David Tubb firing pin spring

E

ehkempf

New member
I just recently got one of David Tubb’s Speedlock firing pin assemblies for a Rem. 40X.. What use to be a one piece firing pin spring, is now a two piece spring. The coils are facing each other (two equal halves one facing right one left, so to speak) . Has anyone heard anything about this, is it effective? I found no info about this new concept on David’s web site. Any thoughts?

Ed
 
Last edited:
Have you used it and are you sure it's not broken? I had a Tubb spring in my rem 700 and it broke. I think it was too long and rubbed on the bolt, but not sure. He replaced the broken one but it looked too long as well and I ended up using someone else's setup - don't recall who, but it came from either Midway or Sinclair.

Dennis
 
DeltaBravo said:
Have you used it and are you sure it's not broken? I had a Tubb spring in my rem 700 and it broke. I think it was too long and rubbed on the bolt, but not sure. He replaced the broken one but it looked too long as well and I ended up using someone else's setup - don't recall who, but it came from either Midway or Sinclair.

Dennis
Click to expand...

No it's not broke. Talked to one of the tech's at Superior Shooting (David Tubb's site) and he confirmed it. If it were broke all the coils would probably be facing in the same direction.

Ed
 
Butch Lambert said:
Ed,
What do you think it will do for you?
Click to expand...

I am not really sure. The original CS spring was suppose to aid in faster lock time. The other claim that over time, repeated firings, would loose very little of their overall length, strength as compaired to standard music wire type springs. I would think, because of the oposing spring direction, they would tend to not take a "set" as fast as a spring with the coils all going in the same direction. That is why I asked the original question, wanted other opinions or experiences.

Ed
 
ehkempf said:
I just recently got one of David Tubb’s Speedlock firing pin assemblies for a Rem. 40X.. What use to be a one piece firing pin spring, is now a two piece spring. The coils are facing each other (two equal halves one facing right one left, so to speak) . Has anyone heard anything about this, is it effective? I found no info about this new concept on David’s web site. Any thoughts?

Ed
Click to expand...

Cannot comment regarding the effectiveness of such a spring. However, if the pressure exceeds 24#, and especially if it's a 30#er, and the timing (bolt:receiver) is not near perfect, the "excessive" pressure will rapidly wear the cocking/extraction cam, on the bolt-handle, limiting/reducing primary extraction. On a Remington, if the gap between the [forward] face of the bolt-handle, and the [rear] face of the receiver exceeds 0.010", you're already giving up a substantial amount of surface contact between the receiver-cam and the bolt-handle cam. Good shootin'! RG
 
R.G. Robinett said:
Cannot comment regarding the effectiveness of such a spring. However, if the pressure exceeds 24#, and especially if it's a 30#er, and the timing (bolt:receiver) is not near perfect, the "excessive" pressure will rapidly wear the cocking/extraction cam, on the bolt-handle, limiting/reducing primary extraction. On a Remington, if the gap between the [forward] face of the bolt-handle, and the [rear] face of the receiver exceeds 0.010", you're already giving up a substantial amount of surface contact between the receiver-cam and the bolt-handle cam. Good shootin'! RG
Click to expand...

I have to problem with what you have said. I would think the David Tubb and his team have done enough research and testing not to put out a product that would be harmful to the proper functiong of a Remington. A two piece firing pin spring is a new concept, at lease to me, that is why I created the original post. I would assume, hate to use that word, that the two piece spring is no different in pressure weight than the original CS spring. The CS spring has been on the market for some time and I have not heard any bad things about it.

Ed
 
I have to agree with RG.
I think Tony Boyer put the best analogy of this in has book. He basically says that trying to change out to heavier springs is like having a door our of alignment on your car, that instead of putting it back in alignment you just slam it harder. Just because someone makes something doesn't mean they know what they are making. All they are doing is filling a nitch in the market where they see a potential sales. It all comes down to money, if enough people want something then someone will give it to them in order to make a few bucks. Then when that dies, out they will change the design again call it new and improved, and sell a bunch more. When Mike Walker designed the Remington 700 he used a 24 lbs spring for a reason.
 
I bought one of those spring/firing pin sets from Tubb 3 years ago. I sent it to Greg Tannel who was also doing a bushing job on my 40X bolt at the same time. He called me and told me both the spring and firing pin were useless and wanted permission to replace with new factory stuff, modified for the smaller firing pin diameter of course. He said the spring had too much tension and rubbed the bolt severely and that the firing pin was warped. I sent them back to Tubb and finally got my money back.
 
Ed,,,there are a lot of replacement products out there that are no better than the original...plutonium fireing pins,,kryptonite ball bearings,,snake oil !!!,,,,if you need a new spring call Kelblys ,,,they have ones that are proven to be the right stuff,,,Roger
 
My experience is the stronger spring causes harder bolt lift and wears the skin off of my hand unless the knurling is removed from the bolt handle. I don't recall ever having a misfire with a factory spring.

Don
 
You NEED to READ what I wrote!

ehkempf said:
I have to problem with what you have said. I would think the David Tubb and his team have done enough research and testing not to put out a product that would be harmful to the proper functiong of a Remington. A two piece firing pin spring is a new concept, at lease to me, that is why I created the original post. I would assume, hate to use that word, that the two piece spring is no different in pressure weight than the original CS spring. The CS spring has been on the market for some time and I have not heard any bad things about it.

Ed
Click to expand...

Ed, you need to slow down and READ the words, and what I will add below - especially the part regarding the 'timing' ("if the pressure exceeds 24#, and especially if it's a 30#er, and the timing (bolt:receiver) is not near perfect, the "excessive" pressure will rapidly wear the cocking/extraction cam, on the bolt-handle, limiting/reducing primary extraction.") I neither criticized MR. Tubb , nor his product - I merely pointed out the very REAL potential - improper timing (bolt-handle location) is VERY COMMON mechanical issue on Remington bolts. The gap-space often far exceeding the maximum 0.010" clearance: more clearance than this greatly REDUCES the cam contact, and when combined with a heavier than standard spring, RAPIDLY wears the rear corner of the bolt-cam, thus REDUCING primary extraction. This problem is solved by moving the bolt-handle forward.

'Way back' in the late 80's/early 90's, a fair number of us, experimented with heavy (30 Lb. or so) springs and/or, ultra light firing-pins: hypothetically, to reduce lock-time, thus improve precision . . .
that fad didn't last long - we determined that the heavier springs and titanium, etc., pins were detrimental to precision shooting. Please do not take this as slandering Mr. Tubb, it is simply a statement of the collective experience of competitive bench-rest shooters, which was well documented in the pages of the now defunct PRECISION SHOOTING MAGAZINE. :cool:

For all I know, dual springs may prove to be, "the cat's meow" - but, especially, if 'heavy' will not lessen the issue of an improperly 'timed' bolt-handle. Keep 'em ON the X! RG
 
Last edited:
After watching his short video, the two springs are wound in opposite directions, eliminating any spring release torque. This eliminates the bolt handle from jumping at the time of sear release, translating into a smoother shot.
 
fatelvis111 said:
After watching his short video, the two springs are wound in opposite directions, eliminating any spring release torque. This eliminates the bolt handle from jumping at the time of sear release, translating into a smoother shot.
Click to expand...

I've installed 4 in my Pandas. Doesn't seem to reduce bolt handle jump but does "seem" to have faster lock time.On a couple of my Pandas I can't get the cross pin out??

.
 
I have installed the double spring on my Viper and a friend has installed them in a couple of Pandas. The weight is about 25#, there is less vibration when you dry fire, and the lift in the top half of the bolt's opening is slightly reduced. I am surprised that so many have commented on what they have no experience with. The dual spring is really a separate subject from light pins. A friend built a fat bolt action that had room for thrust bearings at the end(s?) of his firing pin spring. He told me that doing that (with a one piece spring) noticeably reduced bolt lift. When a one piece spring compresses, evidently the end has to rotate slightly relative to the surface that it bears on. This friction is added to the effort it takes to compress the spring but does not contribute to the energy imparted to the firing pin. When the rifle is fired, the spring moves against the surface again, and that movement evidently causes some vibration. The issue of pin weight is, I believe, related to tip diameter in that a larger tip has different requirements than a smaller one. I have a light pin that I have tried with various weight springs and it seems to have worked with all of them. My viper has a nominal .062 pin tip. This diameter results in higher unit loading at a given pin and spring weight. The reason that I tried the light pin was not for decreased lock time but rather to reduce the disturbance of the rifle during firing, sacrificing some momentum but retaining energy, which may be more the issue for reliable ignition of primers up to a point. If you look at the cross hairs the light pin has the desired effect, and I can detect no decrease in ignition performance. This is not to say that there would not be one with a larger diameter pin tip. Bottom line the Tub dual spring gives a slightly easier bolt lift, less bolt vibration, and does so without reducing force imparted to the pin. It is made from material that is superior to the factory spring and should therefore retain its compressed weight longer.
 
Unless I'm missing something the firing pin of a Remington does not rotate. It's pinned to the cocking piece which rides in the trigger side plates. No rotation.
 
Hello crb Not sure where you got that the Firing Pin it's self-was rotating. But here is what Mr. Allen said

(( When a one piece spring compresses, evidently the end has to rotate slightly relative to the surface that it bears on.)) ;)

Chet
 
coyotechet said:
Hello crb Not sure where you got that the Firing Pin it's self-was rotating. But here is what Mr. Allen said

(( When a one piece spring compresses, evidently the end has to rotate slightly relative to the surface that it bears on.)) ;)

Chet
Click to expand...

You are right. My apologies.
 
In my previous post on this thread I got so wound up on other things that I forgot to put in something that is important to the understanding of how the dual spring setup works. The springs are wound in opposite directions, one clockwise, the other counterclockwise. This is done so that the rotation of the springs as they compress and extend cancel out. There is no motion at the ends that bear on the shroud and firing pin shoulder. The issue resolves itself where the two springs meet because as one spring rotates in one direction at that end, the other rotates in the opposite direction so that they cancel each other out. Each "lets" the other go where it wants to. As a result, there is no torque applied to the bolt, no jiggle as the ends slide against their abutments, and no additional force required to compress them from friction against their outer ends as they move. IMO that is the reason for the reduction in lift as the bolt handle reaches the top of its opening stroke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top