338 Lapua

Discussion in 'Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics' started by ZSteinle, Feb 5, 2010.

  1. ZSteinle

    ZSteinle Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    920
    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2008
    Anyone here build a 338 lapua improved on a 700 action? Just curious as to how it worked out, thats gotta be as much or too much for the 700 action, what do you all think?
     
  2. wadedc

    wadedc Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    103
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2006

  3. Chas1

    Chas1 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,547
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    ZSteinle, keep in mind the attached post speaks to Remington 700 for 338 Lapua. Your going a step above that with the 338 Lapua Improved. Kirby Allen one of the most respected smiths won't build a 338 lapua on a Remington 700 action let alone a 338 Lapua Improved and I wouldn't either. Let us know what you decide and how it works out for you.
     
  4. Fiftydriver

    Fiftydriver <strong>Official LRH Sponsor</strong>

    Messages:
    6,848
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2004
    Let me respectfully add a bit to Chase1's comments. I have built Rem 700s into 338 Lapuas and its improved brother with no problems at all. I will not chamber a stainless steel M700 in any Lapua class chambering because the softer stainless steel will have more likelihood of having bolt lug set back issues.

    The harder chrome moly steel does not have this problem when proper pressures are used in the Lapua. This brings us to the real reason I do not care to chamber the Rem 700s for the Lapua class chamberings.

    The Lapua case will handle pressures far above what most if not all the other cases on the market will handle today. In fact, where a RUM case will start to loosen primer pockets at around 68,000 psi, the Lapua case simply similes and takes this pressure and even much more with ease.

    This is where the problem comes in. If the 338 Lapua Improved is loaded to the correct 65 to 68,000 psi pressures, a chrome moly Rem 700 that is properly built should never have any problems. Its when a handloader tries to take the Lapua case to its limits like other case designs that they get into trouble because they are into pressure ranges far above what other case designs will handle but still not seeing any pressure signs at all.

    Just to much of a liability issue in my professional opinion, that is why I stopped doing these conversions for customers......
     
  5. sniperjwt

    sniperjwt Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    825
    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009

    +1 Very well said
     
  6. The Hock

    The Hock Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    129
    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2007
    I deeply respect your professional opinion. At the same time I am invested in gathering the parts and pieces for the .338 Lapua Improved. Of course a .338 Edge would have been the solution or even a RUM. In the beginning I actually considered that and made the decision to do the Lapua Improved, looking at the pressures of the parent cartridges. The last thing I want to do is grenade my pride and joy!

    Let's assume I get the rifle assembled. How do I NOT do what you fear someone will do?

     
  7. krlemas

    krlemas Active Member

    Messages:
    34
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2007
    For one thing I would replace the bolt with one made by PTG that is set up for the Lapua size case with M-16 extractor I just built a 7/338 Norma Imp. with the PTG bolt and it works great.

    Ken
     
  8. 284stak

    284stak Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    83
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    I had my smith build a 338 imp Lapua on a chrome moly 700 action using a PTG bolt w/m-16 extractor. I am using 98 gr of retumbo in a 29 inch barrell. The chrony reads 2900 roughly, but drop tables and a bc of .771 on the 300 SMK gets me at 2850 fps for my drops.
    I have no way of measuring the actual pressure I am generating in the case, but several threads have mentioned that if you keep velocity under 2950 - 3000 with the 300 SMK - you should be safe.
    I will say that my initial plan was to build this on a 338TAC action, but after a yr wait for the action that was supposed to be 6 mos - I went with the 700 action as I had a stock laying around inletted for the 700.
     
  9. ZSteinle

    ZSteinle Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    920
    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2008
    I completely understand your concerns as smiths not to want to risk a lawsuit. When I do build my rifle it will either be just the lapua or improved havent decided if dealing with a wildcat cartridge is worth the hassle. I plan on going with a ptg chrome moly bolt. what would be the advantage of an m-16 extractor over a sako? 284stak i would really like to see a picture of your rifle if you get a chance. Any more input would be great
     
  10. roaddog1m

    roaddog1m Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    306
    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    What I can't figure out is, where the hell do you guys all get the money for these builds??? I'm guessing that none of you work for the county. LoL I'd sell a damn kidney for a 338 AM and remove it myself for a NF scope!

    Tom
     
  11. 284stak

    284stak Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    83
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Zsteinle
    Would be happy to send a picture for you - but have not figured out how to on this site. If you want - send me a PM w/your email and I can email it.
    I have a sako extractor on my 7-330Dakota and the m-16 extractor on the 338 is quite a bit beefier in appearance. I can email both bolts to show the difference.
    My preference would have been the 338TAC action, but have been happy with the way things turned out.
     
  12. TyIdaho

    TyIdaho Member

    Messages:
    24
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009

    Lol!! Man I hear ya Tom, Lol!!!!