|
Post by mainous on Feb 1, 2015 14:32:45 GMT -5
This is a great write up and I appreciate you taking time to post it. Clearly, my rifle has head clearance issues and it should not be misconstrued as a universal problem. Remington did offer to take a look at mine under warranty. When I considered all options, I made the decision to take it to the next level by going smokeless, and I am now in queue to be "Hankinized"
Regards, Jeff
|
|
|
Post by 10ga on Feb 1, 2015 16:46:46 GMT -5
Welcome mainous! Any discussion of such as this thread is certainly going to make something better for someone down the road. The ole Savage 10ML and MLII certainly have their share of faults and solutions. Your decision to go ahead with upgrades and end up with a superior rifle is good. Especially since you will now be smokeless. Of course you can shoot smoker powder or smokeless in your new gun. Welcome to the world of SML. You may end up an addict. Best, 10 ga
|
|
|
Post by sgellis on Feb 23, 2015 14:44:12 GMT -5
Well.. I can see I have created quite the buzz this evening. I appreciate all of the feedback provided. sgellis I understand what forces are pushing the primers back out on this rifle (and in turn pressing the case against the nipple). I just don't think there should be room for pronounced protrusion. Regarding the plastigauge, I did place it between the face of the case and the bolt face. I too was concerned about case base deflection and also tried the next smaller size (.004-.009) and it did not crush at all so while getting a truly accurate measurement is unlikely, I think the exercise proved the point. encore50a the leakage is contained in the brass case. Remington has already stated they will take it in under warranty. I just wish I could have a similar discussion to the one that took place above with them to feel better about shipping it. Thanks, Jeff Spent the entire day at the farm shooting the rifle, thought I’d give you some sort of benchmark so you could see that the UML ignition cases can seal well. Sorry for the bad pics, was stuck with an old flip phone. Really bad pic, but you can still see my rifle, like any production rifle, has built-in head clearance. It is not much, but it is there and can be seen as the primer will always be driven back in the primer pocket within that head clearance as it parks itself against the bolt face. You don’t notice this when shooting a conventional cartridge, because the internal charge parks the case head against the bolt face as well, but the UML casing has no internal charge to drive the case head back, it is only driven forward. Yours may indeed have an excessive amount of head clearance, but mine does not as it works well. Up until today, I’ve been pushing the same lot of UML casings four re-primes for five total shots. Today, I went to five re-primes for a total of six shots. In addition, I hated spending the money being I already have a case lot, but I went ahead and purchased two individual bags from two different stores, to try different lots of casings. I was unable to notice any difference in performance between the different lots. Casing on the left is brand new out the packaging, center casing was just fired for the fifth time, casing on the right was just fired for the sixth time. You cannot tell any difference between any of them, there is no hint of any break in the seal, no blow back whatsoever. I may still push these further, but I have reached the point that they are cost effective if I stop at the Remington recommended six firings maximum. This is the nipple after firing 30 rounds of mixed bag UML casings from new to being fired as many as six times. Not one spec of leakage outside the tip of the nipple. Complete sealing with 100% of the magnum large rifle primer being fired directly into the tip of the nipple and straight down the fire channel. Zero blow back. Going one step further, I noticed some of the UML casings had the primer hole visibly a tad off apparent center. I thought these would be great candidates to find some leakage, but no, they completely sealed without fail. End results, I am convinced that having any type of crush fit with this type of ignition system would hurt, and not help. Having minimal clearance is good, but any crushing will actually damage the inner cone of the casing against the hard nipple, and would not give the casing any room to center itself. Having the built in head clearance actually appears to help, as the inner cone of the casing self centers itself over the cone of the nipple because it has this slight wiggle room. As noted before, the physics involved from the firing pin dropping against the primer, and the primer firing within the primer pocket, not only drives the primer back against the bolt, but drives the casing against the nipple. So it self centers, it seals, and the cone within cone directs all the fire of the primer directly down the fire channel. This is how they fire that fourth pellet, which to my understanding has never been accomplished by anyone in the industry when using a 209 primer, because of the inherent spatial void directly below the primer within a 209 breech plug, which causes a loss of efficiency in getting the fire from the primer into the fire channel, and directed into the charge. As a side note, this go around was working with the fixed sights. This may be of interest for someone wanting to switch between a scope and fixed sights. My friend and hunting partner is a longtime guild gunsmith with a shop second to none. I had intended to make a permanent shim to raise the factory Williams guide sight to regulate the sights, but instead, we dug up a new in the box vintage Lyman 57wjs receiver sight, machined from solid steel, AWESOME! Being the sight has a repeatable quick release feature that holds zero, I decided to install this sight so that I could use quick release scope bases below the sight. This way I could push one button and pull the sight, then I could pop on a scope. I'm leaning toward using 2-piece Mark4 Picatinny bases (8-40) on the receiver, as they should fit perfectly with the set-up. Then I can quickly switch back and forth between scope and fixed sights while holding zero. Sights worked extremely well, with the exception the factory .0750” white bead is a bit course. Will probably switch to a smaller 1/16” brass bead. The larger bead nearly fills a 16-inch aiming black on a 17" x 17" backer at 150-yards, but it still groups exceedingly well. Using a hunting peep, I was still able to hold sub-MOA at 150-yards posting the below 3-shot group, which measured ¾” wide by 1 ¼” tall. Was testing the group with the first shot fired on a clean barrel, which was the lowest shot of the three. Suspect that if I kept firing rounds, they would continue to pile up with the upper two shots. Running low on these Parker bullets, so I had to conserve. Regardless, I think that's pretty good for an old man using fixed hunting sights. When I get the new bases installed, I'll throw the Schmidt and Bender back on the rifle and see how well she shoots at longer ranges. Hope this feedback gives you some idea of how well the rifle can work. Would be interesting to see the nipple of your breech plug and inside of your UML casings. Would like to get some idea how badly yours is failing to seal in relation to how far it may be out of head space. It would also be interesting to note any gas cutting or erosion to the nipple. Best Thought I'd show some changes and modifications I made. Sorry for the bad pics. Earlier I noted my dislike for the fit of the barreled action into the factory stock inlet. In addition, the original front guard screw was short and only engaged a few threads. I made a new front screw by shortening an extra rear screw I had on hand. I also bedded the barreled action. The fit is proper now without binding. I used a vintage new in box all steel Lyman 57wjs sight that I had on hand. The sight is well made and has a repeatable quick release feature which allows use of quick release scope bases mounted underneath. Needed to drill and tap the receiver to 8-40 to install Leupold Mark 4 Picatinny bases. I used shouldered guide screws with a mounted alignment bar to bed the bases so they are straight and square. Also needed to drill and tap the sight body to relocate the elevation stop screw so that it now indexes for base zero off the valley in the Picatinny base. The angle of the picture gives the appearance that the relocated stop screw would hinder left windage adjustment, but it does not, I have a full range of adjustment. The receiver is a 40x, so it was already drilled and tapped for mounting the Lyman sight base. Stock inletting to fit the sight base required a minimal removal of wood. In addition to the rear sight, I had already noted that the factory Remington front sight was rather course. In addition, the bead is almost football shaped along the bottom. I decided to swap to a finer 1/16" brass bead, which I could either leave bare, or I could paint any color desired. I had on hand replacement beads from Marbles, Williams, and Lyman. By far the superior front sight went to Lyman. The Lyman bead stands out nicely and makes for a crisp sight picture. Using the course factory bead, I was able to hold sub-moa out to 150 yards, but much beyond that, it subtended too much to maintain such accuracy. With the new bead, I should be able to hold sub-moa out to about 200 yards or so. Overall the package turned out nicely. It should easily reach my original goal for CO elk. In addition, I believe it will also work well for most any place I'd use it, with scope, or without. I've toyed with the idea of using this S&B scope, but the jury is sill out. The rifle has a ton of room to lighten up considerably, either by slimming down the obnoxiously heavy factory M40 laminate, or by replacing the same thing with a light McMillan. I haven't lightened the factory stock at this point, because I greatly like the shape and how it manages in the hand. So, in the long run, I may just keep the same design, but go lightweight McMillan. So for the S&B, those things are heavier than I like, the scope alone runs about a pound plus. May just use a simple and light fixed Leupold. Really bad pic, but this shows the bolt side. Fairly clean setup. Cannot see from my pics, but I did reinforce the front swivel mount when bedding the stock. Not to the degree of a super duty Wichita mount, but, I can get into a tight sling if needed without worry of pulling out the factory stud. Hope this will be helpful and maybe give some ideas. Later
|
|