Is bolt-action receiver blueprinting still a common thing?

[STS]

Quite a few years ago, over on BenchrestCentral, a shooter was commenting how a VERY well known Gunsmith “trued” his new Stolle Panda.

It took the people at Kelbly about a minute to get on line and tell him he wasted his money. They also demanded that the Gunsmith cease messing with their actions, as they were correct out of the box and required no fixing.

It was a pretty lively discussion.

I’m sure that was a lively discussion. I’ve seen Kelbly actions that were not true. I owned one.

 

[SteveOak]

I'm not disagreeing. You wanted proof that it makes a difference. I'm offering it.

If someone showed up with a walmart Rem 700 SPS and said "make me a match winning FTR rifle" I'd decline it.

If someone showed up with an old and loved hunting rifle with rusty threads and a pitted face.... is it not worth cleaning up? If it makes the customer happy, looks nice and feels nice... what's wrong with that?

In this case it makes sense. Giving someone a reason to be happy is a good thing.

In the case of the Stiller Predator I have, Jerry made other improvements which you would not be able to implement if you started with a 700 action.

 

[AlNyhus]

I cant say I have done a before and after test on a 700. But I have done a LOT of before and after on custom actions. Part of my job is fixing rifles that are not competitive. And I always ask for feedback. Sometimes its in the bolt, sometimes its in the action. But VERY minor things that you would not think would matter, DO. I am still amazed when I fix a minor issue and the rifle goes from mid pack to the top.

Alex, it's people like yourself and others here that illustrate the difference between a craftsman and an assembler.

As far as out-of-spec custom actions goes, Randy Robinett and I both owned the poster child for bad actions. It took a lot of work from a savvy craftsman....and more $ than it originally cost...to bring it back from a date with the chop saw (quite literally) and turn it into a tournament winner.

Good shootin' -Al

 

[Alex Wheeler]

Alex, it's people like yourself and others here that illustrate the difference between a craftsman and an assembler.

As far as out-of-spec custom actions goes, Randy Robinett and I both owned the poster child for bad actions. It took a lot of work from a savvy craftsman....and more $ than it originally cost...to bring it back from a date with the chop saw (quite literally) and turn it into a tournament winner.

Good shootin'

I think some people actually think we like having to work on actions. Its actually a pain and costs me money. Im far better off chambering barrels than I am fixing problems. Thats the reason I have given so much feedback to the manufacturers. Id love to be able to use stuff staight out of the box.

 

[AlNyhus]

Q.C. is a double edged sword when it comes to manufacturing. From the bean counters perspective, it adds no value to the product and reduces the profit margin on every per-unit sale. But imagine how much more it costs the manufacturer when an action comes back to be corrected. And that doesn't take into account the damage done to the products reputation. That affects future purchases by not only that customer but other potential customers.

A slightly higher (relatively speaking) up front cost to accommodate a rigorous Q.C. program before an action went out the door would surely be preferable to the customer having to pay a craftsman additional money to correct it before it went into service. And when thinking of an action that has given problems in use and then comes back for corrective work....just imagine how much time and resources have been spent by that time.

Granted, we're talking about top level competition grade actions here. For a 700 clone, people just want an action they can take out of the box, wash it off and get a barrel fitted to it. There are some really good clones out there for their intended use. But the difference between even the best 700 clone replacement and a top shelf competition action is like comparing a lowered Honda with a fart can on it to an NHRA Pro Stocker.

Hope Florida is treating you well, Alex. -Al

 

[dakor]

I think what has been lost is a rifle is a shooting system not just one part determins how the rifle will shoot.

Like a race car you can have the best engine but if the chassis and tires are not up to par you are not going to get the most out of your setup.

For rifles you can have the best action but you get a bad barrel and you are not going to get it to shoot. You can also take the best barrel and put it on a misaligned action and you are not going to see good results.

Take the best barrel and action put together as close to perfect as you can get and a bad bedding job or poor fitting stock will cause the rifle not to shoot.

Heres also another cold hard truth no one and I mean no one builds actions, barrels, chambers rifles, or trues up an action with zero runout. You try get the smallest amount you can but there is always some.

I know people do not want to hear that but its the truth. When you see action after action and barrel after barrel like others have stated you get to see the runout.

The most critical part when you build a rifle is when the barrel and action come together is that shoulder needs to be square no matter if there is a lug in between or if the barrel touches the action direct.

That joint needs to be as close to perfect as it can get.

You can cut the best fitting threads but if that shoulder is not close to perfect you are not getting the most out of the rifle for accuracy.

How do you do that if the face of the action is angled and is not as close to minimal runout as you can get it?

You dont.

So if you have an action that needs to be faced to achieve it I would suggest you do it.

As someone else said in this thread, action work sucks but we do it. That and bedding are my least favorite parts of a rifle build but I do it because it needs to be done.

A remington 700 and other actions can be worked on to make them a winning F class or benchrest rifle. It has been done thousands of times just look at some old records that still stand today and see what was used.

 

[JB10]

I know 2 people who have blueprinted r700 actions, s/n starng with RR. Both have extraction issues. Bolt timing is off. I have a r700 actuon that also starts with RR. I left it alone and just threw a barrel in it. Was a donor action for a 6br build. I have no issues at all and shoots ragged holes. Oh and i bought the donor rifle at walmart

 

[LVLAaron]

I think what has been lost is a rifle is a shooting system not just one part determins how the rifle will shoot.

Like a race car you can have the best engine but if the chassis and tires are not up to par you are not going to get the most out of your setup.

For rifles you can have the best action but you get a bad barrel and you are not going to get it to shoot. You can also take the best barrel and put it on a misaligned action and you are not going to see good results.

Take the best barrel and action put together as close to perfect as you can get and a bad bedding job or poor fitting stock will cause the rifle not to shoot.

Heres also another cold hard truth no one and I mean no one builds actions, barrels, chambers rifles, or trues up an action with zero runout. You try get the smallest amount you can but there is always some.

I know people do not want to hear that but its the truth. When you see action after action and barrel after barrel like others have stated you get to see the runout.

The most critical part when you build a rifle is when the barrel and action come together is that shoulder needs to be square no matter if there is a lug in between or if the barrel touches the action direct.

That joint needs to be as close to perfect as it can get.

You can cut the best fitting threads but if that shoulder is not close to perfect you are not getting the most out of the rifle for accuracy.

How do you do that if the face of the action is angled and is not as close to minimal runout as you can get it?

You dont.

So if you have an action that needs to be faced to achieve it I would suggest you do it.

As someone else said in this thread, action work sucks but we do it. That and bedding are my least favorite parts of a rifle build but I do it because it needs to be done.

A remington 700 and other actions can be worked on to make them a winning F class or benchrest rifle. It has been done thousands of times just look at some old records that still stand today and see what was used.

"Blueprint" could mean different things to different people. Does it mean correcting/adjusting bolt timing? I'd guess that most guys like me who can run a machine might face, fix threads, and lugs... but I'm not touching the timing... which just got worse because I fiddled with things that effect it...

side note... as much as I don't like bedding, I love it. It's the last step to making a rifle!

 

[WSnyder]

I know 2 people who have blueprinted r700 actions, s/n starng with RR. Both have extraction issues. Bolt timing is off.

If they were "blueprinted" and they have the issues you state then someone didn't do their job right.

 

[LVLAaron]

If they were "blueprinted" and they have the issues you state then someone didn't do their job right.

agreed

 

[Rick Beginski]

One easy way to see how true a custom action is just measure the run out in the rear ring when you thread up the barrel. Shoulder it out solid and use a indicator. Very few don't have some run out.

 

[CharlieNC]

Q.C. is a double edged sword when it comes to manufacturing. From the bean counters perspective, it adds no value to the product and reduces the profit margin on every per-unit sale. But imagine how much more it costs the manufacturer when an action comes back to be corrected. And that doesn't take into account the damage done to the products reputation. That affects future purchases by not only that customer but other potential customers.

A slightly higher (relatively speaking) up front cost to accommodate a rigorous Q.C. program before an action went out the door would surely be preferable to the customer having to pay a craftsman additional money to correct it before it went into service. And when thinking of an action that has given problems in use and then comes back for corrective work....just imagine how much time and resources have been spent by that time.

Granted, we're talking about top level competition grade actions here. For a 700 clone, people just want an action they can take out of the box, wash it off and get a barrel fitted to it. There are some really good clones out there for their intended use. But the difference between even the best 700 clone replacement and a top shelf competition action is like comparing a lowered Honda with a fart can on it to an NHRA Pro Stocker.

Hope Florida is treating you well, Alex. -Al

Bean counters are best used to count the money. It spells doom when they get involved with managing the operation.

 

[GenePoole]

I know 2 people who have blueprinted r700 actions, s/n starng with RR. Both have extraction issues. Bolt timing is off. I have a r700 actuon that also starts with RR. I left it alone and just threw a barrel in it. Was a donor action for a 6br build. I have no issues at all and shoots ragged holes. Oh and i bought the donor rifle at walmart

Starting with the RR series, Remington went to CNC operations, reducing the number of machines needed and thus the number of times that the actions had to be re-fixtured. There are two styles of the RR series, one with a barcode next to the serial number on the side and one with the barcode under the bolt handle. I've heard that this designates whether they were made at the Ilion NY plant (no barcode) or Madison NC (visible barcode), but I have no cite for this.

It has been my experience with RR actions that the Madison actions appear to be made in a single fixturing whereas the Ilion actions are moved to a separate machine for the thread-milling operations. The results are that the non-barcode actions have considerable runout of the barrel threads and usually require re-cutting oversized to make them usable, whereas the Madison actions are good to go.

Remington went with a new bolt design for both variants and they have horrible primary extraction. I have yet to see any with more than 10 or 15 thou of primary extraction (and many have almost none) on a cam ramp that can provide up to 100 thou of primary extraction if relocated properly. Simply resoldering the handle a bit forward can improve these dramatically.

There are apparently a new batch after the restructuring of the corporation and they are designated "RRA" but I have yet to get my hands on one.

 

[AlNyhus]

Starting with the RR series, Remington went to CNC operations, reducing the number of machines needed and thus the number of times that the actions had to be re-fixtured. There are two styles of the RR series, one with a barcode next to the serial number on the side and one with the barcode under the bolt handle. I've heard that this designates whether they were made at the Ilion NY plant (no barcode) or Madison NC (visible barcode), but I have no cite for this.

It has been my experience with RR actions that the Madison actions appear to be made in a single fixturing whereas the Ilion actions are moved to a separate machine for the thread-milling operations. The results are that the non-barcode actions have considerable runout of the barrel threads and usually require re-cutting oversized to make them usable, whereas the Madison actions are good to go.

Remington went with a new bolt design for both variants and they have horrible primary extraction. I have yet to see any with more than 10 or 15 thou of primary extraction (and many have almost none) on a cam ramp that can provide up to 100 thou of primary extraction if relocated properly. Simply resoldering the handle a bit forward can improve these dramatically.

There are apparently a new batch after the restructuring of the corporation and they are designated "RRA" but I have yet to get my hands on one.

Exactly, Gene. Interesting observation on the Madison/Ilion receivers.

The 'RR' actions have what many refer to as the 'long tube' bolt body. On pre RR receivers, a good indicator of how much cam they would have was the clearance between the front of the handle and the bolt notch in the receiver. On the 'long tube' RR series, this changed...you can have a bolt handle with .015 clearance to the notch and still have z-e-r-o mechanical camming.

On the 'RRA' guns, of the 8-9 I've examined, I've yet to see a single example that have any primary extraction. This includes a 'Long Range' model I handled yesterday chambered in 6.5 PRC.

Model 700 Long Range | Remington

I've got a 700 Alpha 1 on order.....interested in how that will shake out.
https://www.remarms.com/rifles/bolt-action/model-700/model-700-alpha-1

Good shootin' -Al

 

[Dimner]

All of this conversation makes me so nervous buying even a custom action. No way I could figure out if any of these were issues on something I buy.

I'm suffering from analysis paralysis! I don't know where to put my money for my first build now.

 

[dakor]

All of this conversation makes me so nervous buying even a custom action. No way I could figure out if any of these were issues on something I buy.

I'm suffering from analysis paralysis! I don't know where to put my money for my first build now.

Sometimes ignorance is bliss. Just pick the one you like the best and go wiith it.

 

[jackieschmidt]

All of this conversation makes me so nervous buying even a custom action. No way I could figure out if any of these were issues on something I buy.

I'm suffering from analysis paralysis! I don't know where to put my money for my first build now.

Well, don’t loose too much sleep over it. Every piece of machine work performed has a tolerance, True, some tolerances are greater than others, but the brutal truth is, the tolerances are engineered to be acceptable within the perimeters of the application of the part being machined.

There are several videos on line where manufacturers take you through each step in the machining of a new action. Bat has an excellent one.

As a Machinist, I can spot flaws in a set up and how that flaw can result in parts being Machined. Where most inaccuracies occur is when the part has to be removed from a set up and re set to perform other functions. The Machinist, programmer, or operated must be sure that the prior machined surfaces are running as close to the spindle centerline as possible so all subsequent operations produce fits that are truly sytaight and square.

This sounds easy, especially in the modern world of CAD/CAM machining. But trust me, it is not as easy as it sounds. The advent of “stacked tolerances” can rear it’s ugly head pretty quick.

here is that video. A lot of great info here.

 

[jackieschmidt]

Also, speaking as a Machinist, any time you decide to “check” something. You must be 100% sure that your “inspection” procedure is not flawed.

@Dakar in his post #46 has a good handle on it.

 

[Alex Wheeler]

Dont take it out on the manufacturers too much. If steel didnt warp when you machine it most of these issues would go away. The setup is not the problem in most cases. Bat has one of the best processes I know of for dealing with the warping. They did not share it in that video. The smith is the final qc though.

 

[DGP4]

Thanks for a fascinating thread gentlemen! Packed with well stated and usable information! So many of these types of threads descend into a shouting match and little information. This one was just the opposite.