gun nutty

http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/army...ero-targe.shtml May have been 1.5" down from the center of the bull at 25m. I wish I could find those targets on-line. You said "up" a couple times. The directions say "down" after zeroing on the target. If you are dead-on at 25 meters, you're shooting way high at 200, 250, 300, and 350 (I think those are right). My guess is that you are shooting over the targets. When I sight in my rifles at 25 yards, I need to be at least 1.5" low to get about 3" high at 100 yards (30'06, 7mm mag, etc.). This is only for "rough sighting" and to get on paper. Once I'm centered and low, I move back too 100 yds for final sight-in. For a .223 52 grain Speer HPBT with a BC of .25 and a muzzle velocity of 3100 fps and a 300 yard zero: muzzle: -1.5" (I'm guessing 25m should be very close to this value) 100 yards: +4.3" 200 yards: +5.3" 300 yards: 0.0" 400 yards -13.8" After zeroing and moving the sight back to the 300m position, can you fire a couple to see that you are indeed below the bull? Some Range Masters are nice. Some are just plain mean, though.

I've shot the popup course. You're using A-2s? We used A-1s... No "click-up". Set the sights for "Battle-Zero" using the sight-in targets. If I remember correcly, the sight-in targets had a sqaure that was 2" to 2.5" below the target bull; all shots went in there. We sighted-in at 10m (pistol range?). If you are able, sight-in already "clicked-up" at the closer range. See where the rounds land. Should be around 2" below the bull at the closer range. If that's the case, it's all on you . There are battle-zero target for the closer ranges. I actually prefer the A1 sights where you "set-em and leave-em". The Army pop-up course is fun... Like shootin' prarie dogs. The foxhole position is a hoot. I just had to do a full Navy qual at 200m... 2 hours getting crisp in the sun, then another 2 hours roasting while raising and lowering the targets for the group that relieved us.

That hexhead screw for the floorplate release is a nifty idea. If it's too short, you can always cut off the threaded part off a machine screw with the same thread pitch, making a "stud". Drill and tap a hole with the same pitch into the end of a section of some small diameter steel rod. Thread the stud into the piece of rod, and the other end of the stud into the existing hexhead hole. You can put a nice round on the end of the rod by turning it in a drill press and filing as it turns. If you do this right, it should almost look "factory".

How-to from Brownells: http://www.brownells.com/aspx/NS/General/D...?f=INST-108.pdf

One reason the forged military bolt handles look "stubby" is the ball diamter; a military ball is usually larger. I measured one of Davis' handles against a MarkX. From the centerline of the bolt to the farthest tip of the ball, the measurements were relatively close (under 1/64"). The Davis handle was straight down (as requested) and the MarkX was swept back, so the difference may have been about an 1/8" or a bit more had I swept it back. Despite dimensionally being the same overall length, the military bolt visually looked much shorter.

Black shoe/leather dye? Just a guess....

I'm very happy with the metal work on my Polish M44. Surfaces are smooth and matte. I know what you mean about "rough". Some Ruskies I've seen at shows look like they were carved out of a block of steel with a coarse file.

I think that these numbers are correct. I used the diameter immediately in front of the belt (<-- arrow is barrel wall thickness). Turk Large Ring/Small Shank Mauser -------- Cartridge just forward of the belt: 0.5130 Barrel shank thread (major) diameter: 0.980 Receiver diameter: 1.410 Thread type: 12V Minor Diameter: 0.980 - (2 X (cos 30 deg)/TPI) = 0.980 - (2 X 0.866/12) = 0.8357 Effective Barrel Wall thickness: ((Minor Diameter) - (Case Diameter))/2 = (0.8357 - 0.513)/2 = 0.1613 <-- Total wall thickness case: ((rec. dia.) - (case dia.))/2 = (1.410 - 0.5130)/2 = 0.449 Ruger M-77 -------- Cartridge just forward of the belt: 0.5130 Barrel shank thread (major) diameter: 0.998 Receiver diameter: 1.315 Thread type: 16V Minor Diameter: 0.998 - (2 X (cos 30 deg)/TPI) = 0.998 - (2 X 0.866/16) = 0.8898 Effective Barrel Wall thickness: ((Minor Diameter) - (Case Diameter))/2 = (0.8898 - 0.513)/2 = 0.1884 <-- Total wall thickness case: ((rec. dia.) - (case dia.))/2 = (1.315 - 0.5130)/2 = 0.401 Remmington M-700 -------- Cartridge just forward of the belt: 0.5130 Barrel shank thread (major) diameter: 1.050 Receiver diameter: 1.360 Thread type: 16V Minor Diameter: 0.998 - (2 X (cos 30 deg)/TPI) = 1.050 - (2 X 0.866/16) = 0.94175 Effective Barrel Wall thickness: ((Minor Diameter) - (Case Diameter))/2 = (0.9415 - 0.513)/2 = 0.2144 <-- Total wall thickness: ((rec. dia.) - (case dia.))/2 = (1.360 - 0.5130)/2 = 0.4235

It will make a nice .45 ACP rifle.

Snob! Coyote: Biggest problem I saw was you needed a bit of detail. Not everyone's the greatest linguist; I'd throw myself in that group too. I find starting a new line at each new "thought" helps me follow along better as I type. In solidarity, I'm intentionally leaving the period off of the end of this sentence

On a 98, if you shorten the action more than 5/8", you'll need to modify the extractor. At 5/8' or less, the extractor will still be forward of the safety lug. Look at this and see what I'm talking about. If you're going to weld-up the extractor (shorten it), then I have no clue as to "how low you can go". The 1" mark would clear up the left receiver thumb-notch. I'd also be sure and measure the overall length of every part 3 times. What is taken off of one part needs to be matched on the others as well. A dial caliper would be swell. Dunno...

1991 American Rifleman: Check out: http://www.reloadersnest.com/frontpage.asp?CaliberID=216 Look at the bottom of the linked page for data by both powder and bullet weight. Don't blow yerself up.

Long or short barrel life? That's a relative thing, depending on how you load and what the application is for. Shooting it during an extended prarie dog outing (150+ rounds) using heavy loads would be very hard on a barrel indeed. I would rather have another cartridge like the .223 Rem, .22 BR Rem, .225 Win, or .250 Savage. Not only would the recoil be annoying, but the muzzle blast would be disconcerting to fellow shooters. For stalking coyotes or hide hunting, it would be a dandy. With less than 20 shots fired on an outing, barrel life would be "fair", and a hunter would get quite a number of seasons out of such a pill. Why coose this cartridge? Improved feeding? Longer (extreme) range? Heavier bullets? Very heavy bullets (90 grains) shot at medium game like antelope (where legal)? There are better .22 cartridges that will feed OK through a Mauser. Most varmit shooting is done single shot unless you're stalking; feeding shouldn't be an issue from a stationary position. If you want the longer cartridge for better feeding from the magazine, nothing says that you have to beat other .22 rounds. A handloader can always back-off the velocities using milder loads or faster powders. My .223 loads are very mild RL-7 pills. I probably get ..221/222 Rem performance and have a cool barrel after extended firing. There are slower powders that can add 200 to 300 fps, but I don't care. I probably wouldn't build a 5.6X57, but if someone gave me one, I'd see what I could do with fun loads of either 4198 ot RL-7. I wouldn't care if I exceeded a 22-250. 7X57 or 8X57 brass can probably be used to make the cases for the 5.6X57, but I'd rather use .257 Roberts brass. Even if it were more expensive, there would be less neck-turning and trimming. I might be wrong, but going from 7MM to 5.6 (.22) should require reaming or turning case necks.

Someone a while back had posted about modifying an MN to use a Bold trigger. I was interested about any follow-ups and whether there where any "negatives" to this modification. The trigger extensions were ground-off the reciever. A modified sear was installed. A hole was drilled and tapped for the forward screw. The safety was bent outward to clear the reciever? Will the sear serve as an effective bolt stop as well?

I have a Williams sight (I think it's a 5D). Williams also offers their FP98TK with "target knobs". My 5D DOES NOT interfere with the clip guide. I cannot say whether the FP series does or doesn't, but it would be worth a look.

GPC has Marlin 20" .35 Rem barrels for $65. A bushing made to the same taper and diameter as the chamber area on a #1 Shaw barrel contour would be interesting. Thread the ID of the bushing for the Marlin and thread the OD for the Mauser in one step. Soft-solder the Marlin barrel into the bushing and thread the bushing into the Mauser. The Marlin barrels are pre-chambered I think. That would need to be verified. The bushing could be "timed" so any dovetail would be on the bottom of barrel, hidden in the channel. Is this realistic? Dunno. A lathe would be needed, but cutting a chamber shouldn't be an issue.

Mausers seem to feed 7.62X39 OK. The .35 Rem is between the 7.62X39 and the '06 headsize (.4600") Should be a good choice. Pressures are lower, so this might be a better fit for the Spanish Mauser. What barrel are you using? The .35 Rem uses lighter bullets than its other .35 caliber cousins... I'd want a slower twist than a .35 Whelen or .358 Win. Hodgen lists 150 to 220 grain bullets, with the 200 grain being the most prevalently listed.

A Buddy had a Marlin camp carbine in 45 ACP that was an absolute joy to shoot. Very "scopable" and accurate. A number of years later I went looking for one, read some on-line reviews containing horror stories about internal mechanical failures, and decided to look elsewhere. Too bad, as it used 1911 magazines. I have read about the M-1 carbine conversions to 45 ACP. Reading through Ackley's books, a number of .473" head cartridges are listed for carbine conversions; I don't know that anyone still does this work. I always thought that the 30 carbine necked to .22 (the .22 carbine) would have been "sweet". Ruger does have their lever rifle in 44 Mag. It's not a 45, but to a handloader it should be a moot point. Bullseye and W231 will burn equally well in a 44 Mag with mild cast bullet loads. I think the only way to get the 45 ACP rolling in a rifle is with the Rhineland conversion; would be a fun-gun indeed.

My info is that the barrels are set-in tight and many cracks are formed removing the barrels. A relief cut on the barrel immediately forward of the reciever ring would fix that.

The 22 Newton was the 7X57 with a 90 grain .227/.228 bullet, or at least that what Ackley claims. Does shooting the heavy .22 bullets increase barrel life? I imagine that less powder would be used because of the heavier slug. I'm with Z1r on the 6mm Rem... But a long 90 grain .22 slug sure would look "wicked" sticking out of a "X57" case.

That link should go to the great archive, no?

A previous thread covered the trials and tribulations involved in getting short, fat cases to feed in the M98. My recollection is that the case is SO FAT (how fat is it?), it's so fat that the ejector needs modification or replacement (read that as needing to be extended); the cartidge case, once it gets under the rear bridge, is too large to turn for ejection. With all of the headache involved, a 22/06 looks so nice...

OK. Now I know what stock you are talking about. It has a built-in rail with a built-in trigger bow. The trigger doesn't move that much when firing... Maybe 1/8" or so? You know the area where the trigger sits in the bow. Why not drill a hole or dremmel a small slot from the underside of the bow to accomidate the trigger? You could call it "hi-tech" and I doubt anyone would know the difference. You could measure from the top of the trigger housing to the bottom of the trigger, make a call to Dayton-Traiser and Timney, and see if theirs are shorter. I still think either filing the bottom of the trigger or tweaking it without heat is the way to go. You can always call Boyds as well. BTW, Dayton-Traiser says that their trigger is hardedned and should not be re-shaped without annealing.

Sounds like "tweaking" with a little pressure might work then. I'd secure the actual trigger part of the mechanism in the smooth jaws of a vise and tweak-away gently with a hammer. One has to wonder if there's a simple way of of opening the bow... It's non-hardened steel. I think attacking the trigger is a better option though.

What do you mean by "move forward"? The trigger mechanism is secured and aligned to the reciver via a pin. The actual trigger is secured to the trigger housing via a through-pin. I'd say through mechanical adjustment, "no". You wouldn't want to either, as it would screw-up the geometry and sear engagement. You could disassemble the trigger housing, heat the trigger and bend it forward, re-heat treat the trigger, and re-assemble the works. I think it would be cheaper and easier to get a new magazine box/trigger guard assembly, one that is better suited to your trigger. You could also file and thin the existing trigger guard. You don't specify why you want to move the trigger forward... Is it hitting the bow? You could cut-off the bow and install a shotgun-style bow as well; you could have the bow in any shape or configuration that you desire.