Lee PrecisionTitan ReloadingRotoMetals2Inline Fabrication
RepackboxWidenersADvertise here

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 104

Thread: First post,a bit involved Q

  1. #21
    Boolit Buddy
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    106
    Name:  32191499_2199058536771272_8662000269166379008_n.jpg
Views: 167
Size:  2.0 KB

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	32207252_2199057786771347_5267678784684818432_n.jpg 
Views:	3 
Size:	8.2 KB 
ID:	221124

    Name:  32215168_2199058503437942_5631946918247530496_n.jpg
Views: 167
Size:  6.1 KB

    Name:  32215483_2199057880104671_1306210867381010432_n.jpg
Views: 164
Size:  5.3 KB

    That much for a few of the original drawings for the gun. Figuring as such that it might come in handy for someone one of these days.
    Last edited by Racing; 05-27-2018 at 07:14 PM.

  2. #22
    Boolit Master

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    State of Denial
    Posts
    2,694
    Neat! Given your new Soviet PU 91/30 style bolt handle, adding the optics should get easier. Do you plan to eliminate the rear sight entirely, or use it as a hardpoint?

    If you find a suitable replacement for the striker spring that speeds up the lock time or increases the force of the hit, please make it known. You can scratch 1911 recoil spring off your list - O.D. is too large.
    WWJMBD?

    "I'M MELLLLLLLLLLTING!" - Elphaba

  3. #23
    Boolit Master

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    State of Denial
    Posts
    2,694
    Quote Originally Posted by Racing View Post
    OK. . .a little more outside the box thought on bullet/cartridge redesign here:

    We've been using Hodgdon's Triple 7 black powder substitute in my Dad's Chassepot simply because it's less of a PITA to deal with in California, but it does have the advantage of being 15% more energetic than black for an equivalent volume. You could take advantage of that reduction of charge to play a little bit with the bullet shape. Since the original paper patch is not strictly a necessity, adding a tapered section to the front of the driving band of that exactly fits the taper of the chamber might work wonders for alignment in the bore. The extra space you gain with Triple Seven could then be dedicated to a second driving band with a large lube groove. The existing driving band could then be shortened slightly to account for some of this.

    The main goal here would be a solid, consistent interference fit that takes your cartridge tube out of the equation for bore alignment - at least as much as possible.
    WWJMBD?

    "I'M MELLLLLLLLLLTING!" - Elphaba

  4. #24
    Boolit Master Lead pot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In a State that is #1 with people migrating out.
    Posts
    3,004
    Jesper I don't think a BT projectile will be of any benefit using a lead bullet with black powder.
    Over the years I worked with making lead rebated boat tail, cup bases shallow and deep as well as rebated BT hollow point lead bullets. The hard part using these type of projectiles with lead is protecting the base, keeping it from getting deformed when the black powder starts pushing down the bore.
    In the end of several years or changing the designs of the base, protecting the base from damage, the effort just didn't justify the results using or making the BT that is shot mostly in the subsonic velocity ranges.....Kurt

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0265 (2).jpg 
Views:	6 
Size:	37.9 KB 
ID:	221129Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0298 (3).jpg 
Views:	6 
Size:	59.7 KB 
ID:	221130

  5. #25
    Boolit Buddy
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    106
    Well.
    One thing at a time then. Direct replacement hammer spring for a Chassepot,here in Sweden resides Lesjfors. World reknown for making springs in any imagineable form and size.. Swedish SIS 2090 spring steel was once the norm of the world and to us it still is.

    http://www.lesjoforsab.com/

    What you need is pressure spring 6015. Write them and ask where you can pick it up. It is a direct fit.

  6. #26
    Boolit Buddy
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    106
    As for the stock sights.
    Seing that the bolt handle will build its 10mm diameter as a minimum this will most likely bring optics stands that are of taller option.
    Thus,i might as well reinstall the iron sights and make use of the 100m ones at least. Front and rear sight are both soldered in place. Rear sight with regular solder and front sight is silver soldered in.

    I hear you on the consistent cartridge alignment. Truth be told ive played around a little more..



    First up i took to turning this piece to verify the sealing chamber diameter. Issue here is,per noted previously,that it isnt conform as wed expect today.
    Measures to approx 18,6mm (wont go any closer then that). Benefit is that it leaves us leeway to set a "new" diameter of the sealing chamber for THIS particular gun to 19mm flat.
    Benefit.... as 19mm or 3/4" is a very common diameter for such seals. In turn by being in control of said chamber diameter it also hands me the opportunity to be in real anal control of piston diameter (as noted earlier,the idea in THIS case is to replace the stock obturator with a piston setup)

    That said i proceeded with the actual powder chamber and as it turns out this dials in at...



    ...a trued and checked 14,55mm.
    This leaves us with a question, and that is why the deliberate difference in chamber diameter vs cartridge diameter? As Bigslug states above it is very likely that the actual precision part,as a firing rifle,has been handled by a boolit that enters the rifling to part. Ie; a bore riding one.
    As presented then... the reason for the difference in chamber vs cartridge diameter might be to make sure that the actual cartridge (the paper,silk and what not) turns into parts and remnants small enough to be swept out with ease as the bullet evacuates the bore.

    Now.



    Several users around here have made castings of that part of the barrel to get a clean idea of whats going on. What we can take to the bank here,aside from the actual measurments,is the rather long ramped parts between the spaces set within.



    ...and here in turn we see a similar relationship,just sans the ramped parts. This was just me playing around with making a plug thatll fit into the barrel as a whole AFTER checking the exact numbers for the chambers at hand.

    Speaking of which. Id be lying if i state that these chambers are circular or cylindrical in any manner, and as ive noted before that is whats part of whats genius with the Chassepot as it brings machining time down on the barrels in a rather severe manner. The rubber obturator ensures a gas seal no matter.
    To US on the other hand this presents an issue as I try and modify this into...shall we call it more of a "match" setup.?
    In short these chambers will need to become more uniform but whats of ABSOLUTE essence here is the measured powder chamber diameter.

    Why?
    Well. If im right in my assumptions,that the reason for the 1,15mm difference in diameter between the powder chamber bore and the actual cartridge is that they wanted to be certain that the remnants of said cartridge is shredded and evacuates,then we can ignore this "need" as weve got different materials to play around with 2018 then they did back in 1866.
    Enter,for instance,shrink sleeve.

    Now. Please take to heart that a cartridge based on shrink sleeve,it becomes an imperative part of how "stiff" said cartridge will be...how we stuff it.
    But.
    If we select shrink sleeve of appropriate diameter it is reasonable that we dont HAVE to obide to the 13,4mm stock dimensions anymore as a piece of shrink sleeve will most likely evacuate the barrel even at 14,5mm original outer diameter. Also be adviced that shrink sleeve comes in a plethora of qualitys.

    So? What gives? Well. Ill be visiting my supplier tomorrow and hope to bring a few different quality shrink sleeves with me. Idea here is to check their material thickness and compensate for that to get a true 14,45-14,50 true outer diameter. In turn it also leaves me with the option of trying to figure a cap holder of some sorts out AND..in turn it might even let us assemble the cartridges from the wrong end,rendering that we can use the shrink sleeve to keep the bullet in place (although i doubt it)

    Interesting take to say the least....
    Hm.


    Well.
    That aside then.



    Say wut? What the...



    Have bridgeport. Will travel
    Nah. Theres an idea behind the madness. As much as i doubt that well make THAT good of a use of a muzzle brake i on the other hand see more use of different weights at the muzzle end of the barrel.
    As all riflemen know the free length of the barrel and vibrations from setting the powder charge off...induces finite movement of the barrel and to be able to with at least a bit of reason alter that by various weights..yeah well.

    Yeah. That. And the mere fact that we can.

  7. #27
    Boolit Buddy
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Lead pot View Post
    Jesper I don't think a BT projectile will be of any benefit using a lead bullet with black powder.
    Over the years I worked with making lead rebated boat tail, cup bases shallow and deep as well as rebated BT hollow point lead bullets. The hard part using these type of projectiles with lead is protecting the base, keeping it from getting deformed when the black powder starts pushing down the bore.
    In the end of several years or changing the designs of the base, protecting the base from damage, the effort just didn't justify the results using or making the BT that is shot mostly in the subsonic velocity ranges.....Kurt

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0265 (2).jpg 
Views:	6 
Size:	37.9 KB 
ID:	221129Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0298 (3).jpg 
Views:	6 
Size:	59.7 KB 
ID:	221130
    Kurt.
    I hear you. So bottom line is that its hard to keep the boolit form conform under pressure when working with pure lead? In essence...
    Hm. No matter felt wads or whatever?

    If you read whats been arrived on today only it DOES present a different ballgame as we in reality most likely will get away with a fatter cartridge.
    In the case of MY rifle in turn ill get away with a taller cartridge too. How? Well,as "chambre" in reality wont be needed for a piston sealed gun them approx 10mm of the bolt can be omitted.

    In other words,as a whole,were at the very least looking at a larger cartridge (read-more inner space) by the mere successful use of shrink sleeve (which remains to be proven. Theres those using shrink sleeve around here but then of lesser diameter).
    This would fit ALL Chassepot if you aint hellbent on firing the original cartridge for whatever historical reasons.
    For MY piston sealed rifle to come in turn,it actually means a crapload of more space. In fact most likely more space then ill ever need as far as POWDER..why it also presents a poss to use said space for wads or whatever along those lines really.

    The stock cartridge is specified for 88,5 grains of blackpowder. Seing the now available space i bet were into the 100+grains with EASE,and that arises questions as will the barrel take it...and do we IRL see any use for it.
    The approx 800mm long barrel..yeah well. Thats beyond my knowledge as of right now at least.
    Increased amount of blackpowder,or as stated T7 in other cases,should suffice for sending a pill downrange appreciable faster can the barrel handle the heat.

    Hm.

  8. #28
    Boolit Man yulzari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    France Nouvelle Aquitaine
    Posts
    79
    That is some careful work going into your take on the Chassepot. My understanding of the expulsion is that the gauze is to keep the bag (less the base which has been blow back off the bag) together as one piece to be dragged out by the bullet to which it is attached and not to shred in the gun. It then falls away as the paper patch blows free of the bullet. Yes the chamber and throat are military and not match specifications to allow for both fouling in a battlefield environment and easy (cheap) machining. The quality of machining varies greatly depending on the makers.

  9. #29
    Boolit Master

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    State of Denial
    Posts
    2,694
    Thanks for the link to the spring supplier Jesper! Got an email off to them this morning.

    I just took a look at the print for the Accurate Molds Chassepot bullet copy - the 46-365C. This slug has a base diameter of .460" and a diameter of .453 where the nose taper runs into. Given the thicknesses of paper we're using for those "Pope Hat" patches, what goes into the bore could easily be bulked up to well in excess of that.

    Clearly, a study is needed as to what the BORE actually wants, regardless of what is going on back at the chamber. My instinct for a custom diameter lube groove bullet with an interference alignment nose feels even stronger, but a more conventional paper-patching such as on Martinis, Sharps, etc... might have a place here.

    I really like the idea of shrink tubing. Is your plan for the cartridge to be a straight cylinder? Can the material be used for otherwise? If one were sufficiently clever, an aligning bullet nose coupled with an aligning cartridge base could work wonders for centering, though that may only be a realistic outlook with modern, rigid brass.
    WWJMBD?

    "I'M MELLLLLLLLLLTING!" - Elphaba

  10. #30
    Boolit Buddy
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    106
    @Yulsari

    Ive figured as much,seing how many places the Chassepot was manufactured. Or..remodeled even.

    This "hotrod" of mine is basically about pushing the limits of the envelope per se. To try and wring out whats there to be had.

    We DO own stockers too though..



    For instance this claimed "marine" model. Basically just your standard Chassepot with a bit of paint.. Nice rifle though and as you can see although busted the stock sling is still there.
    Plan to repair that btw..

  11. #31
    Boolit Buddy
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigslug View Post
    Thanks for the link to the spring supplier Jesper! Got an email off to them this morning.

    I just took a look at the print for the Accurate Molds Chassepot bullet copy - the 46-365C. This slug has a base diameter of .460" and a diameter of .453 where the nose taper runs into. Given the thicknesses of paper we're using for those "Pope Hat" patches, what goes into the bore could easily be bulked up to well in excess of that.

    Clearly, a study is needed as to what the BORE actually wants, regardless of what is going on back at the chamber. My instinct for a custom diameter lube groove bullet with an interference alignment nose feels even stronger, but a more conventional paper-patching such as on Martinis, Sharps, etc... might have a place here.

    I really like the idea of shrink tubing. Is your plan for the cartridge to be a straight cylinder? Can the material be used for otherwise? If one were sufficiently clever, an aligning bullet nose coupled with an aligning cartridge base could work wonders for centering, though that may only be a realistic outlook with modern, rigid brass.
    Well. If you think about it for a sec,it does carry a bit of merit. Disposable is the name of the game here and the advent of products like shrink sleeve indeed CAN make life a tad simpler.
    Ive picked a few variants up today...well take it from there.

    The one with the greatest promise (i guess?) is the one that shrinks to a third of its original diameter.

    Sure. Of course you can turn a master plug out of aluminium that for instance is a full 14,5mm outer (the finished sleeve that is) and shrinks enough to grab the bullet up front in turn. Cant really foresee any kind of issue doing that?
    Imperative part here will of course be the plug in itself.

    Have spent quite a few hrs reading up on 45 cal bullets here on CB and...id say lots have been gained on a personal level. Thank god for forums like this.

    But yeah. As long as the finished cartridge possess rigidity enough theres no real limit to using said cartridge to reference on its "mouth",per normal brass standards.
    As far as im concerned the main variable here is the blackpowder residue but as with any other blackpowder as long as grease is included of ample amounts that should keep the residue pliable at least,thus becoming way less of an issue.

    Therein also lies my main thought as far as a larger cartridge. Ie;we get to stuff whatever we need in there and STILL have room for whatever reasonable amount of blackpowder were set for.

    However.
    The assumptions made by me as far as reason for the difference in diameter of the chamber and the cartridge,id really like those within the loop here to voice up. Mainly as i want that thesis challenged.
    I for one at least have a hard time seing any other reasonable explanation,cause that there IS such an explanation is dead clear. This difference is NOT a result of hip-hap.
    The Chassepot is a WAY to thought trough gun for that.

    Point here,as far as bullet choice,though is that from what ive understood reading up most bore riding designs seems to be a fail when were trying to stretch the distance to the target.?
    All said and done it seems that it boils down to a few conventional designs all said and done,and the advent of cartridge reference in the case of the Chassepot opens up a whole new ballgame from what i can see.?

    Yet another question mark is how much V muzzle will jump with a given,stout,amount of blackpowder for the OEM bullet.? With its 385 grains its a good 100 grains less than most other 45cal designs. Not only of the era but on a whole.

    So?
    I agree with you. To the point where wed do best in regarding this as a blank piece of paper more or less. Seing that the chamber for instance is a full millimeter+ fatter then the OEM cartridge tells the story.
    Fooling around with the original cartridge per specification in its own right but..of course what im hoping for here is that by the use of modern materials..theres more to be had.
    But this will also entail the trial of different bullets for the Chassepot. A few of the boys over here have ordered Accurate molds take on the stocker and well see where all that ends up.
    No point in reinventing the wheel and as one of those boys is a rather known retailer of BP gun parts and acc ill ask him for a bag or so i guess.
    Me in turn..might be that im better of ordering molds for the "other" end of it.



    The muzzle brake. Right....coming along at least.

  12. #32
    Boolit Buddy
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    106
    FWIW.
    Next couple of days ill be into checking how such a shrink sleeve cartridge will look. Ie; as far as the increased powder volume for a stocker as well as THIS particular rifle (which will most likely be able to use a longer cartridge as well).

    Main point of interest here really isnt the amount of powder per se but the ROOM that becomes effect of using the chamber with modern day n era materials.
    Ie;what we can use said space for,and hopefully to our advantage.

    Ill be back with a specified report asap,incl pics.

  13. #33
    Boolit Master

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    State of Denial
    Posts
    2,694
    I wouldn't call bore-riders a "fail" per se, but they can be a maddening item, as they require the fit of the nose section to be bang-on, which requires the alloy to be bang on, etc... It's style that I've learned to either avoid, or carefully compare blueprints of to chamber slugs from individual rifles before I'd consider a generic, off the shelf mold. Not that they can't do great things, but more can go wrong than right.

    The OEM Chassepot slug wouldn't really be a bore-rider. For that, you need a long nose with parallel sides. I tend to think that the Chassepot's "funnel" chamber would not let you start such a thing close enough to the lands for it to help.

    I went back and checked the data from when Dad was gifted (cursed?) his Chassepot and we got a bore of .435-437" and a groove of .459". Nothing mysterious there. Customizing whatever you decide is the optimum nose taper to the front drive band location is probably where the magic will happen - seating depth to be determined of course by shank length and powder volume.

    A further thought. You might want to experiment with a somehow-centered smaller diameter wad between your front powder wad and your bullet base. I'm thinking of this as a shrink-tube replacement for the string that tied the bullet to the original powder bag, to somehow "lock" the case to various masses that are, for sure, going out the muzzle. The tube would hopefully shrink into the gap formed by that wad, locking things in place. Just spitballing there - I'm not terribly familiar with the shrink-tube media.

    You're right that the shrink tube will give you more room. That might in itself be problematic - bullet diameter dictated by bore vs. powder bag diameter dictated by chamber. Hrrrrrmmmmmm. . .
    WWJMBD?

    "I'M MELLLLLLLLLLTING!" - Elphaba

  14. #34
    Boolit Buddy
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    106
    Uhu.
    Indeed. A blank piece of paper. Im still trying to figure out the various reasons for the way the chamber looks like it does.

    Maybe especially so the ramps in themselves. If those rather generous ramp areas was to secure the insertion of a paper cartridge with an absolute minimum chance of damaging it?

    I mean,no matter the round has had to register one way or another and the stock Chassepot bullet is rather...charcteristic isnt it?

    Looking at the original drawing of the chamber theres quite a few changes of dimension in there. Ergo one side of it the stocker and how it registers and so on,this particular rifle though is another matter and reamers are cheap after all...
    But as always,before changing ANYTHING understand whats behind the decision that WAS made at one time. Seing that shrink sleeve is on the agenda however that brings that differences in diameter can,and should i guess,be catered for.

    But as you say,no matter the cartridge solution really the imperative part here is the boolit all said and done. Like yours my barrel here comes out to about the same dimensions so..
    I still wonder if theres any real point in pursuing the original bullet design as long range performance and accuracy is what im after here.?
    We KNOW that theres several solutions to the 45 caliber "issue" per such..and to NOT reinvent the wheel im thinking that maybe its a good idea to start out with KNOWN good performers for long range work and instead invest the time and work in the cartridge itself.?

    To me knowledge very little is written/known on the original bullet as far as long range accuracy? Please correct me if im wrong.
    So in essence i guess what im saying is that this is turning into the age old story of the hen and the egg to parts...

    Many shoot their Chassepot rifles with "other" 45 cal boolits as is,and they cant very well all be wrong. In that case id wager wed read about that by now.

    Using shrink sleeve for this application i also feel is the correct route to endeavor. Mainly as shrink sleeve can be "fireformed" (with a heatgun) around basically any shape and form we wish (within reason of course).
    Thatd bring that we could even get away with chamber evacuation if we play this right. Or,more to the point,those over here using smaller diameter shrink sleeve already are.
    Recall that some has taken the route of jumbo approx 1/2" outer diameter straws and others the shrink sleeve setup,but then to about the same outer diameter.
    But if nothing else it proves that shrink sleeve indeed DOES work. Question mark would be to what limits and borders and seing how many different shrink sleeve types and materials there are...with glue even.. Well..

    I believe the word were looking for is mind boggling and as it is well most likely benefit from cutting the problem into smaller pieces.

  15. #35
    Boolit Buddy
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    106


    Shrink sleeve cartridges for the Chassepot.
    Courtesy Fredrik Olsson.

  16. #36
    Boolit Master

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    State of Denial
    Posts
    2,694
    Quote Originally Posted by Racing View Post
    Uhu.
    To me knowledge very little is written/known on the original bullet as far as long range accuracy? Please correct me if im wrong.
    Check post #107 on page 6 of the DIY Insanity thread, where B.I.S. cites some period material, and my comments to same on post #123. Been busy over there the last few days.

    I don't know that the blame lies with the BULLET necessarily, as it does with the variability inherent in the original cartridge making process. There's A LOT of human element in there. Maybe back in 1868, Lucy twisted tube ends clockwise, and Belle wrapped bullet patches counter-clockwise, and ammo made during the one shift per week when they worked together consistently shot 2-MOA. . .but only if it was Marguerite tying them together.

    The way to eliminate the wrapping and patching as a variable while still using that bullet would be to put a lube sandwich of card wad, lube disc, card wadand onionskin disc behind the bullet to keep the cards from sticking to it. Buffalo Arms has the lube ribbon extruder to do just that.
    WWJMBD?

    "I'M MELLLLLLLLLLTING!" - Elphaba

  17. #37
    The tungsten electrode needles sound good, perhaps better than is needed. I always thought that if the steels such as 154CM developed to resist high-temperature erosion and embrittlement in jet engine turbine blades, are available in wire form, they could be useful for the Chassepot and for needle guns in which the needle penetrates the powder charge.

    The variation in diameter of the place where the obturator makes its seal is interesting, and surely very harmful to accuracy with one-size-fits-all issue cartridges. It may, although I have nothing but imagination to back it up, have been a military or post-military armourer's solution to pitting in that area, which would be even worse. Why should that area suffer more damage than the bore? We have seen pictures of badly deteriorated rubber obturators, and who knows what they exuded? The originals were plain natural rubber, but if vulcanised rubber was used, the combustion products would probably be sulphurous too. I once overheated some sulphur while using it to make chamber casts, and it ignited with a small blue flame. No big deal I thought, for the flame showed no inclination to be large. But it rusted anything of steel which was near enough for the gases to condense upon.

    The Gras conversion was in many respects a good one, which was occasionally converted and so far as I know found safe for the 8mm. Lebel cartridge. It could be replicated, but the majority of Chassepot users today probably don't want to modify any part of a valuable antique rifle. But if you are willing and able to do some lathework, I would have thought the obvious solution was to make a true centrefire bolt head, leaving everything original in safe storage, and some short brass sealing cups, rather like the Germans used in First World War medium artillery. I think that for this sort of pressure, you could probably manage with a tubing extension of some kind of existing cartridge head. The Chassepot case isn't, and was never intended to be, the combustible one it is sometimes said to be. But with a sealing case-head it could be, made with nitrated paper and stuffed just tightly enough to position the bullet against the beginning of the lands.

    The right length of cup should seal the gas and yet be more easily extracted than a complete case. That could be important, as the Chassepot doesn't have primary extraction, which it never needed in the days when it didn't extract anything.


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Chassepot from Hosier amended.jpg 
Views:	7 
Size:	67.2 KB 
ID:	221296

    That leaves the problem of finding room for the extractor. But I think it could be done with a reduced version of the turnbolt Mannlicher extractor, or even a pair of them. Or a semicircular lip on the new bolt head, like a shellholder, into which the rim must be dropped. It would be a nuisance, but should permit effective use of the rifle.

    W Milton Farrow, author of "How I Became a Crack Shot", toured Europe and thought the Gras rifle had rifling too deep for the sort of accuracy his modestly entitled book suggests, with the bullet coming out almost square. I doubt if even purpose-built Gras cartridge rifles had a different bore from the Chassepot. There isn't much that can be done about this, but among the little that can, I think it is important that the shape of the bullet conforms closely to the beginning of the rifling. Even a bullet that touches it, but has a smaller base unsupported by a brass neck, may tip slightly before it engraves.

    I agree there is very little advantage to a boat-tailed bullet in terms of drag, with the Chassepot. But it reminds me of the original cartridge for the Swiss 1889 Schmidt-Rubin. This had pretty much the same bore dimensions as all the later 7.5mm. Swiss rifles, and very nearly the same case, but the chamber had a much wider neck and throat. It is usually described as having a heel bullet, but the step down in bullet diameter is nowhere near the thickness of the case neck, and the bullet is paper-patched.

    It seems likely that the bullet was originally of full diameter all the way to the rear, intended to experience a large reduction in the throat before entering the rifling. The question has to be, why abandon that? I think the "heel" was so that the possibly irregular "finning" at the rear of the bullet would be at a point in its side, not at the rear. Wads or wax "cookies" in any conventional material wouldn't prevent this. What I contemplated, but haven't so far tried in my 1889s, was a disc cut from 8mm. aluminium rod, so that that if anything would experience the finning, but being so disinclined to solder (e.g. when you want to solder aluminium) is discarded with the patch on leaving the muzzle.
    Last edited by Ballistics in Scotland; 05-31-2018 at 04:41 AM.

  18. #38
    Boolit Buddy
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    106
    To me over here theres a limiting factor in this.

    The Chassepot is exempt from the permit law as it uses a "non gastight cartridge". That theres cartridge conversion marketed by the French i hope all are aware.?

    That brings that i HAVE to play around within the realms of the original cartridge,or ill be breaking the law.
    Last edited by Racing; 05-31-2018 at 08:25 AM.

  19. #39
    Boolit Buddy
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    106


    Just about forgot. The muzzle brake is about done and in place. The idea here isnt the brake in itself but the CAPACITY of added weight to the muzzle.
    As the barrel will be installed free floating into the stock i plan to toss every trick there is after the gun hardpart wise to get where i want...



    Timney trigger showed up as well. Timneys "featherweight" one with added safety lever. Going to take a more in depth look at whats needed to adapt it,but from the looks of it ill get away with just cutting an ever so slight amount of the underside of the receiver away and then bolt the thing firmly to that.

    This will however also entail moving the barrel and receiver assy rearward a bit in the GRS stock. No biggie,but it needs to be done.

    Off to pick some sample shrink sleeve up boys....be back tonight with an update on that.

  20. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Racing View Post
    To me over here theres a limiting factor in this.

    The Chassepot is exempt from the permit law as it uses a "non gastight cartridge". That theres cartridge conversion marketed by the French i hope all is aware.?

    That brings that i HAVE to play around within the realms of the original cartridge,or ill be breaking the law.
    Sounds all right, if your system is different from ours. We have a long list of obsolete (but often extremely useful) cartridges for which firearms made up to 1939 should be considered antiques, free from all controls, as long as they are owned as a "curiosity or ornament". I've negotiated a few cartridges onto it myself. The snag is that using them, or possessing ammunition, requires that they be entered on your licence. But it is hard to find a good reason to refuse you, when you have the gun anyway.

    Components for reloading are mostly also uncontrolled, legislators and criminals alike having heard very little about them. A primed case would certainly be uncontrolled, let along the rear end of one, which you carry around and load separately from the little nitrated bag. Still, our law relies much more on precedent in trials than most of the continental ones - i.e. judges telling the prosecution to go away and not be so silly. I'm pretty sure somebody suffered a lot of inconvenience and worry to get that one.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Abbreviations used in Reloading

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