Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Rem 700 vs Wby MkV in bolt locking lug comparisions....
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Hired Gun" data-source="post: 90105" data-attributes="member: 1290"><p>Jon A </p><p> [ QUOTE ]</p><p>"As a Stress Analysis Engineer, I'd like to review these "proven facts" as I've never heard of them. Many things such as R&amp;P's, Tranny gears, etc, don't leave all else equal for a proper comparison. There is something to the failsafe design concept--make it strong enough so it'll still hold after one has failed and this would favor the 9 lug design as losing one of them loses you a smaller percentage of your total strength. But, most here would consider getting to that point "too late." They're interested in preventing lug setback, etc, well below the failure point where the above philosophy hasn't kicked in yet" </p><p></p><p>[/ QUOTE ] </p><p></p><p>Respectfully I submit the following.</p><p>I never mentioned R&amp;P or tranny gears as they are not a valid comparison. I mentioned lugs splines and threads. They are a valid comparison and the gross strength is directly related to the amount of load they will tolerate before suffering deformation or if you will, setback.</p><p></p><p>Now I direct to you as the most qualified here so far to explain the following and let us know if they are indeed facts and the philosophy is sound.</p><p></p><p>*Why is the allowable torque spec always higher with a fine thread fastener when compared to the exact same fastener size that has coarse threads? </p><p></p><p>This means to me that fine threads allow a higher tensile or pull load before deformation and eventual failure. Why is this not a valid comparison? </p><p></p><p>I'm no engineer or gunsmith but I am a critical thinker that is more than a little mechanically inclined being a welder fabricator and millwright for most of my career. I build with my hands engineered designs as well as my own with equal success. I still stand by the following: </p><p>*Short stubby lugs resist deformation better than big ones. </p><p>*For the same shear area the one with the many small lugs should have a greater capacity than one with two big ones. </p><p></p><p>So do you agree or not does having a circle supported in 3 spots around its circumference resist vibration better than one supported in two opposed places 180 degrees apart.</p><p></p><p>As a stress analysis engineer this explanation should be elementary.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Hired Gun, post: 90105, member: 1290"] Jon A [ QUOTE ] “As a Stress Analysis Engineer, I'd like to review these "proven facts" as I've never heard of them. Many things such as R&P's, Tranny gears, etc, don't leave all else equal for a proper comparison. There is something to the failsafe design concept--make it strong enough so it'll still hold after one has failed and this would favor the 9 lug design as losing one of them loses you a smaller percentage of your total strength. But, most here would consider getting to that point "too late." They're interested in preventing lug setback, etc, well below the failure point where the above philosophy hasn't kicked in yet” [/ QUOTE ] Respectfully I submit the following. I never mentioned R&P or tranny gears as they are not a valid comparison. I mentioned lugs splines and threads. They are a valid comparison and the gross strength is directly related to the amount of load they will tolerate before suffering deformation or if you will, setback. Now I direct to you as the most qualified here so far to explain the following and let us know if they are indeed facts and the philosophy is sound. *Why is the allowable torque spec always higher with a fine thread fastener when compared to the exact same fastener size that has coarse threads? This means to me that fine threads allow a higher tensile or pull load before deformation and eventual failure. Why is this not a valid comparison? I'm no engineer or gunsmith but I am a critical thinker that is more than a little mechanically inclined being a welder fabricator and millwright for most of my career. I build with my hands engineered designs as well as my own with equal success. I still stand by the following: *Short stubby lugs resist deformation better than big ones. *For the same shear area the one with the many small lugs should have a greater capacity than one with two big ones. So do you agree or not does having a circle supported in 3 spots around its circumference resist vibration better than one supported in two opposed places 180 degrees apart. As a stress analysis engineer this explanation should be elementary. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Rem 700 vs Wby MkV in bolt locking lug comparisions....
Top