This topic contains 6 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by  Goodsteel 3 years ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #31058
     Labradigger1 
    Participant
    • Bronze
    • Posts: 3
    • Comments: 16
    • Overall: 19

    I’m wanting to build a 218 bee. I recently bought another no. 2 RRB and I am wondering if the action will be strong enough to stand up to the bee cartridge.
    Thoughts?

  • #31064
     Reg 
    Participant
    • Silver
    • ★★
    • Posts: 40
    • Comments: 256
    • Overall: 296

    The number 2 is a neat little action and the Bee is one great cartridge but I don’t think they belong together.
    Both the Bee and the Hornet share approximately the same upper pressure limits.
    A number of years back Navy Arms , I think it was , made up a number of Hornets on a new manufacture number two type action. Again, a great little rifle but in the upper loadings developed “spring back” due to the unsupported area above the center line of the breech and locking block.
    If this spring back ( I.E. case head separations, short case life etc. ) will develop in a number 2 action in the Hornet seemingly it could only get worse in the Bee.
    There are those who would argue that the Bee has a larger head diameter than the Hornet thus allowing the pressure to be spread out over a larger area thus dropping chamber pressures but then this larger diameter would also allow for more “leverage ” from that case head to be exerted on both the breech and locking block allowing even more ” spring back”.
    Also keep in mind the Navy Arms action was of new manufacture with undoubtedly better and stronger steel than a original.
    In short, if doable safely at all, you would be operating at the extreme upper capability limits of the action. You would have to ask– Is this wise ???
    Me thinks not.
    In his excellent book, Mr. Single Shot’s Gunsmithing Idea Book, Frank deHass did not reccomend the number 2 action for either the Hornet or the Bee.

  • #31067
     Goodsteel 
    Keymaster
    • Gold
    • ★★★
    • Posts: 208
    • Comments: 2452
    • Overall: 2660

    It’s right on the edge. Personally, I would advise caution. No matter what you put in there, keep the pressure below 35,000.
    Also, I say this assuming you have an action in excellent condition. If things are loose and rattly, exercise even more caution. One of the tricks to getting mechanical assemblies to take greater stress is to make it so that no part of the assembly can “get a run at it”.
    If you have a tight rifle, then the action may be strong enough to take mild loads from this cartridge for a long time.
    If you plan on using the cartridge to its maximum potential and the RB feels like all the other ones I’ve had in my hands, I think you had better scrap the idea as fast as you know how.

    Reg;n11088 wrote:
    There are those who would argue that the Bee has a larger head diameter than the Hornet thus allowing the pressure to be spread out over a larger area thus dropping chamber pressures

    Actually, I would respectfully argue that the designation “PSI” denotes pounds per square inch, and a larger case head gives more square inches of pressure thus a much larger piston with which to exert force for the same given PSI. The thrust goes up drastically with every thousandth of an inch of area the piston has.

    The Bee may be used in a RB, but you would have to carefully run it at reduced pressures which may be very difficult to get excellent accuracy from.

    There’s my 2cents worth, not having inspected the rifle in person.

  • #31068
     Reg 
    Participant
    • Silver
    • ★★
    • Posts: 40
    • Comments: 256
    • Overall: 296

    Tim
    R.E your statement on PSI
    I am going to stand corrected on this one. I think you are very correct. I think the point I was trying to make was that saying even if the PSI was the same the fact you had a longer lever above the center line of the breech block pivot would in fact be ” more leverage ” allowing more “spring back”.

    Somehow it seems wrong to make a rifle that has to be loaded down in order to make it safe to use. I think there would be some liability concerns.
    If at some time in the future someone decides to put in a round that would develop the pressure that normally should be handled and the rifle opens up— this would not be good. I have one like this but have detailed notes to my heirs on this and if it wasn’t so darned much fun to shoot, I would rectify it forth with.

  • #31069
     JPHolla 
    Participant
    • Silver
    • ★★
    • Posts: 1
    • Comments: 120
    • Overall: 121

    The rolling block is an ingenius design, and extremely strong in theory, but not quite so much in execution. It’s not one to be hot-rodded. There’s a picture of the remains of one floating around on the net that was pushed too hard. The receiver split vertically and the block went straight through the shooter’s head, killing him.

  • #31071
     Rattlesnake Charlie 
    Participant
    • Gold
    • ★★★
    • Posts: 152
    • Comments: 679
    • Overall: 831

    It might be nifty in .32-20. But, not the loadings for 1892 Winchesters. Stay with the loads for the 1873 Winchester. I think this would make a great classic.

  • #31083
     Goodsteel 
    Keymaster
    • Gold
    • ★★★
    • Posts: 208
    • Comments: 2452
    • Overall: 2660

    Of course you are 100% correct. I was commenting only on the part I quoted. That slice of common wisdom is absolutely incorrect.
    The block is a pivoting feature on this particular rifle, and as such, leverage definitely comes into play here as well.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© 2017 Goodsteel Forum. Designed by Covalent Designs, LLC.