What is the consencus on the Speed lock firing pin assemblies? Do you feel they are worth while? I puchased one from Brownell's and after was told that they would do more harm than good and don't work well with some aftermarket triggers.
Speed lock firing pin assemblies
- Thread starter jmason
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
James Jones
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2002
- Messages
- 2,854
I have never used the speed lock but have swapped out the whole pin assembly/shroud with one of Greg Tannel's on every Rem rifle I have , they work great slightly lighter pin with a slightly heavier spring makes for better lock times the pins and stroing fit ALOT better then the factroy especialy the crap ISS units.
I have Winchester I building on nex , it may get the Speed lock kit.
I have Winchester I building on nex , it may get the Speed lock kit.
J E Custom
Well-Known Member
Jmason
I like them because they are adjustable in striking force
and they do improve lock time.
As to doing harm , Even though they are faster the fireing
pin has less inertia because of its weight and I would think
it would do less harm than a factory pin.
I just buy the pin and spring and use the factory sear and
shroud ( The shroud doesent move with the pin and matches
the receiver and the sear works with the factory/aftermarket
trigger.
J E CUSTOM
I like them because they are adjustable in striking force
and they do improve lock time.
As to doing harm , Even though they are faster the fireing
pin has less inertia because of its weight and I would think
it would do less harm than a factory pin.
I just buy the pin and spring and use the factory sear and
shroud ( The shroud doesent move with the pin and matches
the receiver and the sear works with the factory/aftermarket
trigger.
J E CUSTOM
It looks like the Speedlock Firing Pin Kit for the Win M70 requires a Speedlock Cocking Piece in addition to the pin and spring for M70s with the claw extractor. Does the cocking piece travel with the firing pin, and if so, will there be a similar improvement in lock time on this style Win M70 speedlock compared to the Rem 700? Any opinion on the relative value/improvment for this style M70 action? Anyone in the know?
James Jones
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2002
- Messages
- 2,854
The firing pin and cocking piece on the M-70 do move together like the Rem 700 the pin on the M-70 is pretty heavy I'm sure that the lighter weight unit will increase the locktime alone and the addition of the lighter cocking piece should cut the lock time a bit more.
I have some 6AL-4V titanium here that I may just make a pin with and see what happens.
As for the benifit I'm sure that the reduced mass slamming home will cause less gun movement and the added speed should help with the round going off with the weapon moving less from the trigger pull
Is it worth the cost? thats hard to say. I can't see it making a 1moa gun into a 1/2 moa gun or stopping any stringing troubles or things like that but I'm a firm believer in giving yourself as best of a chance as possible by eliminationg or reducing as may variables as possible
I have some 6AL-4V titanium here that I may just make a pin with and see what happens.
As for the benifit I'm sure that the reduced mass slamming home will cause less gun movement and the added speed should help with the round going off with the weapon moving less from the trigger pull
Is it worth the cost? thats hard to say. I can't see it making a 1moa gun into a 1/2 moa gun or stopping any stringing troubles or things like that but I'm a firm believer in giving yourself as best of a chance as possible by eliminationg or reducing as may variables as possible
NesikaChad
Well-Known Member
Hmmm.
This may be where I p_ss someone off. Certainly not meaning to and I'd probably be smart just to keep my cake hole closed and my fingers away from the keyboard.
Never said I was smart. . .
I've been building bolt guns for a little while now. I started in competitive shooting in the early 90's with an M-14 and then an M-16 while as a Marine.
Something I think we can all agree on is that semi auto rifles such as these are grossly lethargic when compared to a bolt gun's lock time.
A good friend of mine also shoots competitively in 1000 yard matches. He won the state championships in TN a few years back with a bolt gun. Now the rifle was either a 03SF or a Mauser, can't quite recall since we talked about both guns during this particular conversation. My point is, neither of those two have ever been world renowned for strikers hitting primers at lightening speed.
I think we see where I'm going with this, but I'll add just a bit more gas on this fire.
Hatcher's notebook, written back when Christ was a Corporal. It states something regarding the impact energy required to achieve the proper ignition of a primer. 45lbs ft if I'm not mistaken was the figure quoted. These were tests done for the Dept of the Army.
High energy springs and ultra light titanium strikers are all very impressive and cool, I'll be the first to admit that. My question is has anyone ever sat down and performed a blind "taste test" to see if there is really anything to it?
I spoke with the guys at BAT once years ago on this subject. We kinda came to the same conclusion, although their methods dealt with a lot more testing and facts than mine did.
A super light striker and high energy spring set up does indeed reduce the time on a watch from where the sear lets go of the cocking piece and then striker whacks the primer. One thing to consider however is that the pin can also bounce off the primer after it is struck due to the assembly not having much mass. I can't help but feel that is not a good thing for a number of reasons that someone with an engineering degree can surely figure out with a slide rule or calculator.
So, I go back to the days of semi auto service rifles and State Championship winning antique bolt guns.
How are these types of firearms able to perform so well with their inherent design flaws when compared to a modern bolt action? Nesika Bay Precision is a fairly respectable name when it comes to modern bolt action receivers. As their former production manager, I can assure you there were no space age, ultra light alloys used in either the springs or the strikers. High silicon chrome spring steel for the springs and chromoly for the strikers. The one place I do agree with the masses is having the spring set up properly so that it doesn't look like an operating rod/spring assy on an AK-47; all bound up and double stacked. Nesika striker springs are set up to run very clean inside the bolt.
I think it is the SHOOTER personally who makes the difference, especially when you consider that follow through makes up 50% of a shot sequence.
My advice, spend the money on ammunition and that **** overpriced gasoline and go to the range more to practice. Equipment worshiping only gets a guy so far. I strongly advocate the use of good parts when building a gun and I like to think the rifles I build demonstrate this, but until shown otherwise, I can't help but think that this isn't much more than a very effective marketing (propaganda) campaign. Especially when Mauser's and 03SF's are holding their own (winning) back at the 1000 yard line against modern hot rod custom actions.
Discuss freely.
This may be where I p_ss someone off. Certainly not meaning to and I'd probably be smart just to keep my cake hole closed and my fingers away from the keyboard.
Never said I was smart. . .
I've been building bolt guns for a little while now. I started in competitive shooting in the early 90's with an M-14 and then an M-16 while as a Marine.
Something I think we can all agree on is that semi auto rifles such as these are grossly lethargic when compared to a bolt gun's lock time.
A good friend of mine also shoots competitively in 1000 yard matches. He won the state championships in TN a few years back with a bolt gun. Now the rifle was either a 03SF or a Mauser, can't quite recall since we talked about both guns during this particular conversation. My point is, neither of those two have ever been world renowned for strikers hitting primers at lightening speed.
I think we see where I'm going with this, but I'll add just a bit more gas on this fire.
Hatcher's notebook, written back when Christ was a Corporal. It states something regarding the impact energy required to achieve the proper ignition of a primer. 45lbs ft if I'm not mistaken was the figure quoted. These were tests done for the Dept of the Army.
High energy springs and ultra light titanium strikers are all very impressive and cool, I'll be the first to admit that. My question is has anyone ever sat down and performed a blind "taste test" to see if there is really anything to it?
I spoke with the guys at BAT once years ago on this subject. We kinda came to the same conclusion, although their methods dealt with a lot more testing and facts than mine did.
A super light striker and high energy spring set up does indeed reduce the time on a watch from where the sear lets go of the cocking piece and then striker whacks the primer. One thing to consider however is that the pin can also bounce off the primer after it is struck due to the assembly not having much mass. I can't help but feel that is not a good thing for a number of reasons that someone with an engineering degree can surely figure out with a slide rule or calculator.
So, I go back to the days of semi auto service rifles and State Championship winning antique bolt guns.
How are these types of firearms able to perform so well with their inherent design flaws when compared to a modern bolt action? Nesika Bay Precision is a fairly respectable name when it comes to modern bolt action receivers. As their former production manager, I can assure you there were no space age, ultra light alloys used in either the springs or the strikers. High silicon chrome spring steel for the springs and chromoly for the strikers. The one place I do agree with the masses is having the spring set up properly so that it doesn't look like an operating rod/spring assy on an AK-47; all bound up and double stacked. Nesika striker springs are set up to run very clean inside the bolt.
I think it is the SHOOTER personally who makes the difference, especially when you consider that follow through makes up 50% of a shot sequence.
My advice, spend the money on ammunition and that **** overpriced gasoline and go to the range more to practice. Equipment worshiping only gets a guy so far. I strongly advocate the use of good parts when building a gun and I like to think the rifles I build demonstrate this, but until shown otherwise, I can't help but think that this isn't much more than a very effective marketing (propaganda) campaign. Especially when Mauser's and 03SF's are holding their own (winning) back at the 1000 yard line against modern hot rod custom actions.
Discuss freely.
Last edited:
Thanks for contributing. I think I'll run with the factory equipment on my Model 70 CRF bolt action.
Not related to firearms, but when setting up control systems for mobile equipment, our software engineers do not seem to be concerned with scan times less than 50 miliseconds, (an eternity for a cnc machine) because it is generally accepted that a human cannot recognize a condition and begin closing the control loop in less than 50 ms.
I do not know what the dwell time of a trigger is, but since the flight time of a 300 wm from 0 to 100yds is right near 100 ms, I am willing to wager that in most firearms, the time from the slipping of the sear to the exit of the bullet is probably some value less than 50 ms.
I feel this is important because, follow through the shot is where the majority of accuracy comes from.
I would have serious doubts that any change in materials or basic mass would be able to improve lock time by an amount that would reduce the total time required to follow through the entire shot using modern equipment. A 10% gain would be a huge gain, and the total change is still going to be somewhere south of 10ms.
I am not arguing that slow lock time is good, but when looking at lock time, consider: how fast is fast enough?
When considering this purchase, I stand with Chad. Spend your money on the item that will make the most difference first. For 99% of us this is: more ammo, better scope, bedding, range time, better barrel. In my case, i can see that i spent $900 more than i needed on a scope, before i bought the right reloading equipment.
For the other 1% who have already made all the other changes they can, it may make a difference.
These kits may be a good idea for other reasons that could bring it to the top of the list, like replacing a poorly designed setup, but buy it for those reasons, not lock time.
FWIW, im just a hack with a little knowledge, so give me a break if you don't agree.
I do not know what the dwell time of a trigger is, but since the flight time of a 300 wm from 0 to 100yds is right near 100 ms, I am willing to wager that in most firearms, the time from the slipping of the sear to the exit of the bullet is probably some value less than 50 ms.
I feel this is important because, follow through the shot is where the majority of accuracy comes from.
I would have serious doubts that any change in materials or basic mass would be able to improve lock time by an amount that would reduce the total time required to follow through the entire shot using modern equipment. A 10% gain would be a huge gain, and the total change is still going to be somewhere south of 10ms.
I am not arguing that slow lock time is good, but when looking at lock time, consider: how fast is fast enough?
When considering this purchase, I stand with Chad. Spend your money on the item that will make the most difference first. For 99% of us this is: more ammo, better scope, bedding, range time, better barrel. In my case, i can see that i spent $900 more than i needed on a scope, before i bought the right reloading equipment.
For the other 1% who have already made all the other changes they can, it may make a difference.
These kits may be a good idea for other reasons that could bring it to the top of the list, like replacing a poorly designed setup, but buy it for those reasons, not lock time.
FWIW, im just a hack with a little knowledge, so give me a break if you don't agree.
davewilson
Well-Known Member
i have the good fortune of living fairly close to one of the best gun builders in the country. he has competed in 1k competition and hunted long range for more than 35 yrs.. when i had a firing pin problem last year we discussed this topic, let me rephrase that, i listened to what he had to say on the subject. in a nutshell he guaranteed me the lightweight firing pins would not work as well as the regular weight pins. he based this on watching several top 1k shooters accuracy go to hell when they installed these on their bench guns. and when they went back to the old heavy pin, the accuracy came right back. the blame, as was mentioned, was the lighter pin seeming to bounce after striking the primer causing a vibration. in my own experience i shot better when i went back to the original firing pin, but to be fair, i had a weak spring which was probably causing my problems. a spring in the 28 lb range with a regular firing pin will just work better.
this is with benchrest type shooting. if you're talking about off hand shooting, there's a very strong argument for the faster lock time being more beneficial.
this is with benchrest type shooting. if you're talking about off hand shooting, there's a very strong argument for the faster lock time being more beneficial.
None to thrilled with the Tubbs speedlock
I ordered one in for my Rem .308 short action, along with two sets of the Final Finish kit. I got only one of the kits (although I wasn't charged for the second) and the firing pin was a disappointment. So was the customer service department, which I called three times to finally "resolve" the issues with my order.
When I inserted the firing pin into the cocking piece (without the spring) the holes where the cross pin goes didn't line up. The end of the firing pin was .016 too long. I was also concerned that the tip of the firing pin protrudes .022 farther past the bolt face than the factory firing pin. After finally speaking to the tech this morning, I was nonchalantly advised that some of the pins in a run or two had run a bit long and just to take a sander to the end. Well, being aluminum, it wasn't that hard to taper it down and make it fit but if it was my company I'd say send it right back and we'll exchange it. He assured me that the extra length on the tip of the firing pin is by design.
I ordered one in for my Rem .308 short action, along with two sets of the Final Finish kit. I got only one of the kits (although I wasn't charged for the second) and the firing pin was a disappointment. So was the customer service department, which I called three times to finally "resolve" the issues with my order.
When I inserted the firing pin into the cocking piece (without the spring) the holes where the cross pin goes didn't line up. The end of the firing pin was .016 too long. I was also concerned that the tip of the firing pin protrudes .022 farther past the bolt face than the factory firing pin. After finally speaking to the tech this morning, I was nonchalantly advised that some of the pins in a run or two had run a bit long and just to take a sander to the end. Well, being aluminum, it wasn't that hard to taper it down and make it fit but if it was my company I'd say send it right back and we'll exchange it. He assured me that the extra length on the tip of the firing pin is by design.
