Curious whether there are significant dimensional differences between the more recent 404 Jeffery Kynamco ammo vs Hornady?
I'll be looking at a rifle which may have had it's chamber cut to the Kynamco--don't know if CIP specs were standardized, what reamers were being used, etc in the last 10+ years when I'm guessing this particular rifle was put together.

If there are differences, I'm wondering if they'll be significant enough to affect feeding and whether it would make sense to recut chamber to the easily available and cheap Hornady/ current CIP specs vs fireforming and having custom dies made?

I guess taking a Cerrosafe chamber cast is the first step. I'll have some of the Kynamco loaded ammo to try out, but not sure if I can get my hands on factory Hornady ammo within the inspection period for the rifle. It comes with about 20 rounds of Kynamco ammo so not a large number and stock RCBS dies; I don't believe the rifle has been run yet and not sure if original build specs are known. It is reported to feed fine with the Kynamco.

This is unchartered territory for me as far as this caliber/situation goes and really appreciate any input.

Thanks,
Bill

quote:

Kynamco

help me out here..
isn't Kynamco the NEW name for the folks that bought kynock and are reloading bertram brass?
http://www.new-kynoch.apt-sites.com/

call hornady, ask for a case print, ,and then get the CIP print

Hi,
Thats my very limited understanding-Kynamco is the modern spin-off of the Kynoch ammo from old. As far as how much is actually shared between the two I haven't a clue.

Good recs on the case print and CIP print. As I mentioned I haven't traveled down this road before. About as exotic as I've gotten with reloading is turning necks for a tight chambered 22BR once upon a time, but then I knew exactly what I had complete with dummy rounds, custom Wilson dies, etc.

The main differenceds between original ammo and modern cip is bullet diamiter. CIP specified the German .421 instead of the english .423. They have finally compromised on ..4225! The CIP throat is also shorter and with a 'better' angle.

????????????????





Leed Dimension 1927



Leed Dimension 1960

Make a chamber cast, then go from there...all else is twiddle at this point.

Thanks for posting the drawings and suggestions. Will update the thread once I get the rifle for evaluation.
Bill

Good grief. If the cases don't fit buy a new reamer. They're cheap. Problem solved without the assorted crappola.

quote:

Good grief. If the cases don't fit buy a new reamer. They're cheap. Problem solved without the assorted crappola.

For a small fee your rifle can then be out of proof and have lost a large percentage of it's value.....the obvious answer.

RIP,
thanks for the link to the 404 thread-I missed that one over the summer. Some great reading there when I get some time.

Will, chambering is only half the story; I'm equally concerned with feeding. Having heard that there are a lot of variations on the cartridge over the years I don't want to find that the rails were opened up for a variant that would limit me to using Kynamco/preclude Hornady.

Here is a pic of the rifle btw-I think it carries a little too much mass in the forearm and if I keep it, I might have it thinned out. Balance is purported to be great with a dry weight of ~8.5lbs.

No variations on the cartridge dimensions over the years!
Has been the same as it was the day it was introduced !

Problem is not in the cartridge dimension, if there is a problem in feeding it lies with the person / persons who built the gun.

I would argue that there are very few modern gunbuilders and it includes some famous proprietary offerings that have the ability and tech know how to make these old Brits feed properly.

ALF,
Point taken- should've written in past tense! You guys have answered my initial questions.
Bill

Alf,
I am not sure that is correct in the case of the 404..

As I recall the specs have never been standarized on that caliber..This all came out when Ruger adopted the 404 Jefferys in the mod. 77 and No.1 some years ago and the available ammo would not chamber in any of the 77s and some of the NO.1 and Ruger dropped the 404 production in the 77s and recalled them for that reason, and later the No. 1 was discontinued, however I think most of the No.1 would chamber, and later on they came out with another no.1 that worked fine but never have tried it in the 404 again as far as I know....

No arguement here just passing on an event that took place and much "to do" was raised about the 404 not having specific specs by whatever that organization is ( I know it but can't recall it right off hand, sorry). Ruger blamed this lack of specific specs as the problem...Also I have known of or rather advised of some discrepency in reamers over the years.

Just passin this on but have no hands on knowledge of this, and all my 404s have worked perfect. All my 404 were cut with Clymer reamers.

Rugers inability to McGiver a model 77 to feed a 404 had nothing to do with standardization. This is urban myth dreamt up by heaven knows who.

At the time of Rugers attempts to offer the 404 there was no commercial 404 ammo made other than RWS and that too was running out.

After the closure of Kynoch in the 70's RWS picked up the torch and their ammo was available into the late 80's when they too dropped it from production.

It is only after the amalgamation of RWS under the RUAG umbrella that the 404 was reinstated in their inventory.

By now all 404 ammo made in England or Europe , RWS, Kynamco and WR (Wolfgang Romey) were poducing 404 ammo with specs dictated to by CIP
( adopted in 1984)

The CIP mandated chamber and ammo spec is incidently the same spec as the Original Eley offering and subsequent Kynoch offerings.

In terms of "standardization" one can say that submission of drawings and ammo for testing to the Birmingham Proor House was adherence to standardization.

The 404 was standardized in 1913 as shown in this Kynoch publication.

This chart was found by David Little nailed behind a washroom door in the old Kynoch facility.

quote:

The 404 was standardized in 1913 as shown in this Kynoch publication.

This chart was found by David Little nailed behind a washroom door in the old Kynoch facility.

Is this chart available for purchase somewhere?

DWM 1926: Germany's version of the 404 Jeffery designated 10,75x73 under DWM case number 555. The dimensions were the same as the Original Birtish cartridge.

This the first catalog entry of a German offered 404 cartridge and fits in with the Mauser factory specs for this cartrdige also dated 1926.

Alf -

It is also interesting to me that for a while the last of the Kynoch .404 ammo was actually made using Swedish manufacture cases and bullets.

I have a tropical pack of ten 5-round boxes of Kynoch .404 ammo (solids) which I bought in 1973 (IIRC as to the year), which has plainly printed as part of the Kynoch label the words
"Loaded in England using Swedish components".

I guess I should say, "I think I have..." I know I did have it until about 4 weeks ago. I have had 32 feet of new cabinets custom built and installed in my new loading room, and now that I am putting everything in place in my new cabinets, I have been unable to find several items of ammo that I know made the trip from Oregon here to Phoenix with me in a 12 ton truck which I rented for the purpose of moving ammo, components, and loading equipment. I loaded the goods onboard and drove it here myself, so I know it got here.

One of the other now missing items is a 50-round box of RWS 9.3x74 SP ammo. I am hoping the boxes have been misplaced into a new "Tuff Shed" I also had built recently, but I don't think so...a few days of sorting through the boxes in there will tell the tale.

AC:

Yes absolutely ! as you see from my entry on the list for 2 March 1970 ICI Metals the then owners of the Kynoch brand jointly submitted a set of combined drawings with Norma to the Birmingham Proof House listed as drawing APS 846. Norma dawning 21782 appears jointly on the same sheet as the Kynoch Submission. It is sadly to large to post here but I have a copy of it. I will take a picture of it but the detail will be lost.

FANTASTIC, and thanks for the heads up, you would think those gun scribes and Ruger would have had access to that information..I never thought to question it until Alfs post, and only then because I have never had a hitch with the 404, my long time favorite caliber and I thought that was stange at the time....

Anyway, Thanks Alf.

quote:

Is this chart available for purchase somewhere?

Jim

Yes,

You may purchase it for 10 pounds directly from Kynoch.UK

Kynamco has purchased rights to the Kynoch name from Eley. They are looking toward ISO certification of consistency and quality of production. Someone needs to teach Bertram how to make brass first.

L/D

As always Dr. Smith,
Thank you for sharing your extensive collection of 404J data with us.

quote:

Problem is not in the cartridge dimension, if there is a problem in feeding it lies with the person / persons who built the gun.

I would argue that there are very few modern gunbuilders and it includes some famous proprietary offerings that have the ability and tech know how to make these old Brits feed properly.

May I ask if you know of and could name a proper gunsmith in North America whom does possess the technical know how and ability to make a 404J feed properly?

Thank you sir,

Lawndart

Norma also loaded .404 ammunition for Parker Hale. Last run of Parker Hale .404 ammunition was 400 grain FMJ loaded 21 March 1964.

quote:

Originally posted by husky:
Norma also loaded .404 ammunition for Parker Hale. Last run of Parker Hale .404 ammunition was 400 grain FMJ loaded 21 March 1964.

I bought some empty PH brass, that I assume came from that run. I made .425 Westley Richards out of them. Many decades ago!

quote:

Originally posted by husky:
Norma also loaded .404 ammunition for Parker Hale. Last run of Parker Hale .404 ammunition was 400 grain FMJ loaded 21 March 1964.

Thanks for this sort of info, here is a bit more about the Parker Hale 404 ammo. I received this letter after I had made enquiries through my local gun shop the owner of which personally knew Roger Hale and corresponded with him to find out about the 404 produced by Norma for Parker Hale. I was looking for reloading components at the time hence the reference in the letter to these.

Hi eagle27,
That was a very interesting historical document!

In 1993 I got enough Parker Hale .404 loaded ammunition from a friend to make the project sensible to build my own .404 on a Brno ZG 47 action.

Now the rifle is sold to a friend Game ranger in the Kruger National Park! Delivery in May 2012.

What I bought instead of the .404? A Webley & Scott .450/.400 3 1/4" N.E. double rifle

quote:

Originally posted by husky:
Hi eagle27,
That was a very interesting historical document!

In 1993 I got enough Parker Hale .404 loaded ammunition from a friend to make the project sensible to build my own .404 on a Brno ZG 47 action.

Now the rifle is sold to a friend Game ranger in the Kruger National Park! Delivery in May 2012.

What I bought instead of the .404? A Webley & Scott .450/.400 3 1/4" N.E. double rifle

I only have 12 rounds of the Parker Hale ammo left now having used up a bit on Aussie buffalo some years ago. The 400gr solids did perform well.

Your .450/.400 3 1/4" is a great trade for your .404 as they are really similar cartridges,
one for bolt guns and one for doubles. Hope you get to use the double on game.

Yes, very cool document. Dunno, but an email containing the same info just wouldn't have the same class...if you get my drift... thanks for posting it.

I have never used factory 404 ammo and probably never will, it is so damn weak and I know the 404 performs better at 2400 FPS than it does at a lesser velocity or at least that has been my observation and thats all that counts with me. Even the old guns I have had handled 2400 FPS with ease..

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
I have never used factory 404 ammo and probably never will, it is so damn weak and I know the 404 performs better at 2400 FPS than it does at a lesser velocity or at least that has been my observation and thats all that counts with me. Even the old guns I have had handled 2400 FPS with ease..

Ray

The .404 gained an enviable reputation as a dangerous game cartridge right from the time it was introduced back in 1905 just as it's equivalent double gun cartridge the 450-400 3" had done. Those 40 cals that followed, the 416 Rigby and the 425 WR also gained the same enviable reputation for solid performance on DG. The .404 at a lower intensity but with a larger diameter bullet than the .416, seemed to give the best of both worlds with a cartridge that was comfortable enough to use in light handy rifles and which as we all know, was put to good effect in culling thousands of elephants by some of the game departments in Africa. Nobody seems to know what ammo was used in those culling days but a lot of it must have been Kynoch factory ammo loaded at the original velocity of 2125fps and then uprated to 2225fps in later years. Did Kynoch uprate their ammo to the higher velocity because of poor performance or was it just to follow the trend and demand, for higher velocities that was developing? Who knows.
Norma are loading most of their modern PH ammo for the DG cartridges, albiet with heavier for calibre bullets, to 2150fps and this ammo has been developed with input from African PHs. So is it enhanced velocity that makes a cartridge perform better, or higher energy?

No doubt that the enhanced effect on animals that you have observed with increasing MV to around the 2300fps in the .404 is valid but then how dead is dead. My experience with Kynoch soft nose at 2225fps, Parker Hale solids at 2245fps and RWS reloaded solids at 2100fps on quite a few aussie buffalo was that the .404 killed very emphatically so I would not call this ammo "so damn weak". I went hunting buffalo and just shot same place as I always had on hundreds of deer, chamois and tahr and the buffalo fell over. In deference to my 'opened up' Mauser I would think sticking to original factory pressure levels is reasonably wise. I have never fired a factory RWS supposedly at 2330fps or any other load at that level in my .404 and quite frankly I don't see that I would enjoy it. Velocities at around 2200fps with a 400 gr bullet is enough in my 9.5lb Mauser, but each to his own.

Guys,
Thanks for your collective help. I picked the rifle up last night and it checks out great. Winston Elrod has put together a trim and great handling rifle.

I removed the firing pin and cycled a mix of Hornady solids and softs well over a hundred times with perfect feeding-fast, slow, upside down, etc, etc. This was with 4 down and one in the chamber-I was unable to get it to misfeed and it is picking the rounds up as soon as they come out of the magazine. Chamber dimensions are on with the go/no-go gauge tests, too.

All-in-all, I'm extremely happy with the rifle so far and look forward to getting to shoot it soon. There are some very light handling marks, but I don't think this rifle has really been shot in its 404J guise-the sights are yet to be filed in, there is no copper fouling and the bolt face is clean.

I don't have an accurate scale, but it is about 8.5lbs bare and balances right on the forward cross bolt. I lucked out with fit as this one comes up just right with the irons and should be good with a scope fitted as there's very little drop.

Only things I would have done differently would have been to skip the bolt knob checkering and I would've opted for a somewhat less deep and slightly shorter forearm without the ebony tip. The checkering is very well cut and does offer a great purchase with the full coverage--reminiscent of my old Ruger African. Elrod really didn't leave any more wood than necessary and I don't think there is enough extra to trim it down further anyway. Lastly, I should probably relieve the wood slightly at the back of the reshaped action tang-the inletting is super tight all the way through this rifle.

Here are a few pics-will get some better ones when it stops raining.

Show-off !!! :-)

Thanks Jon-it's good to luck out every so often!
This is the first Elrod rifle I've been able to handle, but the man does really top-notch work and I take my hat off to him.

Well, after all the frustrating crud I'm glad to see that you are making progress on a great big bore. Too bad I won't be in Va next week or i'd volunteer my shoulder for some big boomery!

Good luck!

_Baxter

Eagle 27
Actually according to the write ups and history that I have come across, it seems the original stats on the .404 were not particularly popular in Africa early on and considered to be a tad weak..That is why RWS pumped it up to 2300 FPS and all was good to go from that point on and the 404 became famous.

That said, I have shot enough buffalo and other DG with the 450-400s to belive that 2130 FPS with a 400 gr. bullet is sufficient for anything, so I have no arguement with you there..

Personally, I do like the results of 2400 FPS with a 400 gr. bullet much better, it makes them quiver and I assure you it kills and penetrates better, much like a 458 Lott it is even better if one can handle the recoil, I cannot and the 404 at 2400 is about my limit, as with you the 404 at 2100 seems to be your limit...

We're I capable of shooting a Lott or 500 N.E. without any concern at all and could shoot 50 rounds off a bench without concern then that is what I would use for DG, however such is not the case, I am using the caliber that is at the top of my ability as should everyone IMO.

Thanks Baxter-let me know whenever you get back to VA. Love to hook up with you and your brother and you're certainly free to shoot whatever guns I've got!
Bill

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
Personally, I do like the results of 2400 FPS with a 400 gr. bullet much better, it makes them quiver and I assure you it kills and penetrates better, much like a 458 Lott it is even better if one can handle the recoil, I cannot and the 404 at 2400 is about my limit, as with you the 404 at 2100 seems to be your limit...
IMO.

Very true words Ray regarding using what is comfortable.
Couple of old movie frames below of me pulling down on a buff, the second showing the recoiling barrel up above my head and my shoulder blade pushed out the back. I was considerably lighter framed (and much fitter) then. The 404 is not quite so punishing now that I'm packing more weight.