To barrel nut or to not barrel nut?

[engineer40]

So far... I tend to like rifles with barrel nuts. I like the ability to change the barrels myself. (Both financially and not having to wait for a gunsmith. Plus I like doing things myself).

I'll need to rebarrel a Remington 721 soon. I'm thinking about converting it to a Remage barrel nut setup. I have not done any of these conversions yet.

Would anybody like to talk me into or out of converting a Remington to a barrel nut? Opinions on both sides are welcome... Thanks!

 

[J E Custom]

So far... I tend to like rifles with barrel nuts. I like the ability to change the barrels myself. (Both financially and not having to wait for a gunsmith. Plus I like doing things myself).

I'll need to rebarrel a Remington 721 soon. I'm thinking about converting it to a Remage barrel nut setup. I have not done any of these conversions yet.

Would anybody like to talk me into or out of converting a Remington to a barrel nut? Opinions on both sides are welcome... Thanks!

This is just My opinion for what it is worth.

I prefer to eliminate the barrel nut for these reasons.

Depending on the cartridge size and intensity (Chamber Pressure) the reduced shank size allows the breach to expand more than a barrel with a full size barrel shank when it fires. This means that the full size shank (1.250 +) supports the chamber better than a 1'' shank and allows for heavier loads before the bolt lift gets harder.

For small diameter cases, this is not as much of a problem because there is plenty of chamber wall to minimize this effect.

For the really big cartridges Like the Chi tack a 1.375 shank is recommended because of the chamber wall thickness.

Next problem I have is the amount of threads and the number of connections and effected surfaces
to be made up. I used to do the Savages the same way I did the Remington, Used the 1.250 barrel shank and 1.062 threads on the barrel tenon so the major portion of the chamber is supported by 1.250 instead of 1'' minus the minor diameter of the threads.(Less than 1'' because of the thread
depth)

The only advantage I see in the barrel nut is for assembly at the factory (An operator can be taught to assemble without being a gunsmith) lowering the initial cost to the manufacture.

The savages look great done without an ugly barrel nut and everyone I did this way shot great.

Just my opinion

J E CUSTOM

 

[MudRunner2005]

You already know I prefer the standard Remington crush-fit method. So I agree with JE.

Also, here's an alternative...You could make it a switch-barrel by pinning the recoil lug into the action face in 3 places (left side, right side, bottom). Then you can leave the action on the stock, and swap out barrels you have pre-cut, threaded, and headspaced to that particular action. I was going to do this on one of mine, but never got around to it. Still might do it down the road.

Just something unique to think about. You mostly see BR shooters and varmint hunters doing it these days. Most of your average shooters and hunters use the remage or barrel nut design. These days, I think most of them don't even know the pinned lug method even exists.

 

[Mikecr]

I don't think Savage used barrel nuts for ease of barrel changing. Why would they care about that?
And the barrel nut system is a lot more complicated than without.

I think savage used this connection because it's better. I think they went floating bolt head because it's better. If you don't copy Savage -lust like Savage, it won't be better.

 

[J E Custom]

I don't think Savage used barrel nuts for ease of barrel changing. Why would they care about that?
And the barrel nut system is a lot more complicated than without.

I think savage used this connection because it's better. I think they went floating bolt head because it's better. If you don't copy Savage -lust like Savage, it won't be better.

Just to explain my reasoning for posting and not to start a Chevy versus ford debate.

First = threads, by nature have some clearance in them in order to be able to assemble them, so the more thread fits, the more clearance and chance of misalignment. with the nut you have twice the thread fits. As we all know Gunsmithing is becoming a lost art and the factories have problems
getting them, so they design things to minimize there need. Savage is no different than Remington in this way (Remington designed a rifle that cant be head spaced and assembly is all that is necessary by a non skilled worker/Operator) there are many new designs that all but eliminate the
need for a skilled Gunsmith across the industry.

I like the savage, and have re barreled many over the years and saw first hand the advantage of eliminating the barrel nut, so I do. It is actually more difficult to do the shoulder make up because of the head spacing tolerance that has to be machined in instead of simply screwing the barrel in
to set the head space.

As to the "Floating Bolt head" It is also designed to change bolt face diameters without changing bolts. They can use one size bolt and change to many different bolt faces. Also the bolt face does not float when fired. it goes to whatever location it has been machined to and if it is not square or
centered it does not magically align itself. This is the advantage of a one piece bolt, once it is squared and centered it will remain that way when fired or not. Squaring the bolt and face also requires more time and skill but the end results are worth it.

Don't kid your self that they designed there system for anything but ease of assemble to lower there production cost and increase profits. It does make it very attractive to the hobbyist who likes to change barrels/cartridges without the necessity of a gun smith and all of the equipment needed to build a rifle from scratch.

If I wanted to build myself a rifle using a savage action I would without hesitation. "But" would eliminate the barrel nut for the reasons I mentioned. also I don't have to decide what shank size will be strong enough for a certain cartridge (Small shank or large shank). I already know that I want a large shank for the strength (Much like the large ring Mauser is preferred over the small ring because of its strength) and with the added chamber wall of over a quarter of an inch with the shoulder make up, the decision is simple, that's why I recommend eliminating the barrel nut.

Just My Opinion based on years of experience with firearms.

J E CUSTOM

 

[snox801]

Lol yep savage uses them because they are the best. Come on man you should know better. It's all about how to maximize profit like JE said. Reminds me of the whole v-8 vs twin turbo 6 that goes on between ford guys and Chevy. Chevy doesn't build them that way because they are better it's cause it's cheap and works. Both will outlast the truck one is just easier to make and turn profit. I for one want more power so I choose twin turbo. And choose no barrel nut.

 

[MudRunner2005]

Lol yep savage uses them because they are the best. Come on man you should know better. It's all about how to maximize profit like JE said. Reminds me of the whole v-8 vs twin turbo 6 that goes on between ford guys and Chevy. Chevy doesn't build them that way because they are better it's cause it's cheap and works. Both will outlast the truck one is just easier to make and turn profit. I for one want more power so I choose twin turbo. And choose no barrel nut.

And then there's guy's like me who will buy the Chevy V8, and then twin-turbo it...Because a V6 gasser is only 3/4 of a REAL motor...

To break that down...I want a V8, twin turbos, and NO barrel nut... So, I'll just take a 700 or an A-Bolt II action to build off of.

 

[Buckammo]

In our area, I have been charged $300 to headspace a short chambered barrel on a 700 action and $515 to chamber a blank barrel with my reamer. In both cases it took over four months to get my rifle back.

Thanks to the barrel nut, I can correctly headspace in less than an hour and spend way more time and money traveling to hunt and the occasional competition. With the barrel burning cartridges that I like to shoot; I simply can not afford a gunsmith.
John

 

[MudRunner2005]

In our area, I have been charged $300 to headspace a short chambered barrel on a 700 action and $515 to chamber a blank barrel with my reamer. In both cases it took over four months to get my rifle back.

Thanks to the barrel nut, I can correctly headspace in less than an hour and spend way more time and money traveling to hunt and the occasional competition. With the barrel burning cartridges that I like to shoot; I simply can not afford a gunsmith.
John

I need to be a gunsmith in your area if I can make $300-500 for an hour's worth of work... That's some good money. And with a 4 month backlog, that's steady work at those prices...

 

[Mikecr]

Review 'Rifle Accuracy Facts' esp. the section about barrel threading connections and results. Or read about the differences in stud -vs- bolt connections in many industries. That's the difference here. Remington applies barrels as bolts. Savage as studs.
You can believe one thing or another about Savage's intent, but their design is sound.

I don't even have a Savage right now, or a Remington. I know both are good enough in most cases.
It's not really Chevy -vs- Ford to me.

 

[J E Custom]

And then there's guy's like me who will buy the Chevy V8, and then twin-turbo it...Because a V6 gasser is only 3/4 of a REAL motor...

To break that down...I want a V8, twin turbos, and NO barrel nut... So, I'll just take a 700 or an A-Bolt II action to build off of.

+1
Or A guy like me that buys a Savage and builds it like a Remington. PS; I also don't like a short chambered or pre chambered barrel In any build because the quality just has not been there
and in many cases I have had to set the barrel back just to get a concentric chamber.

J E CUSTOM

 

[snox801]

And then there's guy's like me who will buy the Chevy V8, and then twin-turbo it...Because a V6 gasser is only 3/4 of a REAL motor...

To break that down...I want a V8, twin turbos, and NO barrel nut... So, I'll just take a 700 or an A-Bolt II action to build off of.

Oh I'm with you on the v-8 twin turbo. If the 5.0l bottom would hold up I'd be down. Still waiting for a twin 8 hopefully the new Shelby GT 500 will be.

 

[MudRunner2005]

+1
Or A guy like me that buys a Savage and builds it like a Remington. PS; I also don't like a short chambered or pre chambered barrel In any build because the quality just has not been there
and in many cases I have had to set the barrel back just to get a concentric chamber.

J E CUSTOM

When Engineer40 first started his 783 build thread, I suggested him treat the 783 like a 700 and use the standard Rem crush-fit design instead of a nut. I didn't know anyone was doing Salvages that way. Might make them worth something by doing so...

Yep, agreed on the short-chamber.

 

[MudRunner2005]

Oh I'm with you on the v-8 twin turbo. If the 5.0l bottom would hold up I'd be down. Still waiting for a twin 8 hopefully the new Shelby GT 500 will be.

Back in 2012 I bought a new 2013 Mustang 5.0 Track Pack...Had 7 miles on it when it rolled off the truck. I was going to put a Hellion Twin Turbo kit on it. But I would have had to put a Ford Racing Aluminator long block in it to handle the 1,250 RWHP tune... I didn't have the extra $20K for all of that stuff. So I ended up trading it back in Feb of last year.

Lately been thinking about trading in a couple of my trucks towards a new 2017 Mustang GT-350R.

Gotta get a new job first, though...