The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Sandgroper wrote: What ever you do, just pick a cartridge, build the rifle and post pictures of it. IMHO it doesn't really matter, in the end, because it's never going reach it's potential because of the limitations imposed by the ammunition.

All you're doing is chasing your tail and making yourself and everyone else dizzy in the process.

Ditto..

Sim G wrote:

Sandgroper wrote: What ever you do, just pick a cartridge, build the rifle and post pictures of it. IMHO it doesn't really matter, in the end, because it's never going reach it's potential because of the limitations imposed by the ammunition.

All you're doing is chasing your tail and making yourself and everyone else dizzy in the process.

Ditto..

Just don't ask him to post any photos of the rifle when complete, more chance of an ice cube surviving in hell than that happening. :lol:

Blu

Badger baiting isn't legal, oomans !

No, but teasing Ooomans isn't strictly ethical either...though you do it very well

And about .303 - It's an easily available milsurp round, and very easy to load for too.....don't be such an old sow razz

Sim G has an old saw as his signature line along the lines of accuracy coming from a good boolit/bullet down a good barrel and that is very true.

Cases basically about capacity and shape to hold enough powder for the purpose on for it to combust efficiently in relation to the desired velocity for the round, then whether they headspace on the rim, belt or shoulder.

So most if not all cartridges if loaded with a good boolit/bullet chambered into a good barrel will shoot well, but to get the best out of that combination you really need to reload. If I was restricted to shooting milsurp ammunition then I would use a suitable military rifle, if I wanted to scope it then there are good no gunsmithing scope mounts around.

Building a rifle to shoot milsurp ammunition is only half of the accuracy equation as the ammunition is the other half, all other things being equal, so at best it is an expensive sideways move.

I am currently having a rifle built on a Moisin Nagant action chambered for 7.62x53R, I will expect this rifle to shoot my handloads far more accurately than a standard Moisin, I have gone for the 7.62x53R over the 54R as the 53R has a better throat angle for the cast bullets it will be shooting. It will have a bipod and a scope mount on it and use a new heavy .311" barrel.

The reason behind the build is one I had the action so that went a long way to deciding the calibre, the 7.62R case has plenty of capacity for the slow burning powders I will be using for the longer ranges so that does for me less work getting the bolt and extractor to fit another chambering. My eyesight is disappearing rapidly now so scopes are the way to go for me. Bipod is easier to cart around than a rest and I will have a 1000 yrd cast boolit gun that I will get hours of fun casting and loading for as well as shooting.

If I'd had an Enfield action then my choice of calibre would have been 303 and so on.

The build spec was easy as I knew what I wanted and what I wanted it to do, once you have decided that then all the decisions almost make them selves.

Just need to find someone that can do Ancient Sutherland tartancote to finish it of nicely.

meles meles wrote:
With regards to the 7.62x54R, we have often thought that that cartridge is probably capable of good accuracy in the right gun - ie something other than a Mosin Nagant (which we have already)....

That'll be a Dragunov then

54r surplus can be very accurate but one has to allow for the odd flyer and keep in mind what it was made to do, which wasn't to put 10 rounds through the same hole on a piece of paper at xxx metres

Our MN 1891 is reasonabubbly accurate: it will cloverleaf 3 (cheap milsurp) rounds at 100 yards but then the group starts to open out as the barrel warms up. Let it cool down and the groups tighten again.

Our plan is essentially to make better use of a few old P14a (7.62x51 conversions*) we picked up relatively cheaply. One is in Ovenpaa's capable paws right now being tweaked and will stay in 7.62x51. A second may be converted to either 7.92x57 or 7.62x54R - we're swinging towards the former at the moment. We also like the idea of a heavy barrelled 7.62x54R rifle which will keep a tighter group than our Noise Magnet. All will shoot military surplus most of the time, but pawloads on occasions. We're doing it because we can, in the interests of exploration and adventure, and we don't plan to spend a fortune.







* No original .303s will be harmed in the making of these Frankenbangers

I'd like to see some pictures of some of those 7.62x51 P-14 conversions. I'm curious as to what they did with the bolt face and extractor. And the magazine, for that matter.

On my side of the pond the P-17s are vastly more common, and it's the P-14s that are most desirable, since they require less gunsmithing to set up for .416 Rigby or the H&H magnums.

I purchased a P-17 some years ago with the idea of converting it to .300 H&H, and finally decided it would be more reasonable to just start with a P-14. Meanwhile, I annoy "gun experts" by telling them the P-17 is chambered in .30 Whelen...

I had a Springfield P17 that was re-barrelled from 30-06 to 7.62. I was told not to drill the receiver for scope bases as it would weaken it too much, so I'm not too sure about putting a .416 Rigby in one.
I'm fairly sure many of them have been altered for scopes but it does make one think about what would happen if one did fail.
G.M.

Graham M wrote:I had a Springfield P17 that was re-barrelled from 30-06 to 7.62. I was told not to drill the receiver for scope bases as it would weaken it too much, so I'm not too sure about putting a .416 Rigby in one.
I'm fairly sure many of them have been altered for scopes but it does make one think about what would happen if one did fail.
G.M.

I think you need to be careful about who you believe. P'14s / M1917s have formed the basis of African Magnum rifles for decades, a budget alternative to proper 'Magnum' Mausers, or heavily reworked military '98s. They've also formed the basis of many custom jobs for very hot factory cartridges and heavily loaded wildcats back in the days when American shooters had military actions gunsmithed.

Both Frank de Haas ('Bolt Action Rifles') and Terry Wieland (Dangerous Game Rifles and Cartridges) speak highly of the strength of remodelled 'Enfields'. So far as drilling and tapping holes for scope mounts, the advice that this is dangerous will come as a great surprise to the owners of thousands of so-modified 'sporterised' Enfields, this usually done following milling the rearsight protecting ears off. Fitting an 'iron' target rearsight also involves drilling and tappoing with some designs.

'Eddystone' manufactured P'14 / M1917 rifles obtained a reputation for having very hard and perhaps brittle steel, so occasional examples were found with hairline receiver cracks. Many gunsmiths say this is also partly or mostly due to the original .303 or .30-06 barrels having been installed using massive (excessive) torque in this factory and the force required for their subsequent removal can over-stress the action. For this reason. most gunsmiths avoid this model for a custom rifle build and use either Remington or Winchester marked examples.

Badger's plan is not original. A considerable number of M1917s were refurbished and rebarreled to 8X57mm during WW2 and supplied to Chiang Kai Shek's Nationalist Chinese forces as part of US support to this group in the war against Japan.