Gunsmiths, shooters, engineers. Please, help me with my action

M

MFG_BOP

Guest
Hi guys,

I need advises/critics/knowledge here on a dilemma I am living right now. I am about start making investment casting receivers
for either centerfire and rimfire. I would like to use the same mold for both of them (because of mold $$$).

I will try to be as short as possible with my question here and will elaborate further as the thread goes (if it goes).

Here they are:

- Would you make the mold with the extraction window, trigger slot, both abutments with its respective cams on so both types can come out of one mold and just different machinings?
- Should I focus on just one sort of action (with and without the above details)?
- Should I just make the mold to crank out the raw action #1 on image and then machine it accordingly?
- Should I forget about all that, pack my bags and go have a few days off in Australia w/ wife and son? :cool:

Mold is to make Rem 40-X benchrest actions type to use PTG bolts (again, both rimfire and centerfire).

Question here is not what the strongest actions is... cast or machined, but the details on the investment casting mold.

Image shows 3 actions with theirs respective cut outs. It was a MODO render of my Solidworks file.

I had once one Farley rough cast (no machining) and the only parts machined were the ramp on the back of the action and the main hole for the bolt.

I am asking here this question cos there are many smarter guys than I am out there and this site is a source of good people AND 2500X actions get here in New Zealand at the cost of NZ$ 3,000 :(

Gotta say thanks for Wayne (lion) for his help!

Cheers guys!

actions.jpg
 
New Actions

Am I reading your dwg. correctly,in that these are all rear/mid lok-ing lug.................????
intended to use rem. style recoil lug...???
some machining left for buyer.....???
 
I have two early Farley cast actions, and they do appear to be cast with the idea of minimum machine work.

While both shoot very well, you can see the difference in the casting tolerances, as the bolt from one will not go into the other. There is enough difference in the height of the raceway slots.

The lost wax/ceramic mold process is quite precision, and economical once the mold is made and perfected.
We have a customer that has bronze cam lock latch dog handles cast in this method, and the only thing we have to do is drill and tap a 3/4 NC hole in them.

I guess the big question is how much will the mold cost. The second would be is there enough similarity between the requirements of a Rimfire action as opposed to those of a centerfire.

By the way. Why rear locking lug? Historically, rear locking lug actions will exibit more action stretch under the pressure of firing than a forward lug action. This is not a consideration in rimfire, but might be in center fire, especially at the pleasures encountered in many Benchrest Chamberings.
 
Having seen the pain jim farley went thru casting his early actions id shy away. So many problems it was crazy. He could get a casting machined 98% then find porosity on the last cut. It took boxes and boxes of castings to get 25 actions not to mention shipping the molds all over the country trying to get castings done. Theres a reason theyre not cast anymore in other words. And like jackie said i wouldnt go rear lug on a centerfire so there goes the same action body idea
 
Hi guys, thanks heaps for your time to come down and help me out with some ideas.
I haven't been clear with one of my statements. What I mean is from one mold to be able to
make either rimfire and centerfire actions, depending on the clients wish, so that's why
the rear locking lugs cast in. If, let's say, you want a centerfire, you will have it but you will
have a plugged rear lug abutment for cosmetic purposes. For a rimfire, it doesn't matter. Just skin off
a bit of the front lug abutment.
Yeah, I know I will have lots of work, but it's not my main income and I am a bit keen to take a few ri$k$.
Probably I will have the extraction window cast in for rimfire and just open it up for a centerfire. I will use
Rem type trigger.
Thanks again for all the inputs.
Cheers
MFG
 
Others have been successful with cast actions, but not so much in the BR world. I see logical thinking in the idea, the biggest obstacle is obviously the castings. The Remington 40X pattern makes sense for availability of stock inlets and the Remington trigger pattern is the only game in town.

Having said that, there are deficiencies in the Remington design that others have improved and you should definitely follow that road. Make the tang beefier and definitely re-contour the extraction cam.

There are a number of Remington pattern customs out there that have already addressed those issues. The 40X rimfire market is very small. If you succeed in producing a high quality custom action at a competitive price the biggest market is probably those shooters looking for a custom long range hunting or tactical style rifle. The BR world will be a tough room. Someone needs to use your action to win matches.

I hope to see you post here to report your progress.

Post Script: I see from your profile that you are in New Zealand. Obviously the market for a Remington clone action would be different down under.
 
Last edited:
gunsmiths shooters engineers help me with me action.

I would forget casting the action. Yo will have better quality control using a high grade of bar stock
Best to work soft and harden later.
If you make a mistake it will be lest costly in the long run
I know it's bit more work but you will find it pays off in the long run.
The other way is forging the receivers .
Remington uses bar stock and they are some of the strongest actions around. I'm not sure about Winchester these days.
Winchester pre 64 receivers were forged. I'm pretty sure savage and the rest are using Bar stock
Ruger action,s are cast.
I guess it comes down to your intended rate of production.
 
I'd pick one cartridge and stay with that. Expand your offerings later.

You *will* get castings with bubbles. If the castings are decent there won't be many and they can be welded up.

You'll need to find someone experienced in cosmetic TIG welding. You'll also need a heat treater that doesn't want an arm and a leg.

Casting avoids the hassle of drilling, reaming, and cutting the bolt raceways. That's good, but you can send bar stock off to have it gun drilled, and while the broaches to make the raceways are expensive, it might come out cheaper per-part than a casting. You can cast many of the features for the receiver... but if you're doing the machining with CNC the additional cuts for a billet are very cheap.

If you're not doing the CNC work in-house you'll have to pay a shop to write the code for you. Even if you write your own they'll want to validate it and make any needed modifications for their machinery and controllers. But while you're negotiating price, tell them you want ownership of the code. If you have problems with the shop having working code will give you a leg-up when negotiating with the next shop.

I don't know what your engineering or machining experience is, but pay close attention to the tolerances for your dimensions. The tighter you want to hold dimensions, the more cost goes up. The book "US Rifles and Machine Guns" by Colvin and Viall has the entire process for making the 1903 Springfield rifle; everything from alloy compositions to tooling and coolants. You can download PDFs for free, but an old paper edition is much easier to read.
 
please help me with my action.

One thing I might add you don't necessarily need race way in the action.
you could patern the action like some others, the wichita 1375 for example.
I think the bat 3 lug also. early shilen come,s to mind also .
 
GerryM said:
One thing I might add you don't necessarily need race way in the action.
you could patern the action like some others, the wichita 1375 for example.
I think the bat 3 lug also. early shilen come,s to mind also .
Click to expand...

I have never seen a Shilen without raceways. Benchmaster and Halls were built that way.
 
gunsmiths shooters engineers help me with me action.

I'm pretty sure he made one at the begining.
Very early model. I believe it was at Harts shop or Ross Sherman shop, right after he left to work for John Dewey'

Any way they work just fine that way, I really like my bat 3 lug and the Wichita 1375.
 
gunsmiths shooters engineers help me with me action.

Maybe Butch.
Right now I have way to many and have to thin the herd out.
I have quite a few different actions that i've been using on and off.
I'll have to take a look at the Benchmster''
 
Shilen definitly made a full diameter bolt action. When I first started BR in late 1969 there were a couple here in the NW. The action was unique in that it was a "four lug" with two sets of lugs spaced 180 degrees apart, and locked with the lugs in the horizontal orientation. Kind of a "double two lug". The American Rifleman mag. did a review of the action in 1962 (I think the year is correct). The listed price was $125.00! Really had to jog my brain on this one. I think I'm pretty correct.

FWIW
Steve Kostanich
 
Gents,

In re: the older actions and FWIW, I have a Ross Sherman Superior action in which the bolt is full diameter and also locked-up with the lugs in the horizontal position. I found this unusual as most two lug actions that I've seen lock-up vertically. I've always wondered why Mr. Sherman did this (as did Ed Shilen)...I have my suspicions...what are yours?

Justin
 
gunsmiths shooters engineers help me with me action.

As i said in my post
Ed worked with Ross Sherman for a while before going to work with John Dewey.

Ross was a true 1/10th man and a fine person.
I remember him very well and he had his opinions I guess he had quite an influence on Ed Shilen.

Ed was learning how to make buttons for the rifling process.

At the time Ross was making buttons for Remington arms and later Hart barrels.

Ed learned a great deal on button rifling at Hart rifle Barrels shop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top