What mods are mandatory, and what mods are desirable but maybe not absolutely required? What differences from the belted mag conversion?

Jeffe?

I have a brand-new Douglas 375 H&H Mauser barrel but I don't do Mauser H&H-length conversions; I also have a nice high-number 1903 action and a brand-new Pacific Research stock for a 1903. But I DON'T need another project that takes a lotta time, I'm already time-challenged as it is.

Info? Suggestions?
TIA and regards, Joe

J.D. -

I have no idea how to help you with your question. Just wanted to say I'm a real fan of customized Springfields, so that chambering sounds really, really good to me. I sure hope you'll post a picture of the rifle when you get done with it.

My first custom Springfield was a .30-06 which was John Buhmiller's own target rifle, made by him, using one of his own barrels. In 1960 I sent it to Microsight up in Belmont, California (242 Harbor Boulevard) for some metal work, and in the shipping back to me in Hollister USPS broke the stock in about 4 places. I had the stock replaced at Post Office expense by Mills, who was a good custom Stocker (in San Mateo, IIRC).

Later when I was living in Alberta, I had it rebored and rechambered to .358 Norma Mag by Al Petersen over in Riverhurst, Saskatchewan in 1969.

It was a great rifle, shot very, very accurately as a Norma Mag, and fed like greased glass. Doug Paul of The Custom Gun Shop in Edmonton, Alberta honed the feeding for me and I'm not certain what all he did, but I do know it is possible to make them feed flawlessly with larger than .30-06 diameter cases...

Anyway, what you are proposing sounds to me like a modern version of that rifle, and brings back glorious memories.

So, if you get the time, please let us know how it works out, and let us see it.

Thank you very much,

AC

NRA Life Member since 1962

I would thinks seriously about the 358 Norma. It just seems too me to be a better fit with the Springfield action. It will most likely be a hand-loading proposition thousgh.

its not very much different than doing a 308 norman/30-338/300win on one.. which was the second gun i built/modified ...

the case length is the same as a 308 norma, and the case head is the same diameter as the HH belt -- though without a belt, according to lots of poeple, it should feed easier (i don't believe it, btw)

should be a straight forward project

03 Spfld action, Pacific Research stock and 375 Ruger --- what's not to like?

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

the case length is the same as a 308 norma, and the case head is the same diameter as the HH belt -- though without a belt, according to lots of poeple, it should feed easier (i don't believe it, btw)

should be a straight forward project

I think it would probably feed EASIER with the belted .358 Norma case...

I haven't looked up the case dimensions, but am under the impression that the .375 Ruger is bigger around at the shoulder than the .358 Norma is. Any amount bigger will mean probably more tweaking of the rails to get perfect, 100% reliable feeding. The bigger the new case is at the shoulder than the .30-06 was, the more likely the rails will have to be slightly undercut to keep rounds from popping out of the magazine...especially the last round.

Is that your experience too, Jeffe? I certainly agree with your opinion that a big fat rimless, beltless case with little taper will not feed better from a Springfield action than a belted case and smaller shoulder, without tweaking.

Could do a 375 Whelen.

The new unfired barrel is already chambered for 375 H&H and threaded/headspaced for a Mauser, unfortunately. I got it and some other stuff in a trade but don't have a spare Mauser action right now and don't like Mauser H&H-length conversions anyway, so.....
Regards, Joe

When dealing with this kind of delema in the past, I have chosen to sell something to at least partially pay for a replacment part that kinda complements the package better.

I wouldn't do a 375 H&H on a Mauser either. But a 375 Ruger on a springfield doesn't strike my fancy either. Somehow they just don't go together in my view.

So, if it was my project, something would have to go, and it would probably be the barrel.

In selecting something for the Springfield, I would go with something that required minimal modifications to the feed rails, magazine, bolt face, etc. There are lots of good choices.

If I was gonna do a 375 Ruger, I would do it on an action that was at least already set up for a std belted Magnum cartridge. In my limited yet real experience, there is a good possibility that you'll never get 100% reliable feeding with a 375 Ruger cartridge. It could happen, if lucky, but even a small chance of failure is enough to cause me to take another route. If the mods fail, the action is ruined, when it would have worked fine with the proper cartridge in the first place.

I like to keep it simple, and selling the barrel, and finding another one more suitable is far more likely to succeed, and is far simpler to me than messing with action modifications.

There is absolutely nothing wrong is makeing it a 30-06, with an excellent barrel, and classic stock, and shoot the heck out of it. It will do for a lot more situations that a 375, and get shot more often and easier on the shoulder. That's what I would do with it. I can just feel it coming up to my shoulder now, a natural fit, chambered in a cartridge that it was designed for. What a joy that one would be to shoot. The opportunity to have and shoot a classic Springfield in 30-06 actually is something special.

More:
I thought about the stock some too. Pacific Research - I think that's a Rimrock stock, or Bordens stock - fiberglass, I think. If it's what I think it is, I had one once upon a time. I thought it was a great snag at the time, but the more I looked at it the less I felt that way. It had some features that at first seemed good, such as light weight. It especially had a good style or shape. I finally concluded that a classic wood stock in the same pattern would be much more desirable, and I sold the stock. I have never regretted selling it.

The first thing that made me want to get rid of it is because I compared it to a McMillan. No contest in my opinion. The Rimrock is obviously hollow, which makes for light weight, but lots of noise, and less strength.

If it's the stock I'm thinking of, my strong advice is to sell it, and get a nice walnut stock for this project. Fiberglass ain't right for a classic Springfield in 30-06. There is no doubt in my mind about it, and I'm sure some won't agree, but I ain't likely to change my mind about it. On a project like this I think one has to consider resale value as much as the actual value of use while you own it. A 375 Ruger on a Springfield, in a light fiberglass stock is not a proper combo in my sense of the matter.

Don't take it personal, please, it's just my opinion.

KB

KB, your points are well expressed and well taken. However:

I'm in the middle of making 2 1903 30-06 G&H-type sporters even as we speak (so to speak, grin), both with nicely-figured walnut, classic side mounts, Lyman 48s with traps for the slides, etc.

I just inherited another classic 1903 30-06 sporter that I had long ago gifted to one of my best friends; he's had a stroke and won't be using it again.

The Pacific Research stock is indeed a LW glass one and VERY well styled to my eye, so it's probably the one you're thinking of.

I already have 3 more 1903 actions plus an orphan used 30-06 barrel and a brand-new 35 Whelen barrel. So, it ain't like this is my only 1903 project.....

And yes there are plenty of other project actions hanging on my project wall awaiting tuits, so yes I'd sell or trade some of this stuff for something else that I DON'T hafta work on! Or else for some single shot stuff......(grin)

Meanwhile my inquiring mind is always churning up more ideas and possibilities. I need a new rifle like a hog needs a sidesaddle but to paraphrase Tina Turner, what does NEED have to do with it?
Regards, Joe

Thanks for the feedback, JD. I understand better now.

The style is what first got my atention with the stock too. I don't see how it can be a bad stock. There's just too much evidence there that they took great care in making it. Since you do the work yourself, that makes a difference. I was looking at spending some money to finish it out, and didn't want to do that on an experiment. I think filling the butt area with some kind of foam would help with the hollow sound.

Good luck with your project.

BTW, I'll bet a nickel that if you tell us your price to sell that action, someone would buy it.

Edited: Talking about projects prompted me to actually count those that I have going, and going, and going.

Seventeen. Three are shootable now, and I use them, but need further attention on some aspect.

The others are in various stages, and most have all the parts but just need assembly by a gunsmith.

KB

May I play too?

Chamber it for the .375 Ruger and mark it .38-Newton .

Interesting! Was there such a thing as a 375 Newton? Would the 38 Newton designation be considered more authentic to the Newton period? Wasn't there a 400 Newton?
Regards, Joe

Lets see, there was the 30, 33, 35 and 40-Newton. No one has ever seen a .40-Newton on a Newton rifle but a Fred Adolph rifle turned up marked "40-Newton".

I have two (2) rifles chambered in .400-Niedner which is nothing more than the .400-Newton with a Niedner name on it. I made brass using .375 H&H fire-formed ahead of the belt but now use the Ruger (Newton) brass in .416 which I just re-size and trim-to-length.

If some gun sleuth many years from now finds a rifle marked .38-Newton and the chamber cast clearly shows a Newton chamber....who knows. Can you tell I'm board today ;-).

"Mess with the archaeologist, bury your friends in life jackets"

Once upon a time, I wanted to build a replica of a pre-war African rifle with ballistics similar to a 318 WR. I had a perfect late production Swede, so I stocked it in a traditional English style stock. I had it barreled in 338/284 and it was very similar to the 318 ballistically while keeping to 45-46kpsi. I had it marked on the barrel as "330African". I knew what it was but it kept a future owner from going overboard.

Well if there wasn't a .38 or .375 Newton there should have been. You'll just be correcting an oversight by Mr Newton. What better for a Springfield than a Newton chamber?

Jerry Liles

The .375 Taylor (.375-.338) is as close to a .375 Newton as you would ever need to go. The main difference is the belt.

This photo is not too clear, but the second group of guns from the right represent my first African battery, built in the early '60's, all on double heat treated Springfield actions, with metal work by (the late) Harry Creighton and stocks by (the late) Hal Hartley. The calibers are .458 WM, .375-.338 and 7mm Remington Magnum, all equipped with G&H side mounts and Lyman 48 receiver sights. They all feed and shoot beautifully.



Incidentally, on the far right are my .30 Newton and .256 Newton.

Nice man cave, to usemodern "hip" terminology. Nice rifles too. Made by real pros.....

Can't see any of those heads on the wall except for patches of cape, but let me guess just for fun. Judging by colour only, from left to right, I'd guess Sable, Kudu, Impala.

Did I get any of them right? Could you please post pictures of the heads themselves, just for our enjoyment?

Here are some more views of the room. The pictures were taken some time ago, and some of the guns pictured are gone and others have taken their places, at a ratio of two gone for every one acquired (I hope).







As you see, you were right about the sable and the impala, but wrong about the kudu. It's a fringe eared oryx, with a Beisa oryx on the opposite wall.

I recommend reversing your downsizing endevour and filling that empty book case space with more of those nice rifles.

The cases are now filled with books. Several members of the forum have benefited from my downsizing, and I hope that others will in the future.

If you ever need a house sitter I will gladly do it and fondle your lovely rifles in a very respectful way and leave a very nice bottle of bourbon behind.

As far as original Newton's are concerned I defer to Michael and other more knowledgeable, I think though that since then it has been done, as I was talking to a gunsmith after the Ruger's came out that said he had a client that he'd built about every iteration possible of Newton for.

Red

Joe, how about using that barrel and make a 375 Whelen Imp., or a 375 Taylor as was already mentioned. I've often thought about the 375 Whelen Imp to go with my 35 Whelen Imp. Fit and function should be a shoe in.

unscoped rifle on the left is a 416 AR on a springfield.. happens to be a national ord, but still