Model 53 32-20 issue

[theleo]

Now that winter is around the corner, my hunting season is behind me, and the newest mess maker has come I'm at a point to get back to a couple of projects I started earlier in the year.

The particular project for this conversation, is as the title says, a model 53 in 32-20. What I'm running into is that the NOE version of the 311008 hangs up once out of the magazine and being pushed up as the lever is being closed. The round, however, does feed without a problem in both a trapper and saddle ring carbine model 92's. From appearances it does seem as though the actions on the 92's are a touch longer. Before I go altering my old man's 32-20 brass I'm wondering if there's a better suited mold to the 53? Perhaps going to a NOE 314-85-rf with a shorter nose? I put it up to the group on where I should start.

[Nueces]

I have the same rifle and the same mould, but have not yet put them together. I prefer the appearance of the 008 crimped in the top lube groove, but I believe it to be designed for deeper seating. Where, pray, are you seating it in 32-20 cases?

[theleo]

I have the same rifle and the same mould, but have not yet put them together. I prefer the appearance of the 008 crimped in the top lube groove, but I believe it to be designed for deeper seating. Where, pray, are you seating it in 32-20 cases?
I tinkered with a bit and was going from the top of the lube groove to half way up the flat section.

[pietro]

.


There is no difference between the actions of the Winchester Models 53 & 92 - the barrel/stock& lever loop shapes configurations are different.



.

[theleo]

.


There is no difference between the actions of the Winchester Models 53 & 92 - the barrel/stock& lever loop shapes configurations are different.



.
That's the reason I'm confused there was no feeding problem in the 92's but there is in this 53.

[enfield]

I'm willing to pay you what that old relic was worth when new to stop your anguish :)

[pietro]

.

The loaded cartridge OAL might be just barely long enough so that it would be harder to pass through the loading cycle in a rifle that just happened to have tighter tolerances than an otherwise identical rifle. (aka: stacked, but opposing, tolerances)

.

[theleo]

.

The loaded cartridge OAL might be just barely long enough so that it would be harder to pass through the loading cycle in a rifle that just happened to have tighter tolerances than an otherwise identical rifle. (aka: stacked, but opposing, tolerances)

.
I'll play with it more than. I just get spooked seating bullets deeper and deeper I don't want to cause any pressure issues.

[theleo]

I'm willing to pay you what that old relic was worth when new to stop your anguish :)
Well that's a generous offer but it's not mine to sell and, like my old man, I don't believe in selling guns. Besides, a problem rifle is far more entertaining than one that shoots whatever you feed it!

[KirkD]

The Model 53 is one of my favourite Winchester lever guns and I just published an article on the Model 53 in the latest issue of the Winchester Arms Collectors Journal. The receivers and actions are identical between the Model 53 and the Model 92. To clarify they were both built from the same receiver. If you have a feeding problem with the 53, there must be a small problem with that particular rifle. I have owned two different Model 53's chambered in 32-20 and they had no difficulty feeding a variety of bullets including the 311008 you are having issues with. I have played around with different bullets and moulds and finally decided to order a custom mould from Accurate Moulds 31-112M http://www.accuratemolds.com/bullet_detail.php?bullet=31-112M-D.png . The shape of the bullet might feed better than the 311008 bullet but I make no guarantees. My mould is a brass, 3-cavity job that I am very pleased with. When you order a mould from them, you have to input what alloy you will be using and what you want to size your bullet to. They then matching the mould to drop the bullet a thou or two larger than the final sized diameter. I like that, as I've had too many moulds from elsewhere that did not give me the diameter I wanted for the alloy I was using (usually clip on wheel weights).

[KirkD]

By the way, I am conducting a survey of surviving Model 53's. Thus far I've got 500 rifles in the database. I would be grateful for data on anyone's Model 53 if you have not yet contributed. I need the full serial number, caliber, type of frame (takedown or solid), as well as any other special features your rifle may have (tang sight, special wood, etc.). You can PM me with that info rather than post it here.

[theleo]

By the way, I am conducting a survey of surviving Model 53's. Thus far I've got 500 rifles in the database. I would be grateful for data on anyone's Model 53 if you have not yet contributed. I need the full serial number, caliber, type of frame (takedown or solid), as well as any other special features your rifle may have (tang sight, special wood, etc.). You can PM me with that info rather than post it here.

I'll get you what I can next time I get my hands on it. It's been reblued and new wood put on it I believe (it was painted when my dad got it so collector value was already gone). Might I ask what you were using for the COAL? Were you crimping forward of the first driving band?

[theleo]

The culprit is the middle rifle.

[KirkD]

I assume you are talking about the 311008 mould. I cannot recall where I crimped them, but it was definitely not forward of the front driving band, as I was using smokeless powder. I realize that this would be relevant to feeding. Interestingly, I just checked an original, early WRACO black powder 32 W.C.F. (32-20) cartridge I have. The bullet appears to be remarkably similar to my Accurate Mould version, rather than the well-known 311008.

I will look forward to the data for your Model 53. It doesn't matter, for my purposes, if the gun has been refinished.

[tbryan]

PM sent on my Mod 53 takedown to add to your database. Hope it helps.

[TXGunNut]

Excellent article, Kirk. Very nicely done. It's quite interesting that I read your article one morning this past week after I read Madis' chapter on the 53 the night before.

[Rodfac]

I have an Octagon barreled M92 dating from 1919 in .32-20 that feeds Lyman's 311008 very well. I don't recall a single failure to feed in all the years I've owned it. I size my bullets to 0.312" and seat them to an overall length of 1.610". I crimp very lightly, just enough to keep the bullet from moving under magazine spring pressure. Accuracy runs close to an inch at 50 yds from rest and with a tang peep installed.

HTH's Rod