Fitting a .224 caliber cartridge to a Mauser has it's drawbacks such as; the .22-250 is simply too short and the body taper isn't always the best feeding in the standard Mauser.

Necking down the 6mm Remington is quite a bit overbore and the .220 Swift is semo-rimmed which can cause feeding issues as well. So:

Lets make a 6mm Weatherby.....or for lack of a better name, lets call it a .240 Weatherby short......doing the same thing to the 6mm Rem case as Weatherby did to the .30-06 case.....and then necking it to hold a .224 diameter bullet.

So here's the question to the quickload folks.

If we find the ratio od case capacity of the 6mm-06 case over the .240 Weatherby case we have the percent of case capacity reduced by creating the (worthless) belt. Multiply that ratio times the case capacity of the standard 6mm Rem case and we're close to the capacity of the .240 short.....NOW.....how does this number compare to the .220 Swift or the .22-250.

If this makes sense even though it's a bit of work, it just might be an interesting varmint round for the '98 Mauser.....add a 1:12 twist barrel to handle the somewhat longer bullets and go coyote hunting.

Can't understand what you want to do, but the belt does not reduce case capacity. But you are right about belts being worthless.

couldn't you do like I did in 1992 and just chamber it for the 22-284?
Use a 1:8 twist and shoot the JLK/Berger 80gr VLD bullets. About 3600fps.

Problem solved.

Not sure what you are trying to do. From ammoguide

240 62gr
6-06 65gr
swift 49gr
22-250 47gr
22-243 54
224 TTH 55
224 clark (6mm) 57gr
220Wby Rocket 54gr
22-250AI 51.4gr

The belt doesn't reduce the capacity. The Wby is a smaller dia since the belt is actually .473


I think 1-12 is too slow

If I wanted a fast easy larger 22 in a 98 it would be a 22-6mm (224TTH) the rifle was designed for that case taper.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
Can't understand what you want to do, but the belt does not reduce case capacity.

It's clear that I haven't explained it very well.....yes, the belt does not reduce case capacity.....but reducing the case body to form the belt does exactly that.

If one had a 6mm-06 case and made (or purchased) the tooling to form the .240 Weatherby from it, he would be dramatically reducing the case diameter ahead of the belt to form the belt. This effectively reduces the capacity of the 6mm-06 case......and that's what I'm proposing here except using a 6mm Remington case instead of a 6mm-06 case. Then necking it to take .224 bullets.

I'm looking for something some might call a .22-.240 Wby short.....made from 6mm Rem brass instead of .30-06 length brass. It should have something like the capacity of the 22-250 or .220 swift case (without the rim) and length of 57 mm.....just right for the Mauser actions.

quote:

240 62gr6-06 65grswift 49gr22-250 47gr22-243 54224 TTH 55224 clark (6mm) 57gr220Wby Rocket 54gr 22-250AI 51.4gr

Thanks Paul....this tells me that the case I'm considering has a (likely) capacity of 54 grains.....at least five more than I estimated and more than I want.....

To each is own. Sounds like a lot of time and $$ to simply underload a 22-6mm or not use a 22-250AI.

Since the 6mm has more taper than the 06 case your reduction would probably be reduced as well.

A 22-6x47 would be the sweet spot imho not to mention top quality brass.

yes, but the OP thinks the 22-250 is too short for a 98.

22-6.5 manllicher?

quote:

yes, but the OP thinks the 22-250 is too short for a 98.

I had a 22-250 in a 98 and had issue with feeding. That said I have a MKX with the spacer in the back of the box and have never had an issue of any kind. Other than I finally shot out the barrel.

224 Clark maybe? Always wanted to try one.

http://www.singleactions.com/224Clark.html

quote:

224 Clark maybe

For me this is what the 224 TTH really was. No experience with the Clark but a couple of buddies love the TTK Either way it is a case the 98 was designed for.

quote:

a couple of buddies love the TTK Either way it is a case the 98 was designed for.

OK....I'll confess ignorance....please tell me what this actually is....,.what it's based on....

I would have helped if I spelt it right. 224 TTH

"" The 224 Texas Trophy Hunter (TTH) was designed by gun writer Ralph Lermayer in 1998. It is essentially a 244 Remington (6mm Remington) necked down to accept .224" bullets. The design criteria were to develop a more lethal .224 caliber rifle cartridge for deer hunting with mild recoil and a flat trajectory.

Rifles made for the .224 TTH have fast twist (8" or 9") barrels to stabilize heavier than normal (75, 80 & 85 grain) .224" bullets. These special bullets have heavy jackets or bonded cores to prevent the bullets from self-destruction in flight at the 300,000+ rpm rotational speeds.

The 224 Texas Trophy Hunter is very similar to the 224 Clark. Timothy Clark of Madera, California began work on his cartridge in 1947. Mr. Clark based his cartridge on the 257 Roberts case, which was based on the 7x57 Mauser case. The 244 Remington is basically the 257 Roberts necked down to accept 6mm bullets. The 224 TTH is identical to the 5.6x57 RWS cartridge except for the neck thickness. There are several other .224 caliber cartridges based on the 244 Remington.

At the cost of expensive custom rifles, highly specialized bullets, expensive reloading dies, short barrel life and no commercially loaded ammunition available; the .224 TTH shows very little performance advantage over the standard factory 244 Remington cartridge.

The .224 Texas Trophy Hunter is for all practical purposes ballistically identical to the .223 WSSM.""

The 224 Clark is came out in 1947. Using a 257R case changed the shoulder angle a touch. The 224TTH and 224Clark are basically twins.

""In 1947, Timothy Clark of California began a quest to develop a .22 centerfire cartridge that would provide optimum performance. Over the next 15 years, Mr. Clark would go to greater lengths to achieve his goals than most private wildcat developers.

Starting with the .257 Roberts case, Clark would both decrease the neck diameter and increase the length of the body, resulting in a sharply-increased case shoulder angle. However, where most wildcat designers normally stop - when they believe they have optimally tuned such case dimensions - Clark's real work was just beginning!

According to Clark's design, the additional powder capacity would best be utilized by incorporating heavier .22 bullets than commercially available. Accordingly, Clark proceeded to swage his own .224 caliber bullets of 80+ grains in weight! Today's dominance of 69 grain and heavier .22 bullets in long-range competition will attest to the fact that Timothy Clark was a man ahead of his time.

Unfortunately, the high case-volume-to-bore-diameter ratio in cartridges such as the .224 Clark, i.e., having large volumes of powder for relatively small bores, can produce some undesirable effects. Among these are decreased barrel life and greatly-lowered powder efficiency. Modern long-range competitors don't require huge powder charges to achieve success - the right amount of powder with a carefully chosen, low-drag, high-ballistic coefficient projectile will punch the target reliably.

In the end, the .224 Clark was sufficiently over-designed as to greatly narrow it's scope of application. While exceptional, the .224 Clark is difficult to discern in the din of .22 cartridges available today.""

Since you are going with a 98 action. It was built for the 8x57 case. The Roberts or the 6mm case is the same. So it should feed perfectly.

thanks Paul....I googled the TTK version and found the TTH cartridge only....so we have simply a .22-6mm rem.....or some type of 5.6 X 57 RWS

Forest! I've owned at least 2 22-250s on Mod. 98s and had no feeding problems. Was lucky I guess or the GS knew what he was doing.

The 5.6 x 57 might be the way to go. roger

quote:

....so we have simply a .22-6mm rem.....or some type of 5.6 X 57 RWS

They did change the shoulder angle "I think". But yep pretty much a 5.6 x57.

quote:

Originally posted by ramrod340:

quote:

....so we have simply a .22-6mm rem.....or some type of 5.6 X 57 RWS

They did change the shoulder angle "I think". But yep pretty much a 5.6 x57.

Only without the neck issues of the 5.6x57.

The .224 TTH would be tons easier than the wildcat VD was proposing and the 6mm Rem typically requires little to no feed work.

quote:

Only without the neck issues of the 5.6x57.

??

Feeding issues with the .220 Swift?????????? None that I've heard of and none with any I have owned.
I also have a Savage/Anschutz in 5.6x57 RWS. It shoots 74gr RWS FL's at 3520 fps into .72" at 100 yards. I haven't handloaded much for it, yet but 69 gr Sierras went into .7 to 1.00 in initial attempts. If 5.6x57's your choice, Natchez is closing out RWS 5.6x57 brass at a low, low $20.49 for 20 cases but you better act fast. When they're gone, your next choice is OWS. Same brass at $69 or so.
Of the two I mentioned, I would choose the Swift. The ones I've owned have been happy with powders in all burning ranges from IMR4198 to Norma MRP and bullet weights from 35 gr to 69 grains. .220 Swift-great, versatile, not tempermental, and mine have been very accurate with little muss and fuss as far as load development.

I think I have owned a Swift in both OM and PF Winchesters, M700's, both #1 and 77 Rugers, and two different Savages. One of them was 223 HB that I got for the 1:9" twist, and then rechambered for 220 and changed out the bolt head. After that, the 22-284 on the same action. All of them achieved factory velocity levels, +/- 75fps. I believe it does need the 26" barrel to live up to its reputation.

I never understood the "semi-rimmed" description of the Swift. A case either has a rim, or it doesn't. The Swift's parent case, the 6mm Lee Navy was given that title as well.

Go figure...

My question after reading this thread is "why a 98?"

An 80 grain high BC bullet is great; I love my fast twist Swift. But I wouldn't dream of building a super accurate rifle using the 98. There are far better actions.

Maybe a 220 Howell would work for you?

To allow the sift to feed in a 98, add a tapered spacer to the rear of the box so that the slight rim doesn't catch on the case below. The 22/6mm with 70- 80 gr bullets should feed just fine, if not put a spacer in the back as already mentioned. I have not had feeding issues with the 22/250 with a spacer do to the taper of the case is similar to the 8x57. I have had issues with the 243, even with the spacer do to the larger shoulder clashing with the feed rails.

quote:

I have had issues with the 243

I just ran a standard .243 case through a standard 6mm Rem die to reduce the capacity of the .243 case and it holds 48 grains of water.....or in other words a 6mm Rem short...

walla.....a case that is easy to make.....almost exactly the capacity of the 22-250...has the typical body taper of the usual Mauser feeding rail.....and has no rim.....what's not to like about that?

My only question is ..........WHY??

I've found I needed a spacer in my 98 243 to function correctly. Curious as to why you wouldn't have the same issue.

quote:

My only question is ..........WHY??

The same can be said for almost every wildcat today. The proliferation of factory loaded cartridges is so complete that there's almost no wildcat worthy of the expense or time.....nd yes....this one is no exception.....

quote:

The same can be said for almost every wildcat today. The proliferation of factory loaded cartridges is so complete that there's almost no wildcat worthy of the expense or time.....nd yes....this one is no exception.....

I agree with that statement. I'm getting slow and just trying to understand the driving force.

But hey I have any number of "just because" and "I wanted to be different" in my safe.

.this one is no exception.....[/QUOTE]
I agree with that statement. I'm getting slow and just trying to understand the driving force.

But hey I have any number of "just because" and "I wanted to be different" in my safe. [/QUOTE]

And that's exactly why I had a .219 Donaldson Wasp made using .225 brass rather than the original 30-30

my first swift was on a Mauser action....it didn't want to feed unless I loaded it just right....it never was ny "go to" rifle.....I rebarreled it

My second Swift was on a push feed M-70 that I rebarreled from a .225 winchester. I shot out the .225 barrel and installed a Doughls barrel chambered to .220 Swift.....it didn't want to extract very well and frankly wasn't as accurate as my .225 was with the old barrel.

My third Swift was a heavy barrel push feed M-70 that I bought in the '80s.....it shot OK but one day I locked it up and never found out why.....I had to remove the barrel to open the action and install a new extractor.....and I've never had any disappointment with the .22-250

So here I am wanting a "varminter" with nothing to properly feed the .22-250 so thought reducing the capacity of the 6mm case was the thing to do.....but the .010 reduction per side to form a belt wasn't as good an idea as originally thought.....and using the standard 6mm case was simply too much as I'm not really interested in shooting .224 bullets over 55 grains......so shortening the 6mm case seemed to be the only practical way to attain my goals.....be they realistic or not.....but because of the discourse of folks on this thread, the idea of running a .243 case in a 6mm die to reduce the body taper seemed a simple experimant....and in fact, it now seems this is what Winchester should have bought out to counter the .22-250 from Remington.....the .225 wasn't much of a contender (but was a fine round for accuracy and performance.....the the idea of semi rimmed just couldn't be walked away from by the folks at Winchester....

I'll probably actually pursue this as a custom wildcat and order a chamber reamer from Mr Manson but first have some work to do in defining the dimensions.....shouldn't be all that hard.

I appreciate all the comments on this thread especially those from Ramrod.....Paul is a fine character and a firerms encyclopedia....

5.6x57 in a Mauser?

quote:

Originally posted by AFRICAN LEADWOOD:
5.6x57 in a Mauser?

Actually, I'm ordering a chamber reamer in 22-6mm short. It's 22-6mm round but shortened ay about .20 inches to reduce capacity. It's a .243 case resized in a 6mm Rem die to achieve the body taper of a 7 X 57 round then necked to .22 caliber.

I'll have to block the magazine but that's not a major undertaking. The goal is to wind up with a .220 Swift with a rimless case and slightly reduced capacity. I don';t care about increased performance.....just want a standardized round for my Mauser......and of course.....just to be different and obstinate in my old age.

You trying for a Section 8? Klinger???

Friend, gunsmith, told me of a 17 Enfield converted to .22/250. If you pushed the bolt in quickly, the cartridge would jump out of the rifle over the front receiver ring...!!

.240 Weatherby is just the .30/'06 case with a belt and necked to .240... Many .240's are fed .25/'06 cases necked to .24... Shortening it gives you a .22/250 with a belt or close...

The "belt" was a GREAT idea in 1910 to get away from the big fat rims on the solid copper cases of the 1800s. CF the French Lebel. Brass, much stronger, permitted the development of the "semi rim" cf Jap 6.5. Much later, .225 WCF. As Mr. Ackley observed, once they started putting shoulders on belted rounds, and you could head space on the shoulder, the belt became superfluous [like "tits on a boar."] And the factorys started head spacing on the shoulder and ignoring the belt.

You can get to where you seem to want to go with a Mauser "short action" or other short action... Mauser put a block into the action and many are no different in dimensions than any other Mauser action. Take, for instance, the very, very common 7.62x51mm NATO. Slightly shorter than the 55 to 57 mm of Mauser cartridges of the late 1800s. (6mm Remington was on the 7x57 Mauser case via the .257 Roberts...) Lets see. In .24 it is the .243 WCF. In .224 it is still a wildcat. .25 never "caught." 6.5 is now the .260 Remington. 7mm is 7/08.

Some improvement over the blown out .22/250. It was originally .250 Savage, .250/3000. Bliss Titus had it equalling the pre WW II .270 WCF in .27/250 Titus. Then there is the Improved .22/250 which equalled the .220 Swift...

It is fun to speculate but going over old ground while a worthwhile learning experience creates nothing new... Luck. Happy Trails.

How about 6,5x54 MS case necked down to .224 bullet ?

Ramrod,

Charles Lermayer might have designed his version in 1998, but some guy named Charles Newton was selling his version in 1912.

The 220 Swift has not slowed down appreciably in the last seventy or so years. I've owned one OM 70 and two early Ruger flat bolts. All fed 100% of the time. I burned the barrel out on the first M77 in about eight hours up west of Zortman, MT. Took me four hours in the morning to shoot the 300 rounds I had loaded, three hours to reload them, and about four hours to shoot them. It had no throat, just alligator hide the chamber end six inches of the barrel.

I replaced the last one with a 22-284.

Rich

quote:

I burned the barrel out on the first M77 in about eight hours up west of Zortman, MT. Took me four hours in the morning to shoot the 300 rounds I had loaded, three hours to reload them, and about four hours to shoot them. It had no throat, just alligator hide the chamber end six inches of the barrel.

I was going to ask "WHY", then I realized I may not really want to know....

this was a prairie dog town that stretched for miles.

I just found one in the scope and shot. And repeat, until I ran out of loaded ammunition.

I learned from that. Next year, I took a couple rifles and rotated them every ten shots so they did not get hot. Then I cleaned them all.

You have to imagine 10,000 or more dogs, just scurrying around, sitting up on their mounds chewing a blade of grass, etc.

Rich

Just barrel up a Mauser action to 5.6x57 and get 220 Swift velocities without all the pain and suffering...and expense.

quote:

The RWS factory loads for the 5.6x57 and 5.6x57R start the 74 grain Cone Point bullet at a MV of 1040 meters/second (3380 fps) and a MV of 2600 Joule. The RWS ballistics table suggests that 215 meters is the optimum zero range for these loads, and shows the following trajectory: +3.5 cm at 100 meters, -1.5 cm at 200 meters, and -16 cm at 300 meters.
Handloaders can drive 60-63 grain bullets at MV's of 3700 fps. The Hornady Handbood, Third Edition shows that their 60 grain bullets can be driven at 3700 fps with 43.1 grains of N204 powder, or 38.8 grains of IMR 4320 powder. These Hornady loads used RWS cases and Federal 215 primers, and were tested in a 22" rifle barrel.

Or neck the 243 down to 224 with a fast twist barrel.