Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire another Mark V catastrophe

From the 2nd thread: There is a circular mark left in the cartridge from the stop pin (I believe that is what it is called), and sometimes the primer falls out completely upon ejecting the spent brass. We are firing only brand-new factory loads that we got from Cabella's a few weeks ago.

We've shot somewhere a bit under 800 rounds through them (within the past few months in preparation for the hunt), and have only have problems within the last 80 rounds or so.

Sounds like a different lot of ammo.Primers falling out isn't a good thing. I don't have a Weatherby but I don't have anything against them either. Just thought it odd as I pointed out earlier. Primers falling out isn't a good thing.

Ken,
I don't have reservations as to your word, I also have no indication that this stuff doesn't happen with other brands. I do think the nine lug thing is silly, two is enough for the 300 and 378 ultra mags, it's enough for the weatherby rounds also. The fact that a two lug system would be eaiser to manufacture within tolerances makes perfect sense to me. I also don't see this 60 degree bolt lift being any advantage.

I never saw the need for the Weatherby rounds. They are far too overbore. They have a goofy double radius neck on them. A proper chamber for them is freebored way too much.In fact, I would think that if the factory didn't freebore them enough, like an operator error, it would cause wildly excessive pressure.

If I ever buy a Weatherby it will be a Vanguard, which I found out has dual opposed locking lugs.

You ain't ever gonna make it as a weatherby slut with an attitude like that !

And the Remington 760 and the Remington 742. I think there might be a few other actions built upon the interrupted thread design.

True enough, Then again I think bolt action perfection was achieved by Paul Mauser

That's exactly why I asked for additional input.

The FACT that I presented was that I'd HEARD of another failure. It's still a fact � the only fact that I've claimed to be a fact. It's also a fact that I've heard of several failures. Now you've heard of several, too � what more do you know about 'em that you're not telling anybody?

It'd help to READ what I wrote rather than try to LOOK UNDER it for some hidden implication.

Ken,

You have reported to us previously about failed Mk V actions. I for one appreciate warnings and shared information which may reduce my risk in my favored hobby.

I appreciate that you have resources and connections which enable you to hear things which would never reach our layman's ears, except for your repeating of them.

In light of further information, have you enough data to tell us which generation of the MK V is most at risk?

German built?
1970's - 80's era Japan built?
American built?
Are they not currently built in Japan?

I still don't know enough (probably never will) to focus the question as tight and clear as it ought to be.

That's why I'm still hungry for more information � which it seems that I'll be well advised to say nothing about.

Thanks Ken for bringing this forward and your intent is good. Weatherby owners don't take it personal. After all Ken could have just swept it under the rug and said nothing. Would you rather he did that?
We shouldn't be rude to someone that has a good heart and intent.
Sorry if I was rude to you Ken.

Well at that other site we are blithering morons and assclowns, nice that they feel we have no knowledgeable members here.
Sad that we focused on one thing, they denigrate the whole website, all based on one posting.

Some here may remember that not all that long ago, several self-appointed Campfire consciences rebuked me for having mentioned something that someone had told me in a PM. IIRC, no one referred to the fact that I hadn't named the sender of that PM � so I've always assumed that they considered that omission appropriate.

Now several self-appointed Campfire consciences have been rebuking me for NOT having named certain confidential sources and for NOT having repeated here what they told me in confidence.

How's a guy to know what to do?

If PMs are sacrosanct, why not also face-to-face and telephone conversations, e-mail, and personal correspondence?

Dr. Howell,

with all due respect - I do not believe, you do not understand, what has been critizized by Steelhead, Oldtrader and others.

It is a matter of style on issues as touchy as this one.

Starting a thread, especially a person like you, whose word is headed, of severe product failures without hard data to back it up is prone to lead to discourse.

I'll take a WAG, that there is "no hard data"...maybe a dull axe.

It seems to me that openly critisizing a main line product is career suicide to a gun writer. Weatherby spends a bunch of money on advertising and probably would be pissed at a writer, and the magazine he works for, for such a disclosure. Then other manufactures, knowing what happened, would follow suit. They are not going to send a sample of a gun to a writer who they know has no problem calling junk, junk. That's why gun articles today are basically worthless.

If I got information from someone inside the industry who's job could be comprimised by disclosing the source, I wouldn't give up the name either. Sources have to be protected.

Dr Howell, I believe your premise in posting this was pure, and you indeed were looking for more information. I also believe, in retrospect, it would have been a wise choice to have not replied to inquiries as to what you already have information of, as this seemed to fuel the fire of the Weatherby debate.I wonder how differently this thread would be if it were a posting about Remington Ammo failures in Remington 700 rifles?........

This also brought out the fact that some people can't seem to zip their lip, are solely here on this post to attack you, and feel their posting was necessary to boost their own agenda / ego. I don't need to, or am attempting to downplay their input, but it amazes me when someone goes out of their way to attack another.


This is another fine example of how ANYTHING a person writes on a computer can turn around and bite the originator, and how easy it is for a person to misread the written word. Agenda against Weatherby or not, the replies should have been " please tell us more when you can", not your a jackanape for holding back information that could save another life...


I believe those who have an open mind understand the post above is a request for more information, not an attack on a brand of rifle that is dear to them, and myself. But I could be blind to your intent, I guess I just have respect for a gunwriter looking for more information, rather than attack said person. But my parents raised me to be considerate to others, and treat them as I expect to be treated... although I am sure I have strayed from this from time to time.

Good luck in your search for more information. I may take my Mk V bolt in to have the lugs magnafluxed....lol

Allen

Thank you cmg, this was my point exactly a few pages ago. I would just like to know why with facts and not here say.

GarryC,

That old family photo of yours just wasn't quite what I had in mind.

Beat this to death or what. The interrupted screw design has been around since circa 1845 in artillery canon and it will be here long after we are all having the dirt nap.
That's 164 years since the design started appearing in artillery canon. At first conception it was a 1/6 turn gas tight chamber now it's a gas tight vault like chamber with 60 degree turn in miniature form in a Weatherby rifle. (with 3 gas ports for case failure which direct the gas away from the shooters face.)
Waste your time beating up on this but the design is very old and has stood the test of time.

Canuck, little doubt the basic design is sound; however, if bolts depart from actions on unscheduled trips there is a problem, somewhere. Manufacturing of the bolt (action?), the specification of the ammo, the manufacturing of the ammo, or a combination. Or something else; that's what we look for to the experts to determine and communicate.

This whole debate reminds me of the Blaser R93 issue. In controlled tests, the engineering stands pat. Yet a few people are injured.

The issue is not that a few Mark v's are coming apart. Rifles of all makes come apart, with more frequency than we would care to admit to. The issue is that we have no usuable information (other than a shadow play of "nod, nod", "wink, wink" and "you know's").

We don't know WHICH models are involved, we don't know WHICH Weatherby chamberings these were. We don't know the lot numbers of the ammo, we don't even know if these are the German or Japanese actions. We don't know if it's an ammo problem or a rifle problem. We don't know if these failures are occurring to WBY actions above the background level.

I happpen to load for two Wby multi-lug actions; have for years. For someone who is interested in the CAUSE of the issue, those questions are the first that come to mind. It bothers me more than a little that none of those questions were apparently asked; even more that there seems to be little interest in finding out the WHY or the WHAT's in these events.

All we know is that the sky fell, or a wolf was seen, somewhere. JMO, Dutch.