Who has used a P14 action for a custom magnum build?
- Thread starter tobnpr
- Start date
The one I used was a P 17 but basically the same. The cost?
$250 for the already altered rifle
$1000 for new barrel, scope, and stock
$5000 for the life flight to the nearest trauma center
3-4 pints of blood lost
100 stitches in my face and neck
40# of body weight lost during the 12 weeks my jaw was wired shut
8 weeks of lost work time
$1200-1500 in time and mileage for trips back to DR. for follow up treatment
Untold cost of pain and suffering for myself and other family members
Permanent nerve damage to left side of my face, prominent scarring, and very visible divot in my neck from the breathing tube
Now, how bad do you really want to proceed with this project?
$250 for the already altered rifle
$1000 for new barrel, scope, and stock
$5000 for the life flight to the nearest trauma center
3-4 pints of blood lost
100 stitches in my face and neck
40# of body weight lost during the 12 weeks my jaw was wired shut
8 weeks of lost work time
$1200-1500 in time and mileage for trips back to DR. for follow up treatment
Untold cost of pain and suffering for myself and other family members
Permanent nerve damage to left side of my face, prominent scarring, and very visible divot in my neck from the breathing tube
Now, how bad do you really want to proceed with this project?
johnwilliams
Inactive
Wow, that sounds very serious, Mobuck. What actually went wrong on the action? Was it a one time flaw in that particular action or do you suggest a more serious issue with this 100yr old action. Thousands of these actions have been used for decades on very large magnum calibers for African game. Why are they now unsafe, in your opinion?
Anyway, here is a link to a photobucket album of the first rifle I built and the action being discussed.
http://smg.photobucket.com/user/hogleg_willy/slideshow/Enfields
John
Anyway, here is a link to a photobucket album of the first rifle I built and the action being discussed.
http://smg.photobucket.com/user/hogleg_willy/slideshow/Enfields
John
I've been really going back and forth on trying this (I'd love to use an old military receiver for a .338 LM)- but have concerns, this is an interesting read I'd come across recently:
http://www.surplusrifleforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=1238
Knowing many have been used for magnums successfully, makes one wonder if there's a way to test to eliminate risk.
Magnafluxing would identify any cracks in the receiver caused by barreling/removal/re-barreling. Test Rockwell hardness of the receiver?
But seems at the end of the day, without knowing round count and how much the receiver may have been stressed in the past there's always going to be a certain amount of rolling the dice.
http://www.surplusrifleforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=1238
Knowing many have been used for magnums successfully, makes one wonder if there's a way to test to eliminate risk.
Magnafluxing would identify any cracks in the receiver caused by barreling/removal/re-barreling. Test Rockwell hardness of the receiver?
But seems at the end of the day, without knowing round count and how much the receiver may have been stressed in the past there's always going to be a certain amount of rolling the dice.
johnwilliams
Inactive
Wow. That puts a whole new light on this for me. Maybe it is best to just put the action back in the drawer and leave it there. On my first rifle, I had the barrel relieved on a lathe prior to removal, as they discuss in the article.
John
John
Not if you take that forum seriously.
Before the Internet by at least 30 years a gun smith named Roy Dunlap wrote a book on gunsmithing. He listed receivers and options; he covered the M1917 in three categories, his favorite was the Remington because it did not have the cut in the rear receiver bridge, next was the Winchester, the Winchester had the cut in the rear receiver ring and then there was the Eddystone. Roy Dunlap said the Eddystone was anyone’s guess. He said some were brittle like some of the early 03 Springfields and Rock Islands. He said it was possible to ware out drill bits when drilling for sights. Roy Dunlap did suggest making a carbon torch annealer when drilling and tapping for scope mounts.
I have Eddystones, I have an Eddystone that is cracked, I know of two other individuals with Eddystones that have cracked. I have heard all types of rumors about how Eddystone built rifles together. The Eddystone receiver I have that cracked had threads that that had a taper on the small diameter.
And then there are those things that some think about when bored. I believe I can fix the receiver with the crack. The one think I can not do is get anyone else excited about making an attempt. The square cut threads on the receiver are the only reason I was thinking about it. The crack runs from the front of the receiver back to the gas escape hole, the hole stopped the crack. I was looking for an excuse to use my magnaflux machine but the crack was so visible I did not need it.
F. Guffey
The action on my rifle cracked through the scope base holes. I believe over annealing compounded by overly tight barrel threads caused the failure. The bolt stayed locked, the barrel was ejected about 20' forward, and the left side of the receiver peeled back, broke off, and went through my lower jaw into my neck.
There was a P14 action listed on GB short time ago...very limited pics, none showing the receiver in any level of detail. Ad stated something to the effect of "ready for your custom build"
I emailed the seller to ask if it was a "DP" action- the ad didn't mention anything about the history of it. Seller- who was an FFL- replied back that it was, indeed, marked Drill Purpose. He didn't know what it meant- so I explained to him that while it was possible that it was not a compromised action there was no way to know- and the ad should disclose that it was a DP action.
Seller got peeved, said he didn't know anything about it. I replied "now you do, though"... Sure enough, he re-listed after it didn't sell, still didn't disclose that it was a DP.
Not IMHO.
Military actions have been used for countless thousands of builds- as Guffey said, this was commonplace "back in the day"- it's what was done before the days of modern production rifles. In my case, I'm considering barreling it with one of the highest pressure cartridges there is- hence the need for extra caution.
Might consider getting it magnafluxed, my guess is that the cost for it would be recovered at sale when advertised that it has been done.
I emailed the seller to ask if it was a "DP" action- the ad didn't mention anything about the history of it. Seller- who was an FFL- replied back that it was, indeed, marked Drill Purpose. He didn't know what it meant- so I explained to him that while it was possible that it was not a compromised action there was no way to know- and the ad should disclose that it was a DP action.
Seller got peeved, said he didn't know anything about it. I replied "now you do, though"... Sure enough, he re-listed after it didn't sell, still didn't disclose that it was a DP.
Not IMHO.
Military actions have been used for countless thousands of builds- as Guffey said, this was commonplace "back in the day"- it's what was done before the days of modern production rifles. In my case, I'm considering barreling it with one of the highest pressure cartridges there is- hence the need for extra caution.
Might consider getting it magnafluxed, my guess is that the cost for it would be recovered at sale when advertised that it has been done.
Mobuck,
Wow...saw the aftermath of a receiver failure at the range once a few years back, shooter was lucky and able to self-transport to the ER. Scary stuff.
Makes it tough to get behind the rifle again when you see what happens when the steel doesn't contain that 55-60 KPSI just inches from your face.
What was the rifle chambered in? Did the failure occur shortly after you got the rifle back?
We all know the "tie it to a tire, and shoot it with a long string" deal...but, just because it checks out fine (no hard extraction, or bolt lift, etc.) after a few shots- is no guarantee the metal isn't fatigued. But, that's way beyond my pay grade...
Wow...saw the aftermath of a receiver failure at the range once a few years back, shooter was lucky and able to self-transport to the ER. Scary stuff.
Makes it tough to get behind the rifle again when you see what happens when the steel doesn't contain that 55-60 KPSI just inches from your face.
What was the rifle chambered in? Did the failure occur shortly after you got the rifle back?
We all know the "tie it to a tire, and shoot it with a long string" deal...but, just because it checks out fine (no hard extraction, or bolt lift, etc.) after a few shots- is no guarantee the metal isn't fatigued. But, that's way beyond my pay grade...
This happened to a near-by smith, he built a rifle using a Mauser action (cleaned his reloading room) and then loaded ammo for his new build. He went to the range, loaded the first round, pulled the trigger and then walked down the range to recover his barrel. On the way back to his shop he thought about what could have gone wrong. In his effort to make his reloading room more presentable he rearranged his powder and reached for a can that was no longer there because in his attempt to clean the room he rearranged his powder.
His front receiver ring opened up like a bell; the barrel was the only part he could salvage. He was not upset with Mauser because the receiver was soft; it was not designed to be used with pistol powder.
F. Guffey
OK...so I have a question for the engineers here, since we've gotten a bit OT on the receiver failure mentioned. What the heck...it's my thread 
Bolt thrust/bolt failure was not the cause of Mobucks...
What "percentage"- or "relationship" is there regarding the strength of the female threaded end of the receiver, as relates the the strength of the chamber area of the barrel itself, to contain the pressures generated by ignition?
IOW...when looking at the relative diameter of a barrel at the breech-say 1.2", and the metal removed to create the chamber- it's hard to imagine that amount of steel still needing additional "reinforcing" strength from the receiver.
Here is why I'm puzzled.
Rough dimensions of MN receiver:
Wall thickness: .170
Estimated (female) thread depth for 16 pitch- .06-.07
Leaves only .10 to .110 receiver wall thickness...
Now, I've always thought that receiver "strength" is more related to containing bolt thrust.
So, what is it I'm not understanding as to the relationship of this relatively thin ring of receiver (about a tenth of an inch, or so) and it's importance to containing pressures? Why is it, that the barrel/chamber itself cannot be designed to handle this on it's own?
IOW, hypothetically... if one were able to lock down a rifle barrel-no receiver attached- in a vise, insert a case, then lock up just a bolt with fp against it able to withstand the bolt thrust- detonate the cartridge; what would happen? Would the barrel fail in the area of the receiver threads, because there is no receiver in place?
Sorry about the rambling...but I'm not getting this.
Bolt thrust/bolt failure was not the cause of Mobucks...
What "percentage"- or "relationship" is there regarding the strength of the female threaded end of the receiver, as relates the the strength of the chamber area of the barrel itself, to contain the pressures generated by ignition?
IOW...when looking at the relative diameter of a barrel at the breech-say 1.2", and the metal removed to create the chamber- it's hard to imagine that amount of steel still needing additional "reinforcing" strength from the receiver.
Here is why I'm puzzled.
Rough dimensions of MN receiver:
Wall thickness: .170
Estimated (female) thread depth for 16 pitch- .06-.07
Leaves only .10 to .110 receiver wall thickness...
Now, I've always thought that receiver "strength" is more related to containing bolt thrust.
So, what is it I'm not understanding as to the relationship of this relatively thin ring of receiver (about a tenth of an inch, or so) and it's importance to containing pressures? Why is it, that the barrel/chamber itself cannot be designed to handle this on it's own?
IOW, hypothetically... if one were able to lock down a rifle barrel-no receiver attached- in a vise, insert a case, then lock up just a bolt with fp against it able to withstand the bolt thrust- detonate the cartridge; what would happen? Would the barrel fail in the area of the receiver threads, because there is no receiver in place?
Sorry about the rambling...but I'm not getting this.
tobnpr, I am sure I have had bad Satrudays so go ahead, ask away.
In the mean time there is the small ring Mauser with the small shank barrel. The 03 Springfield 03 receiver front ring is the same diameter as the small ring Mauser front ring 'BUT! the Springfield has a larger diameter shank, and that is scary.
A few years after the small ring Mauser with the small shank barrel the Germans built a small ring Mauser with a large shank barrel and that was scary but not as scary as the trigger. The rifle could be fired by pulling the trigger or pushing the trigger forward. I was told the small ring/large shank rifle was suspect so I chambered one of them to 8mm06 and it is still an 8mm06 today.
I know better than to chamber a 1891 Argentine to 308 W but I now own one. My friend said it was a 308 W and I argued with him, I informed him it was a 7.65mm53 BM. He built the rifle and used it as a loaner for hunters that showed up to hunt without a rifle. He used a M1917 barrel and there is no changing the barrel.
I purchased 4 receivers that were sold as suspect. I pulled the barrels and used one barrel and one bolt to test all 4 receivers. It was suggested I was into some scary stuff. None of the receivers failed and I had no bolt set back and no one could explain to me what 'scary stuff' meant. I paid #25.00 each for the rifles and made chamber gages out of the barrels.
F. Guffey
There is something reloaders have a big problem with, they get a case gage and believe it is one ended, the case sits on the datum/shoulder with the case head hanging out and wonder where is the rest of the gage; well that is not totally true, I know. Then there is the barrel and receiver you ask about, when I speak of the chamber between the bolt face and barrel I always include the case. When it comes to failures the case is the part that fails first. I know there is case head protrusion and unsupported case head. When there is a failure the case head fails first, most of us have heard it many times; “It must have been a double charge”, sounds great but rifles were not designed to contain the sudden shock of pistol powders. And then there was that time Bruce Hodgdon came to our house, my oldest brother loaded up a few 270 rounds and went to the river to shoot. The rifle started shooting 10 ft high, he called all involved. It was Bruce Hodgdon that was setting in front of the house when the sun came up the next morning. Long story:
After Bruce Hodgdon checked everything, he asked my brother where he got the powder. Plain and simple; the powder came from a place called Sisk Bullets and that was good because Mr Hodgdon and Mr. Sisk were friends.
When they arrived at Mr. Sisk’s fine establishments Mr. Sisk thought it was going to be like ‘Old friends week’ but Bruce had no time for it, he went straight to asking Mr. Sisk if he knew my brother and the answer was “Yes”, then he ask Mr. Sisk if he remembered selling him gun powder and again the answer was “Yes”. And then he asked him if he knew the history of the powder and Mr. Sisk again answered with “Yes” and then Mr Sisk filled Bruce Hodgdon on the details. Mr. Sisk sold the powder to another reloader, the other reloader returned the powder and got a refund. It was right after that Mr Hodgdon told Mr. Sisk the other reloader used about half the powder and then refilled the container with pistol powder. Anyhow between the two of them they checked my brother’s rifle out and said something nice about the rifle: they said his Model 70 was the only rifle in the world that could survive that kind of punishment.
Bruce Hodgdon made it very clear to Mr Sisk; power goes one way; it goes out the door, it does not come back. The problem for Bruce Hodgdon; the day my brother called he received another call from California. The California shooter was killed meaning there was no chance he would be able to talk to him and he had to make sure the two failures were not related. If not for the unique problem caused by Mr Sisk, Bruce Hodgdon was headed for California.
F. Guffey
A rifle blown by high pressure, as by using pistol powder, will not always show signs of barrel damage or even of broken bolt lugs. What normally happens is that the brass case (the weakest part of the whole thing) will flow and blow out, releasing high pressure gas into the receiver. That gas, once freed, expands rapidly and breaks the receiver ring, freeing the barrel. At the same time, the gas blows down into the magazine well, blows out the floor plate, blows out or bulges the magazine walls and shatters the stock. The barrel is often found in front of the firing point, completely undamaged. The bolt may be damaged (blown or bent extractors are common), or may be intact, and sort of lying there in what is left of the receiver. Locking lugs will rarely be damaged. The shooter, if lucky, may be uninjured or have only minor injuries, sometimes from stock splinters.
Jim
Jim
James, I got "lost" here- at the beginning.
We know brass always "flows" as it expands tight to the chamber walls, usually in the area of the casehead because that's the only place it can go due to "headspace". But if I were to chamber a rifle with near zero headspace- boltface tight against the back of the case and case shoulder tight against the chamber shoulder, it would have nowhere to flow-out and cause a "blow-out".
Common practice to set very tight "headspace" for handloaders, minimizes brass flow-out and extends case life. Extraction can be tough if set too tightly, but for purposes of this scenario let's say it's so.
Unless, there's something I'm getting wrong about internal ballistics
I know there are many things that can cause a failure, but still trying to understand the dynamics of the pressure created- and how they impact that relatively thin ring of steel at the end of the receiver...
Any merit to the thought that, as the lugs themselves and the raceway stand up to bolt thrust, that there is opposing force (equal and opposite as our old friend would say) trying to rip the barrel forward, and this force expands the steel at the receiver ring and can cause it to rupture?
Case head protrusion and then there is unsupported case head; All of my Mauser type rifles have .110” case head protrusion; no matter what no part of the barrel or receiver or bolt support the protruding case head in my Mausers. If the case head is not strong enough to contain the pressure the case head is going to expand and I like that. One more time, I purchased cases that were sold at a salvage yard; the cases were to be recycled and were never intended to be used by a reloader. It was believed the manufacturer took short cuts in the manufacturing process that made the case heads too brittle meaning they did not believe the case heads would expand, they thought there was a good chance the case heads would split/crack.
By the time I was aware of the potential problem I had already fired some of the cases three times. I thought the cases were magnificent cases; they were not fired/pull down and never loaded cases. I would not miss 150+ cases so I moved the cases to the collectable? Drawer.
And then there is the 03 and 03A3 rifles, the case head protrusion on my 03 and 03A3 rifles is .090” when measured from the bottom of the extractor cut meaning the 03 and 03A3 has as much case head support as the 303 and 30/30 except for the extractor cut. I am one of the very few reloaders that measure case head thickness from the top of the cup above the web to the case head. Most of my 30/06 case head thickness measure .200”, and then there are the case heads that measure .260”. I consider the thick case head the safest when it comes to cartographic failure ‘because’’?
And then there is the Remington with the ring around the ring around the ring. Before the case head can expand and rip the receiver apart the case head must expand the ring around the case head and then that ring must expand the ring on the barrel and that ring must expand the receiver ring. And then someone should mention the Japanese rifles and the part where it is said they are the strongest rifles in the world. And I have always said: “Forget the strongest rifle in the world I want the cases; if the case did not blow up it must be the strongest case in the world”, and only one smith, a Japanese/American was the only person that understood what I was talking about.
F. Guffey
There was a time I would try to involve reloaders and smiths in thinking. I would ask “Is it flow?” or “Is it stretch” “Or is it stretch and flow?”; About the only thing I was able to accomplish was I found out how little they knew or understood about what happens when the trigger is pulled. After that it got worst when the subject of “what causes donuts” was asked.
And then again there is that thing about ‘stretch’’ I am the fan of cutting down on all that case travel and I am the only one that understands I can eliminate the space between the case shoulder and chamber shoulder and I can eliminate the space between the bolt face and case head and THEN! Get case stretch. I could ask about brass flow but I won’t because I never remember things ending well when I do that.
F. Guffey
Tight headspace does not ensure against brass flowing under high pressure. In almost any bolt action rifle, there is a place the case head can be pushed into under extreme pressure. When I said "flow" I meant just that, not case separation. Under very high pressure, the brass can simply ooze (rapidly) into any gap it can find, like soft butter being pushed through a colander. Even with an action like the Model 700 Remington (original extractor), the brass can expand enough to force the nose of the bolt outward and lock the bolt in place. When the bolt is forced open, the brass is found "welded" to the bolt face, expanded into the extractor groove.
Blown actions often are seen with pieces of brass that had been molten, then froze to the steel. Once high pressure gas is released into the bolt lug recess or the magazine well, it expands rapidly. It blows the receiver ring apart, which allows the barrel to move forward and the bolt to move back, which releases more gas which continues to expand and causes even greater damage.
Jim
Blown actions often are seen with pieces of brass that had been molten, then froze to the steel. Once high pressure gas is released into the bolt lug recess or the magazine well, it expands rapidly. It blows the receiver ring apart, which allows the barrel to move forward and the bolt to move back, which releases more gas which continues to expand and causes even greater damage.
Jim