Hopkins and Allen .25-20 Single Shot problem?

[Xringshooter]

Customer brought in a Hopkins and Allen single shot rifle. Only markings were the company name/city and .25-20. He got some .25-20 rounds made by PCI Ammo (new brass, 90gr Bear Creek FP - unknown powder charge - customer is going to try to find this out). Fired one round and called me.

Here is side by side picture of the fired and unfired rounds. On the left (where the bulge of the one on the right starts closest to the base) measures 0.304. The bulged case on the right measures .352

The measurements of the unfired round match what I could find about the .25-20 SS round.

If I drop an unfired round in the chamber, it goes in further that it should, it goes in well past the extractor and when you close the action the extractor goes over the base not under the rim of the round. The chamber apparently is too large a diameter. The customer wondered if there was supposed to be a "sleeve" in the chamber for the .25-20 ss round but I couldn't find anything that said there should be. Examining the chamber, there are no markings that would tell me that a sleeve whould have been placed in it. That said, the bulged case diameter is close to the case diameter of a .25 WCF. Might it be that someone at some time rechambered it for .25 WCF? I'm going to get the rifle back in the next couple days and do a chamber cast to see how it measures out.

Thoughts? This rifle is in very good to excellent condition. The barrel/action has been (very well done) and it seems to be a good solid rifle, abet not as a .25-20 single shot chambering.

https://i.imgur.com/xZoeXwKh.jpg

[Mk42gunner]

I'd be investing in some cerrosafe, if you don't already have some on hand.

My guess is it has been rechambered, the big two questions are to what cartridge, and is the new cartridge safe for the action?

Robert

[1Hawkeye]

Definitely needs a chamber cast. I would think if its been rechambered to .25-20 WCF the case would have fire formed a more pronounced shoulder like the WCF round has.

[Jedman]

I agree with Mk 42 that the gun has been rechambered. If it was a 25 wcf the rim diameter of a 25-20 SS is larger than the base diameter of a 25 wcf and wouldn’t be able to slip past the extractor and enter the chamber as far as you mention.
I have studied these H&A single shots and don’t know of any that were factory chambered in a 25 cal. cartridge that was any larger than the 25 wcf.

The fired case doesn’t show the more bottle neck form of the 25 wcf and the OAL of the 25-20 SS is too long to chamber that deep in a 25 wcf chamber.

I also agree if it has been rechambered I wouldn’t trust it with a larger smokeless cartridge such as the 25-35.

Jedman

[sharps4590]

As has been mentioned frequently, cast the chamber. That is the FIRST thing to do when acquiring ANY old rifle, regardless of what is stamped on the barrel. I've been misinformed too many times by sellers who "assumed" what they had is what it said.

[2152hq]

It looks to me like the rifle was rechambered to 25-35WCF

When the 25-20SS load was fired in the 25-35WCF chamber, the forward section of the brass case expanded and fireformed to the 24-35WCF (re)chamber. But the rear part of the 25-20SS brass case didn't expand and fireform to the new chambering.
That failure to expand of the rear section was likely due to a very lightly loaded 25-20SS round, made up in deference to the H&A action.
The other reason is that the rear section f the case is heavier walled and just didn't expand with the lighter load.

H&A built some of the 25-20SS chambered rifles on the small 922 action. These were called a Model 3925.
The .22rf caliber version (more common) was the # 3922.
Neat looking little target rifle with Scheutzen styled stock, oct bbl, checkering, heavy steel BP. I had one of the .22cal version (Mod 3922) that I restored and upgraded a few yrs back.


They also built some 25-20SS on their medium size drop block single shot frame. These have screw in bbls and are much stronger than the 922/3925 Model which use a simple slip in bbl shank and set screw like a Stevens Favorite.

I would not trust a Model 3925 rechambered to 25-35WCF.
Even in 25-20SS,,loads must be kept very light. It was a target rifle after all with it's Model being called the Junior Scheutzen by H&A.

The Medium frame single shot would be a better choice for the 25-35WCF. H&A used to chamber that particular rifle in 38-55WCF.
Keep in mind 38-55WCF was a BP round at that time of production.
The 25-35WCF has always been a HV smokeless round.

I would only load the 25-35WCF in a medium frame w/screw in bbl H&R action with starting loads and not excede that.

[Xringshooter]

Thanks for the quick responses. Yes, I do have everything needed to do a chamber cast and that's what I'll do when I get the rifle from the owner. I did not take the forearm off to see if I could see any other markings. The barrel was reblued but I would hope that the markings are deep enough to see them. The H&A name and address and the .25-20 were deep enough that the reblue didn't hurt them.

This is an old hand me down so the owner doesn't have the complete story but the chamber cast should tell me more and we can go from there. I will post what I find.

[uscra112]

Be interested in what you find. I don't think it's been reamed to .25-35. The expansion would go almost all the way to the case mouth if it were that, and the fattest part would be about .400".

Do we know whether the rifle is a pre-1900 "medium frame". or a post-1900 model "3925"? The former was cataloged in cartridges up to .38-55, and would probably hold a .25-35. The latter is much smaller, and probably shouldn't even be rechambered to .25-20 WCF, since some factory ammo is up the the 25kpsi range.

Photos of the receiver would help. The 3925 has a barrel retainer screw on the bottom. The medium frame is a taper pin coming in from the side.

[Xringshooter]

Talked to the guy that brought it to me to look at. Explained what I wanted to do and the cost. He said he would talk to his dad, who actually owns the gun and will get back to me. When/if the gun comes back in, I'll get the chamber cast done and take pictures of the of the receiver anany other markings and post them here.

[John Taylor]

I had a 44 Stevens that came in a while back that was re-chambered in 256 Winchester mag. Someone had fired a 25-20 WCF in it and it look close to what you have. The chamber can be lined if the rifling is good or the barrel could be lined.

[uscra112]

Holy Cow! .256 Win. Mag. In a Model 44. As soon as you think you've seen it all, they go you one better.

[John Taylor]

Holy Cow! .256 Win. Mag. In a Model 44. As soon as you think you've seen it all, they go you one better.

This came from another shop and when I pointed out the problem and what it would take to fix it they sold it to me at a good price. It is now a 44-40 and a lot of fun to shoot.

[Mk42gunner]

Hate to say it, but I was thinking .256 Winchester. Hope not, but if the OP gets to do chamber cast that will tell.

Robert

[Drm50]

I bought a fancy H&A rifle at estate sale. Very good condition but missing forearm. Octagon barrel and 25/20 SS. I forget full name but in Fladermans it was Ladies Perch Belly—-Target ? I was going to have it sleeved but guy offered me a nice m53 Win in 25/20 Win so I swapped him. He had a gunsmith over in WVa make forearm to match book and guy did beautiful job of matching existing stock too. I had another H&A that was rechambered to 22 Lovel.

[Xringshooter]

Ok, did the chamber cast and took pictures of everything I could think of. Pictures will be in sequence with the narrative.

The cartridges the customer brought me. Left is unfired, right is fired (obviously).
https://i.imgur.com/xZoeXwKh.jpg

The chamber cast. Measurements from right to left. First mark is where the bore started. Couldn't really see a distinct shoulder, almost like a taper from the neck to the base like the "bad" cartridge.
neck - 0.2755
Top of Shoulder (?) 0.2845
Base of shoulder (?) 0.3075
Base 0.3710
Rim 0.430
Length - approx 1.687

https://i.imgur.com/zFHvlXPh.jpg

Diameter of opening at receiver end of barrel where the base would be - 0.3710

https://i.imgur.com/9CeiRRZh.jpg

Diameter of where the ejector is - 0. 448

http://i.imgur.com/m0cTP3ah.jpg (https://imgur.com/m0cTP3a)

General pictures, looks like the s/n is 1330
Barrel at muzzle - 0.7325
Barrel at receiver (across the flats) - 0.9545

https://i.imgur.com/Uq4mbtah.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/cHTptEkh.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/A1Giq8Th.jpg

[uscra112]

Well, clearly not a medium-frame. Pretty sure it's the post-1900 "3925" model receiver, which supposedly was slightly bigger than the "9xx" model it was patterned after. I've seen only one in the flesh, and that was 15 years ago. The checkering pattern matches the cut in my catalog reprint. Buttplate should be a nickel-plated "Swiss" style.

Can that possibly be a close-coupled set trigger? As far as I know H&A never offered a true set trigger of any kind.

Looks like somebody reamed it with a bridge reamer. To what end the Devil only knows.

I'd say it's definitely worth saving. The model is vanishingly rare. Sleeving the chamber might not clean up the damage. Time for a liner.

Curiosity: H&A claimed the 3925 barrel was rifled with their "patented increase twist". Any chance to verify?

[Xringshooter]

The trigger is definitely NOT a set trigger set up, if you cock the hammer it will fire if you put something small between the two triggers and pull on the main one. I will get a twist reading as soon as I can and let you know what it is.

The customer did say that the person who did the bluing told his dad that he couldn't get the bluing to take very good on the buttplate so that tells me that it probably had some type of plating as a magnet will stick. The person doing the bluing painted it black (and did a pretty good job).

[Bent Ramrod]

It may be that somebody ran a .25-20 WCF reamer in there with no other modification, just so they could shoot it with available ammo. Not a good job; the proper way is to shorten the barrel at the chamber end so the excess length of the Single Shot chamber doesn’t provide an impossible freebore for the boolit to jump across.

It is possible to sleeve the chamber, and a worthwhile effort (IMHO) if the rifling is good. I did a .22-15-60 SS chamber on a Stevens 044-1/2 once that had the rear of the chamber screwed up like your rifle. I indicated the bore in on a lathe, drilled and bored out the damaged part to 0.375”, and turned a piece of shot-out .22 barrel to fit.

I turned a graphite rod to the proper diameter to hold the sleeve concentric with the bore, tinned the sleeve and hole in the breech, heated the barrel and tapped the piece in with the graphite rod in place. When all was cool, I broke and drilled out the rod, faced the breech end off, and bored and reamed the sleeve to match the rest of the chamber. Loads, shoots and extracts pretty well now, using a few original and a bunch of RMC turned brass shells.

Maybe too much trouble for some, but as gun restorer John Bivins used to write, “Original fabric is priceless.”

See if pushing that rear trigger forward gives you a light trigger pull on the front one.

[uscra112]

The graphite rod idea is new to me. Consider it stolen.

Phil

[AntiqueSledMan]

Looks like something made off the .357 Maximum, just a guess.

AntiqueSledMan.

[Xringshooter]

Although the rifling looks pretty good I just couldn't get a repeatable twist reading. I'll try again though.

Looking at the dimensions in my Lyman #49 for the .25-20 WCF and comparing them to my chamber cast, the theory that someone ran a .25-20 through seems to be plausible. I'm going to ask around to see if anyone has a fired .25 WCF case they could loan me to see how it fits.

All this said, any thoughts/recommendations on what to do? Ream (correctly) for another cartridge? Ream, line and cut for the original cartridge?

[Bent Ramrod]

If it was mine, I’d bush the chamber as above and recut the original .25-20 SS chamber. The rifle would be more interesting to me in the original caliber, and the SS shell looks much cooler to me than the stubby Repeater shell. Also, it would be a strictly handloading proposition, to black powder pressures, reducing the chance of bunging the action up with Hi-Speed factory ammo for the Winchester 92.

A guy on the old Shooter’s site once took his readers on a long sojourn of relining and rechambering one of those little H&As to .22 Rimfire Magnum. The block design is solid enough, and he calculated pressures and backthrusts to a decimal place, but he only fired eight shots through the thing before the poor metallurgy of the parts had set the block back far enough to allow the shell rims to burst in his face. Not a happy ending.

The reamer rental places may have .25-20 SS reamers (some claim to have every possible reamer there is), or you could send the bushed barrel out to a smith that has one, or buy one yourself. Each choice more expensive than the last, and then there would be the hunt for brass, which, ironically, was momentarily easier to find than .25-20 WCF brass a few years back. Then Jamison/Captech went out of business, and now the SS is, at least marginally, again harder to find than the Repeater brass. But it appears that neither are routine items of commerce now.

Probably the cheapest option would be to cut a quarter-inch or so off the barrel breech, extend the barrel stub the same amount, rechamber to .25 WCF (this time cleaning up the original chamber completely), recut the extractor slot, redrill the set screw hole, and slightly shorten the rear of the forend to fit again. I have a Stevens 44 that was done this way, and it works and shoots very well. I don’t fire Hi-Speed ammo in it, and I load for it moderately, but I’ve still had to beef up the action to keep it from shooting loose.

Unless your barrel is pitted or otherwise ruined, it shouldn’t need a reline. If it’s frosty, or doesn’t shoot the way I’d expect, I’d fire-lap it, but kids’ rifles (or any small bore barrels from that era) that are still in good condition are worth preserving, just to have.

[Xringshooter]

Well, I finally got some so-so repeatable readings and it looks like the twist is 1:14 or 1:15. The rifling is just ok so that may have lead to the not so accurate twist readings. It would probably be an ok shooter if it was worked on by someone with that kind of experience (I don't do any barrel work, no room for a lathe). I'll talk to the guy who brought it and explain what I have learned here - THANK YOU VERY MUCH - and he can explain to his dad and they can go from there.

Again, thank all who responed for giving a good lesson.

[2152hq]

A model 3925. The DST's I've not seen but H&A offered what they called a 'set trigger on the 900 series. It was actually more of a set screw that you could use to decreased the sear engagement to the point of an extremely light let off.

The 922 action as high shoulders behind the breech block and if carefully fitted, the block can make made to take advantage of those and make for a quite stong breeching.The bbl is only held in the frame with the set screw in the bottom of the front of the action. That limits the strength.
The lever and breech block are attached with a simple link. The screws become worn and even thought the very strong V spring in the front cut out in the frame snaps the lever shut with a lot of authority, those worn linkage pins can leave the block with some shake.

They are easy to work on, come apart and go together easily. That lever tension V spring is probably the toughest part to get back in place.

The forend on this one is a replacement, the orig was a very slim profile to a small schnoble tip. Some checkering to match the butt stock.
Small Swiss type cast steel butt plate.

The top tang is D&T's for a tang sight. The same sight that fits a Matlin 97/39 lever action fits these actions.

They were call a 'Junior Schuetzen Model' 3922 in .22rf & Model 3925 in 25-20SS

These Models were made after 1900 (after the 'new H&A plant was up and running) & probably didn't make them much later than 1913/14.
H&A went bankrupt in 1915.
They had stopped production all sporting arms around '14 and then failed on a Mauser contract w/ Belgium.


I think all of the 3922/3925 rifles will have what's called the 'late style' underlever as shown on this rifle as well.
The tip of the lever arm starts to sweep upward just a bit at the very end.
Earlier 900 series actions used an underlever that had a very tight downward arc.

The late style actions used the 6 o'clock extractor as seen here.
Early 900 series used a 9 o'clock extractor.

There was also a 1922, 1932 & 1925(?) Model. These were not the fancy target Schuetzens of the 39xx series but rather just the plain 922/932 round bbl boys rifles then fitted with full octagon bbls. The '19' series Model names reflected the oct bbl.

I've seen these small 9oo series in 38 caliber as well as a 938. These have the linkage pin changability like the 32cal rilfes to be able to fire both CF and RF rounds. It just pushes the breech block to a slightly different level position so the same firing pin either strikes at a CF or a RF position at the chamber.

I'll see if I can locate some pics of my restoration project Model 3922. Came out pretty nice.

[uscra112]

Just for the record - can you point me to any imagery that shows a 9xx receiver with a 9:00 extractor? H&As have been one of my hobby-horses for almost 20 years now, and I've never come across one, or seen any source that showed one such.

Thanks!

[Ajohns]

I can get a picture tonight for one or two that I have.
Truthfully I don't like them as part of the chamber is gone for having it. The extractor fills the space.

[kootne]

Here's a 9 o'clock extractor Phil. and also has the early lever on a 3922. I think it was a pre-fire gun. I have also seen an early 3932, .32rf, with a 1/2 round barrel that I thought was a legit gun. Wish now I'd bought that one.
Dennis

286007

[Jedman]

I have a Merwin & Hulbert small action in 22 rf that has the 9 O clock extractor also, it’s just like a H&A M 922.

Jedman

[uscra112]

Those both have the crazy taper-pin barrel retainer coming in from the side, making them pre-fire Juniors or medium frames, not x9xx series... Charlie Carder was pretty clear on this.

And M&H marked rifle would have to pre-date the x9xx design by several years.

[kootne]

Mine has the threaded screw to retain the barrel, not the cross pin. The only barrel marking is, "THE HOPKINS AND ALLEN ARMS CO. NORWICH, CONN. U.S.A."
I always thought the 9 o'clock extractors were pre-fire but I have no idea at this point in time when or where I came to that belief. I notice that my extractor configuration is different than JEDMANS. Click on my first picture and it will enlarge, you can see the difference, mine looks more like an 1885 Win.
I have a medium frame Baystate with a very similar extractor. But that precedes all the others I think.

286031

[Jedman]

I have the Merwin Hulbert rifle and comparing it to what deHaas wrote about the M 922 or New Junior models it is different in some ways. The receiver mics between 1.004 - 1.009 thick, the barrel shank is .690 diameter and is
1.312 long. Compared to the drawing deHaas has of the M 922 the differences I see are, the 922 has a shorter top tang and longer bottom tang, my MH are both the same length. He shows the hammer on the 922 to have a roller that rolls along the main spring , mine does not have a roller, and of course the 922 has a longer front on the receiver hence the take down screw on the bottom instead of the side screw my MH action has.
deHaas lists the barrel shank on the 922 as .715 dia. and 1.810 long which is larger in both ways to my MH action.
I don’t think mine is like a H&A medium action at all as it’s receiver is listed at 1.20 thick and the few I have seen are quite a bit larger than my MH action. My rifle is petite, light and is definitely scaled as a boys rifle.

Jedman

[uscra112]

@kootne: Now we're getting somewhere. Maybe. Your pic doesn't look at all like the blade extractor that @Jedman's has. Is that right? A better angle looking into the open breech would help.

M-H went bankrupt late in 1896, and everything was a scramble until the H&A Manufacturing Company was reorganized as H&A Arms Company in 1898. Carder wrote that in the transition they built the same products as they had for M&H, but marked them "H&A Manufacturing Company". After the reorganization the guns would presumably be marked "H&A Arms Company". So yours would be post-1898, but not necessarily post-fire.

Carder tantalizes us with a cut from a Hartley & Graham catalog (nominally 1895-1899) which shows a "Special Target Rifle" described as "An Entirely New Production". The cut shows a pistol-grip stock on what certainly looks like the 922 receiver. Text says it was offered in .22LR only. BUT he says that it had the rear of the frame scalloped, "like the later shotguns", so yours is not one of those, unless they dropped the scalloped receiver pretty quickly.

It seems that a 9xx style gun was being sold from the 1898 reorganization until the fire, and that it was being called a Junior. (I'd forgotten that.) I see that they continued tp call it a Junior as late as 1909, but I attribute that to their having retained the catalog cuts as long as they could get away with it. Stevens did the same thing. Those engraved plates were expensive.

@kootne: Has yours been relined? Could that extractor be a gunsmith job?

Now here's where we "circle back"......Carder says that the 6:00 extractor was introduced in 1910. But every x9xx I own or have any knowledge of has it, and we know they produced a LOT of 9xx guns starting right after the fire. So where are the thousands and thousands of pre-6:00 extractor guns? For once I think Charlie got it wrong. But that's what prompted my original query.

I bought my copy of Carder's book from the man himself, at a gunshow in (I think) Lima, Ohio. We talked for more than a few minutes, and I wish I could go back now and ask him questions like that.

[Ajohns]

Here's my Merwin & Hulbert under screw 932, or I think it's supposed to be a 932 anyway
286038286039286040

[uscra112]

Well, that pretty much proves that they exist, and I've just been missing them.

Is the gun actually marked Merwin & Hulbert anywhere? That would really put the cat among the pigeons.

Now I've got to start a serial-number vs. features log just as I have been doing for the Stevens 44. Be interesting to narrow down the range in which the transition occurred.

Phil

[Ajohns]

I will take another picture. It does say M&H on the barrel, left of that 32rf marking. But what all was on it I don't remember. I believe it has been reblued, but the markings were makeable.

[uscra112]

Old print sources like Carder, (or in the case of Stevens Jim Grant), could only do the best they could without the Internet. deHaas sometimes gets his historical comments wrong, because he too had only old sources and hearsay to draw on.

Yes it's obviously been refinished. The purple cast to the receiver is what you always get when you try to hot blue a previously case-hardened malleable iron receiver.

Yours will be the first entry in my archive. Could you pull the barrel and get the s/n?

[Ajohns]

Surely will, and thank you. I will take full pictures tonight.

[kootne]

Here are some more pic's of my action. Number on the breechblock and extractor agrees with the barrel and receiver. The barrel has been lined but I don't think the extractor slot has been moved, but maybe? It is further to the left than the others shown. The extractor has one side (left) that seems to be a continuous original H&A poor stamped surface finish across any place I would think a re-weld/refinish would show. The extractor also has a integral sleeve that the screw goes through, I assume to help align it to the slot. That is a new one to me on these guns. I wonder if based on the low # it was made while they hadn't yet figured out all the ways to make them cheaper?
286058
286059
286060

[uscra112]

Interestinger and interestinger said Alice. The sleeve alone makes it far better than a flat blade. I can't remember if my Bay State has that or not. But eliminating that and the hook at the top would certainly make the part a whole lot cheaper to make. If it is a devolution, would it be likely to have been done while Davenport was working at H&A? Despoiling his own design? Given present evidence, the origination of what became the 9xx action must have come prior to the M&H bankruptcy, (which is a revelation to me!). He would have joined right after H&A bought out Bay State, so.....1889 maybe? Sometime within the next five years the new action design is tooled up? Were the early examples literally toolroom prototypes? That might explain why they seem thin on the ground. An analysis of s/n will tell us more, if I can find enough examples.

Is your gun's s/n 123, or is there a fourth digit on the frame?

[kootne]

Lots of questions there. I can answer a couple.
1. My serial # on receiver and barrel is; 0123. I personally would call that post toolroom, but early production.
2. My Baystate extractor does not have a sleeve. It's screw is threaded into the left wall and has a trunnion on the end for the extractor to pivot on. I believe it was made this because the link is straight. The screw, if made to go all the way through, would go right through the middle of the link. Which I am guessing is why the H&A's have the U shaped link, it is going around the extractor screw.

Photo of Baystate extractor and screw (mid frame model)
286069

[uscra112]

It's a real early s/n, that's for sure. I need to review all my dead tree sources. The revelation that the receiver design predates the M&H bankruptcy opens a whole new rabbit-hole to dive into.

[Ajohns]

286121286122286123
This is what I have. The numbers for the receiver, barrel, and forearm all match.
I like the extractor shown on the other one shown instead of just the blade mine has. Having that finger would make it so the chamber is not open on the side. I see it also has a wider base for the screw. I actually made the one in mine, and machined it so there is a wider base. Even wider than the other above.
When my original would be drawn out by working the action, it would move towards the outside, slipping off the rim of the casing. It was just a flat piece of basically 10ga thickness steel. .134 thick.

[uscra112]

Yeah, that's the weakness of that flat extractor. I have a medium frame in .22LR which was lovingly reworked (and relined) by some long-ago gunsmith. He made a new extractor that is a very close fit in the slot, and of all the ones I have with that extractor it's the only one that works.

A crying shame that I got it on Gunbroker for a mere pittance. Seller started it low with no reserve, and I was the only bidder.

Another thing he did was to eliminate the takedown feature by reaming the taper pin hole and driving in a solid taper pin. Solid.

I want to thank you guys for chiming in on this. Blown a few cobwebs out, it has.

The internet is a wonderful tool, ain't it?

[uscra112]

Here's a mighty pretty rifle on Gunbroker that I get as as 2932. Seller reports that it has the 6:00 extractor and s/n 11767.

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/905995356

At my age and state of decrepitude, the starting bid is too rich for me.......

[Jedman]

I believe this one will be like the M 925 that has been on Gunbroker for at least the past 5 years with a opening bid of $ 900. That gun from Milan, OH has been there forever and the seller hasn’t dropped the opening bid, these guns aren’t worth that kind of money.

Jedman

[Ajohns]

I've saw it on there forever too. Yes, too rich for me.

[Bent Ramrod]

It’s in pretty good shape, but for less than that you could buy a C Sharps Arms replica that is actually practical to shoot. Much better collector’s item potential, too. It’ll be like the Varner Favorite; only a handful sold compared to the vast number of originals.

I have to say that Mr. L. F. Grant is (was?) a much better checkerer than he was (is?) an engraver. :mrgreen:

[G Hock]

So this thread is referring to my gun Ron did do the cast of the camber awhile ago I lost that and just had it back to him to make another he had no information on the dimensions of the cast and suggested to get a way earlier edition of Lyman he had the 49th and suggested some where in the 20th that they may list some casing that have been removed so after googling the dimensions and coming up with nothing I called another gun smith explain everything and all he could suggest is to get the book cartridges of the world and start looking

[G Hock]

Can picture be posted on here and if so how can I I would like to show the dimensions I wrote down on paper after tracing the cast

[Bent Ramrod]

I put the picture I’ve taken on my computer, go to Shrinkpictures, follow the instructions, reduce it to 600 bits (or whatever it is), download the reduced pic to my desktop, come back here, bring up the Reply function, go to “Manage Attachments” and follow the instructions.

We only have so much space on here for attachments, and a typical phone or camera photo is generally too big to display as-is, so they have to be shrunk. It doesn’t seem to hurt the resolution any. Eventually you can’t add any more photos to your allotted space here. However, by judiciously deleting old photos no longer of interest in old threads, you can keep a fair number of pictures on here.

I don’t use the photo image sites like Imgur so know nothing of how they work.

[uscra112]

A very useful tool for shrinking and a lot more is Irfan View, which I've been using for years, especially for changing file formats and cropping, (which reduces file size all by itself).

Free download @ https://www.irfanview.com/

Photo image storage sites are for suckers. They scrape your metadata, for one thing. Criminals can use them monitor you. I wish my daughter would stop using Imgur, but she still thinks that gmail is safe, so what can I do?

[kootne]

Some years back I struggled with attaching the photos. I can't say why this works but if you email the picture to yourself, when you get it back it is resized enough to attach to these posts. Magic.