Steyr M95 bore diameter.

[bob q]

By using incorrect information , you will make incorrect assumptions . The M-95 bore Groove dia was always .329 . The .323 dia long rn bullets just rode the lands . This was common with all early military rifles . Accuracy was good enough , pressures were down and velocity was up . The Germans never used a .318 bore , nor a .323 dia bullet in Gew-88 rifles . The Gew-88's .3188 dia long rn bullet rode the lands on a .321 groove . Later the Germans switched to a larger short .321 Spitzer bullet , as a short or boatail bullet will not ride the lands as well or produce as much pressure as a long bullet . The M-95's later bullet was a .3286 boattail for machine guns , but would still work in the rifle's .329 bore.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Kyle M.]

By using incorrect information , you will make incorrect assumptions . The M-95 bore Groove dia was always .329 . The .323 dia long rn bullets just rode the lands . This was common with all early military rifles . Accuracy was good enough , pressures were down and velocity was up . The Germans never used a .318 bore , nor a .323 dia bullet in Gew-88 rifles . The Gew-88's .3188 dia long rn bullet rode the lands on a .321 groove . Later the Germans switched to a larger short .321 Spitzer bullet , as a short or boatail bullet will not ride the lands as well or produce as much pressure as a long bullet . The M-95's later bullet was a .3286 boattail for machine guns , but would still work in the rifle's .329 bore.

Thanks Bob, that definately makes sense. I feel like a lot of this "incorrect information" comes about because someone hears about it or observes one example and then parrots it as gospel and over time it becomes the norm. I've come across several guns in my brief time collecting that were all matching #'ed or provenance was otherwise known yet things didn't quite match what was written in reference books when it came to small cosmetic and/or engineering changes, or markings. It makes me wonder how often these reference books are just downright wrong. Now I no longer have to sit here like I've been doing for two weeks trying to figure out how they either A. Swaged a bullet .006" in firing without a kaboom. Or B. Went back through those bores and were able to line up just so and not ruin the rifling to rebore them. I supposed the answer should have been a little more obvious, but alas that is not always the case.