Savage 340 Smoothed

Original article photographySource page 6

The Savage Models 340 and 840, and the Stevens 322 and 325 before them, were value-priced, basic, bolt-action small game hunting rifles in their time. Chambered for then-popular varminting cartridges such as the .22 Hornet, .222 Remington, .225 Winchester, and the venerable deer cartridge, the .30-30 Winchester (.30 WCF), Savage- Stevens turned these compact boltguns out by the tens of thousands, later adding the .223 Remington chambering.

There were letter suffixes appended to model numbers to denote changes and different levels of "trim" and features. An examination of the myriad models are outside the scope of this article. These rifles were popular and long-lived for several reasons: First, they were inexpensive. Second, being compact, they were well-suited to hunters of smaller stature. Third, they were generally accurate. Finally, they offered detachable magazines Most 340s can benefit from light polishing of the channel.

This particular ejector had a very sharp tip that caught in the circumferential gaps between the bolt components, causing the bolt to "hang up" during rearward and forward travel. for convenience and safety.

In fact, until the introduction of low-cost bolt action hunting rifles such as the Ruger American, Remington 783, and Savage’s own Axis, here in north central Pennsylvania examples of the 340 family of rifles frequently commanded prices ranging from $375 at the low end to $450+ depending on the type of scope fitted to a Savage/Stevens 340 clone of a particular chambering. The little Savages are still in relatively high demand.

I had a high school friend whose father owned one hunting rifle and he took everything from woodchucks to coyotes to turkeys to deer with his small Savage in .222 Remington,. I wouldn’t recommend the .222 as a deer cartridge but Bob’s father, a man of small stature, was "Mr. Shot Placement" for as long as he lived. He was the epitome of the old saying, "Beware the man with one gun; he likely knows how to use it." The 340 and its variants were not particularly sleek or handsome.

Scoping one generally meant drilling and tapping for a Weaver No. 1 base, the characteristic side mount setup that is so prevalent on these small Savages. It was no Model 70 or 700 BDL but the 340 wasn’t intended to be. In fact, the small Savage/Stevens centerfire boltgun was in many ways responsible for Remington introducing the Model 600/660, another lowcost short-action alternative with design features that are nowadays referred to as "distinctly mid-century modern" in appearance.

Being inexpensive, the 340 and its family made extensive use of stampings and wide tolerances such that costly precision hand finishing and fitting of parts was not required. Anyone who has handled a 340 or clone and has viewed the receiver boltway with the bolt removed can attest that "fit and finish" were not in the 340’s production process description. The tooling marks are reminiscent

Original article photographySource page 7

Pay attention to the orientation of the ejector spring for reassembly. of "last ditch" WWII Axis weapons more than postwar USA firearms manufacturing expertise. The bolt itself is a composite of essentially two main pieces, one with the bolt handle attached, the other containing the bolt head, a stamped spring steel extractor, two stamped spring steel gas shield retainers, the gas shield, cocking piece, firing pin, firing pin spring, and a few other miscellaneous assembly pins, clips, and retainers.

There are a number of transitions between these circu- Light polishing of this "wear track" with an abrasive-loaded rubber wheel combined with forming a slight radius on the ejector tip eliminated the owner’s complaint of "stickiness" of the bolt during manipulation. The sharp pointed tip was the main culprit.

As the front face of the ejector contacts the cartridge case head, the tip could be rounded slightly without detriment to case ejection and rifle function. lar/cylindrical main components, the outside diameters of which are technically the same. In practice, there is considerable variation in the ODs of the bolt body, bolt head, gas shield clips, extractor, etc.

There are varying gaps between these components as well, and the variation in bolt component OD and gaps between the components contribute to the basic "stickiness" of the 340’s bolt when manipulated. The previously-mentioned roughness of the receiver boltway definitely contributes to the 340’s cranky bolt, but in the case of one particular 340 chambered in .30-30, the springloaded pivoting case ejector was the main culprit.

Specifically, the nose of the ejector formed an extremely sharp angled tip, sharp enough to inflict puncture or laceration wounds if not careful. This extremely sharp ejector tip contacts the outside diameter of the bolt assembly in a thin line, catching on the gaps between the various bolt components, and causing bolt sticking. The problem is exacerbated by the various bolt components having slight differences in outside diameter.

This particular .30-30’s bolt was so prone to sticking that prior to arrival on my bench, the owner would close the bolt by pressing directly on the rear of the cocking piece with his thumb, then rotating the handle down to lock the action closed. If trying to close the bolt using just the handle, the slight torque created by the bolt handle would cause the bolt to bind with the ejector tip catching in the many grooves between bolt components.

Always a proponent of defining the problem before planning the solution, I removed the bolt and disassembled the rifle sufficiently to remove the ejector, then reassembled the rifle and reinstalled the bolt. There was an immediate improvement; a marked decrease in the stickiness of bolt movement in the receiver boltway with the ejector out of the picture.

The bolt’s feel wasn’t that of a jeweled bolt, or even that of a No. 4 Mk 1 Enfield or a Krag, but the 340’s bolt did not act as if wedged in place when an attempt was made to be manipulated by the bolt handle. The bolt was again withdrawn from the action and laid on a bench towel under the work light. The area of interest was the wear track made by the ejector tip on the bolt assembly, and this was clearly evident.

Taking up a dental pick, I drew then pushed the pick’s tip across the bolt assembly with the pick acting as a

Original article photographySource page 8

Polishing is emphasized; not much metal was removed, as the tip was lightly radiused to more easily slide across the bolt’s features. surrogate ejector. The pick tended to catch at the radial transition between each component in the bolt assembly. Clearly, pointy things and gaps between metal bits do not mix. Applying the straight edge of a metal scale over the ejector track, the differences in outside diameter of the bolt components and the gaps between them was even more evident.

I reinstalled the spring-loaded pivoting ejector and bolt, and using a resized empty case, closely watched the interaction of the boltface, ejector, and case head as the bolt was hauled to the rear to eject the empty case. In reality, the very tip of the extractor did not appear to be doing any of the heavy lifting when it came to kicking the case out of the action.

The generous .30-30 case rim and head contacted the long pro- The objective was to have a rounded ejector tip ride easily across the various bolt components and their gaps that previously caused the ejector to catch and the bolt to stick. Far This wear track was also polished with a rubber abrasive wheel. jecting face of the 340’s ejector and thus enabled effective ejection.

This confirmed my thoughts that the tip of that ejector, sufficiently sharp as to have been designed by Genghis Khan, could be carefully radiused to allow it to ride over the narrow radial gaps between the components in the bolt assembly. Clamping the ejector in a locking plier, the sharp tip was attempted to be broken with a file, but the tip was almost as hard as the file. A motorized polishing wheel was used to "microgrind" a radius into the ejector tip.

It was a tedious, grind-and-try process, but firearm repair is not for the impatient. Once I found the sweet spot where bolt assembly no longer stopped on the reinstalled ejector, it was time to do a little polishing on the ejector contact path on the bolt.

Polishing the bolt entailed the use of a medium/soft abrasive rubber wheel to remove the majority of ejector wear and residual tooling marks on the bolt, concentrating on smoothing and slightly tapering the transitions between radial components and the bolt body. The intent was to simply break any edges, or increase the amount of smoothing to those areas so that the radii of the bolt component transitions worked in concert with the slight radius ground into the ejector tip.

While apart, I also polished the wear track on the bolt body made from contact with the sear using the same rationale in the interest of general smoothing of the action. The sear itself was not touched, as the trigger pull was acceptable and the owner was already well accustomed to it. The receiver boltway was also left alone because this was a budget fix for a budget rifle and the customer did not want to invest anymore than necessary.

Once cleaned up, oiled, and reassembled, the 340’s bolt manipulation in the shop was directly comparable to that with the ejector originally removed before any work, and .30-30 dummy cartridges as well as empties ejected efficiently. A little judicious polishing and grinding made a nearuseless rifle operational. Again, we’re not talking ball-bushing smooth, but the bolt could be withdrawn to the rear and closed again with little effort while grasping the bolt handle. And that’s exactly as it should be. AG