Sunday, January 1, 2012

And Finally....

I sent this rifle back to browning and they returned it, claiming it was fixed, but it still did the exact same thing it did before I sent it to them.


Luckily I bought it thru Davidson's, so after viewing my videos they let me exchange it for a Remington in 338 win mag.


As far as the problem with the ejection, from all my phone calls, emails with other owners, and research I've come to the conclusion it's Browning's crummy extractor/ejector and new in-line magazine design not being able to handle the WSM's beltless rebated rim - see following -


"All of the WSM and SAUM cartridges use a .532-.534 inch rebated rim of standard (.375 H&H) Magnum diameter. So, like the earlier Remington short magnums, they mate with standard magnum-size bolt faces. But remember, their fat bodies have a head diameter immediately above the extractor groove of about .55 inch. So the body of the case is bigger around than the rim. This miracle of design is called a rebated rim, and it allows increased powder capacity compared to the earlier .350 Magnum case, at the price of decreased feed reliability and magazine capacity.With any rebated rim case, the face of the bolt has less overlap with the rim of the case as it attempts to slide it forward and out of the magazine lips. This can lead to feeding failures and over-ride jams. For this reason, cartridges with rebated rims are not regarded as a good choice for use in rifles that might be used on dangerous game. Magazine capacity may be reduced by one cartridge because the WSM and SAUM cases are so fat--another reason standard magnum cartridges are preferred for use on dangerous game. (An unnecessary reduction in firepower is clearly undesirable when hunting dangerous game.) Nor are their sharp 30-35 degree shoulders conducive to smooth and reliable feeding. In fact, one of the justifications for the extremely sloping 8.5 degree shoulders of the original .375 and .300 H&H Magnum cartridges was feed reliability because of their anticipated use on dangerous game."


I got this info from Chuck Hawks' website, talks mostly about feed reliability problems though, not ejection problems.


I never experienced any problems with feeding, just the ejection.


This whole ejector malfuntion is pretty minor to alot of shooters - i receive alot of emails saying "what's the big deal?" It's not a big deal, until you need to make a quick follow up shot and you're trying to chamber a fresh round with the empty case still sitting in the receiver. Then what??? Hmmmm, kinda of a pretty big deal then I bet.


Here is my (pretty informed by now) opinion on the whole problem -


When working the bolt in what would be considered a normal speed, as the case is being extracted from the chamber, it's fat case is sliding along the next round's fat case in the mag, (remember the new in-line feed magazine) and it's enough to either dis-engage it from the extractor, or deflect it just enough so it hits the inside of the receiver, instead of coming out the ejection port.


This explains why I only had problems with the FIRST round with 2 rounds still loaded in the magazine, spring tension pushing those 2 rounds up on the one being extracted was enough pressure to cause the malfunction, while just one round in the magazine was NOT enough, enabling it to weakly eject. Same with the 3rd round being ejected, it doesn't have any other rounds from the magazine pushing it off the extractor.


Just my opinion...


This is a Browning problem, not a caliber problem. All you diehard Browning fans can argue this all you want, but the FACT remains - prior to owning the X-Bolt, I owned a Tikka Hunter and a Remington Model 700 in 300 WSM. THEY BOTH FUNCTIONED PERFECTLY, the only reason I went with the Browning was the ambi safety, being a left handed shooter - boy do I regret not sticking with those other 2 rifles.