Jump to content

3rd lug Saiga vs PSL Bolt.


Recommended Posts

 

pic of bolt with 3rd lug completely ground off

 

 

high five on your gun not blowing up (yet).

 

How many rounds did the russians put through their test guns that made them decide lug #3 was a good idea. Hint: it's not the number of lugs that matters, it's the strength of the lugs x number of lugs that matters.

 

So, do you intend to ever sell this gun? are you going to pass it on to your kids? what if they sell it?

 

You'll be long dead, so I guess you don't care if someone 50 years from now dies while shooting that gun. Thank you for posting pics so that we may learn from your shocking mistake, and so we can all keep an "eye out" for future shenanigans from other "home" smiths at the used gun table at our local gun shows. You have opened my eyes, and I thank you for that. If someone dies from this, may god have mercy on your soul.

 

The point, is that you have no idea what kind of metal that bolt is made of, nor do you know what heat treatment was used for that type of metal, you do not know what kind of pressure it can take, nor for how many rounds before it blows up.

 

Metal that is subjected to excessive force will form micro cracks, which get bigger over time until the part fails. In this case the part that will fail is holding ~50,000 PSI in a about ~0.33 square inched, that's ~150,000 PSI, 16,000 pounds of force pointed right at your face. IF you are lucky the top cover will blow off and some shrapnel will go flying, and maybe you will have some cuts and burns, if you are unlucky you will die, or worse, an innocent person who was unaware of your "monumental mistake of epic proportions" will die. (words fail me)

 

I see how some people have modded the third lug to shape it so it doesn't gouge holes in cartridges. ok, fine, hope you are careful about taking off to much...Keep in mind russian ammo is steel cased, and is not so easily torn up. Using brass ammo a poorly shaped lug obviously can tear a hole in it. Perhaps Ivan forgot a step in the machining and left a sharp edge.

 

My saiga does dent the cases pretty bad. I don't like it, and obviously I can't reloaded them repeatedly, I figure one or two reloads is all I can safely get out of them. But it does work, functionally perfect

 

The reason that the "thread that shall not be mentioned" ended in a shit storm of epic 72 font, is because people who had no clue what "they" were doing were advocating/doing something that knowledgeable people knew would end in injury and death, and when educated of their ignorance of metalugy...some of them continued to advocate stupidity... now, ignorance can be cured, but apparently stupid is permanent.

 

IT is your choice, to educate yourself... or become a Darwin Award winner.

 

P.S. Your gun is toast, no-one sells replacement bolts at this time. I suggest parting it out. I'd be willing to buy that bolt off of you to keep it out of the hands of the public.

Edited by santanatwo
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Back in 1965 the Vietnamese put gum paste in .223 rounds and air dropped them to soldiers. This is what made the M16 such a failure."

 

~Abraham Lincoln

 

:rolleyes:

 

no, the US army changed to a ball powder that didn't burn right and left residue that clogged up the M16 action, nice try though. When they went back to the original powder the problem was solved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Back in 1965 the Vietnamese put gum paste in .223 rounds and air dropped them to soldiers. This is what made the M16 such a failure."

 

~Abraham Lincoln

 

:rolleyes:

 

eldest son

 

 

The bolt and pieces of an exploding AK-47 receiver would typically be projected backward into the head of the individual firing the rifle.

 

I hate using wikipedia, but here you go, other sources are available.

 

So don't roll your eyes at ME, son. :rolleyes: you will only EmBareAss yourself. :haha:

Edited by santanatwo
Link to post
Share on other sites

"would generate approximately five times the design pressure of firearms"

 

Hhhrmmm. 300,000 PSI... yep, that'd probably destroy a bolt and turn it into shrapnel.

 

Moral of the story, don't put five times the powder into your .308.

 

Thanks for that advice Santanatwo!

 

Oh and

 

"Metal that is subjected to excessive force will form micro cracks, which get bigger over time until the part fails. In this case the part that will fail is holding ~50,000 PSI in a about ~0.33 square inched, that's ~150,000 PSI, pointed right at your face. IF you are lucky the top cover will blow off and some shrapnel will go flying, and maybe you will have some cuts and burns, if you are unlucky you will die, or worse, an innocent person who was unaware of your "monumental mistake of epic proportions" will die. (words fail me)"

 

50,000 pounds per square inch.... on a .33 square inch surface, is still 50,000 PSI... But probably only 16,500 pounds of pressure pushing on the bolt since the area is .33 square inches. According to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"would generate approximately five times the design pressure of firearms"

 

Hhhrmmm. 300,000 PSI... yep, that'd probably destroy a bolt and turn it into shrapnel.

 

Moral of the story, don't put five times the powder into your .308.

 

Thanks for that advice Santanatwo!

 

Oh and

 

"Metal that is subjected to excessive force will form micro cracks, which get bigger over time until the part fails. In this case the part that will fail is holding ~50,000 PSI in a about ~0.33 square inched, that's ~150,000 PSI, pointed right at your face. IF you are lucky the top cover will blow off and some shrapnel will go flying, and maybe you will have some cuts and burns, if you are unlucky you will die, or worse, an innocent person who was unaware of your "monumental mistake of epic proportions" will die. (words fail me)"

 

50,000 pounds per square inch.... on a .33 square inch surface, is still 50,000 PSI... But probably only 16,500 pounds of pressure pushing on the bolt since the area is .33 square inches. According to you.

 

You're right, my bad, 16,000 pound of force, not pounds per square inch. That's 16,000 pounds pushing on the bolt carrier, sending it at your eye.

Link to post
Share on other sites

aside from my momentary math glitch, lets keep going with the math

 

three lugs at 16,000 pounds = ~ 5,300 pounds per lug.

 

two lugs at 16,000 = ~8,000 pounds per lug, an increase of 150% of force per lug.

 

you just exceeded the 125% "proof round" safety factor by about 25%

 

you can quit now...

 

"would generate approximately five times the design pressure of firearms"

 

Hhhrmmm. 300,000 PSI... yep, that'd probably destroy a bolt and turn it into shrapnel.

 

Moral of the story, don't put five times the powder into your .308.

 

Thanks for that advice Santanatwo!

 

Oh and

 

"Metal that is subjected to excessive force will form micro cracks, which get bigger over time until the part fails. In this case the part that will fail is holding ~50,000 PSI in a about ~0.33 square inched, that's ~150,000 PSI, pointed right at your face. IF you are lucky the top cover will blow off and some shrapnel will go flying, and maybe you will have some cuts and burns, if you are unlucky you will die, or worse, an innocent person who was unaware of your "monumental mistake of epic proportions" will die. (words fail me)"

 

50,000 pounds per square inch.... on a .33 square inch surface, is still 50,000 PSI... But probably only 16,500 pounds of pressure pushing on the bolt since the area is .33 square inches. According to you.

Edited by santanatwo
Link to post
Share on other sites

I only argue the statement that a sheered lug failure results in a bolt carrier being thrust into your skull. I don't argue that any reduction in the bolt lugs can cause sheering eventually/possibly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pardon me from joining in the horse-flogging, but my PSL has 2 big honking locking lugs and a third about half the size. It does not, repeat NOT have two locking lugs, it has THREE locking lugs.

 

While I am sending my bolt and carrier to Cobra for some serious polishing, I am not about to remove that third locking lug. Uncle Mikhail wouldn't have included it in the design if it wasn't needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A three legged stool is never tippy. Regardless of the surface it's on (within reason), all three legs will be in contact with the surface and the stool will be stable.

 

Not true with a 4-legged stool; it needs an even, level surface or it'll always try to rock a little. Also not true for a 2-legged stool, which will be unstable or, if the legs are very wide, may act like a 4-legged stool. But the 3-legged stool will be stable and solid regardless.

 

My theory is that the 3rd lug was added to stabilize the bolt face in a mass-produced design which relies upon ample clearances for reliability. Your 2-lug Rem. 700, Mauser 98, or Win. M70 is built with much tighter tolerances and higher locking forces. They achieve bolt face stability/repeatability that way. The .308 Saiga uses the 3-legged stool approach. I think this explains why the .308 Saiga is more accurate than the 7.62x39 and the .223. Izhmash probably knew the .308 Saiga would fall on its face if it delivered typical 4MOA x39 accuracy when shooting a round with the range & accuracy potential of the .308.

 

Probably a 7.62x39 or .223 built on a 3-lug .308 action would be just as accurate as a .308.

 

Don't anything know about the 7-lug M16 action. The precision with which that's built is probably in another league.

 

I do know the old Rem. 788 (I have three), which have three sets of three locking lugs, were well known for their accuracy. They were a very inexpensive utility rifle that frequently outshot the Rem. 700s of the time.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

I never really understood why the saiga has a third lug...Im just currious about the technical aspect and wondered if anyone had any opinions.

 

I have a Saiga .308 and the 3rd lug is a design error. Other 308 AKs, like the Galil and the Valmet 76 and 78, work fine with the traditional 2-lug Kalashnikov design. All the third lug does is to beat up the next round waiting in the mag, and make it very hard during assembly to push the bolt carrier down into the receiver. It is some Russian "Bubba's" guerrilla engineering. Kalashnikov would never have done it this way.

To try to make it work the way Bubba intended you are fighting against 2 irreconcilable contradictions.

(1) The 3rd lug needs to be rounded enough to pass over the next round in the mag, but also

(2) square enough to provide a tiny couple of mm² lockup interface with the trunnion.

It's all crap. I just ground my bolt down so the right side looks like the left (looking at the bottom side with the head up).

It works fine of course. Doesn't explode, no gouging, bolt slides over the rounds in the mag real smooth, bolt just drops into receiver during reassembly. Locks up and generally works the way Kalashnikov intended. Locks up like a Galil 308 and a Valmet 308. Bubba needs to be sent to Siberia.

 

I don't want to hear from people afraid to pull down a totem pole put up by somone they assume must have known what they were doing. Just remember the US military would not accept the Thompson Submachine gun until Thompson removed the useless "slipping inclined planes" blowback delaying mechanism. Google it!

I ran this by a master gunsmith with over thirty years experience, trained at Brno (CZ) under the communists, served with the U.S. 5th Group Spec. Ops including comm bloc weapons specialist, and sniper, who builds custom sniper rifles and has converted /customized multiple Saiga .308's. His thoughts were that more loads used today are more powerful and use heavier bullets. The third lug provides additional lockup to improve the safety of the gun and shooter. He's never had a problem with reinstalling the bolt carrier or having the shells being defaced as they come out of the magazine, and the bolt/carrier are always left as is. Nothing 'bubba' about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless your factory bolt is truly out of spec and tears cartridges apart when passing over them, (damn unlikely), I wouldn't touch a thing.

 

So far as the difficulty of reinstalling the bolt/bolt carrier, you just have to get it in the right spot and it goes back together like any other Kalashnikov. Granted, it's not quite as easy as the x39 two-lug rifles, but it's not a big deal and certainly should not "inspire" anyone to start removing steel from the bolt. :rolleyes:

Edited by post-apocalyptic
Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless your factory bolt is truly out of spec and tears cartridges apart when passing over them, (damn unlikely), I wouldn't touch a thing.

 

So far as the difficulty of reinstalling the bolt/bolt carrier, you just have to get it in the right spot and it goes back together like any other Kalashnikov. Granted, it's not quite as easy as the x39 two-lug rifles, but it's not a big deal and certainly should not "inspire" anyone to start removing steel from the bolt. :rolleyes:

Agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

cool havent got mine yet, i wasnt even aware there was a difference till i started readingg this thread. i do plan on reloading for this setup, so thats why it caught my interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

I have posted rebuttals, but my posts are being censored by being deleted by some moderator, most likely this one.

 

He thinks that because someone told him he is a moderator and he so he can delete dissenting opinions, and post his own uncontested bullshit, it makes him right. :booo:

 

Also he quotes some anonymous expert to back him up!

It's just the old "appeal to authority" logical fallacy, where you argue that your opinion is true because somone you like agrees with it.

(The opposite is the "guilt by association" fallacy, where you argue that your oponent's opinion is false because somone you don't like agrees with it. )

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have posted rebuttals, but my posts are being censored by being deleted by some moderator, most likely this one.

 

He thinks that because someone told him he is a moderator and he so he can delete dissenting opinions, and post his own uncontested bullshit, it makes him right. :booo:

 

Also he quotes some anonymous expert to back him up!

It's just the old "appeal to authority" logical fallacy, where you argue that your opinion is true because somone you like agrees with it.

(The opposite is the "guilt by association" fallacy, where you argue that your oponent's opinion is false because somone you don't like agrees with it. )

I myself have not edited nor deleted any of your twenty two posts on the forum.Your so called 'appeal to authority' is, to the contrary, based on a well earned reputation, the expertise, skills, and knowledge of my source, an 07 FFL as well as the aforementioned qualifications. It is not bullshit and has nothing to do with any association or acquaintance. Anonymity is irrelevant as the credentials stand by their own merit. I'll be glad to give you his name and number so he can tell you in any of four different languages that you are stupid and go fuck off. However, I really don't care for your attitude, your weak attempt at logic (you yourself are using the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem--attacking the person,in your response), nor your particular disrespect for the moderation staff, let alone your misspellings, so go take a time out for a couple weeks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

zombie threads indeed. I wasnt advocating anything along the lines of destroying an already working rifle,,,

I just wanted to know the differences between existing designs and what the saiga offered as a solution, wondering why and thinking towards my own rifle designs, NOT modifying a working bolt to look more like another. There was some good information given (IE there are three bolt psl's) but the OMG you are going to blammo a bolt carrier into your eye" has nothing to do with any of it. I am far more interested in the fact that two lug bolts do work than the hypothesis that modifying something that already works may, potentially, eventually, maybe, in an unlucky situation, with the right sort of bad mojo, be a bad idea.

 

If it aint broke, dont fix it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×
×
  • Create New...