Hope some can help me.

I am a fan of old guns, they got charm.
The action on a Italian Carcano, how is it?
Strong? Good for use in a rifle today, in the original 6.5x62?

All information, tip from users and so is good to me.

Have a good day all.

Carcano rifles have some good characteristics and some not so good if you are going to shoot them extensively.

Bad
1. Odd .267 groove diameter of many of the rifles does not match up well to most current jacketed bullets.
2. The rifling is very deep creating high pressures easily with the .2675 Hornady Carcano bullet.
3. Some of today's brass has extractor grooves that do not match the extractor well causing poor feeding.
4. The extractors are not the most robust around. I have seen several broken. Broken extractors are hard to remove unless you have advanced skills.
5. The use of the clip prevents use of over bore scope mounting.
6. The use of a receiver sight is difficult unless elevated to clear the bolt handle. The results is you need young eyes to use iron sights or use a forward mounted scope or reflex sight.
7. The design uses the same spring for the ejector and the sear spring. When the bottom of the ejector groove is rough the spring force on the ejector can make the action rough to operate.
8. The safety is not the easiest to use but I rarely use one preferring an open bolt for my own use

Good
1. In the later rifles 1930 and up that I have messed with the steel is exceedingly tough. I think these actions would be very difficult to damage with an over load.
2. When the correct brass is used the clip feed is easily one of the most positive feed systems going.
3. Take down of the bolt is very easy.

The Carcanos I have inspected have very robust actions. The Germans thought them safe enough to re-barrel in 8x57. Breaching is very good, with a completely enclosed cartridge head. You can make a neat little rifle by taking a Mosin Nagant barrel and re-chambering it to 7.62x39mm. The Carcano bolt head is sized for this round and they will function with the Carcano clips.This requires machining off the threaded portion of the barrel and then turning and re-threading a new shank. You will also need to make a magazine spacer around 15 mm deep to fill the gap due to the shorter round. A piece of polypropylene works well as does synthetic countertop material and even a piece of beechwood or walnut. You will need to file a feed ramp into the top part to blend into the original.

I rebarreled one to 35 rem, throated it out to seat spitzers to the base of the neck.I turned the bolthandle down, trimmed up the stock, thinned the TG. It had total cost with a take off barrel I had, of $40 and a little time in my friends machine shop. I dont know why, but it's one of my favorite bubba guns.

In the right hands they are sufficient for quick, accurate follow up shots!

I've got a nice scar from trying to do a rapid fire from one.

Indent think much of the action at all

I've read a report where a gunwriter was asked by a club to come and blow up a rifle for a safety reloading film they were making. When he showed up he had found that they had a Carcano to do the honors. Make the story short none of the rifle powders would blow and he resorted to the good old Bulls Eye powder and that didn't even do it. The ended up using an explosive to finally ruin the action.

They are looked down by many gun people, but they aren't as bad as thought to be. Like mentioned here they were, in the beginning , make from the finest steels. I believe they even used Bofors barrels in the beginning. Like any Mannlicher they are little harder to scope and the enbloc clip makes matters worse.

Thank you for the good help.
Sounds good to me, yes with some odd things and some not so easy, scope mounts and so...But, still an interesting action/rifle to have something made one.

Hm, a nice open sight short range deer rifle...

You might even be able to adapt one of the Lyman swinging peep sights that were made for the Mann-Scho or 1888 Commission rifles.

Of course that would make the rear sight cost more than the rest of the rifle....
Regards, Joe

quote:

Originally posted by Westpac:
In the right hands they are sufficient for quick, accurate follow up shots!

Yep, events in 1963 demonstrated that.

I think it is always worth remembering that very few countries, IF ANY, ever armed their troops with junk as their first line rifle.

Some of them may be cheap, some ugly as home-made sin (to our tastes), some awkwardly dimensioned.

But pretty much all of them were solid, dependable in service, and plenty strong enough for the cartridges they were used with by their militaries, and still will do their original jobs well when fed the right stuff.

sauf le chauchat.

In the 60s I used my sporterized Carcano and found it totally adequate to bring down BIG mule deer with one shot. I also sporterized and made a 6.5 X 55 single shot, no bottom metal at all, out of a Carcano carbine. Used it on mule deer also. Got it down to 5 pounds of tenderizing recoil. roger

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
I think it is always worth remembering that very few countries, IF ANY, ever armed their troops with junk as their first line rifle.

Some of them may be cheap, some ugly as home-made sin (to our tastes), some awkwardly dimensioned.

But pretty much all of them were solid, dependable in service, and plenty strong enough for the cartridges they were used with by their militaries, and still will do their original jobs well when fed the right stuff.

Low number springfield...

Thank you all for lot of replay.
Bartsche, what load, bullet weight, did you use for deer hunting?

quote:

Originally posted by Westpac:
In the right hands they are sufficient for quick, accurate follow up shots!

quote:

Originally posted by 9,3x62moose:
Thank you all for lot of replay.
Bartsche, what load, bullet weight, did you use for deer hunting?

I was using a 140 grain Speer at 2200 fps. and 156 grain Barnes' pushed about 2100 fps. FYI***Open sights*** roger

http://www.milsurps.com/conten...-Eaton-Carcano-Rifle

Adam

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:

quote:

Originally posted by 9,3x62moose:
Thank you all for lot of replay.
Bartsche, what load, bullet weight, did you use for deer hunting?

I was using a 140 grain Speer at 2200 fps. and 156 grain Barnes' pushed about 2100 fps. FYI***Open sights*** roger

minus the magazine hanging down Bartsches version of the Carcano is quite graceful&trim.

quote:

Originally posted by tin can:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by bartsche:

minus the magazine hanging down Bartsches version of the Carcano is quite graceful&trim.

Thank you. roger

quote:

Originally posted:
sauf le chauchat.

Except that the chauchat wasn't the primary first line rifle of the French in WWI or WWII.
IIRC, the Chauchat was a full auto-capable rifle intended for use much as our BAR was intended to be used in WWs I&II.

And I know a few "modern" shooters who have used the Chauchat and found it a much better arm than its reputation with Americans might lead folks who haven't actually fired it to expect.

One was the late Chuck Karwan who was a
special forces Company Commander in Viet Nam and later became one of the people used by BATF as an inspector of imports to determine whether they were easily convertible to full auto fire. (He got a lot of surplus rifles allowed into the U.S. which BATF would otherwise have forbidden.)



Here is a link to an article on the French primary rifle of WW I:

http://sangamoncorifleassociat...ww1frenchrifles.html


In WWII, I believe it was the MAS 1936 bolt action in 7.5m/m French. There is a fair amount of info on it which can be had through either a Yahoo or Google search. It is somewhat ugly to American sportsmen's eyes, but a well made and sturdy battle rifle.

As to the low number Springfields, like many rifles, they had some problems. But they were never "junk". I personally much prefer the higher number Springfields which replaced them but I would never call the low number ones "junk".