I recently sent off a Rem 700 LH action in 30-06 to be rebarreled to 25-06. It was returned with the new barrel and a fired case. The fit and finish looked good but, on inspection of the fired case, I noticed a bulge near the web that was partially circumferential. It did not completely encircle the case. The fired brass chambered easily.

I loaded up some new brass with a mild load and took it to the range. It functioned fine and produced .75" groups at 100 yds with this trial load. I am pleased with this initial test and feel it will improve with bedding and load developement. The fired brass however has this identical bulge.

The lower case is the one returned with the action. The top is one of my loads. Its hard to take a photo to demonstrate this but I think the bottom case shows it pretty good.


What's my next step here?

Is there a problem with the rebarrel?

I emailed the company with my concerns and the same photo and I am awaiting their response. I would love to hear what some of the smiths on the site have to say.
Thanks

I'm NOT a Smith, but can duplicate your bulge just by changing brass brands, in at least 3 different rifles. It usually only goes about 180 deg. and doesn't seem to do any harm.

What you have is a case of poor workmanship. The chamber is oversize and possibly not concentric with the bolt face. The ejector cocks the round the chamber. This is somewhat common with factor rifles but not to the extent of yours. Different brass might reduce the bulge. I think that winchester brass is too soft and this is increasing the size of the bulge. Is it a problem? Up to you. It will significantly shorten the life of your brass. It is not conducive to accuracy. However if you are satisfied with the accuracy and brass life is not an issue, then it is not a problem. Rebarreling or setting the barrel back are your only options to correct the problem.

it sure could be a bad chamber...
but, please do this, before taking it back..
take a part of digital calibers, and measure your unfired brass about where the bulge is, and just infront of the groove..

it SHOULD be close to .473 in front of the groove, and going down.. UNFIRED



then, measure the bulge... is the case larger than, say, .475... if so, your chamber needs to be recut, and it may be eccentric, which means, basically, it has to be set back alot

If the case is laying on the bottom of the chamber or held sidways by the extractor/ejector, then upon fireing wouldn't it expand up and away from where it is already supported?
Maybe try tapeing the back of a new case with a thin strip of masking tape to hold the base in the center of the chamber, then fire and see if the bulge is all the way around now.
You could try getting some neck size dies and just let the base expand to where it's comfortable. Or only partially resize the body of the case so it rechambers easily.

quote:

Originally posted by h2oboy:
What you have is a case of poor workmanship. The chamber is oversize and possibly not concentric with the bolt face. The ejector cocks the round the chamber. This is somewhat common with factor rifles but not to the extent of yours. Different brass might reduce the bulge. I think that winchester brass is too soft and this is increasing the size of the bulge. Is it a problem? Up to you. It will significantly shorten the life of your brass. It is not conducive to accuracy. However if you are satisfied with the accuracy and brass life is not an issue, then it is not a problem. Rebarreling or setting the barrel back are your only options to correct the problem.

Ding Ding Ding.....I think we got a winner here!

Definitely a poor chamber job. Send it back to the company that did it and get your money back. I wouldn't even try to get them to redo it for fear it would compound the problem. It looks to me to be a misalignment of the barrel bore and chambering reamer, either from the tailstock or whatever setup he used.

If you stick a small case in a large chamber you will get a "buldge" as the case expands to fill the chamber. A one sided buldge doesn't indicate a non-concentric or misaligned chamber, it idicates that the brass was not sitting centered when the expansion took place which can be the results of many things.

If the chamber were cut with a maximum SAAMI reamer, and the piece of brass were on the SAAMI small side, you would easily see a buldge. The chamber would be within SAAMI specs, yet the fired piece of brass would look like that pictured above.

Not every gunsmith uses SAAMI minimum chamber reamers. Unless he specialize in ONLY target or bench rest guns, where any movement of the brass upon expansion would kill scores, then there is no reason to purchase only expensive matchgrade reamers.

If the gunsmith does both general and match work, he will have reamers to suit both. A gunsmith specializing in high quantity barrel replacement work would not be very business wise to purchase only match reamers. He would get very little return on his purchases since the practice of resharpening the reamers would quickly take them out of service.

If you paid the gunsmith for a match chamber and you have it in writing somewhere, then you might have a case. If you didn't specify a match chamber, and the job was merely to replace a shot out barrel with a new replacement, then you might be stuck.

Good news, while the brass pictured above exhibits a typical "factory" appearance, all is not lost. As long as you keep the brass sized to maintain proper headspace, you will probably never have a problem with that chamber. I get a gazillion guns through here every year produced by various gunsmiths and manufacturers that exhibit that degree, or, worse and they are still shooting fine. I hunted and carried a tac driving factory Rem 700 in 270 win for years that's brass looked worse than that, and, without a single problem.

In any event, JT, the accuracy of your the rifle sounds like it's pretty good. You can neck size your brass to keep from overworking it which can help tighten groups even further.

When people hire barrel work done, they need to discuss specifics with the gunsmith. If you want a minimum match grade chamber, get it in writing, and expect to pay for it. Then if your brass looks like the one pictured above, you will have something to go on.

Thanks for the replies so far. No, I didn't request a match chamber, nor was I charged for one.

I measured the brass per jeffeosso's suggestion. Unfired brass measures 0.464" in region of bulge. Fired brass measures a maximum of 0.471" at the bulge. Cartridge diagrams show this dimension to be 0.473" so I am still below this maximum.

Seems I am using minimum sized brass in a maximum sized chamber?

jt

Westpac summed it up pretty well. Unless you ordered a custom chamber to fit a specific brand or lot of brass, what you have is normal for a factory chamber. A max SAAMI chamber coupled with a min SAAMI case will get you the same result every time.

If the rifle shoots as good as you said I can't imagine why you would want to change it. Simply neck-size and don't be too concerned with how the base looks. If the looks bother you, try different brands of brass and you'll likely find one that is SAAMI max and most of the bulge will go away.

What you are experiencing is one of the reasons most shooters now turn to custom chambers.

JMHO

Ray

quote:

Originally posted by jtinidaho:
Thanks for the replies so far. No, I didn't request a match chamber, nor was I charged for one.

I measured the brass per jeffeosso's suggestion. Unfired brass measures 0.464" in region of bulge. Fired brass measures a maximum of 0.471" at the bulge. Cartridge diagrams show this dimension to be 0.473" so I am still below this maximum.

Seems I am using minimum sized brass in a maximum sized chamber?

JT, yep.. looks like small brass and a spec (or close) chamber...

what happens to the brass when you resize, do you still have a "buldge"? .. I expect if you had some closer to spec brass (.470 or so) you wouldn't notice this at all...

a friend of mine calls this a "bad marriage"... both parties are "good' they just don't work together very well.

your brass is under sized, okay.. resize them (you can try full length) or neck size them, and see how they go.


hope it shoots well, and watch for case head seperations

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:


hope it shoots well, and watch for case head seperations

Case heas seperations are mostly caused by a chamber that is too long, not one that may or may not be to large in diameter.

WestPac said it perfectly. Matches with both lots of experience, and sound mechanical theory. He should be writing a gunsmithing advice column for the American Rifleman or some other well-known periodical.

quote:

what happens to the brass when you resize, do you still have a "buldge"? ..

I have resized one case and the bulge is removed. Resized brass is 0.469" Perhaps the resized brass won't exhibit this bulge? I'll have to see.


Thanks again everybody, especially Westpac and Jeffeosso. You explained it well.

I'll see what the reply is from my email to the smith then onto the bedding job!

That's the result of an oversize chamber.
There are number of things that will cause such a thing.
1. non-concentric barreling setup in the lathe, combined with a SAMMI maximum reamer size.
Adding insult to injury a non-concentric lathe setup causes the reamer to produce a poor surface finish, at which point the chamber was polished, thus furthering the oversize chamber situation. With a chamber that loose the brass is really at the mercy of the botton ejector,or claw extractor and gravity.
I set up with 4 jaw and dial in the bore with a pin gauge that is just a slip fit in the bore, it's a slam dunk method, thread and chamber all in the same setup, plus it's very rigid because the work is close to the chuck which enables making a good fitting barrel thread a piece of cake.
A cats head can be used with a steady rest which allows the bore to be dialed in in the steady rest, this takes 4 times longer to set up and produces basically the same chamber the you'll get with a 4 jaw.
If you don't happen to own a four jaw chuck, one can get a decent job with a steady rest by locating the chamber end of the bore with the tail stock then take a skim cut off the cylinder of the barrel prior to locating the steady rest with the barrel, this will generally get you in the .003 to .005 Total indicator run out with the bore, guns done this way will usually shoot groups that are sub MOA with a few that will go better than 1/2 MOA, IE:
the first couple thousand Dakotas where all done this way, most of them shot MOA or better a few did not. I built myself a 330 right when the first brass was ready for the caliber, I skim cut the cylinder then put the steady rest on, which got the bore within .003 TIR, then with it in the steady rest I made a few adjustments to the steady rest and pulled it down to .001 TIR and threaded and chambered it. The barrel was a stailess Shilen match which gunmaker and I later cut into an octagon it shot good groups .300 when I did my part at the bench. Never did kill anythng but paper with it.
Ended up selling it to a guy who wanted it worse than I did.
I suppose you could live with the case swell on your 25-06, but you shouldn't have to, even if it shoots ok, anyone who appreciates good custom work deserves better.
Timan

Dammit Timan, you are the first guy who correctly called it a cathead and not a spider. You must have gone to the same school I did.

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Kobe:
Dammit Timan, you are the first guy who correctly called it a cathead and not a spider. You must have gone to the same school I did.

Maybe a long time ago someone misinterpreted the term "Cathead" for "Catface" which is a spider.

The chamber is NOT oversized except in relation to the seriously UNDERSIZED brass. Many years ago, it was very common to get 30/06 brass which measured as high as .470 at the base. This was a mighty fine fit in a 472 chamber. Today's brass though, is sometimes rediculously small. I have abox of 250-3000 which measures .459!
30 years ago, we bitched and moaned about brass which was .468. Now .464 seems commonplace. I have 6.5x55 brass which is well under the SAAMI dimension for 30/06.
If a gunsmith gets a reamer which is sized to modern brass, he is opening the door to a whole bunch of problems for himself and his customers when they get hold of some normally sized brass.
It's kind of funny how the first response to a query like this is always something to the effect that "this is an example of bad workmanship" or "they screwed up your chamber". This even from Jim Kobe who should know better!
Timan,
Explain, please, how making any kind of adjustment to the steadyrest, on which the barrel shank is running, will reduce bore runout. Or were you using a "live" steady? When giving setup instructions, it's better if the instructions are valid. Regards, Bill.

I would concer with what has been said about the chambering job! If they can,t get it right the first time,why would they do any better trying to correct it for you??This use to be called a "Jugged"case due to the improper chambering methods as stated. van

It's kind of funny how the first response to a query like this is always something to the effect that "this is an example of bad workmanship" or "they screwed up your chamber". This even from Jim Kobe who should know better!
Timan,
Explain, please, how making any kind of adjustment to the steadyrest, on which the barrel shank is running, will reduce bore runout. Or were you using a "live" steady? When giving setup instructions, it's better if the instructions are valid. Regards, Bill.[/QUOTE

I too was wondering about how to get the steady to run more true.

I stand by my original statelment. I think it was a botched job on the barreling; probably due to a misalignment of thebore and reamer. I think if the real measurments are taken, you wil find it to be true

I too have to laugh. There have been many opinions expressed here which could be correct. The truth is though, that without inspecting the rifle one cannot really know for sure and it is then nothing more than speculation.

But, I have seen the very same results on some of my work and the cause as Bill Leeper said, was due to brass being on the small side of specs. To satisfy the customer who understandibly was upset I did a chamber cast and all was within tolerance. I grabbed a few old LC rounds and viola, all was well.

But, the fix is not as easy as it would seem. Cutting too tight a chamber (one that matches brass on the extreme small side of things) will lead to problems down the road, when "normal" brass must be used and it won't chamber.

I don't think that the chamber is really ovesize or that it was a "bad job". Find the SAAMI specs fot the cartridge. The brass must be SMALLER than the SAAMI dimensions and the chamber must be LARGER than the SAAMI dimensinos. I'll bet that the chamber is closer to "SAAMI" specs than the brass. I'd sure try some Fed or Lapua or Norma brass if this is a high volume shooter. If it is a hunting rifle and shoots good, smile and enjoy the rifle.
Opinons vary.

Ditto Tinman,
4jaw with cathead and indicator pins. Everything done in one setup. Everyone I done results in less than moa with hunting rifles and thats plenty good fer me

Measure some Lapua and RWS brass to see if that fits better in your chamber. Forster dies do size the brass properly to fit standard chambers I find.
Much good advise here - measure a lot of brass and you will understand. When you find a good lot of cases buy enough to last a while -the next batch might not be the same dimensions or quality ....

Glenn

The reply from the smith was that this was the result of undersized brass in a nominal chamber. He said it shouldn't be a problem.

I'll continue on with bedding and load development. Thanks everybody.

I also picked up some Remington brass today. It measures the same as Winchester (0.464"). Not sure about other brass sources. All I have seen locally is Winchester and Remington.

Looks like I get to fireform brass for the chamber.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
The chamber is NOT oversized except in relation to the seriously UNDERSIZED brass. Many years ago, it was very common to get 30/06 brass which measured as high as .470 at the base. This was a mighty fine fit in a 472 chamber. Today's brass though, is sometimes rediculously small. I have abox of 250-3000 which measures .459!
30 years ago, we bitched and moaned about brass which was .468. Now .464 seems commonplace. I have 6.5x55 brass which is well under the SAAMI dimension for 30/06.
If a gunsmith gets a reamer which is sized to modern brass, he is opening the door to a whole bunch of problems for himself and his customers when they get hold of some normally sized brass.
It's kind of funny how the first response to a query like this is always something to the effect that "this is an example of bad workmanship" or "they screwed up your chamber". This even from Jim Kobe who should know better!

Bill, I agree with your answer (and WestPac's, which is very similar) completely.

Just a thought... maybe we shooters are responsible for the smaller head diameters which factory brass has been progressively moving toward over the years...

That is, as shooters have read all the host of articles over the years about every gun-writer's field guns shooting sub-MOA out to orbital distances, I suspect more and more of them (us) have been insisting on "match" chamberings, i.e. minimal or even undersize chamberings.

And maybe the factories got tired of receiving complaints about factory artridges or cases that wouldn't easily fit in those very same chambers.

So, if we owned the factories, how would we resolve those complaints? Possibly by reducing the case heads from .470" to something less?

So, now the problem is transferred to the local gunsmith, who gets to deal with bitching about swollen case heads in normal chambers instead?

Sometimes a guy just can't win....

quote:

So, now the problem is teansferred to the local gunsmith, who gets to deal with bitching about swollen case heads in normal chambers instead?

Not bitching just curious. Some factory rifles and a couple of customs and I haven't seen brass like this. This is my first rebarrel. I am happy with the rebarrel as far as function, fit and finish, and accuracy are concerned. This has been an educational experience for me and perhaps many other readers.

This is to be a walking varmint and deer/antelope rifle. It has been a relatively inexpensive (vs. new rifle) experience. This was a pawn shop rifle that I had tricked out and still couldn't get to shoot accurately. Some rifles later, I knew it could be better. Other than funny looking fired brass (at least with the 1st firing of factory brass), I think it has great potential. I look foward to fooling with it some more.

I have a similar condition with the chamber of a .338-06. A cast of the chamber revealed my chamber to be .474-.475 at the cart. head. Miking all the brass I have on hand shows the largest diameter to be .469. This assortment includes Win, Rem and a couple of arsenals in .30-06, Rem .35 Whelen and Wby/Norma .338-06. IIRC, the Norma is the largest. The rest is ridiculously small. Coupled with a poor chamber job it is a bit unnerving.
Not being in a position to rebarrel/rechamber at this point, I plan to get some 9.3x62 brass and form some cases.

FWIW, our own boomstick clued the wildcatters in on the '06 brass becoming "Stupidly" small over the past couple years.. so I miced a sampling, and was STUNNED to see factory brass under .010 smaller than spec. which is why I suggested the gentleman measure the brass rather than blaim the chamber.

(this could be read as being captain obvious)
unless you order custom brass, it is nearly ALWAYS minus of spec... -.003 to -.005, and the reamer is almost always that much larger.. even though spec brass will fit in a spec chamber, just, there is generally a good clearance level.

but, dang it, .010 is HUGE.. that's more than the difference between the 9x18 mak and the 380 browning... and the 380 nearly splits if fired in a mak chamber.

and doing full length resizing on buldged cases can add to a work hardened ring around the web, which could eventually lead to case head sep

Did anybody else notice what the PRIMERS look like on those fired rounds.....

Hey JT, Great flick of the Pressure Ring Expansion(PRE), which happens on every case in varying amounts, even in Match Spec Chambers. The amount of PRE you see will vary due to all the things previously mentioned as well as the amount of Pressure your specific Load is creating in that specific barrel.

You can use PRE to your advantage to check how your Reloads compare to Factory ammo as far as Pressure. There are a few tricks to doing it, so if you are interested, send me a PM.

If you begin using a Partial-Full Length Resize(P-FLR), the PRE will become more concentric because the CenterLine of the Case is forced to become aligned with the CenterLine of the Chamber/Bolt Face. As a nice side benefit, you will get the best possible accuracy from your rifle and long case life due to Zero Headspace.

I agree with the folks that said the condition is "normal" and there is absolutely nothing wrong with your barrel.

Good Hunting and clean 1-shot Kills.

Primers in reality appear normal. Photo makes them look cratered.

Look at the difference in the outside diameter, those aren't "normal" for the way I load....they're FLAT.

To each their own.

quote:

Originally posted by fireball168:
Look at the difference in the outside diameter, those aren't "normal" for the way I load....they're FLAT.

To each their own.

These primers look fine. The appearance of those primers associated with pressure problems have sharp edges. These primers are still rounded.

quote:

Originally posted by jtinidaho:
Not bitching just curious. Some factory rifles and a couple of customs and I haven't seen brass like this. This is my first rebarrel. I am happy with the rebarrel as far as function, fit and finish, and accuracy are concerned. This has been an educational experience for me and perhaps many other readers.

.

Sorry. I should have been more specific. I was not accusing YOU of bitching. Was commenting on we gun owners in general.... Didn't mean to point the finger at, or offend, you as an individual.

I have no problem with your question; it was an appropriate one. I just get a little tired of seeing people in general bad-mouth workmanship they have had no chance to see or evaluate, as if spending money should automatically yield whatever they want and justifies what may turn out to be unwarranted criticism. Maybe on Mars, but I suspect not here on Earth.

I never have a problem with anyone saying, "Well, it could be......", or "Well, it might be.....", but to pontificate about what it IS as if it was God's truth..that sometimes makes me a little testy.

Bill, go think about it for awhile it will come to you.
On the flip side. look for bigger brass. otherwise it is what it is. A .750 shooter with a slight bulge.
Timan

Ok guys, I guess I just showed my own stupidity. Your have convinced me and I have changed my mind. Really a VERY big step at this stage of life.

jtinidaho, If your still worried, I might expand (pun) on my first post.
I had a target .223Rem rifle made up thru a good Smith. With light wt Rem cases I got the bulge. No case ever had a seperation, all were max loads to get it to 900yards, and I retired the cases when I inherited some 2nd hand Win cases which were heavier. Not the slightest sign of a bulge with those cases, ie nothing wrong with the chamber.

Two M94 30-30 I've had/have do it, another .223 Zustava does it with PMC brand but not with previous mentioned Wins.

So to this laymans view, the chambers can't change from bad to good. Must be the brass.
Just thinking, if you necked down Mil 30-06 would that be heaver/thicker brass.
Anyway after a while of random chambering, the bulge will go all around and not look so bad.

quote:

Originally posted by Timan:
Bill, go think about it for awhile it will come to you.
On the flip side. look for bigger brass. otherwise it is what it is. A .750 shooter with a slight bulge.
Timan

Timan,
When a barrel (or anything else for that matter) is running in a steady rest, you can fiddle with the steady 'til the cows come home and it will affect the TIR not at all. The outside will run perfectly true (as long as it is round) and the inside will run to it's level of eccentricity.
Exceptions: If the barrel is being held in a chuck with some runout, the bore will runout at the breech end as well. The amount will vary depending on, (1) how far the steady is behind the point at which runout is measured and (2) how far the steady is located from the chuck. So, in this instance, runout is minimized by having the steady as close to the end as possible; those who prefer to run the steady on the threads or on a sleeve installed on the threads may be on the right track.
If the bore is eccentric to the steady path or turned shank, it will run eccentric regardless of what is done with the steady. The way to correct it is to recut the center and recut the shank then remount in the steady. One may also shim the center and recut the shank.
The other exception is if a "live steady" is used. In this case the steady is comprised of a sleeve which is mounted on tapered roller bearings (like a wheel hub). The workpiece is centered up via four set screws and the TIR can be adjusted just like in a four jaw chuck.
Regards, Bill