The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Skunkworks > Handloading, Reloading, and Bullet Casting

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 1, 2013, 05:37 PM   #26
FrankenMauser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: 1B ID
Posts: 6,653
Bart, attempting to form .270 Win from .30-06 will result in a case that's shorter than the the intended length, even if it is still longer than .30-06. To achieve the proper case length (2.54", that of .30-03), you need to start with .30-03 or one of its full-length derivatives (.280 Rem, .35 Whelen, .400 Whelen, etc).

Most modern discussions of .270 Winchester will claim that it is based on .30-06. But, if you go back 30 to 50 years, you'll find descriptions of the cartridge specifically stating that Winchester's design work was based on .30-03. At the time of the .270's introduction, .30-03 brass was not hard to come by and .30-06 was a perfectly acceptable substitute. Plus, the longer neck gave Winchester the opportunity to advertise that it had a longer case than .30-06 (hinting, improperly, that it had more case capacity).


.400 Whelen and .35 Whelen were developed at essentially the same time as .270 Winchester. They were both based on .30-03, as well. They were able to retain a longer case length (closer to .30-06) with the '03 cases, than with '06 cases.

.30-03 may have been "old" in the early 1920s, but it was far from obsolete.


If "old" is the measure of how useful a cartridge is for wildcatting, we shouldn't have ANYONE messing with .220 Russian (PPCs), .222 Remington (multiple cartridges), .444 Marlin (JDJs), or even .223 Remington (.300 AAC/7.62x40mm WT), any more.
__________________
"Such is the strange way that man works -- first he virtually destroys a species and then does everything in his power to restore it."
FrankenMauser is offline  
Old January 1, 2013, 06:52 PM   #27
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 35,742
.30-03 was still being loaded by Winchester, Western, and Peters in 1925 when the .270 was introduced. Remington may also have been loading the round. It was still being commonly used by shooters.

Winchester's designers were not adverse to using older rounds as the basis for new cartridges. Another prime example? The .220 Swift, whose parent case was the 6mm Lee Navy, which was designed around the same time.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old January 1, 2013, 06:58 PM   #28
m&p45acp10+1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2009
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 3,307
.475 Linbaugh was first formed from .45-70 Govt. cases. Though the factory offerings have thicker brass, and slightly smaller rims. .500 Linbagh was formed from a Remington case of some sort. When Remington stopped making brass for that John came up with .475 Linbaugh from .45-70 knowing the cases would be around for a long time to come.
__________________
No matter how many times you do it and nothing happens it only takes something going wrong one time to kill you.
m&p45acp10+1 is offline  
Old January 1, 2013, 07:36 PM   #29
sc928porsche
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2008
Location: now living in alabama
Posts: 2,433
308 case: 22-243, 243, 25 super, 260 Remington, 7-08.
30-06 case: 6mm-06, 25-06, 6.5-06, 280, 8mm-06, 338-06, 35 Whelan
270 is the 30-03 case, which was parent to the 30-06.

There are several for the 7mm Mauser (7x57)case
There are even wildcats for the the 30-30 case, 30-40 and the 303 case. Just about anything military has been necked down or up.

As Parker said, if you can think of it, good chance its already been done.
__________________
No such thing as a stupid question. What is stupid is not asking it.

Last edited by sc928porsche; January 1, 2013 at 07:45 PM.
sc928porsche is offline  
Old January 1, 2013, 07:54 PM   #30
m&p45acp10+1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2009
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 3,307
.219 Zipper can be formed from .30-30 Win cases. I have the issue of Handloader that has the article. Looks like a neat round. Though I would more than likely go with .22 Hornet for ease of things.
__________________
No matter how many times you do it and nothing happens it only takes something going wrong one time to kill you.
m&p45acp10+1 is offline  
Old January 1, 2013, 09:03 PM   #31
old roper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 11, 2007
Posts: 1,054
The 375 H&H made the 300 H&H for some of the Wby cases also you could use that for 350 Rem mag.
__________________
Semper Fi
Vietnam
VFW
old roper is offline  
Old January 1, 2013, 09:27 PM   #32
Two Old Dogs
Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2012
Location: Eastern SC
Posts: 68
Cartridge case families

The current edition of Cartridges Of The World is generally comprehensive on the parentage of most cartridges listed.

Another excellent reference is The Handloaders Manual Of Cartridge Conversions by Donnelly which gives, in a round about way, parent cartridge cases or those close enough to be considered related.
Two Old Dogs is offline  
Old January 1, 2013, 09:38 PM   #33
chris in va
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 26, 2004
Location: Louisville KY
Posts: 12,493
I've been told you can make 45acp cases from cut 30-06.
chris in va is offline  
Old January 1, 2013, 10:14 PM   #34
Jimro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2006
Posts: 5,445
Chris in VA,

44 Automag, not 45 ACP, from 30-06. It would be close, but not quite.

Jimro
__________________
"Gorsh" said Goofy as secondary explosions racked the beaten zone, "Did I do that?"

http://randomthoughtsandguns.blogspot.com/
Jimro is offline  
Old January 1, 2013, 10:45 PM   #35
TurkeyOak
Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2011
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 53
Wikipedia has great articles on cartridges. One of the stats in their Specifications section is Parent Case. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rifle_cartridges . It will link you to all their rifle cartridge articles.
TurkeyOak is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 07:47 AM   #36
Sure Shot Mc Gee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2012
Posts: 1,984
Bingo!! Well it looks like Turkey Oak hit the mark spot on and caught that elusive Brass Ring this time. Fellers y'll got to open his Link for a look see. Then come back and let us know what you think?

S/S
Sure Shot Mc Gee is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 04:25 PM   #37
FrankenMauser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: 1B ID
Posts: 6,653
Quote:
Bingo!! Well it looks like Turkey Oak hit the mark spot on and caught that elusive Brass Ring this time. Fellers y'll got to open his Link for a look see. Then come back and let us know what you think?
Based on what I've seen listed for "Parent cartridge" on wikipedia over the last 5 years, or so, I'd say about 30% of them are wrong. ...Not to mention, I was part of the "WikiProject Firearms" editors team for a while.

The in-fighting and arguing amongst the people that were supposed to be verifying the information was bad enough that I gave up.

The wikipedia articles on cartridges are a half-decent starting point, to find citations for further reading. But, wikipedia, itself, should not be trusted.
Any idiot on the internet can modify the information at any time.



For a time, while I was still an active editor, the 'Parent' for .35 Whelen was getting changed back and forth between .30-03 and .30-06, almost weekly by random people. About every 3rd or 4th edit would also include statements about Handi-Rifles blowing up, or the shoulder being too small to safely head space, or even that it's safe to shoot .35 Whelen in a .30-06 (yea... ).

In response, some one posted the following. To me, it pretty much sums up WikiProject Firearms, as a whole:
Quote:
If this project continues to propagate false information, I'm going to start re-writing every article I come across, and leave the citations and links to project members. Get it together! Do some simple research, if you don't actually know what you're talking about. That's the whole point here - CORRECT information, not just the crap Jim Bob's Uncle's Dog's Owner's Roommate's Newphew said was the history of these cartridges.
__________________
"Such is the strange way that man works -- first he virtually destroys a species and then does everything in his power to restore it."
FrankenMauser is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 04:37 PM   #38
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 35,742
But if it's on the internet, it has to be true!

I saw that on the internet!

I've found some very glaring errors in the cartridge information over the years, too, things such as the .250 Savage was derived from the .300 Savage...

Or that the .30-30 was the first American smokeless powder cartridge (nuances in that one, but still incorrect).
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 10:57 PM   #39
Sure Shot Mc Gee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2012
Posts: 1,984
Quote:
In response, some one posted the following. To me, it pretty much sums up WikiProject Firearms, as a whole:
Quote:I f this project continues to propagate false information, I'm going to start re-writing every article I come across, and leave the citations and links to project members. Get it together! Do some simple research, if you don't actually know what you're talking about. That's the whole point here - CORRECT information, not just the crap Jim Bob's Uncle's Dog's Owner's Roommate's Nephew said was the history of these cartridges.
"or even that it's safe to shoot .35 Whelen in a .30-06"

Now that I would consider impossible. Chamber size's are different for one.

Quote:
I've found some very glaring errors in the cartridge information over the years, too, things such as the .250 Savage was derived from the .300 Savage.
Oops maybe not a slam dunk after all for Turkey Oak. But a A for effort is warranted no doubt to all who have posted. Well so long as there are many still willing to post their correct info here. I see no reason why not keep this thread rolling. Still a fair amount of info needed yet no doubt.

Have a question; If the 30-30 Winchester wasn't the first rifle cartridge to use Smokeless powder in the US which one was?

S/S
Sure Shot Mc Gee is offline  
Old January 3, 2013, 03:34 AM   #40
FrankenMauser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: 1B ID
Posts: 6,653
I'm not saying that Wikipedia's articles are completely useless. It's still a reasonably decent resource for people that don't care about the particulars (just a general idea).
However, detail-oriented people tend to see a lot of problems, but can't seem to overpower the random idiots that perpetuate the falsehoods and myths about certain cartridges; or, worst of all - the people that intentionally go out of their way to post false information.
__________________
"Such is the strange way that man works -- first he virtually destroys a species and then does everything in his power to restore it."
FrankenMauser is offline  
Old January 3, 2013, 07:41 AM   #41
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 35,742
"Have a question; If the 30-30 Winchester wasn't the first rifle cartridge to use Smokeless powder in the US which one was?"

As I said, it's a question/answer filled with nuances...

The first US rifle cartridge to use smokeless powder was the .30 US Army, or the .30-40 Krag as we now know it.

The first COMMERCIAL rifle cartridge to use smokeless powder is actually a two-parter, because the .30-30 and .25-35 Winchester cartridges were introduced at the same time, so they are co-owners of that title.

That's actually a good, if misleading and sneaky, trivia question.

Few more factoids...

The .30-30 and .25-35 weren't ready for introduction with the Model 1894 as had been intended. Winchester was having problems getting quantities of smokless powders suitable for the cartridges, so both rounds were rolled out in the 1895 calendar year.

The 1894 was introduced in that year chambered in the .38-55 and .32-40 cartridges, both blackpowder.

It appears that the .30-40 Krag was the third smokless rifle cartridge offered commercially, around 1897, for both the Winchester Model 1895 and the Winchester Model 1885 High Wall rifles.

Around the same time the 6mm Lee Navy cartridge was offered commercially, but wasn't much of a success, as the same problems plagued it commercially (metal fouling, lack of truly suitable powders for a high velocity small bore) as had been seen in military service.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old January 3, 2013, 07:44 AM   #42
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 35,742
"I'm not saying that Wikipedia's articles are completely useless."

Say it.... SAY IT!!!



I've found the various cartridge articles to be very useful over the years. I'd say I have a much better than average grasp on the usage and history of metallic cartridges, so it's generally easier for me to pick out the bunk.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old January 3, 2013, 12:32 PM   #43
Bart B.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Posts: 4,445
FrankenMauser, SAAMI's specs for a .270 case length is 2.520" to 2.540". I've had no problems full length sizing .30-06 fired cases to make .270 cases that long. .30-06 case length's 2.474" to 2.494" and the shortest one can grow 50 thousands easily when full length sized in a .270 die.

A case even .010" shorter than SAAMI specs in either round's SAAMI spec'd chamber is not a problem anyway.

We might as well claim that all cartridges based on a rimless bottleneck case with ~.474" rim diameter should be traced back to the 7x57 Mauser round as it's probably the first one of that ilk. All the others just used a longer case with different body taper, shoulder diameters/angles with different neck lengths and mouth diameters for different bullet diameters.
__________________
US Navy Distinguished Marksman Badge 153
Former US Navy & Palma Rifle Team Member
NRA High Power Master & Long Range High Master
NRA Smallbore Prone Master
Bart B. is online now  
Old January 3, 2013, 12:50 PM   #44
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 35,742
"We might as well claim that all cartridges based on a rimless bottleneck case with ~.474" rim diameter should be traced back to the 7x57 Mauser round as it's probably the first one of that ilk."

It was.

I did.

As has been noted here earlier, Winchester itself indicated that the .30-03 was the starting point for the .270 when it introduced the round in the mid 1920s, a fact (not a decades-later guess) mentioned in the gun publications of the day.

As I also noted earlier, Winchester's engineers and ballisticians had absolutely NO qualms about dipping into the "funky & unpopular" vault for inspiration for new rounds.

The .220 Swift was based on an abysmal flop of a cartridge called the .236 (6mm) Lee Navy, while the .348 Winchester took its case inspiration from the .50-110 Winchester.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.11165 seconds with 9 queries