Hot core,

Here in lies the problem, of course the average 30-40 Krag brass will not be built to the same degree of consistancy as say a 308 Match brass. To think they are would be foolish.

That said, modern brass for the older rounds is often very similiar in quality to say 308 win standard brass from say Rem or Win. It is the option to get match quality ammo that really improves the 308, not much else.

Again, with that said, if one wanted to sort brass and get a batch of matched brass in the 30-40 then it would also be capable of extreme accuracy at extreme ranges.

Commenting on your comparision about the 22 Hornet and the 223 and the case variations between each. As a smith I have found there are two very difficult groups of rounds that are much harder to get to shoot then the majority of rounds. Those are the very large rounds because of the strain they impose on the mechanical aspect of a rifle and then the very small cased round because of the difficulty in producing match quality consistancy with the very small cases.

Here is why, take a 22 Hornet and say a lot of 50 brass has an extreme variation in case volume of .5 gr of powder(this is alot but shows my point), compare this to a batch of 223 brass with the same .5 gr variation and then chrony test loads in these brass.

The Hornet will show a dramatically larger extreme velocity spread because that .5 gr variation represents roughly 5% of some hornet powder charges. In the 223 we are looking at 1.2 to 2.5% of the powder carge.

Again, I am not saying it is easy to get any round to shoot as well as the top of the line accuracy rounds, just that with the proper match quality loads they have the same potential to shoot tight groups.

I will admit that some case designs are more efficient concerning powder burn, powder ignition and bullet alignment with the axis of the bore. Still with some tinkering, all of these things can be adjusted into match quality specs.

While it is not as easy, I feel any ammo can be loaded to match quality specs and after that the rifle quality is the limiting factor in accuracy, that and the shooter.

Good Shooting!!!

50

Hot Core,

It is interesting you bring up the Win M43. I just finished up rebarreling an old Win M43(very nice shape other then a bad bore).

Just a case in point, I am sure you are familiar with the bedding system on the M43, pretty poor at best. With this rifle, I fitted a new Douglas #4 barrel finished to 25" with a nice radiused crown to fit the era of the rifle.

I machined one of my mini barrel bedding block systems that are quite similar to the system on the new Sako M995 except it is mounted on the barrel instead of the action.

I also pillar bedded the rear of the action and floated the rest of the action. This little barrel bedding pad is permenantly bedded into the stock and supports roughly 1" in front and behind the recoil lug support. The barrel was also floated from the block out.

The rifle had been drilled and tapped for scope bases but with a barrel mount. With the new barrel I drilled and tapped the receiver on the front receiver ring so there would be no barrel mounts and use a conventional base system using two weaver #18 bases.

As far as fitting the barrel, I threaded the barrel to a very nice class 3 thread fit and chambered the barrel to the 218 Mashburn Bee instead of the original bee it was previously chambered for. I specially ordered this reamer with a moderately tight neck, 0.0015" over loaded neck diameter with the lot of Win brass I had on hand and ordered the throat to be cut 0.0002" over 0.224".

Generally, the Mashburn chamber is not the most accurate when shooting standard Bee's for fireforming. It is not uncommon to see groups average in the 1 inch range but generally not alot smaller.

The first three rounds out of this rifle cut a 4/10th" group at 100 yards using 14.3 gr of AA 1680 under the Speer 45 gr SP and lit by a CCI-400 primer.

From the 50 rounds I fireformed this weekend on paper, the groups ranged from the high 2's to the high 6's. Still when you consider the radical case transformation, this level of accuracy is quite impressive. I fully expect fireformed brass to provide well under 1/2 moa averages and it would not suprise me at all to see groups consistantly in the 2's and 3's.

Now has the 218 Mash Bee ever been know as a real tack driver? Has the Win M43 ever had that rep? A little modern machining and bedding techniques turned this 60 year old design into a very impressive modern varminter with no hint of whats under the hood so to speak because everything on the outside looks bone stock except a slightly larger diameter barrel and the lack of the integral front sight.

At first I was a bit sad to take apart the old rifle bt after seeing the results, I am totally impressed with the little rifle and it jsut adds to my opinion that with proper machining and bedding techniques, every round has the potential to be a real tack driver.

I will let you know how it does with fireformed brass.

Good Shooting!!!

50

Hey 50, That is quite impressive. I've never had a 218Bee. Stayed away from them because I had the "more accurate" 22Hornets. Still makes my stomach churn thinking of all the care I put in them and did not get the kind of accuracy you are getting Fire Forming.

By the way, you mentioned AA1680. I also never used any of it. Do you find it to be "similar" to the old WW-680?

...

Even though I especially liked the looks and weight of the M43s, I did not like the Controlled Feed. There was absolutely no way to single load a cartridge in the ones I had. The cartridge absolutely "had" to come from the removable magazine.

To say that was aggravating at the Range is a HUGE understatement. Never presented itself as a problem in the field since it was rare for me to take more than 2 consecutive shots.

I did have excellent triggers on all of mine without needing to mess with them.

Best of luck to you.

HotCore,

I would say AA 1680 is similiar to W-680 but not close enough to use the same data at least not in a case the size of the bee. I use it mainly to fireform small cases like this and then I will use either H-4227 or H-4198 for the Mashburn loads depending on which bullet weight I use.

Good Shooting!!!

50

Quote: "Are you of the opinion that if two rifles, made with the same attention to detail, but one cut in a 22Hornet and the other say a 221Fireball(or 222Rem, 223Rem, 22BR, 22PPC) that they should both group the "same" at 100yds?

I tried to select small capacity cartridges to compare with the 22Hornet that from "my viewpoint" have inherently more accuracy potential.

---

Or, how about a 308Win when compared to a 30-40 or 300Sav at say 400yds. Again using two rifles of similar design with the best possible attention given to making them accurate."

Hot Core:

After quite a few years of hanging out and shooting with my group of wildcatting benchrest shooters I've concluded that most cartridges can shoot very accurately in good rifles as long as all THE COMPONENTS OF ACCURACY ARE BROUGHT IN BALANCE. The first thing necessary is to recognize the case capacity and then work from there to achieve the correct powder and load, the correct bullet weight, and then the optimum barrel twist. All of this assumes that the rifle is correctly built complete with a match grade barrel. And then, of course, it is necessary to define accuracy. For us, that definition was always the complete elimination of fliers. Had we been successful at that, though, the group aggregate would have been 0.000".
A number of years ago my friend Randy was searching for a cartridge that would duplicate the accuracy of the PPC but would be legal in Hunter rifle benchrest competition. The rules stated that th e case capacity had to be at least 45 grains of water. That is considerable larger than the capacity of the PPC. He wanted to test the short fat theory. He shortened and necked down a 45-70 to 6mm. With that cartridge he won the Pa. State Hunter Rifle championship. But the brass forming problems were awesome. If I recall it took something like 7 form dies plus some lathe work. The short fat concept did work but he was looking for something easier in the way of case forming. It was decided to try the the 30-30 case(long and thin) which was right on the m0oney for capacity(45 gr of water). That round today rules hunter benchrest. It will agg. so close to the PPC that there is very little practical difference. The successful case is a wildcat but the main difference from the SAAMI spec 30-30 is a sharper shoulder, pushed back a bit to eliminate strectching and to maintain minimum capacity. The bullet weight worked out to around 125 to 130 gr and the case requires a powder with the burn rate of around H322 or even a bit faster with a twist rate of 1 in 15. Once the balance was achieved and the cartridge was shot in good rifles the 30-30 worked. I've also seen quite a few guys shoot the 300 Savage successfully. My opinion, though is that there was no noticeable recoil reduction from the 308 and good brass was harder to come by so why bother.
The other thing that we have noticed is that for a high degree of accuracy is that some cartridges are easier to shoot. Your comparison of the Hornet to the 222 familly of rounds is a good example. We've found that a heavier bullet at a greater velocity will shoot through range conditions(wind and mirage) better than lighter slower bullet. I would put my money on a 222 with a 52 gr bullet at 3100 or 3200 fps over a Hornet with a 40 gr at lesser velocity every time.
I do believe that one of the difficulties is bringing out the accuracy potemtial is many cases is the difficulty in finding exactly the right burn rate in the powder department.

knobmtn

Hot Core,

Let me also say that I agree with your core ideas as well. I smith today has to work pretty hard to beat teh quality of top end factory rifles.

It is also nice to just pick up a rifle and shoot little tiny groups without much fussing with load testing and such.

This is not my original point to this post though.

I just wanted to know what shooters really thought made a rifle accurate. There is no right or wrong answer because with each different rifle and shooter it will be different factor that either make a rifle accurate or not.

Good Shooting!!

50

Quote: "I now prefer "typically" accurate out-of-the-box rifles, that have adjustable triggers, that use "typically" accurate non-wildcat Cartridges and only need a good cleaning to have them ready."

Hot Core:

I've kind of come the full circle myself. The last half dozen or so rifles that I've fooled with have been Rem. Model 7's or Sakos. I'm trying to get some range time on a 260 and a 708 this summer. My only point was that the accuracy out some off the wall cartridges is surprising in a properly built rifle. I'd never want to dispute that a 222 ( I have 4 of them) or a 223 is easier to get to shoot smaller groups than a Hornet.

knobmtn

Hey knobmtn, I've wrestled with and had some buddies wrestle with Rifle-Cartridge combinations that just exhausted our enthusiasm for them. Much more enjoyable to get one that works well with about any Load combination you put in it.

After " I " totally screwed up 50's original thought, I think my last post is back to what he was originally looking for.

What would you like a GunSmith to do to a rifle to make it accurate for you, if in fact you wanted a custom rifle?