22 single six to centerfire?

[Bret4207]

No offense to anyone, but isn't it funny that people will build a 327 or 41 on a SS frame and yet other people will scream bloody murder about FR-7's or 93/95 Mausers in 308?

[S.R.Custom]

Nice pics, Boxhead. Can we trouble you for one more? I'd like to see one of the rear of the cylinder. I'm curious as to how much the .41 rim cuts into the ratchet star.

[StarMetal]

No offense to anyone, but isn't it funny that people will build a 327 or 41 on a SS frame and yet other people will scream bloody murder about FR-7's or 93/95 Mausers in 308?

Bret,

For one we're talking about a whole different steel then from those Mausers.

I'd be interested in seeing how long this revolver holds up under full house 327's.

[357maximum]

No offense to anyone, but isn't it funny that people will build a 327 or 41 on a SS frame and yet other people will scream bloody murder about FR-7's or 93/95 Mausers in 308?

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH..............all those 93/95 rumors make my toys cheaper and anyone that can navigate Al Gore's internet KNOWS a SR mauser chambered in anything larger than the 22lr will result in instant death and mayhem. In fact anyone reading this can send me their unsafe small rings for proper disposal...it's for the children you know.

[Chamfered]

That's really nice, let us know how it shoots. I once had a 41 special loading that used Unique and was the best load for accuracy that I had for anything. I shot it through a M-57 and I think I got it out of an old Taffin column. On your original question, I notice that you did say 327 special.... assumming you keep it to 32 H & R loadings I would

[Multigunner]

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH..............all those 93/95 rumors make my toys cheaper and anyone that can navigate Al Gore's internet KNOWS a SR mauser chambered in anything larger than the 22lr will result in instant death and mayhem. In fact anyone reading this can send me their unsafe small rings for proper disposal...it's for the children you know.

Some of the 95 Chilean Mausers were converted by reaming out the 7mm chamber in a flat front cylindrical shape , inserting a adapter plug, then reboring to .308 and chambering for the 7.62 NATO. Theres a site with photos of one of these that has been sectioned, the silver solder or whatever they used had already been burned away by propellant gases though the throat showed little wear. I wouldn't fire one converted like that.
Conversions done using new barrels should handle standard infantry ball 7.62 pressures okay, not much if any higher pressure than the 7mm and 7.65 cartridges the older Mausers used in their day, but some modern long range match and game loads generate far higher pressures than the NATO interchangability compatible Ball cartridges.

The rifles aren't inherently unsafe, but using the wrong pressure level ammunition can result in damage to the rifles with possibility of injury.

I have an old Single Six, and was suprized at how overbuilt these frames are.
I'd given thought to centerfire conversion to allow use of a reloadable .22 cartridge with a bit more punch than the .22 WMRF.

The .327 sounds to be a bit hot for the frame though, thats some pretty stout pressures for the gun, and the deep dovetail of the rear sight looks like it may leave sharp corners that can lead to cracking of the top strap if over stressed.

A friend who spent some time in South America told me that land owners down there often had revolvers converted to fire centerfire .22 rifle cartridges like the .22 hornet. Some had complete extended frames and cylinders made by local craftsmen and fitted these with moving parts, grip frames, etc salvaged from standard revolvers.

[BCall]

I have two old models in 22 CCM. They were converted by a local smith. The most recent one done this spring he charged $60.00 He eliminated the side through retaining pin and in its place put a set screw straight down from under the rear sight. Works very well.
BIC/BS

Bullshop- I am curious, other than the firing pin change, did anything need to be done to the cylinder, or is the CCM a drop in match? Just curious as I have been thinking about this since I saw a post sometime back about the first one you had done. Thanks, Billy

[StarMetal]

Some of the 95 Chilean Mausers were converted by reaming out the 7mm chamber in a flat front cylindrical shape , inserting a adapter plug, then reboring to .308 and chambering for the 7.62 NATO. Theres a site with photos of one of these that has been sectioned, the silver solder or whatever they used had already been burned away by propellant gases though the throat showed little wear. I wouldn't fire one converted like that.
Conversions done using new barrels should handle standard infantry ball 7.62 pressures okay, not much if any higher pressure than the 7mm and 7.65 cartridges the older Mausers used in their day, but some modern long range match and game loads generate far higher pressures than the NATO interchangability compatible Ball cartridges.

The rifles aren't inherently unsafe, but using the wrong pressure level ammunition can result in damage to the rifles with possibility of injury.

I have an old Single Six, and was suprized at how overbuilt these frames are.
I'd given thought to centerfire conversion to allow use of a reloadable .22 cartridge with a bit more punch than the .22 WMRF.

The .327 sounds to be a bit hot for the frame though, thats some pretty stout pressures for the gun, and the deep dovetail of the rear sight looks like it may leave sharp corners that can lead to cracking of the top strap if over stressed.

A friend who spent some time in South America told me that land owners down there often had revolvers converted to fire centerfire .22 rifle cartridges like the .22 hornet. Some had complete extended frames and cylinders made by local craftsmen and fitted these with moving parts, grip frames, etc salvaged from standard revolvers.

I agree with most of what you said. The thing with the old Mausers is that the gas handling wasn't up to snuff. It was much better on the 98's. I also feel that the 7.62 pressure is much higher then the 7x57 of back in the 95 action days. I do feel the 7.65 ammo is higher pressure, I know the stuff made for the 1909 Argentines is pretty stout.

I believe the 22 WMR runs around 24K pressure. As you can see if the 327 runs around 49K that is a substantial difference. So I agree with you that the SS may not be up to the task and I too noticed that dovetailed area on the frame. Personally I would not fire one if a friend had one. You may bet away with it a few times, but I'm sure in time it will come back and bite you.

[dk17hmr]

I want one a Single Six in 25 ACP pretty bad. I may have to look into it more.

[Bullshop]

Billy
No it is not a drop in deal. The 22 mag cylinder needs to be reamed. The ccm is just a little fatter and the rim a little thicker and larger diameter. Not by much now but enough that it needs done. I did a contender 22 mag barrel and was still able to use the RF ammo in it without any undue swelling of cases.
If you really are interested I have a live pilot reamer for the ccm and you are welcome to use it if you agree to be responsible for any damage that may occur. Inspect it before hand and if there are any problems after just be honest.
I have used it for the contender chamber, one other rifle chamber, and the single six which is really six chambers.
The single six was very easy and was done running the reamer in a drill press holding the cylinder by hand. There is so little to remove each chamber takes about two minutes.
BIC/BS

[StarMetal]

I want one a Single Six in 25 ACP pretty bad. I may have to look into it more.

I was going to make one a 32 acp waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before Ruger even thought about making them in 32 H&R.

[2 dogs]

What a bunch of horse pookey. The Ruger Single Six is plenty strong enough for a 327 Federal magnum. I know, I had Alan Harton build me one on a 22 Single Six. Mine is a 5 shot, I exit a 118 grain GC at 1550 fps with excellent accuracy and very light recoil.

[KevMT]

sweet grips!

[StarMetal]

What a bunch of horse pookey. The Ruger Single Six is plenty strong enough for a 327 Federal magnum. I know, I had Alan Harton build me one on a 22 Single Six. Mine is a 5 shot, I exit a 118 grain GC at 1550 fps with excellent accuracy and very light recoil.

You are comparing apples to oranges. First of all your revolver is a Super Single Six, not a Single Six. Your top strap, especially where it connects to the rear part of the frame, is more substantial then the Single Six.

Is a nice looking revolver.

[frankenfab]

Well mine must be a Super single six, too, cause it looks just like that. I thought all the "new models" were like 2 dogs', and the "3 screw" had the dovetail.

Boxhead's gun is the old model. Mine doesn't say "Super" on it anywhere, but I didn't get the box and papers.

I will go look it up, but anybody who knows please enlighten us.

[2 dogs]

My friend Terry Murbach refers to those stocks as AAA grade fancy particle board. They are actually Amboyna Burl by Harton.

[frankenfab]

Who can ya trust? But Wiki says a "Super" means it has adjustable target sights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Single_Six

Actually, I lied, my gun looks no where near as cool a 2 dogs'. But it does have adjustable sights.
Mine also doesn't have the Bisley features, yet.

I had a .22 Bisley, and sold it....foolishly I say now...you will see maybe 1 at a time on Gunbroker.

[StarMetal]

Who can ya trust? But Wiki says a "Super" means it has adjustable target sights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Single_Six

Actually, I lied, my gun looks no where near as cool a 2 dogs'. But it does have adjustable sights.
Mine also doesn't have the Bisley features, yet.

I had a .22 Bisley, and sold it....foolishly I say now...you will see maybe 1 at a time on Gunbroker.

Ruger never marked the gun with the word Super, it was only on the shipping box. Basically Single Sixes were fixed sights and the Supers were adjustable sights.

[Multigunner]

I agree with most of what you said. The thing with the old Mausers is that the gas handling wasn't up to snuff. It was much better on the 98's. I also feel that the 7.62 pressure is much higher then the 7x57 of back in the 95 action days. I do feel the 7.65 ammo is higher pressure, I know the stuff made for the 1909 Argentines is pretty stout.

I believe the 22 WMR runs around 24K pressure. As you can see if the 327 runs around 49K that is a substantial difference. So I agree with you that the SS may not be up to the task and I too noticed that dovetailed area on the frame. Personally I would not fire one if a friend had one. You may bet away with it a few times, but I'm sure in time it will come back and bite you.

The 1889 7.65 Belgian Mauser may have used a lighter load than later 7.65 rounds meant for use in the 95 and 98 type actions, the 1909 rifles have a pretty good rep but a friend showed me one he was rebarrling, one a girlfriend had bought for him for his birthday and she hadn't known enough to inspect the barrel properly. This action had some setback of the locking seats, but not so bad that he couldn't rectify that before cranking on a new barrel.
He used a setup made from a cut off barrel shank bored out to hold the shaft of a diamond coating wheel. He used this setup to blue print actions before rebarreling, in order the smooth the locking recesses so there'd be no mistakes in headspacing and rifles with minimum headspace would close easily.
Theres a limit to how much material can be removed, no more than a couple of thou for most actions, the heat treated layer shouldn't be thinned much if any.
Of course the setback area has its surface setback as well so only metal standing proud of that is removed.

If the 7.62 NATO had remained at its original specifications there'd be no problem with older action types if still in good condition, but the modern run of 7.62 often greatly exceeds the original pressure range of 47000-48000 CUP, and acceptable max std deviation is pretty wide for the heavier bullet loads.

If someone has a 93 or 95 they have shot many max power loads through without problems I'm glad to hear it, but it doesn't gaurantee that every other rifle of that type can stand up to repeated use as well.

I've seen far too many old warhorses still in the original chamberings that show setback to receiver or bolt or both to assume it can't happen with rifles of the same vintage rebarreled for a more intense cartridge.


Now to get back to centerfire conversions.

The .25 ACP sounds interesting, and a long case .25 auto cartridge was developed for extra punch from pocket autos.
Theres a obsolete .22 centerfire cartridge with balistics close to .22 LR. I don't know if cases can be found for those.
These allowed small bore target shooters to build their own loads taylored to their rifles.

There were 6mm and 7mm"VeloDog" cartridges made for small revolvers carried by bicyclists in the old days, when bikes were still called velocipeeds.
Some of these were also used in small game rifles.

I'd thought about having a .25-20 cylinder made along with .25 barrel, but even if the cylinder filled the entire frame opening factory cartridges wouldn't fit, and only deeply seated bullets could be used.

On examining my old model SS I see that the topstrap is pretty substantial, but not 40k+ substantial in my opinion, and even in its .22 WMRF chambering the frame did open up a hair requiring some rectification and a shim provided by a member here. Could be a heat treat issue that resulted in frame spread of my SS.
Theres a lot of steel there but the frames may not all be as strong as the successful conversions posted of or made of as good a steel.

Later production Single Sixes may have benefitted from improvements in metalurgy at Ruger when the more powerful Magnum pistols went into production.

I hadn't been looking for one of these, it just fell in my lap so to speak, but after giving it a lot of thought the .22Mag is plenty enough for any expected use I might put it too.

In the .32 department my little I frame Hand Ejector is good for now.

I like the idea of a .327 revolver so long as the small diameter can be put to use in a cylinder of seven or more shots with no more bulk than a six shot .38 or .357.

PS
I've been thinking about designing and builing a prototype of a low cost home defense revolver that can digest 9mm ammo.
My ideas on this line is for a DA only revolver with simple push pin cylinder removal for loading like the old turn of the 19th century low cost pocket pistols.
Main thing would be to use only the best steel for the frame and cylinder, in order to avoid pressure related accidents should the bore get obstructed with pocket debris.

I've often been asked to clean up old pocket pistols that had been carried in a purse or coat pocket for decades without any care at all.
I've found everything from lost ear bobs to remnants of tootsie rolls stuck in chamber mouths or muzzles.
One old timer had a .25 auto he'd had a leather sleeve made for to keep out pocket debris. I found that a small portion of the stitching had come loose and pocket lint had migrated into the muzzle over the decades till half the bore was plugged by a felt like mass.

[Bret4207]

I have a '93 Mauser in 7x57 that has digested many hundred stout jacketed loads and a lot of Norma factory loads too. No probs at all. I've also seen many, many '91 Argentines that have digested hundreds of Norma factory (all you used to be able to get) with no issue also. OTH, I've seen a few '09 Argies, my own included, that are about dead soft. I doubt they would "explode", but the heat treatment of the supposedly superior '98 is lacking in that respect.

I would take issue with the idea that the early 7x57 ammo had lower pressures than todays 7.62x51. The few tests of period ammo I've seen showed wildly varying pressure, much of it well over red line! Early smokeless powders were nothing if not inconsistent.

So, who's gonna chamber a Single Six in 44 mag and "prove" it's strong enough to take it?