Since we had inputs on the 6.5 Arisaka let's move along to the 6.5 Carcano.
my first Carcano was given to me by a WWII vet.in 1956.
A folding bayonet Carbine. I work on sporterizing for almost 6 years on an off.
Reloadable cases were my first task. They were made from original Ity Mil. brass, 30-40 brass and .303 British Brass.
The Italian brass had a flash hole drilled out an took an oval shape as the hole blended in with the Berdan two holes.I than enlarged the primer pocket to accept boxer primers. I also removed the internal step at the shoulder neck joint."Voila"
The 30-40s and .303s had their rims removed and than received their rimless grooves. Than of course they were cut to length reformed trimmed and ready to use. If any of you would like photo of the rifle I can E-Mail to you. I used it to hunt deer in the mid 60s when I lived in Colorado.
I also sporterize one and made a single shot 6.5x55 out of it. Maybe not too sense able but it killed a number of deer and I'm still here .
I would like to hear any experience any of you have had with the 6.5 Carcano and what are your thoughts on it. Personally in a strong rifle and modern pressures it would be a great hunting round.
I tried to get Vapo Dog to build one for me in 2010 but he talk me into building a rifle for a 6.5 cartridge ( 6.5 R-Bar) that I designed in the late 50s early 60s around the .243 cartridge. Today it would be something between a .260 and a Creedmore.
I hope you will share your experiences with the rest of us. roger

I'm confused ??

First the Ariska ( the smallest case capacity of the milsurp 6.5 with its odd halfway between Rimmed and Rimless and now the Carcano which is not a 6.5 but a 6.8 mm ? How are they to compete with modern 6.5's ?

I'm curious did you use US standard 6.5 bullets in your Carcano barrel ? How did you get a seal and accuracy ?

I personally have not had any call for either but did at one time have the hots of the Portuguese with its Mannlicher split rear bridge ( much like the Carcano ) I quit using the Portuguese because of s shortage of brass, still have the rifle

Why do they have to compete with other 6.5's? Except for the fact that the Carcano uses a slightly oversize projectile, they make an excellent small game/ deer round.
I have two Carcano rifles, one in the original calibre ( with the .268 bore )using factory ammo and one re-barrelled with a 6.5x55 barrel, re-chambered to 6.5x54 MS ( with the .264 bore ). Both short barrelled carbines, the original one did not have the gain twist rifling, they make exceptional woods rifles for pigs,goats roo's and fallow deer.
.....tell me what animal on this planet that has not been taken with a 6.5x54......no need to compete.

Roger

.....as for the Portuguese, I barrelled my action ( it was all I had of the rifle ) with a 1909 Argy barrel in 7.65x53....another excellent, but not modern round.

I have had only one carcano, and I rebarreled it to 35 rem throated to seat spritzers well out.
Never shot a 6.5 round in it before it was converted.

I prefer my 1903 M/S in 6.5x54 but the Carcano is supposedly a superior rifle according to the Warren commision.

With all due respect to the Warren commission IMHO they really got it wrong on the whole 6.5mm Carcano thing From the naming of the gun to the issues pertaining to the dimensions of the bullet ..... not a very credible show !

The Sporting MS 1903 in 6.5 MS stands head and shoulders above the M91 Carcano ! The Former is a highly refined precision rifle compared to the M91 battle rifle ( and its variants)

Whether it's true or not...
I read the Italians paid the CZ folks a good price for the recipe of their gun steel.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
I'm confused ??

First the Ariska ( the smallest case capacity of the milsurp 6.5 with its odd halfway between Rimmed and Rimless and now the Carcano which is not a 6.5 but a 6.8 mm ? How are they to compete with modern 6.5's ?

I'm curious did you use US standard 6.5 bullets in your Carcano barrel ? How did you get a seal and accuracy ?

I personally have not had any call for either but did at one time have the hots of the Portuguese with its Mannlicher split rear bridge ( much like the Carcano ) I quit using the Portuguese because of s shortage of brass, still have the rifle

I don't know how to aid you in your confussion, sorry.
I used the .264 dia. bullets and with a 15" sights radius and could hit a 9" plate at over a 100 yds. ; prone. Pulled off heart shots at that distance +.
Just send me that Vergueiro AND I'LL MAKE MUSIC WITH IT WHILE I STILL CAN.
OH! Every Carcano military bullet that I ever measured was actually .266" Dia.not .268"
roger

So far quite interesting.
Maybe that Warren Commisioner was just reading different books than Alf????

roger

Yes, I am only assuming the bore of my rifle is the advertised .268 as I have never slugged it.My military ammo is also .266, of which I've never had any real accuracy problems with, ranges being under 150 metres, and my Norma ammo measures .262 outside the case. I have not pulled one yet to measure the base of the projectile.

Roger

Over the years I have collected various early model 6.5's mainly as examples of once popular 6.5's (.256's ) used in pre WW1 colonial Africa. With each rifle I actually loaded and shot and hunted with the rifles. Each acquisition was a project in a way. My interest basically egged on by the fact that the 6.5 was once the most dominant caliber in colonial africa only to be upstaged post WW2 by the 30-06.

The Euro made 7x57 suffered the same problem !
Not only was their barrels larger the original 7x87 was not a 284 ! When GS custom made bullets for the 7x57 they specifically made and marketed bullets for the original 7x57 vs the SAAMI spec 7x57

For the most my issue was that many of them were not that accurate unless minute of Orange was deemed acceptable.

As a child in the apartheid schooling system we were fed a constant diet of what great shots the Boer fighters were..... This was very much part of our Afrikaner folklore !

When shooting my genuine Boer war 7mm's of which I had a few they did not shoot as well as modern 7x57's at all ! In fact I could not understand why they were not that accurate until I looked at the original specs for the 7x57 and their barrels. I could not fathom how the writers of the school history books could claim this extraordinary inherent riflemanship when their rifles were far from accurate when compared to modern hunting rifles . It later in study of the true history then also came to light that this "nation of rifleman" were far from that! and actually had to taught how to be good shots ! not only did everyone not have or own a rifle those that did had a variety of outmoded guns with no adequate supply of ammo, hence then the importation of the Mauser and ammo

So with this in mind I sought solutions of the problem of the oversized Euro barrels especially in early battle rifles.

Ken Waters covered the "Problem" in HL 1984 when he wrote about his 6.5x54 MS and again in HL Sept 1994 this time a different rifle with a "tight barrel"
he also covered it in his coverage of the 256 Dutch Mannlicher Sept 1994

Charles Benke addressed the issue in HL May/Jun 1993 when he does a cover on the MoLoc .268 bullet. He pointed out that almost all of the early military 6.5's suffered from this problem of undersized US bullets and a variation in bore diameters in military 6.5's

I have enjoyed a number of Carcanos over the years but my favorite was an early model 91 rifle with fine bore. It was very nearly the equal of a Swedish Model 96 with handloads using either the .268 Hornady bullet or bullets I bumped up to .268 using a "bump die" made for me by Dave Corbin.
Frank DeHaas actually has some good things to say about the Carcano action in "Bolt Action Rifles."