.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
Many posts make reference to "Brand names" and cartridge originators more than often in error or at least what is represented by a brand name.

Much of this "misnomering" if you wish perpetuated in books and print.

A example being the current threads on the Rigby brand, the origins of the 458 Win , perhaps the origins of say the current crop of Ruger cartridges.... come to think of it name just about every cartridge , rifle or part of a rifle and we run into the problem of who really designed it, owns it or even makes it!

We see reference to the 12.7mm x 70 Schuler or 500 Schuler . Did August Schuler design it ?
it is referenced as being released in 1923 but we see that the "August Schuler" actually died in 1906 ? Though the company was still in existence at its release we see that RWS was involved in its coming about ? Did someone at the Schuler company actually design the cartridge or was it given to the ballistics engineers at RWS ? Much the same with the 8x68 and 6.5x68.

What about Jeffery's 500 ? Did William Jackman Jeffery design his iconic 500 ? he died in 1909 and the first 500 was finished by Leonard on actions from Mauser barrels from Krupp all imported by Le Personne in 1927

We can go further ! What about Holland and Hollands iconic 375 ..... was it Henry Holland wo designed it or was it the Canadian FW Jones ?

We constantly run into this when it comes to the old British gun trade because they built and branded actions and barrels as their own when they were in fact built by others.

Why would this category of human activity be different from every
other? There's "fakery" in EVERYTHING that humans engage in!

I would like to know more about FW Jones and the 375HH please.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
We constantly run into this when it comes to the old British gun trade because they built and branded actions and barrels as their own when they were in fact built by others.

Friend, Respectfully, your own words above site the intentional "fakery" (my word).
Today we have the "British" "Gunmaker" Anderson Wheeler, who in fact is selling
100% French built rifles as if these rifles are made in the U.K. Wheeler in reality
is nothing but a retailer, as Lawn & Alder of old India, was a retailer of OSBORNE
built rifles, those truly being of British hands, in British shops.

ALF,

Point well taken. I see nothing wrong with the business model that the British for instance used to sell guns with. As you say they often bought components or complete barreled actions from Mauser, put their name on them so it became a Rigby, Jeffery or H&H. So what it's not "fakery" it's just how things are manufactured in the real world.

Many manufactures of goods besides guns do the same thing. In reality very few manufactured items are made solely by one manufacturer. But at least in guns some people seem to think there's something wrong after finding out that their classic old rifle wasn't made one at a time from start to finish by some mutten chopped old craftsman toiling at his workbench.

The other thing I find amusing is how people are seemly unaware that many of these old companies have been sold several times or at the very least reorganized by new financiers. A great example in the US is Winchester. Most think that the only time they were sold is in 2006 when Herstal took them over. In reality Winchester has passed through several owners hands since they began.

Most of what gun nuts believe is in good part myth or wishful thinking.

William Jackman Jeffery certainly had nothing to do with the .500 Jeffery, jahwohl!
That genius creator of the .400 S Jeffery (aka 450/400 NE 3-Inch) with thick rim and stouter brass that led the way,
about 1898, to the .404 Jeffery Rimless Nitro Express of no later than 1905:
Bloody well spot on he was creator of the first and the greatest-ever, bolt-action, magazine-repeater DGR.
True Jackman genius.
(insert 21-gun salute here)

Having passed on in May of 1909 at 52 years of age, he was surely set spinning in his grave by the ugly duckling .500 Jeffery of 1927.

Blame brother Charles' takeover for that 1927 boondoggle, eh?

Not the deceased August Schuler, but rather the surviving Richard Schuler is to be blamed for the 1923 abomination, the 12,7x70mm aka .500 Schuler,
according to George A. Hoyem:





Book review: Excellent. George A. Hoyem is one of our best authorities on the evolution of ammunition.

Seems pretty obvious to me that the ".500 Schuler/Jeffery" was a piece of German over-engineering to keep up with the Gibbses,
co-opted by the Jefferys.
That scandinavian powder used in whatever loadings is said to have been "95 grains of Swedish R-5 flake powder" with 535-grain bullet.

So how the heck did Craig Boddington come up with "95 grains of Cordite" in the 1996 A-Square manual?
Bless his heart.

This loser cartridge, the .500 Jeffery, is a "biter."
I am finally bitten.
I want to put one together since I have all the necessaries except for a reamer.
But my dies are for the CIP ".500 Jeffery": 25*13'41" shoulder cone angle (half that for the shoulder semi-angle customarily spoken)
(North Devon dies, British make, found in a Rapid City, SD shop about 15 years ago).
And I already have 20 pieces of Norma brass for shooting,
and 3 pieces of Bertram brass to use as feed dummies.

Mine will not be the CIP "12,7 x 70 (500 Schuler)": 39*54'22" shoulder cone angle
Mine will not be for the Romey Hybrid with about 20* shoulder semi-angle.
The CIP standard shoulder for the 12.7x70mm (.500 Schuler) seems to be about the same as the "Romey Hybrid."
CIP does not agree with the shoulder shown for the .500 Schuler in the BASA monograph previously posted by Alf,
CIP doesn't show a "Romey Hybrid," but their .500 Schuler is very close to the "Romey Hybrid."
They are pretty close to the 1928 Kynoch shoulder with their 2002 CIP revision of the .500 Jeffery, as shown in the BASA monograph:



When in doubt, go with latest CIP if SAAMI does not cover it.
My "Biter" will be the 2002 CIP .500 Jeffery.

And it will be throated about like a .500 A-Square, or a .500 Mbogo, or a .500 Bateleur
(all have been excuses for me to avoid a .500 Jeffery so far).
No Leade-only throat for me.
It will have a 1:10" or a 1:12" twist.
The rebated tail and short neck will be for fun.
Maybe I will just stamp "Jeffery" above the "500 Batelerur" on an FN Mauser.
The 500 Jeffery reamer will totally clean up a 500 Bateleur chamber,
and that rifle already has Wiebe 500-Jeffery bottom metal for 3-down+1-up, "Four-Shooter."
Or a CZ with a .500-A-Square take-off barrel set back by 0.1" to clean it up.
I have muzzle brakes for both.

The .458 Win.Mag./.450 Watts Short
The .450 Watts/.458 Lott
The .416 Watts Short/.416 Taylor
The .450 Watts Rimmed/.450 Alaskan
James Watts, real deal or "faker?"

.416 Barnes Supreme/.416 Hoffman/.416 Remington.

.510 Buhmiller/.500 Weatherby/.510 Wells Express Magnum/.500 A-Square/.510-460 Wby Improved Jenkins & Berry/.50 Peacekeeper

John Riley Buhmiller: Real deal, no faker. Too many to shake a stick at.

I need a .500 Jeffery like I need a hole in my head.

Put this barrel on a CZ 550 Magnum:



Or just open up the rails and ream the .500 Jeffery chamber into this, bolt face is close enough (.338 Lapua magnum fits .500 Jeffery):





Whichever, re-throat it to the ".500 Jeffery RIP."
Yep, another rip-off.

Rip ...

Ron,
well written ---
I might suggest that, other than having a 500 jeffe, you will gain zero practical improvement over your 510/338 -- as my 500 Accrel easily matches book for the 500 jeffe, there's little reason, other than to scratch an itch ..

I am under the impression RIP is not a spectator (like me) having designed and brought to life a number of cartridges.

Everyone has their favorite cartridges and dislike a few. I think it is all in good fun and conversation.

jeffeoso and LHeym500,

Thanks, you get it. Not sure about ALF.

Here is the CIP 2002 500 Jeffery that I have drawn on RCBS tool, converting mm to inches:



That appears to be the latest CIP standard for the 500 Jeffery and as such is the only one.
There can be only one.

And here are the many reasons not to do the 500 Jeffery, starting with the 500 Van Horn Express of the last century,
when Gil had only 460 Wby brass, de-belted:





Yep, I'll hate myself for doing it, but I want to build a 500 Jeffery.
The 3.495" dummy is too long to work through the Wiebe box,
3.485" works.
CIP max COL is 3.468".
A CZ 550 Magnum is the way to go.
If you throat it for 3.8" COL through that box,
.510-caliber bullet displacement is 51.66 grains of water per inch of full-diameter bullet.
3.800" - 3.468" = 0.332"
0.322" X 51.66 gr/inch = 17.2 grains of effective (net) case capacity increase.
Same applies to 500 AR Nyati and 500 Bateleur.
So, loading those long is even more reason not to build a 500 Jeffery.
But hey, in the interest of cartridge-hate reduction at the cost of self-hate disregard, I am willing to consider a 500 Jeffery,
German-over-engineered, short-necked, rebated-tailed, poor-man's, British-ripoff-me-too that it is.
Yep, I am going to hate myself for going with such a loser.
Maybe I am just getting nostalgic in my old age?
Next thing you know I might be driving a Model T Ford.

Rip ...

Thanks Ron -- could you send me the drawing of the AccRel? i think i've measured 133-136 ... and could likely have gotten by at 120

Jeff, here it is:



Way better than a 500 Jeffery.

The one misnomer/wrong-labeling on the program is the "NonTaperThrtLen"
which is actually the brass neck length as drawn,
calculated automatically fronm the N-1 and N-2 inputs.

That is a relative index of case capacity but truer to life than what you get at ammoguide.com.
Pick one system and stick to it for relative case capacity.
I took the external case dimensions from there and plugged it into RCBS "Cartridge Designer" tool.
Case capacity is calculated just from that.
Good to know it is so close to what you measure for real.
Nothing as fancy as NECO's QuickDESIGN, but good for my purposes.

That shoulder angle is calculated from brass lengths and diameters, could be up to 0-degree-5' off, +/-.

Rip ...

Cheers - happy new years

Mr. ALF: Thenk you for the info on Mr. Jones.

Alf,
I get it too, you gotta prop the value of your W. J. Jeffery & Co. Ltd. original .500 Jeffery.
Keep that rosey fragrance about it and the demand.
No worries, that will never go away, museums are forever in need of such odors.

Yep, now I am finally bitten, gotta have a 500 Jeffery "Biter."
I have selected a CZ 550 Magnum that has a 23"-long .338 Lop'wah Magnum barrel on it.
Since I had that one put together I have acquired a Dakota Longbow and a Savage factory .338 LM and will feel no remorse at re-barreling it.
And the old Lux stock on it can be replaced with custom wood or a synthetic, still noodling on that.

The three dummy rounds with Bertram brass fit into the box and the bolt closes with room to spare.
The 3.450"-COL, 570-grain, GSC FN even feeds from the top, middle, and bottom location in the box.
Right, left, right.
The pointy, 3.495"-COL, 570-grain, Barnes TSX and the hemispherical-nosed, 3.485"-COL, 600-grain Barnes RN brass solid are slick feeders, of course.
And most of the time, worked fast and slow, the bolt face will just barely catch the rebated rim of the cartridges.
Sometimes it rides over and catches the base of the case above the rim, where it meets the extractor groove, but feeds forward and pops into the extractor grip anyway.
Sort of semi-push-feed-controlled-round-feeding: SPF-CRF

So I am wondering if some thinning under the rear of the rails will allow the case to rise a little higher,
to convert it to CRF with the 500 Jeffery.

With proper throating and fast twist, The 50 BMG plinkers and game-getters can be single loaded off the top of the box,
with 3 rounds of shorties in the box.

Here are some more roses that smell nice to the nose of the proper sniffer,
including a non-CIP version of the 500 Jeffery that was in the RCBS data bank, actually more like the 12.7x70mm (500 Schuler):






Rip ...

RIP

what would we do on AR without your wit and technical geekology!

With regard to the "who was first?" question - it was who was most powerful and loud.

Same as claiming first for Columbus, Captain Cook, Wright brothers, Edison etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:

With regard to the "who was first?" question - it was who was most powerful and loud.

Same as claiming first for Columbus, Captain Cook, Wright brothers, Edison etc.

Nakihunter,
You are spot-on with that assessment.
Power (dollar-wise, etc.) and loudest yelling about it decides false history and fake news.
In one word: Politics.
Unfortunately, nothing gets done in this world without politics of some sort.
Let us not cry in our beer, but seek the truth for personal edification. Have a Tusker.


Rip ...