Over 2.9mm will be too big.
Keith H
Anyone find stiffer ejector plunger springs for a Barnards?
Moderator: Mod
-
- Posts: 1384
- Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 12:11 pm
-
- Posts: 2322
- Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 7:23 pm
- Location: Singleton NSW
-
- Posts: 2322
- Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 7:23 pm
- Location: Singleton NSW
I have tried my new ejector springs in my magnum bolt face Barnard.
The G-82 and 12529 springs both have about the right strength to eject cases. My bolt causes the cases to hit on the ejection port and tip sideways, but are at least easier to pick out than with the old spring which did not much at all.
The G-82 and 12529 springs both have about the right strength to eject cases. My bolt causes the cases to hit on the ejection port and tip sideways, but are at least easier to pick out than with the old spring which did not much at all.
-
- Posts: 1627
- Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:49 am
Re: Anyone find stiffer ejector plunger springs for a Barnar
I have the same problem with my Barnard SAUM. The ejector spring is too weak ... has anyone found a satisfactory solution yet ??
Andrew
Andrew
id quod est
-
- Posts: 883
- Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:15 pm
- Location: Innisfail, Far North QLD.
Re: Anyone find stiffer ejector plunger springs for a Barnar
Springs are easy to make.
The details given earlier are incomplete because the wire diameter nor number of turns are given.
Also you really need to know the compressed length or better the depth of the hole it must fit.
If you could give ALL the details of the spring I may be able to check that it is possible to design a stronger spring to work in that hole.
The danger is that to make a stronger spring, it needs fewer turns (yes fewer) and or thicker wire and it may either not fit the hole or when fully compressed exceed the elastic limit of the wire and permanently shorten and lose force.
Full specs really need
wire Diameter
wound diameter.
free length
required working (compressed length)
type of ends
Peter Smith
The details given earlier are incomplete because the wire diameter nor number of turns are given.
Also you really need to know the compressed length or better the depth of the hole it must fit.
If you could give ALL the details of the spring I may be able to check that it is possible to design a stronger spring to work in that hole.
The danger is that to make a stronger spring, it needs fewer turns (yes fewer) and or thicker wire and it may either not fit the hole or when fully compressed exceed the elastic limit of the wire and permanently shorten and lose force.
Full specs really need
wire Diameter
wound diameter.
free length
required working (compressed length)
type of ends
Peter Smith
-
- Posts: 2211
- Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 7:55 pm
- Location: Brisbane
Re: Anyone find stiffer ejector plunger springs for a Barnar
Was a time when Bic cigarette lighter springs, cut to size, fitted everything - particularly Remmy triggers.
-
- Posts: 573
- Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 3:43 pm
- Location: Brisbane, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Anyone find stiffer ejector plunger springs for a Barnar
Keith might already be onto these?
Stainless steel
http://www.minibearings.com.au/store/partslist/springscompressionstandardstainlesssteel/springscompressionstandardstainlesssteel/a/1/
Check the gauge of wire and length, this should give you a relative idea of loading rate of the spring under compression compared with figures given on the page.
Music wire should give higher spring force than the stainless steel spring wire of the same diameter.
If you've got a lathe you probably already know you can wind your own small springs, or convince a friend with a lathe:
https://youtu.be/i1x5_S0Pq4k
It's interesting that a few of the hunting/tactical style 3-lug bolt-action rifles are moving towards a dual/twin plunger ejector design as a standard bolt-face design (across 308W and larger) like the Sako TRG series (M995/22/42 & M10), Mauser M12 and Sauer 101. I guess like their lug design, they are thinking more are better than just making them bigger.
I couldn't see Barnard moving towards a dual plunger ejector design though, unless they were able to establish that accuracy was at least equal to their current single plunger ejector design.
I believe the Sako design changed after having issues with ejecting non-Lapua cases from their 338LM chamberings. I expect Fierce rifles will also follow suit. Extractor groove, rim and/or case-head hardness tolerances varied significantly between brands (& within batches) to the point the extractor claw was not gripping the case rim with enough force to compress the plunger ejector spring consistently.
I guess this might be another approach (gunsmithing) to the problem, in terms of inspecting the extractor groove on your cases and the efficiency of the relationship between the bolt-face, the extractor claw & the plunger. Is the plunger's spring being fully utilized, maybe a modified extractor claw will do the trick also? The belt-less standard magnum (0.532") case head design isn't new, but there might still be some teething issues from manufacturers optimizing tooling for bulk production runs?
Stainless steel
http://www.minibearings.com.au/store/partslist/springscompressionstandardstainlesssteel/springscompressionstandardstainlesssteel/a/1/
Check the gauge of wire and length, this should give you a relative idea of loading rate of the spring under compression compared with figures given on the page.
Music wire should give higher spring force than the stainless steel spring wire of the same diameter.
If you've got a lathe you probably already know you can wind your own small springs, or convince a friend with a lathe:
https://youtu.be/i1x5_S0Pq4k
It's interesting that a few of the hunting/tactical style 3-lug bolt-action rifles are moving towards a dual/twin plunger ejector design as a standard bolt-face design (across 308W and larger) like the Sako TRG series (M995/22/42 & M10), Mauser M12 and Sauer 101. I guess like their lug design, they are thinking more are better than just making them bigger.
I couldn't see Barnard moving towards a dual plunger ejector design though, unless they were able to establish that accuracy was at least equal to their current single plunger ejector design.
I believe the Sako design changed after having issues with ejecting non-Lapua cases from their 338LM chamberings. I expect Fierce rifles will also follow suit. Extractor groove, rim and/or case-head hardness tolerances varied significantly between brands (& within batches) to the point the extractor claw was not gripping the case rim with enough force to compress the plunger ejector spring consistently.
I guess this might be another approach (gunsmithing) to the problem, in terms of inspecting the extractor groove on your cases and the efficiency of the relationship between the bolt-face, the extractor claw & the plunger. Is the plunger's spring being fully utilized, maybe a modified extractor claw will do the trick also? The belt-less standard magnum (0.532") case head design isn't new, but there might still be some teething issues from manufacturers optimizing tooling for bulk production runs?
Be careful what you aim for, you might hit it! Antipodean Industrial - Home of the G7L projectiles
Return to “Equipment & Technical”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 33 guests