WA Sukalle

ekp · February 16, 2015, 07:27 AM

I have a 270 Win built on a 98 action in 1947 by WA Sukalle. It is a beautiful rifle except for the size of the chamber. The mil spec magazine does not allow me to load closer to the lands. My question is should I have the barrel set back or the magazine enlarged? I prefer to get the bullet as close to .030 as possible. When loading 139 sptizers I am over .100 from the lands. Winchester PP because of the different ogive shoot better but as a reloader they are hard to come by.

Jimro · February 16, 2015, 08:01 AM

I would have the magazine enlarged. I've had to do that on a number of M98 sporter projects, but I would do some measuring first, as getting an extra tenth of an inch from the magazine alone might be a little tough.

I've done it in the past by hand filing a flat away at the rear of the magazine where the base of the cartridge goes, then hand filing a groove into the front o the magazine where the tips of the bullets go. I had to do this to get M2 30-06 to function from the formerly milspec magazine.

A Sukalle rifle is quite the treasure, William A Sukalle was one of the gunsmiths for Jack O'Connor. Sukalle barrels were very prized in their day for accuracy.

Jimro

ekp · February 16, 2015, 08:23 AM

I am aware of W A Sukalle. The rifle is beautiful. I seem to have some difficulty in getting to to group the way I would like. Which brings me to another point. When I insert a bore guide for cleaning it does not sit as parrallel to the center line as my factory Cooper or Rem 700. My Mannlicher Shoenauer also sits on the center line.

Is this to be expected given the methods of the day and is this compensated for by lapping the lugs of the bolt.

I refuse to believe that Sukalle would put his name on a rifle that did not meet his specs. Which after reading were very high. With the age of CNC I think we all want .5 MOA rifles which would not have been the gaol in 1947.

Jimro · February 16, 2015, 08:45 AM

I'm not shocked that the bore doesn't perfectly match the centerline of the rifle. But lapping the lugs does not ensure the bolt face is square with the bore in a Mauser, only truing the bolt face to the receiver tenon threads can do that. Of course if you are going to do that, you whould also lap the C ring and square the reciever face as well.

So what it sounds like is that you should lap the bolt face, cut a full thread off the barrel, lap the C ring, and true the bolt face, reinstall the barrel and cut a min spec chamber if you want to tighten things up.

Just because the barrel was made by Sukalle doesn't mean that he was the gunsmith who installed the barrel into the action, so in addition to opening up the magazine that process could really help with accuracy.

Jimro

Jimro · February 16, 2015, 09:01 AM

I should mention, that if the receiver threads are off the centerline of the rifle, then at best all you can do is square everything to them. Given the state of manufacturing for M98 actions across so many factories, that is a distinct possibility.

But if you square everything to something, then you'll get the best possible performance you can from that action.

Jimro

ekp · February 16, 2015, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ekp

I am aware of W A Sukalle. The rifle is beautiful. I seem to have some difficulty in getting to to group the way I would like. Which brings me to another point. When I insert a bore guide for cleaning it does not sit as parrallel to the center line as my factory Cooper or Rem 700. My Mannlicher Shoenauer also sits on the center line.

Is this to be expected given the methods of the day and is this compensated for by lapping the lugs of the bolt.

I refuse to believe that Sukalle would put his name on a rifle that did not meet his specs. Which after reading were very high. With the age of CNC I think we all want .5 MOA rifles which would not have been the gaol in 1947.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimro

I should mention, that if the receiver threads are off the centerline of the rifle, then at best all you can do is square everything to them. Given the state of manufacturing for M98 actions across so many factories, that is a distinct possibility.

But if you square everything to something, then you'll get the best possible performance you can from that action.

Jimro

The barrel states WA Sukalle gunmaker Phoenix Arizona. I have read that at this point in his career that Sukalle was doing the build and stock work. Is this your understanding?

Jim Watson · February 16, 2015, 11:14 AM

What group do you get and what would you like to get?
A 1947 hunting rifle is not likely to be as accurate as a 21st century target rifle and they didn't worry about all that modern benchrest stuff like jump or jam.

ekp · February 16, 2015, 11:38 AM

I would like MOA with factory ammo. It is proving fussy with handloads.

ekp · February 16, 2015, 12:08 PM

Here is a pic of the Sukalle rifle. The bottom rifle was made by Charlie Flaig in Millvale Pa. in 6mm Rem for a vice president of GM
Remove pictures until I can upload a quality photo. Lost quality when resized.

Jimro · February 16, 2015, 12:41 PM

Quote:

The barrel states WA Sukalle gunmaker Phoenix Arizona. I have read that at this point in his career that Sukalle was doing the build and stock work. Is this your understanding?

Yes, that is my understanding. However, unless you have a series of documents (or receiver marks) proving that particular M98 receiver came out of Sukalle's shop then the only part you can conclusively say came out of the shop was the barrel.

I think it is very likely that you have an original Sukalle rifle. But no one can discount the possibility that some other gunsmith got a rebarrel job on a Sukalle and then reused the Sukalle barrel for another customer. If you don't have a chain of custody from gunsmith to you odds are we'll never know for sure.

Jimro

ekp · February 16, 2015, 01:53 PM

Do you have a recommendation of a smithy to do the work? What would be the average cost for the full treatment or if in the case of just squaring things up?

My go to guy here is not taking anymore work at the moment.

I will try the pictures again .

Jimro · February 16, 2015, 02:48 PM

I don't know if Mike McCabe is still in business (haven't had him do any work for me since 2008), but his website is still up.

http://www.mccabeguns.com/

I'd trust him to treat a Sukalle right.

Jimro

February 16, 2015, 07:27 AM	#1
ekp Member Join Date: February 15, 2015 Posts: 31	WA Sukalle I have a 270 Win built on a 98 action in 1947 by WA Sukalle. It is a beautiful rifle except for the size of the chamber. The mil spec magazine does not allow me to load closer to the lands. My question is should I have the barrel set back or the magazine enlarged? I prefer to get the bullet as close to .030 as possible. When loading 139 sptizers I am over .100 from the lands. Winchester PP because of the different ogive shoot better but as a reloader they are hard to come by.

February 16, 2015, 08:01 AM	#2
Jimro Senior Member Join Date: October 18, 2006 Posts: 7,097	I would have the magazine enlarged. I've had to do that on a number of M98 sporter projects, but I would do some measuring first, as getting an extra tenth of an inch from the magazine alone might be a little tough. I've done it in the past by hand filing a flat away at the rear of the magazine where the base of the cartridge goes, then hand filing a groove into the front o the magazine where the tips of the bullets go. I had to do this to get M2 30-06 to function from the formerly milspec magazine. A Sukalle rifle is quite the treasure, William A Sukalle was one of the gunsmiths for Jack O'Connor. Sukalle barrels were very prized in their day for accuracy. Jimro __________________ Machine guns are awesome until you have to carry one.

February 16, 2015, 08:45 AM	#4
Jimro Senior Member Join Date: October 18, 2006 Posts: 7,097	I'm not shocked that the bore doesn't perfectly match the centerline of the rifle. But lapping the lugs does not ensure the bolt face is square with the bore in a Mauser, only truing the bolt face to the receiver tenon threads can do that. Of course if you are going to do that, you whould also lap the C ring and square the reciever face as well. So what it sounds like is that you should lap the bolt face, cut a full thread off the barrel, lap the C ring, and true the bolt face, reinstall the barrel and cut a min spec chamber if you want to tighten things up. Just because the barrel was made by Sukalle doesn't mean that he was the gunsmith who installed the barrel into the action, so in addition to opening up the magazine that process could really help with accuracy. Jimro __________________ Machine guns are awesome until you have to carry one.

February 16, 2015, 09:01 AM	#5
Jimro Senior Member Join Date: October 18, 2006 Posts: 7,097	I should mention, that if the receiver threads are off the centerline of the rifle, then at best all you can do is square everything to them. Given the state of manufacturing for M98 actions across so many factories, that is a distinct possibility. But if you square everything to something, then you'll get the best possible performance you can from that action. Jimro __________________ Machine guns are awesome until you have to carry one.

February 16, 2015, 12:08 PM	#9
ekp Member Join Date: February 15, 2015 Posts: 31	Here is a pic of the Sukalle rifle. The bottom rifle was made by Charlie Flaig in Millvale Pa. in 6mm Rem for a vice president of GM Remove pictures until I can upload a quality photo. Lost quality when resized. Last edited by ekp; February 16, 2015 at 01:43 PM.

February 16, 2015, 08:23 AM	#3
ekp Member Join Date: February 15, 2015 Posts: 31	I am aware of W A Sukalle. The rifle is beautiful. I seem to have some difficulty in getting to to group the way I would like. Which brings me to another point. When I insert a bore guide for cleaning it does not sit as parrallel to the center line as my factory Cooper or Rem 700. My Mannlicher Shoenauer also sits on the center line. Is this to be expected given the methods of the day and is this compensated for by lapping the lugs of the bolt. I refuse to believe that Sukalle would put his name on a rifle that did not meet his specs. Which after reading were very high. With the age of CNC I think we all want .5 MOA rifles which would not have been the gaol in 1947.

February 16, 2015, 11:14 AM	#7
Jim Watson Senior Member Join Date: October 25, 2001 Location: Alabama Posts: 18,544	What group do you get and what would you like to get? A 1947 hunting rifle is not likely to be as accurate as a 21st century target rifle and they didn't worry about all that modern benchrest stuff like jump or jam.

February 16, 2015, 11:38 AM	#8
ekp Member Join Date: February 15, 2015 Posts: 31	I would like MOA with factory ammo. It is proving fussy with handloads.

February 16, 2015, 02:48 PM	#12
Jimro Senior Member Join Date: October 18, 2006 Posts: 7,097	I don't know if Mike McCabe is still in business (haven't had him do any work for me since 2008), but his website is still up. http://www.mccabeguns.com/ I'd trust him to treat a Sukalle right. Jimro __________________ Machine guns are awesome until you have to carry one.