RE: short vs. long actions
 

Yeah, but that's exactly what I am getting at. All of the linear energy (recoil) is transfered to the stock at the front ring.

It never has a chance to flex the rest of the receiver if it's sitting properly in the stock.

RE: short vs. long actions
 

Actually... in a closed chamber pressure is equal in all directions at the same time... therefore the radial and linear aspects of force generation are the same, force varying souly due to surface area. Since the recoil lug is below the C/L of the barrel & receiver where the lug bears against the stock and the bottom of the receiver is constrained from rotation by the bedding in the stock you have a bending moment which will deflect the receiver and barrel joint, moreso the action across it's length since the barrel is free to rise. The bolt is the transmitting member of the force to the receiver and the receiver / barrel / recoil lug assy imparts the force due to good ole mr newton's laws of motion... the barreled action will actually slide a very minute amount within the stocks inletting and bedding... even if there is zero contact between the recoil lug and the recess the wood will still compress an amount greater than the steel...

what i was hitting at for the tang and action retaining bolts is this. The tang at the rear of the receiver is constrained because it rests on the stock. It is securely clamped by the rear action bolt. since the barrel wants to lift due to swell from 60 ksi of pressure in the chamber and the rear tang cannot move you set of a lever type of situation. Now the front action bolt is imparting a clamping load to hold the front of the receiver / barrel in the stock against the bedding... since the barrel is pushing downward on the stock in turn the barrel wants to rise.. the front action bolt has to stretch which imparts another constraint on the assy. The tang at the rear of the receiver is clamped and bedded and won't want to move downward, call this the pivot point. therefore you end up with a U (exaggerated) shaped deflection of basically the receiver....

i guess if i took the time i could grab the calipers, mics and such and model a long action 700 in solidworks and do some FEA to see just how much deflection we're talking about... might take me a couple of weeks to complete... i'm actually curious enough to tackle it just for the heck of it...

Jamie

RE: short vs. long actions
 

I would have to agree with rootsy on this one also. The bolt face has force acted upon it before the recoil lug. The recoil pulse doesn't come until something is accellerated down the barrel, this acceleration is caused by pressure exerted on the chamber and boltface. Without out pressure on the chamber and boltface, you don't have accelleration and no recoil. I would hink theis would be the reason why in accurizing a rifle, you would wan to make sure the locking lugs are bearing evenly, or lap them until they are bearing evenly to make sure the cartridge doesn't misalign when fired and to eliminate any other accuracy killing gremlins in the process.

As far as the 788 goes, its a decent action and lends itself to accuracy and has a fast lock time, but there are other problems with it that can negate any advantages.
The bolt itself doesn't lend itself to durability. If shot with mild loads, there isn't too much of a problem, but if handloaded hot, the bolt is prone to setback not to mention the bolt handle is pretty fragile which has frequently in the past broken off when shooters tried to extract cartridges.
I would actually build a preceision rifle on a mauser 96 action long before I would consider doing one on a 788.

RE: short vs. long actions
 

I understand what you are saying about the chamber radial pressure making the front ring area want to "jump" out of the stock and impart bending forces on the action. I guess that the extremely small amount of flex could effect accuracy to some degree.

I didn't think about the "jumping" of the front ring area.

Just to keep this going;) let me also ask this. Wouldn't the shorter distance from the chamber area to the tang of a short action receiver lend itself to allowing the chamber area to "jump" higher since it wouldn't have as much leaverage as a longer action would?

If you tackle the Remington project I would be very interested to see your results.




I agree that the 788 is actually one of the least stiff actions made. The lugs are in the rear and therefore the bolt is highly succeptable to bending and flexing. Especially with hot loads it can bend badly enough to become inoperable.

RE: short vs. long actions
 

read four times...


mental insanity setting in

RE: short vs. long actions
 

sooo.... If that little bit of length makes a short action inherantly more accurate..... a ruger No. 1 or browning high/low wall would be even better right?

RE: short vs. long actions
 

A short action seems stiffer,it not it just that the bolt has less distance to travel and is supported in the rail guides for a shorter distance.A longer action the bolt will have less support at the rear just because it is longer. Just the nature of the beasts.On the shorter action being more accurate is a bunch of hog wash!! The action has nothing to do with the accuracy in that respect. Whom ever started that is reading to many comic books vangunsmith

RE: short vs. long actions
 

vangunsmith said
"On the shorter action being more accurate is a bunch of hog wash!! The action has nothing to do with the accuracy in that respect. Whom ever started that is reading to many comic books"

How true. I think you guys are forgetting that accuracy is directly related to consistency. Doesn't matter if you make your receiver and bolt out of rubber bands and it does the watusi after every shot. Accuracy and precision won't be affected as long as it does the EXACT SAME watusi after every shot. All the talk about the inherent accuracy of short, fat cartridges is because they burn powder with more precision, not because of the action length.