Printable View
Back when I had a convenient place to shoot longarms, I tried shooting my 6.5 Japanese rifles. I tried a Type 38 long rifle, carbine, and Carcano Type I with Norma factory ammo, all with mediocre to lousy results. As I recall the bores looked fine and I don't remember anything visibly wrong with the sights. Is this typical?
I spoke with a fella quite some time back that was into those rifles. He liked them because they were cheap. He told me that of the few he's shot he never had any super accuracy with them.
I dont know a carcano that was shooting good. The most have poor accuracy. Older guys told me " The carcano`s are mostly like new because they didnt fired one shot, they where thrown away when the brit`s come in sight"
To clarify, I'm speaking of the Type I rifles that were subcontracted to Italy for the Japanese Navy and Special Naval Landing Forces.Quote:
Originally Posted by gunner
Now that you mention Carcanos...long ago on the old site I remember someone claiming that Italian Carcano rifles can be super-accurate...but first you have to slug the bore to find its true ID, then tailor bullets to match it. I wonder if the same is true of Arisakas as well?
The Japanese rifles I have fired, both 6.5 and 7.7 had adequate military accuracy, but only one shot well (about 1.5") and that was a late war Type 99 with a tacked on wood buttplate and a cylindrical bolt knob. I am not sure what that proves, if anything.
Jim
I have never gotten consistant good groups from any of my Japanese rifles, either 6.5 or 7.7, with reloads and even worst is the accuracy I get with cast bullets.
Try as I do, every cast bullet type and/or powder or load I've tried has alway been a failure at getting decent groups. The same bullets and powder loads in my Enfield and Ross rifle shoot excellent groups. Ray
We tend to forget most mass produced Military rifles of old are meant to hit body mass,not bench rest standards.
I'm not saying your rifle is not an exemption to the rule and isn't a tac driver NO-NO!:nono:
Carcano accuracy:
the problem with Carcanos is, that having got a super-cheap rifle, the owners want to shoot with super-cheap ammo - and get poor results.
The topic of loading for the Carcano has been covered on the Ammo & Reloading forum in some detail.
The acceptance criterion for the M91 (the Italians do NOT call it a Carcano) was a 6-shot group of MAX 5cm wide x 6 cm high AT 200 METERS!
That is 1 MOA quality.
See "Il Novantuno Mnnlicher Carcano", Wolfgang Riepe, ISBN 3-932077-30-X / ISBN 978-3-932077-30-2. Page 86.
And my M91/41, otherwise known as Roma, 'cos that's what it says on the butt, produced three 1-1/2 MOA groups at 100 meters (2 shot by me, one by a friend) as soon as I got the right bullets.
In general, every milsurp I have tried had, at best, a mediocre performance with off-the-shelf ammo and needed "personalized" ammo to get satisfactory results. The only exception to date was the Swiss G96/11, which performs superbly with the standard Swiss ordnance GP11 ammo, and is the only milsurp for which I do not have to reload.
I do not have an Arisaka, but have little doubt that the same applies - look around the forum and you will find some tips. Many milsurps do better with a flat-base bullet than with a boat-tail, because of a generously cut chamber plus a long/worn throat. And neck-sizing only is often advisable, both for accuracy and case life.
Patrick
It is pobably a good thing they are not real accurate. An old friend had one he brought home from the Pacific in 1945. In the 60's he served on the Border patrol in Texas. Occasionally he would get a call from work to come get his kids. They would sneak out with the Arisaka and go down to the river and lob shots at people crossing the river to see how fast they could run. Try a stunt like that today and see how many years you get.
I suggest not judging Arisaka accuracy on the basis of lead bullets, which do not take well to Metford rifling.
Jim
Exactly! I only mentioned that they are even worst with cast bullets then with my other reloads. And that I can't get cast bullets to shoot well in the Japanese rifles. RayQuote:
Originally Posted by Jim K
Most surplus military rifles I have shot with Norma ammo did not shoot it well at all except for one type 99 that was like new that would fire a one inch group with it at 100 yards. The Carcano will not shoot well at all with any standard 6.5mm bullet with a .264 diameter. The rifling in them is a gain twist that uses a bullet of .268 diameter. Hornady now makes the correct diameter bullet for reloading of the 6.5 Carcano and accuracy is much improved. I do have a type 38 rifle that no matter what I shoot in it is not accurate at all. Yet a type 38 carbine I have can and does shoot two inch groups at 200 yards with the right load. If your going to try lead in these rifles then the first thing to do is to slug the bore as there is a great variation in bore diameters with them. Use a lead bullet as close as possible to your bores diameter and it should shoot well.
Bruce I miked all the bores and I make the cast bullets .002-.004 larger then the grove dia. Doesn't help so far but will keep trying as it has become a challenge for me to find a right bullet and load in cast for them, Ray
I have two type 99's with nice looking bores. I like the sights and experimented with quite a few different loads. my best results were with IMR 4320 and 150 grain bullets (Hornady .312). The load came from the Sierra manual. Results were OK, but I could not get these rifles to shoot even close to the consistency of some other milsurps, ie, K31, Sedes, 1903/03A3, Krags, etc.
As to the Carcano. I have a 91/41 with a very good looking bore. Forget .264 bullets unless six inch groups are satisfying. I tried Hornady .268's. Group size was cut in half, but I experienced pierced primers, blow back, etc, and decided maybe this one is a little questionable safety wise.
Avlane, I fired off all the factory ammo I had, just to get fire-formed cases, and then reloaded with the 0.268 Hornady seated out about as far as the original Carcano rounds were (OAL 75,25 mm, in my 91/41), to get the bullet as close up to the throat as reasonably possible. 1-1/2" groups at 100 meters with 28-30 gn of Reloder 15. No signs of overpressure. And don't forget the standard reloading tip for milsurps with chambers of uncertain dimensions - neck sizing only, using cases that have been fire-formed in the same rifle!
BTW, take a look at the tip of your firing pin under a watchmaker's eyeglass. It may be a trifle jagged. Not good for primers.
As to Arisaka: apparently (I do not have one) they have a Metford-style polygonal rifling, which has led to people thinking that the rifles were shot-out because they could not see any sharp edges! As a non-Arisaka expert, but a fairly experienced black powder shooter, I can tell you that polygonal bores are very sensitive to the size of bullet and its hardness.
Can you get hard lead bullets in varying diameters? Over here, for instance, there is a company called Rifle Bullet Caster GmbH & Co (Riflebulletcaster GmbH & Co.KG.) who make lead bullets with a Brinell hardness BHN 22 and diameters of 0.268/0.270/0.272" (weights 126/128/130 gn) for the Carcano and Arisaka rifles. Likewise 0.314/0.316/0.318" (weights 177/178/179 gn)for the 303 and 7.7 mm Arisaka. Worth trying befre you give up or start experimenting with expensive molds!
Patrick
Patrick, I've been water dropping my cast bullets that I've used in the 7.7 Japanese rifle and they come out approx BHN 22 Brinell hardness. I think I will next try softer, non water dropped, bullets in the area of BHN 10-12. Maybe the softer bullets will work better in the Metford-style riling. Maybe, maybe not, but will try that next. Ray
It could well work with somewhat softer bullets, but BHN 10 is going right down. It's about what I use for my BPCR rifles, so you may find BHN 15 better. Unfortunately, the whole matter is a trade off between softer bullets - which will obturate well to fit the bore, but will strip off in the rifling if you drive them too hard (which I think is one reason behind the Metford polygonal rifling, the other being reduced fouling (???)) and harder bullets - which must be a closer fit, because they do not obturate so lightly, but can be driven harder without stripping.
Patrick
I use light loads with all my cast bullets between 1500-1700 fps. even with softer bullets that should'nt strip off lead hopefully.
My favorite and most accurate loads for my 303 and 30-06rifles is only 10 grs Unique or 16 grs 2400. Light but accurate.
I tried these loads with the 7.7 with the hard bullets and did'nt get good groups. Maybe the softer bullets will work better, Ray
Ray you said you slugged your bores and your bullets are .002 to .004 over bore size? If so you might want to try going just .001 over bore size and try that for accuracy.
If the Arisaka does indeed use a Metford profile, then the following info for the Lee-Metford 303 may be applicable.
Please not that my conclusions ONLY apply to lead bullets that can obturate sufficiently to fit the rifling profile. It does NOT apply to jacketed bullets.
A drawing of the Metford profile is shown on P10 of "British Service Rifles and Carbines 1888-1900" by Alan Petrillo. For those who do not have access to this drawing, I can only describe it as a seven-sided rounded-off polygon. No sharp edges at all. Anyone who has one of the English 7-sided 50 pence coins has the right profile in front of him. When these coins were introduced there was no little astonishment. How would they function in coin slot machines? The answer is: quite OK, thank you, because the profile is made to have a constant diameter, although it is circular, i.e. NOT a constant radius. In other words, it rolls OK through a slot machine.
The point of this little diversion via coinage is that, although he is no longer around to answer the question, I think that Metford's thinking was precisely the same. The lead bullet should not be cut, but deformed to fit the rifling in a way that spreads the deformation equally around the bullet.
Following this concept, the correct diameter for a bullet to fit Metford rifling is NOT the diameter of the circular plug that will just pass through the bore (what you might think of as the "lands" or "bore" diameter". NEITHER is it the diameter given by the "lands" + 2 x depth of rifling (what you might think of as the "groove" depth). Instead it is the bore diameter + 1 x depth of rifling.
I the case of the Lee-Metford 303 this would be 0.303" + 0.0045".
In other words, the ideal size would be 0.3085" for a perfect Metford bore. A bullet that is slightly smaller will obturate to fit the bore. A bullet that is too large will result in higher pressure that a "perfect match", whatever that may be.
By the way, the constant diameter nature of the Metford profile means that if you slug the bore, it doesn't matter where you measure the slug diameter, it will always be the same (to the level of accuracy needed in practice). In fact the Metford profile does deviate a tiny amount from the constant diameter, having very narrow lands (0.023"), which would make the fit a gnat's whisker tighter. On the other hand, a real rifle is hardly likely to have a mint bore after all this time. So 1-2 thou larger may be better.
So my best starting approximation for an Arisaka is: Slug the bore, measure the slug diameter, get lead bullets with BHN 13-6 and BHN 20-22 in the exact measured size, rounded up to a full thou, also that plus 2 thou (i.e. 4 versions, if you can get them or cast them), load very moderately for a muzzle velocity in the range 1500-1800 fps and try it out. If you load too heavily for the lead hardness you will probably see it as lousy grouping and keyholing. I think you will find that BHN 13-16 is quite size-tolerant, but load sensitive, whereas BHN 20-22 will be less load-sensitive, but more size-sensitive.
Patrick
I just cast some non water dropped bullets that came out at BHN14 and are softer then the BHN22, I will give them a try. Because of the low velocity of cast bullets they do not bump up into the rifiling like the higher velocity jacket bullets do so they have to be cast to the bore/grove size or a bit larger. Jacketed bullets that are only .311 will bump up enough to work/seal in the rifle even with a .317 grove size enough to shoot within Mil spects. Ray
Ok, I just thought in that in addition to the softer bullets I made and loaded. I loaded a few paper patched bullets. For those that are unfamiliar with paper patching, it is sizing a bullet below the rifles bore and grove dia. and wrapping the bullet in paper to bring back to the proper size.
Paper patch bullets are fired without gas checks as the paper is designed to cover the bulet base also and the paper acts like a jacket on the bullet and they can be fired to the velocity of light jacketed bullet loads, much faster the plain lead bullets can be fired.
My thinking is that the paper may grip the rounded lands and grooves of the Metford rifling better.
I will be going to the range tomorrow to try these loads. As I only made a few of each, it won't give me a true measurement of accuracy but I think it might elimiate some right away that won't work. Ray
Well none worked well so back to the drawing board or just back to using jacketed bullets and forget trying cast bullets, Ray
You might make a chamber cast if your are trying to shoot a Type 38 or any other Japanese Metford type. My Type 38 and Type I rifles have 4 groove Metford type rifling.
I have not made a cast of my Type I but the Type 38 has no step at the end of the chamber. It just has a long taper from the case mouth to the land diameter. There is no parallel sided throat. This chamber leade to land diameter funnel might work better with oversize cast gas check bullets.
The bullet needs to be long and have a fat nose so the bore is sealed when the base pops out of the case neck.
Good info ireload2. I have even tried sizing down 8mm, (.323) cast bullets to .319 which is a good deal oversize the rifles grove dia's and that didn't work. I am just begining to maybe accept the fact that Metford rifling just does not work well with cast bullets and that rifling needs a harder jacketed bullet to fully grip that rifling. But I haven't given up yet. I will keep trying different cast bullet loads in both the 7.7 and 6.5 Japanese rifles for awhile. Who knows, I just might find the right loads. Ray
Ray,Quote:
Originally Posted by rayg
Try a harder alloy, linotype or beyond, to grip the rounded Metford style rifling. I'd suggest some Stonewall Babbitt, bhn23, responds to further heat treatment too. I've also had better luck making my own cases, either by swagging down 7.62 Nato, or using .303 Brit or 30/40 Krag. They're a lot better fit in the chamber than the old Norma. I wrote Norma about 6 or 7 years ago, and supposedly they changed the case dimensions, however I've heard from folks who say they can't get the new cases from Graf's or Midway, even though Norma says they have shipped the newer cases to them. I'm speaking of the 6.5 cases here, not the 7.7. Using US milsurp 7.62 allows you to custom turn the neck size too! Got the swagging dies from CH4D. You need a heavy press and really good lube.
I may have found the right combination using cast bullets and paper patching. I paper wrapped the bullet but this time I sized the wrapped bullet to .319 instead of .314.
I had loaded up only five rds and only fired four, one wouldn't chamber for some reason, and one I just fired without actually sighting just to see if it would hit the target. That left three and I fired them at only 25yrds and all three grouped under an inch.
Maybe this is the right combination so I'll be loading up a few more to try next week at a little further distance.
The advantage of using paper patch cast bullets is they cost nothing if you get the lead free or pennies if you need to buy some lead. Commerical jacketed bullets run on average about $25 per 100 and the paper patched bullets can be shot at the jacketed loads. They are even cheaper then regular cast bullets to shoot as you don't need the cost of a gas check either and some of the reports I've read is that they can be even more accurate then the jacketed bullets. Ray
Much as this galls me to say it, but there were a lot of dead chinese, British soldiers, American soldiers, and American Marines who could have told you the Arisaka was not that inaccurate, if they had survived.
Keep on in there rayg! You're getting somewhere at last! Metford rifling was an invention from the latter days of muzzle-loading percussion rifles, when paper-patched bullets were state-of-the-art, because they enable lead bullets to be driven much harder without stripping. Many modern competition muzzle-loader shooters use paper-patched bullets - and get superb results.
And there are modern Heckler & Koch military rifles (I forget which ones) that also use polygonal rifling. But as I pointed out in a previous and very long posting, as there is no cutting of the bullet, that kind of rifling is quite touchy about bullet size. What hardness are you using now for the paper-wrapped bullets?
Good luck with your further experiments!
Patrick
Well it's getting there. I now need to fine tune the loads to close up the group but at least there's no flyers and it's actually about the same as my jacketed reloads shot.
I fired 7 shots at the bottom target first and then took a little better time and aim on the top three.
Only 35 yrs but there is potential. Will try 50yds next and then 100yrs later after I feel I've gotten the right load.
This was a pretty substancial load of 38 grs of I-3031 powder which would have been way too much for a plain cast bullet. The paper patched bullet were sized at .319 and the grooves mike out to .317+ on the T-99 long I fired it in.
The best part is the lead was free and the computer paper was next to nothing. Beats paying for jacketed bullets. Ray
Good on yer mate! May I suggest that you get a little book called "The Paper Jacket" by Paul Matthews. Although written for BP shooters, it will help you to get a better, more consistent wrap, and that will quite possibly reduce group size without you changing any other parameter. The best BP shooters get down to 2MOA under competition conditions (i.e. prone, sling allowed but no rest or wrist support, limited time).
And weigh the bullets too. Deviation should not be more than +/_ 0.5 gn around a median value. Tighter would be better, of course. Too high could mean that the mould was not quite closed when casting. Too low usually means bad filling and/or voids. Voids in particular will cause an off-axis center of gravity which spoils the flight, so be quite ruthless in putting out-of-tolerance bullets back into the melting pot.
Patrick
Good suggestions Patrick. It looks like the paper wrap is grippng the metford rfling much better then the plain lead bullets did and with a little more care like you suggest, I'm sure the groups will tighten up more, Ray
The first T-99 6th series Nogoya I shot a few weeks ago at 50yds offhand shot one minute of chest kill zone. I put 10 out of 10rds in a 10" by 10" group in 4 minutes including loading with loose rounds not strippers off hand. Not a pretty group but 10 kills.
One of the favorite rifles I shoot is an early war Arisaka 6.5. Sombody had sporterized it by cutting down the front of the stock. I had excellent results with the Norma stuff and well..I am working on my reloads..
I like the rifle so much that I am having Lyman sights put on it and a better trigger. just a nice rifle to shoot...
Old Joe
I shoot mostly snipers and have shot about 15 Japanese snipers. I have used handloads, Norma, Joe at the gunshow?? loads and Hornady. I have used mostly Japanese scopes but have a modern mount to put on the smaller bases found on t-97's, Nagoya cutbacks and Kokura T99 snipers. I get 1.5 MOA five shot groups frequently. Average is more like 2 MOA. Best was 0.84 MOA with a Kokura T99 with a very cloudy T97 scope using Norma factory ammo. I can assure you that at least the Japanese snipers were about as accurate as any fielded in WW2, and I have fired about 50 WW2 snipers. Always wanted to figure out who fielded the best sniper rifle of WW2. Pretty sure they were all pretty similar in accuracy in my years of testing them. Also, pretty sure that the US rifles were not the best either.