The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Skunkworks > The Smithy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 18, 2010, 11:04 PM   #26
James K
Member In Memoriam
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
I will get flak for this, but have you fired the rifle at all? If so, what did the cases look like? Having heard and read more BS about headspace than any other topic, if the rifle doesn't show signs of tampering or rechambering, I am inclined to just touch off a couple of rounds and see what the cases look like. If I don't see signs of stretched or distorted cases, I don't sweat it.

I hate to be suspicious of fellow gunsmiths, but there are a few who will always tell a customer his rifle has excess headspace so they can sell him a barrel job.

Jim
James K is offline  
Old January 19, 2010, 12:26 AM   #27
Kawfeegod
Member
 
Join Date: November 30, 2008
Posts: 35
Quote:
If you do not reload most of what has been said is foreign to you
I do quite a bit of reloading and know my way around micrometers and dial calipers (not a machinist but play one on TV. Quite a bit of machine tools at my disposal, and I can use em too!) So I do understand quite a bit of what you are saying.

Quote:
but have you fired the rifle at all?
No flak. I have not fired the rifle, yet. It was suggested to me that I head space the rifle first. I have taken a few other guns to this smith and this is the first time he has found a serious problem. I don't think he would be one to try to screw anyone.

Quote:
E-mail ( if I can help PM)
Yup. I will be sending you one.

I did get another price for the rechambering today. $125. A little better, but....

I think I might try to find a better bolt with F. Guffey's help and see if that might not fix the problem.
Kawfeegod is offline  
Old January 19, 2010, 06:37 AM   #28
mega twin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 15, 2006
Posts: 434
Was there not a serial number range that had poor heat treating,or was that the '03 model.

Seems like I remember that from years ago,but not the particular model.
mega twin is offline  
Old January 19, 2010, 09:38 AM   #29
Doyle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 20, 2007
Location: Rainbow City, Alabama
Posts: 7,167
Quote:
Was there not a serial number range that had poor heat treating,or was that the '03 model.
You are thinking about certain early 1903's. The 1917's were all extremely tough.

There is one potential problem with the cost of headspacing a 1917 though. One of the manufacturers (either Eddystone or Remington - I don't remember which) screwed the barrels in so hard that getting them out is a REAL pain. That could be why this gunsmith was quoting such a high price.
Doyle is offline  
Old January 19, 2010, 01:44 PM   #30
apr1775
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 425
The Eddystone's had the barrels torqued on extremely hard. Requires cutting away material from the barrel torque shoulder before unscrewing it.
Try a couple different bolt bodies.
apr1775 is offline  
Old January 19, 2010, 03:41 PM   #31
tater134
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 22, 2009
Location: NE,PA
Posts: 390
Quote:
I will get flak for this, but have you fired the rifle at all? If so, what did the cases look like? Having heard and read more BS about headspace than any other topic, if the rifle doesn't show signs of tampering or rechambering, I am inclined to just touch off a couple of rounds and see what the cases look like. If I don't see signs of stretched or distorted cases, I don't sweat it.
I agree with you 100% Jim. I may catch some flak for this well but Ive never had any of my rifles headspaced and some of the rifles I shoot are over 100 years old. I remotely fire them and then if the cases appear to fine I shoot them normally.When I did notice any weird looking cases I just took the rifles to my gunsmith to have them checked out and only once did I encounter a headspace problem (tight chamber on a 1916 Spanish Mauser which resulted in an extremely hard to open bolt).

Id suggest shooting the rifle remotely and checking the cases thoroughly after firing to see if theres any deformation.
tater134 is offline  
Old January 19, 2010, 09:37 PM   #32
K8vf
Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2010
Location: Iosco county Michigan
Posts: 39
headspace

You will also have to disclose that there is excessive head space and take a hit on the sale.

If you like the rifle, have the work done.

If you fail to disclose, and the gun has a serious problem, you will be liable-in your MIND- at least. And in FACT if it is found you knew abt the problem.

just a thought.
K8vf is offline  
Old January 20, 2010, 03:12 PM   #33
Kawfeegod
Member
 
Join Date: November 30, 2008
Posts: 35
Quote:
You will also have to disclose that there is excessive head space and take a hit on the sale.

If you like the rifle, have the work done.

If you fail to disclose, and the gun has a serious problem, you will be liable-in your MIND- at least. And in FACT if it is found you knew abt the problem.

just a thought.
Absolutely. Would not do it any other way.
Kawfeegod is offline  
Old January 20, 2010, 05:56 PM   #34
Ivan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 14, 2009
Posts: 141
Buying a bunch of bolts sometimes works. I tried this with a different rifle and got two bolt bodies that headspaced properly with the receiver and barrel combination. My situation was different though because one expects a bit of variation with the same gun manufactured in different places. I ended up using an Australian Bolt, Irish marked Barrel, and Indian Receiver on my Frankenstein Lee Enfield. If all parts are US, you may not have the same variation though with the M1917s, you have Winchester, Remington, and Eddystone variants.

IMHO, having a gun marked .30-06 that can't safely shoot .30-06 ammunition is just plain dangerous.

BTW, if a gunsmith is willing to set your M1917 barrel back one thread and recut everthing to spec for $150, take him up on it. The M1917 by reputation has barrels that tend to be over torqued, so even the safe removal is a bit more of a chore. (Should have read ALL the replies first. Others already pointed this out.)

This might also be the perfect candidate for a longer .30 cal cartridge because the actions I believe are long enough for something like a .300 H&H Magnum. Now THAT would be a classic sporter.

- Ivan.
Ivan is offline  
Old January 20, 2010, 08:07 PM   #35
Kawfeegod
Member
 
Join Date: November 30, 2008
Posts: 35
Quote:
IMHO, having a gun marked .30-06 that can't safely shoot .30-06 ammunition is just plain dangerous.
I agree. I am going to try the bolt thing first, with F. Guffey's help. If that does not work, then off to the gun smith.
Kawfeegod is offline  
Old January 21, 2010, 07:39 AM   #36
apr1775
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 425
Quote:
This might also be the perfect candidate for a longer .30 cal cartridge because the actions I believe are long enough for something like a .300 H&H Magnum. Now THAT would be a classic sporter.
Yes the 1917 can handle way more than a 30-06. A-Square used that action for their huge magnum customs. A full magnum length cartridge such as the 300 H&H will require a longer magazine box (I have a 375 H&H 1917 in the works) 300 win mag would be an easy conversion. The magazine lip portion of the receiver would have to be opened up and the bolt face opened up too. Usually you can just use a P14 bolt as the 303brit has the same rim diameter as the belted magnums.

lots of options

Often the head spacing on military rifles was a little loose to allow for dirty or banged up ammo.
apr1775 is offline  
Old January 21, 2010, 09:24 AM   #37
F. Guffey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2008
Posts: 7,249
"Often the head spacing on military rifles was a little loose to allow for dirty or banged up ammo"

"IMHO, having a gun marked .30-06 that can't safely shoot .30-06 ammunition is just plain dangerous"

Hatcher modified a 30/06 chamber by moving the shoulder forward .125, he then chambered 30/06 ammo in the modified chamber and fired it, WHAT WAS THE DANGER? WHAT WAS THE RISK? Hatcher thought the case would fail or he had to eliminate the possibility the length of the chamber caused catastrophic failure.

Many 8mm57 rifles have been chambered to 8mm06, by mistake 8mm57 ammo has been chambered in the 8mm06 and fired, oddly? enough the difference between the 8mm57 and the 8mm06 is the same as the difference between the 30/06 and Hatcher's modified chamber, .125 plus about .003? The 8mm57 after firing was ejected as an 8mm06 with a short neck, the shoulder did not move forward, it was erased and became part of the case body, the neck became part of the shoulder and the case did not stretch? it got shorter.

The case did expand and fill the chamber, the case expanded when it conformed (formed) to the shape of the chamber, if the case can not expand (form) it splits.

And for a very short period of time they used reduced loads (pistol powder) because it made the rifle user friendly? no it was cheaper but there was a problem, the 06 could not stand the sudden shock of reduced loads.

Thankfully the British provided us with the P14/M1917.

F. Guffey
F. Guffey is offline  
Old January 21, 2010, 11:27 AM   #38
Kawfeegod
Member
 
Join Date: November 30, 2008
Posts: 35
One more question. As I embark on this journey to find a better bolt, what should the head space be on this rifle? Keep in mind, I am not shooting military ammo, and will be using today's modern stuff. The smith told me I was about .015 out of spec. What is a good tolerance to be within?
Kawfeegod is offline  
Old January 21, 2010, 12:24 PM   #39
F. Guffey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2008
Posts: 7,249
In the perfect world head space is .005 thousands meaning a full length size case is .000 or .005 thousands shorter from the head of the case to it's shoulder than the chamber (go-gage length) when measured from the face of the bolt to the shoulder of the chamber.

Your rifle with .015 thousands head space is .001 over a field reject gage, .005 over a no go-gage and .010 thousands over a go-gage, when compared to the minimum length cartridge (full length size) case the difference between your chamber length (bolt face to shoulder) and factory ammo (from the head of the case to it's shoulder) is .015 thousands.

There is a John Smith, collector/reloader/shooter in PA that was surprised he had an M1917 Enfield with .016 thousands head space, I determine head space before I load for a chamber, it is as easy for me to form first then fire than is is to take the rifle to the range then fire to determine the effect the chamber had on the case.

As was suggested, other chambers are possible, I have a P14 that is a 308 Norma mag, that is a lot of work, My Eddystone is a 30/06 + .016. I have a 30 Gibbs that is modified and improved, the shoulder has been moved forward .202 thousands, it could be called the 30/06 +.202, the neck is .217 long.

Again we are hoping there is a problem with the bolt, but I have no less than 40 03 bolts, there is not .003 difference between them, I have 8 Mauser receivers with bent bolts with out barrels, no matter what combination, bolt to receiver, there is not .004 difference.

I purchased a mill from a collector in Arlington, TX. at the time he was building an 03 period correct rifle for 1911 with a straight bolt, changing bolts was not an option, between us we have 100 plus bolts, I have one straight handled 03, point being he had a hand full of gages, he knew the go-gage would 'GO', he knew the no go-gage would not go.

I did not want to waste his time but did explain to him I could use the go-gage to determine the exact amount of head space he had, or I could use the no go-gage etc or I could check the head space three different ways with out a head space gage, long story short with a new box of Remington 30/06 ammo his rifle had .0065 head space + or - .0005 because of the difference in the length of his new Ammo from the head of the case to the shoulder. We tried a few of his bent handle bolts, no improvement, no difference.

I have new in the box 03A3 bolts, why would bolts be shipped two to the box if there was no difference in the effect the bolt has on head space? Order, use one, the other was a spare for parts? Brown and Sharp replacement bolts for 03 and 03A3s.

F. Guffey
F. Guffey is offline  
Old January 21, 2010, 08:22 PM   #40
apr1775
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 425
If you're only .001" beyond "field", it sounds as if you just have a loose chamber military rifle. If it were me, and the rifle shoots fine and the brass looks ok, just keep on shooting. Most gunsmiths work in sporting rifle specs, not military specs.
apr1775 is offline  
Old January 22, 2010, 09:56 AM   #41
F. Guffey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2008
Posts: 7,249
Somewhere back on a response the question was asked: WHAT IS THE RISK? at least two responses suggested the same advise as you, I wonder why the gunsmith did not test fire the rifle. The fired case would be a formed copy of the chamber less 'recovery' I do not understand why the smith did not offer to make a cerrosafe cast of the chamber.

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct...tNumber=462291

Had he test fired the rifle the fired case could have been used to set-up the press, die and shell holder. With a good press, die and shell holder (and cases with recovery) full length sizing is accomplished when the die is adjusted down to the shell holder, the tougher the case the more effort required, for most reloaders there is nothing after full length sizing, they go straight to neck sizing, my opinion, they are missing the best part by not treating the press, shell holder and die as adjustable, I am THE fan of the companion tool to the press, the feeler gage.

Hatcher perceived (when fired) the case stretching somewhere between the head of the case and shoulder when the shoulder moved forward? Much to his surprise the shoulder disappeared and became part of the case body and a new shoulder was formed from part of the shoulder and part of the neck WHEN USING GOOD BRASS that has the ability to stretch like new unfired brass.

Using the brass after it has been fired and formed in the chamber: apply the 'leaver policy' once the case is fire formed 'leaver formed', do not size the case back to minimum length, this brings us to WHAT IS THE RISK? Hatcher knew a case had to have the ability to stretch, if a case was not properly manufactured and did not have the ability to stretch failure would be built into the case before it was chambered in the rifle and 'that is the risk' of firing a cartridge with excessive head space. If the M1917 is test fired it must be tested with new brass, then back to 'I form first then fire', I want to cut down on all that case travel.

I had the opportunity to pick up 1,000 LC National Match cases from Pat's reloading in Ohio a few year ago, the bullets were pulled and powder was recovered, using the cases is not an easy decision, at the time I paid .10 cents each, to replace them with new cases will cost at least .35 cent each. new brass behaves in a predictable manner when sizing and forming cases, after firing the ability of the case to recover and or stretch diminishes.

Risk and Danger, of firing a rifle with head space on the +++ side exist if the brass case being used is work hardened, I have FA 57 and 58 National Match cases that I have fired before reading a caution about the manufacturing process being flawed by the elimination of one process that saved time, FA eliminated one annealing process, during the manufacturing process brass goes through as many as 5 procedures, the cases were to be recycled, but somewhere between the reject and recycle, cases got into the hands of reloaders, or not all FA58NM were rejected, I moved the FA 58 NM next to my BN 30/06.

F. Guffey
F. Guffey is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 12:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.10116 seconds with 8 queries