though and every time I see one posted I still get an itch to buy.
 
traderal said:
We had a 65DL S&L in 308NM back in 66. Best I could do with reloads was 1.25 inch 3 shot groups and no better after bedding. With 1 hot load something happened with the action and bolt was difficult to open and close after that. Had acquired 18 boxes of new brass and sold rifle and brass for 1200 back in the 80's. Then acquired a 7x6i which I rechambered to 7RM. My biggest complaint was the narrow loading port which was difficult to use with gloves in cold weather. Beautiful rifles though and every time I see one posted I still get an itch to buy.
Click to expand...
Right, the narrow ejection port on the S&Ls was never intended to be used for loading. It's narrow to keep the receiver as stiff as possible (with the rear locking). S&L recommended loading as follows: 1. Put a round in the chamber and close the bolt, 2. turn rifle over and open the floorplate, 3. drop 3 rounds into the magazine and close the floorplate. You now have 4 rounds ready to go. It doesn't matter how you drop the rounds into the magazine; it will sort this out. In other words, no need to worry about staggering the rounds.
 
traderal said:
We had a 65DL S&L in 308NM back in 66. Best I could do with reloads was 1.25 inch 3 shot groups and no better after bedding. With 1 hot load something happened with the action and bolt was difficult to open and close after that. Had acquired 18 boxes of new brass and sold rifle and brass for 1200 back in the 80's. Then acquired a 7x6i which I rechambered to 7RM. My biggest complaint was the narrow loading port which was difficult to use with gloves in cold weather. Beautiful rifles though and every time I see one posted I still get an itch to buy.
Click to expand...

My best with the same model 308 NM, with handloads, came using the 200gr Sierra BT. The C.O.A.L. was lengthened to the max without contacting the lands and still fitting in the mag area. Four of the five shots grouped 0.722", one ragged hole. The fifth shot, just out of the 'one hole' a little made the overall group 1.061".
 
Johnn Peterson said:
My best with the same model 308 NM, with handloads, came using the 200gr Sierra BT. The C.O.A.L. was lengthened to the max without contacting the lands and still fitting in the mag area. Four of the five shots grouped 0.722", one ragged hole. The fifth shot, just out of the 'one hole' a little made the overall group 1.061".
Click to expand...

That's interesting, Johnn. My two S&Ls (a 65DL in .264 Win. Mag. and a 68DL in 7x61 S&H) have a magazine length of about 3.40". With your .308 NM, how much jump into the lands did your rounds have? I've always loaded hunting ammunition with at least .030" jump into the lands, and usually not more than that. You need some jump (i.e., distance the bullet travels before contacting the lands) with rounds being used in the field to ensure trouble-free chambering, but the accuracy equation normally favours having the jump minimal. With the .264 WM, I can achieve that with most bullets--seating them to about 3.370". With the 7x61, many bullets (Hornady, Sierra, Speer) can be seated to about .030" from the lands, but, for some reason (ogive form), with Noslers, this is a little harder to achieve. They touch the lands at about 3.46" to 3.49", so seating them to fit the magazine would result in about a .08" or .10" jump. Whether that much jump into the lands will have much if any effect on accuracy remains to be seen.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom