Bat action

[chet]

I am thinking of building another rifle, i see Bat is having a sale on some of their actions, so if i make the purchase, would it be practical to install a barrel with the Savage style concept using the nut ect. has anyone ever come across using the Savage nut concept on high end actions

Chet

 

[JBO]

IMHO... No, I can't imagine anyone recommending you build a custom Bat action including your gunsmith with the savage nut. All you need with a custom action is a barrel vise and action wrench to change barrels.
I do use this setup with a nut on my hunting rifles they call it " Remage " works great.

 

[Alex Wheeler]

Savage has done a great job advertising. They have convinced people they use a barrel nut and floating bolt head for accuracy instead of economy. First, a nut makes it more difficult to change barrels, and more inconsistent. I also look at a nut as a flawed system. The shoulder on a barrel is what points the barrel. The threads pull the shoulder back against the action face. 60 degree threads do want to center themselves, but they will not center if something is putting them in a bind. We intentionally cut loose threads on untrue actions so the threads can cock slightly to allow the shoulder to seat. So what is pointing a savage barrel? Threads. And threads can move. No thanks on the nut.

 

[BOB LEE SWAGGER]

I am thinking of building another rifle, i see Bat is having a sale on some of their actions, so if i make the purchase, would it be practical to install a barrel with the Savage style concept using the nut ect. has anyone ever come across using the Savage nut concept on high end actions

Chet

Where did you see this sale?

 

[WayneShaw]

Savage has done a great job advertising. They have convinced people they use a barrel nut and floating bolt head for accuracy instead of economy. First, a nut makes it more difficult to change barrels, and more inconsistent. I also look at a nut as a flawed system. The shoulder on a barrel is what points the barrel. The threads pull the shoulder back against the action face. 60 degree threads do want to center themselves, but they will not center if something is putting them in a bind. We intentionally cut loose threads on untrue actions so the threads can cock slightly to allow the shoulder to seat. So what is pointing a savage barrel? Threads. And threads can move. No thanks on the nut.

If I recall, the fellow that designed the Savage said it was all made for economical manufacture. Greenleaf maybe?

 

[savagedasher]

I would build one just for a conversation piece . Would it shoot better only time would tell .
The 1.1/6 tennon need a 1 . 300 barrel or a nut . Larry

 

[mikecr]

Seems obvious enough to me that there is nothing ~wrong~ with Savage's designs,, neither with their stud/nut design (which is superior fastening over bolts), nor with their floating bolt head.
IMO, it isn't easier for Savage and it doesn't save them money to do these things. But if either, given the performance of Savage rifles, I suggest their engineering deserves credit for it (not marketing).

 

[dkhunt14]

I don't remember seeing many Savage actions in BRAZIL. Either short range or long range. If they were that great people wouldn't be spending big bucks on custom actions. They were tried just like they used to use Remington. Matt

 

[BoydAllen]

I would build one just for a conversation piece . Would it shoot better only time would tell .
The 1.1/6 tennon need a 1 . 300 barrel or a nut . Larry

An inch and a sixteenth tenon works just fine with either a 1.200 or a 1.250 shank diameter. In the short range game either works as well as the other. In fact the rule specifies a maximum of 1.250 which is common for HV rifles. LVs commonly use 1.200 to save a little weight. As far as using a barrel nut on a BAT goes, remember there is the matter of thread pitch as well as diameter. Remingtons are 16 and the typical BAT is 18. Of course Savages and the new Shilen actions and some Bighorns are 20 TPI.

 

[Alex Wheeler]

Seems obvious enough to me that there is nothing ~wrong~ with Savage's designs,, neither with their stud/nut design (which is superior fastening over bolts), nor with their floating bolt head.
IMO, it isn't easier for Savage and it doesn't save them money to do these things. But if either, given the performance of Savage rifles, I suggest their engineering deserves credit for it (not marketing).

Savages can shoot well, no doubt. But the floating bolt head and nut definitely reduce costs. Thats why they were designed that way. The advertising department has done a good job of convincing people that they designed it that way because it makes the rifle more accurate. We will agree to disagree on the merits of bolts vs studs in the application of a barrel. All of the benefits of a stud vs a bolt dont really apply in the application of a barrel to receiver fit.

 

[savagedasher]

Savages can shoot well, no doubt. But the floating bolt head and nut definitely reduce costs. Thats why they were designed that way. The advertising department has done a good job of convincing people that they designed it that way because it makes the rifle more accurate. We will agree to disagree on the merits of bolts vs studs in the application of a barrel. All of the benefits of a stud vs a bolt dont really apply in the application of a barrel to receiver fit.

Floating bolt head definitely improve accuracy . The reason is many barrels the chamber and the threads were off center . I have seen savage and Remington barrels off center .008 from one side of the chamber to the threads .
So yes they did stand a chance of improving accuracy . Larry

 

[Alex Wheeler]

Larry, I didnt say it didnt. Just they did not design it for that purpose, they did it for cost.

 

[savagedasher]

Larry, I didnt say it didnt. Just they did not design it for that purpose, they did it for cost.

 

[savagedasher]

They did it for both reasons . But only talked about one Remington and others have joined . Larry

 

[RWO]

The Savage nut was developed to allow quick and precise head spacing on the assembly line. It saves labor costs and reduces rework. It does not save material or machining costs since additional parts always increase those costs. Remington and Ruger also recognized the advantages for their new lines of rifles.

RWO

 

[chet]

Where did you see this sale?

on whidden's page

 

[tac284]

on whidden's page

They are having a sale on Barnard Action's. I don't believe they carry Bat actions?

 

[mikecr]

The Savage nut was developed to allow quick and precise head spacing on the assembly line. It saves labor costs and reduces rework. It does not save material or machining costs since additional parts always increase those costs. Remington and Ruger also recognized the advantages for their new lines of rifles.RWO

Tell me if I get this wrong;
Remington or Savage, a machine runs the reamer in xx.xxx far, and then a machine finishes the barrel including threading. That Remington or Savage threading better take the breech to correct clearance from boltface, and headspacing will work only if the reamer had run in right.
In either case these things would have to be checked, and it would be a bit of extra attention to fix issues.
Right?

As far as the threading itself, Savage is finer, and the nut seats ALL of the savage threading in tension, rather than just the first few with a Remington. The Savage threading is biased away from the boltface by the nut(same direction as challenged on firing). Otherwise the first few threads pull threading toward the boltface, and the remaining are further relaxed opposite on firing.
Savage's system provides a better connection, just as any stud/nut system does.

The floating bolt head is brilliant provided it's machined square, and of course this is critical regardless of approach.
If you've priced a BAT bolt lately, you might recognize the potential value (resale) in such a system -if there were BAT boltheads offered. But they aren't..

I like the spirit behind someone putting a barrel nut on BAT.
Though I wouldn't do it without having BAT thread an action matching that of Savage (fine and same diameter for cartridge).
If I did anything otherwise unique to Savage, I would do it exactly as their Engineering had.

 

[Alex Wheeler]

The barrel joint is kind of unique. Most joints are clamping 2 parts together. You need to stretch the fastener to get clamping force to hold the part together. We arent trying to achieve a certain clamping force to hold parts together or hold a gasket. All we are doing is pointing a barrel under enough torque to have it not move. The shoulder aims the barrel, the threads center and pull the shoulder tight. You could have 3 rows of threads and you would be fine.

Putting a nut on the other end of a fastener doesnt magically cause all the threads to bear equal load. I think maybe we are confusing an engineered stud that is designed to yield under proper torque and a very under loaded joint with practically no stretch involved.

I cut a taper in the barrel tenon to engage all the threads more evenly. Some smiths use the spiralock thread to do the same thing.

As far as the floating bolt head is concerned, I go through enough trouble ensuring alignment and drag free firing pin travel I sure dont need a bolt head moving and binding the pin tip. It works fine in a sloppy factory action I suppose.

I know this can become a heated topic, I just have to throw in my opinion on this. There is not a single thing about the Savage design that is superior to the custom actions used in Benchrest. Thats my opinion.

 

[mikecr]

IMO, where a barrel points in it's static condition means nothing. It's where it points under pressure/vibration that matters.
I think a good read on the subject of threading and barrel pointing static -vs- dynamic was covered in 'Rifle Accuracy Facts'.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1931220077/?tag=accuratescom-20
Here vaughn's testing results imply that barrel connection integrity matters more than commonly believed & employed.
I'd have to dig it out, but I'd be surprised if barrel nut connection wasn't brought into it.