bigedp51
BoydAllen said:
Mr. BoydAllen
No forum members were killed, injured or maimed during the making of any of my postings.
Signed
Ed Horton
Graduate of the Attila the Hun School of Diplomacy. :
Mr. BoydAllen
No forum members were killed, injured or maimed during the making of any of my postings.
Signed
Ed Horton
Graduate of the Attila the Hun School of Diplomacy. :
bigedp51 said:
I didn't give you my opinion. I gave you some numbers that are quite simple to calculate. They are not meaningless. If you believe my math is wrong, then please point out my error. The CUP method of measuring pressure is crude and essentially no longer used. We know accurately what the pressure is in loads from strain gauge and piezo technology.
The maximum bolt thrust is quite easy to calculate. Dan Lilja explains how at this link.
http://www.riflebarrels.com/articles/custom_actions/bolt_lug_strength.htm
The method I have used is very similar to what Dan explains.
The designer of the bolt and action certainly do not make those kind of assumptions. Some quote from Dan's article at the link above:
"Bolt thrust is fairly simple to calculate and depends on the inside diameter of the cartridge case being fired and the chamber pressure."
"Unless a cartridge case undergoes a complete head separation upon firing, the side walls of the brass case will stick against the chamber walls. Under some circumstances they may absorb as much as half the thrust. Case walls or a chamber that are oily will reduce this friction. So the action designer will not take this aspect into consideration when designing the lugs to more closely simulate a complete case head failure."
I did a quick calculation on my Remington 700 bolt. As posted earlier full thrust on the bolt with no energy absorbed by the brass, works out to about 7,500 lbs. If you calculate stress in the bolt similar to the way Dan explains it works out to be about 19,000 psi shear stress, and 58,000 compressive stress on the bolt lugs. Normal design practice is to use a factor of safety of 2. So this means you need a bolt lug material that can take 116,000 psi without yielding. As you can see in the table of yield strengths for 4140 steel shown in Dan's article, that is easily achievable. So there is no problem with oiling the case wall. At very worst it will result in a bolt lug stress that is about 1/2 the value at which it would yield and fail.
This method is quite valid. It will give lower values of stress than the simple method I described above. It is always good to test to verify, but the design method is much more conservative.
And this is the rub for you. You have determined that you should use no oil, and not let the case slip, and to do that you will create a false shoulder. Now, however with no axial clearance the case cannot yield to any appreciable amount, and will absorb no energy, so your bolt will still get full force.
However if you leave some significant headspace, and let the case stick, then yes the case will yield and may absorb more than half the thrust. But when it does, it causes the case thinning that you were trying to avoid.
The last option is to lube the case, and leave some headspace. This will let the case slip and not stretch, so you are back to the full bolt thrust again.
So you really can't have your cake and eat it too. You either yield and thin the brass or you load the bolt.
I would load the bolt because it is designed to take it.
bigedp51
I understand why you are lubing your cases and as long as the action is not strained and headspace doesn't increase there is a good chance that "YOU" are OK.
(theatricality plus or minus one bolt lodged in your brain)
BUT, the case lubing/oiling advice is getting out of hand and people are being told to lube every case on every type rifle ever made.
And I will replete myself, even the U.S. Military tells you to not lube your ammo and they have "MORE" test equipment than Varmint Al or Dan Lilja.
Do you know the definition of a party pooper?
Someone who puts sand in the Vaseline.
(theatricality plus or minus one bolt lodged in your brain)
BUT, the case lubing/oiling advice is getting out of hand and people are being told to lube every case on every type rifle ever made.
And I will replete myself, even the U.S. Military tells you to not lube your ammo and they have "MORE" test equipment than Varmint Al or Dan Lilja.
Do you know the definition of a party pooper?
Someone who puts sand in the Vaseline.
bigedp51
I know why I was lubing cases when I was told I damaged my rifle doing it in 1973. I know why the person who taught me about lubing cases did it. And I know why the people who have made pro comments here about lubing cases do it.
My concern is simple, lubing cartridge cases is not like taking a wide spectrum antibiotic medicine that can treat a wide verity of problems. And I can tell you in absolute certainty you do not lube a 60 plus year old Enfield cartridge case just because a benchrest/target shooter lubes his cases on a brand new rifle.
And as crude as fire forming a rimmed .303 Enfield cartridge case with a rubber o-ring around its rim, it is far better than oiling cartridge cases and damaging an old warhorse.
My concern is simple, lubing cartridge cases is not like taking a wide spectrum antibiotic medicine that can treat a wide verity of problems. And I can tell you in absolute certainty you do not lube a 60 plus year old Enfield cartridge case just because a benchrest/target shooter lubes his cases on a brand new rifle.
And as crude as fire forming a rimmed .303 Enfield cartridge case with a rubber o-ring around its rim, it is far better than oiling cartridge cases and damaging an old warhorse.
We're talking about doing benchrest type of loading and methods to a $250, 6.5 lbs hunting rifle here. FL size those things with cam over on the press and call it a day. Five-thousands of an inch isn't going to make or break your accuracy with that thing and .243 brass is about as cheap as it gets.
Lubing cases probably isn't the best thing but modern actions can also take the heat in that kitchen - key word being modern. Just because something can take abuse doesn't make it a good idea to constantly beat the hell out of it either though, especially if it's a firearm you care about. Just because my Ford Taurus can take a neutral drop once doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it at every stop light.
Wayne
Lubing cases probably isn't the best thing but modern actions can also take the heat in that kitchen - key word being modern. Just because something can take abuse doesn't make it a good idea to constantly beat the hell out of it either though, especially if it's a firearm you care about. Just because my Ford Taurus can take a neutral drop once doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it at every stop light.
Wayne
bigedp51
RonAKA said:
Let me be very clear, I DID NOT bring the subject up of lubing cases in this posting and I would NEVER recommend lubing cases to ANYONE period.
I thought I would try and be nice to the case greasers after what Mr. Mr. BoydAllen said about being nice and getting more with a carrot than with a stick. After your last comments above, guess where you can stick the carrot now.
(un-lubricated) 
Signed (NO more Mr. nice guy)
Ed Horton
Graduate of the Attila the Hun School of Diplomacy.
Can we just leave this alone now? Nobody ever suggested lubing brass to be fired in any mil-surps except biged, and everyone here knows damn well a modern action is built far stronger than needed, so there is really nothing to discuss.
And I really don't give a $--T about what the British or the US Military have to say about anything, especially their thoughts on how to handload ammo, load my rifle, or shoot my rifle either.
I don't need any fancy equations or illustrations to demonstrate the strength of the action my rifle is built around. I have seen how thick the bolt and action lugs are as well as the action itself, and I have a good idea of the strength of the steel. I am very comfortable with it's strength and confident it would take an act of god or one hell of an overcharge or major screw-up of some type for the action to break/explode/shear a lug or have any other serious failure occur.
And just to prove a point, I did an experiment today with my Mosin "parts gun", which is just a mixed-up and mismatched mess of spare parts that I put together as a complete rifle. The rifle started out as a barreled action that I bought to scavenge the bolt and sights, and every other piece has been replaced with parts left over from upgrading other Mosin's. But the rifle has near perfect headspace, as the bolt will close with a .001" shim behind a go gauge, but not a .002 shim. Needless to say, I really don't care about the rifle a whole lot.
I loaded up 25 rounds to use for testing, 45grs of H4895, Hornady 174gr RN, CCI std. LR primers, loaded to mag length and then lubed over the entire case with Imperial Sizing Wax. 20 of the rounds were lubed lightly, and I went HEAVY on the last 5 just to see what would happen ;D
So I went down to a local gravel pit, strapped the Mosin into my gas dampened rest that has a remote trigger pull system, aimed it at a large dirt mound, climbed inside a large concrete tube, (the kind that they use for drainage system junctions with a manhole cover on top, about 8" thick and re-bar reinforced) and proceeded to fire 20 rounds off into the dirt pile, swabbing the bore with brake cleaner and a dry patch between each shot to ensure it was free of lube. I never swabbed the chamber and left the lube to build up. About the only difference I noticed was the bolt was a bit hard to lift, other than that it was the same as dry rounds. (Mosin's are well known for having a "sticky" bolt that can be hard to open)
After the first 20 rounds I checked the headspace after swabbing the bore and chamber, still the same as before, closing on a .001" shim, and not closing on a .002" shim.
Now for the 5 rounds with enough Imperial slathered on them to FL size 100 cases.
I proceeded to fire these 5 rounds in the same fashion as before, swabbing the bore dry after every round and leaving the chamber alone. Now I need a rubber mallet to whack the bolt open, but it still opens and extracts the empty cases every time.
I re-checked the headspace one last time after swabbing out the chamber and bore, and again it's the same as it has always been, closes on the .001 shim, won't close on the .002.
I have dropped the bolt off at a local engine shop I used to work at to be magna-fluxed as well to check the lugs for cracking. This way I will know for sure if I have done any damage or not, and that way I can either prove or disprove the whole "dangerous case lube" theory.
So after abusing the poor Mosin, all I can tell is that the action of the Mosin Nagant is built VERY strong! With the big lugs on the bolt head and the third on the bolt handle that locks into the ejection port, I doubt you could hurt the thing without some serious, deliberate effort.
So can we please just leave this discussion alone? I proved to myself without a doubt that it will be very difficult to damage an action to the point that it fails enough to cause injury. I abused an old mil-surp action beyond what most would ever do in normal use, and it still shows no sign of failure.
I would not hesitate one bit to lube cases for fire-forming in a modern action after what I saw today. They are just too well built to be damaged without some serious effort being put into it's destruction.
I am not looking to argue about this, so don't bother with any criticism. I have proved to myself that lubing cases lightly while fire-forming will not hurt anything. No book or article can give me the experience I gained today first-hand.
HOWEVER, I DO NOT SUGGEST THAT ANYONE ATTEMPT TO RECREATE THE EXPERIMENT I PERFORMED. I TOOK MANY PRECAUTIONS TO ENSURE MY OWN SAFETY AS WELL AS THE SAFETY OF OTHERS. IF YOU DO DECIDE TO TRY THIS, YOU DO SO AT YOUR OWN RISK AND I TAKE NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS!
CONSIDER YOURSELF WARNED!
And I really don't give a $--T about what the British or the US Military have to say about anything, especially their thoughts on how to handload ammo, load my rifle, or shoot my rifle either.
I don't need any fancy equations or illustrations to demonstrate the strength of the action my rifle is built around. I have seen how thick the bolt and action lugs are as well as the action itself, and I have a good idea of the strength of the steel. I am very comfortable with it's strength and confident it would take an act of god or one hell of an overcharge or major screw-up of some type for the action to break/explode/shear a lug or have any other serious failure occur.
And just to prove a point, I did an experiment today with my Mosin "parts gun", which is just a mixed-up and mismatched mess of spare parts that I put together as a complete rifle. The rifle started out as a barreled action that I bought to scavenge the bolt and sights, and every other piece has been replaced with parts left over from upgrading other Mosin's. But the rifle has near perfect headspace, as the bolt will close with a .001" shim behind a go gauge, but not a .002 shim. Needless to say, I really don't care about the rifle a whole lot.
I loaded up 25 rounds to use for testing, 45grs of H4895, Hornady 174gr RN, CCI std. LR primers, loaded to mag length and then lubed over the entire case with Imperial Sizing Wax. 20 of the rounds were lubed lightly, and I went HEAVY on the last 5 just to see what would happen ;D
So I went down to a local gravel pit, strapped the Mosin into my gas dampened rest that has a remote trigger pull system, aimed it at a large dirt mound, climbed inside a large concrete tube, (the kind that they use for drainage system junctions with a manhole cover on top, about 8" thick and re-bar reinforced) and proceeded to fire 20 rounds off into the dirt pile, swabbing the bore with brake cleaner and a dry patch between each shot to ensure it was free of lube. I never swabbed the chamber and left the lube to build up. About the only difference I noticed was the bolt was a bit hard to lift, other than that it was the same as dry rounds. (Mosin's are well known for having a "sticky" bolt that can be hard to open)
After the first 20 rounds I checked the headspace after swabbing the bore and chamber, still the same as before, closing on a .001" shim, and not closing on a .002" shim.
Now for the 5 rounds with enough Imperial slathered on them to FL size 100 cases.
I proceeded to fire these 5 rounds in the same fashion as before, swabbing the bore dry after every round and leaving the chamber alone. Now I need a rubber mallet to whack the bolt open, but it still opens and extracts the empty cases every time.I re-checked the headspace one last time after swabbing out the chamber and bore, and again it's the same as it has always been, closes on the .001 shim, won't close on the .002.
I have dropped the bolt off at a local engine shop I used to work at to be magna-fluxed as well to check the lugs for cracking. This way I will know for sure if I have done any damage or not, and that way I can either prove or disprove the whole "dangerous case lube" theory.
So after abusing the poor Mosin, all I can tell is that the action of the Mosin Nagant is built VERY strong! With the big lugs on the bolt head and the third on the bolt handle that locks into the ejection port, I doubt you could hurt the thing without some serious, deliberate effort.
So can we please just leave this discussion alone? I proved to myself without a doubt that it will be very difficult to damage an action to the point that it fails enough to cause injury. I abused an old mil-surp action beyond what most would ever do in normal use, and it still shows no sign of failure.
I would not hesitate one bit to lube cases for fire-forming in a modern action after what I saw today. They are just too well built to be damaged without some serious effort being put into it's destruction.
I am not looking to argue about this, so don't bother with any criticism. I have proved to myself that lubing cases lightly while fire-forming will not hurt anything. No book or article can give me the experience I gained today first-hand.
HOWEVER, I DO NOT SUGGEST THAT ANYONE ATTEMPT TO RECREATE THE EXPERIMENT I PERFORMED. I TOOK MANY PRECAUTIONS TO ENSURE MY OWN SAFETY AS WELL AS THE SAFETY OF OTHERS. IF YOU DO DECIDE TO TRY THIS, YOU DO SO AT YOUR OWN RISK AND I TAKE NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS!
CONSIDER YOURSELF WARNED!
bigedp51 said:
You see biged, by replying to your question, lubricating cases was brought up.
If you didn't like the idea of doing so, you could have just went ahead and did things your way.
Instead you went off on a tangent about lubing cases and also were rude to others who made suggestions that you either didn't like or didn't understand, and in all truth, neither of which were necessary or called for.
You have only recently joined the forum, and you have already begun to insult the intelligence of some of the most helpful and knowledgeable people on the forum.
All you had to do was ignore the posts you didn't agree with, and this whole argument would have been avoided. Not to mention you also could have avoided offending some of the people that were trying to help as well.
bigedp51
Kenny474
David Tubb said to remove all resizing lube from the cartridge case so the action won't be strained.
David Tubb said to remove all resizing lube from the cartridge case so the action won't be strained.
Maybe David Tubb isn't loading fire-forming loads, did that ever cross your mind? Maybe David Tubb is not trying to demonstrate fire-forming with lubed cases? Just what the hell makes this video have anything at all in common with the discussion at hand? What does it have to do with me shooting rounds that are lubricated with Imperial Sizing Wax from my Mosin?
I will tell you what, NOTHING!!!
How is my actual hands on live fire testing of "greased ammo" a "Fairy Tale"?
What the hell do your Mom and fairy tales have to do with the infamous sticky bolt of the Mosin Nagant? With all your infinite wisdom I'm sure you must be aware of this issue?!
The sticky bolt is no fairy tale and neither are the tests I performed. If you would like to fly out to my location I would be glad to demonstrate it for you.
I am still shocked by your thought process. No matter what facts are placed before you, you fail to acknowledge them and insist you are right and that everyone else who may disagree with you is wrong.
I gave your side a chance and did a fair test of the facts at hand with each side getting a fair shot. What I found was what I believed all along, rifle actions are built far stronger than necessary. They need to be built this way just due to the nature of the job they perform. If they were as weak as you credit them with, every case head separation would result in the catastrophic failure of the action.
Can you just open your mind a little and try to accept that sometimes the "rules" are bent and broken in the game of life, it happens all the time. And just because it doesn't make sense to you, or you don't feel it's safe, doesn't mean that it's unsafe or that people will automatically be injured if they attempt it. So just try to open your mind a bit. Look at the possibilities and see that not everything is as black and white as you may think.
I will tell you what, NOTHING!!!
How is my actual hands on live fire testing of "greased ammo" a "Fairy Tale"?
What the hell do your Mom and fairy tales have to do with the infamous sticky bolt of the Mosin Nagant? With all your infinite wisdom I'm sure you must be aware of this issue?!
The sticky bolt is no fairy tale and neither are the tests I performed. If you would like to fly out to my location I would be glad to demonstrate it for you.
I am still shocked by your thought process. No matter what facts are placed before you, you fail to acknowledge them and insist you are right and that everyone else who may disagree with you is wrong.
I gave your side a chance and did a fair test of the facts at hand with each side getting a fair shot. What I found was what I believed all along, rifle actions are built far stronger than necessary. They need to be built this way just due to the nature of the job they perform. If they were as weak as you credit them with, every case head separation would result in the catastrophic failure of the action.
Can you just open your mind a little and try to accept that sometimes the "rules" are bent and broken in the game of life, it happens all the time. And just because it doesn't make sense to you, or you don't feel it's safe, doesn't mean that it's unsafe or that people will automatically be injured if they attempt it. So just try to open your mind a bit. Look at the possibilities and see that not everything is as black and white as you may think.
And just an FYI biged, I have to whack the bolt open pretty hard with my palm when using standard steel case surplus ammo anyway. The bolt on the Mosin Nagant is well known to be sticky and hard to open. And since the specimen I did the testing with has a bolt from another rifle in it, it has very little camming action and is difficult to open on a regular basis.
And it's not as though I had to pound on it either, I just know better than to hurt my hand when I don't need to. Just one little thump pops up the bolt.
It's just one of the quirks of the good old Mosin, and it's not completely to blame on the ammo.
The force required to open it was maybe 25% more than normal. Not a ton, but not something I wanted to endure after an entire morning of shooting several different Mosin's a couple hundred times. Trust me, after a while, the sticky bolt takes a toll on the hand.
And it's not as though I had to pound on it either, I just know better than to hurt my hand when I don't need to. Just one little thump pops up the bolt.
It's just one of the quirks of the good old Mosin, and it's not completely to blame on the ammo.
The force required to open it was maybe 25% more than normal. Not a ton, but not something I wanted to endure after an entire morning of shooting several different Mosin's a couple hundred times. Trust me, after a while, the sticky bolt takes a toll on the hand.
Ed
8 pages?
Send me your rifle and 300pcs of brass. I'll shootem for ya
Now for my own edification. I know you'll have the answer to this and I truely want to know.
Why does the Lee Enfield military rifle have headspace discrepancys up to .030" ?
Just seems ludicrous a country so far advanced in bolt thrust technology can;t get a standard headspace right.
I can understand the brass being fired once and left in the mud. Failure to fire must be common, No?
And I'll agree with you (as everyone else here does)
Never lube ammo in an old milsurp rifle.
I have a few old milsurps. 03-A3 and Krag.
I would'nt dream of running pressures in them like I do my Savages. They just aren't built to take it.
FYI old milsurp shooters. When I dusted off that ol 30-40 Krag and shot some Winchester ammo through it I found I had a tightnecked chamber ;D
Modern brass had .002" clearence.
I turned my brass for .004"
Just something to watch for I never would have expected.
8 pages?
Send me your rifle and 300pcs of brass. I'll shootem for ya
Now for my own edification. I know you'll have the answer to this and I truely want to know.
Why does the Lee Enfield military rifle have headspace discrepancys up to .030" ?
Just seems ludicrous a country so far advanced in bolt thrust technology can;t get a standard headspace right.
I can understand the brass being fired once and left in the mud. Failure to fire must be common, No?
And I'll agree with you (as everyone else here does)
Never lube ammo in an old milsurp rifle.
I have a few old milsurps. 03-A3 and Krag.
I would'nt dream of running pressures in them like I do my Savages. They just aren't built to take it.
FYI old milsurp shooters. When I dusted off that ol 30-40 Krag and shot some Winchester ammo through it I found I had a tightnecked chamber ;D
Modern brass had .002" clearence.
I turned my brass for .004"
Just something to watch for I never would have expected.
bigedp51
Kenny474
I do have an open mind, I damaged a new modern rifle lubing cases and Remington told me to "NEVER" do it again, very simple.
Number two, I spent over 25 years of my life as a quality control inspector at a military depot. And nothing irritates me more than people so arrogant they don't think they have to follow the manual.
Any "warning" should always be carefully considered and given a good deal of thought when it involves what can happen to "you".
I do have an open mind, I damaged a new modern rifle lubing cases and Remington told me to "NEVER" do it again, very simple.
Number two, I spent over 25 years of my life as a quality control inspector at a military depot. And nothing irritates me more than people so arrogant they don't think they have to follow the manual.
Any "warning" should always be carefully considered and given a good deal of thought when it involves what can happen to "you".
bigedp51
jo191145 said:
jo191145
The Enfield rifle doesn't have a headspace discrepancy, the Enfield rifle was designed with the cartridge case to be used as a sacrificial component that puts "less" force on the bolt face of a rifle used in combat.
The British Armourer below has explained many times that on a military rifle you never "under" cartridge head space for reliability.
Headspace is governed by the cartridge cases you shoot and not the rifle, and the American .303 British SAAMI commercial cartridge case standards are "not" designed to military standards.
Below, Remington and Winchester don't even know where to put the shoulder of the .303 British case and the military does
Like I told you already boy genius, it's no longer an opinion when you prove your theory with actual testing. At that point it becomes FACT. I have done actual testing of the theory you proposed, and have proven my point. Case closed.
Anyway, the Remington 788 you "damaged" is known to have had issues with growing headspace as the bolts have a rear locking lug system. So all you really had was a normal experience with a 788, not this horrific, life changing experience you make it out to be. You likely would have had the same result had you never lubed ammo in that particular rifle. They were a budget rifle that was not meant to last a lifetime when chambered to rounds based on the .308 case, as the bolt simply will not hold up to the bolt thrust produced by larger rounds.
Here is a link talking about the issues with the 788, particularly the issues with headspace due to bolt compression.
http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh/788.html
If you had purchased a quality rifle, such as the Remington 700, you likely never would have had any issue even with the lubed ammo as the action system is stronger with it's forward locking lugs and superior construction.
Another issue you have is that you are one of those brainwashed robots that can't think for themselves and lives life by a manual written by someone else. Maybe try to live your own life, instead of going by the book?
This whole topic has nothing to do with quality control in the military, nor does it have an answer in a manual. This has to do with progression beyond what is thought to be the right answer. By thinking outside the box, some have developed a system of case-forming that minimizes stretch in the web area. They have proven that with modern rifle actions bolt thrust is not an issue like it was in the past, as modern actions are built far stronger than they were even 30 years ago. This has been tested time and again by many shooters, and has been proven to be effective and safe when you use an action built strong enough to withstand the pressures involved. This does not include the flawed Remington 788, as it is not "Modern" by any stretch. The technology used in the Remington 788 was antiquated when it was introduced in 1967, so it definitely does not qualify as "modern" in today's market. "Modern" would refer to a Remington 700, Savage 10 or 110 or Target action, one of the other comparable action built by other manufacturers, one of the custom actions such as Nesika, BAT, Stiller, Lawton, Barnard, Stolle, etc, etc.
In conclusion, you will never be able to think for yourself. You will always follow the manual, because you are too scared to find out what will happen on your own. If everyone thought the way you do and only went by what they were told would work, we never would have flown airplanes, traveled to the moon, built buildings that reach over 1000ft into the sky, or any of the other achievements that man has accomplished by thinking beyond what others have said is possible.
I don't care what you think or what you believe. You are only one man whose opinion means little to anyone on the entire forum. We have been doing things our way long before you ever came along, and I doubt we will stop just because you don't think it's possible or that what we do will work. As soon as you realize that you are one man in a big pond, and the other fish in here have minds of their own and refuse to be brainwashed by those who can't think for themselves, maybe you will just continue to swim downstream and find somewhere that the fish don't think for themselves and will listen to whatever it is you feel the need to preach to them.
So feel free to float downstream whenever you feel. I am sure your opinions will not be missed. Though I believe you would have had some great things to offer, would you have been able to get past this little issue with needing to be right. If you had just kept your mouth shut and didn't try to police the forum for anything you don't agree with, than maybe it would have been nice to have you around.
I think I speak for the majority of the forum when I ask you to please go troll elsewhere. We do not care to hear your ignorance anymore. As far as being an ass when you feel someone is "violating a safety warning", it's still uncalled for. You are not to be the judge of what is safe and what is not. We have moderators who monitor for these things as well as the Forum Boss. Please don't try to do their job, they are plenty capable. Just shut up and try to learn something, maybe you might actually realize there is more to life than what's in the manual.
Anyway, the Remington 788 you "damaged" is known to have had issues with growing headspace as the bolts have a rear locking lug system. So all you really had was a normal experience with a 788, not this horrific, life changing experience you make it out to be. You likely would have had the same result had you never lubed ammo in that particular rifle. They were a budget rifle that was not meant to last a lifetime when chambered to rounds based on the .308 case, as the bolt simply will not hold up to the bolt thrust produced by larger rounds.
Here is a link talking about the issues with the 788, particularly the issues with headspace due to bolt compression.
http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh/788.html
If you had purchased a quality rifle, such as the Remington 700, you likely never would have had any issue even with the lubed ammo as the action system is stronger with it's forward locking lugs and superior construction.
Another issue you have is that you are one of those brainwashed robots that can't think for themselves and lives life by a manual written by someone else. Maybe try to live your own life, instead of going by the book?
This whole topic has nothing to do with quality control in the military, nor does it have an answer in a manual. This has to do with progression beyond what is thought to be the right answer. By thinking outside the box, some have developed a system of case-forming that minimizes stretch in the web area. They have proven that with modern rifle actions bolt thrust is not an issue like it was in the past, as modern actions are built far stronger than they were even 30 years ago. This has been tested time and again by many shooters, and has been proven to be effective and safe when you use an action built strong enough to withstand the pressures involved. This does not include the flawed Remington 788, as it is not "Modern" by any stretch. The technology used in the Remington 788 was antiquated when it was introduced in 1967, so it definitely does not qualify as "modern" in today's market. "Modern" would refer to a Remington 700, Savage 10 or 110 or Target action, one of the other comparable action built by other manufacturers, one of the custom actions such as Nesika, BAT, Stiller, Lawton, Barnard, Stolle, etc, etc.
In conclusion, you will never be able to think for yourself. You will always follow the manual, because you are too scared to find out what will happen on your own. If everyone thought the way you do and only went by what they were told would work, we never would have flown airplanes, traveled to the moon, built buildings that reach over 1000ft into the sky, or any of the other achievements that man has accomplished by thinking beyond what others have said is possible.
I don't care what you think or what you believe. You are only one man whose opinion means little to anyone on the entire forum. We have been doing things our way long before you ever came along, and I doubt we will stop just because you don't think it's possible or that what we do will work. As soon as you realize that you are one man in a big pond, and the other fish in here have minds of their own and refuse to be brainwashed by those who can't think for themselves, maybe you will just continue to swim downstream and find somewhere that the fish don't think for themselves and will listen to whatever it is you feel the need to preach to them.
So feel free to float downstream whenever you feel. I am sure your opinions will not be missed. Though I believe you would have had some great things to offer, would you have been able to get past this little issue with needing to be right. If you had just kept your mouth shut and didn't try to police the forum for anything you don't agree with, than maybe it would have been nice to have you around.
I think I speak for the majority of the forum when I ask you to please go troll elsewhere. We do not care to hear your ignorance anymore. As far as being an ass when you feel someone is "violating a safety warning", it's still uncalled for. You are not to be the judge of what is safe and what is not. We have moderators who monitor for these things as well as the Forum Boss. Please don't try to do their job, they are plenty capable. Just shut up and try to learn something, maybe you might actually realize there is more to life than what's in the manual.
Upgrades & Donations
This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.