Checking the specs for these two cartridges in "Cartridges of the World," 11th Edition, I see tiny variations, suggesting they are almost, but not quite, the identical cartridge, as has so often been stated. Still, it seems they could be safely interchanged in rifles chambered for either, assuming the Mausers were M98s or newer.
Comments?

I have always functioned under the view they were the same. Simply a name change. Looking at my data the differences are .001-.002. I do show the Rigby was loaded to a lower pressure.

When I built my wife's 7x57 I was going to stamp the barrel 275Rigby. However she got upset because her birthday is July 1957 so she wanted it to say 5x57. So happy wife happy life.

quote:

Originally posted by ramrod340:


When I built my wife's 7x57 I was going to stamp the barrel 275Rigby. However she got upset because her birthday is July 1957 so she wanted it to say 5x57. So happy wife happy life.

Why 5 X57? Typo? roger

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:

quote:

Originally posted by ramrod340:


When I built my wife's 7x57 I was going to stamp the barrel 275Rigby. However she got upset because her birthday is July 1957 so she wanted it to say 5x57. So happy wife happy life.

Why 5 X57? Typo? roger

No, he was just trying to piss off his wife.

quote:

Why 5 X57? Typo? roger

Yep darn right a typo. Thanks for catching it.

As usual my finger out run my brain.

So I will go back and correct it. Don't want to confuse other seniors like myself.

On second thought I think I might leave it. We need something simple to discuss today.

As to pissing off the wife. Not something I care to do. She shoots to darn well.

Bill, one of these days when you have some spare time and nothing else interesting to do, try this... Gather together half a dozen or so different 7x57s of different ages, civilian/military, different makes, at random.

Then make Cerrosafe casts of their chambers and measure each cast in all the significant places with a .001" or .0001" micrometer.

I'll be quite surprised if you don't find a lot of small differences. But they are all still 7x57s.

AC, amigo, and then there is the "kort nek" controversy dating to the days of the Orange Vrei Staat!

It is not a case of 7x57 vs 275 Rigby

It should read 7x57 = 275 Rigby.

Rigby's 275's were all Mauser transition action 7x57's sold complete with Translated from German Mauser manuals. They were sold with Eley marked 7x57 ammo and Eley 7x57 HS Dummy rounds.

As to the "Kortnek" 7x57.

The Kortnek is not a 7x57 !

It is a 7.65 x53 Argentinian Mauser case which has been necked down and loaded with 7mm bullets. Surplus 7,65 Argentinian cases from FN , DWM, FYA and DM were used to load those rounds and were bought by the ZAR.

I wonder why some people these days want to nostalgically authenticate things by having'.275 Rigby' engraved
on their barrel and have brass stamped the same, when in fact there was never any such thing done on orig. Rigby rifles
or the commercial ammunition of the day.

As far as I know it was always only referred to as a '.275 bore' in a Rigby rifle.
So you got ammunition from Rigby overlabelled/marked .275 bore -in either solid configuration, or 140sp.

You can see Rigby mausers engraved 'Sighted for Rigby Special High Velocity 275 Bore Cartridges Pointed Bullet 140 Grs' ,

So essentially, if you had that rifle you would then have a #2 catalogue Rigby Special High Velocity rifle in .275 bore.
which means it was regulated at the factory for the 140gn load.
WDM Bell purchased five #2 HV .275 bore rifles from Rigby , but fired the DWM 173n solid loads through them.

And Alf will tell you that Rigby magazine rifles in their brochure being listed as model#1(175gn) or model #2(140gn)
both had the same orig. 7mm mauser spec chambers and throats.

No matter what is marked on the rifles or ammo

-currently there is a CIP standard for the 7X57 with the country of origin listed as Germany.

There is also a current CIP standard for the .275 H.V. Rigby.

The Rigby is loaded to lower pressure and has a faster twist.
The Rigby chamber has a 45 degree chamfer at the end of the case mouth.

The 7X57 chamber ends like an auto pistol with a square shoulder. The 7X57 has a flatter leade angle at the beginning of the rifling.

The Rigby leade length is 5.65mm.
The 7x57 leade length is 19.20mm.

It looks like the Brits went out of their way to make every dimension of the .275 vary from the 7X57 by a few hundreds of a mm.

The long 175 grain RN ammo common to the 7X57 might hang up in the throat of a .275 Rigby subject to manufacturing variations.

quote:

The Rigby is loaded to lower pressure and has a faster twist.

This does not make any sense. Why should a lighter bullet (140 grains) in a .275 Rigby be fired with a faster twist than a 175 gr bullet in a 7x57 mm Mauser?

The CIP twist rate for a 7x57 is one turn in 8.66", which is fast enough to stabilize the long 175 grain bullet.


Santa Claus

You asked the question
You can find the answer.

The U dim for the 7X57 is 220mm (8.66")
7x57 PDF

The U dim for the .275 H.V. Rigby is 203mm. (7.99")
.275 H.V. Rigby

quote:

Originally posted by Santa Claus:

quote:

The Rigby is loaded to lower pressure and has a faster twist.

This does not make any sense. Why should a lighter bullet (140 grains) in a .275 Rigby be fired with a faster twist than a 175 gr bullet in a 7x57 mm Mauser?

The CIP twist rate for a 7x57 is one turn in 8.66", which is fast enough to stabilize the long 175 grain bullet.


Santa Claus

Thanks - it is a proven fact.
But it does not make any sense to me to change the German standard that was later adopted by CIP.

Santa Claus

Based on the throats, it looks like the Brits wanted a light bullet higher velocity round.

Somtimes marketeers change something just to differentiate their new item from the old.

Special cartridge, special HV bullet, special twist - all that garbage.

A lot of the small differences probably come from the the process of copying the German drawing and converting the dimensions to inches.

Then CIP took the British inch drawing can converted that back to the metric system.

The Brits might have picked the 8" twist by merely rounding down to the nearest inch.

quote:

Originally posted by Santa Claus:
Thanks - it is a proven fact.
But it does not make any sense to me to change the German standard that was later adopted by CIP.

Santa Claus

quote:

The Rigby leade length is 5.65mm.
The 7x57 leade length is 19.20mm.

In current drawings of 7x57 (vs) .275 HV Rigby yes,... but not in actual orig. Rigby rifles.

Rigby #1 and #2(HV) .275 bore rifles were both manufactured with identical orig. mauser spec chamber,throat and twist.
Such rifles all being chambered and proofed in Germany as 7x57.

The engineering standard defines the .275 HV Rigby requirements. If the rifles measure the same as a 7X57 they do not meet the engineering standard for a .275 H.V. Rigby. If they do not meet Rigby's dimensions they may not be a true Rigby and as such could just be fakes.
If they are a true Rigby, then Rigby is guilty of poor configuration control.

It is my understanding that Rigby was a British company. If a barrel was installed and proofed in Germany but never made it to the UK for British proofing it would be difficult to claim it is a genuine Rigby. How would you have a genuine Rigby since there was no way it ever made it to Rigby's shop?

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:

quote:

The Rigby leade length is 5.65mm.
The 7x57 leade length is 19.20mm.

In current drawings of 7x57 (vs) .275 HV Rigby yes,... but not in actual orig. Rigby rifles.

Rigby #1 and #2(HV) .275 bore rifles were both manufactured with identical orig. mauser spec chamber,throat and twist.
Such rifles all being chambered and proofed in Germany as 7x57.

one more time.....

Rigby #1, #2(HV) and #3(HV) .275 bore rifles were all provided by Mauser with identical orig. mauser spec chamber,throat and twist.
Such rifles all being chambered and proofed in Germany as 7x57.

If anyone has an orig. Rigby #1,#2,#3 .275 bore rifle, it should by rights have the orig. 7mm Mauser spec chamber,throat and twist.

Bell fired DWM 175gn rounds in his series of five #2 HV Rigby rifles without problem, simply because they were all orig. 7mm Mauser
spec chambers-throat-twist.......as was the Rigby #1 he later purchased.

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:
.. If a barrel was installed and proofed in Germany but never made it to the UK
for British proofing it would be difficult to claim it is a genuine Rigby. How would you have a genuine Rigby since there was no way it
ever made it to Rigby's shop?

I simply said they were chambered and proofed in Germany....I really should have expanded to say....
Rigbys were additionally proofed in England, in that a rifle will bear both German and British marks.
.. Rigby mauser rifles you will also see displaying both Mauser and Rigby(seperately issued)serial numbers.

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:
It is my understanding that Rigby was a British company.

Established in Ireland(Suffolk street, Dublin)
some yrs later opened a shop in LONDON 72 James street, them some yrs later again relocates at 43 Sackville.

One more time.
The .275 Rigby was a proprietary round.
If it was not produced in Rigby's shop in any way shape or form it is NOT a Rigby produced rifle. Calling such a rifle a Rigby is a misnomer.

>>Bell fired DWM 175gn rounds in his series of five #2 HV Rigby rifles without problem, simply because they were all orig. 7mm Mauser
spec chambers-throat-twist.......as was the Rigby #1 he later purchased.<<<

That does not provide proof they had any particular chamber. You do not have documentation to prove otherwise unless you are going to drag out some hearsay. Hearsay does not count.

I the ammo fired is almost meaningless. Any decent bolt gun would be able to handle the pressure from either round.

If I may add,

The Germans at the time of providing .275 bore units to Rigby, had a gov. requirement to proof test
such rifles in order to assure they were safe while firing any of the commercial ammunition available at the time.
DWM also went to the trouble to proof test the British Kynoch 7mm/.275 bore commercial ammunition.

Add what ever you want. With your total lack of documentation and your propensity to lie there is no limit to what you might say.

If I may add about your last sentence - it is bull shit. Prove it.
Germans are notably one track minded.
I don't think you can convince the Germans to proof a rifle with an alternate type of ammo that does not meet Germans standards. And I don't think the Germans had any standards for the .275 / 7X57 combo

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:


The Germans at the time of providing .275 bore units to Rigby, had a gov. requirement to proof test so that
that the rifle would be safe while using any commercially valuable ammunition.

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:
Add what ever you want. With your total lack of documentation and your propensity to lie there is no limit to what you might say.

Why would I need to lie about Rigby/Mauser collaboration rifles?
There would be no gain in that whatsoever.

The real problem here is your widespread ignorance on orig. Rigby rifles.

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:

I don't think you can convince the Germans to proof a rifle with an alternate type of ammo that does not meet Germans standards.

Better don't rashly 'think' or 'assume' as you usually do, instead go do some proper research.
The British did not have to convince the Germans, since such method proof testing was actually legislated LAW in Germany.

and like the .275 bore Rigby, various of the British makers who offered the .404j chambering, were proofed in Germany.
Such 404 cal. rifles you will see stamped with both German & British proofs, with barrels stamped both 10.75x73 and .404cal
DWM and Kynoch both made rounds for 7mm/.275 bore and 10.75x73/.404cal

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:

The .275 Rigby was a proprietary round.
If it was not produced in Rigby's shop in any way shape or form it is NOT a Rigby produced rifle.
Calling such a rifle a Rigby is a misnomer.

Rigby,Gibbs,Bland,Jeffery,Vickers,Cogswell & Harrison,,Manton & Co,Westley-Richards, etc,etc,

were in a lot of ways german produced,proofed and serialised, later then being additionally proofed,stamped and serialised in England.

according to you then, none of them are genuinely from any of various British makers engraved on their barrels and in company ledgers.

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:
The engineering standard defines the .275 HV Rigby requirements.
If the rifles measure the same as a 7X57 they do not meet the engineering standard for a .275 H.V. Rigby.
If they are a true Rigby, then Rigby is guilty of poor configuration control.

.275 bore is simply an anglicised name for 7mm Mauser, used by Rigby to promote its product.
other Britsh Isle gun companies did the same. e.g.: .275 Cervorum and the .275 Thomas Bland.

George Gibbs and Westley-Richards also offered mauser rifles in .275

True Rigby .275 bore rifles in #1,#2(hv),#3(hv), version are differed by sight regulation and barrel lengths, all have same
std. 7mm mauser chamber,throat and twist.
There was no need to have both a std. mauser and differing .275HV chamber spec,...The Rigbys as they were produced, fired
DWM 173gn, Kynoch175gn and HV-140gn, just fine.
Thus the rifles had everything they needed to function as per requirements, So I don't see where Rigby is guilty of poor anything.

Wheee! A little Political Forum interplay here in the Medium Bores ...

quote:

Checking the specs for these two cartridges in "Cartridges of the World," 11th Edition, I see tiny variations, suggesting they are almost, but not quite, the identical cartridge, as has so often been stated. Still, it seems they could be safely interchanged in rifles chambered for either, assuming the Mausers were M98s or newer.
Comments?

7mm-08

Skip all the complexities, make your life easier.

quote:

Checking the specs for these two cartridges in "Cartridges of the World," 11th Edition, I see tiny variations, suggesting they are almost, but not quite, the identical cartridge, as has so often been stated. Still, it seems they could be safely interchanged in rifles chambered for either, assuming the Mausers were M98s or newer.
Comments?

COTW 13th edition, actually describes the .275 in this manner:

[quote]
" .275 Rigby(7x57)
This round, identical to the 7x57mm Mauser, was adopted by John Rigby & Co,in 1907, for Rigby bolt-action magazine rifles.
Rigby was, at the time, the British outlet for Mauser"
[endquote]

and I recall one person on a forum who was going to the trouble of building a .275 hv rifle
and went to the fuss of specifically getting a new .275 HV reamer,...but then used German made regular spec. 7x57 brass...

This person also said one 'cannot' chamber as 7x57 and call it a .275 HV.
But fact remains that is exactly what Rigby and other British based rifle makers did with their .275 HV marked sporting rifles
that Mauser had chambered, proofed and stamped as 7x57.

This pissing match requires some clarifications.

First and foremost : COTW whilst a fine general reference work has a lot mistakes and omissions.

Now as to the Rigby 275.

The very first Rigby 275 was ordered and delivered to Rigby at part of a series of rifles numbered 1 to 1000 in 1898. Evidence of this can be found in the original Mauser Oberndorf sales registry of 1898//1899. This corresponds with the Rigby ledger marked 1 to 1000.
In November of 1898 50 barrelled actions in 7x57 were sold to Rigby

The action pattern of the rifle is the "transition" action ie the action that preceded the model 98 proper.

There is now evidence that the majority of these Rigby rifles were actually fitted and finished at Oberndorf and not by Rigby's finishers.
There is order evidence that Mauser actually made the stocks for Rigby to their specification.

I have two of these rifles one with a very low SN 12* and a second with SN 9** I have the bits ( ie cleaners, funnels, extras sights screwdrivers and manuals for both rifles)

There is no mention of any ammunition supplied by Mauser for these rifles. This in itself important in that ammunition was supplied by Mauser for other orders.

The German ammunition for the very first 7x57s were loaded by Rottweiler in Cologne Germany.
Preparation and proof testing for powder and ammo started with the Pattern 90 rifle in 7.65 x 53 then redone for the pattern 91 rifle and finally in November of 1894 for the 7x57.

15,000 shots were fired with no evidence of barrel wear, only at 9000 rounds did 1000 yard groups start opening up. This deemed exceptional for a service weapon. The detailes regarding this test for acceptance can be found in Korn's Mauser Gewhere und Patente.

Rigby supplied their 275 with Eley ammo and a pack of 10 nickelled dummy rounds.

Now important to the arguments here Eley did not at any time load for or list a 275 Rigby nor does a HS exists for this. ( This can be found in the original Eley cartridge lists.)

Eley did load for the 275 Holland and Holland which is not a 7x57 and they also loaded for the 275 Jeffery which is a rimmed cartridge for a rook rifle.

Eley's ammo are marked 7x57 Mauser so is the various options listed in their ammo list.

If we look at the later Kynoch lists we again see reference to the 7x57 Mauser in various options with Rigby labels posted over the Kynoch 7x57 Mauser boxes.

Only in the Kynoch Primer ( cap) list is there reference to a 275 Rigby Rimless and then the 7x57 Mauser.

If we look at the Boer war 7x57 Headstamp list
The war was fought between 1899 to 1902 we see the following HS's out of England

Eley Brothers Marked as Eley 7M/M
BM&Mco from Birmingham marked BM&Mco 7M/M They made ammo from 1897 to 1921.

ALF: Thank you so much for sharing this information. You are blessed to own two of these early Rigbys.

You should also be aware that it is considered, in some circles, perfectly acceptable to wear a bowler while carrying a .275 Rigby, but not necessarily so with a 7x57.
And definitely not politically correct with a .416..

quote:

I wonder why some people these days want to nostalgically authenticate things by having'.275 Rigby' engraved
on their barrel

I agree. On anything other than a Rigby it is a silly affectation. Like the ridiculous Lazzeroni calibre silly calibre designation.

Just what is so wrong with 7mm Mauser or, if you prefer as I do, 7x57?

Like calling 300 Holland and Holland, or if you will 300 H & H, by it's one time name of "Holland's Super .30".

Or the 240 Apex by, again, it's "other" name of "240 Nitro Express".

Both equally as silly as marking a 8mm Mauser, or again 8x57, SPORTING rifle as a "7.92mm Mauser".

Although I have seen, years ago, the one of only two, I believe, Rigby rifles marked as "275 Rigby Magnum" which was, actually, one of their rifles chambered in 7x64!!

Alf,

Could you share a photo of the early Rigby's. Curious as to the stock confinguration. Did it vary from the Mauser stock configuration?

Bryan