Printable View
An interesting, thought provoking thread. For my money, I must agree with Patrick Chadwick; brass is less expensive than bolts, bolt heads, or rifles. I'd rather have to buy new brass than I would risk damaging a rifle or injuring someone - especially me.
Some people invent stories after the fact to support their arguments.
Then they copy text from web page that support their arguments and carefully leave out the parts that do not support their stories.
I have no idea why anyone was fire forming brass in a caliber .270 Model 760. .270 brass is common and it lasts a long time. If you follow the current logic, why would said shooter lube cases in a .270. Why was he trying to load up the action of a pump that has very limited extraction power? Why not shoot factory ammo to get fire formed cases? The 760 is not known to stretch brass. What was the powder charge that damaged the 760 and why was this story brought up months after the shooter admitted that he used lubed cases. What was the exact damage done to the 760? Why is this such an after the fact story with no details? Why was his gun damaged and Parashooter's more ancient designed rear locking Lee-Enfield better able to tolerate multiple firings of lubed .303 cases while the .270 mysteriously got damaged. Why was his 760 damaged and my many rifles not damaged?
What tipped him off that his rifle was damaged? What were the symptoms?
What repairs were required at Remington? Was the bolt ruined or the barrel ruined (in a 760 the bolt locks into a barrel extension)? If this guy learned a lesson why doesn't he tell us about the entire lesson with all of its gory details including digital photos of the blood and guts.
BTW here is the original article complete with the following paragraph that is required to get the complete story. So far as I know Varmint Al has never damaged a 760 nor have I.
Here the "Polishing My Chambers" paragraph immediately followed by the rest of the article that talks about putting firing force loads on the breech face where they belong.
POLISHING MY CHAMBERS.... When I got my 223 Ackley Improved Virgin Valley (no longer in business) barrel, it had a very rough chamber. The fired brass had marks I could see where it had been gripped by the chamber and then slid backwards a tiny bit until stopped by the bolt face. It looked almost sandblasted. There were protruding primers on some of the fired rounds. When the firing pin hits the primer, it pushes the primer and the new case forward in the chamber. When ignition occurs, the pressure expands the walls of the brass. The rough chamber, with its high friction, grabs the case at the forward position and the gas pressure first pushes the primer back against the bolt face. As the pressure builds, the brass case is stretched until the case head is pushed back against the bolt or the case supports the total load. If the case head is pushed against the bolt face, it would produce a flat primer, but flush. If the load is light, the case does not stretch so much and leaves a gap between the case head and the bolt face, but the primer is still against the bolt face. This produces the protruding primers.
CONTROVERSY OR GOOD ENGINEERING.... Now some controversy. I polish my chambers with Flitz. I don't want excessive friction between the brass and the chamber wall. Some are going to argue with this, but I have thought long about this. I have tried it and it works and is good engineering. I polished the chamber in my new Virgin Valley (no longer in business) barrel and it has made quite an improvement. With a polished chamber, the friction coefficient is much less between the brass and the polished stainless steel chamber. The pressure is able to force the case head against the bolt face before the case walls grab the chamber. First, this lets the primer (on the first shot with new brass) protrude, but be immediately reseated in the primer pocket as the case head is pushed back. The brass does not stretch nearly as much as it would in a rough chamber. Now some will say that a polished chamber will increase the force of the bolt face (frame face on the Encore) and that is bad. WRONG! That is faulty logic. The force is increased on the bolt face, but that is where it belongs. As all modern rifles, the barrel and frame of the Encore are designed for strength. They are strong enough to support large diameter Magnum-belted calibers. The force from the much smaller area of the .223 case head is easily supported by the frame face. The brass case is designed to act as a bladder and encase the gas pressure. Trying to use the weaker brass to lighten the load on the action and bolt face of a rifle by having the brass grip the chamber is analogous to using a car's radiator to protect the bumper in a front-end collision. A polished chamber minimizes case stretching, reduces case head separation, and increases case life. More information on chamber finish here. To polish a chamber, I put Flitz on a cotton bore mop and a piece of cleaning rod long enough to be held in a drill motor. I polish for about 30 seconds or more at a 300 to 600 rpm speed. Sometimes I have to wrap a paper towel around the swab and put Flitz on it to get a good fit. Be sure that the end of the bore mop's metal part is much smaller than the bore and covered so it will not damage the rifling in front of the chamber.
It always amazes me the extent people will go to prove they are not doing anything wrong, they will even insult people and as much as call them a liar. The books and manuals tell you not to have any grease or oil in the chamber and yet ireload2 thinks insults will actually change what is already written down.
Go ahead ireload2, call me a liar……………………..
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../drybore-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ssstrain-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...can0048a-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../oillube-1.jpg
And the warnings in the books and manuals are all lies too…………
according to our oily chamber expert ireload2. :thdown:
Your charm and personality is even winning friends with the Australians at Gunboards :thup:
Son,
________________________________________
you are wasting your time.
Suggesting that use of a proven system maintaining millions of .303 rifles over 70 years and using them to win two world wars is just not good enough for experts from the US of A!
How many questions do I have to ask and never get an answer?
And you keep on posting the same old garbage warnings after Parashooter's tests have contradicted your assertions more than once. You claimed to have damaged a rifle like that. Yet you cannot give any details about the episode.
>>>Son<<<
Sounds like the beginning of a Foghorn Leghorn speech.
Since you had to mention the other place, as I recall your winning personality charm got you suspended at the other place. Now all you know about what goes on over there is what you hear from those just like you. I would fully expect others just like you to be whining also and you only get their side of the story.
How many world wars did the Brits without US participation? Surely you know the answer to this question.
Out of curiosity, what is the effect of wet ammo or wet chamber from water?, I imagine it may prevent cases sticking to the chamber wall, but maybe its not slippery enough? Any comments appreciated
The only warning in any Enfield manual I have is when shooting in wet inclement weather with water in the chamber the Enfield will shoot high.
Only a troll would insult the British in an Enfield forum and I apologize to the British and Commonwealth members reading ireload2 postings above, not all Americans share his warped sick view of the world.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...amerflag-1.jpg
OK, that's enough :mad:
We gave you both the opportunity to air your views on an earlier thread, in the hope that it would remain civil. It turned into Edward Horton and ireload2 taking jabs at each other. It's gone too far again :banghead:
If the personal jabs continue there will be no further warnings.
Can't you simply state your views and ignore each other, if you can't discuss it civily :bash:
Mind you, there's certain folks who went and converted a pile o' .303s to 7.62x51 w/ no issues
Yes only No4s and not all those passed PROOF. The Aussies tried No1 Mk3s all failed PROOF.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmoore
Which should be a good defining upper limit for the action's load carrying capacity. I don't reckon the barrels failed.