Best Years For Rifles

[Muir]

It would be interesting to see how many people would rely on a vehicle of the same age to get themselves to their stalking ground...

Tim.243

Are you saying that old guns are as unreliable as old motor vehicles?? I hunt sometimes with a 1898 Krag Jorgensen. I'm not sure they had many autos back then but I'd give it a try.~Muir

 

[Brithunter]

It would be interesting to see how many people would rely on a vehicle of the same age to get themselves to their stalking ground...

Tim.243

Well not everyone is enamoured with new cars either. Our newest one was built in 1999. There is a huge difference between a car and rifle though. Many "Sporting" rifles are barely used.

 

[Brithunter]

Brit. You're back to this same bore diameter/cartridge designation thing which has nothing to do with what am talking about. You must lose some serious sleep pondering the 220 Swift, 219 Zipper, the 218 Bee, 256 Winchester, 351 Self loader and the 307 Winchester.

I am saying that the Steyrs (and the Swedes) have oversized groove dimensions. In my Steyrs I was shooting a .264" bullet through a .270" barrel. Many of my Swedes had the same affliction. It did nothing for accuracy. I love both rifles, but they can be a PIA to fit a bullet to.

As far as Paul Mauser's specifications goes: Every body raise their hands who have found many post WWI military Mausers that have a .323" groove diameter. Most range into the .325" -.327" dimension which is why I love the commercially barreled Husqvarna 648 sporters from the 1940's. All of mine are .323" on the button.~Muir

Muir you still have not answered whom decided that 0.004" was THE depth for rifling grooves!

I for one am not convinced that deeper grooves are detrimental to precision on target.

I wish I could read German at times as there are data sheets in the Sporting Mauser book which give the bore measurements for many cartridges but I am unsure which is which measurement. Also I seem to recall that Ken Waters was rather shocked to discover the the specifications for the 270 Winchester meant instead of the normally accepted, but he hand loading gurus that is, size of bullet being 0.001" over groove size the specs for the 270 Win call for the bullet to be 0.001" undersized as the groove dimension is actually 0.278" and not what most think at 0.277". Thi was probably done to keep pressures sane with the poorer powders back in 1925.

 

[Muir]

Well not everyone is enamoured with new cars either. Our newest one was built in 1999. There is a huge difference between a car and rifle though. Many "Sporting" rifles are barely used.

True that. I bought an "estate" rifle in 8x57J ("I" if you wish) with simple folding leaf sights, DST's and claw mounts that must have had very little use despite it's 1911 date. Closer to home, I buy many refugees from the indian reservation that are tattered an scratched on the exterior but are like new on the inside. Carried in the back of a pickup for year and years, fired seldom.~Muir

 

[6pt-sika]

Are you saying that old guns are as unreliable as old motor vehicles?? I hunt sometimes with a 1898 Krag Jorgensen. I'm not sure they had many autos back then but I'd give it a try.~Muir

In the past I used a circa 1896 Marlin Model 1895 in 40-65 to pound a whitetail doe with a homecast bullet . That same year I used a circa 1897 Marlin Model 1895 in 38-56 to pop another doe whitetail again with a home cast bullet . The season before that I used a circa 1906 Marlin Model 1893 in 32-40 again with a home cast bullet to shoot a medium sized 3 point whitetail .

I have a circa 1835-1845 Pennsylvania half stocked percussion 36 caliber I've popped a couple squirrels with as well .

And last but not least I have a dated 1916 Mauser 98 that was restocked in the mannlicher style in the 1950's with the original barrel that been cut down a tad . That ones a peep sight only deal as all the others are regular iron sights !

And amazingly enough all but the 40-65 have pristine bores even the muzzle loader !

 

[6pt-sika]

To be honest I get a certain amount of satisfaction out of casting my own bullets , loading the round then using the cartridge in a 100+ year old rifle to kill a deer that I clean and butcher . Then a couple weeks later make a palatable dish from the meat MYSELF !

 

[6pt-sika]

Also I seem to recall that Ken Waters was rather shocked to discover the the specifications for the 270 Winchester meant instead of the normally accepted, but he hand loading gurus that is, size of bullet being 0.001" over groove size the specs for the 270 Win call for the bullet to be 0.001" undersized as the groove dimension is actually 0.278" and not what most think at 0.277". Thi was probably done to keep pressures sane with the poorer powders back in 1925.

I have most all of Water's work on my bookshelf .

And he did a rather large amount of load data no doubt however like everyone , his opinion was not always the last word !

Over the years I've found several things he stated that were way of base . As I've done several things that he claimed one could not with said variation of certain rifles .

Jack O'Conner on the other hand I think was BEYOND reproach .

And that guy in Montana with the big hat that always wore a sixgun was kinda full of himself in my opinion !

But thats just my opinion on three rather famouse gunwriters !

I am sure if you asked 100 others a good many would not agree with me .

After all in the USA gun community it's a pretty generalized thing . Thos that like O'Conner didn't care for Elmer and those that liked Keith loathed O'Conner !


I know Jack O'Conner was the #1 , #2 and #3 reasons I wanted a 270 WIN when I was younger . Then later I came to the conclusion I liked the 280 REM more but thats another arguement isn't it

 

[Klenchblaize]

And that guy in Montana with the big hat that always wore a sixgun was kinda full of himself in my opinion!

Hell, are you sure you were there?!?

Cheers

K

 

[M275]

I suppose we should all feel very sorry for the manufacturers. They have to compete against guns they or their competitors made 20, 50 or even 100 years ago that still work well and look great if they've been looked after. The basic technology hasn't changed since around 1890, so the old versions haven't been made obsolete. They will try to disguise change as progress, hence the epidemic of new cartridges, but they just refuse to innovate. The car industry doesn't have this problem because it's products wear out (or rust out) so keeping hold of the old stuff isn't an option for most people.

Has anything actually changed since the Mauser 1898? Why don't rifles have the same level of technology as mobile phones? Why isn't the sight calculating range, wind and elevation difference and automatically correcting the reticle? Why isn't the gun recording the muzzle velocities, pressures and lock times? Why isn't the ignition fully electronic like the old Etron-X? Why don't scopes revert to the lowest magnification until you touch the trigger?

 

[Kalahari]

Muir you still have not answered whom decided that 0.004" was THE depth for rifling grooves!

I for one am not convinced that deeper grooves are detrimental to precision on target.

I wish I could read German at times as there are data sheets in the Sporting Mauser book which give the bore measurements for many cartridges but I am unsure which is which measurement. Also I seem to recall that Ken Waters was rather shocked to discover the the specifications for the 270 Winchester meant instead of the normally accepted, but he hand loading gurus that is, size of bullet being 0.001" over groove size the specs for the 270 Win call for the bullet to be 0.001" undersized as the groove dimension is actually 0.278" and not what most think at 0.277". Thi was probably done to keep pressures sane with the poorer powders back in 1925.

I think, and of course am usually way off the right track, but I rather thought Muir was saying that the proportion of land/groove in the circumference of the bore was wrong. I always felt that provided you could be assured of obturation relatively small (and I stress relatively) land to groove ratio would reduce pressures and increase velosity because of the smaller amount of projectile cut away at the rifle throat. Still I have mothing to back it up so I will put on my little tin hat and hunker down.

David.

 

[Muir]

Muir you still have not answered whom decided that 0.004" was THE depth for rifling grooves!

I for one am not convinced that deeper grooves are detrimental to precision on target.

I wish I could read German at times as there are data sheets in the Sporting Mauser book which give the bore measurements for many cartridges but I am unsure which is which measurement. Also I seem to recall that Ken Waters was rather shocked to discover the the specifications for the 270 Winchester meant instead of the normally accepted, but he hand loading gurus that is, size of bullet being 0.001" over groove size the specs for the 270 Win call for the bullet to be 0.001" undersized as the groove dimension is actually 0.278" and not what most think at 0.277". Thi was probably done to keep pressures sane with the poorer powders back in 1925.

Sorry Kev,
I missed this reply.
Frankly, I don't know who decided that it was the proper depth. Probably some pencil pusher who decided that is was cheaper and easier to cut lands .004" deep. Probably the same guy who decided that three lands of rifling were fine for the Trapdoor Springfield, and 5 grooves and two grooves were fine for the Enfields... I don't know and more over, I don't lose sleep over it. I know that the Aberdeen testing rounds ran tests on all varieties of land and groove depths, widths, and numbers. The results are what they are. Maybe the industry decided that someone else had done all the heavy lifting and simply ran with it.

Let me ask: How deep would you want the lands for a .308" diameter bullet? If you make the grooves deeper (making the lands higher) you get premature erosion from the hot gasses blowing by the bullet. If you just make the lands, say, .007" deep you can run a problem with pressure, projectile distortion, and fouling. For some reason -hopefully one based on some trial- they decided that in some cases a nominal groove diameter of .004" was OK. It seems to have worked out OK. No clue about the 270. Those were nutty times for gun builders.~Muir

 

[Brithunter]

It was Mr Metford who developed the Enfield Five groove rifling after extensive testing and trials. He then offered it to the government for free. As the Government Manufactory at Enfield Lock used it it became known as Enfield Rifling even though they had nothing to do with it's development. Metford was a constant experimenter and had special shelves built around the living room where he aged his cast bullets. I believe Halford used Metford's cast bullets in his shooting competitions.

The Metford rifling was of course developed to cope with the Black Powder fouling and earnt it's reputation on the target ranges of the day. The 303 cartridge of course was originally a black powder one before they adopted Cordite in 1892. Metford's Enfield rifling was developed to handle this new aggressive and very hot burning powder. The wide and deep lands helped it cope with the cordite. There was even a reason why he adopted a left hand twist but I cannot recall why that was right now.

As for blow by this does not seem to have effected the 270 Winchester much even though it uses undesize bullets.

 

[Muir]

It was Mr Metford who developed the Enfield Five groove rifling after extensive testing and trials. He then offered it to the government for free. As the Government Manufactory at Enfield Lock used it it became known as Enfield Rifling even though they had nothing to do with it's development. Metford was a constant experimenter and had special shelves built around the living room where he aged his cast bullets. I believe Halford used Metford's cast bullets in his shooting competitions.

The Metford rifling was of course developed to cope with the Black Powder fouling and earnt it's reputation on the target ranges of the day. The 303 cartridge of course was originally a black powder one before they adopted Cordite in 1892. Metford's Enfield rifling was developed to handle this new aggressive and very hot burning powder. The wide and deep lands helped it cope with the cordite. There was even a reason why he adopted a left hand twist but I cannot recall why that was right now.

As for blow by this does not seem to have effected the 270 Winchester much even though it uses undesize bullets.

There is a large difference between .001" and .004 to .006" I have found in Steyrs and Swedes. That said, what is specified, and what is actually produced can be a large difference. I'm sure no one specified .316" for the 303 British but I have at least two rifles with that groove diameter. I have a No4MkII that has a .310" groove diameter. I have an earlier #4 MkI that has a .315" groove. I think in war time no one really cared much. Not much today, either. I have slugged modern sporters that ran .001" over sized and .001" undersized.~Muir

 

[Brithunter]

There is a large difference between .001" and .004 to .006" I have found in Steyrs and Swedes. That said, what is specified, and what is actually produced can be a large difference. I'm sure no one specified .316" for the 303 British but I have at least two rifles with that groove diameter. I have a No4MkII that has a .310" groove diameter. I have an earlier #4 MkI that has a .315" groove. I think in war time no one really cared much. Not much today, either. I have slugged modern sporters that ran .001" over sized and .001" undersized.~Muir

I believe that the war time allowance was up to 0.318" diameter on 303 barrels. Partly due to the loss of skilled machinists but also the loss of the barrel plant at BSA when 5 acres of factory were destroyed in a nights bombing by the Germans. The point is that both Steyr and the Swedes made their grooves 0.008" deep and must have done so for a reason.