Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Firearms Metallurgy

I have always been curious as to how the needed strength is determined for a particular design of firearm. If a Winchester 94 will handle a 30-30, then why won't it handle a 308 Winchester? Or, if an 1885 Low Wall will handle a 260 Remington, then why won't it handle a 308 Winchester or 280 Remington? Seems there is an exotic metal or alloy for any necessary application, sometimes the sky is the limit. So, why can't our favorite guns be fitted with proper steel without adding unwanted weight & bulk? How did John Moses Browning know what type of steel to use & how many options do you reckon he had?

In a lot of cases, it's not the metallurgy involved in why one rifle action/barrel won't take another cartridge, it's more the strength/weakness of the action.

Metallurgy took a big advance around 1917 and has progressed since. That said, there are many reasons for not chambering a particular action for various cartridges, one being the standardized (SAAMI or CIP) pressure limits. Bolt thrust is another concern. Cartridge lengths are another. There are others, too, but often it comes down to marketing decisions, which are based on perceived demand.

If a Winchester 94 will handle a 30-30, then why won't it handle a 308 Winchester?

Because there is a single lug holding the bolt in place, the walls of the action might not be strong enough withstand the pressure and lastly how is the gas handling on that action?


Or, if an 1885 Low Wall will handle a 260 Remington, then why won't it handle a 308 Winchester or 280 Remington?

That is a good question since they all run prettty similiar pressure, might be a bolt thrust issue

Seems there is an exotic metal or alloy for any necessary application, sometimes the sky is the limit. So, why can't our favorite guns be fitted with proper steel without adding unwanted weight & bulk? How did John Moses Browning know what type of steel to use & how many options do you reckon he had?

Because manufacturers are stubborn to change with the exception of Ruger these days.

See Blaser Rifles both bolt and single shot for amazing advances in technology

You fhuqking Retards never disappoint. Congratulations?!?

Hint...…………………….

The strength of the material is only one factor in whether a particular action is up to the task. We've got better at making steel, which has resulted in improvements in what you might call reliability: more consistent composition, lower impurity levels (especially of those which can compromise toughness), and more consistent heat treatment. We also have a range of new alloys, some of which may offer more strength, or perhaps other qualities such as corrosion resistance.

At the same time, firearms have to sell for a reasonable price but be profitable - the market's fairly small for expensive firearms - and so a good deal of effort has gone into reducing manufacturing cost. Developments such as the use of investment casting, stampings, extrusions, and materials such as polymers and light alloys are also part of this, rather than looking at stronger or "exotic" materials.Strength isn't everything either - considerations such as stiffness and toughness and resistance to wear and erosion and corrosion also come into play, as well as production cost. The market's fairly conservative too, and there are plenty of examples of objectively better materials struggling to get traction. Manufacturers also have to take account of liability issues, as well as considerations of what people might do, and so tend to specify fairly conservatively and with a good margin of safety.

To answer your question on the 94 Winchester, the rifle made in 1894 is in a number of ways not the same as the one made today. The steel we have today is better, even in the comparatively ordinary grades used for these rifles, but the rifle has also had a few design tweaks. With a bit of tweaking and beefing up it was chambered in a rimmed version of the .308 a few years ago. Of course there were still a couple of compromises due to the design, one being the rimmed round, the other being the need for projectiles with blunt (or soft) points due to the magazine design.

With an 1885 Low Wall, Browning was working with a fairly limited range of materials. So called "fluid steel" was only about a generation old, and there were no alloy steels, stainless or the like, only plain carbon steels and perhaps some variations in composition due to the source of the ore. Heat treatment was a black art, and there was no finite element analysis either, and cartridges cases (often the weak link in a firearm) were commonly of weaker design than we have now. What a good designer had to do was work within these limitations, designing an action with a good margin of safety for the ammunition of the time. The Low Wall was originally designed for small black-powder cartridges, but with a margin of safety which allowed it to be adapted to more modern loads as time went on.

This is what you say when you don't know the answer yourself but you're still helpless to refrain from attempting to assert your "dominance" in the thread. This is often a tactic of his.

He's back from exile . Get ready for 2 weeks worth of old photos of long departed bears,salmons , trees and half submerged rifles.

Just ignore him. Dont reply or quote him. He craves the attention. Dont give him what he wants.

Oh my...THE Drooling DumbfhuqkTrifecta Twats are trying to weigh in. Congratulations?!?

Pardon simplistic Facts,upsetting you AMAZINGLY Stupid Fhuqks so and bolstering your very well founded Insecurities. I'm as at ease in sandbagging as you "lucky" kchunts are in doing your best. I've simply shot,bought and got more rifles on accident,than you Three Retards every would on purpose,in 10 lifetimes of TRYING. Hint.


A Titanium Fokker Triplane isn't gonna break the Sound Barrier,nor is an aluminum Ford Raptor gonna qualify at Indy,let alone a Chipmunk of 416R being a 22K-Hornet Donor. You gals best stick to what amazingly little you know,such as relating what a window tastes like.

Hint...…………………...

The modern Low Wall action that handles a 260 will easily handle a 308.

Yes, if a given action can safely accommodate a .260 there's no reason to suppose that it can't accommodate a .308. It isn't just that they run at similar nominal pressure though. They are also the same case head diameter, and more or less the same case dimensions and loaded length specification.

As I said, the Low Wall design was designed to have a fair margin of safety, even with the steel of the day, and that is somewhat enhanced by better steels available now, but sometimes it isn't just about the pressure the cartridge generates. A larger case head for example, generates more backthrust for a given pressure than a smaller one. As well, you might run into issues with the barrel shank/reinforce diameter (Martini Cadets being an example, where the action itself is very strong but the barrel shank diameter is small) which will mean compromises in maximum case diameter and/or pressure to avoid exceeding the hoop stress that particular set up can take. Another important limitation is the case-head's strength - especially if your design has breeching that leaves a larger area of case-head unsupported.

You might also have limitations on the length of cartridge an action can take. Last I looked at a Low Wall this is not the case for them, but that is not the case for all actions of course. For some actions the maximum length is more or less fixed by the design.