going to take more than a light clean and oil to sort that one out
bit of araldite and some duct tape and she'lll be fine.
question: title implies a double charge of powder but surely space would be an issue in the cartridge? no way I could get a double charge in a 270 without it spilling out the neck.
the story however mentions pistol vs rifle powder and a mix of the two.
is pistol powder very fast burning vs rifle powder?
[QUOTE]]It is a STUPID & DANGEROUS practice that has been out of vogue since the 1950's. This was just another a$$ hole trying to reinvent the wheel. Idiot! ~Muir[/QUOTE
Hmmm sounds like a Remington employee they keep trying to do that hence the 260, 7-08 etc....
Also perhaps investment castings and plastic are not such a good idea in gunmaking after all!
Nope. It won't matter. I've seen some very good rifles trashed by someone trying to put in 2 grains of Bullseye pistol powder behind 55 grains of 5010 machinegun powder. The last was a Model 70 Winchester in 30-06. The owner was an old-school idiot who knew better than the powder makers who denounce "duplex" loads with vigor. Blew off the extractor, set the locking lugs back, stripped the mag and trigger guard screws out of the receiver, and fractured the stock.
For a while, it was a popular practice to put in smokeless powder behind black powder to help it burn cleaner. Stupidity, as black powder is 44% non combustible solids anyhow, but it took a few rifles blowing up to convince people it was a bad practice.
Not sure about the 260 and 7-08 reference....~Muir
A little bit of spit & polish and that rifle will look as good as new
Remington being stuck for genuine ideas just re-hashed proven old numbers and with fancy ad campaigns voila the 260 and 7-08 Remington is born.. All the development was done by others. The only true cartridge I can think of that Remington did develop is the .222.Not sure about the 260 and 7-08 reference....~Muir
Sorry but am still trying to work out the so called short action advantage