ohland
07-07-2015, 09:49 AM
Not packed with exquisite stuff, but you can recognize the state of the art stuff that we do today....
Jottings of a Guncrank
American Rifleman, vol 69, No. 14, April 1, 1922 –
https://books.google.com/books?id=gJkwAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA329&dq=townsend+whelen&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3cmbVa_9BY2TyAT_6Z6wBQ&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBDge#v=onepage&q=townsend%20whelen&f=true
Jottings of a Guncrank
by D. Wiggins
IN the course of about twenty years’ shooting experiences, a certain amount of information in regard to firearms will naturally accumulate; just how valuable it may be depends on the nature, and also the trend of the volume of the said facts. Of course we all recognize that experiments with black powder are of little interest now, and that even work with the older smokeless powders is not the absorbing pastime it once was. But still there be some few who will persist in pottering around with lead pot, dipper and moulds, trying this and that mixture, combining this and that variety of lubricant, and ever lastingly trying to improve on what the other fellow has done and written up for the benefit ('!) of the other guncranks. And to that clan I must admit belonging.
First, as the foundation of the bullet making game, let us consider the metal question. I have found that the waste lead from shooting galleries is excellent for running bullets for smokeless loads, and I use this in all my bullets from .30 to .45 calibre. I find it works nicely, and is very pleasant to handle. I sometimes have to add a little pure lead to it, especially when casting the slugs for the sixguns, but for the .30 and .32 rifles it seems perfect.
In working up a combination for the revolvers, I use pure lead, and tin to harden or else the metal alluded to above, and in this connection I may say right here that the best way I know to get the aforesaid tin is to secure tinfoil from the cigar stores and melt it down. This can usually be secured for ten cents per pound, and the block tin costs about fifty cents per pound in the hardware stores; what’s the answer?
It's best to weigh your lead and tin, and not proceed “by gosh and by guess," as you are apt to get metal for the bullets of peculiar temper; I well recall some my Buddy made some months since; penetration was fine, but how it leaded the gun. And on examination I was forced to the conclusion that he had about 75 per cent tin and 25 per cent of lead in the mixture.
Having settled the lead question, let’s look over the tools. I use the Ideals and am well fitted out in that line. For the Krag sporter I use the No. 6 D. A. with muzzle sizer; for the old .44 S. & W. Russian I have a No. 4.
I have used the Winchester tools but prefer the Ideals to any I have ever tried, with the possible exception of the Newtons. I have only used the Newton tool on the .30 Newton ammunition, but found it worked beautifully, and there was not the danger of a buckled shell that is often present in lever tools.
In casting bullets, I have had blistered and drawn hands so often, that I now proceed as follows in the event of securing a new tool:
Wrap the handle, if of the metal variety, with tire tape, then wind over them a thin coat of asbestos cord, finishing with a good and closely wrapped coat of cotton twine. On this place a good coat of shellac, and you will have no more burned fingers, and the Missus will not take the youngsters to the neighbors for the evening. It surely keeps the heat where it belongs.
For another stunt, I have reamed out the pouring holes of my mould cutoffs, and while not increasing the size of the spew, I have run a drill down ‘till the hole has a sharper edge with less of a bevel, to cut the spew, and find it an improvement. Incidentally, it prevents a full dipper of hot metal escaping, and going down your slipper-top.
I never take time to break in a new mould now by the tedious process of casting a hundred or so imperfect bullets to throw back into the pot; merely turn the flame of my gasoline torch on the face of each mould ’till it becomes blue, and that's all there is to it. I do this with each mould as soon as I receive it, and am never forced to take a minute's time to warm up the mould afterward. It seems to cast perfect bullets at once. I keep my Ideal dipper and mould beside the pot on the stove, and as the lead melts they are warming up, so no time is lost.
Another thing I use an oil stove to mould over, as I find it beats a cook stove all around the ranch. You can set your flame and then forget about it, instead of feeding in fuel every ten minutes, and having the metal cake or cool if you neglect it a moment. And it seems to heat the metal and not the metalworker, also. Don't know why this is, but it's a fact.
For removing the bullets from the mould, in case they stick a bit, I have made a hammer with a head of hardwood, and one point is sharp; a blow on the opposite half of the mould seems to do the work in all cases, and the sharp point comes in handy to remove a reluctant spew from the cut off if such appears.
To drop the bullets in, I have a box of generous size, with burlap nailed therein and with a slant to it. The bullet is kicked out on the upper edge of the slanting burlap, and coasts down the slope, cooling as it goes. I seldom have a bullet deformed in the least by the process, either.
The bullets, we will suppose, are now moulded, cooled, and ready for the dope. I procure thread boxes, those little pasteboard affairs which a dozen spools are sent out from the factory, and set my bullets on their bases in this. I then pour the melted lubricant over them ‘till the crimping groove is reached, then set them in the shed to cool, and they are ready when I want them, an hour or a week hence, with no grit, battered bases, or other trouble present.
For lubricant I have utilized many things; for the present I am using a compound of tallow and Parowax, testing carefully to secure the right degree of hardness. I think I shall use some beeswax later, to see what results it will give.
For removing the bullets from the hardened lubricant, I have bored out the head of a cartridge of proper size, using a .32 Special for the .30 and .32 bullets, and a .45-90 for the .44 and .45s. Around this I have soldered a washer, and this keeps the grease from my fingers, as well as giving a good hold to force the cutter down on a bullet and cut through the grease.
I use the regular resizer incorporated in the tool, but improve a bit on the maker's ideas by sharpening the punch, which makes the slipping of the punch, and the consequent deformation of the bullet base, impossible. I have filed all my sizing punches to some certain form, so I can identify the bullets afterward, if it ever becomes necessary.
Now, for the shell: I never clean one shot with smokeless powder, but take care that the primer socket is in good shape, and sometimes enlarge the flash hole a bit. I chamfer the shell mouths with my knife, as do the majority of shooters, and find that few cartridges split when so treated. I have some shells using the .44 Russian load that I have used since 1913, and some since 1916, and still in shape to be used again after hundreds of shots with black, semi-smokeless and smokeless powder of different kinds
Having opened the shell mouth, the Ideal decapping pin performing this well, we then recap the cases. In capping, I start the primer with the first motion of the tool, then release the handles, and finish with another motion; this seems to allow the primer to seat itself with more accuracy, no binding being apparent, and better results seem to follow this method.
And then it's time for the Ideal Powder Measure; I have three, but only use one. I have the proper charge for each cartridge and load written and pasted on the can that holds the proper variety of powder; I test each new load with the scales, of course, for while I am not in danger of being kid napped on account of my appearance, yet a breechbolt or revolver hammer through that same phiz won't improve its looks to any great extent, I trow. I usually underload a half grain, and get results that seem to satisfy me.
In using the D. A. tools for the Krag and the .32-40 Savage, I always keep a standard loaded cartridge at hand, and try the tools on that ere I do any loading, as the locking devices of the D. A. chamber seem to allow some movement from time to time. And I don't like to buckle a cartridge, with the accompanying ruin of the case and bullet. Better take a little more time and see that all is right, then go ahead.
In loading a cast bullet I always wipe the base of the bullet on a coarse rag to make sure no grit or grease adheres to the lead, for grease spells ruin to the powder charge, and I don't approve of grit of any kind in a gun barrel.
Here I may as well state that I use the .32-40 Savage with the Ideal bullet for the gas check, No. 319295, but minus the gas check, as I have never been able to secure any of them. Loaded in front of a charge of fourteen grains of No. 80, it goes rambling for about three hundred yards with all the accuracy I can desire, and the charge burns perfectly clean, at that. I use the same loading in the old .32-40 Winchester Single Shot, but seat the bullet with only two bands in the shell. The reason is that the Winchester is a shining example of Sharpshooter and metal-cased bullets, coupled with machine oil as a cleaning agent; the rifling has disappeared for about a foot from the chamber, although the muzzle end of the outfit is in fair shape. And the ***** part of the matter is that with that combination and the Lyman sights, I can make a dollar group at eighty yards with that venerable wreck. Or perhaps I should say the other fellows can do it, for my best days in the shooting game are past. Bad eyes, worse nerves, and a crippled right arm aren't the best possible combination for bucking a lively field of riflemen, are they?
For a high power load for the Savage I use the standard Western bullet and twenty nine grains weight of Du Pont No. 16 Military powder, and get excellent shooting from it. I have made some passable groups, better than the game range requires, and or penetration, the 3/8 inch boiler iron plate got holes in it the size of a nickel from the rifle and that charge. The recoil is not severe, either, being less, apparently, than the standard .30-30 load.
The ‘old .44 Smith & Wesson Russians, one with 6 1/2 and one with 8 inch barrels, do well with the new No. 3 and No. 5 powders, and the standard lead bullet. I note the cast bullets weigh out to the accepted weights, but the bullets in the factory loads do not, and I think the culprit is the cavity existing in all the factory bullets. The cast bullet, except the .32, .38 and .41 inside lubricated, seem to be all of flat base, and I think are more accurate on this account. Certain it is that with my hand loads, giving the same penetration as a factory load, I get better accuracy. Why; Quien Savez? I don't, but will guess that the use of Bull's eye in the factory loads, when so many better powders are to be had for handloads, may have something to do with the matter.
I never cared for Bull's-eye, and consider the old Du Pont No. 2 bulk powder far the better of the two, except for the fact that you had to use care that it never comes in contact with moisture, with the resultant loss of power and regularity. One thing sure, it's the real thing for the nut who insists on measuring his charges with a black powder scoop; that course, followed with Bull's-eye, leads in short order to either wings or shovels, according to the life of the late lamented.
As to the groups made by the loadings I have stated above, I really can't give them to you, as they are scattered on trees, logs, and the sides of clay banks all about the dells of the countryside. But they are perfectly satisfactory to the maker, and as he is a rifle and revolver crank of the nth degree, let it go at that.
Another thing in regard to the rifles: I never could seem to get results from the sling used in the accepted and regulation fashion, but the last Small Arms Firing Regulations disclosed the use of the Hasty Sling, and I have been finding this the best aid to my shooting for about nine years past. I can't seem to get the rifle steady with the regulation sling, but the “twist and shoot” style of the Hasty Sling suits me right down to the ground.
On my rifles I use a folding leaf sight, and find the King good, the Lyman better and the Marble the best of all. I prefer the Marble for the fact that its spring keeps it in the position in which you have placed it, and it's not down or up at the wrong time, when you had just placed it in the right position. For the King, let me say I like the white diamond for use near the eye, but it seems to have a penchant for being partly raised when I want to use it, or vice versa. Either cuts off the view in part, or gives a low shot if being used with out the rear peep.
I have placed a Lyman Folding Leaf Sight on my Savage rifle, with the ivory triangle removed and a crotch sight substituted for it. This gives me two crotches, one of which is for the high power load for a hundred yards, and one for the medium load for the same range, at which I have my sights zeroed. When stepping out of the house I raise all three sights to my face, and by a glance, am able to discern whether anything had caused the rear Lyman to be lowered or raised. And it is a ready and accurate check on elevation, too, which is cheaper than shooting a half dozen cartridges to see whether some cheerful idiot has changed the elevation.
And in the use of the Colt Cap-and-ball revolver, I have found the use of a wad of felt, saturated with grease as advised by Henry Walter Fry, to be a great aid in accurate work; now I simply use a wad of hard grease, and save the labor of cutting felt wads.
In the line of the .22 cartridge, there is much to be learned by a little time spent in experiments. For instance, I have found that in my two barrels relined by Diller, a Marlin Model 1897 and a Stevens No. 44 Ideal, both for the .22 long rifle, the UMC cartridges seem to give the best work, with the Peters and US N. R. A. equally close in second place. I have not had the opportunity to experiment with the new Western long range .22 cartridge as yet, but hope to soon try it in both rifles. Winchester precision seems too small to give the best results, as the case burns clear to the breechblock, and this augurs for a loose chamber fit. The UMC seems the largest of all, however, and I have shot a couple of good groups with them, one being the new N. R. A. and the other being the standard .22 long rifle, with Lesmoke powder.
Right here I want to say a good word for the older model Stevens action, the No. 44, now superseded, I believe, by the No. 44 1/2. The old No. 44 had the breechblock swinging on a pivot pin, and this caused a motion that presses the cartridge into the breech, in much the same manner as the long-discontinued but highly sought Ballard. My rifle is so tightly chambered that I have had two of the UMC cartridges explode in closing the breech, the rims when examined showing no mark of the firing pin. The other makes of ammunition seat more easily, I find.
I hope to try out the new No. 52 Winchester in the near future, but can't see where the old Stevens has such a terrible handicap, at that. Of course, it’s old, and was given to me as junk in the first place, but still it shoots, thanks to Diller’s care in relining it.
Here's something else that's just come to light in the storehouse of memory; the Smith & Wesson revolvers for the automatic ammunition, such as we had issued to us in the flatter days of the Great War, when skillfully rechambered for the .45 Colt revolver ammunition, will shoot to satisfy the most exacting shot. While the space between the breech and cylinder looks large, still I never had trouble with my revolver in this matter, and I'll say right here it shot better than any other .45 revolver I ever fired.
I well recall one shot with a condemned government black powder shell; we were in a hop yard, and I desired to know how the revolver would carry, so fired two shots at a post on the opposite side of the yard. The first struck short, so I decided to use the full front sight, and taking as good an aim as possible, I hit the post at a spot about 8 feet above the ground. I took 285, not steps but crowhops, to reach the post from the firing point. The bullet was imbedded in the solid fir post out of sight. On calibrating the barrel with a bullet, I found a perfect fit to the bottoms of the grooves, and as the chamber fit was close, I am sure that the next of those revolvers I secure will be likewise remodeled. I may also have a thin plate of metal placed on the recoil plate to take care of the headspace, although I am not at all sure this is necessary.
In cutting down the triggerpull of any weapon I never use the stone on the face of the metal, but on the bearing surface, changing the angle of the pull, instead of shallowing the notch. The result is that the pull becomes velvety, instead of remaining hard, with a sudden release.
Cutting off a quarter-inch of the muzzle, thus having fresh clear-cut grooves at the muzzle, will frequently better the shooting of an apparently wornout rifle. I find this so frequently, but care must be used to get the metal square at the muzzle or wild shooting will result.
In the .32-40 Winchester alluded to above, the rifling had evidently been chammeled with a narrow file at the muzzle, for what reason I could not imagine. I found all bullets would keyhole at ten yards, so cut the muzzle down a. half-inch, and loading the cartridges so that the bullets were seating in the remains of the rifling, Schuetzen style, I get very good results from the old smokestick.
Yes, when the Gun Bug stings them, it's just as well to make ’em happy while they live, for they can't be cured. Nor want to be, I wot.
Jottings of a Guncrank
American Rifleman, vol 69, No. 14, April 1, 1922 –
https://books.google.com/books?id=gJkwAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA329&dq=townsend+whelen&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3cmbVa_9BY2TyAT_6Z6wBQ&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBDge#v=onepage&q=townsend%20whelen&f=true
Jottings of a Guncrank
by D. Wiggins
IN the course of about twenty years’ shooting experiences, a certain amount of information in regard to firearms will naturally accumulate; just how valuable it may be depends on the nature, and also the trend of the volume of the said facts. Of course we all recognize that experiments with black powder are of little interest now, and that even work with the older smokeless powders is not the absorbing pastime it once was. But still there be some few who will persist in pottering around with lead pot, dipper and moulds, trying this and that mixture, combining this and that variety of lubricant, and ever lastingly trying to improve on what the other fellow has done and written up for the benefit ('!) of the other guncranks. And to that clan I must admit belonging.
First, as the foundation of the bullet making game, let us consider the metal question. I have found that the waste lead from shooting galleries is excellent for running bullets for smokeless loads, and I use this in all my bullets from .30 to .45 calibre. I find it works nicely, and is very pleasant to handle. I sometimes have to add a little pure lead to it, especially when casting the slugs for the sixguns, but for the .30 and .32 rifles it seems perfect.
In working up a combination for the revolvers, I use pure lead, and tin to harden or else the metal alluded to above, and in this connection I may say right here that the best way I know to get the aforesaid tin is to secure tinfoil from the cigar stores and melt it down. This can usually be secured for ten cents per pound, and the block tin costs about fifty cents per pound in the hardware stores; what’s the answer?
It's best to weigh your lead and tin, and not proceed “by gosh and by guess," as you are apt to get metal for the bullets of peculiar temper; I well recall some my Buddy made some months since; penetration was fine, but how it leaded the gun. And on examination I was forced to the conclusion that he had about 75 per cent tin and 25 per cent of lead in the mixture.
Having settled the lead question, let’s look over the tools. I use the Ideals and am well fitted out in that line. For the Krag sporter I use the No. 6 D. A. with muzzle sizer; for the old .44 S. & W. Russian I have a No. 4.
I have used the Winchester tools but prefer the Ideals to any I have ever tried, with the possible exception of the Newtons. I have only used the Newton tool on the .30 Newton ammunition, but found it worked beautifully, and there was not the danger of a buckled shell that is often present in lever tools.
In casting bullets, I have had blistered and drawn hands so often, that I now proceed as follows in the event of securing a new tool:
Wrap the handle, if of the metal variety, with tire tape, then wind over them a thin coat of asbestos cord, finishing with a good and closely wrapped coat of cotton twine. On this place a good coat of shellac, and you will have no more burned fingers, and the Missus will not take the youngsters to the neighbors for the evening. It surely keeps the heat where it belongs.
For another stunt, I have reamed out the pouring holes of my mould cutoffs, and while not increasing the size of the spew, I have run a drill down ‘till the hole has a sharper edge with less of a bevel, to cut the spew, and find it an improvement. Incidentally, it prevents a full dipper of hot metal escaping, and going down your slipper-top.
I never take time to break in a new mould now by the tedious process of casting a hundred or so imperfect bullets to throw back into the pot; merely turn the flame of my gasoline torch on the face of each mould ’till it becomes blue, and that's all there is to it. I do this with each mould as soon as I receive it, and am never forced to take a minute's time to warm up the mould afterward. It seems to cast perfect bullets at once. I keep my Ideal dipper and mould beside the pot on the stove, and as the lead melts they are warming up, so no time is lost.
Another thing I use an oil stove to mould over, as I find it beats a cook stove all around the ranch. You can set your flame and then forget about it, instead of feeding in fuel every ten minutes, and having the metal cake or cool if you neglect it a moment. And it seems to heat the metal and not the metalworker, also. Don't know why this is, but it's a fact.
For removing the bullets from the mould, in case they stick a bit, I have made a hammer with a head of hardwood, and one point is sharp; a blow on the opposite half of the mould seems to do the work in all cases, and the sharp point comes in handy to remove a reluctant spew from the cut off if such appears.
To drop the bullets in, I have a box of generous size, with burlap nailed therein and with a slant to it. The bullet is kicked out on the upper edge of the slanting burlap, and coasts down the slope, cooling as it goes. I seldom have a bullet deformed in the least by the process, either.
The bullets, we will suppose, are now moulded, cooled, and ready for the dope. I procure thread boxes, those little pasteboard affairs which a dozen spools are sent out from the factory, and set my bullets on their bases in this. I then pour the melted lubricant over them ‘till the crimping groove is reached, then set them in the shed to cool, and they are ready when I want them, an hour or a week hence, with no grit, battered bases, or other trouble present.
For lubricant I have utilized many things; for the present I am using a compound of tallow and Parowax, testing carefully to secure the right degree of hardness. I think I shall use some beeswax later, to see what results it will give.
For removing the bullets from the hardened lubricant, I have bored out the head of a cartridge of proper size, using a .32 Special for the .30 and .32 bullets, and a .45-90 for the .44 and .45s. Around this I have soldered a washer, and this keeps the grease from my fingers, as well as giving a good hold to force the cutter down on a bullet and cut through the grease.
I use the regular resizer incorporated in the tool, but improve a bit on the maker's ideas by sharpening the punch, which makes the slipping of the punch, and the consequent deformation of the bullet base, impossible. I have filed all my sizing punches to some certain form, so I can identify the bullets afterward, if it ever becomes necessary.
Now, for the shell: I never clean one shot with smokeless powder, but take care that the primer socket is in good shape, and sometimes enlarge the flash hole a bit. I chamfer the shell mouths with my knife, as do the majority of shooters, and find that few cartridges split when so treated. I have some shells using the .44 Russian load that I have used since 1913, and some since 1916, and still in shape to be used again after hundreds of shots with black, semi-smokeless and smokeless powder of different kinds
Having opened the shell mouth, the Ideal decapping pin performing this well, we then recap the cases. In capping, I start the primer with the first motion of the tool, then release the handles, and finish with another motion; this seems to allow the primer to seat itself with more accuracy, no binding being apparent, and better results seem to follow this method.
And then it's time for the Ideal Powder Measure; I have three, but only use one. I have the proper charge for each cartridge and load written and pasted on the can that holds the proper variety of powder; I test each new load with the scales, of course, for while I am not in danger of being kid napped on account of my appearance, yet a breechbolt or revolver hammer through that same phiz won't improve its looks to any great extent, I trow. I usually underload a half grain, and get results that seem to satisfy me.
In using the D. A. tools for the Krag and the .32-40 Savage, I always keep a standard loaded cartridge at hand, and try the tools on that ere I do any loading, as the locking devices of the D. A. chamber seem to allow some movement from time to time. And I don't like to buckle a cartridge, with the accompanying ruin of the case and bullet. Better take a little more time and see that all is right, then go ahead.
In loading a cast bullet I always wipe the base of the bullet on a coarse rag to make sure no grit or grease adheres to the lead, for grease spells ruin to the powder charge, and I don't approve of grit of any kind in a gun barrel.
Here I may as well state that I use the .32-40 Savage with the Ideal bullet for the gas check, No. 319295, but minus the gas check, as I have never been able to secure any of them. Loaded in front of a charge of fourteen grains of No. 80, it goes rambling for about three hundred yards with all the accuracy I can desire, and the charge burns perfectly clean, at that. I use the same loading in the old .32-40 Winchester Single Shot, but seat the bullet with only two bands in the shell. The reason is that the Winchester is a shining example of Sharpshooter and metal-cased bullets, coupled with machine oil as a cleaning agent; the rifling has disappeared for about a foot from the chamber, although the muzzle end of the outfit is in fair shape. And the ***** part of the matter is that with that combination and the Lyman sights, I can make a dollar group at eighty yards with that venerable wreck. Or perhaps I should say the other fellows can do it, for my best days in the shooting game are past. Bad eyes, worse nerves, and a crippled right arm aren't the best possible combination for bucking a lively field of riflemen, are they?
For a high power load for the Savage I use the standard Western bullet and twenty nine grains weight of Du Pont No. 16 Military powder, and get excellent shooting from it. I have made some passable groups, better than the game range requires, and or penetration, the 3/8 inch boiler iron plate got holes in it the size of a nickel from the rifle and that charge. The recoil is not severe, either, being less, apparently, than the standard .30-30 load.
The ‘old .44 Smith & Wesson Russians, one with 6 1/2 and one with 8 inch barrels, do well with the new No. 3 and No. 5 powders, and the standard lead bullet. I note the cast bullets weigh out to the accepted weights, but the bullets in the factory loads do not, and I think the culprit is the cavity existing in all the factory bullets. The cast bullet, except the .32, .38 and .41 inside lubricated, seem to be all of flat base, and I think are more accurate on this account. Certain it is that with my hand loads, giving the same penetration as a factory load, I get better accuracy. Why; Quien Savez? I don't, but will guess that the use of Bull's eye in the factory loads, when so many better powders are to be had for handloads, may have something to do with the matter.
I never cared for Bull's-eye, and consider the old Du Pont No. 2 bulk powder far the better of the two, except for the fact that you had to use care that it never comes in contact with moisture, with the resultant loss of power and regularity. One thing sure, it's the real thing for the nut who insists on measuring his charges with a black powder scoop; that course, followed with Bull's-eye, leads in short order to either wings or shovels, according to the life of the late lamented.
As to the groups made by the loadings I have stated above, I really can't give them to you, as they are scattered on trees, logs, and the sides of clay banks all about the dells of the countryside. But they are perfectly satisfactory to the maker, and as he is a rifle and revolver crank of the nth degree, let it go at that.
Another thing in regard to the rifles: I never could seem to get results from the sling used in the accepted and regulation fashion, but the last Small Arms Firing Regulations disclosed the use of the Hasty Sling, and I have been finding this the best aid to my shooting for about nine years past. I can't seem to get the rifle steady with the regulation sling, but the “twist and shoot” style of the Hasty Sling suits me right down to the ground.
On my rifles I use a folding leaf sight, and find the King good, the Lyman better and the Marble the best of all. I prefer the Marble for the fact that its spring keeps it in the position in which you have placed it, and it's not down or up at the wrong time, when you had just placed it in the right position. For the King, let me say I like the white diamond for use near the eye, but it seems to have a penchant for being partly raised when I want to use it, or vice versa. Either cuts off the view in part, or gives a low shot if being used with out the rear peep.
I have placed a Lyman Folding Leaf Sight on my Savage rifle, with the ivory triangle removed and a crotch sight substituted for it. This gives me two crotches, one of which is for the high power load for a hundred yards, and one for the medium load for the same range, at which I have my sights zeroed. When stepping out of the house I raise all three sights to my face, and by a glance, am able to discern whether anything had caused the rear Lyman to be lowered or raised. And it is a ready and accurate check on elevation, too, which is cheaper than shooting a half dozen cartridges to see whether some cheerful idiot has changed the elevation.
And in the use of the Colt Cap-and-ball revolver, I have found the use of a wad of felt, saturated with grease as advised by Henry Walter Fry, to be a great aid in accurate work; now I simply use a wad of hard grease, and save the labor of cutting felt wads.
In the line of the .22 cartridge, there is much to be learned by a little time spent in experiments. For instance, I have found that in my two barrels relined by Diller, a Marlin Model 1897 and a Stevens No. 44 Ideal, both for the .22 long rifle, the UMC cartridges seem to give the best work, with the Peters and US N. R. A. equally close in second place. I have not had the opportunity to experiment with the new Western long range .22 cartridge as yet, but hope to soon try it in both rifles. Winchester precision seems too small to give the best results, as the case burns clear to the breechblock, and this augurs for a loose chamber fit. The UMC seems the largest of all, however, and I have shot a couple of good groups with them, one being the new N. R. A. and the other being the standard .22 long rifle, with Lesmoke powder.
Right here I want to say a good word for the older model Stevens action, the No. 44, now superseded, I believe, by the No. 44 1/2. The old No. 44 had the breechblock swinging on a pivot pin, and this caused a motion that presses the cartridge into the breech, in much the same manner as the long-discontinued but highly sought Ballard. My rifle is so tightly chambered that I have had two of the UMC cartridges explode in closing the breech, the rims when examined showing no mark of the firing pin. The other makes of ammunition seat more easily, I find.
I hope to try out the new No. 52 Winchester in the near future, but can't see where the old Stevens has such a terrible handicap, at that. Of course, it’s old, and was given to me as junk in the first place, but still it shoots, thanks to Diller’s care in relining it.
Here's something else that's just come to light in the storehouse of memory; the Smith & Wesson revolvers for the automatic ammunition, such as we had issued to us in the flatter days of the Great War, when skillfully rechambered for the .45 Colt revolver ammunition, will shoot to satisfy the most exacting shot. While the space between the breech and cylinder looks large, still I never had trouble with my revolver in this matter, and I'll say right here it shot better than any other .45 revolver I ever fired.
I well recall one shot with a condemned government black powder shell; we were in a hop yard, and I desired to know how the revolver would carry, so fired two shots at a post on the opposite side of the yard. The first struck short, so I decided to use the full front sight, and taking as good an aim as possible, I hit the post at a spot about 8 feet above the ground. I took 285, not steps but crowhops, to reach the post from the firing point. The bullet was imbedded in the solid fir post out of sight. On calibrating the barrel with a bullet, I found a perfect fit to the bottoms of the grooves, and as the chamber fit was close, I am sure that the next of those revolvers I secure will be likewise remodeled. I may also have a thin plate of metal placed on the recoil plate to take care of the headspace, although I am not at all sure this is necessary.
In cutting down the triggerpull of any weapon I never use the stone on the face of the metal, but on the bearing surface, changing the angle of the pull, instead of shallowing the notch. The result is that the pull becomes velvety, instead of remaining hard, with a sudden release.
Cutting off a quarter-inch of the muzzle, thus having fresh clear-cut grooves at the muzzle, will frequently better the shooting of an apparently wornout rifle. I find this so frequently, but care must be used to get the metal square at the muzzle or wild shooting will result.
In the .32-40 Winchester alluded to above, the rifling had evidently been chammeled with a narrow file at the muzzle, for what reason I could not imagine. I found all bullets would keyhole at ten yards, so cut the muzzle down a. half-inch, and loading the cartridges so that the bullets were seating in the remains of the rifling, Schuetzen style, I get very good results from the old smokestick.
Yes, when the Gun Bug stings them, it's just as well to make ’em happy while they live, for they can't be cured. Nor want to be, I wot.