I've never heard of rebored to 303. 30/06 rifles where issued to the Home Guard marked "300" in big number to distinguish the cartridge difference.
I wonder if this is just an attempt to explain the similar P-14.
-HF
|
   
   
|
|
I've never heard of rebored to 303. 30/06 rifles where issued to the Home Guard marked "300" in big number to distinguish the cartridge difference.
I wonder if this is just an attempt to explain the similar P-14.
-HF
I give loading advice based on my actual results in factory rifles with standard chambers, twist rates and basic accurizing.
My goals for using cast boolits are lots of good, cheap, and reasonably accurate shooting, while avoiding overly tedious loading processes.
The BHN Deformation Formula, and why I don't use it.
How to find and fix sizing die eccentricity problems.
Do you trust your casting thermometer?
A few musings.
[QUOTE=HangFireW8;4072059]I've never heard of rebored to 303. 30/06 rifles where issued to the Home Guard marked "300" in big number to distinguish the cartridge difference.
I wonder if this is just an attempt to explain the similar P-14.
To put it bluntly ..they weren't...
The P-17 is our (US) model of the P-14 that WE (US) made for England..
all barrels were bored .300...there is a .0005 (hope I got the right amount of 0's)difference in the depth of the grooves between our 30-06 Springfield barrels , the deeper ones being the English "standard"...
The confusion may come from the FACT that lend lease P-17's were also sent over as well as the P-14's..these guns were identified by Red Stripes on the froends in order to keep them from being mistaken for P-14's which were obviously a different caliber...five minute Googling will result in a lot of pictures showing this as well as real information regarding lend lease P-17 to other countries besides England..the stripes were also put on lend Lease Springfields..
BTW ..the red paint was also put on by some of our guys in WW11 who were stationed in England i.e. CB'S..(I got one)
Stop and ask yourself .."why the heck would they "rebore something they could easily screw a barrel on ?"
With the older bullets used in the military rounds the P-17 could out shoot the Springfield, the only reason it wasn't that popular with the Dough Boys
was it's weight, cock on closing and lack of windage adjustment..all OK 'cause it meant a lot survived in good shape for us to enjoy today...START CASTING...she's just waiting for YOU..
Last edited by guicksylver; 06-12-2017 at 08:22 PM.
Yeah, this could be even more interesting. Went out with some 220 jacketed RN standard reloads. Moderate loads since the recoil wasn't exceptional. At 50 yards, I couldn't put one round out of 3 on a 12" frisbee nailed to the side of a stack of firewood. I couldn't find a hole anywhere near the frisbee. I shot again at about 50 feet and got the frisbee down and to the right of my point of aim.Originally Posted by guicksylver
I'm guessing at this range that either the scope is boogered up, the .308 diameter bullets just aren't working, or a bedding issue, but this is way too far out of whack for that. Could be a combination of the above. Going to have to wait for a less windy day when I have more time and can really bench the thing, find the target, then work my way out to get a better picture of what's happening.
The 50 foot hole was "normal", with no sign of keyholing or instability, but there isn't much time for that to set in at that distance.
The learning curve has begun.
Ken in Iowa,
I do NOT have any "links" (I always LOL AT anyone who has the temerity to ask for a "link", inasmuch as MUCH of what is "linked to" on the WORLDWIDEWEIRD is bilge/foolishness & sometimes outright/premeditated lies.) but the Imperial War Museum Chief Military Curator told the late (and much lamented) LTC Edward S. Milligan, USA, Retired in 2004 that the "modification was done because the UK Home Guard in 1939-41 (or perhaps as late as 1942) had NO suitable .30-06 bullets but DID have "reloadable" US cartridge cases, .303 British projectiles & various sorts of propellants.
(The HG did as best as they could with what they HAD.)
You are free to believe/not believe what the curator said.
My mid-1930s "American Enfield" P17 was re-arsenaled at SAAD, lend-leased to the UK, bears British re-proof marks/HG markings & was returned to CONUS sometime in the post-WWII period.
(I bought my rifle from a retired COL, USAF in 2010; money won't buy it, as it's THE most accurate rifle of any sort, that I own.)
yours, tex
Last edited by texasnative46; 06-12-2017 at 09:36 PM. Reason: addenda
quicksilver,
See my post #24.
The problem with the P17 is that SOME of the rifles are VERY difficult to re-barrel & oftentimes even SAAD & the other USA depots ruined receivers trying to re-barrel the rifles. Given how deep that the rifling is, reaming out the barrels to .303 British was relatively easy/inexpensive. = FACT.
Note: SOME (and perhaps even the majority of ) US rifles were "red striped", though far from all of them ever were.
yours, tex
Last edited by texasnative46; 06-12-2017 at 09:51 PM. Reason: spelling error
Probably not anything you haven't already thought of, but when I have a firearm that I'm not sure where it's hitting, I use a half a sheet of plywood or sheetrock, and cover it with butcher paper.
I had a Savage model 99, in 250-3000, that had a scope on it when I got it. Took it to the range, and couldn't hit the target backer (4'x8' plywood) at 100 yards. Moved up to 25 yards, and covered the backer with butcher paper, and found it was hitting a foot low and left of my aiming point. A closer look at the scope mounts showed that they were neither, in line with the bore, or level with the bore. A backyard
'smith had evidently drilled the holes with a hand drill!! I ended up shimming the back mount using annealed brass, and then using the Burris Signature rings with the offset inserts, to get the scope centered enough to adjust normally.
What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.
- Henry S. Haskins in “Meditations in Wall Street”
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." ...Unknown
I'm sceptical, if not more than that, of that story. Rerifling is a major arsenal job, and the great majority of the American M1917 rifles stayed unaltered until the Home Guard was stood down in late 1944. .308-bulleted .30-06 ammunition was certainly issued, and three kinds of ammunition for similar rifles would have been a bigger problem than two. Some .30-06 ammunition was manufactured in the UK, with incendiary bullets being made and aluminium cases experimented with. Very large quantities of .30-06 ammunition were imported, I believe from Remington, due to the possession of .30-06 Browning aircraft guns which certainly weren't rerifled. The British government had also adopted a BSA adaptation of a Czech tank machine-gun in late peacetime, and never change it from 8x57, which Britain loaded. But if a need had been perceived, it is easy to size .303 bullets to .308, to a standard easily good enough for military service.
There is indeed a great deal of inaccurate information on the internet, although someone, possibly of high reputation or possibly not, has put it in writing. But third-hand accounts of verbal statements can have their perils too. Perhaps the story arises from experimental work, and some rather impractical and occasionally alarming experiments were done with potential Home Guard weapons.
A M1917 shouldn't have oversized bore dimensions. General Hatcher, who isn't much devalued by being at least in part available online, dismisses the rumour that they actually used the .303 bore dimensions in manufacture. What they did was to use the same rifling machines, with the result that all WW1 barrels were five-grooved. The rifling was .0008in. deeper than the 1903's, giving a theoretically greater groove diameter. (It can't be easily measured with great precision from either barrel or slug.) But he says it was in effect a tighter bore than the 1903's, since the grooves are about as wide as the lands, while in the 1903 they are much wider. There were WW2 rebarrelings with two and four grooves.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...nsions&f=false
Some diameter variation in wartime production is certainly possible. But the five-groove barrels were all cut-rifled, the only type in which an odd number of grooves is advantageous, since you get a better finish if the cutter is backed up by a land than a groove, opposite the groove being cut. The natural thing to do is to be over-optimistic about rifling which is still tight, rather than waste time making it over-depth.
Many WW2 barrels were made by broaching, which uses a very complex and expensive tool with a series of deeper and deeper teeth for each groove, and cuts the lot in one stroke. Here the trouble and money is in the tool, so the temptation is to start it oversize to allow for the maximum number of resharpenings. A broached barrel, such as those of the No4 Enfield, is often found over-size.
Where M1917 barrels are found much over-sized, a possible explanation is that they have been assembled and rechambered by the light of nature, from P14 barrels. I am not surprised that a good one can be accurate with .308 bullets. I experimented with them in the rather dilapidated Eddystone which ended up as my .300H&H. I found that .308 Nosler solid-based boat-tails almost always tumbled, with full-depth rifling engraving on one side and light scoring on the other, showing how formidably centrifugal force crushed it against one side of the bore. This was although far shallower rifling can be very accurate, till it wears out, with a bullet which is a good diametric fit.
Just an occasional SBBT put a neat round hole exactly where it was meant to. But sheet-jacketed Hornadys of the simplest type were all as accurate as you could expect from a frosted and somewhat worn bore. You would be a long time waiting for a missed deer you could blame on them.
After I was done, I found a few 1/4 sheets of chipboard. They will be my next step in this attempt. I'll sight at 25 yards, then 50, then 75, then 100. At some point I'll figure out what's going on. Have to do it with better light as well. The scope is definitely a "daylight" type scope.
BOS...Thank you hadn't gotten around to coping that...measured bores confirm that the P-14 and P-17 were indeed .310..making it neither fish nor foul..
I like others have found that Greek HXP ammo works well in these guns..
Last edited by guicksylver; 06-13-2017 at 02:06 PM.
Now for the OP's problem ..my suggestion at this point would be to bore sight the gun..that is get it in the best rest you have at say 50 yards..take out the bolt look down the barrel and center the target as best you can on the center of the barrel..check the scope ...keep adjusting the scope until is centered on the target when the target is centered in the barrel....just remember it going to take twice as many clicks to get the scope where you want it because you are at 50 yds..keep trying it's worth it..
Ballistics in Scotland,
You are quite welcome to believe/not believe anything that you choose, including believing that "little green men from Mars" are walking about in your neighborhood. = Believing whatever you wish is called : Freedom of Speech & Expression.
As I said, my dear friend, LTC Edward S. Milligan, USA Retired, was shown documentation at the Imperial War Museum that numerous P17 Rifles were "reamed out" by the Home Guard early in WWII to use .303 bullets. = I seriously doubt that the curator lied to LTC Milligan OR that the museum staff counterfeited the documents that Edward was shown.
(The rifling on Model 1917 rifles in .30-06 have VERY deep rifling when new & there is plenty of "meat" to ream out to .303 British dimensions. - ANY halfway competent local machine shop can do that "field modification".)
Btw, my SAAD rebuilt Model 1917, which was lend-leased to the UK in 1939, has the original barrel AND it measures precisely to .303 British dimensions.
(Oddly, of all the various centerfire rifles that I own, that P-17 is THE most accurate of all, with .303 British jacketed or cast boolits.)
yours, tex
Any competent machine shop can ream a chamber and set back a barrel.
Most shops are not equipped to enlarge rifling beyond lapping. Reaming would not be the recommended procedure, either.
-HF
I give loading advice based on my actual results in factory rifles with standard chambers, twist rates and basic accurizing.
My goals for using cast boolits are lots of good, cheap, and reasonably accurate shooting, while avoiding overly tedious loading processes.
The BHN Deformation Formula, and why I don't use it.
How to find and fix sizing die eccentricity problems.
Do you trust your casting thermometer?
A few musings.
That rifle is a US Model 1917. The stock could be a Herters, a Bishop or a Fajen. The scope appears to be an old Weaver K4 in Weaver mounts. The floor plate has been straighten to be flat and hold 5 founds.
There is really no mystery about it. These rifles sold for $25.00 each in the late 50's and many were sporterized like your Dad's. My best guess the reason it was so little used, is that it is so darn heavy compared to other rifle.
In the early 60's I sporterized such a rifle, but barreled it with a heavy 26" Flaig barrel in 270. I mounted an 8X Unertl scope on it and used it to sit in a blind and shoot deer down the fence lines and senderos in the Texas Brush Country. Long shots were easy and the rifle piled up many deer. This was long before the concept of a "bean field" or "Sendero" rifle was thought up.
It should make a good or better hunting rifle. Clean the bore thoroughly, tighten the action and scope mount screws and have at it.
Disclaimer: The above is not holy writ. It is just my opinion based on my experience and knowledge. Your mileage may vary.
I have one Model 1917 that key holes any .309 bullet but makes excellent groups with .311-312 bullets. Best groups I've shot with it were light loads and a light 125g bullet intended for the 7.62x39..
Weaver mounts, and Weaver K4. You are on a roll. Fajen stock. Scope mount screws will take a gorilla and a 42 foot cheater bar to get off. They aren't going anywhere. Going to boresight the thing this week/weekend, and try to get the bullets on the paper, weather permitting.
Found out that it's a very late model Eddystone, late December 1918, or by some sources, January 1919. Also figured out that an alligator clip is a pretty darn good tool to pull the bolt with. Much more stable than a coin as I have seen referenced.
Well, this appears to be the gun that gets me casting. I was assuming it would be the .35 or the .41mag. Getting a windfall at work, looks like Lyman and NOE are going to get most of it. Molds for all. Might as well take the dive. Too cheap to spend the money for jacketed bullets anymore. Much research ahead.
Char-Gar,
SPOT ON.
IF I had one of those "sporterized" P17 rifles, I'd be tempted to have JES rebore it to .375 Whelen Improved.
yours, tex
Last edited by texasnative46; 06-15-2017 at 09:57 PM. Reason: add
No, you didn't, although you did say "any number" were so converted. That still sounds third-hand to me, and a most improbable way of dealing with a problem that in hundreds of thousands of cases didn't get dealt with that way. Had it been so, they would surely have been conspicuously marked.
Of course anything might have been done experimentally or for evaluation. The Home Guard didn't have their own arsenal, but as well as old men included some extremely good engineers in reserved occupations, who were debarred from regular enlistment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers
No rifles were supplied on lend-lease in 1939, as it didn't exist until the spring of 1941. The main Home Guard purchase of M1917s, over 600,000, were bought and paid for. I don't know about a much smaller shipment in 1941, and would have to look it up on the internet, which you say isn't reliable.
Indeed it can. The P14 and M1917 have sometimes suffered cracks in the receiver ring, often associated with extreme force being used to unscrew those very tightly inserted barrels. But it is tightness of the barrel shoulder against the front of the receiver, and can easily be relieved by a shallow hacksaw cut into the barrel, as close as you can get to the receiver. When I did that I could loosen it with water-pump pliers and unscrew it by hand. Once that is done, if you have a good one you have a good one, and if you don't, it wasn't good before.
When I mention scope mount screws, there are three points. 1. The screws that hold the base to the receiver. 2. The two large screws that hold the rings to the base. 3. The four smaller screws that hold the scope in the ring. All of these points need to be tight, but no so much you strip the screw or twist off a screw head.
Judging by the very poor accuracy you got, I would start to run the problem down in this order.
1. Check all screws as above.
2. Tighten the action screws. Use a proper fitting screw driver and both hands. I used a brace and screwdriver bits to tighten action screws.
3. Change out the scope. Some of these old scopes have springs that control the reticule that are weak and the reticule can bounce around inside the scope.
Additional thoughts:
1. Pushing long heavy 220 grain bullets to slow can yield bullet instability. Use full snort loads with whatever jacketed bullet you choose.
2. If a 30-06 won't shoot decent 180 grains jacketed bullets over 54/4350 it won't shoot anything well.
3. If after paying attention to all of the above and the rifle still won't shoot, then glass bed the metal to the wood.
4. Clean the barrel of all metal fouling down to the steel with one of the new foaming barrel cleaner that really get all the gunk out.
5. If after doing the above, it still won't shoot, you have a bad barrel.
My gut tells me your rifle is behaving like it has scope/mount issues and that why I put those things on the top of my list. I have seen wild shooting rifles, tamed down when the mounts/rings are tight and/or a different scope is used.
Disclaimer: The above is not holy writ. It is just my opinion based on my experience and knowledge. Your mileage may vary.
Ballistics in Scotland,
May I suggest that you re-read posts #24, #25 & #31??
As I said, you're quite welcome to believe/not believe ANYTHING, no matter how questionable, silly, foolish, likely or unlikely. = IF you're unwilling to accept the word of my (sadly passed away) dear friend, LTC Ed Milligan, I don't care to discuss this further with you.
yours, tex
Posting Permissions
| BP | Bronze Point | IMR | Improved Military Rifle | PTD | Pointed |
| BR | Bench Rest | M | Magnum | RN | Round Nose |
| BT | Boat Tail | PL | Power-Lokt | SP | Soft Point |
| C | Compressed Charge | PR | Primer | SPCL | Soft Point "Core-Lokt" |
| HP | Hollow Point | PSPCL | Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" | C.O.L. | Cartridge Overall Length |
| PSP | Pointed Soft Point | Spz | Spitzer Point | SBT | Spitzer Boat Tail |
| LRN | Lead Round Nose | LWC | Lead Wad Cutter | LSWC | Lead Semi Wad Cutter |
| GC | Gas Check |
Reply With Quote