Rear Locking actions?

Gerry M

Gerry nice to see we were writing and thinking about the 788 at the same time. Not to be presumptuous but I feel you are Gerry Masker, the son of Seeley Masker. All of us old salts of the BR game knew of Seeley and you are the HoF Masker.

I started putting a BR gun together back in 1975. I could see back then that Remington actions were in wide use. What I also saw that a Remington action had to be balanced and blueprinted to make into a BR action. Custom actions were not as available back then. Your dad seem to like the Wichita action I read his rifle article on the 1375 interesting because that is my Rail action on one gun and also on my pillar bedded Cruiser.

Gerry I seen BR when big money was not what some consider the root of winning in the BR game. I marvel when I see the money some shooters go to try shoot well. Does it really take a $800+ rest to shoot BR? I have 4 rests. My first an F&H which I used until 1995 when I bought my Hart. The F&H has a speed screw but the rest is the same as I bought it from Harvey Miller in 1975. My other 2 are Joe Wagner rests. I like my Hart and it reminds me of simpler times when BR was a shooters game.

My gut feeling is that shooters today need to keep their BR game simple. One Sporter and a Rail will do it all in short range BR. Powder throwers get discussed here frequently. Let me say except for the Chargemaster and the Belding & Mull all powder thrower are of the gravity feed variety which means my old Redding throws the same as my Bruno. Scopes, do shooters need a March when most of the records and HoF points were are still being won with a Leupold. Hey I'm not knocking the guy that goes goes first cabin just saying shooters will continue to win with what they used 10-15 years ago. Starting to sound long winded. I really wanted to see a Post from someone like yourself else that knew the BR value of a 788 action.

Stephen Perry
Angeles BR
 
Last edited:
Rear locking actions

Sorry to disapoint you but i'm not Gerry Masker"
I am an older benchrest shooter from the late 60's
I was one of the original group that shot at fasset { south creek] though} My mentor was Frank James. Those were really good days.
The group has several tool and die makers . They worked for carlisle compressor . There was a ton of talent there always coming up with a new improvements. I could go on for hours talking about that group.
Those were fun times. Feel free to Pm me at any time to chat about those times. Gerry
 
Gerry M

You were so helpful with the BR Bullet Making Thread I thought you could be Gerry Masker. No big deal you have knowledge that can't be bought. Glad you could relate to the 788. I didn't get my first one until 1993. No BS I bought it from Jerry Thornbrugh a well known BR shooter from the 70-80's for $100 no scope, we shoot the same Range. Of coarse I got all his Match brass and Wilson dies. Jerry used it as his first BR gun in the SW Region back in the 70's. I competed with it for 2 years until I got my first PPC.

Going back, my 788 is a Hart barrel 6x47 smithed by Arvie Martin, Canjar set trigger. I had to gut the wood stock to make 10 1/2#. I used Berger 68's back then with a snootfull of 748. This was the same load that was used by Jerry. Bought a Tasco 36x for it. A really economy special but I won trophies at San Gabriel with it. My best 100 agg at San Gabriel with it was a .25xx. Jerry taught me how to measure cases along the body and group them in Lots, a forgotten skill most BR shooters never understood.

Jerry is still one of my Mentors. He holds the current NBRSA Sporter 100 group record of .041.

Stephen Perry
Angeles BR
 
Robert
Thank you for being prepared to answer questions in relation to the design and mechanics of the INCH action.

Using further scaling and measuring of:-

http://www.actionclear.com.au/docs/6-2,FIRINGPINASSEMBLY.pdf

I have divided the 22mm diameter parallel section of the bolt body into 3 sections to match the internal holes that have been machined to accept the firing pin assembly.

A – section closest to locking lugs
- approx section length =21mm
-hole diameter approx. 13mm cross sectional area approx 247 sq mm.

B – mid section
- approx section length =38mm
-hole diameter approx. 10.25mm cross sectional area approx 297 sq mm.

C – section directly supporting case head
- approx section length =41mm
-hole diameter approx. 6mm cross sectional area approx 351 sq mm.

Using this data and the Modulus of Elasticity that you mentioned, i have estimated that for any given load application up to the Yield Point or Elastic Limit, that during bolt compression :-

Section A – would undergo a strain reduction of approx 25.6% of the total bolt body compression.

Section B – would undergo a strain reduction of approx 38.5% of the total bolt body compression.

Section C – would undergo a strain reduction of approx 35.7% of the total bolt body compression.

Using similar data and calculation in an “apples to apples” comparison between the Inch action and a similar proportioned front locking design.

i.e. 22mm bolt diameter, 6mm internal hole, 351 sq mm cross sectional area and allowing a very generous 25mm bolt body length.

Indicates during an identical load application, that the total front locking lug bolt design compression would be less than 21% of the Inch actions total bolt compression.

This information and finding does not praise or denigrate either action design.

Both can be made to fulfil the needs of present day target shooters.

What it basically highlights, is that for a rear locking action to equal the bolt body resilience of a front locking design, requires that it has to be made larger in size and weight.

Alternatively it is possible that a front locking lug action can be made to a smaller size and to less weight to give comparable bolt body compression when compared to rear locking designs.

This information reinforces the opinions expressed by the previous posters K Battenbough, Larry Elliott, Denis Sorenson, alinwa,Tony Z etc.

Robert, if i have interpolated incorrectly or made errors in this comparison please feel free to let me know.

Cheers

goodi
 
Last edited:
Rear locking actions

I always felt the 788 was very under rated. I have seen many of them shoot with some of the most expensive actions and win the matches.
I was also on an budget. I had one of those Tasco 36 scopes. they were under rated also.
I'm glad to see i wasn't alone . I stated with a reworked factory trigger and finally managed to get a Canjar sportmens trigger. All i had to do on that one was change the trigger pull spring. It was a nice light 4 0z.
I guess those were the fun days for me. I always take time to look back at them the people were really special.
 
goodi said:
Robert
Thank you for being prepared to answer questions in relation to the design and mechanics of the INCH action.

Using further scaling and measuring of:-

http://www.actionclear.com.au/docs/6-2,FIRINGPINASSEMBLY.pdf

I have divided the 22mm diameter parallel section of the bolt body into 3 sections to match the internal holes that have been machined to accept the firing pin assembly.

A – section closest to locking lugs
- approx section length =21mm
-hole diameter approx. 13mm cross sectional area approx 247 sq mm.

B – mid section
- approx section length =38mm
-hole diameter approx. 10.25mm cross sectional area approx 297 sq mm.

C – section directly supporting case head
- approx section length =41mm
-hole diameter approx. 6mm cross sectional area approx 351 sq mm.

Using this data and the Modulus of Elasticity that you mentioned, i have estimated that for any given load application up to the Yield Point or Elastic Limit, that during bolt compression :-

Section A – would undergo a strain reduction of approx 25.6% of the total bolt body compression.

Section B – would undergo a strain reduction of approx 38.5% of the total bolt body compression.

Section C – would undergo a strain reduction of approx 35.7% of the total bolt body compression.

Using similar data and calculation in an “apples to apples” comparison between the Inch action and a similar proportioned front locking design.

i.e. 22mm bolt diameter, 6mm internal hole, 351 sq mm cross sectional area and allowing a very generous 25mm bolt body length.

Indicates during an identical load application, that the total front locking lug bolt design compression would be less than 21% of the Inch actions total bolt compression.

This information and finding does not praise or denigrate either action design.

Both can be made to fulfil the needs of present day target shooters.

What it basically highlights, is that for a rear locking action to equal the bolt body resilience of a front locking design, requires that it has to be made larger in size and weight.

Alternatively it is possible that a front locking lug action can be made to a smaller size and to less weight to give comparable bolt body compression when compared to rear locking designs.

This information reinforces the opinions expressed by the previous posters K Battenbough, Larry Elliott, Denis Sorenson, alinwa,Tony Z etc.

Robert, if i have interpolated incorrectly or made errors in this comparison please feel free to let me know.

Cheers

goodi
Click to expand...

Goodi,

Interesting remarks.

The sizes you give are not exactly thse f the production. This draxxing is an illustration, not a production reference.

I will not give here all the dimensions, The oe you mentioned in your fooremar post os the one a front of Bolt, FP hole level (1,7mm dia) and is on the mini of the tolerance of tbe bolt; of 377 sq/mm.

All those sections are of course going smaller as the inside diameters increases, but I can only repeat the one to take into account is the one at approx middle of the ejection port, where th e bolt can expand is the one to be taken into consideration, as it is the only plave where buckling can occur…

I am not to admit that steel can compress when loaded under its Modulus of compression (not to confuse with modulus of elasticity) and, with for instance, a .308 sized case having a rear thrust surface of 1 sq centimetre, submitted to 4000bar sq/cm (58000psi on a surface of .155 sq inch) pressure represent about 1/10th of the calculated value…

Not knowing the Remington 788. I read yesterday the Sturat Ottesons studi og the model. I male mine most of his comments, except on bolt compression, however understandeable eventually on the two-piece thin 788 bolt tube.

I note your statement:

‘’ Both can be made to fulfil the needs of present day target shooters’’.

You have said it all here

Sincerely yours

R.G.C
 
Stephen Perry said:
Alinwa you write some good stuff but like me
The inch action looks acceptable to me. Besides the myths that only a front lug action will will perform I'd like to see inch on a BR rifle. Make for some good conversation.

Stephen Perry
Angeles BR
Click to expand...

Ok, I will bite. Give the name of someone that can have a rifle built, is a good shooter and can write a review in the BR discipline, we can probably provide an action for the review no problem.
 
Gary Ocock

Rod
If Gary Ocock is interested he can make as good a winning BR rifle as anybody in the BR World. Send him an action.

Stephen Perry
Angeles BR
 
Stephen Perry said:
........................Al where are you getting your info that a 788 will not handle BR pressures and what do you consider BR pressures........................


Stephen Perry
Angeles BR
Click to expand...

From my own experimentation and from Allen Hall.

"BR pressure" is 70-80,000lb like the BR's and PPC's and the hotrod .308's used for HBR.

I've never used a 788 in the small bf and would guess that you'd never run into a pressure problem with your definition of a 6x47 because of the small boltface....222/223 cases aren't known for stretching actions, they lose primer pockets before anything stretches.

Try building a 6X47L though or a 6BR or hop up a .308 case and you'll see difficult extraction. Shoot, grab some Lapua brass and load up any .473 bf 788 until it shows ejector marks, then back off a little to get rid of the mark (this is about where any competitive BR case runs...) and see if you can maintain your die settings and brass. Even lapped for full contact I think pretty much everyone who actually tries it will see stiff bolt opening and brass growth. I know I have.

But maybe not with the skinny rounds..... ???

al
 
woody_rod said:
Ok, I will bite. Give the name of someone that can have a rifle built, is a good shooter and can write a review in the BR discipline, we can probably provide an action for the review no problem.
Click to expand...

Rod,

And why not German Salazar who intervenes in this thread?

R.G.C.
 
R.G.C said:
Rod,

And why not German Salazar who intervenes in this thread?

R.G.C.
Click to expand...

Robert,

Because as far as I know, German does not shoot BR as such. I thought he was a through and through prone man. German??
 
Stephen Perry said:
Rod
If Gary Ocock is interested he can make as good a winning BR rifle as anybody in the BR World. Send him an action.

Stephen Perry
Angeles BR
Click to expand...

Is Gary a member of this forum? If so, can he comment? If not, can you contact him?
 
Robert

I applaud the initiative and proposal to have the Inch action chambered in a high intensity cartridge and then be directly compared against modern equipment in Benchrest competition.

To be able to substantiate design and manufacturers claims and to achieve parity or success in such a fiercely competitive and demanding market as SR or LRBR can only enhance the reputation and demand for the Inch action, in Australian and overseas markets.

I am looking forward to being able to examine and measure an Inch action.

To clarify your last response, do you agree or disagree with the following statement.

During the application of an axial compressive or tensile force, solid steel bars (or thick wall tubes) will demonstrate a measurable decrease or increase in length and a smaller but proportional change (increase or decrease) in diameter and cross sectional area?

cheers
goodi
 
Last edited:
woody_rod

Gary posts here. He writes well. Somebody else will have to give Gary's contact I don't have it. He likes projects. Hall of Fame shooter. Full time BR smith. Shoots the BR circut. Shoot Director for NBRSA at Ben Avery- Phoenix Range. Great guy.

Stephen Perry
Angeles BR
 
goodi said:
Robert

I am looking forward to being able to examine and measure an Inch action.

cheers
goodi
Click to expand...

Only the INCH is made in Millimetres, so beware :p:p:p

Maybe it can also be known as the 25,4

This is a joke ok??
 
goodi said:
Robert

I applaud the initiative and proposal to have the Inch action chambered in a high intensity cartridge and then be directly compared against modern equipment in Benchrest competition.

To be able to substantiate design and manufacturers claims and to achieve parity or success in such a fiercely competitive and demanding market as SR or LRBR can only enhance the reputation and demand for the Inch action, in Australian and overseas markets.

I am looking forward to being able to examine and measure an Inch action.

To clarify your last response, do you agree or disagree with the following statement.

During the application of an axial compressive or tensile force, solid steel bars (or thick wall tubes) will demonstrate a measurable decrease or increase in length and a smaller but proportional change (increase or decrease) in diameter and cross sectional area?

cheers
goodi
Click to expand...

Goodi

Ofcourse, I agree with your definition,but as ong as the metal we refer to is stressed (applied an axial load over its bulk odulu specifications.

What an interesting discussion.Look forward to have it extended on other technicalities.

R.G.C.
 
German Salazar said:
Just a prone shooter here, but thanks for the thought.

For 100-200 yd. BR use, I suspect you would have to come up with a different (2 oz.) trigger or a way to mount a Remington style trigger. Maybe more suited to a 600 - 100 yd. Bench rifle. There are quite a few of those right in Australia, as I recall.
Click to expand...

German, no, Tom will have to come up with a different trigger!!!

I reckon on getting into 1000 yard bench use somehow. We have one bench at our 1000y position, so might have a play there for something to do. I hear that there are 4 benches going in at a range over at the coast here, at their 1000y firing point. Hope they get into the open type disciplines, the restrictive standard rules here in F Class make for pretty boring equipment.

My new 260 INCH 22# rifle will be used at this range, built using the new F.INCH action.
 
German Salazar said:
Just a prone shooter here, but thanks for the thought.

For 100-200 yd. BR use, I suspect you would have to come up with a different (2 oz.) trigger or a way to mount a Remington style trigger. Maybe more suited to a 600 - 100 yd. Bench rifle. There are quite a few of those right in Australia, as I recall.
Click to expand...

German

Good point.

I was also a MR and Palma shooter, and the Inch was primarily designed for this form of shooting.

In order to keep the action short, and keeping as much strength as possible behind the lugs (Goodi, I was much more concerned by that than by the legend of the bolt stretching), the sear raceway slot is reduced and the trigger is fixed by two screws forward of it, instead as one front and one rear. This is a question of design of the whole concept and a necessary adaptation to the flexbed bedding system abd other vee blocks and metal stocks, including the Tube sytem.

Having said that, a hanger can be made for the Rem-style trigger, I believe (although I have not looked into it yet).

Also a CG XTreme single stage can be made easily, with pull weights of some 150 grammes. This exists already for other C.G models.

But, to be honest, although the challenge is exciting for me, and despite my modest (and old) experience in BR, I do not consider the INCH as a real short range small calibres BR action, but more for long range BR, F-Class and larger calibres. W

It is to be said that the extremely short firing pin stroke, 2.6mm-.103 inch at impact , the light mass of the hammer and consecutively necessary strong spring system (Spring or Bellevllle washers) added to the 60° opening does not make it as light a bolt opening lift as some other designs.

The compromisse is there:

One side, extremely fast locktime, fast cycle

Other side, more (slightly more) bolt lift effort. This can be partially overcome by artedd cts we study with Woody, but, if it is to make the action with a light bolt lift, it will have to be on the detriment of other technicalities which are of much more importance in other disciplines.

Redesign then??? The Inch was designed around this ignition system and the Fptravel can simply not be increased…. We are working on something different and more conventional with Woody Engineering. I leave to Woody Rod to post about eventually.

Personally, I will be most interested and eager to see the results if the Inch, a different concept, is tested for BR… A great challenge for me.

Sincerely
R.G.C.
 
I think to take an action designed specifically for prone Fullbore or FClass and test it at the short or long range BR disciplines is not really a test of anything more than the ability of the shooter to overcome the inadequacies of the design. What arena does the INCH want to be known for? Jack of all trades and master of none?
I see a venture like this as futile unless the action can be fitted with a 2 ounce trigger, fit into a weight category while retaining some sort of reasonable barrel profile, have the bolt lift effortlessly with a finger or two, extract and eject the case without disrupting the sand bags and feed another cartridge with the same lack of effort. With out this, you are asking someone to step backwards 30 years to prove a point to someone who will likely never buy the action for this purpose anyway. And lastly it has to be pretty, without that, you lose.

I say give the action to German, and another to Bruce Scott here in my home town and if you wish to get it into FClass, Bill Hallam in West Australia is the guy.

To break into the 1K arena, well that needs the three Bs. Barrels, bullets and brass. The rest is just an accessory where stocks just have to track, and the action has to hold the scope, trigger and pressure. Ugly works just fine in 1K.:D
 
Good Post

This has turned into a very informative thread. A lot of good info from some knowlegable craftsmen.

Sometimes good old real world experience is worth as much as a good theory. A number of years ago, a Houston Area Shooter (now deceaced), built a HBR Rifle based on a Rem 788. If I remember, the only "truing" he performed on the action was the reciever face.

It was chambered in a typical HBR round of the time, a 30x47 based on the 300 Savage Case. He also has several HBR Rifles on Rem 700 Actions.

The bottom line was, the Rifle simply would not shoot the loads that he had been quite successful with in his 700's. His typical 30x47 load was probably in the 55,000 to 60,000 psi range, the 788 would darn near lock up under those conditions.

I looked at the locking luggs, I doubt any three of them were actually making any contact. You could look at all of them with a loop, and see that most simply were not touching.
Like Stephen said, perhaps when subjected to the pressures of ignition, they all, sooner or later, came into contact, but that is not how it is supposed to work.
He never corrected this, he passed away that year. I would have liked to have seen if correcting the lugg contact, (or lack there of), would have helped, but if you have any machinist skills, you would see that this would be no easy task.

The 788 was a dirt cheap Rifle, built to sell at a price that just about anybody with a job could afford. They quit making them for the same reason that they quit making the 600-660 series. Not many Shooters liked them.

But, as with many things, the 788 has now taken on some sort of "cult" status. Many think that Remington, whether knowingly or not, got it right. That is, untill you actually start a project with one, and realize that the best thing Remington did was quit making them.........jackie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top