What's new
What's new

Finished JP Longfellow action

taiwanluthiers

Cast Iron
Joined
Dec 6, 2016
Location
Xinjhuan District, New Taipei City
Here is the action that I just almost finished from the blank that I bought from JP Longfellow a while back. I had previously made my own action without the use of any broaches, EDM, or shaper by using end mills, some engineering skills, a file, and a LOT of elbow grease. That rifle shoots really well considering... That put me off quite a while on touching JP Longfellow's blank (considering how much it costs) but I finally got to it. Most the machining was uneventful but I went a little too long on the ejection port (forgot to account for tool width) and as a result there's a huge gouge behind the ejection port on the rear bridge. Was hoping the scope mount will hide it.

001.jpg002.jpg


I also messed up on the trigger. Basically the blueprint that I have to work with assumes a receiver diameter of 1.350" and JP Longfellow's blank is 1.450" in diameter. As a result much of the dimensions have to be changed on the fly and this really messes with hole locations. Last time I tried to index off of the center line the hole was too close to the raceways leading to a lot of grinding of the trigger assembly in order for the bolt to slide in. Well now I ended up with the opposite problem since I had moved the hole too much out, and the striker will not be held back at all by the trigger. I did everything I can to say elongate the hole with a 1/8" end mill but all it does is cause the end mill to bend (never underestimate how flexible a 1/8" end mill is!) so I got frustrated and milled the area out, drilled a hole in the milled out area, and screwed it in with a M3 bolt (I broke the tap too, I hate small taps) and now it works fine.

The only thing now is, I notice on a commercial Remington action, the front of the receiver and the rear of the receiver is not at the same level so scope bases for them are made to fit that. However now the scope holes are about .86" apart on both ends. On a factory Remington action the rear scope hole is much closer together. The question is, what commercial scope mount can I use, or do I need to make my own with Picatinny rail blanks?
 
Nice job. What did you use for dimensions? I've been wanting to do a project like this, but I can't find two sources that agree on any of the Remington dimensions. All I have to go on are existing factory receivers.
 
I was provided a blueprint by JP Longfellow, and I followed that blueprint. The problem is, that's a short action receiver so I had to improvise a lot, which causes error. I find Remington 700 to be a lot simpler compared to say a Mauser 98K.
 
I should edit the title of this thread to read "Gary Breiling's Action complete" rather than JP Longfellow... I kinda got confused and thought they are both the same person... my mistake.

By the way has anyone actually fired a magnum cartridge on one of these actions? I know their pressure is quite a bit higher compared to your average 30-06 and 308.... I heard of people building 338 lapuas out of them (with the right bolt shaft diameter of course) so I don't see why not... I plan on building it in 300 win mag.

I wonder if anyone actually tried to intentionally blow up a Remington 700 to see how strong they are...
 
I had to improvise a lot, which causes error.

You need to work on your own perception of that before you can hope to ever "own" a better solution. Improvisation is the cause of a change. The error is but baggage created from attempting to implement a vast idea with half-vast delivery.

One "improvises" only in the mind - to develop a plan.
The plan is turned into a "modification".
The modification wants a new - accurately dimensioned - drawing of its own.

Every part of the modification has to be calculated, not guessed at.

When it is ready - no earlier - it is moved from drawing to metal.

Where.. it must be every bit as properly executed, and in every - repeat EVERY - respect, as what was in the proven design before the modification process was undertaken.

There ARE NO overly long runs with a cutter. We call those 'scrap'.
And if we have pride, reputation, or even nought but remorse, we TORCH the Mike Foxtrots so even a dumpster-diver can never, ever wave a f**k-up about and say "this was made by (formerly) highly-regarded Gunsmith <x>!".

Can some Gunsmiths just pick up metal and JFDI without so much as sketch?

Betcherass. MOST of them. Part of the reason they are not painting houses instead and making better wages.

But if your weren't born with that gift of multi-dimensional spatial and TIME visualization inside the eye of the mind?

Substitutes had to be learned, and the hard way. You are not "there yet".

It would do you a world of good to lay hands on a stash of ignorant and ordinary steels, go off and make all manner of tools and fixtures for yourself until you can hit spec first item, every time, and repeat it many times.

Then, and not before, come back and apply first-time, every time, MIL-T-FP41 delivery to the field of firearms - with the pride of at least a degree or three of perfection, and a job demonstrably well and truly done.

Excuses no longer even a memory, let alone the primary deliverable.

As they are now.

That sort of practice will save you money right away.
It will very soon pay back many times over in saving your time and bought-in materials.
It may one day even save you serious injury - even your life.

Gunsmithing is not the same as building model airplanes, Sterling Engines, steam engines, or racing lawnmowers just because so many building-block components are available to cover "the hard stuff".

You have to get YOUR part every bit as "right" as the maker of the bought-in parts got HIS part right.

Weakest link in the chain thing.

I'd be pleased to see your next project post up with nary a minor nit wrong.

If that is next year, not next month? No harm is done. And perhaps a great deal of good.
 








 
Back
Top