03A3 2 Groove vs. 4 Groove Barrels

[Trapaddict]

Is there really any appreciable difference between the two with regard to overall accuracy? Looking for a good cast bullet shooter. Is one really any better or worse than the other?

[craig61a]

No. However I have read that towards the end of production of two groove barrels the tolerances were relaxed so that may make a small difference. I have also read that cast boolit shooters prefer the 2 groove barrels. There have been tome written about the subject - Google is your friend...

[Jack Stanley]

For the cast bullet shooter the difference is the style of bullet you use to get the most out of the barrel . As I remember a two groove tends to like a bullet with a long nose such as a 311334 . The four groove likes just the opposite a bullet with a long body like the 311467 .

Jack

[Larry Gibson]

Yes there is a difference. The 2 groove was a war time expedient to cut production time and cost. Many think the result was a barrel that shot "as good as" the 4 groove barrels but that wasn't the case. The acceptence report states they shot "within acceptable accuracy requirements" for M2 ball ammo. Those "requirements" were pretty libera and most M1903s and M1903A1s with 4 groove barrels shot much betterl. Ask yourself this; since it is cheaper to produce the 2 groove barrels if they are as accurate as 4 groove (or more) barrels then wouldn't they be made and used today? Answer is they are not made today for the obvious reason.

I know some will post pictures of 3 or 5 shot groups but so? I ahve shot a lot of 2 and 4 groove M1903s and 'A3s and 'A4s. There isn't much accuracy difference on the whole out to 200 yards with cast or jacketed. However, at 300 yards and beyond the 4 grooves almost always proved more accurate. Look at the muzzle of a 2 groove barrel; it seems almost oval in shape. Well you are sending a bullet reshaped to that down range. A 4 groove maintains concentricity a lot better.

However, if you are only shooting to 100 or 200 yards then the 2 groove barrel will prove accurate enough as compared to a milsurp 4 groove.

Larry Gibson

[DEVERS454]

Got back from the range and fired 4 sets of 5-round shots from a pair of 1903a3 rifles. 2-grove remington 1944 vintage and a 4-groove Criterion recent production.

2 groove barrel had a better grouping because the trigger was much nicer and the setup of the barrel/rcvr/action was better. The 4-groove barrel was "fresh from the shop" and had a military rough trigger and I couldn't get comfortable with the cheek weld.

There is not a hill of beans difference between the two if the rest of the setup is not improved. Bad trigger, bad shooting position, bad ammo will do more to hose up your shots that a pair of extra grooves.

As someone already stated, out to 200 yards, there is not likely to be enough of a difference.

[HARRYMPOPE]

in cba matches to 300 yds the 2 groove still is winning and shooting small groups.that's all the proof needed IMHO.until a 4 groove is winning every match by a large margin I doubt. guys will throw away those poor quality 2 grooves.

[wch]

2 or 4 groove didn't seem to make much difference. What did make a difference happened when the Springfield Armory barrel rifling machine was set up incorrectly and production was actually ( as I remember it) a 10 1/2" twist and the testers reported increased accuracy over the usual barrels.
The Army checked, found the discrepancy, and changed the set-up back to 10" because that was "regulation"!
All of us who served are familiar with that line of thought.

[45 2.1]

in cba matches to 300 yds the 2 groove still is winning and shooting small groups.that's all the proof needed IMHO.until a 4 groove is winning every match by a large margin I doubt. guys will throw away those poor quality 2 grooves.

Well.... one of the first things we have agreed on. BTW, those poor 2 groove rifles shooting the short bodied long nosed boolits do very well at longer ranges (500 to 600 yards) also.... more so than the 4 groove rifles do.

[Larry Gibson]

Well.... one of the first things we have agreed on. BTW, those poor 2 groove rifles shooting the short bodied long nosed boolits do very well at longer ranges (500 to 600 yards) also.... more so than the 4 groove rifles do.

Hmmmmm....I've done a lot of shooting at 500 and 600 yards with cast out of numerous 2 and 4 groove barreled M1903/M1903A3s and even several M1903A4s. My records show I've used 311466, 411284,311299, 311467, 311365, 311334 and the Lee 200 gr at those ranges. Four of them are "short bodied long nosed boolits". I have to admit they did better at those ranges but would reason it had to do with their BCs as they were the only ones holding sonic at 500 - 600 yards.

However, as to accuracy between 2 and 4 groove barrels; as I stated before, most often the 4 grooves consistently proved more accurate at and past 300 yards. I'm not talking an ocassional 5 shot group but 20 shot strings slow fire for record. Yes the 2 groove barrels with issue sights do quite well in matches with cast and jacketed at 100 and 200 yards but as the distance increases the variance of the shape of the bore (the bullet does assume that shape) of oval vs oblong begins to make the 4 groove shot bullets more accurate in flight. The mass of the 4 groove shot bullets is slight closer to the center of spin so any equal imbalance has less effect. If 2 groove barrels were/are as accurate then why aren't they still being made today and used by match shooters? Are the new replacement barrels for the M1903s for match shooting being made with 2 groove barrels? The answer is they are not because they are not as accurate as 4 and 6 groove barrels.

No, I'm not trading off my 2 groove barrels. As a matter of fact I still have a new 2 groove barrel in the wrapper that will go on my "shooter" M1903A1 when the current barrel is shot out. That 2 groove will do very nicely for the shooting I do with that rifle. The new in the wrap 4 groove barrel will go on my M1903A1 match rifle when it's current barrel is shot out. The 4 groove goes on the match rifle for the above stated reason; I know, from shooting a lot of cast bullets at 500 - 600 yards, that it will be more accurate than the 2 groove.

Larry Gibson

[45 2.1]

The difference Larry is that i'm shooting boolits I cast (out of my molds) and load...... not those you cast and load. It makes a large difference on just how things are done...... Your also not going to shoot out a rifle barrel with cast...... but you will with all the jacketed loads your shooting.

[Bullshop]

I have an idea that hi antimonial low tin alloys may be just as erosive as jacketed bullets and maybe more so at equal pressure.

[45 2.1]

I have an idea that hi antimonial low tin alloys may be just as erosive as jacketed bullets and maybe more so at equal pressure.

Hardly an issue with a two groove barrel.......... especially the 03A3 although some of the 03 replacement barrels were two groove also.

[Le Loup Solitaire]

Cast bullets do very well for me in my Springfields. In the four groovers, including the Garands, Lyman #311284 shoots very well. In my 03A3 with its 2 groove barrel I use the Lyman 311334 and it performs excellently. I also have the Saeco 301 which performs as well as the 334. Both appear to do better too with my 1917's. The common denominator is that bores with a larger amount of land percentage prefer the bullet designs with the short bullet body and the longer noses that ride on the tops of the lands and are positively guided by them. LLS

[Larry Gibson]

The difference Larry is that i'm shooting boolits I cast (out of my molds) and load...... not those you cast and load. It makes a large difference on just how things are done...... Your also not going to shoot out a rifle barrel with cast...... but you will with all the jacketed loads your shooting.

45 2.1

Of course! We all know you cast so much better than I (or the rest of us for that matter).....we all know only you have the "secret" to loading at HV and the rest of us don't.........and we all know you shoot so much better than the rest of us...........so of course you do so much better than I and the rest of us.....we know because you tell us so! Sure would be nice to shoot with you and learn how it's done.....but then you always turn me and everyone else down.......must be a reason you don't want us to see "how it's done.....by you, eh?

You get the last word as I'll not respond anymore..........

BTW; you can shoot a barrel out with cast bullets. Friction is not the denominator; the psi and duration of the burn, temperature of the burn and how hot you let the barrel get. If you shot any high power competition you'd probably know that.......oh yea.....you learn everything there is to know from one hole "groups".......

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

I have an idea that hi antimonial low tin alloys may be just as erosive as jacketed bullets and maybe more so at equal pressure.

Quite correct Bullshop. 2 groove barrels don't give any longer barrel life than 4 groove with equal loads shot through them. Again, if they did give equal or better accuracy and the barrel life was longer then the military and match shooters would be using them. They are not and you are correct in why.

Larry Gibson

[45 2.1]

Larry... temper tantrums really don't become grown men. I simply don't care for you and won't ever give you information because of previous verbiage and harassment.......... others, some of them very well known here on this forum, have already got that information.

[Trapaddict]

I thank you all for the info. Now I just need to find one that won't set me back too much. That is easier said than done...

Jeff

[Multigunner]

I think the two groove barrels may hold up to the sometimes poorly done cleaning that rifles got in wartime. Narrower lands would be more prone to damage by jointed steel rods.
If cleaned with care a four or more groove barrel don't suffer much if any cleaning rod damage, but not every soldier is scrupulously careful.
The Springfield rifle had an ultimate bore life of 18,000+ rounds with ball ammo, but an expected bore life of 4-5K rnds in service due to damage in cleaning.

Some two groove bores I've examined had indentations on the lands mid way of the bore. This sort of damage comes from being roughly cleaned from the muzzle with a steel rod. The rods twanged when striking the bolt face and the center of the rods vibrated against the lands. This sort of damage was more common with rifles used by peasant soldiers and guerilla fighters who had little or no real training in how to maintain a rifle.

Theoreticly all other things being equal a three groove bore is superior to a two or four groove bore, and a six groove better than a three groove.
Testing on this was done in the 1840s and again in the late 19th and early 20th century.
Odd number grooves give the most equal engraving resistence, so the bullet is best centered to the bore.

[FAsmus]

Larry Gibson;

Back there in the thread you mentioned (twice) "shooting out" barrels on your Springfields.

I ~ just for example ~ have a 6-groove Douglas barreled M70 with over 10,000 counted cast bullet rounds through it and it shows no noticeable wear, certainly nowhere near barrel-replacement wear.

Just what kinds of cast bullet loads are you shooting?

Good evening,
Forrest

[Forrest r]

How about an apple/orange comparison.

The 2-groove "ratchet" bbl's are an excellent bbl in the rimfire br community. They are finding they have less wind drift (buck the wind) and are extremely accurate with the lead 22lr ammo.

[FAsmus]

Gentlemen;

Here's my story about some two-groove Enfield shooting;

I once killed a Meadow Lark at 834 yards with a single shot from my old M1917 Enfield, armory re-barreled with a Johnson Automatics two-groove barrel..

It was a nice Spring morning; calm, fairly warm with bright sunshine.

I think I may have said something about the Enfield somewhere on this site ~ anyway, all it has is an old Redfield hunter-class receiver sight on the back and a Lyman 17A on the front. Naturally you can't see a Meadow Lark at all from 800 yards so I used a spotting scope. ~ There he was; sitting on top of our target.

I settled the M1917 on my cross-stick rest. I took careful aim, edging my sight picture slightly high from holding dead-center on the target. I fired and, moving to my spotting scope to watch the arrival of my bullet at the target (time of flight is 2 seconds). The bullet got there and the Lark vanished in a burst of feathers.

Good afternoon,
Forrest

[Larry Gibson]

Larry Gibson;

Back there in the thread you mentioned (twice) "shooting out" barrels on your Springfields.

I ~ just for example ~ have a 6-groove Douglas barreled M70 with over 10,000 counted cast bullet rounds through it and it shows no noticeable wear, certainly nowhere near barrel-replacement wear.

Just what kinds of cast bullet loads are you shooting?

Good evening,
Forrest

Read back through my posts and if you mean; "BTW; you can shoot a barrel out with cast bullets. Friction is not the denominator; the psi and duration of the burn, temperature of the burn and how hot you let the barrel get. If you shot any high power competition you'd probably know that.......oh yea.....you learn everything there is to know from one hole "groups"......." then what it means is if you shoot high intensity (psi and the same volume of hot gas) cast bullet loads with cast bullets you will shoot out the barrel just about as fast as with the same load shooting jacketed bullets. Shoot low pressured reduced loads with jacketed bullets and the barrel will last a long time too. Same reason small bore higher capacity cartridges at 62,000 psi have a relatively short barrel life.

I also mentioned; "As a matter of fact I still have a new 2 groove barrel in the wrapper that will go on my "shooter" M1903A1 when the current barrel is shot out."

In neither case did I state I "shot out" M1903 barrels with cast bullet loads. I have shot out 2 match barrels and a sporter barrel in '06. I shot a lot of high end match loads along with hunting loads with 4895, 4064 and 4350 out of those barrels. Probably got around 6 thousand rounds of useable match accuracy out of the match barrels and the throat is completely gone in the hunting barrel at about 3000 rounds of high end 4350 loads. I've also shot out numerous .223 barrels and .308W barrels though none with strictly cast bullets.

My current shooter M1903A1 had a lot of rounds through it in it's lifetime; barrel is dated 9/19 and my guess is it's the original barrel. The lands and grooves are worn and it is slightly frosted. However, it still shoots within spec with M2 ammunition but I have 8000+ M80 and M2 bullets to shoot with top end loads of 4895. I doubt that barrel will see the end of those bullets which is why I have the new barrel sitting there waiting to go on.

Once upon a time on this forum I made the mistake, because I thought it correct, that one couldn't shoot out a barrel with cast bullet loads. I was corrected by several old time members that it was indeed possible. I researched the subject (should have done that before I repeated the often thought/said/published remark. I found that with cartridges where you can load cast bullets to factory psi (30-30 being one) you can shoot the barrels out as quickly with cast as with jacketed. As I said, shooting out barrels is strictly a function of psi, flame duration and flame intensity going into the throat and down the barrel. The difference between cast and jacketed bullets in such loads appears to be negligible. Now with normal reduced cast bullet loads that most everyone uses it is not much of a concern but for some who shoot top end HV loads it is a concern.

To answer your questions I shoot a HV cast bullet load in my Palma rifle; 50 gr AA4350 under the 311466 at 43,000 psi and 2600 fps. I am working on pushing higher velocity and psi with the same bullet with Cu in it. I track every shot through it and do not really heat the barrel up hot as I would in competition. How long the barrel lasts we shall see. I'm also working with a couple others on a 30x57 to boost that velocity to 2700 - 2800 fps with comparable or higher psi in another new barrel. I also will track every shot fired in it. I do expect both barrels to be shot out (loss of match accuracy) at some point well short of 10,000 rounds.

Also we need to keep in mind that "shot out" in terms of loss of match or bench rest accuracy is a far cry from loss of hunting accuracy and certainly from "acceptable" military accuracy (generally 3-5 moa).

Larry Gibson

[FAsmus]

Larry;

Roger all that ~ and since I detect your touchiness all I'll say more is that since you were good enough to post at least one load of merit, showing how hard you're pushing good 'ol 311466 I must agree: Heat and pressure are the culprits for the most part.

If anything I'd have to add that a fellow has to clean a jacketed barrel more than one used for cast. ~ But then again, I don't load cast as hot as you do.

Good day,
Forrest

[square butte]

Not to throw a kink in the thread - (perhaps this deserves it's own thread) But - I have a friend who has a Rem 03A3 with one of the High Standard/Smith Corona 6 groove barrels on it. Doubt he will ever shoot it as he is not shooting anymore due to health. Bore looks like new. And funny to see 6 grooves looking back at me. Just wonderin. Anyone have an opinion on the shooting quality and characteristics of these. I believe there are not too many of these out there.

[kysunfish]

I have done some informal testing with the 2 groove verses 4 groove and my findings were that the 2 groove would develop less pressure than the 4 groove at nearly identical velocities. The 6 groove has no advantage over the 4 groove that I can find in my primitive surroundings. Sunfish

[fouronesix]

I have no idea about fragility of 2 vs 4 or potential for burn out. All I can add (less than .02 cents USD) is my experience with four different 03s and 03A3s. Each having comparable excellent bores. With both cast and jacketed, the 4 grooves out shoot the 2 grooves.

[Multigunner]

A burnt out throat will end a barrel's accuracy life more quickly than bullet friction ever could.
A throat worn by bullet friction at origin of rifling may show little if any loss of accuracy so long as its mechanical wear to the lands with little or no increase in the diameter of the freebore. A little freebore can sometimes be a plus, since it reduces engraving resistence and chamber pressure. A gently tapered bore due to mechanical wear has been shown to reduce gas blowby. Some long range shooters prefering a barrel thats been setback and rechambered to eliminate a eroded throat to a new barrel.

Thermal gas erosion of the throat and leade on the otherhand kills the accuracy of a barrel rather throughly.
In the early days of high nitro content double base propellents target shooters often found the accurate life of a barrel was measured in hundreds of rounds rather than thousands much less tens of thousands.

As for the Smith Corona rifles with six groove barrels.
I've read that the High standard made six groove barrels were made from Savage six groove barrel blanks. Most likely on the same machinery used to make the early No.4 six groove barrels used for trials rifles. Those six groove Savage No.4 trials rifles were among the first converted to No.4 (T) sniper rifles and known for superior accuracy.

[FAsmus]

Gentlemen;

My brief take on the 2 vs 4 groove deal is that a fellow can work out good accurate loading combinations, suitable for either one.

My Enfield with the (pretty much bran-new) Johnson Automatics barrel is my first and only 2-groove. The barrel is dead-nuts on spec, being 0.300 bore and 0.308 grooves. I liked that when I got it and still do. I like the theory that the wide bore provides additional support/guidance to a long bore-rider design bullets. This being the case I shoot lots of a Lyman 311284.

(I wonder how this works out for Larry and his 311466)

Multigunner says: A throat worn by bullet friction at origin of rifling may show little if any loss of accuracy so long as its mechanical wear to the lands with little or no increase in the diameter of the freebore. A little freebore can sometimes be a plus, since it reduces engraving resistance and chamber pressure. A gently tapered bore due to mechanical wear has been shown to reduce gas blowby.

F: I have a 1921 original Springfield with its issue 4-groove barrel. I bought it when I turned 18, some 50 years ago for $37.50. This rifle is worn as Multi says by mechanical wear rather than erosion. Since this is the case it still delivers pretty much outstanding accuracy when I feed it an older Ideal 311284 cast at 0.312 and left as-cast, GC on @ 0.314 and seated out such that it begins to show engraving..

Good morning,
Forrest

[HARRYMPOPE]

A 30 BR shooting a 200g bullet at 1900-2000 fps will adavance a throat enough to require a setback for top shooting at about 6000-8000(depending on barrel brand of course)At about 20000 they are fire cracked about 2-3" down the bore.These are high pressure loads.

[Larry Gibson]

Larry;

Roger all that ~ and since I detect your touchiness...........

Naw, no "touchiness" here. edited....he ain't worth the effort anymore (not talking about you FAsmus)........

However, I do agree with you that the fouling of J bullets and the attempted clean out of such has probably been the demise of more barrels than with them being "shot out".

Larry Gibson

[FAsmus]

Larry;

When I bought this 2-groove Enfield it was badly fouled with jacketed metal.

Instead of going through the various J-cleaning processes we're all familiar with I just loaded 100 rounds with the usual low pressure cast combinations (with bits and pieces of old casting runs so as not to use up the good stuff) and fired them normally.

When I was done all metal fouling was gone and the wet patch passed through the bore as if it were a Douglas Premium.

Good morning,
Forrest

[argie1891]

I for one just dont get the idea that a 2 groove barrel will shoot well at 200 yards then all of a sudden it goes to the devil at 300 and beyond. i have both 2 and 4 groove and i must admit i shoot at paper targets in matches in the other forum that will not be named. i say go to the matches shoot with the big boys and let the chips fall where they may. argie1891

[rjathon]

A burnt out throat will end a barrel's accuracy life more quickly than bullet friction ever could.
A throat worn by bullet friction at origin of rifling may show little if any loss of accuracy so long as its mechanical wear to the lands with little or no increase in the diameter of the freebore. A little freebore can sometimes be a plus, since it reduces engraving resistence and chamber pressure. A gently tapered bore due to mechanical wear has been shown to reduce gas blowby. Some long range shooters prefering a barrel thats been setback and rechambered to eliminate a eroded throat to a new barrel.

Thermal gas erosion of the throat and leade on the otherhand kills the accuracy of a barrel rather throughly.
In the early days of high nitro content double base propellents target shooters often found the accurate life of a barrel was measured in hundreds of rounds rather than thousands much less tens of thousands.

As for the Smith Corona rifles with six groove barrels.
I've read that the High standard made six groove barrels were made from Savage six groove barrel blanks. Most likely on the same machinery used to make the early No.4 six groove barrels used for trials rifles. Those six groove Savage No.4 trials rifles were among the first converted to No.4 (T) sniper rifles and known for superior accuracy.

5744 is a double base powder with a high NTG content I believe. Will mild to moderate loads with this powder and cast bullets wear out a barrel quickly? I ask because I've had great luck with this powder and like the fact that it seems to not be position sensitive or require a filler. It performs well but I don't have long term experience with it.

Thanks

[Char-Gar]

I am a huge fan of the 30-06 round in US Military rifles and have now 03s, 03A3s, 1917s and a Garand or two. These have two, four and even a five groove barrel and I shoot cast bullets in them all. I enjoy shooting and not into scientific testing to determine which number of barrel grooves is superior to others. So, I can't claim I have proven or disproven anything.

After many thousands of rounds in the above mentioned rifles and others, I can say that any well maintained and set up rifle will deliver great accuracy with cast bullets. Some individuals are better that others and some barrels prefer certain bullets over others.

If there is any kind of trend, I should say a fellow is better off with a long nose bore riding bullets in the two groove barrels, but that also is not hard and fast.

Whatever kind of rifle and barrel a fellow has, he will be a happy shooter, if he find the right combo of bullet, alloy, diameter, powder and charge. There is no need to switch barrel and trade rifles because of the number of grooves in the barrel. I find these "which is better" type threads of not much help or use to most folks. It is mostly folks trying to argue their personal preference and strain gnats. Not much help in that for the fellow who has a rifle and just wants his cast bullets to play follow the leader.

Good shooting all....Charles

[Jack Stanley]

Now that's a good sermon right there just as it is .;)

Jack

[Larry Gibson]

Obviously many have the mistaken impression that I said and/or mean "a 2 groove barrel will shoot well at 200 yards then all of a sudden it goes to the devil at 300 and beyond.".

That is not what I said and in no way is that what I mean. Two groove barrels shoot quite well even to longer ranges and do not "go to the devil". What I simply said was that long experience shooting 22 shot strings with cast bullets (mostly 311284s and 311299s) at 200 - 500 yards (V bull) and at 200 - 600 yards (Decimal bull) with 2 groove M1903A3s/A4s and with 4 groove M1903/M193A1s has shown the 4 groove barrel to be the more accurate all other things being equal. That was the OPs question; which was the more accurate? You'll also note that I stated that out to 200 yards and perhaps even 300 yards most shooters probably won't see the difference. It is only at longer range that the difference becomes apparent.

The "devil" has nothing to do with it.

Larry Gibson

[frnkeore]

Larry,
I find it interesting that you are now shooting normally cast bullets (i.e. w/o copper) at 2600 fps after posting for years that the cast bullet threshold is <1800 for a 10 twist. A "Palma" rifle would normally have a 12 twist at the very slowest and that wouldn't fit the "threshold" either.

So, what's the secret? Or doesn't the threshold apply anymore? Or do you just need more lube grooves? I'm sure that we woulld all like to know the answer.

So we can all know, what is the average differance in group size or score between the 2 groove vs 4 groove @ 500 or 600 yards.

Have any of your groups or scores been recorded at a offical CBA match so we can compare your 4 groove scores against 2 groove scores?

Respectfully,

Frank

[Josh Smith]

Tagged for when I can get to the laptop... Not a huge fan of the Android keyboard.

[Multigunner]

5744 is a double base powder with a high NTG content I believe. Will mild to moderate loads with this powder and cast bullets wear out a barrel quickly? I ask because I've had great luck with this powder and like the fact that it seems to not be position sensitive or require a filler. It performs well but I don't have long term experience with it.

Thanks

How high is the Nitro content?
Some of the older double base powders had up to 60% Nitroglycerine and burned out barrels quickly when full power loads were used. Even at pressures around 40K CUP bore life was very short compared to equal velocity loads of a single base powder.
Cutting NG content to 30% more than doubled bore life.
By WW2 Double base Ball powders were cut back to as low as 10% NG , with a accuracy bore life aprox 10% less than with Single base powders.

These days even 10% Nitro is considered high, except with pistol powders such as Bullseye that have up to 58%.
Normally a double base powder is more compact than an equivalent single base.

Some propellent manufacturers now use Nitroglycerine only as a Plasicizer in the manufacturing process. Since the Olin Ball method allows the lower content double base to be mixed under water its now safer than mixing single base powders in a dry state.
When Nitro content is 5% or below the powder is not listed as a double base because the Nitro is not added as an energetic additive.
This allows for the best qualities of each type of powder in one advanced mixture, with lower production costs and greater workplace safety.

Double base powders can increase velocity while giving a lower chamber pressure. In a well balanced load this offsets the erosive effect of the DB propellent to some extent.
Many modern DB propellent formulas also include Coolants that in some cases can reduce the working temperature to the level of a single base powder.

PS
The Carbon Dioxide content of the gases of combustion of a DB propellent also have an erosive effect not dependent on temperature. Single base powders give off Carbon Monoxide, which has a much lower molecular weight and lower impact on the surface of the bore. The Carbon Dioxide gas at the same velocity transfers more energy to the surface of the bore.
NG also forms Nitrious Acids which have a Chemical erosive effect, and can be deadly in an enclosed space.

[fouronesix]

Multigunner,
Thanks for that post and it makes sense to me- it kind of ties a lot of loose ends together about the various powder types. Although academic for the most part it may explain some of the latest generation powders like the Vihtavuori 500 series and others. Exactly how it all plays into the 2 vs 4 groove stuff I dunno as it's well beyond my level of understanding but very interesting nonetheless.

[Multigunner]

Multigunner,
Thanks for that post and it makes sense to me- it kind of ties a lot of loose ends together about the various powder types. Although academic for the most part it may explain some of the latest generation powders like the Vihtavuori 500 series and others. Exactly how it all plays into the 2 vs 4 groove stuff I dunno as it's well beyond my level of understanding but very interesting nonetheless.

Two groove bores have broader lands, a bore with broad lands is less affected by erosion. The Remington two groove barrels compressed the bullet more in the initial engraving, which made up for any looseness in bullet to bore fit due to manufacturing tolerances.
The tighter fit caused some concern when it was found that firing steel core M2 AP bullets in a two groove bore resulted in a increase in pressure of up to 4K CUP, about 8%, while delivering slightly lower velocity compared to a four groove bore.
British experiments with two groove .303 machine gun barrels indicated that the greater compression and friction caused their .303 tracer bullets to break up. U S .30-06 Tracers were not subject to break up in two groove bores, but this illustrates a potential concern with some bullet types.

A two groove bore 03A3 or M1917 with Johnson two groove rebarrel is less affected by poor cleaning technique and can digest a wider range of propellent types without rapid loss of accuracy due to erosion.
A two groove bore may cause an increase in chamber pressure, but well withing the safety margin of the 03A3 and M1917 actions.
The British two groove No.4 .303 barrels are most often of generous dimensions which prevents excessive engraving pressure and friction, so increased chamber pressure has not been a problem.

[1Shirt]

As usual find it hard to disagree with anything that Larry Gibson writes! Same case here! Have an old cobbled together 2 land springfield that shoots well enough with most all weights of cast from 150 on up, but best with the long heavies-emphasis on 311284 in HP.
1Shirt!

[rjathon]

Thank you Multigunner for your excellent reply.

[Multigunner]

then seems like a micro groove bore would burn out in no time??
How many .30-06 rifles have you seen with a microgroove bore?
The Marlin .30-30 with microgroove bore benefits from the mild pressures and low charge weights of that cartridge. Even so I have no doubt that the same rifle with fewer grooves and broader lands would last a bit longer.
.22 Rimfire rifles with microgroove bores will last just about forever, just as a .22 rimfire with any other type bore because the cartridge does not erode bores quickly.
In earlier times .22 RF barrels were made from very mild steel and were subject to erosion as well as corrosive primer salts. A microgroove bore of that sort of soft steel and used with the highly corrosive ammo of the day would probably have been worn out very quickly.

Modern sniper rifles use an updated version of Enfield rifling in order to reduce the effects of erosion on accuracy, they don't use micro groove barrels because those would not last nearly as long, even with the best modern stainless steel alloys.

[Larry Gibson]

Larry,
I find it interesting that you are now shooting normally cast bullets (i.e. w/o copper) at 2600 fps after posting for years that the cast bullet threshold is <1800 for a 10 twist. A "Palma" rifle would normally have a 12 twist at the very slowest and that wouldn't fit the "threshold" either.

So, what's the secret? Or doesn't the threshold apply anymore? Or do you just need more lube grooves? I'm sure that we woulld all like to know the answer.

So we can all know, what is the average differance in group size or score between the 2 groove vs 4 groove @ 500 or 600 yards.

Have any of your groups or scores been recorded at a offical CBA match so we can compare your 4 groove scores against 2 groove scores?

Respectfully,

Frank

Frank

I have been reporting on the 2600 fps in the Palma rifle (it has a 14” twist BTW) for several years now, nothing new there and what it has to do with threads topic?

The RPM threshold for the 10" twist is in the 120 - 140, 000 RPM range (I've been saying that fact for many years also) which tops out around 1950 fps......the math is simple to do but if you have problems with it please ask and we'll explain it.

Most Palma barrels have 13 or 14" twists if chambered in .308W. The standard twist for the .308W is 12" (standardized by Winchester who introduced the cartridge) although several makers use 10" twists because that’s what is common in most other 30 cals.....an ease of production cost thing.......some manufacturers have gone back to the 12" twist (Remington for one).

The 2600 fps from a 14" twist is not crossing the RPM threshold........if that's what you mean? And really what does all this about the RPM threshold have to do with the OP’s question? You really need to get your facts straight before you pull the trigger..........I got an email from joe (starmetal) and he is quoting you or are you quoting or proxy posting for him? The RPM threshold has nothing to do with which type of barrel is more accurate so I won’t discuss that topic with you on this thread, period.

However, back to the OP’s question; " Is there really any appreciable difference between the two with regard to overall accuracy? Looking for a good cast bullet shooter. Is one really any better or worse than the other?”

Perhaps you're not aware that CBA isn't the proponent for High Power matches? The NRA is. In a HP match at 500 and 600 yards the group size is not measured as each shot previous shot is pasted before the next shot. A little experience or research on your part would have revealed that.

I have already said the 4 grooves shot better at longer ranges in High Power matches in answer to the OP’s question and in response to some misunderstandings.....anyone would know that means the scores were better......1 point or 50 points, average difference in group size or score is not relevant; better is still better.......now isn't it and doesn’t that answer the OP’s question?

CBA matches are not long range belly matches (High Power) or the NMC.......and yes the scores of the registered matches were recorded with the NRA.......that's how one gets a Service and Match rifle classification.......in my case when I went from a shooting 2 groove M1903A3s with Lyman M48 rear sights (the M1903s fall in with "Match" rifles so the change in sights is ok) to M1903A1s with the same Lyman M48 rear sights my scores with the same 311284 cast bullet load took me from Marksman up to Expert classification. My scores at 200 yards were pretty much the same, a couple points better at 300 yards but were noticeably better at 600 yards where the real difference was very apparent.

The difference in accuracy was apparent with several 2 groove and several 4 groove rifles. I made the change to 4 groove barrels at one of the coach’s insistence. He said the 4 groove M1903s always shot cast better at long range and they indeed did shoot better at long range for me. I also had access to several M1903A4s in excellent condition in my SF unit. I shot those at 500 yards with the same cast load on the V bull. I could actually shoot higher scores with the M1903A1four groove barreled rifles with Lyman 48 sights than with the 'A4s with 2.5X scope on it having 2 groove barrels. BTW; I was not shooting groups either but 22 shot (2 sighters + 20 for record) strings for score.

Larry Gibson

[45 2.1]

These are simple basic yes and no answers:
1) Are we to assume that the "four groove out shoots the two groove" was done with the 311284 in all rifles?
2) Your basis of accuracy was score instead of group or string measure?

See if you can keep the answers short and to the point...........

[Larry Gibson]

See if you can keep the answers short and to the point...........

45 2.1

1) Yes, most of the early 200 - 500 yard shooting on the V bull was done with the 311284. Somewhere I did switch to the 311299 as it proved more accurate in both 2 and 4 groove barrels at 600 yards as it has the better BC.

2) That is correct. Since the "group" was centered over the bull (both V and Decimal targets) the better the score the smaller the group. I shot enough to have good zeroes. But I recall comparing the overall group size and center of the group in my record books to have those zeroes. The "group" is actually the cone of fire and since every shot placement is recorded in the record book it's easy to see which was the more accurate by score and group size even though the "groups" were not measured. If you don't understand that then you've not much experience shooting High Power and using a record book.

BTW; just how much experience do you have shooting both 2 and 4 groove M1903s with cast bullets at 300 - 600 yards, either for record or for group size?

Larry Gibson

[argie1891]

Larry i am not questioning your results but dont understand how one that shot well at shorter ranges would shoot less well at longer ranges all other things being equal... unless there is damage to the bullet as it engraves the rifeling that dosent affect it till it slows down or well i cant think of anything right off hand. again i dont want to start a fight over which is better i just would like to understand the reason for the difference. there has to be some damage to bullet or something. did you ever come to any conclusion as to why the scores were better with one than the other. argie1891 aka joe gifford

[Multigunner]

The break up of .303 tracer bullets in two groove machinegun barrels suggest that a two groove bore may damage or distort bullet jackets. It depends on bullet construction since U S .30 tracer bullets were not subject to break up in two groove MG barrels.
The increased chamber pressure when firing AP bullets, along with a slight reduction in velocity compared to the same ammo fired in a four groove barrel sugest some increase in stresses which would have some effect on the bullet.
Also if you notice arrows with only two vanes of fletching are more subject to deviate in flight if one vane is damaged than arrows with three vanes. Crossbow bolts of olden days, and some modern bolts, usually had two vanes, to make it easier for the bolt to ride the rail, and were not noted for long range accuracy compared to bows. The Swiss and Germans developed crossbows for precision target shooting that did not rely on fletching. Instead the metal bolt had spiral grooves passed though a opening with studs that engaged the spiral grooves, the forward motion imparting spin. A sort of mirror image form of rifling.

[HARRYMPOPE]

Larry- i have two buddies with very minty 03A4's and neither shoot any better than good 2 groove A3's.I kind of thought they would be tack drivers but were not.
How much larger were the groups at 600 yards when comparing the 2 to 4's? i have only tested them(6 or 8 barrels ea i bet) to 300 yards and could detect no accuracy difference with cast.It mostly depended on me reading the right wind condition at that particular day.

[FAsmus]

Harry & Larry;

My comparison of 2 vs 4 (or 6) groove barrels shooting as they do, similar groups @100 yards and then moving out to 830 yards in stages is like Harry's ~ any basic difference in accuracy is lost, undetectable (for me) due to the much more significant problems associated with condition.

Good morning,
Forrest

[45 2.1]

It mostly depended on me reading the right wind condition at that particular day.


My comparison of 2 vs 4 (or 6) groove barrels shooting as they do, similar groups @100 yards and then moving out to 830 yards in stages is like Harry's ~ any basic difference in accuracy is lost, undetectable (for me) due to the much more significant problems associated with condition. Good morning, Forrest

Since Larry was shooting Hi Power, he wasn't on a good solid bench. Wind and light conditions plus variable holding effect results greatly as conditions cycle (mechanical zero changes with condition, you either change the sights or hold off). He was testing what he could do, not what the rifle was capable of. Had he of picked one of four designs, available then, and known to produce excellent results with the two groove, he would have seen quite different results. I know I did and I bench tested them extensively at long range.

[Larry Gibson]

... unless there is damage to the bullet as it engraves the rifeling that dosent affect it till it slows down or well i cant think of anything right off hand.....

As several are mentioning that is what is happening. However the "damage" to cast bullets greates and unbalance where a large part of the bullets mass (the opposing parts of the bullet formed in the grooves) is farther from the center of axis, the center of spin and the center of balance. Also the larger the area of the bullet swaged by lands (the 2 groove has a larger land surface than the 4 groove) then the more the bullet is distorted. All that leads to small imbalances which show up and are more pronounced at longer range in larger groups or.....inaccuracy.

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

Deleted, I have no idea where that post came from out of the blue on this thread????

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

Larry- i have two buddies with very minty 03A4's and neither shoot any better than good 2 groove A3's.I kind of thought they would be tack drivers but were not.
How much larger were the groups at 600 yards when comparing the 2 to 4's? i have only tested them(6 or 8 barrels ea i bet) to 300 yards and could detect no accuracy difference with cast.It mostly depended on me reading the right wind condition at that particular day.

Harry

There was nothing all that "select" about the 'A4...

At 500 yards on the V bull the the 2 grooves held 3 ring and the 4 grooves held 4 ring with the 311284 bullet. At 600 yards on the Decimal bull the 311299 held 7 ring with the 2 grooves and the 4 grooves held 8 ring. Using the 4 groove rifles and the 311299 bullet I made the jump from Marksman to Expert.

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

Since Larry was shooting Hi Power, he wasn't on a good solid bench. Wind and light conditions plus variable holding effect results greatly as conditions cycle (mechanical zero changes with condition, you either change the sights or hold off). He was testing what he could do, not what the rifle was capable of. Had he of picked one of four designs, available then, and known to produce excellent results with the two groove, he would have seen quite different results. I know I did and I bench tested them extensively at long range.

Max effective range of that excuse is 0 meters.........once again you come up with an excuse why someone can not do what say can be done.......

As I mentioned above had there been a one time test perhaps what you say could be. However, given the use of several rifles of each barrel type over several years with numerous 500 and 600 yard 22 shot scores/groups and the 4 groove barrel M1903s consistently shooting better than 2 grooves answers the question.

BTW; your lack of High Power shooting knowledge is self evident. Many shooters, especially those of expert or higher classification, shoot as good if not better slow fire prone than off the bench. With a good shooting jacket and sling which is properly adjusted the prone position is as solid as the bench position. Back in the day when I was in practice I definately shot my match riflesas well prone as off the bench as many others do. Again, a little research before pulling the trigger.................

Larry Gibson

[45 2.1]

BTW; your lack of High Power shooting knowledge is self evident. Many shooters, especially those of expert or higher classification, shoot as good if not better slow fire prone than off the bench. With a good shooting jacket and sling which is properly adjusted the prone position is as solid as the bench position. Back in the day when I was in practice I definately shot my match riflesas well prone as off the bench as many others do. Again, a little research before pulling the trigger................. Larry Gibson

By that logic..... the bench rest shooters and CBA record holders would be doing that...... And they're not, nor are they going to..... they know better, so that stone bird don't fly. Current records in the CBA for group shooting is in the 0.1" to 0.2" range. We've seen your Palma rifle groups... or lack of group as it shows in line with current practices. Maybe you can post some Cast Boolit groups showing its worthiness. As for the NRA high power, maybe you can provide your participation dates and scores..... because some folks here have looked for your name and scores and didn't find you listed.

[Larry Gibson]

45 2.1

Tell ya what; how about you get several 2 groove M1903A3s and several M1903 with 4 groove barrels and 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. That way instead of the usual criticism based on your own opinion instead of facts you will have something factual that you have actually done yourself that you can talk about?

As for the NRA high power, maybe you can provide your participation dates and scores..... because some folks here have looked for your name and scores and didn't find you listed.

What "folks"? Let them come forth and state their claim to fame! However I'm calling BS on that as it is more likely your usual personal attack on someone's credability when you can't stake a claim with facts. If you are talking about *** as the "folk" (we all know who) he has no credibility.

I have a Master classification in NRA High Power (200 - 600 yards) and Long Range (600 - 1000 yards). You get that by shooting registered matches and shooting the required number of scores over a number of matches at those actual ranges. You don't get that by shooting groups with a keyboard or by posting "what others have done"....BTW what classification in any shooting sport do you have? I could post my credentials but it is for you and the "folks" to prove me wrong, good luck with that.

As usual 45 2.1 is ruining another thread with his inane personal attacks and attempts to discredit someone. Until he can come up with something substantial to disprove my answer to the OP's question then further discussion with him isn't worth the effort.

Moderator (any) who wants to see my credentials please PM me and I will gladly show them to you.

Larry Gibson

[Multigunner]

Bench rest shooter with 35 pound rifles can do as they like.
I've always shot tighter groups from the sitting position with elbows braced to inside of thigh or knee than from a shooting bench or other solid rest. Thats with rifles of aproximately ten pounds or less.
Were I using a heavy weight custom long range target rifle I might do better from a rest.
I do as well from the prone position, but its uncomfortable for me.

Far as I can tell no maker of target grade barrels uses a two groove bore. Some three groove matchgrade barrels are offered, and three groove barrels have a long history in the U S dating back to early .50 Trapdoor Springfield days when cast bullets were the norm.

From what I've read on the subject WW 2 wartime four groove Springfield barrel had a lower standard of accuracy than earlier manufacture four groove barrels. In 1916 any thing over 2 MOA on four of the first five shots fired through a new barrel was unacceptable.
The rifle with four groove bore used as a control when testing accuracy potential of the two groove barrel was only giving 3.5 MOA groups.
Its entirely possible that the four groove barrels coming off the line at that time were inferior to the two groove barrels, at least the two groove barrels from that first batch.
If theres twice as much work being done to rifle a barrel then theres twice as much chance of screwing something up.
I've run across complaints of two groove bores that varied in internal diameters , though with the age factor that could be due to wear from poor cleaning practices or internal bulging from bad ammo or blockages.
When theres a similar complaint about a four or more groove bore the cause is usually more obvious.

I do believe the two groove barrel can stand more abuse and continue to give a reasonable level of accuracy.

[swheeler]

Bench rest shooter with 35 pound rifles can do as they like.
I've always shot tighter groups from the sitting position with elbows braced to inside of thigh or knee than from a shooting bench or other solid rest. Thats with rifles of aproximately ten pounds or less.
Were I using a heavy weight custom long range target rifle I might do better from a rest.
I do as well from the prone position, but its uncomfortable for me.

Far as I can tell no maker of target grade barrels uses a two groove bore. Some three groove matchgrade barrels are offered, and three groove barrels have a long history in the U S dating back to early .50 Trapdoor Springfield days when cast bullets were the norm.

From what I've read on the subject WW 2 wartime four groove Springfield barrel had a lower standard of accuracy than earlier manufacture four groove barrels. In 1916 any thing over 2 MOA on four of the first five shots fired through a new barrel was unacceptable.
The rifle with four groove bore used as a control when testing accuracy potential of the two groove barrel was only giving 3.5 MOA groups.
Its entirely possible that the four groove barrels coming off the line at that time were inferior to the two groove barrels, at least the two groove barrels from that first batch.
If theres twice as much work being done to rifle a barrel then theres twice as much chance of screwing something up.
I've run across complaints of two groove bores that varied in internal diameters , though with the age factor that could be due to wear from poor cleaning practices or internal bulging from bad ammo or blockages.
When theres a similar complaint about a four or more groove bore the cause is usually more obvious.

I do believe the two groove barrel can stand more abuse and continue to give a reasonable level of accuracy.

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

[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 [smilie=b:

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-classification-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

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-classification-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

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.

http://www.remingtonsociety.com/journals/articles/two-groove/two-groove_p31_1.gif

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/showthread.php?176886-Cast-bullets-with-copper-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.

http://www.remingtonsociety.com/journals/articles/two-groove/two-groove_p31_1.gif

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 ????[smilie=b: Onceabull

[frnkeore]

Perhaps,then, the competitors for the Leech and Wimbledon cups at Camp Perry needn't care about the accuracy of their rifles ????[smilie=b: 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

[FAsmus]

Onceabull;

Here is a site and the records of the shooting where NO cast bullet target is set any closer than 350 yards:

http://www.quigleymatch.com/winners--records.html

Sure, most barrels in this shooting are 6-groove - other than the Trap-Doors, which have three.

Good evening,
Forrest

[onceabull]

Forrest: A fine site to refresh memory re: Quigley match concitions/rules. Everyone I know personally that has competed there talks about some lesson in humility learned .. Does seem to me that the match is set up to shoot for "score"(as opposed to group size).The one thing I didn't find is whether or not the match has ever been won( in any class) with a lever action rifle, or using smokeless powder...???? In dreamland I'm there with the Winch.1885 Safari in 375 H&H ,tearing up the White Buffalo class..then ,waking up, I remember that last year 35/40 would have been required to win that class.... Thanks, Onceabull

[FAsmus]

Onceabull;

Once: A fine site to refresh memory re: Quigley match conditions/rules. Everyone I know personally that has competed there talks about some lesson in humility learned ..

F: Me too.

O: It does seem to me that the match is set up to shoot for "score" (as opposed to group size).

F: The deal with this shooting is the way ballistics are approached within the restrictions imposed by the rules: Since there is no 'small-bore' class that would encourage folks to develop high velocity loads that would perform better in the wind the only alternative is to shoot the biggest bullet you can stand behind at the slowest velocity that will stabilize it, thus staying below sonic altogether.

With these things in mind another really primary deal is to have the smallest SD that you can manage ~ the idea here is that while you can fight drift to some degree, you cannot tolerate high/low problems at all.

All that being said the rifles that win are typically shooting groups of 5 X 1.500 or so @ 100 yards. This is plenty accurate given the pretty generous size of the steel. The winners are men who spend the time and ammunition out there shooting long range in the wind all year long in preparation for the match.

O: The one thing I didn't find is whether or not the match has ever been won ( in any class) with a lever action rifle, or using smokeless powder...????

F: The match has frequently been won with smokeless. One of the men I shoot with regularly here in town has won it at least 5 times (if memory serves) with his favorite 45/90 Sharps, shooting smokeless.

I have campaigned my M1895 Marlin, rebarreled to 40/65, in 'Lever" class and won the class for a few years. ~ It was fun. In my view there seems to be no way a lever rifle can win overall.

O: In dreamland I'm there with the Winchester 1885 Safari in 375 H&H ,tearing up the White Buffalo class..then ,waking up, I remember that last year 35/40 would have been required to win that class.... Thanks, Onceabull

F: I have often thought about building a "purpose-built" rifle for the Quigley. Something like your Hi-Wall in 375 H&H (except weighing 18 pounds), loading it to 2200 ft/sec and blowing everyone away. ~ The problem with a really heavy rifle is that 9 times out of 10 the cut for winner is made in the Offhand stage.

Man; if you happen to get stuck shooting offhand in serious wind you're done. There is no way to catch up.

Thanks for the post, good morning,
Forrest

[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............

Sure you ran that test!!!!!! that's why you've posted the targets and group sizes in this thread to refute me????? Your credibility here is just about the same as on the thread I earlier posted. Why don't you show us the results of the test, and tell us who the credible witnesses are? I've posted my credentials and shown you and "the folks" couldn't have looked them up because you didn't have the information to do so. That was all your usual BS and personal attack modis. Your now claim to have now conducted a comprehensive test to 600 yards YESTERDAY??? is unbelievable. What is the weather there BTW.....we all know; not exactly conducive to conducting a 600 yards accuracy test yesterday with cast bullets, is it?????.......So now you will claim to have done the test "before".....The BS flag is up on that claim too as you would have certainly mentioned it in the beginning of this thread instead of the BS you stated and then finding the Remington test......just BS is all..........I've stated my case and provided information on the details, you have not done either but then you never do, do you? You can have the last word because it's not worth discussing this with you any longer......the "ignore button" is on BTW.........

Larry Gibson

[45 2.1]

it's not worth discussing this with you any longer......the "ignore button" is on BTW.........Larry Gibson

One can always hope.... Hee hee hee..... but with what he has said before and his track record of always coming back, it won't last.

[Pat I.]

Larry the ignore button is a wonderful thing.

[waksupi]

Both of you put each other on ignore right now.

[Char-Gar]

Dueling should have never been made illegal in this country. It settled lots of issues between folks.

[onceabull]

Spot on there,Char-Gar...By chance, I was refreshing the memory bank re:The Sims-Johnson feud. and links lead me over to some stories about Pink Higgins.. One thought prevails --It was not wise to get on the wrong side of Pink, Gladys Johnson, and certainly not Gladys' second husband... Onceabull

[Char-Gar]

Once upon a time, people choose their words with more care knowing the wrong words might result in a dawn meeting on the field of honor. Seems rather primitive, but it would end long standing quarrels and conflicts. Today folks just bait and snipe at each other ad nauseum. There will never be a winner, just never ending conflict. We need to reinstate the Code Duelo/Galway Rules.

[Pat I.]

Would hitting the ignore button be a reasonable modern day facimile? I'm 3 for 3 on the field of honor and better off for it.

[FAsmus]

Gentlemen;

How about we tube this sillyness?

Let the fellows bust themselves on PM if they like, not here.

Good day,
Forrest

[Char-Gar]

Pat...The ignore button is the best we have. A pistol ball at 20 paces would be more effective, but there are some concessions we must make to the 21st. Century.

[Larry Gibson]

Oh heck guys, you all take this a lot more serious than I or probably 45 2.1........

I would like to have a duel with him.....of sorts......

Cast unpatched bullet loads out of rifles at 2500 - 2600 fps with 10 shot "groups" or "score" at 200, 300 & 600 yards. And 20 shots for "group" or "score" at300 yards with a stock 6.5 Swede with unpatched cast bullets at 2100+ fps. Loser agreeing to never more post a contradiction of anything the other says on this forum..........I'm up for it, how about 45 2.1?

Larry Gibson

[frnkeore]

Here we go again, Larry says,
"You can have the last word because it's not worth discussing this with you any longer......the "ignore button" is on BTW........."

Proof positive that the only sure things in life are "death, taxes and Larry NOT abiding by his word" I can not remember a time when he ever did abide by the statement that he was done posting in a thread.

Not only that but, he comes back trying to inflame 45 2.1 in this post again. If he read the OP he would know that it not about 6.5 Sweed's, it's about 2 vs 4 groove, 03 barrels. If he want a one on one confrontation, he needs to open a new thread!!! People with superiority complexs are never wrong, are they Larry?

Frank

[Larry Gibson]

Frank

I've no idea where you're coming from as I was replying to Car-gar & oncebull suggestion of a "duel" between 45 2.1 and I..........besides I never said I was done with this thread.......said I was done with 45 2.1.....and I am......you're reading way too much into this grinding your axe..........

Larry Gibson

[Char-Gar]

Actually Larry, I never suggested a duel between any two specific persons. It was just a generic post about ways to settle differences. But, you two guys did start me thinking.. :-)

[Newtire]

For the cast bullet shooter the difference is the style of bullet you use to get the most out of the barrel . As I remember a two groove tends to like a bullet with a long nose such as a 311334 . The four groove likes just the opposite a bullet with a long body like the 311467 .

Jack Hi Jack,

I read about how the 311290 was a perfect match for the 2-groove Springfield but that a 4-groove wouldn't shoot them worth diddly. I got real interested in cast bullets back in the Aimoo days after I found that my 4-groove Springfield with that boolit was the most accurate one I have ever fired in it. I believe it's the fit more than anything. 25 grains RX-7 was the load. Just goes to show that you have to check it out for yourself.

[Ben]

Newtire

I have a 311290 that is a nail driver in 2 groove, 4 groove , and one 6 groove 30 cal. barrel that I own.

Of course, I've also been told by many that a cast .30 cal. spire point won't shoot well either. I've also found that to be false.

Like you say, you've got to do your own testing and draw your own conclusions based on your own " down range " results.

Ben

[Jack Stanley]

Exactly right Newtire , Sometimes what we read doesn't match up with what our rifles tell us . I think it's worth a shot to try it if you already have the molds making bullets . If it's a matter of trying to find the right mold for the rifle before spending cash maybe that is a good guide , I dunno .

Jack

[LynC2]

Please forgive me for digging up an old thread, as I'm pretty new here and wanted to add a couple of my personal experiences and observations to it. I'm just getting back into shooting cast rifle bullets after a long hiatus. I guess I should start with an introduction of my experience in the various shooting disciplines. I am a Distinguished Rifleman, NRA Hi-Power High Master and hold a Master (I might have gotten a High Master card, but rifle teething problems and some tough wind conditions stopped that) card for long range from the first Palma match I ever competed in, the Rocky Mountain Palma Matches. I had planned to try out for the USA Palma team, but changing work conditions prevented that. I have won a few state and regional matches and placed well in many others as well as losing my share over the last couple of decades, meaning I’m getting long of tooth now.
Prior to getting into shooting High Power I shot a bit of bench rest; both cast bullet and the "J" type and learned a lot about load development and reading conditions. Later on I shot a bit of 1000yd benchrest which also was a great learning experience. In years past I also gunsmithed a number of benchrest rifles, High Power and F class rifles including my friend Larry Bartholome's first F class rifle that won him a number of matches. If you aren't familiar with him, do a Google search.
In this thread a question was raised about how could a rifle shoot well at a short range and then go south at a longer range. Well it can. A very common and accepted method of judging a rifle in high power is by x count at the 600 yd. stage of fire. If under good conditions at 600 I don't get a 50% x count or better for score with a known good rifle, I consider it is starting to go out. It will still shoot cleans at short range, but it starts grouping looser and sometimes throwing a wider than normal shot at long range.
Now the opposite can also be said about a group being better at a longer range than at a short range. Often times a long high BC bullet will still be unstable at the shorter range (precession) and will go to “sleep” at a longer range which will result in an improved level of accuracy at extended ranges
One thing that both long range prone shooting and long range bench rest have in common is the necessity of being able to read the conditions. Bench rest shooting has the advantage of a very solid position to shoot from, but a tight sling and a solid prone position is surprisingly stable. But I feel one of the greatest advantages of shooting from a bench is the ability to “machine gun” a group in a few seconds compared to score shooting which requires the target to be withdrawn and scored for each shot. The longer one takes between shots, the greater the chances the wind conditions will change.
I can't add anything to the 2 versus 4 groove barrel argument other than add I do have a 2 groove Springfield barrel still in the wrapper waiting for a future project. I personally believe the quality of the barrel is more important than the number of grooves.
That said, WOW! This is a great forum with a wealth of information that I am still trying to absorb, but the amount is simply mind-boggling. :shock:

[UBER7MM]

I saw a one groove Springfield at a local gunshop a year or so ago. The salesman surmised that the one groove was produced for less resistance and long range shooting. He pulled the bolt out and we each peered down the barrel. The rifling looked strange. I've never seen anything like it. Does anybody know about one groove rifling?

[MKastning]

Interesting thread. Just a quick look at the CBA military records show the 300 YD issue sights groups are pretty respectable. 5 shots @ 2.348", and four 5 shot groups at 5.833" with iron sights. I am pretty sure Mitch shoots a 2 groove 03A3. 10 shot groups open up to a little over 6 and 7" respectively. I ended up with a few 2 groove 03A3 's and do not own a 4 groove yet, but they both seem to shoot cast very well. 311299's for 2 grooves and 314299's in the 4 grooves if I remember the tech data from past competitions.



http://castbulletassoc.org/military/records/milrecords.pdf

[Multigunner]

I saw a one groove Springfield at a local gunshop a year or so ago. The salesman surmised that the one groove was produced for less resistance and long range shooting. He pulled the bolt out and we each peered down the barrel. The rifling looked strange. I've never seen anything like it. Does anybody know about one groove rifling?
Never heard of it on a Springfield barrel, or any high powered rifle.
I have seen images of a Vietnamese or Chi Com copy of a old Browning blowback .32 ACP made to fire the 7.62x25 by using an extremely deep single groove to bleed off enough chamber pressure to avoid blowing the slide off.

An article on surplus M1 Carbine parts mentioned finding several barrels made by a subcontractor that had only two or three grooves all on the same side of the bore.
How that happened is hard to say, perhaps a rifling button got damaged.
Some button rifled Springfield barrels may have been made, not sure of what methods were used for O3A3 barrels.

[Worn_Holster]

My Steyr Modelo1912 Chilean Mauser was converted to 7.62x51 in 1961 by the Chileans using a Springfield 30.06 two-groove barrel. This rifle still shoots well today after having it re-crowned, but it shows the 100+ years of use. I put on a Mojo gun sight since my old eyes couldn't make out the rear sight since it sits down in a slot on the upper handguard.

http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab52/myHKiron/DSC_0073a_zpsf801a2b4.jpg