22 single six to centerfire?

[frankenfab]

Has anybody here done this? It looks like I will have to TIG a plug in the old recoil shield bore and cut a new hole lower down. I haven't pressed the old recoil shield out yet, so I don't know for sure.

I know it would have been easier to just start with a centerfire, but I got a minty 22 for $230 to my door, and the upside is I will be able to perfectly center the firing pin with the charge holes.

[deltaenterprizes]

What cartridge do you want to convert it to?

[frankenfab]

327 Special Special Special. 'Cause it'll make me feel--"special":grin:

[MtGun44]

I believe that some have been converted to .32 Mag in the past.

Bill

[Bullshop]

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

[Rio Grande]

Alan Harton http://www.gunblast.com/AlanHarton.htm does it.
I've seen a Ruger .22 single-six converted by him to .38 sp.
Most awesome trail gun you'd ever see.
I believe he can do .327 as well.

[Bullshop]

Yes he does but the 38's are 5 shot and both it and the 327's are very expensive because they need cylenders that are longer than standard.
The 22 CCM was real simple, and cheap. I bought a Ruger 32 mag barrel but found the shank diameter is larger than the 22's. Would have to turn down the shank to fit and end up with a thin forcing cone or open the frame. The frame thingy might be too much $.
BIC/BS

[frankenfab]

Yup, Alan Harton's name sure is flying around alot lately. You can do a serach for his name on the Ruger forum and see some mighty fine work.

I will be doing a .327. Nice to know about the barrel shank difference, I hadn't anticipated that, but it is not a big deal. I will be buying or making the cylinder myself, kinda think I might as well go ahead and wade through the fixturing for machining cylinders and get it over with.

Thanks for all the replies.

[Bullshop]

He told me on the 327 he can get away with the thinned forcing cone because he is flush fitting the barrel to the frame. That means there is no barrel (forcing cone) past the inside of the frame so the cone even though thin is fully supported by the frame.
That is how he gets the extra length for the longer cylender needed for the 327 cartridge.
In my case I was looking at re boring the original cylender because I wanted the 32 mag. In this case the forcing cone would be past the frame unsupported and possibly too thin for the 32 mag.

[Bret4207]

I would question if the 327 will give you much the 32 Mag isn't already capable of.And if you want a 327, then wouldn't it be far less expensive to hunt up a 32 SSM to start with?

[KCSO]

I've got 15 years or more in shooting the 32 Mag in a Ruger Bisley on the 22 frame. I thing I have shot less than 30 full house loads but a whole bunch of 32 long style loads for rabbits, squirrel and coyotes to 50 yards or so. If it were me I would stick with 32 H and R and would be plumb happy.

[StarMetal]

There is a reason Ruger built the 327 on the larger frames....the little single six frames aren't strong enough. The 327's pressure rating is way above the 32 mag. Don't do it.

[Bullshop]

I dont feel the need for the 327 either as I too shoot more longs than anything else so only want the mag cylinder.
However I think maybe the conversions are on a lengthened 5 shot cylinder so would that be acceptable as far as safety goes? I am not sure about the 327 being 5 shot but am sure the 38 specials are.
BTW I did send in one of my 22 ccm's along with the 32 barrel I picked up to become a 32 H&R. 32 mag single six's are not rare but old models are. I searched quite some time for a Ruger 32 and came close to trading a couple times but no joy. New one are too expensive and I wanted one with adjustable sights not the bird head fixed jobbies I see available. I will end up having just as much $ into this one but most of that investment was already made long ago. He told me $75 to bore the cylinder and I am still waiting to hear about the barrel installation.
BIC/BS
BIC/BS

[StarMetal]

I dont feel the need for the 327 either as I too shoot more longs than anything else so only want the mag cylinder.
However I think maybe the conversions are on a lengthened 5 shot cylinder so would that be acceptable as far as safety goes? I am not sure about the 327 being 5 shot but am sure the 38 specials are.
BTW I did send in one of my 22 ccm's along with the 32 barrel I picked up to become a 32 H&R. 32 mag single six's are not rare but old models are. I searched quite some time for a Ruger 32 and came close to trading a couple times but no joy. New one are too expensive and I wanted one with adjustable sights not the bird head fixed jobbies I see available. I will end up having just as much $ into this one but most of that investment was already made long ago. He told me $75 to bore the cylinder and I am still waiting to hear about the barrel installation.
BIC/BS
BIC/BS

Dan,

The 32 H&R in the Blackhawk Old Model should be more rare then hen's teeth being the round came along round 1984.

[pietro]

FWIW, SAAMI published max pressures

.32 S&W Long - 15,000 psi

.32 H&R Mag - 21,000 cup

.22 Long Rifle - 24,000 psi

.327 Fed Mag - 45,000 psi

.

[Bret4207]

Whoa! Pietro rules. Don't do this.

[frankenfab]

There is a reason Ruger built the 327 on the larger frames....the little single six frames aren't strong enough. The 327's pressure rating is way above the 32 mag. Don't do it.

Well, I didn't really mean to stir up such a fuss. I wasn't really asking whether or not it was safe, I have already made my mind up all by myself about that. It has already been done many times.

I was just more or less asking for tips and tricks from people that have already done the conversion.:p

[StarMetal]

I don't believe I'd want to pull the trigger on a factory 327 load in a single six. That's a mighty thin cylinder and small frame for 45k pressure.

I know you can just load cast at reduced pressures, but how about when you gone someone ends up with the gun and they put factory in it?

[Boxhead]

Here's some photos of my 41 Special Single Six that Alan built.

Firing pin hole welded up.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-7/1055658/MVC-853S.JPG

New firing pin hole being machined.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-7/1055658/MVC-857S.JPG

New cylinder blank out of the heat treatment furnace.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-7/1055658/MVC-860S.JPG

The gun assembled for sight regulation.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-7/1055658/MVC-886S.JPG

A view of the chambered cylinder.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-7/1055658/MVC-907S.JPG

And completed.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-7/1055658/MVC-914S.JPG

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-7/1055658/SBH389.jpg

[frankenfab]

Beautiful.

[Bret4207]

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

[S.R.Custom]

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

[StarMetal]

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

Bret,

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

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

[357maximum]

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

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH..............all those 93/95 rumors make my toys cheaper and anyone that can navigate Al Gore's internet KNOWS a SR mauser chambered in anything larger than the 22lr will result in instant death and mayhem. In fact anyone reading this can send me their unsafe small rings for proper disposal...it's for the children you know.:bigsmyl2:

[Chamfered]

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

[Multigunner]

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH..............all those 93/95 rumors make my toys cheaper and anyone that can navigate Al Gore's internet KNOWS a SR mauser chambered in anything larger than the 22lr will result in instant death and mayhem. In fact anyone reading this can send me their unsafe small rings for proper disposal...it's for the children you know.:bigsmyl2:

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

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

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

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

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

[BCall]

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

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

[StarMetal]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

[dk17hmr]

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

[Bullshop]

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

[StarMetal]

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

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

[2 dogs]

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

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t256/Fermin_pics/327-1.jpg

[KevMT]

sweet grips!

[StarMetal]

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

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t256/Fermin_pics/327-1.jpg

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

Is a nice looking revolver.

[frankenfab]

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

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

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

[2 dogs]

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

[frankenfab]

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

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

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

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

[StarMetal]

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

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

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

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


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

[Multigunner]

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

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

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

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

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

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


Now to get back to centerfire conversions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bret4207]

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

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

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

[StarMetal]

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

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

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

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


Now to get back to centerfire conversions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well Ruger brought out their full size Blackhawk with a seven or eight shot 327, I forget which. They said it's just too high a pressure round to put on the SS frame. Some just don't or won't realize the 357, for example, operates in the 30k's. How many people would run a full house 357 in a SS? Yes I'm aware that there is a different back thrush between the two, but I'll bet they are close with the 327 running 49k.

[Multigunner]

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

The powders used for european militay ammo could become severely degraded over time. The powders used for Italian 6.5 ammo were based on a early nitro glycerine and nitro cellulose mixture with far more nitro than more modern double base powders. Some Italian 6.5 sold here from stockpiles found in africa have blown up a few Italian rifles, giving them a poor reputation for many years.
Some Boer war homegrown powders formulated at a dynamite factory were suspected of blowing up quite a few 7mm 93 and 95 mausers at the time.

I don't care much for using very olds milsurp ammo, due to possibility of excessive pressures from a variety of causes.

The modern M80 Ball and equivalents shouldn't exceed 48,000 CUP in average working pressure with 53,000 CUP the max allowable deviation within lots. A 95 Mauser action should handle that pressure level if in good condition.
Other heavy ball 7.62 NATO starts out at 52,000 CUP average working pressure and can deviate up to 57,000 CUP within lots. Add to that increased pressures due to degraded propellants caused by poor storage and you get far into the danger zone fairly quickly.

[Bret4207]

IIRC much of the problems with early jacketed and contemporary ammo was a combination of jacket fouling and powder issues. There's quite a lot of info in Hatchers and similar type books of the era. Either way, when you consider the varying conditions the rifles were used in, the poor cleaning many suffered and the fouling that wasn't addressed at all in some cases, it would lead one to believe many of the reports of the day that mentioned very high pressure observations. yet the '93's and 95's, the '91's also, held together with remarkably little report of bolts being thrust into foreheads, eye's being gouged out by escaping gases or fingers being lost to exploding actions.

I will reiterate, I would not abuse an early Mauser, Steyr, etc., but neither will I reduce it to a mere wall hanger based on unreasonable fears and internet legend. Fortunately this place seems to harbor little of that type of thing unlike the majority of other sites.

[StarMetal]

IIRC much of the problems with early jacketed and contemporary ammo was a combination of jacket fouling and powder issues. There's quite a lot of info in Hatchers and similar type books of the era. Either way, when you consider the varying conditions the rifles were used in, the poor cleaning many suffered and the fouling that wasn't addressed at all in some cases, it would lead one to believe many of the reports of the day that mentioned very high pressure observations. yet the '93's and 95's, the '91's also, held together with remarkably little report of bolts being thrust into foreheads, eye's being gouged out by escaping gases or fingers being lost to exploding actions.

I will reiterate, I would not abuse an early Mauser, Steyr, etc., but neither will I reduce it to a mere wall hanger based on unreasonable fears and internet legend. Fortunately this place seems to harbor little of that type of thing unlike the majority of other sites.


I dunno Bret. The metals then aren't as good as the metals today. Here's an example, albeit not an old one, take the standard AR15 5.56 bolts. The first ones were made from 158 Carpenters steel and a vast majority of them are today. The life span of a 5.56 bolt isn't real long. Fast forward to a few years ago and someone started making those 5.56 bolt (and other AR bolts) out of 9310 steel. A 5.56 bolt of 9310 steel will survive in excess of 60k rounds....but I doubt the bore of the barrel would.

Another thing you forget is the gas handling qualities of those old rifles. Whether the bolt comes back into your head or not is not the same matter of if a case goes and gas come back at your face, along with molten brass and metal pieces.

I doubt they had the quality trained metallurgists that we have today either. No matter what the pressure in those rifles got too, they were still designed to a certain pressure rating and I can guarantee you it wasn't as high as some of the modern cartridges of today.

I don't know how much you have experimented with making firearms and explosives devices....but if you have you would have a better understanding of what amount of what type steel can hold to explosive pressures. I done a lot of this. I was and still am an "experimenter". Somehow early in my life I also learned the safety aspect of doing such exploits safely. Nary a finger lost, an eye put out, or a hair singed....along with nobody else getting hurt. Later on in industry I went on to become a Safety Supervisor.

[Bret4207]

Joe, what are you talking about?

[StarMetal]

Joe, what are you talking about?

I'm talking they had the metals and alloys, but they didn't have the consistency to make the metal for those old Mausers to the same specification. Kind of like quality control. An example was the steel, especially the rivets on the Titanic, wasn't up to correct standard. They didn't have the correct carbon content in the rivet thus they were brittle and let go too easily. Now looking at the steel in the SS's of today is better controlled and more consistent. Look at the problem that cropped up with the 1903 Springfield's heat treatment.

Bottom line is I feel the non adjustable sighted SS is not safe enough for a steady diet of full house 327. I know one can convert one and say "well I'm only going to shoot lower pressure cast from it". But what if, when that person is gone, and someone else takes ownership of the gun unknowing it wasn't designed to the 49K the 327 operates at.

[Bret4207]

So, there are Mausers blowing up all over the place and we're just not hearing about it?

[StarMetal]

So, there are Mausers blowing up all over the place and we're just not hearing about it?

Not at all like that. More like what Multigunner told you, that the lugs set back because generally Mausers are soft.

[Bret4207]

Okay, that happens, but what does that have to do with my post 43?

[StarMetal]

Okay, that happens, but what does that have to do with my post 43?

I'll expand on your post #43 more specific then. You'll not, and you've probably owned quite a few old milsurps, that many of them, if not all, have bore dimensions that, even when new, that are often larger then the bullet dimensions...particularly the groove diameter. Deep groove in other words. This was a precaution so there was ample space for the fouling from the lousy powders in use then. It also reduced the pressure. Another side benefit is that the rifling would would still be present after lots of use...take a while to shoot it out completely.

The jacket alloys were softer then too. In short I don't go along with your post about the rifles not being taken care of, bores fouling bad and high pressure in result and why didn't they blow up. You're correct the powder was bad, maybe there were instances that the rifles weren't taken care of, but with all the milsurps present today apparently they were taken care of pretty decent. I would assume in the heat of battle they were neglected which is expected. Consider too they used corrosive ammo and still yet we have plenty of milsurps with shootable bores. So even if they were fouled bad, the oversize bores along with the extra deep rifling grooves and softer alloy bullets....they didn't pressure up enough to blowup.

[S.R.Custom]

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

I have no doubt that as far as strength of material is concerned, it would take it. But the concern I would have regarding any Ruger Single Six and a .327 conversion would be the requisite hardness of the metal. The Single Six was never chambered in anything that comes close to the operating pressure of the .327; I'd be willing to bet that the metal is not hard enough to sufficiently resist the erosion and flame cutting. (Can you say "Ruger .357 Maximum?")

I would propose, as an experiment, to take a run-of-the-mill .32 H&R mag Single Six and stoke it to .327 pressure levels, and put a thousand rounds through it. That'll give you a good indication if the gun will "take it."

While you're at it, take a chronograph to those loads. The anticipated erosion notwithstanding, I'd be willing to bet that the performance of the hot H&R loads would come pretty close to that of the .327. And without all the expensive gunwork.

[StarMetal]

I have no doubt that as far as strength of material is concerned, it would take it. But the concern I would have regarding any Ruger Single Six and a .327 conversion would be the requisite hardness of the metal. The Single Six was never chambered in anything that comes close to the operating pressure of the .327; I'd be willing to bet that the metal is not hard enough to sufficiently resist the erosion and flame cutting. (Can you say "Ruger .357 Maximum?")

I would propose, as an experiment, to take a run-of-the-mill .32 H&R mag Single Six and stoke it to .327 pressure levels, and put a thousand rounds through it. That'll give you a good indication if the gun will "take it."

While you're at it, take a chronograph to those loads. The anticipated erosion notwithstanding, I'd be willing to bet that the performance of the hot H&R loads would come pretty close to that of the .327. And without all the expensive gunwork.

I was thinking along the lines of the 327 cracking the forcing cone because like the Model 19 Smith you can't get a thick or larger enough forcing cone due to the frame restrictions. When they came out with that hot 125 grains stuff for the 357 those thin cones started splitting on the Model 19's. You're right about flame cutting too.

Lots think that a five shot cylinder solves it and it does help a lot, but get one oily, lubey, or waxy round, or oily chamber in the cylinder where the case can't obturate to the cylinder the full back thrust is then on the frame.

[Bullshop]

Joe the reason the forcing cones cracked in the mod 19's is that they had a fairly thin forcing cone protruding past the frame with no support.
The 327 conversions on the single six do have a thin cone but are fully contained within the frame so are fully supported. Think of it as a barrel shank inside a rifle receiver fully supported by the receiver. Besides the longer cylinder needed for the 327 necessitates the use of the entire cylinder window in the frame. This seems to work just fine.
BIC/BS

[StarMetal]

Joe the reason the forcing cones cracked in the mod 19's is that they had a fairly thin forcing cone protruding past the frame with no support.
The 327 conversions on the single six do have a thin cone but are fully contained within the frame so are fully supported. Think of it as a barrel shank inside a rifle receiver fully supported by the receiver. Besides the longer cylinder needed for the 327 necessitates the use of the entire cylinder window in the frame. This seems to work just fine.
BIC/BS

Dan,

I know that, but as you say SS has the cone more recessed it still is not solid to the frame. In other words the barrel has to screw into the frame so there has to be some clearance and that is enough to let it crack. In addition it's not that substantial in mass after it has a 32 caliber bore through it.

Ruger brought the SS out many many years ago. Do you for one second think they had intentions of one day running a 39K, alone a 49K, cartridge in it? I don't.

Like I said the 22 Mag runs around 24K. So rounds like the 32 acp, 32 Long, etc.., will work.

I'm sure it would work for a while. I'm not saying it's an instant hand grenade.

[Multigunner]

I have no doubt that as far as strength of material is concerned, it would take it. But the concern I would have regarding any Ruger Single Six and a .327 conversion would be the requisite hardness of the metal. The Single Six was never chambered in anything that comes close to the operating pressure of the .327; I'd be willing to bet that the metal is not hard enough to sufficiently resist the erosion and flame cutting. (Can you say "Ruger .357 Maximum?")

I would propose, as an experiment, to take a run-of-the-mill .32 H&R mag Single Six and stoke it to .327 pressure levels, and put a thousand rounds through it. That'll give you a good indication if the gun will "take it."

While you're at it, take a chronograph to those loads. The anticipated erosion notwithstanding, I'd be willing to bet that the performance of the hot H&R loads would come pretty close to that of the .327. And without all the expensive gunwork.

The frame distortion of my old model Single Six and the relative ease in rectifying it would seem to indicate that the steel is softer than we might think. But this is a single example and I have little idea of just how much this pistol was abused in the past. It did show signs of having been used as a mallet by someone who had watched too many old western films , so the situation may have been due to mechanical force rather than pressure of the .22 Mag cartridge.

An historical note. Flame cutting of the frame was not unknown in black powder days, and a few rare pistols were fitted with dovetailed in platinum inserts that were meant to shield the topstrap. A shield at the cylinder arbor was also tried.
My 1851 replica shows gas cutting of the upper side of the arbor at the cylinder gap.
Mass of ejected particulates was likely the major factor in BP frame cutting, and molecular weight of the products of combustion of common double base powders is a major factor in gas erosion and frame cutting with modern cartridges.

A gas shield of some heat resistent material might ensure longer life to the top strap of magnum pressure level revolvers, titanium perhaps.

[Multigunner]

So, there are Mausers blowing up all over the place and we're just not hearing about it?

A gunsmith once photo copied a several hundred pages from his shop manual on rebarreling the Mauser actions for my use.

Among the photos were many of blown up Mauser actions of various models with explanations of the causes of each.
These records were compiled long ago when a great many more milsurp Mausers were being used as the basis of custom sporters rebarreled for high intensity cartridges.

There were some really poorly thought out Mauser adaptations before WW2. One accident waiting to happen was a Central European copy of the Small Ring Mauser 98a artillery carbine. Instead of a small ring dia shank they'd fitted these with large ring dia shank barrels, the receiver rings left paper thin.

Near as I can remember the blown up Mausers, and those with too much setback to be worth rebarreling were almost all of pre WW2 production.

There were also a number of unmodified military configuration mausers that had blown up due to very corroded bore with excessive metal fouling adding to the problem. These were listed as reduced bore diameter due to rust and fouling. So bore conditions brought on by negligence and lousy ammo was a major problem back (early 60's and earlier) then at least when mostly non servicable rifles not worth refurbishing were likely to be sold off.

The quality of the metal and heat treatment of pre WW2 Mausers ranged from excellent to abysmal. The Chinese copies of the Standard Model export rifles are said to be among the worst.

A side note . Some FN manufactured bolts were found to be improperly machined, with no radius at the left hand lug where cut for the ejector slot.
A few of these bolts cracked there with half the lug snapping off. These rifles were usually repairable, with German manufacture K98 bolts fitted as replacements.
I don't know what FN serial number ranges to look for on this issue, but as far as I know only a few FN actions rebarreled to magnum cartridges suffered these lug cracks.

Another thing to look out for is excessive grinding of the receiver ring to remove NAZI markings of K98 rifles rebarreled to .30-06 by Norway.
Some workmen apparently didn't know enough about the depth of the hardened layer and cut away too much metal in creating a flat for the new serial numbers. Those ground too deeply can fracture under heavy loads.

[StarMetal]

The frame distortion of my old model Single Six and the relative ease in rectifying it would seem to indicate that the steel is softer than we might think. But this is a single example and I have little idea of just how much this pistol was abused in the past. It did show signs of having been used as a mallet by someone who had watched too many old western films , so the situation may have been due to mechanical force rather than pressure of the .22 Mag cartridge.

An historical note. Flame cutting of the frame was not unknown in black powder days, and a few rare pistols were fitted with dovetailed in platinum inserts that were meant to shield the topstrap. A shield at the cylinder arbor was also tried.
My 1851 replica shows gas cutting of the upper side of the arbor at the cylinder gap.
Mass of ejected particulates was likely the major factor in BP frame cutting, and molecular weight of the products of combustion of common double base powders is a major factor in gas erosion and frame cutting with modern cartridges.

A gas shield of some heat resistent material might ensure longer life to the top strap of magnum pressure level revolvers, titanium perhaps.

Multigunner is dead nuts on the flame cutting on black powder guns. Here's one that's even more amazing and it's MINE!!! It's a stainless steel ROA. Look not only at the flame cut on the top strap, but look at the erosion on what was once the sharp corner of the forcing cone.

http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg51/starmetal47/TopStraJPG2.jpg

[frankenfab]

I've enjoyed the Mauser an metallurgy posts from you guys. I guess that's why Jerry K. recommends in his shop manual that you have all Mauser receivers re-heat treated when customizing, just to be on the safe side. This is even after checking for obvious human damage. I have quite a few VZ 24's stashed away and in various stages of conversion.

I have gotten side tracked by my true love of customsingle action six-guns lately. 'Cause you can shoot BOOLITS out of all of them for one reason! I too, have spent many hours studying the research and work of others, along with my eduaction and experience in manufacturing. I have bought very expensive custom and production large caliber guns (Linebaugh, Freedom) and teken them apart, measured cylinder wall thickness in relation to cartridge MAP and even more importantly MALP.

I have yet to see a revolver blown up becuase the frame let go before the cylinder. With a 5 (or any odd number) shot the locking bolt cuts are gone from cylinder wall, which is a big plus right off the bat. The cylinder wall thickness at the bolt notch on a stock SBH .44 is only about .030".

The .50 AE is a 35kpsi cartridge with admittedly very thick at the base brass, but the cylinder wall thickness on my Freedom Arms 50 AE was only .060" at the thin point, and being a large diameter cartridge, the thin point and the whole surface area of the cartridge are quite a sum. I would never have dreamed of chambering a cylinder like that. Wish I had a picture to show you. SCARY!!! Freedom Arms cylinders are made of 17-4 PH. I'm not putting that out as a question.

Then you have the whole tolerance thing. A revolver that has been line bored and has near perfect barrel to cylinder alignment and minimum cylinder end play is not trying to rip itslef apart. Sure Ruger cannot mass produce a SS ("rattletrap" in one perspective, and "a fine all around gun" in another) in .327, or Blackhawks in any other over the edge calibers like .475 or .500. A great part of these custom guns "strength" comes from the cylinder not having try to break or bend the bolt when the gun is fired because the throat and bore are .005" out of alignment and the cylinder is not slamming back and forth into the frame. AND the chambers are minimum tolerance so the brass lasts forever. AND there is no falme cutting becuse the barrel/cylinder gap is tight.

Have any of you guys ever read all John Linebaugh's articles?

I have been studying the work of these guys for years:

Hamilton Bowen
John Linebaugh
Garry Reeder
Jack Hutington
Dave Clements

and most recently Alan Harton.


3 of these guys have been kind enough to give me advice.

[StarMetal]

I've enjoyed the Mauser an metallurgy posts from you guys. I guess that's why Jerry K. recommends in his shop manual that you have all Mauser receivers re-heat treated when customizing, just to be on the safe side. This is even after checking for obvious human damage. I have quite a few VZ 24's stashed away and in various stages of conversion.

I have gotten side tracked by my true love of customsingle action six-guns lately. 'Cause you can shoot BOOLITS out of all of them for one reason! I too, have spent many hours studying the research and work of others, along with my eduaction and experience in manufacturing. I have bought very expensive custom and production large caliber guns (Linebaugh, Freedom) and teken them apart, measured cylinder wall thickness in relation to cartridge MAP and even more importantly MALP.

I have yet to see a revolver blown up becuase the frame let go before the cylinder. With a 5 (or any odd number) shot the locking bolt cuts are gone from cylinder wall, which is a big plus right off the bat. The cylinder wall thickness at the bolt notch on a stock SBH .44 is only about .030".

The .50 AE is a 35kpsi cartridge with admittedly very thick at the base brass, but the cylinder wall thickness on my Freedom Arms 50 AE was only .060" at the thin point, and being a large diameter cartridge, the thin point and the whole surface area of the cartridge are quite a sum. I would never have dreamed of chambering a cylinder like that. Wish I had a picture to show you. SCARY!!! Freedom Arms cylinders are made of 17-4 PH. I'm not putting that out as a question.

Then you have the whole tolerance thing. A revolver that has been line bored and has near perfect barrel to cylinder alignment and minimum cylinder end play is not trying to rip itslef apart. Sure Ruger cannot mass produce a SS ("rattletrap" in one perspective, and "a fine all around gun" in another) in .327, or Blackhawks in any other over the edge calibers like .475 or .500. A great part of these custom guns "strength" comes from the cylinder not having try to break or bend the bolt when the gun is fired because the throat and bore are .005" out of alignment and the cylinder is not slamming back and forth into the frame. AND the chambers are minimum tolerance so the brass lasts forever. AND there is no falme cutting becuse the barrel/cylinder gap is tight.

Have any of you guys ever read all John Linebaugh's articles?

I have been studying the work of these guys for years:

Hamilton Bowen
John Linebaugh
Garry Reeder
Jack Hutington
Dave Clements

and most recently Alan Harton.


3 of these guys have been kind enough to give me advice.

All I can say is they got away from the open top cap n ball Colts and the early break open revolvers for a reason. I know you know what that reason is.

I too don't think you will blow a revolver up without the cylinder blowing, I do believe you will loosen a too small of a revolver or put another way, a not stronger enough of a revolver, for a 49K cartridge.

Let me ask you this. Let's say you want to build a 327 on a SS format. Would you sell them and would you stand behind them in any liability lawsuits?

[frankenfab]

If Alan Harton and Hamilton Bowen will do it, hell yes.

[StarMetal]

If Alan Harton and Hamilton Bowen will do it, hell yes.

Why won't Ruger?

[Bret4207]

I'll expand on your post #43 more specific then. You'll not, and you've probably owned quite a few old milsurps, that many of them, if not all, have bore dimensions that, even when new, that are often larger then the bullet dimensions...particularly the groove diameter. Deep groove in other words. This was a precaution so there was ample space for the fouling from the lousy powders in use then. It also reduced the pressure. Another side benefit is that the rifling would would still be present after lots of use...take a while to shoot it out completely.

The jacket alloys were softer then too. In short I don't go along with your post about the rifles not being taken care of, bores fouling bad and high pressure in result and why didn't they blow up. You're correct the powder was bad, maybe there were instances that the rifles weren't taken care of, but with all the milsurps present today apparently they were taken care of pretty decent. I would assume in the heat of battle they were neglected which is expected. Consider too they used corrosive ammo and still yet we have plenty of milsurps with shootable bores. So even if they were fouled bad, the oversize bores along with the extra deep rifling grooves and softer alloy bullets....they didn't pressure up enough to blowup.

You need to go back and read Hatcher and Ackley and Whelen and Crossman and old copies of the Rifleman from the 20's and 30's.

[Bret4207]

A gunsmith once photo copied a several hundred pages from his shop manual on rebarreling the Mauser actions for my use.

Among the photos were many of blown up Mauser actions of various models with explanations of the causes of each.
These records were compiled long ago when a great many more milsurp Mausers were being used as the basis of custom sporters rebarreled for high intensity cartridges.

There were some really poorly thought out Mauser adaptations before WW2. One accident waiting to happen was a Central European copy of the Small Ring Mauser 98a artillery carbine. Instead of a small ring dia shank they'd fitted these with large ring dia shank barrels, the receiver rings left paper thin.

Near as I can remember the blown up Mausers, and those with too much setback to be worth rebarreling were almost all of pre WW2 production.

There were also a number of unmodified military configuration mausers that had blown up due to very corroded bore with excessive metal fouling adding to the problem. These were listed as reduced bore diameter due to rust and fouling. So bore conditions brought on by negligence and lousy ammo was a major problem back (early 60's and earlier) then at least when mostly non servicable rifles not worth refurbishing were likely to be sold off.

The quality of the metal and heat treatment of pre WW2 Mausers ranged from excellent to abysmal. The Chinese copies of the Standard Model export rifles are said to be among the worst.

A side note . Some FN manufactured bolts were found to be improperly machined, with no radius at the left hand lug where cut for the ejector slot.
A few of these bolts cracked there with half the lug snapping off. These rifles were usually repairable, with German manufacture K98 bolts fitted as replacements.
I don't know what FN serial number ranges to look for on this issue, but as far as I know only a few FN actions rebarreled to magnum cartridges suffered these lug cracks.

Another thing to look out for is excessive grinding of the receiver ring to remove NAZI markings of K98 rifles rebarreled to .30-06 by Norway.
Some workmen apparently didn't know enough about the depth of the hardened layer and cut away too much metal in creating a flat for the new serial numbers. Those ground too deeply can fracture under heavy loads.

I would agree with nearly everything you wrote. I've seen many "custom" rifles that were accidents waiting to happen and many other early Mausers that I'd have complete faith in, given common sense care and loading. The problem is that a lot of people seem to have either zero faith or 100x too much faith in their guns strength. Better to use a bit of moderation in all things and enjoy a long, happy life.

[StarMetal]

You need to go back and read Hatcher and Ackley and Whelen and Crossman and old copies of the Rifleman from the 20's and 30's.

It's funny I get that post from you, but yet you go on and praise or agree with most of what Multigunner says, yet we both are saying the same thing...not wise to build a modern high pressure cartridge on an old Mauser. Someone mentioned that you should have an old Mauser reheat treated. Another well known gun person that said that too was Jim Carmichaels. You, sir, need to go back and reread those books you mentions and "comprehend" what they said.

[Bret4207]

Hey Joe, after years of you doing it to me and getting your chuckles, your chain has officially been pulled......





HAR!

[StarMetal]

Hey Joe, after years of you doing it to me and getting your chuckles, your chain has officially been pulled......





HAR!

Hey Bret......you son of a gun. You got me!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :drinks:[smilie=s:[smilie=s:

Hey, we were nice about.

Oh yeah, that HAR, that's patented by old Jumptrap....remember his HAR HAR?

[Bret4207]

Hey, nobody wants to abuse those old girls, that's for sure. I'm somewhat amazed that many survived as long as they did. Use them with respect and care and save the 338 Monster Masher Magnum for a modern action. In truth, there's not much a guy couldn't do with a '93 Mauser ain 7x57, but that wouldn't make sales for Remchester now, would it?

[StarMetal]

You got that right Bret and I think the 7x57 is an all time great cartridge, one of my favorites.

[leftiye]

I can put him on ignore, but then the blanks mess up all of the threads anyway.

[Bret4207]

It's those little nuggets of occasional wisdom that keep me coming back.

[StarMetal]

It's those little nuggets of occasional wisdom that keep me coming back.

When you going to give that Swede of yours a try after learning what the big secret technique was?

[Bret4207]

After I get the other 11,957 "emergencies" around here cleared up.

[StarMetal]

I know exactly what you mean Bret. Couple weeks ago I was in bed and my son wakes me up all excited says "Dad, your water system blew up in the basement". He went on to say my work shop room was all wet and full of fog and you couldn't see. My basement is finished and divided into two rooms. One is my gun side (thank God that wasn't were the problem was) the other is the workshop with lathe, drill press, tools, etc.. The water system he mentioned is I put in a new water softener and also an iron extraction system. We have well water and it has tons of iron in it. I don't have the type of iron problem that stains your clothes. Water taste like, well iron, and smells like hydrogen sulfide. Well it wasn't "my" system that was bad, the hot water outlet on the hot water tank cracked. It's the only piece of galvanized pipe in the whole system. The rest is plastic. Because we like our water hot and dishwashers require a little hotter water, the small crack atomized the water and it's hotness turned it to steam. The steam knocked out half the fluorescent lights and everything was totally wet. I got it back to normal and it required lots of work and a dehumidifier.

Sorry this is off topic but I know the emergencies that crop up when you own your own place and what it takes to keep it running.

Bret when you get caught up give me a holler and we'll see if we can get you shooting some decent HV groups with that Swede if that is what you want.

[McLintock]

I had Alan Harton built this set of Old Model Single Sixes converted to 32 H&R, but just sold them earlier this month. They were neat little guns but I just got too many gun sets to shoot in Cowboy Action, so they just sat in the safe. Alan once said he could make a Single Six in 32-20, and he did, but said it'd cost about $2000 so I opted out of that one. He's doing the 327's now, but making the longer cylinder is still kind of expensive I'd think.
http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL1620/1303399/7384995/387240446.jpg
http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL1620/1303399/7384995/387240462.jpg
http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL1620/1303399/7384995/387240491.jpg
McLintock

[Multigunner]

So far the only stretched and/or cracked topstraps I've seen were on cheap Spanish double action .32-20 revolvers. The cylinders of those were bulged a bit at the front about even with the case neck.
I'd figured those were due to using the higher velocity jacketed rifle .32-20 cartridge in a gun intended only for the lead bullet original pressure level cartridge.

The Single Six topstrap is far more sustantial than the top strap of those old revolvers, and with more meat than most small and medium frame revolvers for that matter.

That the converted pistols don't blow up is obvious, but I have to wonder if theres enough margin of safety to be certain the frame will hold up in the long run.

I think if any problems crop up they'd show themselves gradually, with looseness first.

[StarMetal]

The first time Chevrolet put a 396 cubic inch engine in their Chevy II (Nova) it twisted the body on their test track. Actually talked to some of the engineers in that and they said that it was resting on two wheels, that you could push on it and make it teeter totter. Back to the drawing board for stronger front and rear clips and some toughing inbetween those and the rest was history.

The point is the 396 was just too much for the small frame. Didn't blow it up or rip it apart, it loosened it substantially. I agree with Multigunner in how will the 327 hold up in a long run. Ruger didn't want to take the chance on that.

I feel those custom pistol smiths will build you anything for the money.

[Bret4207]

I wish I could find it in myself to fall in love with a single action. Those 32's look great, right up until I get then in my hand, then "Bleah!" as Snoopy says. I'm just a Smith DA guy, though and through. The closest I've come to fondness is my 45 convertible BH, but thats mostly 'cuz it shoots so darn good. I like the Bisley better but even then they fell "wrong". Kind if like the diff between and 1911 and a Hi Power, the Hi Power/CZ75 grip just feels right, the 1911 feels "funny".

I know, I'm either insane or just a total loser. What can I say?

[StarMetal]

Bret,

I told my best friend Bob I grew up with that I'd never own anything but a SA. Now I have more DA's then SA's and he makes sure he reminds me of my quote back when I we were young and my first revolver was a SSS and my first center fire was the old three screw model Blackhawk in 45 Colt that I still have today.

To me shooting the SA's is like driving an old truck and shooting the Smiths is like driving a Mercendes.

[McLintock]

Well, back in about 1970 or so, I bought a Smith in .41 Mag, the cased model, don't remember the number. A guy in college in the early '60's had a whole set or two of them in both .357 and .44, and he so impressed me with his shooting of them that I had to have one. Then I bought a Ruger Blackhawk in .41 and both had 6" barrels, actually 6 1/2" on the Ruger. I shot the Ruger so much better than the Smith that I sold the Smith and it's been SA's for me ever since; it's just a personal preference thing and everybodies got one and it only comes from experience.
McLintock