Savage Target Action

G

gman3

New member
If I were to wish to build a WSM caliber rifle on a Savage Target Action, and did not wish to use their controlled round feed bolt head, could I use a standard magnum push feed bolt head? I noticed that there is a .003 difference in the rim diameter of the case between 7 mag and 7WSM.

I have heard of others doing this. Do you guys think this is a feasible thing to do. I like the cartridge (7mm WSM) and think I may want to build one for my next project. Or possibly a 7-300WSM.

Any info would be appreciated.

Thanks
 
I was thinking that I could get a PTG magnum bolt head for the short action, but looking at the specs it appears that the lug length and the shank on the bolt heads are longer on the magnum. I may hay to go pawn shop slumming and find a 116, 111, or 110 magnum for my parts rifle. I really wanted to use the target action, but that maynot be possible.
Still open for suggestions and would appreciate in other input.

Thanks
 
Considering the bedding problems round receivers have with higher torque on their barrel shooting heavy bullets fast, I doubt you'll have any visible accuracy issues with a .003" larger bolt face.
 
Bart B.

That third action screw on the Savage Target action seems like a good way to keep action to stock fit during the torque moment of firing. I could be wrong, but mathematically it should be about 50% stronger than a two screw action like a normal Savage or Rem700, which have been doing all right for accuracy for a while.

Jimro
 
Still open for suggestions and would appreciate in other input.
Click to expand...

I had a rifle in 7WSM built up a couple years ago. I used a Ruger action, Shilen Match Grade barrel, Timney trigger and put it in a Hogue Overmolded Full Bed Block stock. If I had it to do all over again I would use a R700 action. There are just so many more options available to you with the 700 action. A Savage action would be my second choice.

If you plan on reloading start looking for brass now. Winchester has not produced any in about a year and Federal won't sell their 7WSM brass as a component. With the barrel life of the 7WSM so short firing forming 270 or 300WSM just seems like a waste to me so when they finally do start making some, stock up!
 
The small middle screw on 28 and 30 caliber magnum Rem 700's didn't keep them tight in epoxy bedding when it was made 1/4-28 like the front and back ones are. Glueing them in square aluminum sleeves solved the problem.

Nowadays, 1" diameter precision fit pillars may do as well. I think two 1" square "Villars" (pillars with a 'V' milled in their top) would be best for round receivers. Bury them in the stock such that there's at least 1/32" clearance around the receiver but it's recoil lug still bears well on its stock shoulder; better yet, the front of the forward one. Call them miniature (Minnie?) Mann rests, if you wish. They'll probably be the most repeatable round receiver bedding/mounting system devised. But torque the screws pretty darned tight. Aluminum would be the best to get a perfect fit to the receiver.
 
Last edited:
Bart B.

I've noticed that all the fixes for round recievers you've put forth don't actually address the receiver. They address the stock. Specifically changing the material that the actions screws interact with during a torquing moment to spread the resultant lateral force into a stiffer material than whatever the stock is made out of.

I'm definitely not going to argue against pillar bedding as an accuracy enhancer. Even on old milsurp Mauser's it's a good thing to do.

Choate makes a V block alluminum bedding system for Savage rifles. It isn't particularly any more accurate than a Bell and Carson or even a factory stock from sandbags. Heck, the "accustock" is definitely one of the better factory options out there.

Jimro
 
How does one "address" the receiver other than squaring its few internal parts that matter? None of them are on the outside except for the receiver face, but that's covered when the barrel's fit.

Turn it between centers grinding it perfectly round on all its outer surfaces?
 
I just built a WSSM on a Savage Target action for 1k shooting. Not shot it at 1k yet, but it is shooting 10 shot sub 1/2" groups at 200. I really do not even have loads developed yet. It will probably shoot as good as my BAT action rifles.
 
I'm guessing you already own a rifle with the Target action?
They are not sold separately...I tried early this year, called NSS inquiring about this and Jim told me that Savage does not sell them to dealers.
 
How does one "address" the receiver other than squaring its few internal parts that matter? None of them are on the outside except for the receiver face, but that's covered when the barrel's fit.

Turn it between centers grinding it perfectly round on all its outer surfaces?
Click to expand...

Well in this case, either solder/epoxy on a flat bottom Mauser style conversion or sleeve the action and mill a flat spot on the bottom and each side to make it not a round bottom receiver.

But you already knew this, because you wrote:

What happens is that the epoxy that's about a tenth of an inch thick
actually moves the stock material beneath it along with it. When that
happens, perfect contact between all of the bedding epoxy and the
receiver is lost; accuracy suffers. Which leave one with two choices:

* Do something to prevent the receiver from twisting.

* Rebed the receiver.

A good way to prevent round receivers from shooting loose from their
epoxy bedding is to have something square at their back and front end
to oppose the torquing motion the bullet causes. Some folks have welded
on square lugs at the front and back of M700 (and other round) receivers
and they've performed very well. Or, they'll epoxy a square-bottomed
aluminum sleeve on the round receiver; this also works most excellent. http://yarchive.net/gun/rifle/remington700.html
Click to expand...

Hence my observation that the "bedding problem" of round bottom receivers wasn't really an "action problem" it was a stock problem.

Jimro
 
You can get the target action, but it will cost you a whole lot more than it is worth.
Click to expand...

Where?

I'm a bit confused by your comments...you said first it probably shoots as good as a custom BAT, then you made the above statement :confused:
 
The barrel life issue is the reason for using the savage action, that is...much cheaper to change the barrel when needed. Much like changing you own tire instead of calling AAA to do it for you.

The issue is finding the correct bolt head to make the target action work with a WSM cartridge. I have 7WSM brass as I already own a rifle in that cartridge.

I may opt for a 112 or 116 action, or if I can find a 110, or 111 I may do that as well. Just don't want to break the bank on rifle parts as I am already going to need to drop 2K on the scope.

I can get a Winchester action probably at a fairly significant discount since I live near the plant and have a connection there, but that does not keep me away from the gunsmith, and the cost associated with that.

The DIY element of the Savage is the appeal for that route.

I have an email in to PTG to find out if they can make what I need. Was hoping that someone else here may have already done that as I see one poster has said he built a WSSM rifle on a target action.

Just trying not to reinvent the wheel.

Thanks
 
I am already going to need to drop 2K on the scope.
Click to expand...

"to need", I like the way you think Gman3!

It sounds to me like you have a really good plan and I would be very interested to hear what PTG says.
 
I can buy a $400 dollar scope that'll end up helping one shoot very tiny groups just as often and small as if you spent $2000 on one. The reasoning behind the infatuation behind one's desire to spend that much on a scope when not getting the best hardware and ammo under it is interesting.

Jimro, I don't think the stock's the problem in preventing twist. If it was, then other twisting things, such as bolts and screws, would not have flat surfaces to prevent them from twisting when something tightens them. But I think we're not using the same perspective in this issue. I understand your position, though, it's a popular one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top