Rem 700 switch barrel project

I made the shoulder of the bushing the same diameter and .150" 'thick'. The length of the bushing from the front face of it is 1.100". That is .005" short of the front of the bolt lug and is very close to the go gauge measurement. The lug is pinned and fitted with a bit of coarse valve grinding compound between the action face and the lug and a jig is used to keep it lined up. The grinding compound compresses into the metal and keeps the lug from rotating and breaking the pin off when the threads are tightened.

The action was threaded to 1.100" x 16 tpi. The bushing was threaded to fit nicely by hand. The inside of the bushing is .945 x 20 tpi. I stamped the front of the recoil lug with 945 x 20.

The mating threads were cleaned well and Red Loctite was applied. Using a barrel stub to fit the bushings internal thread the bushing was torqued to 125 foot pounds.
Dennis, your bushing has an external thread that is 1.100-16. That translates to a minor diameter of 1.0233-1.0150. The internal thread in that bushing is a major diameter of .945-.9566. So, vs the original Remington as shipped situation, (minor Dia .9858-.9775) you have a considerable amount less material in a cylinder.

Best case on the bushing, 1.0233-.945 = .0783 / 2 = .03915 per side of actual cylinder left. That ain't very much. Now, worst case would be 1.0150-.9566 = .0584 /2 = .0292 of wall thickness. 29 thou Dennis??? Now, I'm sure it isn't 29, but I'm pretty sure it ain't .039 either. So, either way, that ain't a hell of a lot of metal left in your twinsert.

Minor diameter on your tenon now becomes .8837-.8767. So, now the barrel has ~.350 over the belt, maybe .400 over the rest of the chamber regardless of the case. That's .200/side that's still cylindrical.

Call me a Doubting-Thomas, but I really doubt that .034 walled (nominal) cylinder actually withstood 125 Ft/Lbs. Lest you made that from some seriously tough stuff.

I don't doubt the whole thing 'can' work. But for someone who's crusaded safety as much as you have, I find this mod, being done by YOU, to be ironic. :p I know, I pull the trigger on Sako extractored guns all the time, and safety never crosses my mind. But this, now here I might get a ants'y about pullin the trigger here. I could see me doing a string and hiding behind a tree!
 
Well I am beginning to see skeptics in this project....

The rifle in question is mine. I okayed Dennis doing what he is doing to the action. Al, 4-Mesh, you might as well CALL ME CRAZY for letting Dennis do this project to my rifle. What do I know about Metallurgy or building rifles? Nothing. I put my trust in a man who has studied the trade and been doing it for 45 years.

Dennis, I doubt anyone would come up with the money to do the test to see if it would blow up.

So guess what, I say lets do it. See if you can BLOW THAT B**** UP.

Rechamber that 6BR barrel. I will send you a factory Rem trigger to save the Jewell and send you a few loaded rounds. Take her out to the range, put her in a vice, obstruct that Gaillard barrel, Get a string on that trigger and let ER BUCK.

Let the world see what will happen to my first born.........................

Nothing that a dip into my line of credit cannot pay for another rifle action.

Oh you can still call me STUPID if you fellas want. It is me who will be sitting behind this rifle. That is the kind of person I am. A CRAZY CANUCK.

Calvin
 
Last edited:
Dennis, your bushing has an external thread that is 1.100-16. That translates to a minor diameter of 1.0233-1.0150. The internal thread in that bushing is a major diameter of .945-.9566. So, vs the original Remington as shipped situation, (minor Dia .9858-.9775) you have a considerable amount less material in a cylinder.

Best case on the bushing, 1.0233-.945 = .0783 / 2 = .03915 per side of actual cylinder left. That ain't very much. Now, worst case would be 1.0150-.9566 = .0584 /2 = .0292 of wall thickness. 29 thou Dennis??? Now, I'm sure it isn't 29, but I'm pretty sure it ain't .039 either. So, either way, that ain't a hell of a lot of metal left in your twinsert.

Minor diameter on your tenon now becomes .8837-.8767. So, now the barrel has ~.350 over the belt, maybe .400 over the rest of the chamber regardless of the case. That's .200/side that's still cylindrical.

Call me a Doubting-Thomas, but I really doubt that .034 walled (nominal) cylinder actually withstood 125 Ft/Lbs. Lest you made that from some seriously tough stuff.

The bushing has an internal 20 tpi thread with a major diameter of exactly .945... not .9566 and I believe the minor of the 16tpi was 1.020. No there isn't a lot of thickness to the bushing, and obviously not enough to satisfy you.

As I said earlier, belted magnum cases work fine with a thread diameter of .900, I doubt standard diameter cases and smaller will be a problem.

The Doubting Thomas comment... what happened when this bushing failed installation? I have no idea of how tough stainless 303 is. It machines nicely with the same ease as the 700 action.

I do like the tack weld idea, much better than pins. I may do that on the next one before truing the action. The only thing I don't like would be the lumps left under the action. I doubt the tack welding would hurt the heat treatment where it matters.

Calvin, I have a 700 trigger and another stock here. I'll stuff a few hot load BR's in and pull the trigger. Hot enough to lose cases. I don't want to blow it up though... usually the bolt head will be damaged beyond repair and you will lose that bolt.
 
I cut a notch in the front face of the reciever and use an SSS lug for a Savage. The SSS lug has a bigger 'pin' than the aftermarket 700 lugs. I put never seize on the front face of the lug and on the torque shoulder of the bbl but leave the front face of the receiver and the back of the lug dry.
 
The bushing has an internal 20 tpi thread with a major diameter of exactly .945... not .9566 and I believe the minor of the 16tpi was 1.020. No there isn't a lot of thickness to the bushing, and obviously not enough to satisfy you.
Internal threads Dennis. Remember, if the external thread is a .945-x, then the internal crest is a good bit deeper. As an example, go grab either a 4 flute tap or a helical one. (obviously 3 flute is hard to measure) Measure the OD of that tap. Lets say you've got a 3/8-16 tap, the diameter is a whole lot over .375 (as are your internal threads). I would be willing to say they fall between the two numbers I gave. Farther from .945 than you'd care to believe till you see it for yourself. Again, go measure a tap.

As I said earlier, belted magnum cases work fine with a thread diameter of .900, I doubt standard diameter cases and smaller will be a problem.
At the business end of the chamber (under the receiver face), you've probably got .175 to .200 of cylinder left with that 900 thread. .175-.200 is a lot more than the .035 your twinsert has. That's the part I'd expect to fail if anything did, not the tenon on the barrel.

The Doubting Thomas comment... what happened when this bushing failed installation? I have no idea of how tough stainless 303 is. It machines nicely with the same ease as the 700 action.
Not very tough at all. In fact, it's extremely malleable.

I do like the tack weld idea, much better than pins. I may do that on the next one before truing the action. The only thing I don't like would be the lumps left under the action. I doubt the tack welding would hurt the heat treatment where it matters.
Yea, the pins suck. Weakens the receiver ring something terrible too. The weld bumps can be chamfered with a tool in the lathe when the thing is done. Especially on a remmy that's round, all you need to do is stick a 45 in there and mostly clean it up. Fact is though, as long as the lug doesn't move, you've achieved all you want with the switch barrel arrangement and don't need to care about the shape down there. And, as to the weakening of the receiver ring, it won't. That area is under compression anyway, and you've got .700 of threads yet to hold behind it. Done right, nothing gets all that hot. You could even mig it if you wanted to. 4140 welds nice. Just make sure the barrel is attached and torqued when you weld it.[/QUOTE]
 
jeeepers...... you'se guys want nothing but pats on the back and "well done fellas" go post over on "Yucking It Up Arounde Ye Jollie Kempfire.com"

You come on here and ask for opinions and you'll get them, which is the only reason I come here.....

al
 
internal threads dennis. Remember, if the external thread is a .945-x, then the internal crest is a good bit deeper. As an example, go grab either a 4 flute tap or a helical one. (obviously 3 flute is hard to measure) measure the od of that tap. Lets say you've got a 3/8-16 tap, the diameter is a whole lot over .375 (as are your internal threads). I would be willing to say they fall between the two numbers i gave. Farther from .945 than you'd care to believe till you see it for yourself. Again, go measure a tap.

When I threaded the internal of the bushing and I decided it was threaded enough, I then machined a relief with the threading tool left at that depth... this measured .945. That is how I established that dimension.
 
.

At the business end of the chamber (under the receiver face), you've probably got .175 to .200 of cylinder left with that 900 thread. .175-.200 is a lot more than the .035 your twinsert has. That's the part i'd expect to fail if anything did, not the tenon on the barrel.

What do you expect will happen when this fails? As in how will it fail?
 
Well, I don't think it will "fail" where "fail" is all or nothing. I may be misreading him, but I don't think that's what Phil is talking about. If I'm wrong, he'll correct me.

Another nicety of welding is the lug stops acting like a little lever trying to pry the barrel & receiver apart, as it does when pinched, right? (Or, again, correct me if I'm wrong).

Finally, If you weld it, what in the world would be wrong with a long relief, starting the barrel thread, say, .250 farther back from the lug? With a typical Remington, this would just change which 5-6 threads do most of the work.
 
Calvin,

Not crazy at all. Fact is, I am the only person I know who has tested an action to destruction, just to see how much one would take. They'll take a lot!

Dennis, where would I expect it to fail? Well, My guess is, if you were able to remove the twinsert (bushing, whatever you want to call it), you'll probably find it has cracked in the areas where it is thinned between threads. My guess would be that if a thread or two fail, (cylinder part separates) load will pass to others behind it. At that point, I'd guess you're nearing where it will begin to strip. The good thing about a barrel is that it's got way more threads than it needs. So, even if it were to begin to strip, it'd probably act like a real long, fine thread arrangement, where it'll strip say the first inch of threads, but the next two inches are still intact.

All I can do is speculate. Predicting where something like this could fail is difficult cause it's likely it will do so in a progression. With two different pitches on the ID/OD, means SOME of the threads are going to be basically full depth (at certain spots). Failure at one spot could lead to additional strength at another.

Charles,
I agree, and yet I wonder if a full failure isn't possible. I don't know. I don't think it will blow up, but If someone said one did, I wouldn't doubt them either.

Some time back a discussion began about some bolt lugs and bolts breaking. I commented in that thread about how these things happen, and what to expect when they do. I said this after having made bolts and broken them. Even with the bolt head shattered, it still didn't come out. Nothing breached, nothing escaped... Stuck another one in and did it again. Same breakage pattern. Same results. At least in my actions, I felt confident that with a proper bolt, there was zero chance of anything dangerous, regardless of how bad a bonehead move I could make at the loading bench. I could fill a 300Wby case with bullseye and still not be scared (tho I would not be opening the bolt any time soon!).

I know this, if you purchase a twinsert (got boxes of em at work), there is a considerable amount of material that's contiguous in them. Unlike a helicoil. The reason they need that when a helicoil does not, is that the helicoil is the same pitch inside and out. Each thread is a dual-bearing surface. When they are not the same pitch, they cut each other off occasionally. At those places, the part is thinnest. That is where I would expect it to separate when placed under load, like barrel torque, or firing. Even if it doesn't break there immediately, it will almost certainly fatigue. Still doesn't mean it'll fail, but, after a period of time you might have two pieces of bushing holding the barrel instead of one.

I'd be curious to know how it all turns out.

When I threaded the internal of the bushing and I decided it was threaded enough, I then machined a relief with the threading tool left at that depth... this measured .945. That is how I established that dimension.
If that measures 945, then the thread itself is really smaller than .945 (on the tenon). There is a radius on the tool, so maybe a good bit smaller. Giving a pitch diameter of the tenon would tell more about this. Not that the exact number means anything. It's just a number. The only thing you need to know is how to replicate it for the next barrel. So the internal number is meaningless.

I don't want to turn it into a hornets nest, but it seemed like an interesting discussion.
 
I think it is an interesting discussion too... The fact that it only takes a couple of threads to hold a barrel in place when shot with high pressure loads is why I think this won't be a problem. I don't know what strength the Loctite adds to the bushing/action fit but I believe it does.

We will see how the 'pressure' testing goes next month. If the head space changes or not...
 
When actions are sleeved the sleeves are epoxied on and into place. What about doing the same with the bushing??????? Just a question....

Calvin
 
I'm not sure Phil caught that this is a .223, and anther chambering also on he .223 diameter case. And I know it is the bushing Phil thinks at risk, not the tenon. But the radial force, anyway, is applied through the tenon, and these are skinny cartridges.

Does that have a bearing, Phil?

Edit:

Calvin, the force applied to the sleeve, or a barrel block, for that matter, is nowhere near what is applied to the action joint, which sort of accidentally, is part of the chamber. Boyd's old analogy of the pressure in an oxygen tank not applied to the person carrying the tank.

In other words, no.
 
Last edited:
Some time back, Gene Beggs used a bushing, that was not loctited or epoxied, between the action threads and a tenon of reduced diameter to facilitate experimentation with barrel indexing. (The tenon and action threads were different.) He found that the reduced barrel thickness in the area of the tenon caused bolt lift to get sticky at lower pressures than was the usual with cases of PPC head diameter ( I don't remember which caliber.), but that it was not a problem with .223 diameter cases.

Years ago, I read that a gunsmith of some experience had found that belted magnums cold be loaded to slightly higher pressures without bolt handle lift issues in Remington actions (1.062 nominal thread diameter) than Winchester (1" tenon). It seems to me that if one were running a series of loads of increasing pressure, that based on this,and Gene's experience, that bolt lift issues would show up well before any action or bushing failure.

4Mesh,
Based on your action failure test, would the action let go if the brass held? In the one example of action failure that I have examined, (multiple charged cast bullet load) the case failed and the escaping gas blew the top off of the front receiver ring. Also, possibly dumb question, isn't the force that is trying to push the barrel out the front of the action approximately the same as bolt thrust?

Boyd
 
Boyd, not to stray from the topic of the thread, just a note:

Years ago, I read that a gunsmith of some experience had found that belted magnums cold be loaded to slightly higher pressures without bolt handle lift issues in Remington actions (1.062 nominal thread diameter) than Winchester (1" tenon).
IIRC, this was Jim Borden in Precision Shooting. And an article about Jim (well, Borden Accuracy), rather than authored by him. Anyway, the finding was for cases having a .404 Jeffery diameter, on which Jim had made several hunting wildcats, not for belted magnums. The solution was to have a little more generous chamber diameter for the Winchester (1.00-inch tenon).
 
I don't think the locktite helps anything at all, other than keeps the bushing from unscrewing when the barrel is removed. Used on scope mounts, it will not hold up for even one shot. Pow, it's done. It keeps screws from backing out, but is useless for strength purposes.

Pretty much, same goes for epoxy. It's great in places where there is virtually no stress, but not worth a lot in places where pressures exceed either its tensile, or compressive strength, which should not even be compared with steel, of any type. Not even aluminum.

Charles, given that the purpose was to make a switch barrel, I just concluded that other barrels would end up on it. Maybe they won't. Yes, at .223 the bushing will be insulated better than if this really was a win-mag. But either way, the repeated impact will have some effect eventually. Does anyone remember the bayonet mount style die holders for reloading presses? They were thin, they are a great idea. But, they break when put under FL resize stress repeatedly. They crack, split, etc. Lee turrets do the same thing. I get em 4 or so at a time cause they fail. Takes a while, but, eventually, they do. They're cheap and I like the presses. And life is too short for me to waste it changing dies all the time. Especially when I've got so many. But, those presses don't have trigger either.

Boyd, in my experience, if you add enough pressure, 'something', 'will' let go. You WILL find the weakest link in the chain. I found it to always be the cartridges. Consider tho I wasn't testing a Rem 700. This action was substantially stronger, like, 300%. The danger in that is the brass coming out at mach speeds. The firing pin being fired back enough to damage the spring (would get you in the face pretty good if a person was there). Trigger damage, extractor damage. Bolt rim expansion. Ejector damage. Most of that stuff has a shooter nearby. Bolts only cracked when made to do so. (wrong materials). They still held up. Even shattered, the parts were like a puzzle that had nowhere to go. It would jam itself in place if pressure was applied, like a Chinese finger trap. Once removed , it could not be re-inserted. A 300WSM /190 with a full case of 4227 didn't make it come apart. I felt that was enough of a test. Stuff was broke tho! I would not try that same test with a Rem 700 cause that will be a grenade.

Imo, if this was me, I'd go test the thing with the .223. If I had signs that something was gett'n ready to come apart, (bolt lift issues, etc) I'd scrap the tenon/bushing, weld on the lug, and rechamber with the 1.1" tenon. Same action, same barrel, just an inch shorter. Done... Next!
 
To clarify the cartridges it will be used for, 223 to start and 6BR..... The main intent for the rifle is keeping it in the 223 boltface configuration.
 
Charles,
You may be right, or I could be recalling another article. In any case, you have a very good memory. On the more generous chamber thing, some years back, a friend wanted a tight neck, no jump .300 Weatherby. (rebarrel of a German actioned Weatherby) I ordered the reamer with factory chamber body diameter spec's. Pretty much everything else was different. We used one case to run our pressure tests, and a neck die that I have spec'd the chamber neck diameter to match for the desired neck tension, and took the pressure up past ejector marks to the point where the belt diameter made a second significant move. That case would go right back in the chamber, with no tightness issues after seven or eight firings, the last three of which were very hot. I credited the generous chamber body diameter. I know Alinwa will love this, being the chief proponent of loose backed chambers.
Boyd
 
Picture of barrel nut

DSCN2604.jpg This was my solution to using a barrel that was not large enough for my Remington 700. It was large enough to thread normally but that left no shoulder. I mentioned this in a previous post. I had not seen PAC-NOR barrel nut until now. Same general idea. I have no intention of removing so it is locked on with green locktite and a good amount of torque.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Also, possibly dumb question, isn't the force that is trying to push the barrel out the front of the action approximately the same as bolt thrust? Boyd

'Morning, Boyd. It's interesting that you ask this question. In the 'Houston Warehouse' thread, you posted this:

I think that the maximum, greased chamber force that is trying to push the barrel out of the front of the receiver ( case intact) would have to equal the bolt thrust, and we have figures for that.
Boyd

Thanks in advance for clarifying this. -Al
 
Back
Top