Carcano shooting
- Thread starter Claven2
- Start date
Eaglelord17
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Sault Ste. Marie
For the Italians it wasn't fancy rifling, it was the standard. Militaries don't like changing things much, even when the reasons for how it was originally set up no longer exist. When your setting things up and you already have a set way of doing it with set machinery, you tend to keep the same process whether or not it makes sense. Bureaucracy at its finest.
No but by 1941 the Ballistite ammo was basically all used up. So it didn't matter if they had the progressive rifling anymore or not.
Eventually they conceded there wasn't enough benefit, but it took almost 30 years after stopping production of a particular type of ammo. I don't know about you but a lot of the ammo I have used is 30+ years old, and I am sure for several decades they were still pulling crates of older ammo from random areas to use.
For 7.35 they were able to make a clean break from progressive rifling as there was no earlier ammo issues going on, it was all new. When they restarted 6.5 rifle production (M41), the tooling would have all been set for standard rifling, hence just keeping going with what they were using.
I 100% agree it mainly existed for the earlier powder. I suspect a little bit of national pride also existed there to be able to claim to have some sort of advantage over other nations arms as well (whether or not the advantage really existed or not).
Some or all of the above might be true (except for opposing views of course), but it's all speculation unless you can show from original Italian sources that those suppositions are facts.
You see this all the time on gun sites - it starts with: "they probably did", and before long it's: "they did" and it becomes a hill to die on for some people.
"Google Research" is an oxymoron.
I'm not a "gun researcher" as I rarely go back to original sources, but I am a "Family History Researcher" and do rely on original government, church, newspaper, family records, etc. I have debunked more family folklore than I can count. I have encountered disbelief and anger in the face of facts and it doesn't bother me as facts don't care about feelings.
So I have suspicions about why progressive (gain) twist/rifling was used, why bullets were constructed as they were, why certain powders and loads might have been used, etc. Then there are those who confidently state that: "You should copy exactly what the Italians used as they knew the guns better than we ever can". Maybe they did, and I suppose if we want to develop loads meant for field conditions expected in war using obsolete components we could learn from the past.
I'm just interested in how I can make my Carcano shoot its best.
You see this all the time on gun sites - it starts with: "they probably did", and before long it's: "they did" and it becomes a hill to die on for some people.
"Google Research" is an oxymoron.
I'm not a "gun researcher" as I rarely go back to original sources, but I am a "Family History Researcher" and do rely on original government, church, newspaper, family records, etc. I have debunked more family folklore than I can count. I have encountered disbelief and anger in the face of facts and it doesn't bother me as facts don't care about feelings.
So I have suspicions about why progressive (gain) twist/rifling was used, why bullets were constructed as they were, why certain powders and loads might have been used, etc. Then there are those who confidently state that: "You should copy exactly what the Italians used as they knew the guns better than we ever can". Maybe they did, and I suppose if we want to develop loads meant for field conditions expected in war using obsolete components we could learn from the past.
I'm just interested in how I can make my Carcano shoot its best.
Pardon my Carcano newbishness. It seems like an awful lot of tosspotting to make a firearm shoot straight. Most worn, cobbled together K98k's will shoot decently with almost any JS ammo. Which seems to partially explain the failures of the Italian military on several fronts. Granted logistics was a big part of it.
Apples and oranges.
.323" bullets are available everywhere.
If .266" or .267" bullets were readily available, carcanos in decent shape would perform pretty well also.
When you shoot undersized jacketed bullets in any rifle, it isn't going to perform great.
.323" bullets are available everywhere.
If .266" or .267" bullets were readily available, carcanos in decent shape would perform pretty well also.
When you shoot undersized jacketed bullets in any rifle, it isn't going to perform great.
I started with the 8X57 because it was easy and went from there, being attracted to old firearms that required you to make the brass from other modern cartridges, make my own bullets, and develop my own loads, e.g. Belgian Albini, Snider Enfield, Swiss Vetterli and many etc.
That leaves me alone in "Group 4" for the most part, as there seem to be four groups of Milsurp Shooters:
1. those who only shoot firearms with readily available cheap milsurp and commercial ammo;
2. those willing to load their own from readily available dies, brass, bullets, and load data;
3. those willing to load their own from readily available dies, brass, and load data, but are willing to make their own bullets, either cast or modified jacketed; and
4. those willing to load their own from custom dies, using brass and bullets they make, and loads they create.
The Carcano would fall into Groups 1-3 depending on your preferences and budget.
You must be having a down day???
There are several people on this site that shoot older, obsolete firearms, often one offs from select nations, such as the wonderfully made and with proper ammo , accurate 8mm Kropatschek rifles.
The Krop rifles are just one type of many that I've worked my way around making ammo for.
Usually, once I've done the work and am happy with the results, I lose interest in the project and move it all along to someone else that didn't want to go through the work of getting it all together but are quite willing to cast bullets etc to keep them running happily.
There are several people on this site that shoot older, obsolete firearms, often one offs from select nations, such as the wonderfully made and with proper ammo , accurate 8mm Kropatschek rifles.
The Krop rifles are just one type of many that I've worked my way around making ammo for.
Usually, once I've done the work and am happy with the results, I lose interest in the project and move it all along to someone else that didn't want to go through the work of getting it all together but are quite willing to cast bullets etc to keep them running happily.
It's only .004 over the worn .273 bore.
You're being overly cautious IMHO.
If that rifle had a tight bore, I wouldn't be shooting .277 bullets out of it. As it is, it likely won't shoot .268 bullets well either.
It might shoot exposed lead core base bullets well. MIGHT
Sounds like a good candidate for some lead bullet testing. I had a shot out 303 that I reamed the chamber neck area out so it would take 0.325 cast bullets. I was bored and needed a project. 4” to 6” groups at the 100 was the best it would do. I ended up scraping it for parts for another rebuild. A 0.312 bullet would drop through the bore. Don’t know unless you try.
I said I was "alone in Group 4 for the most part", not that I was the only one. Out of almost 250,000 CGN members, there are perhaps a few dozen here in that Group (even 100 would be 0.04%), but only maybe 10 who post their results.
I'd be firstly concerned that the chamber neck (which tend to wear next to nothing) would be pinched hard by even a 0.277" bullet sized down to 0.273", much less a 0.277" bullet.
Long drill bit and ream the throat out. What do you have to lose?
A barrel and the ability to go back I suppose! I'd prefer a neck reamer with pilot, but you could hope that the drill bit (better yet chucking reamer) stays centred - Bubba has done worse things! I have a worn bore Carcano M91 that slugs 0.271"/0.260" and if I had to I could neck ream brass, but the amount required to seat a 0.277" bullet would likely leave a too-thin neck, unless it didn't...
You were already well along the road to perdition, so don't blame me. I have to say that I'm disappointed that you haven't tried to blow up a gun yet though.
Thanks again for this and the other Carcano thread and all you've done to keep them going and to post your results.
I hope you guys have a good chiropractor. That's gonna kick
Yup it did and that's exactly why I sold the rifle chambered for those rounds and the 5k rounds I had on hand with all of the reloading dies and reamer.
The 8x63 is a brutal recoil generator out of a standard weight milsurp K98 adapted to fit.
There was a very good reason Norway installed muzzle brakes on the K98s they converted.
I even installed a muzzle brake on mine and it made it barely tolerable.
You're forgetting, there will be close to half an inch of freebore, well worn throat, which is overly generous in the first place, fire formed cases which are tight and not expanding, as well as the generous neck tolerances. I never had to turn the necks on any of the cartridges I loaded .277 diameter bullets into, to get them to chamber.
Never had any pressure signs as long as I stayed within PO Ackley's load tables.
It's not a pussycal, but no worse than typical Magnum modern cartridges. I still sometimes hunt with an 8x57 trade m98 sporting rifle I had reamed to 8x63. Great hunting round with the right bullets. I have 'er loaded stiff too... Like 2700fps+ with a 220gn pill.
Last edited:
My hat is off to you, for me that is just to much recoil to handle, without developing a severe flinch.
Excellent cartridge though. At the velocities you're achieving with that bullet weight, you're going past those achieved with a 338-06 with similar weight bullets and approaching 338Win Mag velocities/energy. Very potent at point of impact.
Shot my 1942 berretta today for the first time.
using ppu FMJBT 139grn factory ammo
as expected, it shot approx 12 inches high at 50M. I did have the sight buried in the v.
these bullets without pulling them measured .263 to .264 all holes were clean with no signs of tumbling once I get my dies i will pull a bullet to measure it.
the group was about 3 inches with one being 4 inches away and to the right which might have been me.
decided i like these rifles after shooting it and will order another one or two
using ppu FMJBT 139grn factory ammo
as expected, it shot approx 12 inches high at 50M. I did have the sight buried in the v.
these bullets without pulling them measured .263 to .264 all holes were clean with no signs of tumbling once I get my dies i will pull a bullet to measure it.
the group was about 3 inches with one being 4 inches away and to the right which might have been me.
decided i like these rifles after shooting it and will order another one or two
