Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24

Thread: HVA, FN & S&L actions

  1. #1
    Member Nukalpiaq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Southwest Alaska
    Posts
    985

    Default HVA, FN & S&L actions

    Three classic actions, which would you all say is the best of the 3 based on quality and function? or would you say that all 3 are worthy of consideration as equals.
    I have both the S&L M65DL and a HVA 1651 with 1640 action and soon will have another rifle that was built on a FN action, all 3 rifles chambered for the .358 Norma Magnum.
    For years I was sold on the concept of stainless rifles with fiberglass stocks but within the last few years I have been gravitating to the more classic rifles and as opportunity allows been adding them to my lineup. IMO the classic rifles are in a league of their own and I really do appreciate as I get older their classic lines , design and function of the actions and especially the history of each one mentioned.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southwest Alaska
    Posts
    2,145

    Default

    Next time you're in Bethel, you should give me a call, I'll show you classic. I have a Husky 9.3x62 on an m98 that comes up like a fine shotgun from days gone by. How about a Guild rifle in 9x57 Mauser on an intermediate length Mauser m98. Again, comes right up. Then I have an 8x60s pre-War on an m98, it too just comes up all ready to squeeze.

    It's all in the stock.
    Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence. Albert Einstein

    Better living through chemistry (I'm a chemist)

    You can piddle with the puppies, or run with the wolves...

  3. #3
    Member Nukalpiaq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Southwest Alaska
    Posts
    985

    Default

    Sounds like you have some very fine classic rifles there too Nitroman, will have to take you up on the offer to see them. Yes classic stock designs do compliment the barreled actions, real history behind each one. Good deal. Thanks

  4. #4

    Default

    I can't find the link to the pics

  5. #5

    Default Olson said that the Husky Mauser

    was the ultimate evolution of that action. He was talking about the pre Tradewinds CRF action.

  6. #6
    Member Big Al's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Palmer,Alaska
    Posts
    1,737

    Default

    I would not give any space to the S&L action at all, but then I have no use for rear locking lugs on any bolt action rifle. You talk about weak, S&L that is thy name. The rest you name are great actions and I do like them all.
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tryants." (Thomas Jefferson

  7. #7
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    931

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Al View Post
    I would not give any space to the S&L action at all, but then I have no use for rear locking lugs on any bolt action rifle. You talk about weak, S&L that is thy name. The rest you name are great actions and I do like them all.
    Maybe no place FOR YOU... but you are mistaken here specifically with regards to the S&L M65 action being weak.

    Not at all correct info.

    This particular version of S&L bolt action was in fact heavy/thick piece of rigidity with plenty of strength and rock solid 'lockabikity'.

  8. #8
    Member Nukalpiaq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Southwest Alaska
    Posts
    985

    Default Mdl 54J

    Read that Weatherby in 1956 commissioned Schultz & Larsen to build their .378 Weatherby rifles using the Model 54J action which had 4 rear locking lugs, seems to me the action would have needed to be very stout in order to handle this cartridge which was inspired by the 416 Rigby. Here is a weblink to a Rifle Shooter magazine article on the S&L rifles titled A Great Dane. Maybe most have read it before, for those that have not I found it to be an interesting read maybe you will too.

    http://www.rifleshootermag.com/featu...906/index.html

  9. #9
    Member Big Al's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Palmer,Alaska
    Posts
    1,737

    Default

    Regardless of what some body that is paid to sell and article or a book has to write about any rifle or product. I would like to remind you that the bolts still spring and that is the biggest reason you do not see more of these actions on the market. Think of all the marketing failures we have seen with this type of rear locking lug actions. The list of why is long and I believe it defies imagination. Your example for a larger diameter projectile and pressure are not valid, I went through that when I was developing and action. Fact of the matter is the locking lugs still need to be in the head of the bolt regardless of what you or any one thinks.


    I see that I'm not the only one that has read Otterson's three books. for the few that have the bucks and want to read about the rear locking lug issue, I highly recommend his books if you want more information about actions, his books are only available for folks that understand engineering terms and metallurgy.
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tryants." (Thomas Jefferson

  10. #10
    Member Nukalpiaq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Southwest Alaska
    Posts
    985

    Default

    Read that already in the article, but thanks for your concern and reaffirming your opinion on your preference for rifles with front locking lugs. I am sure many have the same preferences as you do.
    I shoot factory ammo and really am not too concerned right now with pushing pressures and case stretching. S&L rifles may not be the most popular due to the rear locking lugs but I can say one thing is for sure they are unique because of that fact, and have smooth as butter actions. Sure wish I had a Model 54J .378 Weatherby magnum and a Model 65DL 308 Norma on my gunrack right beside my 358 Norma. Those are my preferences.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Rear locking lugs

    If case stretching isn't an issue the rear locking bolt guns have some real advantages. Amoung these advatages is the elimination of the large cavity in the front receiver ring which is the normal failure point in most front locking bolt gun based on the mauser design. Without this cavity escaping gas from a failed case or overload can escape without having a large area to force to failure. Every instance I can recall of a catastropic bolt gun failure was the front receiver ring blowing off - it is the weak point on a modern front locking action. A rear locking gun can also be made with a shorter lighter trimmer action. Cast receivers should work better with front locking guns; the rear locking guns can use the advantage of a forging or extruded round stock.

    Rear locking guns also have an advantage in feeding - the nose of the cartrige in the magazine is a much shorter distance to the breech. With the front locking desings the nose of the cartridge is much further back and the whole body of the cartridge has to be quided prcisely to keep the whole cartridge in alignment with the bore.

    Market sucess of the rear locking guns has indeed been limited. The Remington 788 sold pretty well but it was sold as a budget gun. As I recall it was written up also as being quite strong and accurate and I don't recall of hearing any problems with case stretching. The S&L was a high end gun with a limited potential customer base - I've never own or shot one so my knowledge is limited.

    For military rifles the British Enfields did quite well. The #4 final version had a number of great advantages including a short bolt lift and throw, controlled feed, and a breech that was easily acessiable for cleaning or clearing a jam or stuck case and it vented the gas from a failed case without any obstructions. It was adequatly strong to handle the 7.62 NATO round and I don't recall ever seeing a picture of one blown up even from shooting .303 Savage rounds in them. The safety wa also in the right position but that is another story.

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Al View Post
    Regardless of what some body that is paid to sell and article or a book has to write about any rifle or product. I would like to remind you that the bolts still spring and that is the biggest reason you do not see more of these actions on the market. Think of all the marketing failures we have seen with this type of rear locking lug actions. The list of why is long and I believe it defies imagination. Your example for a larger diameter projectile and pressure are not valid, I went through that when I was developing and action. Fact of the matter is the locking lugs still need to be in the head of the bolt regardless of what you or any one thinks.

    I see that I'm not the only one that has read Otterson's three books. for the few that have the bucks and want to read about the rear locking lug issue, I highly recommend his books if you want more information about actions, his books are only available for folks that understand engineering terms and metallurgy.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  12. #12
    Member Big Al's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Palmer,Alaska
    Posts
    1,737

    Default

    Apparently someone got the idea that my reference to stretching the action had to do with case stretching? Nothing could be further from the truth. My reference about stretching of the action had to do with the bolt stretching and buckling. Just For a moment let us think about the action and were it locks at? Where does the action have most of the gas occur at? Moving the gas locking area away from where this gas pressure spike and where the gas does not occur makes good sense? The case is where in the action? Oh I see it really is inches away from the chamber? Why not put the locking lugs in your pocket? It makes as much since as putting them inches away from where the pressure occurs. So if you place the locking lugs away from the point of highest pressure what can happen to the long bolt? Can the bolt bend? This may seem like rocket science to some but it's not really that hard to figure out. I have heard and never seen a 788 action used in BR competition, I have searched ever used list I can find looking for one, I even looked for them on the top ten lists of winners for the past thirty years and have never seen even one. Am I missing something? By the way if rear lug actions were inherently smooth, what happen to the 788? Corn cobs are smooth compared to any 788 I have ever worked the action on. The 788 was no longer manufactured because. Remington claimed it was due to the high cost of machining the action and the bolt locking lugs. And to think they kept making a .22 LR action the same way. Silly people at Remington back then, huh? I have been down this same old road, I wish there was anything new to write about, but it is just the same old thing.
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tryants." (Thomas Jefferson

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Bolt stretching?

    Rear locking rifles including the classic Winchester lever guns are reputed to give shorter case life due to the action stretching. I guess I should do a test in a P-14 vs. a #4 Enfield and see for myself before I accept this theory however. I guess I could also do the math if I can figure the cross section of the action.

    Not sure how the bolt can ever stretch since it is in compression instead of tension. The bolt can certainly distort if the locking surfaces and bolt face are not true and well as the receiver being symmetic. Having the lugs in the back will certainly cause more bolt and receiver distortion than having them in the front but for most purposes it does not appear to be a problem. With the newer generation of shorter fatter cases rear locking actions may be even more practical. Short fat cases would be easy to feed through a properly designed rear lug action and the whole action could be made shorter and stiffer. Remember that the 788 would even feed the .44 Magnum round- try that with a front locking action!

    The Remington 788 is hardly a bench rest gun by anyone's stretch of the imagination - it was marketed as a lighter weight economy centerfire gun although it was known for its fine accuracy for the price. There are lots of front locking guns that haven't proven to be popular lately with the serious benchrest crowd either- take the M98, 03s, and Mdl 70s as examples.

    The Enfield #4s rebarreled to 7.62 Nato were used in service rifle matches and did very well I understand. For the timed and rapid fire they had a distinctive advantage over the 03s - same as on the battlefield.

    As much as I lke the Mauser and derivitives - esp. the '03s and Mdl 70s -I have to admit the rear locking bolt guns do have some distinctive advantages esp. for military rifles.

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Al View Post
    Apparently someone got the idea that my reference to stretching the action had to do with case stretching? Nothing could be further from the truth. My reference about stretching of the action had to do with the bolt stretching and buckling. Just For a moment let us think about the action and were it locks at? Where does the action have most of the gas occur at? Moving the gas locking area away from where this gas pressure spike and where the gas does not occur makes good sense? The case is where in the action? Oh I see it really is inches away from the chamber? Why not put the locking lugs in your pocket? It makes as much since as putting them inches away from where the pressure occurs. So if you place the locking lugs away from the point of highest pressure what can happen to the long bolt? Can the bolt bend? This may seem like rocket science to some but it's not really that hard to figure out. I have heard and never seen a 788 action used in BR competition, I have searched ever used list I can find looking for one, I even looked for them on the top ten lists of winners for the past thirty years and have never seen even one. Am I missing something? By the way if rear lug actions were inherently smooth, what happen to the 788? Corn cobs are smooth compared to any 788 I have ever worked the action on. The 788 was no longer manufactured because. Remington claimed it was due to the high cost of machining the action and the bolt locking lugs. And to think they kept making a .22 LR action the same way. Silly people at Remington back then, huh? I have been down this same old road, I wish there was anything new to write about, but it is just the same old thing.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  14. #14
    Member Nukalpiaq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Southwest Alaska
    Posts
    985

    Default

    Just a link to an older 2006 thread here on the shooting forum regarding the Norma & S&L, found it interesting reading. Even has a paragraph on a S&L M65 358NM getting destroyed.

    http://www.outdoorsdirectory.com/akf...65196.htm#post

  15. #15
    Member Big Al's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Palmer,Alaska
    Posts
    1,737

    Default

    So there is a faction of folks that believe that rear locking lugs are stronger than front locking lugs in a bolt action rifle, so be it. I have put forth my case and stand by what I have written.
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tryants." (Thomas Jefferson

  16. #16
    Member Nukalpiaq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Southwest Alaska
    Posts
    985

    Default

    My preferences were just for the 3 rifles I identified due too their uniqueness. Never said I believe rear locking lug actions are stronger than front locking lug actions. There are other folk on the forum here that have much more experience than I do and the expertise to debate the merits of each design. As for myself I am still going through the learning curve and do appreciate your input on the subject.

  17. #17
    Member Nukalpiaq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Southwest Alaska
    Posts
    985

    Default

    Additionally after reading further on the Shooting forum link I provided earlier in this thread on the Norma & S&L I need to correct the mistake I made in my earlier post regarding the 378 Weatherby, the action that was used by Weatherby for this cartridge was not a 56J but was in fact a 56A.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Stronger?

    I don't think "strongnest" is an issue with any modern bolt gun - I don't recall hearing of any modern bolt gun that failed due to the lugs on the bolt being sheared off or the receiver seats failing.

    What does fail in ever instance I recall reading about is the receiver ring - the gas simply blows it off and the barrel then goes up and out the front once half the retaining threads are gone.

    A rear locking lugs action can do away with the large cavity in the receiver ring - look at the #4 Enfield- probably the most famous andmost produced rear locking lug bolt gun ever made. The Remington rolling block and the M1 Garand - while not bolt guns - also eliminated the large receiver ring and both guns will take massive amounts of escaping gas without failing.

    From what I can find the compression of a bolt in a rear locking gun is not the issue - the compressive stregth of steel is extremely high while the tensile strength is considerably less. I don't have the cross sectional areas of any bolts and receivers to do the calcs but I suspect receiver stretching is much more of a a factor than bolt compression. If anyone has some cross sectinal areas and lengths we can do the math.

    I have a Browning FN action here on my desk where the locking lugs on the bolt got peened and upset but they didn't fail. I've seen the bolt recesses on other mauser receivers suffer the same fate - I think the steel on mausers is generally softer than other rifles like the '03 Springfield. In any event the location of the lugs probably didn't make much difference had they been front or rear.


    Quote Originally Posted by Big Al View Post
    So there is a faction of folks that believe that rear locking lugs are stronger than front locking lugs in a bolt action rifle, so be it. I have put forth my case and stand by what I have written.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  19. #19
    Member Big Al's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Palmer,Alaska
    Posts
    1,737

    Default

    Just think if you had Stuart Otteson"s books you would have all that information you would like to have and the calculations have already been done for you. Seems like cheating almost. You would find the three books on various forms some even on computer format. Ascetically pleasing and strength our separate subjects, I do not want the strongest military actions ever built, I do not consider the Araska actions in the least desirable, no matter how strong they are. The fact that the Japanese were the first to use chrome lined bores for their rifles (which were used in tropical environments) I do find of great significance., perhaps due to the fact that the U.S. has copied the same in their own military rifles since the second world war and gained two vary big advantages from doing the same. Not to be confused with stellite liners which has found advantage in machine gun barrel usage. Since the late 1950's.

    Odd how often on and discussion of actions you will find the rear locking lugs of and action you find the comment of rear locking lugs as a "weak point" of the design.
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tryants." (Thomas Jefferson

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southwest Alaska
    Posts
    2,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Al View Post
    So there is a faction of folks that believe that rear locking lugs are stronger than front locking lugs in a bolt action rifle, so be it. I have put forth my case and stand by what I have written.
    The rear lugged actions are definitely not as strong as front lugs. The exception being the Mosin-Nagant, which is very strong by design.

    To say the Enfields "do well" is okay, as long as we are talking about the class of low-pressure rounds like the .303 Brit. The Enfield rifle has replaceable bolt heads that could be changed to take up the headspace from a receiver that had lengthened.

    The "failure point" of Mauser style receivers is a myth created by Remington and perpetuated by hacks such as Jack O'Conner and his ilk. If your ammo isn't beyond maxed out (extremely rare judging by some of the idiot postings in the reloading forums internet wide), you'll never have a problem.
    Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence. Albert Einstein

    Better living through chemistry (I'm a chemist)

    You can piddle with the puppies, or run with the wolves...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •