03A3 2 Groove vs. 4 Groove Barrels

[frnkeore]

Larry says,
"benchrest them at 600 yards with a cast bullet load shooting 20 shots for "group" or for score in front of credible witnesses and see what you come up with."

This is exactly what 45 2.1 is asking you to provide. I was once asked by you to provide proof of what I said I had done. I happily provided you with dates and page # of my match results, published in the ASSRA Journal. Keyboard shooting is exactly that. Published match scores are something else and to be believed w/o doubt!

Now one of the main reasons people have a concern about what your saying is that in CBA, the only offical cast bullet association that shoots all matches all year long with cast bullets, to which many tens of thousands of '06 military cast bullets are shot annually. Shooters fine that the 2 groove has a edge (mostly with 311299 type bullets) in thoughs matches.

I care not if 2 or 4 grooves shoot best, my mil rifles are all 4 & 5 groove and I have not shot them in competition yet and may not, there is not a CBA group in my area. But, I do care about truth in posting and if your doing something that no one else in this country is doing, either keep it secrect or show by fact that it can be done.

Other than keyboard shooting your next best thing is not directly answering, direct questions

There is no shame in being wrong or mis-remembering things. That's why we have written, published records.


Frank

[FAsmus]

Hey Frank;

I'm a long-time member of the CBA and over the last 30 years I've only met other members when they were passing through town on the way to somewhere else.

One of the primary ways CBA members have historically competed is by entering and shooting in the Postal Matches.

As this requires a certain integrity to work I am happy to report that I've never seen any reason to doubt that a fellow shooter didn't shoot his targets in a accordance with the rules.

It is easy to enter and, amazingly enough a fellow still feels a certain pressure on the line as he shoots for record - even if he's the only man on the firing line.

I recommend it to you and anyone else who might just enjoy a little casual cast bullet competition.

Good morning,
Forrest

[45 2.1]

Well, I got what I expected...... obfuscation and confusion......... with no answers, just challenges and redirection. Sort of whats happening with our current POTUS....ehhh.

[Larry Gibson]

Just the kind of negative responses we've come to expect from 45 2.1 and now Frank.

Nothing positive about the topic of this thread and absolutely nothing to refute that the 4 groove M1903 barrel isn't more accurate than the 2 groove M1903A3 barrel, just more personal attacks and BS such as wanting to now interject politics into the discussion ("Sort of whats happening with our current POTUS....ehhh.)".

BTW; when the "folks" go to http://competitions.nra.org/shooter-...on-lookup.aspx to look up my classification and records they need an ID#. Hint; the # on the classification card isn't it .....and "the folks" don't have one do they....... Lot's of "Larry Gibson's" in this country and w/o the ID # you don't get any information......tells a lot about what the "folks" post was all about, eh?

Also many of us who compete, especially in varied disciplines years ago, aren't vain enough (apparently like some) to keep detailed records of every match we competed in. I certainly didn't. I have a few award medals left but recycled most of them back through the clubs for re-use. I have other medals, awards and decorations that are more important to me which I have kept. The NRA should have my scores from back then if they've kept records that long of that type(?), I really don't know. I quit competing on 9/11 as being still in the Army I had other things to do............

Myself and others have requested of 45 2.1 numerous times to demonstrate his casting, loading and shooting of cast bullets to us. He has declined every single time. On the other hand I will be glad to demonstrate such to any forum member.

So here's an offer to 45 2.1, frank or "the folks"; since there are numerous members of this forum that I helped and shot cast bullets with while in Washington, why don't you check with them? There are also several members that are in close proximity to me here in AZ. Why don't you pick one who is willing to do your bidding and ask them to come over to my house? [since you are so good at internet searching you should easily find out who they are.......] I will gladly show them how I cast bullets, reload same and will go shooting with them (there is a nice range here) and I have no "secrets" or mystical ways of loading cast bullets. I will also show them my shooting awards etc. that I have kept. I'll put up.....how about you 45 2.1, frank or "the folks"?

Larry Gibson

Attachment 65967

[Multigunner]

??? I thought they were broached/ broach cut barrels? twice what, one pass 2 or 4 groove, done.

If that were so there would have been no reason to use the two groove bore as a production shortcut.
http://www.remingtonsociety.com/rsa/journals/two-groove

Needless to say, barrel rifling was a time consuming process during this period of history. The typical hook type or "cut" rifling machines cut one groove at a time; therefore, the reduction of four grooves to two had the potential of reducing production time and cost nearly in one-half.

Button rifling came much later.

In closing, it is also interesting that the Remington Arms Co. began experimenting in December 1942 with development of “draw rifling� for 03- A3 barrel manufacture. This methodology of “...using a pushing action on a plug to rifle a barrel� was eventually perfected by War’s end and the subject of a future article. Indeed, over 35,000 M1903A3 barrels were rifled by this process and accepted by the Ordnance Department.

That would be 35 K barrels out of over one million rifles accepted.

PS
Since Broachcut rifling was not in widespread use before the end of WW2, if Remington made any four groove barrels by Broach cutting instead of hook cut rifling that would give a clue as to why the four groove barrel used in the comparasion tests gave inferior grouping compared to WW1 era 1903 barrels.

[swheeler]

If that were so there would have been no reason to use the two groove bore as a production shortcut.
http://www.remingtonsociety.com/rsa/journals/two-groove


Button rifling came much later.


That would be 35 K barrels out of over one million rifles accepted.

PS
Since Broachcut rifling was not in widespread use before the end of WW2, if Remington made any four groove barrels by Broach cutting instead of hook cut rifling that would give a clue as to why the four groove barrel used in the comparasion tests gave inferior grouping compared to WW1 era 1903 barrels.

I was wrong, but it happens what can I say. I bow to your Google expertise You want to hear something really funny I had it in my head that Winchester was broching barrels for the m70 from it's 1937 inception, oldtimer desease I guess.

[swheeler]

Just the kind of negative responses we've come to expect from 45 2.1 and now Frank.

Nothing positive about the topic of this thread and absolutely nothing to refute that the 4 groove M1903 barrel isn't more accurate than the 2 groove M1903A3 barrel, just more personal attacks and BS such as wanting to now interject politics into the discussion ("Sort of whats happening with our current POTUS....ehhh.)".

BTW; when the "folks" go to http://competitions.nra.org/shooter-...on-lookup.aspx to look up my classification and records they need an ID#. Hint; the # on the classification card isn't it .....and "the folks" don't have one do they....... Lot's of "Larry Gibson's" in this country and w/o the ID # you don't get any information......tells a lot about what the "folks" post was all about, eh?

Also many of us who compete, especially in varied disciplines years ago, aren't vain enough (apparently like some) to keep detailed records of every match we competed in. I certainly didn't. I have a few award medals left but recycled most of them back through the clubs for re-use. I have other medals, awards and decorations that are more important to me which I have kept. The NRA should have my scores from back then if they've kept records that long of that type(?), I really don't know. I quit competing on 9/11 as being still in the Army I had other things to do............

Myself and others have requested of 45 2.1 numerous times to demonstrate his casting, loading and shooting of cast bullets to us. He has declined every single time. On the other hand I will be glad to demonstrate such to any forum member.

So here's an offer to 45 2.1, frank or "the folks"; since there are numerous members of this forum that I helped and shot cast bullets with while in Washington, why don't you check with them? There are also several members that are in close proximity to me here in AZ. Why don't you pick one who is willing to do your bidding and ask them to come over to my house? [since you are so good at internet searching you should easily find out who they are.......] I will gladly show them how I cast bullets, reload same and will go shooting with them (there is a nice range here) and I have no "secrets" or mystical ways of loading cast bullets. I will also show them my shooting awards etc. that I have kept. I'll put up.....how about you 45 2.1, frank or "the folks"?

Larry Gibson

Attachment 65967

Larry thanks for posting your credentials, but do think most that "know" you find it not necessary. Carry on

[Multigunner]

I was wrong, but it happens what can I say. I bow to your Google expertise You want to hear something really funny I had it in my head that Winchester was broching barrels for the m70 from it's 1937 inception, oldtimer desease I guess.

Its entirely possible that Winchester used broach cut rifling at that time, and its possible that Remington may have as well. The process was developed in the 19th century but only came into wide use after WW1.
Hook Cut rifling has the better reputation for accuracy, but takes more time and resources.
If broach cutting is used theres a great deal more opportunity for chips to get caught up and dragged along the lands.
Replacing broach cutting heads would be more expensive than servicing hook cutting heads.

Awhile back I ran across the mention of some defective M1 carbine replacement barrels being found in old surplus stores. These came from a subcontractor and the bores hand two or more grooves missing on the same side. I can't see this happening with hook cut rifling, but with broach or button rifling a damaged head not noticed might result in dozens of such defects slipping through.

Sites like the Remington Society are there for the purpose of research. They don't tell everything.
I'm not sure whether broach cutting was in use for Springfield barrel production at the time but cut rifling was still in common use by many manufacturers.
Also 03A3 barrels were often supplied by subcontractors such as the High Standard six groove barrels supplied to Smith Corona. There speculation that High Standard used rifled blanks bought from Savage.

[45 2.1]

http://www.remingtonsociety.com/rsa/journals/two-groove

Here is a chart from the above website showing the testing done in WW2 on two groove performance...... which is better or equal to the four groove tested.



Seems like it was a good decision back then. I would have to agree with Remington's tests.

[onceabull]

When was it that the CBA became "the only official cast bullet association" ???? Onceabull

[frnkeore]

What I ment by that is that CBA is the only National organization that shoots both national and regional and local matches that I know of and that encompasses all types of cast bullet shooting i.e. military, target, production even Schuetzen BR, both plain base and GC.

I belong to ISSA and ASSRA and they are both national organazations, there is BPCR and other big bore BP organizations that also shoot cast. But, CBA has a high level of competition in many classes and if you can do well in the CBA matches, you know what your doing. I was a CBA member back in the late 80's and 90's and shot matches when single shot matches allowed time. All regional and national CBA matches use moving backers to ensure at those extremely small groups and scores are really credible. The top guys in all classes work very hard to get their results and I think they are at the forefront of the military competition shooting.

Sorry if offended other cast bullet shooting organazations (including my own),

Frank

[onceabull]

So then perhaps you can direct readers to the records of this CBA for matches shot at ranges in excess of 200 yds..?????????? Onceabull

[frnkeore]

http://www.castbulletassoc.org/

[Larry Gibson]

45 2.1

Excuse me but that is with jacketed bullets and the question here is with cast bullets. Once again you post what someone else has done.......why don't you post something you have done in comparison of the accuracy between 2 and 4 groove M1903 with cast bullets? Oh that’s right, you don’t really have any such experience do you? And obvious to everyone is the fact you are ignoring the suggestion made in my previous post you conduct a test of both and get back to us, just as you always ignore such. Your credibility here is as much in question as it was in this thread; http://castboolits.gunloads.com/show...enriched-alloy , particularly on pages 2 & 3 with making such BS claims about everything. Kindly back up your BS with some documented shooting tests that are relevant to the question at hand sometime.

Also the site/article you copied that from gives insight into how eschewed and biased the Remington test was toward Remington’s adoption of the 2 groove. Note the test was not conducted by the Ordnance Department or even one of the then current testing facilities at any Arsenal. The 2 groove barrel was simply wartime expedient. You fail to mention all of that and the rest in the article containing that chart. It's easy enough to find on Google. Just more "keyboard" testing on your part.

The OP was interested in any accuracy difference with cast bullets between 2 and 4 groove M1903 barrels. My response addressed that question based on my own extensive experience with both. If you’ve documented tests supporting your hypothesis to the contrary then kindly post them……otherwise the BS flag is up on your hypothesized “claims”……….

Better would be for you to just "let it go" as the OP has probably got his answer......

Larry Gibson

[45 2.1]

.......why don't you post something you have done in comparison of the accuracy between 2 and 4 groove M1903 with cast bullets? Larry Gibson

I did, I tested both 2 and 4 groove rifles with loads that each shot the best with "OFF A BENCH" at ranges to include 600 yards. The 2 groove out shot the 4 groove in all cases. Your results were shooting for score which lacks credible basis on accuracy. The link provided on the Remington Society stated that the 4 groove shot equal scores with bigger groups than the 2 groove with military style shooting (much the same as what you were doing). That is another confirmation that 2 grooves actually shoot smaller groups by someone other than this site. Shooting better scores, in your case, is not the same thing as accuracy testing from a bench (which a bunch of people have done, both with jacketed and cast over a long time period with both 2 and 4 groove rifles). A lot more people in this thread have stated the 2 groove shoots equal or better than the 4 groove. You're in the minority here and you are NOT the last word on anything but your own actions. Get over it............

[Char-Gar]

The best feature of this board is the "ignore" button. If more folks used it, there would be less conflict and more information.

[Multigunner]

Here is a chart from the above website showing the testing done in WW2 on two groove performance...... which is better or equal to the four groove tested.



Seems like it was a good decision back then. I would have to agree with Remington's tests.

I mentioned the unusual, in my opinion at least, large groups of the four groove barrel used as a control.The two groove barrels did very well but the four groove barrel would not have passed minimum accuracy standards for the four groove barrels of the WW1 era.
I'm wondering why that particular four groove barrel did so poorly.Manufacturing a highly accurate four, five, or six groove barrel had been common practice, but these required extra work that wartime production pressures did not allow.
I was a bit suprised to learn that until WW2 Enfield bores were lapped as a final step, and that the lands were polished by a lead cylinder. Afterward they did not even bother with final finish reaming of the bore before rifling. They also dropped bore straightening, only plug gauging the last six inches for straightness.
Looks like Remington must have introduced similar shortcuts that resulted in some less accurate four groove barrels.

If I were mass producing infantry rifles I'd be likely to choose the two groove bore, for reasons I've already mentioned. But if I were manufacturing high accuracy sniper rifles I'd go with five or six groove bores, and insist on there being no shortcuts in straightness or final bore finish.

PS
This may provide a clue. The Springfield tooling Remington had been using for 03 production was surplused out WW1 tooling, and badly worn. Barrels made with that tooling would most likely have been cut rifled.

Remington had just recently started production of their '03 rifle edition to augment the British need for rifles. More critically, they had come into the full realization the antiquated Springfield rifle tooling provided under lease from the Rock Island Arsenal the year before was not only old and worn, but questionably capable of manufacturing 1000 rifles a day ...as led to believe. Even before "Pearl Harbor", they remained uncertain about its true manufacturing potential.

[Char-Gar]

The machines and tooling used by Remington came from Rock Island Arsenal. When RI stopped production in 1919, they threw the main switch and walked out. There were bins of parts, stack of stocks, assembled and unproofed rifles. The work that was in the machines was still there. It was like a ghost arsenal. There it all was for over 20 years. It was all transferred to Remington and the parts went the tools and many showed up in Remington 03s.

I spent an afternoon in the mid-80s talking to a retired Ordnance Col. who was posted to Rock Island early in his career and was the guy who managed the transfer to Remington. It was a fascinating conversation as he told me about what it was like.

Remington came and got the stuff and he handled all the paperwork and inspection of what was going.

[onceabull]

Perhaps,then, the competitors for the Leech and Wimbledon cups at Camp Perry needn't care about the accuracy of their rifles ???? Onceabull

[frnkeore]

Perhaps,then, the competitors for the Leech and Wimbledon cups at Camp Perry needn't care about the accuracy of their rifles ???? Onceabull

I think what is implied here is that when you have scoring rings that are 3-5", groups can be tighter by the size of the scoring ring and not effect the score but, effect a group by that amount.

Frank