Jump to content
Military Firearm Restoration Corner

logeorge

Members
  • Posts

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

logeorge's Achievements

0

Reputation

  1. The .260 case has less taper than the 6.5x55 and will probably give you feeding problems. It's larger diameter in the shoulder area and tends to bind in the magazine at that point. It can be made to work, but why bother. The 6.5x55 is ballistically so close that the game will never know the difference. That said, I once got a .243 to feed well by substituting a Remington magazine follower and spring for the Mauser parts and installing a spacer in the rear of the magazine box. You probably wouldn't need a spacer with the .260. It worked on that rifle, but I don't think you can count on it to work every time. I think it was more luck than sense that time. L. O. G.
  2. I believe the .405 rim is thicker than the .303 by about 0.010 inch.
  3. A few observations and comments on Gitano's post from someone who doesn't purport to be an "expert" in anything. Ackley, DeHaas and some others did tests on actions which were very helpful and informative to us' especially those of us who don't have the facilities or knowledge to run our own tests(not to mention the cost). I don't think ALL those who urged caution did so out of ignorance, but from the standpoint of prefering to err on the side of safety, kmowing that some people will push things too far. Now if we look at the pre-98 mausers and some others, the locking area of the bolt and receiver are the same size as a 98. The Husqvarna actions were made with a M98 type of bolt at the back end, but the front end was about like the M94/96 Swedish military actions and the receiver was the "small ring" size. Some of them were chambered for belted magnum cartridges. I think the question is not so much about the yeild point of the receiver/bolt as it is the case, in the event of a case weakened by stretching during resizing or a chamber with excess headspace. The M98 will handle escaping gas better, at least in theory. Another aspect is the heat treating of the receiver/bolt. If they are too soft they might stand an overload well, but gradually develop excess headspace due to the lugs seating into the receiver while using loads well within the safety margin. I have worked on a pair of 1909 Argentine actions which were about Rc 15. This is about the same as a piece of 1018 cold roll. One I lapped the bolt lugs in and had re-heat treated. The other was so soft that the bolt sleeve lock had worn a notch into the rear face of the rear receiver ring where it made contact, the rear of the extractor had worn a groove in the bolt and the ejector had worn a groove along the bolt where it rubbed as the bolt was opened and closed. Both were original military barreled actions. Both had set the bolt back into the locking shoulders to the point that metal had extruded out against the bolt body. I doubt that either had ever been fired with anything but military issue ammo. Some of the Spanish receivers were very soft, as well, and the quality of the machining left something to be desired. My feeling is do your research, proceed with caution, but remember you won't shoot as many rounds in a lifetime of hunting as target shooters and prarie dog hunters will in a season. If it does what you expect of it then don't worry about what others think of it. By the way, I like that Martini-Enfield. Always wanted to build one myself, but never got around to it. L. O. G.
  4. ken98k: I never had any luck with wooden blocks either. Most (maybe all) ofthe gunsmithing books I've read say to use them with rosin. I've had good results by boring an aluminum block to fit and sawing it apart through the centerline. They grip well and if they do slip, the aluminum is fairly easy to get off without scarring the barrel. Of course this is a lot easier if you have a milling machine and a boring head or a lathe. I took a barrel off a Chinese made receiver once, but couldn't get it it budge without using what I thought was excessive force. I sawed it off a little way in front of the receiver and bored it out on a lathe. I don't know what kind of steel they used, but it was so hard it would dull a hi-speed tool bit with one light cut. I ended up using a carbide tool, stopping short of the inner ring and cutting until the minor diameter of the theads started to show, then picking the rest out. L. O. G.
×
×
  • Create New...