why to sleeve an action?

J

JRB

Guest
I realize that having a rigid action is a good thing,
but do you sleeve because the barrel is too heavy and distorts the action?
or because the powder charge is too great and the action flexes when fired?
just wondering about a new barrel for my Sako L579 in .243W and wondering what the limitation are?
Not to cause any confusion i am not thinking of sleeving the action, just about the barrel weight.
Thanks
Jim
 
Last edited by a moderator:
why to sleeve an action

when I started shooting years ago we had the actions sleeved for too reasons.
The first was to make the action more ridged, the second was to increase the bedding area of the action.
 
GerryM said:
when I started shooting years ago we had the actions sleeved for too reasons.
The first was to make the action more ridged, the second was to increase the bedding area of the action.
Click to expand...

In this day and age of synthetic stocks and pillar bedding, sleeves are a thing of the past.
 
Any of the barrel sleeves I have seen didn't have any effect on the relationship of the barrel to the action as the barrel goes inside the sleeve and uses the original action threads. The chamber-to-boltface relationship must be maintained. They are (as stated) to stiffen the action or make it more rigid as most of the factory actions have large cut-outs for easy loading and ejection of cartridges, plus cut-outs for magazines -- all of which weaken the actions. And they added to the bedding area. The use of sleeves was an early improvement over factory actions that has been surpassed by the excellent custom actions now available.

I think your Sako action should easily handle any of the common "varmint" weight barrels and certainly that is all you'll want to carry around.
 
GerryM said:
when I started shooting years ago we had the actions sleeved for too reasons.
The first was to make the action more ridged, the second was to increase the bedding area of the action.
Click to expand...
Actually, if it was long enough ago, there was a third: getting the scope mounts off the barrel.

To the original poster: If you're getting a custom barrel, you could ask the barrel maker, esp. about the profile they would advise for this action, unsleeved. They would have a lot of experience with the various compromises. As would -- likely -- the gunsmith you pick to fit the barrel. As with most things, there are always trade-offs.
 
why to sleeve an action

Your correct about that third option.
I still have a use for a sleeve . Recently I purchased a sleeve in the form of the panda/ teddy action.
I had the 600 action installed in it. It took that little action and turned it into something special.
It will shoot right along side of any custom action. I had a friend blueprint the action prior to having the sleeve installed.
I had it chambered in 30 Br and it shoots really well. It a inexpensive bench rig . I had an extra panda foot print stock and the other parts to complete the build.
The sleeve also has a recoil lug built in. Similar to a teddy action.
It all depends on just exactly what you are looking for in a rifle.
I'm sure you little sako will be just fine, if you don't go overboard on barrel weight.
 
I know what you mean Lee. Taylor & Robbins used to top half sleeve (strong back) M98s back in the late forties and 50s. They extended the sleeve beyond the front receiver ring to mount the long target scopes of that time. They also filled the magazine slot in and usually added a third guard screw. Their guns were always on top of the heap at the benchrest shoots, usually chambered in 219 Don Wasp. Those beautifully checkered walnut stocks sure make you drool.
 
Why sleeve an action

One thing that sort of strikes me as strange - actions were sleeved to compensate for large cutouts. OK

Now we have custom actions - much stronger, but may have left loading port and right ejection port. Is this not "large" cutouts.

Anyway just a thought.

Jim
 
why to sleeve an action

Yes some do have large cutouts
Maybe too large but... The modern custom actions are made a heck of a lot truer.
The type of action your looking for really depends on what the application is.
What I did was take a hunting type action and change it to a target type action.
 
Last edited:
I am going to take a little different track than is traditional on this question. I believe that sometimes we assume that we know why something works better, and if it does, that mistake is not critical. Yes, sleeving an action makes it stiffer, but I do not think that is the main reason that it helps factory actions as much as it does. I believe that the primary advantage lies in the great increase in bedding area, particularly when not glued in.

Back when I used to do some magazine writing, I had a chance to have a Remington action, that wears a tight necked .222 Hart barrel, sleeved. While I was pondering this option, I asked a well known smith and competitor, (who had built his own line of actions, and I believe may have made the record book), if there was any advantage to sleeving a 700 if the alternative was gluing it in a modern fiberglass and carbon fiber benchrest stock. He told me that there was not, and I believe that he is right.

Further reinforcing this idea, I was lucky enough to have Kelly McMillan give me one of his prototype Edge stocks, installed on the barreled action that I mentioned above. He asked me if I wanted it pillared, or glued, and I decided that given his gunsmith's likely expertise, that it would be a good time to try a glue in, something that not been adventurous enough to try on my own, because of the need to drill accurately located trigger pin holes in the stock.

I had shot that setup pillar bedded for a long time, and knew pretty much what it would do, and after it was glued in the new stock, it took a noticeable step up in accuracy, venturing into the teens, having been previously stuck in the low twos. I realize that there are other factors involved, but all in all, I still believe that gluing in the old 722 was as good of a boost as if I had had it sleeved.

On the other side of the coin, I have a friend that has a rifle that has a Sleeved 700, that is pillar bedded into a older style McMillan stock, and he always remarks as to how consistently good its accuracy is. He does his own work, and has several other rifles that shoot well, but are not as day in and day out consistent.

I have seen sleeved actions win against custom actions, and not that many years ago, so I would never discount the potential of a sleeved action that had been completely gone through by a top smith.
 
I am not an expert on sleeves, but have them and experience with them, but according Robbins of Taylor & Robbins whom I talked to many years ago about their top sleeve (strong back) he mentioned it helped barrel droop and the actions of that day (Mauser, M70 and others), he also mentioned the short threaded barrel shank of said actions contributed to droop and filling in the magazine cut, adding a third guard screw and sleeving then cutting out a loading port just big enough helped in this area plus kept the long target scope off the barrel. The Rem 700 has about 7/8" of threaded shank but the rifles back in the day only had about 5/8" to 3/4" threaded shank. Most of the newer B/R actions have around 1" or more. I realize the Rem 722 came out around 50-51 to the public but it took a few years for the shooters (except a few) to finally try them. The T&R sleeve was 5/32" thick steel. Interestingly, a small number of shooters in the day had the old Schultz & Larsen actions which were very large, with a lot of metal on top with a small loading port. They usually did well even with rear locking lugs, if you look at the old results, I believe even Ferris Pindell used one way back. A couple of guys I shot with that used them did very well in the early 70s at long range.
 
why to sleeve an action

I remember those half sleeves or strong backs from the 70,s JOHN DEWEY made quite a few for the 700 REM and other actions.
The main reason was to get the scope off the barrels < back then we used lot of lyman target spot scopes and also Unertls



They were great scopes The sleeving of a Mauser is quite a job to say thee least also the Model 70 Winchesters.
The recoil lug has to be dealt with you either have to remove it or work around it in various ways, Like IE a two piece sleeve.


Probably the easiest is to remove the lug like they eliminate it on the 700 Rem , then pillar bed the action.
 
Couple points Boyd, after noting the OP was not going to sleeve his action in any case...

Boyd Allen said:
I am going to take a little different track than is traditional on this question. I believe that sometimes we assume that we know why something works better, and if it does, that mistake is not critical. Yes, sleeving an action makes it stiffer, but I do not think that is the main reason that it helps factory actions as much as it does. I believe that the primary advantage lies in the great increase in bedding area, particularly when not glued in.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but I doubt it. Here's one point: Any bedding that puts stress on the action is poor bedding. You get more bedding area with a sleeve, but with the increased contact, you also get increased opportunities to introduce some stress.

something that not been adventurous enough to try on my own, because of the need to drill accurately located trigger pin holes in the stock.
Click to expand...

Oh, be adventurous. By all means measure twice & drill once (or twice, or hog 'em out). It really isn't that hard. Last one I did was a 52 Winchester glued into an old Macmillan carbon fiber/fiberglas stock. It's amazing how well some of those 22s shoot with a good barrel & good bedding. The holes I drilled weren't perfect, but just a touch wallowed, and I've already taken the trigger out. A Winchester factory micro-motion trigger with the pin in the 3rd lever moved, now down to about 3-4 ounces...

On the other side of the coin, I have a friend that has a rifle that has a Sleeved 700, that is pillar bedded into a older style McMillan stock, and he always remarks as to how consistently good its accuracy is. He does his own work, and has several other rifles that shoot well, but are not as day in and day out consistent.
Click to expand...

My lack of adventure comes in not trying both gluing and pillar bedding an action, something that a number of first-rate makers like Jim Borden have done over the years. Believe the Houston Warehouse guy also felt the best setup was screwed & glued. IIRC, he noted that sometimes changing the tension on the bedding screw helped tuning, even though the action was glued in...
 
That was Lee Six's opinion as well, that is that bedding with pillars and then gluing, and then tightening the action screws as if there was no glue in, is the best bedding system. Of course we were discussing short range CF benchrest rifles.
 
Last edited:
I remember reading a good while back when Ed Shilen was still sleeving actions with his helper Allan Hall, Shilen stated that the increased bedding area wasn't the reason for sleeving but to make the action more rigid was, I believe it was in the Rifle magazine back in the 70s.
 
Both

If you look at the various sleeve designs, it's easy to see that both rigidity and area were in the minds of the designers. Bedding simplicity shows in some...
 
why to sleeve an action

Martin yes sleeves are not quite in vogue, < They add weight to a target rifle .
Fiberglass stocks are in but recently wood stocks have come back with great success.
The standard action have small bedding areas , the sleeve makes up for it .
Pillar bedded and glued in they make fine target actions. and yes years ago we put sleeved actions into fiberglass stocks.
it saved weight and allowed more barrel or stiffer barrels.
Sleeves are kind of retro but they still work.
 
In Stuart Otteson book "Benchrest Actions and Triggers", the first chapter emphasizes only ridgidty of actions, it shows where a Rem 700 action that has been sleeved with a Hart (12" long aluminum sleeve) has increased ridgidty of about 6 times approaching the Stolle Panda, I don't believe it mentions anything about bedding area, but of course it does increase bedding area and perhaps many may not agree with his theories.
 
If one starts with the assumption that rigidity is the issue, happens to significantly increase bedding area in the process of increasing rigidity, and greater accuracy is the result, the natural human tendency is to credit the increase in rigidity, but since they both are the result of the same modification, have we really proven that one is more important than the other?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top