gun nutty

Reloader's Nest has some loads for the 87 grain bullet: http://www.reloadersnest.com/query_bw.asp?...BulletWeight=87

That one bolt holding the motor up on the inboard side looks awful lonely. It doesn't look right, at least to me. Perhaps some blocks with shims would be better?

38scarabkv: Excellent work! On the 44, you moved the bolt handle back and added a notch for it. Do you have any close-up shots of your work? Any tips for those attempting something similar?

I meant setting the 45/70 barrel back and rechambering for the 450 Marlin or 458X2 American.

You need to get the goat a monocle and a top hat. That'll make the difference.

Look at the 450 Marlin or .458 American (458X2"). Both will feed well from the staggered Mauser magazine. You might be able to set the barrel back and rechamber. I think it's a great idea.

I've spent hours (or even a day) setting up for a 15 second cut on a mill or lathe. You're only dialing things in one plane... frustration is having two indicators in two planes simultaneously. Taking the extra time ensured that I rarely had to deal with re-work. Many guys I knew had the "that's good enough" attitude, and the crew getting the resultant garbage had a long day of tweaking trying to get that junk to fit or function. In carpentry it's "measure twice, cut once"; in machining it's no different.

Perhaps this was the image?

Water quenching is easy enough. As stated, put a towel in the bottom of a bucket filled with water, and drop from the hot mold. Ageing will also harden the bullets. The NRA has a real nice manual on cast bullets, and the "Lyman Cast Bullet Manual" is THE BIBLE on cast loads. One caution on water and hot lead... safety glasses, gloves and long sleeves. Be very methodical with what you do, and make sure you know where everything is at while you're casting. One drop of water mixed with hot lead will cause an explosion of molten lead to spread everywhere. The water instantly turns to steam, expands, and flashes. I've seen this happen with moisture inside the bullet mold. The tiniest speck of water will do tremendous damage.

You think a .338/.308 is a cannon, but the 8MM/.308 isn't? This isn't that different than the .270 Win VS. the .280 Rem; same base case, one caliber difference, overlapping bullet weights. We're talking ONE caliber here. The 8MM is closer in diameter to the .338 than the .308. The 8MM shoots heavies too. A typical 8MM load uses 196 to 200 grain bullets. The .338 Magnum has a very popular 210 grain bullet load. I don't think you'll even feel a difference at the buttplate. I don't believe that either the .338 Federal or your 8MM/08 will offer more recoil than stout military 8X57 loads using 196 grain bullets. Perhaps you're underestimating the 8MM Mauser?

Mauser dude: Have you looked at the .338 Federal? It's a .308 Winchester necked up to .338. It's just a pinch bigger than what you originally wanted, but the dies, reamers, and brass are all "off the shelf". I think going .338 will give you everything you were expecting out of the 8mm, at a significant cost reduction. I'd also say that the bullet selection will probably be a little better too.

The flats on an octagon barrel act much like the "flutes" on a fluted barrel. An octagon barrel with a certain dimension across the flats should be more rigid than a round barrel of that same dimension. Many incredible accuracy records were made in the late 1800's in Ballard rifles with octagon barrels. Some of these records, set with open sights, are enviable today. The makers of these barrels insist that their barrels are just as accurate as their competition's contemporary round barrels. The only real issue I see is that you will need to "time" the barrel to the action, much as you would a barrel with existing sights. If you have the cash to burn for the octagon barrel, and some patience for timing it, I don't see the big deal. I think octagon barrels are cool, and you will certainly impress myself and other with a snappy, unique rifle.

I understand exactly what you're talking about. I think even with fine threads, that OD barrel diameter at the shank will be very thin. I equate this as a situation on par (or perhaps worse) than the magnum-in-the-Turk scenario. Perhaps a 7x30 Waters or a 7MM TCU (based-on the .223 case). My gut feeling is that the .470" case base diameter is too great for what you are doing. If you want a 7x57 on the cheap, get a 19.5" barrel.

There have been adapters for small ring barrels with large receivers. I remember a long thread about the matter too If I needed to do what you're talking about, I'd do just that. I'd be sure and match the inside threads with the outside threads so the bushing is at its maximum wall thickness. I'll put in a comment though... for the amount of time and work you're doing, getting one of those "new" 19 inch military "pulls" in 7x57 would sure be easier. These are listed at $40: http://www.e-gunparts.com/DisplayAd.asp?ch...perSKU=&MC=

The 6.5X55 and 6.5X57 were both designed to work through a standard 93, 94, 95, 96, or 98 action. An action that feeds a 7X57 will feed either with no modification or difficulty. The .260 Rem is a fine cartridge. The case, based-on the .308 Win, has less taper than either of the above mentioned cartridges; as such, there is a potential for some feeding issues in an unaltered 98 action. The .260 Rem case is also shorter, and a particular 98 may or may not need a magazine block. You mention that "3 grains of powder"... Both the 6.5X55 and 6.5X57 use the additional 3 grains of powder to launch bullets at the same velocity as the .260 Rem, but they do it at a significantly LOWER pressure. Less pressure means a little less wear and tear on the rifle. I think all 3 cartridges are great. In a 98 action, my order of selection would be 6.5X57 (I handload), 6.5X55, then .260 Rem. The ease of building a rifle for the first two is too much to pass up. If it were some other action like a short Savage, short Rem 700, or short Win 70, then the .260 would take first position.

Can you coutersink it? Would there be an advantage? Is the Siamese 98 bolt face completely smooth? I was talking about an "outty" not an "inny".

9.3X57 or 22 BR Rem

Can't you just have a step on the barrel-face that's the inner diameter of the C-ring? The end result will be the same, and you'll need no special tooling.

Try these: http://www.buffaloarms.com/browse.cfm?view...=296&step=2 http://www.grafs.com/ammo/240

This question was also posed earlier on this board. I'll see if I can remember. I thought the flat bottomed bolts were more common than the round (for 93s) The 96 bolt is too long. A turk 93 bolt worked, if I remember. http://www.sporterizing.com/index.php?show...&hl=93+bolt

Boyd's and Richards both offer very nice laminated stocks. The laminates should be every bit as tough, durable, and stable as the synthetics. They have an added advantage of bedding very nicely. Unless you're looking at a higher end kevlar model synthetic, weight savings between a base model synthetic and laminate should be close; laminates the advantage that additional steps can be taken to further reduce weight (shorten the forend, slim the stock, hollow out the forend and butstock, etc.). I like both synthetics and laminates; I have an equal number of both in my collection. However, if I had a model that didn't have a synthetic option but had a laminate option, I'd get the laminate without hesitation. I think my next one will be the pepper laminate.

Pull out the bolt and try a 6.5X55 case against it. If there's still wiggle room, you're OK I think. I wouldn't let the bolt face be an issue. It's relatively straightforward taking a couple thousandths off the bolt face in a lathe. The best time to turn the bolt is when you're getting a new handle put on, as it's much easier to chuck-up the bolt body WITHOUT the protruding handle.

The 6.5X55 and the 6.5X57 should perform almost identically. The 6.5X55 is shorter but has a slightly fatter case. 6.5X55 has the advantage that loaded ammunition is available in the USA. 6.5X57 can easily formed from 7X57 or 257 Roberts brass. It also requires no bolt face modifications. Most "55" brass sold in the USA uses the standard .473 (30'06) rim, but my Yugo 55 brass is the full .480 rim. The "55" is better for the off-the-shelf shooter, and the "57" is better for the handloader (in that you can use other brass). I could live with either. Both are technically commercial, but the 57 has never been popular in the USA and is practically a wildcat cartridge. For a new custom rifle, I'd prefer the 57.

If these barrels are set as tightly as I've heard, and if you're not saving the barrel, why not just cut a groove immediately in front of the receiver using a lathe? Although I've not tried it, I've also heard a hacksaw can used to cut a groove in the absence of a lathe. That groove will loosen the pressure between the barrel and the receiver, allowing turning-out the barrel with little force and reducing potential damage to the receiver.

Dumb answer. As inexpensive as these surplus rifles are, wouldn't it be easier (and cheaper) just to have a spare rifle? Or is it a matter of "you start and end with the same toy"?