• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Gunsmithing Trued threads in a remage build? Having issues with my build

sid

Lefty
Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
Feb 14, 2017
442
320
44
Tn
I have a trued lh ptg action, they chased the threads a​​​​​nd overall a nice action but when i install my remage barrel and tighten it it basicallyshoots to the left and the scope runs out of clicks to zero it. I changed the rings to vortex pmr and the rail to a badger ordnance and it didnt make a difference.
​​i zeroed the scope a vortex Razor gen 2 on my 308 without any issues.

Im now thinking my issue is that the threads have been chased on the action and thats why causes my issue, can that be?

Btw the barrel is made by x-caliber
 
Generally speaking for a remage build, the threads shouldn't be touched outside of a literal cleaning. I'll let someone more experienced than me chime in though.
 
I wouldn't send any more rounds down range with it until I got some solid info. If the action threads have been "trued" they will be out of spec for a remage barrel. I would contact PTG or whoever did the work and get some dimensions.
 
Last edited:
PT&G should take care of this issue for you. Contact them and send the action back if necessary. You seem to have eliminated your scope, rings and rail as possible problems.

It could be one of the following:
1. Action scope rail threaded holes are not aligned.
2. Action face is way out of true with the action threads.
3. Barrel nut is not square.
4. Barrel itself could be part of the problem and could have threads that aren't true and/or a bore that is more crooked than most.

I think the most likely culprit will be found in something to do with the scope mounting. The action threads/face would have to be pretty far off to cause you to run all the way out of windage.



 
5. The threads were cut oversize in order to true them, and the standard pitch diameter barrel is a sloppy fit and didn't shoulder up properly.
 
5. The threads were cut oversize in order to true them, and the standard pitch diameter barrel is a sloppy fit and didn't shoulder up properly.

^^^this^^^


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
According to the site, the trued actions sold by PTG have threads that have been trued to the centerline- not cut oversize:

http://pacifictoolandgauge.com/ptg-...on-sa-blueprinted-action-bolt-br-fp-assy.html

I do this commonly with Savages (no Remage, yet...) to chase/clean up the threads as part of action truing and results have always been positive using standard pre-fits.

I would boresight it for the hell of it to see if the barrel could be really "off" (I doubt it...).
Rifle in a solid rest/sandbagged, bolt out, sight down the bore and center a "target" some distance away- then see if you can move the crosshairs (carefully, without touching/moving the rifle) onto the target.
 
According to the site, the trued actions sold by PTG have threads that have been trued to the centerline- not cut oversize:

http://pacifictoolandgauge.com/ptg-b...r-fp-assy.html

I do this commonly with Savages (no Remage, yet...) to chase/clean up the threads as part of action truing and results have always been positive using standard pre-fits.

I would boresight it for the hell of it to see if the barrel could be really "off" (I doubt it...).
Rifle in a solid rest/sandbagged, bolt out, sight down the bore and center a "target" some distance away- then see if you can move the crosshairs (carefully, without touching/moving the rifle) onto the target.

I'm kind of at a loss as to how you can true a thread to a centerline, without cutting metal, because cutting metal, will....oversize the thread. No? How much metal was cut is a different story, but I think .010 is considered the standard.
If you're talking about simply chasing them with a standard diameter tap, that's a different story, but I don't think anyone would really consider that "trueing", or beleive that it would change the centerline.
And yes, I realize that even a sloppy thread should pull into center when it was tightened down. I threw it out there as a possibility that hadn't been mentioned yet, and needs to be looked at.
Edit. It was mentioned specifically in the second reply.
 
Last edited:
Hate to be the one to say it but this is why you don't run taps down receivers and try to pawn it off as an accurizing job.

You fixture. You align, you single point. Whether you do it in a lathe or cnc mill doesn't matter, the setup is the same.

There is only one way your going to fix this action unfortunately. (see line above)
 
  • Like
Reactions: BudgetBuilder
No, that is NOT how you fix this action. Box it up, send it over to the good folks at LRI. Chad and crew will fix it, get it done right, first time, and back in a jiffy. At least that is how I would fix it. The action probably has (or will have) PE issues as well, so mIght as well Send the stock and barrel for a full fitment.
Good folks and good advise in Sturgis. ^^^
 
I'm kind of at a loss as to how you can true a thread to a centerline, without cutting metal, because cutting metal, will....oversize the thread. No? How much metal was cut is a different story, but I think .010 is considered the standard.
If you're talking about simply chasing them with a standard diameter tap, that's a different story, but I don't think anyone would really consider that "trueing", or beleive that it would change the centerline.
And yes, I realize that even a sloppy thread should pull into center when it was tightened down. I threw it out there as a possibility that hadn't been mentioned yet, and needs to be looked at.
Edit. It was mentioned specifically in the second reply.

I discussed this issue at length with the two owners of the primary companies that manufacture this tooling (you know who they are) because my first reaction was exactly as you stated.
It does not increase the major diameter of the internal thread, so it's not cut "oversize".

I was asked some time ago by a customer "What can you do", to improve on a factory receiver- without cutting oversize threads which would preclude them from using standard prefits in the future.

Your point about the "sloppy thread" is exactly what was discussed with both of them. The consensus, is that it's best to not have a non-concentric thread potentially prevent the barrel shoulder (or that of a nut) from mating perfectly at 90 degrees to the receiver face. With minor "slop" (your words), the barrel will align as intended.

I contacted these owners (before dropping coin on this tooling) because of the same concerns you raised- because they've forgotten more about precision tooling/machining than I'll probably ever know. The explanation I've given above was the same given to me by both of them. They wouldn't make the tooling for it if they felt otherwise. One of them even gave me "credit" for understanding what's going on here- and told me he finds such conversation as "hand lapping" of threads for a tight fit to be joke- that threads are not meant to align here- just bring them (barrel and receiver) together so that the barrel/receiver are able to mate perfectly.

Again, I know others feel differently, my decision to true threads in this manner is based on what the "experts" have told me- and my own experience having trued threads (without oversizing them) on several dozen receivers with positive results.

Please let's not get this OT- I was merely pointing out that this is how PTG also "trues" their receiver threads presumably for the OP's action- not whether or not it's a "good" idea.
 
I have a trued lh ptg action, they chased the threads a​​​​​nd overall a nice action but when i install my remage barrel and tighten it it basicallyshoots to the left and the scope runs out of clicks to zero it. I changed the rings to vortex pmr and the rail to a badger ordnance and it didnt make a difference.
​​i zeroed the scope a vortex Razor gen 2 on my 308 without any issues.

Im now thinking my issue is that the threads have been chased on the action and thats why causes my issue, can that be?

Btw the barrel is made by x-caliber

I'm going to assume you have a 3-18, or a 4-27 Gen 2 on your rifle. Those scopes have a 1/2 revolution windage stop built into the turret, even though the scope has more internal adjustment by loosening the set screws and using the screw under the cap. You said you ran out of "clicks" to zero the scope. Are you using the screw, or the turret to adjust it? Is it possible the windage screw under the cap is biased to the right from being zero'd on your .308, and you're simply hitting the stop on the turret?
 
Last edited:
@ks racer, i have a 4x27 i took the caps off ..

Anyway i did more tryouts, and i am now 99%convinced its the sloppy threads like ksracer mentioned
I managed to make the rifle shoot all the way to the right now , it normally shoots to the left because thats where you push the barrel when you tighten the barrel nut, if you pull the barrel in the other direction it will alighn the barrel to the right.

I also believe that none of the parts is bad or wrong, the thread on the barrel is good because the barrelnut fits nice on the barrel thread without slop.

The action, well it said in the description that the threads were trued.

What to do to fix it? I think i need to build 2 rifles ;) i need a standard barrel and send the action to a gunsmith and have him do it, and i need to buy a out of the box rem700 action and put the remage barrel on it myself.

​​​​​well, i actually enjoyed this discussion and if someone has other opinions i would love to hear them!
 
Accurizing, blueprinting, truing, tuned, whatever....it's laymen terms to mean that the machine work on an action, an engine block, etc...has been brought to a higher standard.

Agreed?

Machining 101:

Look at any print in any kind of manufacturing environment that uses machine tools. At some point you will run across a tolerance callout known as "true position." True position can be expressed a couple different ways, but suffice to say it is the exact position of a feature. Usually a hole.

http://www.gdandtbasics.com/true-position/

If anyone on this site was to toss a barrel into a 3 jaw chuck and go blazing away on the threading and chambering job, he'd be the instant topic of ridicule and disgust by a large audience. How dare someone not treat a barrel with enough respect to position it correctly in the spindle?

Yet its now acceptable to do so with an action?

You can take an engine block and toss it on a table and bore the cylinders. What assurance does anyone have that they are square to the crank centerline? That the deck surfaces are flat and parallel to the same datum (crank centerline). That is what a car guy pays for when he has an engine "blueprinted".

This same practice applies to a bolt action receiver.

Taps:

Taps make threads in an existing hole. That is what they do. You can rigid tap in a cnc where the spindle is "timed" to the pitch of the thread and it'll do its best to hold position. However, when you need added assurance that you are in fact observing a true position callout, it is a well established doctrine to single point the threaded feature. This is not speculation nor is it hypothetical. It's how business gets done on a hourly basis by detail minded manufacturing companies.

If taps were all that, why would ARC, Defiance, Stiller, Nesika, Dakota Arms, Bighorn, Kelby, Surgeon, etc...go through the added expense and trouble to single point the actions? Taps are cheap and they will last a long time. Thread hobs and thread mills must be replaced at regular intervals. These companies go to great expense to ensure parts are oriented correctly and machined to a standard.

I do this very thing on every single action we are asked to tune up. Price a Kitamura MyCenter II machining center once. That is what I use to accurize an action. To my knowledge, I'm the only guy in the industry doing it.

Is it better? Quite frankly, yes. It is.

The answer to that however ultimately comes from you as the client. A Timex will tell you what time it is just like a high end watch will. Those in this trade who are vetted got to be sought afterr because of the notion that those kinds of standards are meaningful and worth pursuit.

A tap has never been thought of as a relevant solution.

I don't care about thread fits in any of this. That is not my point at all. That comes later with barrel fitting. I'm talking about this stuff:
  • Positional accuracy
  • Parallelism, squareness
  • Flatness
  • Surface finish
  • Concentricity
  • No taper
  • Ho bellmouth
If this were possible with hollowed out taps sliding over mandrels that are located with bushings, I'd expect to see it more common in manufacturing.

It isn't.

-Last: It's 2017. Man was put on the moon in the 1960's. Think about that.
 
Last edited:
I think that you are right, and the action should be right in the first place, but a fucked up massproduced action, how else can you fix it if the threads are off ?
I think the threads get trued which adds slop and alowes the barrel to be installed properly if the tenon is correct and where the tenon mates, ( with tenon i mean where the thread ends and the barrel starts, nut sure i use the correct term)
 
Chad,

It's interesting (to say the least) that your position is in opposition of the tooling manufacturers. Sure would be interesting to get Dave (or Dave, lol) on here and read the arguments from both sides. I can run the equipment- but am not an Engineer- which is precisely why I seek out information that's above my pay grade, and reiterate this is not my "opinion"
Testing on a number of actions trued with precisely fitted mandrels/taps showed no additional clean up/cuts when indicated in a lathe and the threads picked up and single point chased- identical results with either method.

I get that taps follow an existing hole...Except when they're riding on a near zero clearance 1/2" hardened mandrel where relatively light cutting resistance is being done. Whatever "play" exists with the mandrel/tap, I can't see how it could be of consequential difference than that encountered with tool deflection when single-pointing inside an action with a threading tool.

I don't follow what you mean when you say it "isn't done in manufacturing". The precision action manufacturers of course don't do it because their shit is (presumably) dead nuts out of the machine. Not so with Rem, Savage and many others. So, we're left with re-cutting the threads to be concentric to the boltway as riflesmiths have done for decades; in the past strictly with single-pointing. The mandrel/tap system accomplishes the same result, but in a fraction of the time (allowing cost competetiveness with CNC shops) and leaving my stomach intact because I'm not picking up deep internal threads in a customer's expensive action.

Forget thread mills- talking manual machines/threading here. I'd be very interested in your thoughts of mandrel/tap vs. single point; specifically as to how dialing in an action in a lathe and single-pointing can result in any consequential difference in concentricity when both methods rely on a mandrel to indicate the centerline.

I must be missing something....
​​​​​​
 
Last edited:
Oh boy, here we go!
98fced7cc8d94aa2495da580c3f1b5cd.gif


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

 
  • Like
Reactions: BudgetBuilder
Oh boy, here we go! [IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"https:\/\/uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com\/20170712\/98fced7cc8d94aa2495da580c3f1b5cd.gif"}[/IMG2]


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

LOL... Not at all! I respect Chad's opinion- I've learned a lot of tips from here that he's been generous enough to share- and really would like to hear his opinion on this. We all have our own way of doing things- because they work for us.

Coincidentally, got this email from a customer last night on a trued Savage that I just sent back to the him. Now, I have no way to know whether the improvement in accuracy was due to the skim bedding, or the trueing (or for that matter- which aspect of trueing)- but it shoots a hell of a lot better than it did from the factory. In fact, shooting on par with a match grade barrel. Like I said, trueing receiver threads with this method has worked for me.

"Just want to say thanks again, found a load with hornady 143 eldx and imr 4451. Not a barrel burner but accuracy I'd awesome. 2620 fps"

[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"https:\/\/email.fatcow.com\/roundcube\/?_task=mail&_action=get&_mbox=INBOX&_uid=4862&_token=WQmu0O5C2r9qekFHtcLLQBMfZIt3VMq1&_part=3&_embed=1&_mimeclass=image&_thumb=1"}[/IMG2]
 
Last edited:
@ wannashootit. The OP says he can drastically shift the rifles POI by applying different side pressure while tightening the barrel nut. If that isn't an indication of a misaligned, crooked, inconsistent, sloppy thread, I don't know what is. What do you speculate went so wrong with the tooling used on his action this time?
 
First, let me just state plainly this isn't the least bit confrontational. It's a discussion, nothing more.

I think the big answer to your question(s) is in your own statement.

The precision action manufacturers of course don't do it because their shit is (presumably) dead nuts out of the machine.

It is my understanding that Remington (because you brought it up) does not use a tap. I see no evidence of it in their actions. The thread is effective from start to finish. You only get that by single pointing. It was told to me once (by a vetted person who'd know as he works for them at a high level) that Remington has a work holding method that locates on the outside features of the action in a turning center.

Regarding the mandrel topic:

If I take a 1/2" carbide endmill from any well known tooling vendor and I put it in a spindle to make a pass on a piece of stock, If I am more than say a diameter or two in depth of cut I can count on some tool deflection on just about any grade of steel or aluminum. Now, there are other factors that play into this. Feedrate, percentage of tool engagement, coolant, flute count, flute helix, tool holder, etc... The point is carbide is ground, it's harder than wood pecker lips, and it's very, very rigid.

It will yield from tool pressure.

By comparison a ground piece of tool steel supported by a pair of wedding bands is a wet noodle. It will deflect if a lateral load is applied to it. You are relying on the action itself to support the very tool doing the work. How many articles are on the internet about heavy barrels and poorly fitted scope rails causing receivers to hunch up like a cat being petted? How many exist about a guy with a chassis that snugs up the rear tang screw a bit too much and finds out that the bolt now sticks or the gun slam fires?

But now suddenly the action is more than capable of supporting tooling for machine work? Corner, paint brush, wet floor....

Now, lets address the tooling:

Split this down like this: I'm guessing here and being very respectful to the vendors making this stuff.

Mandrel: .500" dia +0.00/-.0003"
Bushing: .4998" dia +0.00/-.0002"
Tap: .5005" dia +0.00/-.0003"

Fitment of bushing to receiver bore:

Did you ream or hone the action prior if for no other reason than to qualify the surface so the bushings aren't biased by an inclusion?

Add up the tolerance stacking from figures above. It's small and most small shops lack the resources to really qualify it. It takes BIG money to do that. As I said, the values I chose are a guess and they are very small. Assuming I am right, they are very, very well controlled diameters.

Next,
  • is the mandrel straight?
  • Will it stay straight?
  • Does it have any taper?
  • How much and where?
  • Is it hard enough to mitigate deflection when the lead tooth of the tap initially engages material prior to the one 180* from catching the thread lead?
If taps are good enough when fitted to a mandrel, then I would reference back to your italicized quote above. The "boutique" shops making actions are not using the process for a reason. They aren't even using rigid tapping in the CNC which should/would be far more reliable if the part is in fact fixtured, located, and has all the relevant work done in that one setup.

A business in the firearms industry is profit driven just like any other business. If there is a better/cheaper way to do something then that is all the incentive needed for pursuing it.

I didn't liquidate my life savings to buy the equipment I have just for the hell of it. I did it because if I am going to do this work I feel compelled to do it as best as I possibly can. The tooling manufacturers can offer a counter argument if they wish. They are in the business of selling a product. The business we are in sells a service.

A tap will make a very qualified hole. No argument there. Taps however don't do as good a job at holding position. Not when compared to the single point method. I agree 100% that its absurd to try and sell the notion that one must lap a barrel tennon to the receiver in order to wring out the accuracy potential of a rifle. A 60* thread form is self aligning. All that means is the barrel will attempt to naturally align itself concentric to the effective thread form of the receiver. It does nothing to address whether or not the threads in the action are concentric, parallel, and free of taper/bellmouth when the datum point is the hole that the bolt registers from.


Since the GB of 2013 we've knocked out roughly 3000 receivers. For about a 6 month period I kept a log of the machine's work offset values. This is nothing more than documenting the machine coordinates where the zero point is set after setting up an action. Probing makes this not a big deal. Remington actions over the full gamut of production history hover around about a .017" "box" in the machine. Because I use the same collet, the same fixture, the same platter, and the stuff never comes off the machine, and the control on this machine relies on battery backup power when turned off, the home position never changes all that much. So, the +/- "whatever" that a Kitamura is able to position to is really, really good.

Conclusion, the +/- .017" value is pretty darn solid.

The only way I can ensure the threads are located off this common center point is by first internally boring the ID of the minor followed by single pointing the thread form with a thread mill. There's a number of other points in this discussion that I am ignoring for the moment just because of time constraints. If anyone experienced in this wishes to chime in feel free to fill in the gaps.


Last:

Take a premium barrel fitted by someone who can do this kind of work. Fit it to an action that has had zero work done to it, you can expect increased performance. It's been done for decades. If you go splitting hairs by finessing all the critical surfaces on the action, the gains you achieve are quite small. Stab the original "mater stake" factory barrel back on it and you'll likely never see it. Its usually not relevant until all the "I's" are dotted and the "T's" are crossed.

It's like stuffing a blower on a smallblock. You instantly net a big gain that vastly overshadows the 20-50hp your missing because you didn't do the detail work to the block, crank, heads, etc...

The detail work is what we are supposed to be selling when we offer this to the community. I don't work barrels with a Dewalt. I am of the opinion that receivers should not be either.

C.
 
Last edited:
Anyone care to comment about pulling and pushing on the barrel changing poi, when tightening the barrel nut? I put my barrel in the barrel vice when I set headspace and tighten the barrel nut on my Remage set up.
 
Anyone care to comment about pulling and pushing on the barrel changing poi, when tightening the barrel nut? I put my barrel in the barrel vice when I set headspace and tighten the barrel nut on my Remage set up.

I can't say I have intentionally tried to move a barrel after tightening the barrel nut, but I have not experienced a poi change on several Savages and a Stiller/Remage after long term use.
 
I can't say I have intentionally tried to move a barrel after tightening the barrel nut, but I have not experienced a poi change on several Savages and a Stiller/Remage after long term use.

I meant when tightening the nut. Is that a sure sign the threads are cut too large? Everything else was covered so well.
 
My experience is mostly with coupling threaded pump shafts end to end, with run-out tolerances of half a thou per foot, assembled. But the same principles apply. My opinion is that yes, that is a sign that 1 of the threads are either cut with a taper, or out of round, and it's probably the ones in the receiver, for the reasons Chad listed. In theory, if the threads were straight and true, but simply oversize, they should pull into center under tension. It's possible 1 of the mating surfaces is out of square, but I would think that would tighten down in the same spot, and the error would repeat. I'm sure somebody else can give a more technical explanation.
 
OP, how much play is there when you just have the barrel screwed into the receiver without the nut being tightened?

Is there significant side to side movement? In my experience with barrel nut systems, a little 'slop' is acceptable, but should be negated for the most part with anti-seize.

I've built a handful of Remage setups (Criterion, X-Caliber, etc. barrels) on Defiance actions and have never experienced any of these issues... with that in mind, I'm thinking the action is your issue here. If you have access to a 'non-trued' action, see if that makes any bit of difference when mocking up your barrel.
 
I am thinking the barrel threads are the issue. When the action is trued with the PTG mandrel system it cuts the action threads .010 oversized. Same as if trued on a lathe properly, but when single pointing you can choose how much to cut for clean up and centering. When you fit the barrel you have to cut the threads to match the new threads or it will be sloppy. Factory spec barrel or a new barrel ordered to fit a factory spec Rem will not fit. Nothing wrong with either just won't work with each other. If you ordered a replacement barrel for factory Remington it won't work with anybody's properly trued action.
 
@ wannashootit. The OP says he can drastically shift the rifles POI by applying different side pressure while tightening the barrel nut. If that isn't an indication of a misaligned, crooked, inconsistent, sloppy thread, I don't know what is. What do you speculate went so wrong with the tooling used on his action this time?

Who knows it's the tooling? Could be any number of things- receiver face (doubtful since it's supposedly been "trued", but...I would check it as part of troubleshooting if it were in my hands), nut threads/shoulder, barrel threads... wouldn't any of these (or combination of them) cause this improper loose fitment? Could also be the thread chasing was done incorrectly at PTG- mandrel not fitted correctly, etc. All I'm saying, is that I've never had adverse affects from truing factory threads with a die/mandrel. Always done as part of the rest of the package so to speak as I mentioned- so I can't isolate it. I am confident in saying that it sure as hell doesn't hurt- the pic doesn't show in the last thread I posted, but the groups shot were in the 1's and 2's. If chasing the factory receiver threads with the die/mandrel were detrimental- the rifle wouldn't be shooting like that with a factory barrel. Like I said, we all stick with what works for us. IF the threads were chased correctly (not cut oversize) at PTG my bet is the barrel tenon threads.

Assuming the OP doesn't have a mike and a set of wires- he may have a smith nearby that can check the barrel threads to confirm PD. This would be an easy way to rule out / in a prime suspect.

THANKS to Chad for the detailed discussion/reply. Hadn't been back in a couple of days and didn't want to come across as being ungrateful for the time he spent responding. It will take me some time to parse through it this weekend.
 
Last edited:
I am thinking the barrel threads are the issue. When the action is trued with the PTG mandrel system it cuts the action threads .010 oversized. Same as if trued on a lathe properly, but when single pointing you can choose how much to cut for clean up and centering. When you fit the barrel you have to cut the threads to match the new threads or it will be sloppy. Factory spec barrel or a new barrel ordered to fit a factory spec Rem will not fit. Nothing wrong with either just won't work with each other. If you ordered a replacement barrel for factory Remington it won't work with anybody's properly trued action.

Not necessarily. PTG makes dies that cut factory spec, AND .010 over. Check the link I provided earlier in #7, from what I see, oversize tap/threads on their actions isn't even an option on them:
  • A PTG piloted tap mandrel is used to chase the threads making them more true to center line.
Any chance an oversize die was used by mistake? Who knows... me, I'd rule out the barrel itself first.
 
I have fitted barrels to several of their "trued" actions. Every one I did so far (8 to 10) were all .010 oversize when measured. If they went in with a standard piloted tap on an action where original threads were out of spec then it would cut more on one side causing the threads to be egg shaped but oversized also. I guess this is a possibility as to his problem as they offer truing kits in STD and .010 over, both being piloted. A non piloted tap would follow threads without a problem. Of all the actions I have single point trued in a fixture on a lathe some cut as little as .004 but most cut .005 to .010. I used to cut as little as possible and fit barrel accordingly but now I cut them all .010. I would bet good money his action is .010 but I could be wrong.
 
^^^
That's gotta be it then- you've worked on them, I haven't...nuff said. Re-thinking what I said above, no way a "mistake" could have been made on the OP's receiver. The receiver reamer would need to be used to ream the receiver ID to the correct size before the oversize tap could be used.

Seems the receivers are trued ten over and this isn't made clear by the description on the website as I interpret it, anyway...
 
This has always been my biggest worry about using a "trued" Remington action for a Remage build. Even if you were to lap the lugs and true the race-way, I'd think you might actually be making the action worse if you didn't then re-cut/clean up the threads to be in line with the rest of the action. Unless you had a floating bolt head that is. Which is why I'd rather just spend the money up front to buy a custom action.
 
This has always been my biggest worry about using a "trued" Remington action for a Remage build. Even if you were to lap the lugs and true the race-way, I'd think you might actually be making the action worse if you didn't then re-cut/clean up the threads to be in line with the rest of the action. Unless you had a floating bolt head that is. Which is why I'd rather just spend the money up front to buy a custom action.


Truth:

This "floating bolt head" thing is crap. Crap marketing at that. The only thing floating in a bolt action is the barrel over the stock.


Common sense analysis:

If I make a bolt head like a CV joint on a car, then it is possible to allow the head to move/align independently of the centerline axis that the bolt body qualifies off of. But that isn't how these things go together...

-Stuffing a cylindrical male shape inside a female cylindrical shape that has maybe .002" of clearance fails miserably at even coming anywhere close to emulating this. Yet it is exactly what you as the consumer are told/sold. It's bullshit.

Now, the bigger issue. Lets pretend for the moment that the gun does in fact have a mystical floating head that can register both lugs against the receiver completely independent of the bolt body's alignment. The bolt face and the lugs are parallel to one another yes?

Let us taint this water to replicate the condition being discussed by this entire thread. let us say for the moment that the receiver threads and the face of the action are not aligned common to the centerline of the receiver bore, not only are they not concentric, the axial alignment is off as well. -Simply stating that the barrel is pointing in some direction other than the action.

So, now you stuff a case in it. You close the bolt. Only now you discover one side of the case is contacting the bolt face and the 180* isn't. All the floating "whatever" doesn't solve this. Unless you are going to "cereal bowl" the face of the bolt and put yet another socket type feature in there so that the case/bolt face can align, it's all for nothing.

And it won't make the gun shoot any better...that's a promise.

Truth be told:

Removable bolt heads accomplish a few things:

1. Ease of manufacturing. You can spit em out like crazy in a swiss turn. -Cheaply.
2. Ease of bolt body manufacturing. You can spit these out like crazy in either a mill turn or a well setup live tooling lathe. -Cheaply.
3. Flexibility. Want a 308 today and a 300 WSM tomorrow? Swap a bolt head and a barrel. Done.


That's about it. Seriously. There isn't a soul on this Earth who can make a factual/credible claim that the current "floating" bolt head design is responsible for suddenly progressing the precision shooting world by leaps and bounds.

These guns don't shoot or behave any differently than any other well setup rifle. They just don't...

-Now one more thing, and this is very, very possible.

You have a bolt head in battery. Immediately behind it is a breech block. IE, another bolt head that just blocks off the breech and stays out of battery. Behind that is a cross pin indexing and retaining the assembly. You have a little wafer washer in there too so that it doesn't rattle around.

Now, you goof and you sneeze a case. Blow the head right off the thing. What just happened? Look to your car's engine or a hydraulic ram on a backhoe. It just created the same thing.

The bolt head isn't going anywhere. It is captured by the lugs on the receiver. The breech block however just became a piston. A powerful one at that. The only thing preventing the bolt body from shooting you in the face is the cross pin and the bolt handle.

The material used for that pin better be right. If not, you can very likely die a violent death. Follow up by making the handle portion of the bolt body as one piece. Not a soldered or TIG welded add on. The issue is the gas must be allowed to vent with the least amount of resistance possible. When you sneeze a case it is very, very UNcontrolled. Venting it out the side of the receiver via a small hole doesn't get you very far.

-I have a hole in the ceiling of my shop and the reminder of what a torn retina and orbital fracture is like to serve as a reminder of this very thing. April, 2015. If my face would have been on the stock, it would have killed me. 12' behind me was a pelican 2x rifle case sitting on the floor. The shroud off this gun put a fist sized hole through it. No shit.

Experience. It's never cheap...
 
Last edited:
I love making money truing up remingtons, but i still dont know why a fella " unless he already owns the rifle" wouldnt save 200 more $ and buy a nice custom action like a kelbly atlas? remingtons can be made to shoot very well, but it takes money for most folks. I think that money is better spent on an action like the atlas. My cost for an atlas is 850$ hard to beat that!! Lee
 
I'll take a stab at answering this:

Remington is instant gratification. Walmart carries them. There's a list of accessories for them a mile long so building one specific to task is easy. If we look at the trend right now, there's a great many action companies out there. More than ever. This "Hearing Reduction Act" thing has tanked the can market. A lot of them have turned to action manufacturing just to stay alive.

A buyer's market for sure. I wonder how sustainable it is though and wonder if it's not going to implode onto itself.

So a possible scenario: Bob buys custom action only to discover 3 years later the company is no longer around. He needs a part. Now what? Is this far fetched? Look at the old Lawton actions...The likelihood of this happening with Remington is pretty slim.
 
So a possible scenario: Bob buys custom action only to discover 3 years later the company is no longer around. He needs a part. Now what? Is this far fetched? Look at the old Lawton actions...The likelihood of this happening with Remington is pretty slim.

Thats why we have awesome gunsmiths with expensive CNC machines and tig welders :)


 
Thats why we have awesome gunsmiths with expensive CNC machines and tig welders :)


...and why it'll cost a small fortune. Far easier on the consumer's wallet to buy a part that is routinely produced rather than pay a guy to make a single part.

I get reminded of this weekly with my stupid GTO project. Can't find what I want, get on SW and start modeling it. Then program, then source material, then fixture, then setup, then machine, then curse my ignorance for not having a better idea that forecast something not working quite right.

Reset, cycle start all over again. I wonder at times if a narcotics habit wouldn't be cheaper...lol.
 
Get some wires and mic the factory barrel then Mic the wires on the remage barrel. Now you know! My bet is the action is like my PTG action and is .010 over.
 
It's supposed to be a class 3a/b fit for the barrel. If you want to go Remage style get a stiller or defiance action that is true to begin with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
In case anyone is curious how this played out in the end:
​​​​​I took apart my 308 rem700, and put the remage barrel on it without any issues and was able to sight it in.....
I really believe the issue is the threads​​​​​ but i will send the other action to a gun smith and have him put a barrel on it and i will ask him to verify the scope mount holes to be safe.
 
In case anyone is curious how this played out in the end:
​​​​​I took apart my 308 rem700, and put the remage barrel on it without any issues and was able to sight it in.....
I really believe the issue is the threads​​​​​ but i will send the other action to a gun smith and have him put a barrel on it and i will ask him to verify the scope mount holes to be safe.

Did you ever contact PT&G about it? I've heard a number of people complaining, lately, about the "trued" actions from PT&G being anything BUT true. Kinda curious how this all turns out for you. It'd piss me off pretty bad if I was in your shoes.

If it were me, which thankfully it is not, I'd be sending it to Chad at LRI - assuming it wasn't going straight back to PT&G for immediacy replacement. Let us know how it all turns out and good luck to you!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
In case anyone is curious how this played out in the end:
​​​​​I took apart my 308 rem700, and put the remage barrel on it without any issues and was able to sight it in.....
I really believe the issue is the threads​​​​​ but i will send the other action to a gun smith and have him put a barrel on it and i will ask him to verify the scope mount holes to be safe.

It sounds to me like you did about the best thing that you could do for yourself. I picked up one of those PTG trued 700 actions too and considered throwing a Rem-Age barrel I have on it, but realize without much convincing that I should be sensible and do it the right way.
 
Did you ever contact PT&G about it? I've heard a number of people complaining, lately, about the "trued" actions from PT&G being anything BUT true. Kinda curious how this all turns out for you. It'd piss me off pretty bad if I was in your shoes.

If it were me, which thankfully it is not, I'd be sending it to Chad at LRI - assuming it wasn't going straight back to PT&G for immediacy replacement. Let us know how it all turns out and good luck to you!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe you missed or are forgetting that Chad from LRI also warned, years ago and a few times since then that properly trued actions from his shop will always be cut oversized and not to use remage barrels in them...unless made by him to match your specific trued action.

This is just the reality of buying a trued action and wanting to throw a standard 700 remage barrel. Not hardly something to castigate PTG for.