Bent Ramrod
11-04-2016, 05:04 PM
Things had been getting way too rigorously scientific and stressfully competitive here at El Rancho, so I decided it was time to dig out one of my fun shooters and just mess around some. It is a recreation, after all.
I had found a junker Low Wall action at a Gun Show in 2004, missing a few easily made parts, and two years later, at the same Gun Show, found a pristine inside/VG outside Low Wall barrel in .32 R. F. In my junk pile, I had a fixable Low Wall buttstock, a turned but not inletted Savage 99 forend and a not completely appropriate, but fittable, Swiss buttplate. Found foldable notch rear and bead front barrel sights in my stash that would fit the dovetail notches on the barrel. I officiated at the group marriage of all this good stuff, redid the bushing job on the block and refitted a center fire firing pin, and once the thing was functional, put the refinish job on the back burner with, alas, all too many other such projects.
I took this rifle out with a load that seemed to give reasonable tin-can accuracy last I had tested it (1999, geez!) and checked it on a target. Ten shots went into 3-1/4" X 3-1/2," off the bench, at 50 yards. The load was R-P .32 Long Colt cases, W-W small pistol primer, 5.0 gr SR-80 and the Ideal 299155 hollow base, lubed with the old black Ideal lube.
180086
The aroma of the long obsolete SR-80 really ought to be reproduced in a modern powder. A gourmet experience right up there with Cuban seegars and Chateau Noof-de-Poop wine. I have gotten better 5-shot targets with the heeled boolits 299152 and 299153; maybe an inch smaller for five shots at the same range. But, regardless of the target buttplate, the cartridge is not a target cartridge. Some barrels, not necessarily pristine, seem to do fairly well with the .32 Long RF or CF, some, in better shape, don't seem to do better than minute of squirrel at 50 feet. So far, this one seems to be better than the second type, anyway, though not as impressive as the first, at least yet.
I got a good (6 in 2-5/8", 5 in 1") group once with the hollow base boolit and 4.5 gr Triple Seven, but could not get close to it the next time out. My hollow base boolits are cast from recovered .22 rimfire lead, so quick smokeless powders and BP substitutes seem to have enough blasting power to expand them into the rifling for the satisfactory hunting accuracy standards of 125 years ago. Haven't tested a lot of powders, just Trail Boss, Bullseye and Unique besides the ones mentioned. I wonder how that 209 powder might do, but not enough to pay for a pound of it. Haven't done any work with black powder, at least not yet.
The one disappointment I experienced was that for some reason this Low Wall receiver does not fit my extra Low Wall breechblock, which is in .32 Rim Fire. I wanted to see if the Navy Arms Brazilian .32 RF was on the same order of accuracy as my handloads.
I have one of the modern Lyman tang sights for the 1894 Winchester and I think I'll put it on this rifle and see if anything improves. The notch and bead barrel arrangement certainly contributed to the spread of shots. Uh-oh, looks like the old scientific rigor is starting to creep back into this project, too! :mrgreen:
I had found a junker Low Wall action at a Gun Show in 2004, missing a few easily made parts, and two years later, at the same Gun Show, found a pristine inside/VG outside Low Wall barrel in .32 R. F. In my junk pile, I had a fixable Low Wall buttstock, a turned but not inletted Savage 99 forend and a not completely appropriate, but fittable, Swiss buttplate. Found foldable notch rear and bead front barrel sights in my stash that would fit the dovetail notches on the barrel. I officiated at the group marriage of all this good stuff, redid the bushing job on the block and refitted a center fire firing pin, and once the thing was functional, put the refinish job on the back burner with, alas, all too many other such projects.
I took this rifle out with a load that seemed to give reasonable tin-can accuracy last I had tested it (1999, geez!) and checked it on a target. Ten shots went into 3-1/4" X 3-1/2," off the bench, at 50 yards. The load was R-P .32 Long Colt cases, W-W small pistol primer, 5.0 gr SR-80 and the Ideal 299155 hollow base, lubed with the old black Ideal lube.
180086
The aroma of the long obsolete SR-80 really ought to be reproduced in a modern powder. A gourmet experience right up there with Cuban seegars and Chateau Noof-de-Poop wine. I have gotten better 5-shot targets with the heeled boolits 299152 and 299153; maybe an inch smaller for five shots at the same range. But, regardless of the target buttplate, the cartridge is not a target cartridge. Some barrels, not necessarily pristine, seem to do fairly well with the .32 Long RF or CF, some, in better shape, don't seem to do better than minute of squirrel at 50 feet. So far, this one seems to be better than the second type, anyway, though not as impressive as the first, at least yet.
I got a good (6 in 2-5/8", 5 in 1") group once with the hollow base boolit and 4.5 gr Triple Seven, but could not get close to it the next time out. My hollow base boolits are cast from recovered .22 rimfire lead, so quick smokeless powders and BP substitutes seem to have enough blasting power to expand them into the rifling for the satisfactory hunting accuracy standards of 125 years ago. Haven't tested a lot of powders, just Trail Boss, Bullseye and Unique besides the ones mentioned. I wonder how that 209 powder might do, but not enough to pay for a pound of it. Haven't done any work with black powder, at least not yet.
The one disappointment I experienced was that for some reason this Low Wall receiver does not fit my extra Low Wall breechblock, which is in .32 Rim Fire. I wanted to see if the Navy Arms Brazilian .32 RF was on the same order of accuracy as my handloads.
I have one of the modern Lyman tang sights for the 1894 Winchester and I think I'll put it on this rifle and see if anything improves. The notch and bead barrel arrangement certainly contributed to the spread of shots. Uh-oh, looks like the old scientific rigor is starting to creep back into this project, too! :mrgreen: