My New MILSURP - Part II

[AZ-Stew]

A month or so ago I posted some photos of my "new" 1917 "Enfield". I'm happy having it. It was purchased to be a cast boolit gun. I'd like to have the $$ to buy a nice 03-A3 with a good bore, but that's not in the cards right now.

Anyway, I spent a week or so working on the bore, trying to get the copper out. The rifle's much lighter now, and I sold the used patches for enough $$ in scrap copper to get a start on the 03-A3 purchase (:kidding:). Even after cleaning, though, the bore looked rough. I was very concerned that it would act like a cheese grater on cast boolits and would lead up horribly. Turns out, that was not the case. I just got back from the range and haven't cleaned it yet, but it actually looks smoother now than after it was previously cleaned. I don't know whether that's due to a lead buildup in front of the rough spots I saw earlier, or whether the gas checks scraped out some fouling that wasn't affected by the solvents I used. I'll know after the next cleaning. Can't start that now because I have to go to my son's house for the grandkid's Halloween party. Should be fun.

Now for the bad stuff...

Neither my (known accurate) Remington M-700 nor the Enfield will shoot the load I used worth beans. I'm shooting Mike Venturino's (no offense, Mike, I thought I'd try it and see how it shot out of my rifles) suggested load of the Lyman 311284, cast of linotype, checked with Hornady crimp-on checks, lubed with NRA 50/50 Alox/beeswax, 25 grains of Accurate 5744, sparked by a Remington LP primer, out of new Remington brass. In addition to a distinct lack of accuracy, both rifles send these loads into nice oval holes at both 50 and 100 yards. The keyholing is less at 100 than at 50, but it's there, nonetheless. The Remington 700 is a good, accurate rifle, so it's not the guns. I have a nice little lube star on the muzzle of the Enfield, so I have adequate lube.

Any suggestions, gents? If necessary, I'll post some photos of the targets, but I think it's pointless. The description pretty much covers it.

BTW, I made an inquiry here a few weeks ago concerning the well-being of Mike Venturino, since he hadn't posted here since July. When I called in my subscription renewal for Handloader and Rifle the other day, I asked about him. He's doing well, so he must be busy with other pursuits and doesn't have time to check in.

Regards,

Stew

[oldhickory]

Some years ago a fellow gave me a Winchester 8-18 1917 that made some bubba hack jobs look attractive. The ears had been attacked with a hack saw, the stock butchered with what looked like a chain saw, and it had yellow paint spattered all over it, but a free rifle is a free rifle, so I decided to see how it shot.

The bore looked like a never cleaned sewer pipe, I spent four hours and who knows how many patches and solvent scrubbing it to no apparent avail. I got disgusted and decided to shoot the crud out, I fired five shots of gently loaded j bullets, (I actually aimed and got less than a 2" group off the bench at 100yds). Took it home ran a brush through it and some solvent, more patches, and...It still looks a little dark, but it's a fine shooter with j and cast, (23gr. of IMR4227 in Rem cases, a Rem 9 1/2 primer, Lyman 311332 cast from ww alloy lubed with Lyman Orange Magic with a taper crimp). It generally shoots around 2" at 100yds if I do my part with no leading.

You just might have a shooter there, Stew. Run a few j bullets through it, or even fire-lap it, (ya never know...).

Good luck.

[Dutch4122]

............... both rifles send these loads into nice oval holes at both 50 and 100 yards.
Regards,
Stew

There's a good chance that you may need to go to a fatter boolit in both rifles, especially the 1917.

Take a casing that has been fired in each rifle and measure the inside of the case neck. You'll probably be surprised at the measurement. Subtract .001" from that measurement and that's the diameter you should size to regardless of what the bore slugs. I wouldn't be surprised if you find that you need to go at least as fat as a 314299 to fill up the throat.

Hope this helps,

[azcruiser]

AZ stew if you would like some .311to.312 which will work in a 303 brit I have a several 1000s of them your welcome to try .153.5 AND 182.5 + or-. Shoot them in my Russian 762x54 r have them not lubed or lubed with the lee ALOX . I live in Chandler shoot at RIO during the week days or down in Casa Grande weekends .Rio gets to many people on the weekends any time but Tuesdays since that see my Doctor's day . Or just meet and greet somewhere . maybe Pistol Parlor know Clyde well .

[Bloodman14]

AZ-Stew, have you tried cleaning the rifle with hot soapy water, followed by a strong ammonia bath, then more soapy water? I cleaned my uncle's No. 1 Mk. III that way, and what we thought was an almost shot out throat/leade was actually quite usable. Working up loads for it now.

[AZ-Stew]

Looking back at my post, I left out that the boolits had been sized to .311. I'm sure they were fat enough, especially for the Remington. I'm wondering if they were TOO fat for it. Has anyone had problems with keyholing using boolits that were too fat for the rifle? I haven't seen that discussed here. I've been thinking since I posted that maybe I should try some sized .310 and see if that helps. I did make one change from Mike V.'s recipe. I used the 50/50 lube, and I believe he uses SPG.

The gunsmigh at the range suggested that I try some jacketed rounds just to see if the Enfield has any potential as a shooter. I hate to sully my cast shooter with copper, but I may try a few as an experiment.

Gunnerd...

No, I haven't tried the soap and water routine yet. That's something I should try, I guess. I did get a chance to run a few patches of Hoppe's #9 through the bore before I left for the party yesterday evening, and the bore still looks a bit rough. It's not clean yet, since the few patches I ran through it were still coming out dark. More work to do. There were (by my count) only five very tiny lead slivers on the first patch, so the bore, despite its looks, is apparently smooth enough to shoot with cast.

Cruiser...

I was shooting at Rio yesterday. I started shooting High Power (F-Class) a year and a half ago so I could get access to the High Power range and not have to shoot at the public range. It took 25 years, but the public range has deteriorated to the level of the California public ranges. When we moved herre, Rio was a nice, quiet place to shoot, with members who were sensible enough to handle firearms safely without constant oversight by "range Nazis". As the population of the Valley has increased, so has the number of dimwits shooting on the public portion of the range, and the greater the need for regulation and oversight. I think the greatest level of deterioration of the therapeutic experience came when the Forrest Service closed the portions of Tonto closest to the Valley to casual shooting. The number of people coming to the range doubled and the quality of the experience was cut in half. I don't want anything to do with the public range any longer. The High Power range is self-policing and a very relaxing place to shoot. Breaks to change targets are at the descretion of the shooters, and there are, quite often, more interesting discussions among the gun cranks going on than there is shooting. Once again I can leave the range after a session completely relaxed and refreshed. I still have to work for a living, so meeting during the week is difficult. come up with a weekend plan and I'll try to meet you somewhere.

Regards,

Stew

[Char-Gar]

I have never popped a primer on a charge of 5744 (or whatever that stuff was) in my life, so I can't speak to that.


But, if a good 30-06 rifle won't give decent accuracy with 311284 cast from ACWW or harder alloy, lubed with your 50-50, sized .310, over 16/2400 through a clean barrel, then something is seriously wrong with the rifle, the shooter or the guy who loaded the ammo.

You can break the above down into it's parts and find out where the problem is.

P.S. a hint.. If you are getting oval holes at 50 and 100, but the 100 is better. It sound to me like the bullet isn't stable (had not gone to sleep) at the shorter range and is becoming more so at the longer range. That indicate to me you have a velocity issue.

Keyholing is when the bullet flips end over end and hits the target sideways and leave a hole that look like a key hole. If the holes are oval that is caused by bullet yaw, when the base of the bulled it not spinning on the central axis of the bullet. Many rifle and loads will do this at shorter range, but as the range extends, the bullet will settle down (go to sleep) and spin true to the axis. Velocity has a big effect on this.

A good cast bullet load should not have yaw and 50 and 100 yards, hence the velocity issue. Both the 1917 and the Remington 700 have 1-10 rifling twist in the 30-06 rounds.

[AZ-Stew]

I have never popped a primer on a charge of 5744 (or whatever that stuff was) in my life, so I can't speak to that.


But, if a good 30-06 rifle won't give decent accuracy with 311284 cast from ACWW or harder alloy, lubed with your 50-50, sized .310, over 16/2400 through a clean barrel, then something is seriously wrong with the rifle, the shooter or the guy who loaded the ammo.

I've been success fully handloading and shooting accurately for 35 years or so, so we'll toss out the "shooter" and "guy who loaded the ammo" parts. My alloy (straight lino) is surely hard enough. Lube is 50/50, but as noted above, they're sized at .311. These were my first go around with the 311284 boolit, so surely more experimentation is needed, but I was surprised at the oval holes in the target.



You can break the above down into it's parts and find out where the problem is.

P.S. a hint.. If you are getting oval holes at 50 and 100, but the 100 is better. It sound to me like the bullet isn't stable (had not gone to sleep) at the shorter range and is becoming more so at the longer range. That indicate to me you have a velocity issue.

That's what I was thinking, but though I didn't chrono these loads, they're plenty fast. I've fired 15-16 grains of 2400 behind the 311041 from my Rem 788 .30-30 and that load is quite mild compared to the one I was shooting yesterday. I recovered two "bullets" from the coarse sand backstop at 100 yards One was ground down to the last lube groove, the only thing ramaining of the other was the gas check. Maybe I didn't dig deep enough, but the load I was using has some authority to it. I still have 20 of them, so next time out I'll chrono some.


Keyholing is when the bullet flips end over end and hits the target sideways and leave a hole that look like a key hole. If the holes are oval that is caused by bullet yaw, when the base of the bulled it not spinning on the central axis of the bullet. Many rifle and loads will do this at shorter range, but as the range extends, the bullet will settle down (go to sleep) and spin true to the axis. Velocity has a big effect on this.

It's a matter of semantics, but I consider any bullet not passing through the target with its axis perpendicular to the target to be "keyholing". Certainly it begins as yaw. Yaw in the extreme eventually becomes tumbling. Anyway, that's how I see it. And, agreed, velocity is a component if it is not high enough when combined with bullet length and twist rate. My impression, gained via my recoil-calibrated shoulder, is that the velocity should have been plenty high enough, but the target may have been telling me a different story. I'm just not sure whether the fault is velocity or boolit diameter. More work to do. I think I'll also try some of the lighter boolits (311041 and 311466) and see how they perform.


A good cast bullet load should not have yaw and 50 and 100 yards, hence the velocity issue. Both the 1917 and the Remington 700 have 1-10 rifling twist in the 30-06 rounds.

I'm aware of the twist rates. That's why I took the Remington to the range with me. I needed a "control" rifle to tell me whether I should suspect the rifle or the ammo. Given the poor results with both rifles, I'll withhold judgement on the capabilities of the Enfield until I do some more experimentation. The 311284 mould is new to me. These were the first of that design I've fired, and I wanted to know what experience others have had with it, considering the poor results I got from them yesterday.

Anyway, thanks for the input. Everyone who posts adds clues. Eventually I'll track down the answer.

Regards,

Stew

[Ben]

AZ-Stew :

Have you tapped a soft lead slug down the bore to KNOW exactly what the bore mikes ?

I'm with Charger on the " velocity issue " possibility.

May need to speed things up a bit ?

Hope you get the rifle to shoot to your satisfaction soon !

Ben

[shoggoth80]

"but it actually looks smoother now than after it was previously cleaned"
-Cordite charged Mk.VII ball tended to be a little harsh on the bores, depositing all kinds of stubborn crud and fouling.

You said you are using .311 sized bullets? Have you slugged your bore? Most .303 stuff is .312 even in jacketed (factory).

Got pics of your Enfield? I am a bit of an Enfield sympathizer...

[AZ-Stew]

=shoggoth80;1045724You said you are using .311 sized bullets? Have you slugged your bore? Most .303 stuff is .312 even in jacketed (factory).

Got pics of your Enfield? I am a bit of an Enfield sympathizer...

Goth and Ben,

You can tell me I'm nuts if you like, but rather than pound a lead slug through the bore to find out the diameter that my boolit should be .001-.002 larger than, I'd rather make up a few boolits at different diameters within the expected diameter range and shoot them, letting the target tell me what's wrong or what the rifle likes. I'd have to do that, anyway, even if I did slug the bore. I'm reasonably certain the Remington has a "standard" .308 groove diameter. It's a relatively new, one-owner rifle with a shiny bore. There is every likelyhood that slugging it will tell me what I already know. As for the Enfield (a US M1917 "Enfield": http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=94340&highlight=MILSURP), considering the appearance of the bore, I'm not sure the slug would tell me anything, since it will likely be very scratched up when it exits the "cheese grater". I did run a few patches through it and the darkness in the grooves and flaws on the lands is again apparent. I think it'll shoot cast, but I'm not sure it can be slugged accurately.

My 311284 mould will not cast large enough with linotype to make a .312 boolit. It barely sizes at .311. The only option I have with this mould is to size down to .310, which will be my next experiment. I'll also be working with some lighter boolits. They've shot well from my M788 .30-30. I think I still need to work with seating depth, too. The rounds fired were seated so the forward most groove (front of the forward driving band) was even with the case mouth.

There are a number of things that can be done to tweak accuracy. What bothers me is the keyholing. I'd understand if the boolits were undersize, but they're not, at least they're not for the Remington.

Regards,

Stew

[Multigunner]

"but it actually looks smoother now than after it was previously cleaned"
-Cordite charged Mk.VII ball tended to be a little harsh on the bores, depositing all kinds of stubborn crud and fouling.

You said you are using .311 sized bullets? Have you slugged your bore? Most .303 stuff is .312 even in jacketed (factory).

Got pics of your Enfield? I am a bit of an Enfield sympathizer...

The rifle in question is an M1917 in .30-06, but you may be onto something if the rifle saw Home Guard use. The British did at one time load .30-06 ammo with cordite, but I don't know if this load was used by the Home Guard or the Irish counterpart for target practice.

The crud you mention came from the Mineral Jelly added to form a thin carbon layer to discourage build up of metal fouling.

Single Base powders used in most US .30-06 Ball can also leave carbon deposites but these aren't baked onto the bore and usually will respond to carbon cutter bore cleaners.

Jacket fouling is a more likely culprit, especially in rifles that saw much WW1 era use, when Cupro-Nickel jackets were still in use. Cupro-Nickel is a lot more difficult to remove than Copper or Gilding Metal.

Also the WW1 ammo was still around as surplus long after the US switched to Gilding metal jackets.

PS
Many M1917 bores run to .310. This was fine for Jacketed bullets since the broader lands of Enfield style rifling would squeeze the bullet a bit more than the narrow lands of the more common rifling style used by the Springfield.

[MtGun44]

I had a devil of a time getting down to bare steel on a 1918 barrel dated 1917 US Enfield.

I finally did the Foul Out plating system and had to stop, scrub out with Hoppe's #9 and
a brass brush the black strings of goop that were uncovered, the alcohol patches to remove the
oily film and start unplating again. I got blue (copper), yellow (nickle?)and some reddish
residue (rust, I assume) in the fluid at different times from various layers. It would stop
plating ("done" light) as it apparently hit a carbon/gunk insulating layer which had to be
solvent/brushed out, then readied for another layer of metal removal. It was like an
archeological dig.

Good chance you are not done cleaning, and I suggest electrochemical over just chemical.

Good luck!

Bill

[shoggoth80]

My bad...when you said "Enfield" I immediately thought .303. You have a P1917... which *is* part of the Enfield family... just a little different, and obviously, a different caliber (30-06 vs. 303). I have a 1916, and a 1940 (and others) SMLE, where the bores are less than pristine. Cordite burned pretty hot from what I have read. Cordite + Cupro-nickel = really stubborn fouling. Sometimes to the point where really harsh (ie: wire mesh gauze) methods had to be employed to get it out.

Even after thoroughly cleaning mine, I can push a lead removal cloth (cut into a patch) down the bores, and it still comes out dirty, despite looking good otherwise.