You're correct that my fps goal with the Krag is modest. Lyman's tests show 2200 fps is possible from 24", and I'll have a 28" bbl. However, the maker is not Remington, but Lone Star (I did talk with Remington, but they didn't seem to know exactly what cartridges their action could accomodate). His idea of a proof load is below my idea of it, and I'll feel more comfortable keeping my working pressures down near 35,000 CUP. Still, the classic .303 loading was 215 gn at 2050, and it dispatched all manner of African antelope, so I think I'll have an adequate, if marginal, elk load with the Krag.



Now, just why did those old Winchester engineers see a need to make the rim thinner on the .35 (and the neck so short)? I wonder if they were trying to use the same brass blanks and initial draws as the Krag.



I wonder what happens if you run .405 brass into a .35 WCF sizing die. Is there enough room at the top of the typical die to take a neck .18 or so too long? If it worked, it'd be a trivial wildcat sans the cost of custom dies.

asdf,I have a 35wcf 95 and I use the 405 brass with out any problem, haven't had to thin the rim, of the 2 I would go with the 30-40 Krag, as you can always use 303 brass to form it, speaking of which have you considered chambering it up in 303 britt?

I havn't shot an elk with a 35 Winchester but have with a 30/40. The 220 Hornady started out at 2300 dropped him like a bad habit. Range was about 70yd. So, in this case at least, the 30/40 was an effective elk round. Regards, Bill.

asdf,Okay you have settled on the round, now paint us a pic of your rifle, the last roller I and a couple of smiths built was based on the No-1 military action,in 45-120, had to have the block and hamer face groved to feed the round,, bbl was 1 1/2" octagon by 34" long, stocks came from Treebone,and I use the High set butt, no iron sights but did mount one of R.H.O.'s long tube scopes ,, shoots like a house-a-fire

Ray for the heck of it, what calibers have you SEEN personally that have failed on ELK.

I know you know where to put the shot at and have the ability to do so.

So minus some of the obvious, like a 22 Hornet etc, what calibers have you witnessed failures on that you could blame on the Caliber???

No one on here can offer better experience of our crew than you can.

Enlighten some of these modern day Daniel Boone Wannabes!

Cheers
seafire

OK, Dave James, as I see it in my mind's eye, the gun will be Lone Star's No. 5 action with an octagon barrel substituted for the round barrel used on the originals. I'm planning to use the Montana Rifleman for this. It will be a tapered octagon about .55 across flats at the muzzle and .80 across flats just before the flare to the shoulder. The shoulder will be round and about 0.25 long; it abuts the round top receiver. The barrel will look similar to that on the .243 Low Wall Browning brought in a few years back (if I recall, but it's been a while since I saw that gun).

The rear sight will likely be a fixed ring on the barrel shoulder. However, I haven't ruled out a square notch blade instead mounted well forward of the usual location -- as advocated by John Taylor; mock-ups I've made of this indicate he was right: sight clarity makes up for reduced sight radius. The front sight will be a fat, square blade dovetailed just behind the muzzle. The sights will be fixed (I'm a lazy reloader -- one load is all I care to develop for a gun). The sights will be regulated for 220 gn at 2050 fps.

I have a good cherry blank that's darkening nicely. I haven't made up my mind to use the case coloring Lone Star usually uses on the receiver or substitute the carbonia blue his supplier (Turnbull) offers as well. I've heard case coloring doesn't last long. I'll keep the case hardening on the breech and hammer, I think.

How's that sound?

Well you are certianly useing a great action,I have spoken a couple of times David H at Lone Starr,, Why no peep sight?

By peep, you must mean a tang sight. To me, they look fragile, and they are in the way when trying to reload for a second shot. As mentioned, I'll likely go with a fixed ring just in front of the receiver, a so called "ghost ring". I have one for my T/C, and it seems to work well enough.



Dave is a likeable fellow, and he has a fine collection of rolling blocks. I'm a bit annoyed he's not willing to subject his guns to SAAMI and CIP level proofs, but I can get acceptable performance derating the cartridge to the level he proofs at. He told me an original 7mm blew up on him in the last year, while shooting factory ammo. It took a few weeks to dig all the pieces out of his arm. Perhaps that explains his reluctance to ever hit a rolling block with a heavy charge.



It's not well know, and I can't find it on his site, but he's been making some No. 7 replicas. One in .44-40 would be verrrry nice.

asdf,

I guess I had not realized that the rim was thinner on the 35 WCF until you mentioned it on this thread. I had always been under the impression it was the same as the 405 Win. I should not be a major issue thin some 405 Win Hornady brass.

Is there a big price difference between 303 Brit and 30-40 Krag brass?

I think I would do the Krag myself, but then I already have a 405 and I dont't want a 35. Seriously though, I doubt you would notice much terminal ballistic difference between the Krag and 35 at the velocities we are talking about, admittedly I could be wrong, and the Krag will be more straight forward from a reloading perspective. Besides all that I just plain LIKE the Krag, so I am being subjective and not objective.

Good luck with your project and let us all know how it turns out.

ASS_CLOWN

Dave James: I'm surprised to learn one can use the .405 brass. The max. rim is .061 on the .35 and .073 on the .405. Generally, SAAMI specs for rim thicknesses wouldn't allow a min. .405 rim to go in a max .35 chamber. On the other hand, chamber dimensions didn't always conform to any standard back then. I'd like to go with the .303 since the brass is more common these days (a zillions SMLEs floating about here and there around the world), but the SAAMI pressure rating for it worries the action's maker.

It seems the Krag is the best choice. I'll report when all is finished, but it will be at least a year before the gun is done.

I would lean towards the .405 and don't see the recoil as factor for me...The 30-40 with a 180 or 220 is minimum elk caliber IMO, but on the good side of minimum...The 35 rates about the same, but of the two I like the 30-40 Krag with the 220 gr. bullet....

I think you need to give more thought to the 405, a big bull elk can be a pretty tough animal sometimes....

Alright, alright, my shoulder be damned, I'll check into the pressures on the .405. A rolling block with a fat recoil pad on it -- hmmmmmm. Thanks to all for the advice.

That surprises me about the 303, th originals were chamber in 303 britt,I have one.Also in 7.62 Russian and I would think it would be a litle hotter in the pressure department,but I with Ray go 405 just some'n about big bullets DAMN! skip that I forgot your useing a ROller

I have nothing to add here that is of any significance, just to say that I've owned three 30-40 rifles since the mid 1970's, two Winchester Model 95's and a sporterized Krag. I've hunted with the Krag but never shot anything with the 30-40. Still, I love all of them and that Krag bolt action is slicker than any other bolt rifle I've seen. To me, there is a lot of romanticism with the old 30-40. I have an old book on grizzly hunting written by Harold McCracken called "The Beast That Walks Like Man", and some of the photos show old time bear hunting camps in Alaska with row upon row of giant dead bears, all with Model 95 Winchesters in 30-40 posed next to them. All I've ever read on the subject states that the old 220gr load aound 2100fps was a good killer on big game. Admittedly, though, I have no experience killing any game with it.

Cliff
Seattle

asdf,



I believe the 405 Win is loaded to 45000 psi per SAAMI spec, but I am not sure. I can tell you that the M1895 Winchester and the Hornady brass can take considerably more than that. If I recall correctly the 303 Brit (215 at 2050) run at ~ 48,000 psi.



Ray is making those dangerous "categorical statements" again. I think that a 30-40 Krag in the boiler room of an elk is just as deadly as if the same bullet was hot from a 300 Win mag. Bullet placement - that is the key within a given caliber, IMHO.



Again good luck in whatever you chose.



ASS_CLOWN

Dave James: I've had a tough time nailing down the pressures on the old cartridges for which the rollers were chambered. The big fat 8mm Lebel was also made by Rem., and even a modest pressure would make a lot of thrust in such a case. Sharpe's old book on reloading says the 7mm used in the rollers was 39,000 as measured with crushers, well below the modern SAAMI 46,000, and I recall the CIP standard is hotter yet. I've seen so many different numbers for the performance of the 7.62 Russian and the 8 Lebel, to which I add the fact that the properties of smokeless powder circa 1900 was nothing like those one would select today, that I am not the least bit confident in trying to predict at what pressures they ran. Even if there were pressure numbers, I'm not sure that the crusher arrangements used then would give the same readings as the modern crusher set ups do. Unfortunately, the .303 falls in this class as well. The old sporting load of 215 gn at 2050 fps would be a very modest pressure with modern powders and a decent length barrel, but the SAAMI rating is 45,000 with crushers, and this worries the action's maker. Again, since his proof load for the Krag is rather mild, I won't even try to go with the .303 (those 215 gn Woodleighs would be nice, though: they're designed for impacts of 1800 to 2200 fps -- perrrrrfect). Lyman's new data for the Krag takes some of the guess work out of estimating pressures at given velocities. (FWIW, the .35 WCF case under the bullet is within a grain or two of the Whelen, so I think one could safely use such data for it; the last SAAMI spec for the .35 WCF was 39,000 with crushers and Lyman's Whelen data goes that low.)



Clown (and Atkinson): I'll have to wimp out on the .405. Yes, I could live with the recoil, but derating the cartridge to about 35,000 psi would lower fps to levels below what most experienced hunters (I am not) recommend for big game loads. Again, the maker is worried about a proper proof load (60,000 psi) hurting his gun, so I must derate the cartridges a bit. The Krag will do. I'll likely load for the old .303 fps and just have to pick my shots with a bit more care. That or get a bigger, stronger gun.

asdf,

I think the Krag is a grand ol' round (better than the Brit). I do know this though, the US Krag was loaded to ~ 10% lower peak pressure than the British 303 Smokeless load. I am speaking solely of military fodder now, so we are talking about 220 RN in the Krag and 215 RN in the Brit. The Krag has a little more case capacity and the US powder was a little slower than the cordite (at least that is what I understood). I have loaded both, and I consider the Krag superior, for whatever the heck that is worth.

The "throttle" of the 35 Winchester is less severe than the Whelen, so I would think that Whelen load data would be milder in the 35 WCF than it would be in the Whelen itself. I guess I am saying I tend to agree with you that you would be alright using Whelen data as surrogate for starting loads in the 35 WCF.

Good luck, and like I have said before, I don't think you can go wrong with any of the cartridges you are spoken of as candidates.

ASS_CLOWN