The .30-06 (stupid things the government does)

Status
Not open for further replies.
"As long as each part bends, wiggles, twists, or any other physical shape change or deflection the same amount and direction for each shot, precision accuracy is at hand."

Uhm... OK, as I understand the concept, no, not valid.

A simple example...

Two identical actions, except one is a long action, and one is a short action.

Because of the longer unsupported area in the action opening, the action can, upon firing, flex the equivalent of 1 MOA left/right of dead center.

Because the second action is shorter, it's physically incapable of deflecting as much on firing. If it did deflect as much as the longer action, the action would actually be damaged.

Because of that, it only flexes the equivalent of 0.75 MOA left/right of dead center.

The above is, of course, largely hypothetical, but it's very similar to the explanations that I've seen from action makers over the years.

Another good example comes from the automotive industry. The longer the body, the less rigid the car, meaning a lot more emphasis has to go into structural stiffening, while a car like the Smart, even without all the extra stiffening, has an incredibly strong body.
 
Come And Take It's comment:
Any serious reloader who has reloaded for both cartridges using the same gun tit for tat will admit that there is no difference.
Click to expand...
got me thinking.

So, Come And Take It, what if we take a few dozen of the best marksmen in the USA with their .30-06 chambered rifles, then fit new barrels chambered for the .308 Win but with the same bore, groove, twist and length dimensions. Then using the same very accurate bullets they used in their '06 barrels, work up loads for them that produce the best accuracy for each. Then shoot them at various ranges for accuracy. Then put the .30-06 barrel back in and shoot it with it's best loads. Back and forth a few times with each barrel as each wore out. Whichever cartridge that shot the most accurate would be declared the winner in this accuracy game.

Would this be a good test of accuracy with each cartridge wherein the only difference was the cartridge case and barrel/chamber in the rifles used?
 
Mike Irwin, if your comments about greater stiffness being more important that repeatability, then why do long, skinny, whippy Palma rifle barrels shoot 30 caliber bullets just as accurate at 1000 yards as shorter, thicker stiffer ones in the long range benchrest disciplines?

Note the barrels in each discipline bend a lot more than their receivers do when the round's fired.
 
"then why do long, skinny, whippy Palma rifle barrels shoot bullets just as accurate at 1000 yards as shorter, thicker stiffer ones in the benchrest disciplines?"

Everyone knows that the barrel doesn't count for squat as long as the bullet gnomes like it. If the bullet gnomes are happy, you'll have wonderful accuracy. **** off the bullet gnomes and you're going to have a long day.

In re-reading your first post, I think I misunderstood what you were saying.

I thought you were comparing the short/long action one against the other, but in re-reading it, it appears that you're not, but emphasizing repeatability.

As I said, thought, I was only conveying how it has been explained to me, but it's a concept that seems to be fairly widely accepted in the industry, so there's probably more than a little something to it.
 
This "stiffer than" syndrome oft times comes up in rifle accuracy discussions. It's been applied to barrels, stocks, receivers, bolts and everything else that bends. Even cartridges themselves could be compared for stiffness.

But it's all a waste of time in my opinion. As long as each part bends, wiggles, twists, or any other physical shape change or deflection the same amount and direction for each shot, precision accuracy is at hand. Accuracy is repeatability of every moving and bending part involved. Not the range of movement each part has.
Click to expand...

It is not a waste of time making rifle actions and components stiffer. Your assumption that everything bends, wiggles, twists, shape change or deflection the same amount and direction for each shot is not based on any structural analysis, and is wildly incorrect.

Anyone who has looked at and seen structures analyzed through finite element analysis knows that structures do not bend the same when energy inputs vary. As energy inputs increase structures change their bending moments. The change from one bending moment to another results in huge changes in “bends, wiggles, twists, shape changes and deflections”. Stiffer structures take more energy input before they change their bending moment, therefore it is my opinion, given that rifle actions are dynamic structures, that stiffer is better for vibration consistency. Examination of existing custom actions and rifles show that successful designers tend towards stiffness.

The Bernard is a well designed action, as few cutouts as possible, nice locking lug symmetry and massive sidewalls, characteristics which improve stiffness and thus accuracy.











Joe Pendergraf certainly spared no weight on his record setting 1000 yard rifle.




 
Last edited:
I'll start another thread about why the popular 3- and 4-lug actions used in competition became the norm. Specifically those originating from Great Britian and New Zeland. The reason has nothing to do with action stiffness. 'Twas a problem with the cases used.

Now I can imagine what thoughts folks will have about why a case issue would be the reason for going away from 2-lug actions to those with 3 or 4. Dream on, my friends, someone may well figure it out. Others may already know. For those that have forgotten this new thread will remind you.

Art Eatman does a good job keeping threads on subject. I don't wanna hijack this one anymore than we've already done to it.
 
Short VS Long Actions:

The SA M40's have no accuracy advantage over the LA M-24's. Both are Remington 700s.

But if you want stiffness, get a Model 70.
 
Kraig sez if you want stiffness, get a Model 70.

Good idea. They're near 3 times stiffer than the Rem 700's. But the Rem 700 afficianados don't usually understand this.

Plus, no modern action's shot bullets 28 caliber and larger any more accurate than what the old Winnie's have.
 
M-14

Carried 1 for 2yrs RVN Great rifle! Accurate and could shoot thru cover and walls and the likes of that. In the jungle the m-16 was easier to operate being smaller and could carry more ammo than the 14. had the selector switch on ours , not to bad if you kept it to 3 or 4 rd bursts, also we carried extra 200rd boxes of 7.63 for the m-60. The 14s are still being used overseas for sniper rifles, with good success.
 
According to the Rifleman's Journal, article "BAT three lug action", the Bernard is about three and a half times more rigid than a M70.


http://riflemansjournal.blogspot.com/2009/08/bat-three-lug-action-by-german.html

A shooting bud of mine is very happy with the National F Class records and National Championships he has won with his Bernard actions. Last F class match I went to, saw a lot more Rem 700's than anything else, I was shooting my M70 in match rifle class, that is prone with a sling. I did horrible but it was not due to the action.
 
Good "stiff" link, Slamfire. The Rem 700 and Win 70 numbers correlate close to what my dynamic bending in the vertical axis showed with both receivers. Ruger's 77 was not all that stiff.

My Paramount 4-lug (spawned from the Swing 4-lug (1971) which spawned the Barnard 1990?) may be almost the same as the BAT. It's close to the same size.

Wonder what Winchester's dozen or so round upper with flat bottom single shot M70 receivers in the late 1950's without the magazine cutout and only a narrow slot to load/unload from on the right side would measure. Probably close to these.

Some folks wished Remington had made a 40X long action for the belted mags used back then. Their .30-.338 version on the short 40X action was a bear to load and unload. But these all round receivers did/do not hold bedding well from the torque fast, heavy bullets produce.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top