Lightweight Rifle Build - Carbon and Titanium

[butchlambert]

If you choose to believe this rifle isn't what I say it is, go for it. Feel free to try and run my name down while you are at it.

Don't get upset. I just asked a question.Not running your name down either as I guess I don't know you. Now, I have a BR rifle that has shot a very few 0 5 shot groups. Is my rifle a 0 moa rifle or a .262 rifle as that is probably what I shoot with it most time?
Maybe you understand what I was asking now.

 

[butchlambert]

A 9lb rifle doesn't require carbon and titanium, to build. A light stock and standard components...and you're there with room to spare.

You are correct Mike.

 

[butchlambert]

Butch,
The popular Stolle action was and I presume is still made from 7075 light metal alloy with a bolting/barrel holder insert or interface.

Such an insert can be made from hi-strengh tool steel and is important as interface able to maintaun oressures. The rest ofthe receiver need only rigidity. A former german maker even had it made from Stellite!!.

Ti is for me not really suited for receivers.

RGC

Robert, Stiller has a line of aluminum receivers also as you know.

 

[butchlambert]

DSP10,
If you are speaking of me or my BR rifle, I'd say with a good driver it is a .2 moa rifle. I shoot very little comp now at my age. The .262 agg is the average moa group size that it has shot.
The internet has no voice or face. Some statements are taken the wrong way as some are a little more to the point than others.

 

[ryanjay11]

Don't get upset. I just asked a question.Not running your name down either as I guess I don't know you. Now, I have a BR rifle that has shot a very few 0 5 shot groups. Is my rifle a 0 moa rifle or a .262 rifle as that is probably what I shoot with it most time?
Maybe you understand what I was asking now.

I understand exactly what you are doing.

 

[butchlambert]

I did find photos of my unfired 280AI. Pierce Ti receiver, Douglas barrel, Jewell trigger, and a custom Brown Precision Kevlar stock.

 

[DJSBRS]

If you choose to believe this rifle isn't what I say it is, go for it. Feel free to try and run my name down while you are at it.

I thought F-class was shot for score only for 20 round record. Curious as to when your groups are officially measured under competition after a complete match average?

The IBS National Two Year back to back Champion shoots a 300 WSM as well as many others and rarely average a .25 MOA aggregate.

I am not sure if the 600 Yard 2016 Champion averaged .25 MOA for a four target 20 shot aggregate as well.

Maybe since I failed to ascertain the distance and duration of the shots, I am misinformed and would apologize for my ignorance. However, I'll buy that rifle if it can shoot 20 shots at a .25 MOA.

 

[ryanjay11]

I thought F-class was shot for score only for 20 round record. Curious as to when your groups are officially measured under competition after a complete match average?

The IBS National Two Year back to back Champion shoots a 300 WSM as well as many others and rarely average a .25 MOA aggregate.

I am not sure if the 600 Yard 2016 Champion averaged .25 MOA for a four target 20 shot aggregate as well.

Maybe since I failed to ascertain the distance and duration of the shots, I am misinformed and would apologize for my ignorance. However, I'll buy that rifle if it can shoot 20 shots at a .25 MOA.

The rifle you are questioning is a hunting rifle. It has never shot a F-Class or Benchrest match and never will. I've owned barrels from Bartlein, Brux, Krieger, Shilen, and Obermeyer. This rifle is as accurate as any of the other barrels I've owned on much heavier rifles.

The OP is about a 9 lb hunting rifle. I happen to have one that is nearly what he is asking about, and it shoots awesome despite the naysayers dogging carbon barrels. This is the only proof barrel I own. Would I buy one to shoot F-Class? No. I don't need the weight savings and I go through barrels pretty regularly. Will I build another hunting rifle with one? Absolutely.

It's really a shame that everything turns into a pissing match.

 

[ireload2]

A good bit of what you have posted in not correct.
Titanium receivers are already available in spite of what you claim. It is a bit more difficult to machine but that means only run time on the mill and the use of carbide tooling. It is not that much different than tougher stainless steels. Titanium especially the 6AL 4v version is stronger than steel on a strength to weight comparison. That is why it is used on airplanes and missiles in very high strength applications. The F-16 for example uses 3 pieces of titanium to transfer the thrust of the engine to the air frame. The 3 pieces are about the size of a ping pong paddle. You can easily buy commercially pure titanium, 6AL4V and 6AL4V ELI at almost any steel supplier. So yes you can get exactly the titanium you want except that receivers are already available so that is not really a valid reason to stay away from titanium.
You will likely pay more for cutting off a piece than the cost of the material. A few years ago titanium was about twice the cost per pound of a piece of stainless steel and no one flinches at the cost of a stainless barrel.
The design requirements of a receiver are well known to most mechanical engineers and true gun nuts. You can check out Varmint Al's site for his finite element analysis (FEA) of a Remington action under load. If you don't believe or trust Varmit Al then get any good mechanical mechanical engineer or mechanical designer that does FEA and get them to model your own receiver and load up to about 100,000 PSI and see if it is ok. This method of testing is accepted by the FDA for the design of joint implants that are expected to last 10 million load cycles (steps) in the human body.
It does not take much math to calculate the loads on the locking lugs.
You may not "get" it but none of this is a real mystery. In high production setting producing a titanium receiver is not likely to cost $40 to $50 more than a steel receiver assuming similar lot sizes. If you want just one your receiver will cost thousands simply to pay for all of the tooling and set up commonly known as non recurring costs.
The various companies like DePuy, Zimmer, Wright, Biomet, Stryker,Smith & Nephew and others churn out hips implants from titanium by the thousands each day. Almost all hip implants are much more difficult to machine than a bolt gun receiver.

True,.............. but why do it? Titanium has good corrosion resistance and good strength at elevated temperatures when compared with aluminum. That's why the SR-71 aircraft is mostly titanium. But the SR-71 is not something you'll likely see at your local gun range.

Generally speaking, the typical aircraft alloy of titanium is difficult to machine. Titanium is also not as strong as many steels on a strength-to-weight basis, so a Titanium receiver would have more volume than a steel receiver and, most likely, be heavier. Plus it's expensive and a DIY gun guy will probably be shopping for a chunk too good for some aerospace company to toss in the trash bin, but since this stuff isn't usually sold at the local Ace hardware, the exact alloy is not something you can get too picky about.

I'm not privy to the exact design requirements for a safe receiver and I suspect most of the ones we see on the firing line are well over built. But where they are overly strong and by how much is the question, especially when someone who owns a mill and a lathe decides to make one out of alternative materials. When the goal is to make one really really light, you may find your normal flinch getting worse when you pull the trigger on a hot load.

Furthermore, while hunters like light weapons when it comes to marching around the woods, studies show that guns which are too light are more difficult to aim properly. Of course, when it comes to bench rest or F-class style shooting, weight isn't an issue since heavier is generally regarded as better and the rules set the maximum weight plenty high enough. In other words, there is no 2 pound rifle class, at least that I know of.

So my question is, why go to extreme lengths to use a material which may not actually be suitable for the task when the end result (a very light gun) may not be as good as a heavier one? Plus, the weight savings for a light receiver isn't all that great in the first place. Reducing the barrel length and/or diameter would yield more weight reduction and the effects on accuracy and safety are well understood. And barrels of most any size and shape are available at good prices.

I suppose if you needed to take a gun to mars, an exotic receiver might be a good approach, but otherwise, I don't quite get it when it comes to making exotic receivers.

 

[Robert]

[QUOTE="ireload2, post: 36898315, member: 1150665"
A good bit of what you have posted in not correct.


Hummm!!.. I think the statement vas not that wrong as far as receivers are concerned...

Other application such as medical implants, Aircraft and marine are different things.

My point,FWIW

R.G.C

 

[akajun]

MY dad won the SCI gun of the Year, which I a Kimber Mountian Ascent in 300 win mag outfitted with a Zeiss scope. " I'm still mad, I never win crap at these banquets, he has won 3 rifles in two years and a lifetime membership to SCI". Anyway the gun itself is under 5 lbs, and with the scope I bet its less than 7.

We have not shot it yet, its just sitting in the box, so I cant report as to its accuracy but it is a very nice rifle and for the price as compared to a custom rifle and the wait, I would consider it seriously if I were you.
http://www.kimberamerica.com/mountain-ascent