Receiver inconsistencies

[fishhawk]

Towards the end of Rexxers thread on mounting his Farrell 1 piece base. I posted an e-mail response from Fred Moreo at SSS. It drew no comments even though Rexxer and I felt it was enlightning. We assumed it went unnoticed because it was at the end of a 3 page thread. He agreed with me on starting a new thread to make sure all here would see it. Heres Freds reponse my question follows:The receiver has a nominal diameter of 1.350", at least that what they're
supposed to be. The receivers are hand polished on a belt sander, so the
diameter will vary depending on how they polished it, some are worse than
others. The recoil lug should not be over 1.340" in diameter, so if it is
sticking up above the receiver, the receiver is undersize or it could be
threaded off center.
I've seen other cases where the crown was off center, causing point of
impact to be beyond scope adjustment range.
----- Original Message -----
From: <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 11:33 PM
Subject: Savage 10ML actions


> Hi Fred! A couple of us on the 10ML chat room have discovered that our
> receivers are tapered about .003in. from the front of the port to the
> recoil lug. This is causing problems with mounting Farrell bases and with
> ring alignment on two piece bases. Have you seen this before on any round
> receiver Savages? I personally use Burris 2 piece bases and signature
> rings to counter the alignment issue. A few are upset with Savage for poor
> machining. Most of us also have recoil lugs [including some with you lugs]
> that stick up enough above the action to interfere with scope bases. I
> wonder if this is because the action is undersize at the recoil lug
> surface? Curious to hear your expertise! End of e-mail Question:
So apparently we should Bed all our bases to get full contact with the surface. Our protruding recoil lugs are not supposed to be with varied reasons. I just miked mine and my SSS lug measures 1.340 at the widest point side to side as its supposed to. My receiver measured just behind the lug varies from 1.337 to 1.345 depending on where I roll the mike around. My action is .005 to .013 undersize and eggshaped by .008. My front base had to be ground for clearance for this reason.

[Dave W]

I caught it the first time and am concerned about my gun since I have had scope problems. Thanks for re-posting.

[rexxer]

Thanks fishhawk=definitely worth the read!!!

[edge]

Since the receiver is round, a thru feed centerless grinder would seem to be faster and obviously a much more accurate way of finishing them.

edge.

[rbinar]

8-)I've seen some fairly ugly receivers some with grind marks that would be a unaccepted by some manufactures.

As far as the scope mount issue there is no way I'm going to let a mount extend over the lug. If they are not ground to fit when I get them they soon will be.

Thankfully the most recent receivers I've seen are consistent and finished in circular fashion probably on a lathe considering the finish marks.

[rexxer]

It would be a shame to blame the scope manf. for all of the scope failures if this was some of the problems. If this is true in any way then in all fairness the more popular scopes could also have the highest failures.

[fishhawk]

I,m trying to figure out all the possibilities of why the high rate of scope failures. One question I have to the members that have broke scopes is the base and ring combinations on which this happened.

[Harley]

Fishhawk, my scope broke while on Warne steel 2-piece mounts.

BTW, I've alerted Leupold to the receiver issue and asked that they check the Savage they are testing with their scopes.

Harley

[minst7877]

I have a new scope to put on my pre-accutrigger 10 ML II with the flat rear receiver. The scope that just came off does have some ring marks on it and I have a ring lapping kit on order and plan on checking how the rings allign and lapping the rings before mounting the new scope. I have felt for some time that we were missing something that was contributing to the large amount of scope failure. Just maybe this is the culprit.

DC

[cumminscowboy]

if you are bedding a mount such as a ferrel one piece mount, shouldn't irregularities in the receiver be accounted for??? I just put a farrell on my new savage, the screws seemed to snug down really fast once they started to tighten, I could be wrong but that tells me the mount is drawing down as it should,

I am a little hesitant to bed the mount because I wanna see how the gun shoots like it is, and may have it glass bedded in the future was was worried about how this would effect the mount or not