8mm lebel from 32-20
- Thread starter Rotaxpower
- Start date
mine is a tight one then.
i just measured actual fired bullets ( yours ) and they measured .326 consistently. Is this a big difference? should i size them smaller then? that is .004 sounds like a lot. Might create lot of pressure no?
i did look it up for .323 i never heard of a gun that tight though. What i have seen is usually like you have, mine is tighter.
I doubt it.
I have a number of these guns and they are all very well made. No evidence of any surplused parts.
I find the 0.330 bullets work very well in them. I just have to reduce the OAL of the ctg to get them to seat well in the chambers. No sign of pressure increase.
I have a number of these guns and they are all very well made. No evidence of any surplused parts.
I find the 0.330 bullets work very well in them. I just have to reduce the OAL of the ctg to get them to seat well in the chambers. No sign of pressure increase.
- Location
- Not really sure.
Yes I wish I could find the source of the information but I read this as well.
Apparently the early ones 1892-1894 manufacture, some of them were made using left over rifle barrels.
- Location
- Not really sure.
Perhaps just a combination between lack of resources and experimentation of components interchangeability.
Who knows really. Some of them with rifle barrels apparently are damn near smooth bore with little to no twist at all?.
Your kidding right? LOL
The French lack of resources? They started the whole smokeless powder thing. LOL
Experiment with surplus parts? Government arsenals? LOL
No rifling? Have you inspected any of these guns? They were leading edge.
- Location
- Not really sure.
I'm just going off of what I'v read, I'v owned two of them and currently have one.
My video: [youtube]Ejh5TT2e7Ys[/youtube]
I'v also seen low serial number ones on auction with basically no rifling?....
I'm just speculating here, I'm not an expert on Mle 1892's just going from what has been read and seen for sale.
My video: [youtube]Ejh5TT2e7Ys[/youtube]
I'v also seen low serial number ones on auction with basically no rifling?....
I'm just speculating here, I'm not an expert on Mle 1892's just going from what has been read and seen for sale.
Fired bullets aren't a great way to check the bore diameter because they can shed a few thousandths depending what medium you shoot them into. Unless you can fire them straight up and catch them on the way down before they touch the ground.
To "slug" a bore you usually pound a soft lead slug or bullet through your bore and measure that. Use a hardwood dowell and a wooden mallet. I have only measured 2 of these revolvers so I cannot say with any authority that all of them are .330". It's entirely possible you have a .326 bore. All the commercially available bullets 8mm lebel revolver bullets are .329" or .330" and I believe that is the original french bore diameter. But variations are certainly possible.
The M92 French Service revolvers are very well made and at least as good as any other european service pistol from that era, both in design and quality of workmanship and materials.
LOL I'm no expert either.
But to me, a State arsinal of a major world power, is not going to goof around with reject rifle bbls to surplus to production of their new sidearm? It just makes no sence to me.
New tooling for the huge quantities needed to outfit their troops would tell me that the early production bbls would be more inclined to be uniform, rifled and to spec. than later production might be.
What you have seen with little or no rifling are likely shot out bbls. I cannot imagine a major military power like France to choose the Model 1892 revolver and then to equip her troops with unrifled, ununiform sized, inferior products.
Sorry for the hi-jack OP
But to me, a State arsinal of a major world power, is not going to goof around with reject rifle bbls to surplus to production of their new sidearm? It just makes no sence to me.
New tooling for the huge quantities needed to outfit their troops would tell me that the early production bbls would be more inclined to be uniform, rifled and to spec. than later production might be.
What you have seen with little or no rifling are likely shot out bbls. I cannot imagine a major military power like France to choose the Model 1892 revolver and then to equip her troops with unrifled, ununiform sized, inferior products.
Sorry for the hi-jack OP
Exactly. These were state of the art weapons. French manufacturing technology and quality was as good or better than anything else in the world at that time. I would have to see some solid reference to the statement that the M92 was made from surplus parts and old rifle barrels before i could take that seriously.
Not too much laughing about re-using old rifle barrels: they actually did it on MGs, back in the 1920s/1930s.
Old 8mm rifle barrels were inserted into purpose-made heavy exteriors. A super-tight fit was assured by using a cold liner with a hot exterior, then jamming it all together with hydraulics. Then the whole thing was forged SMALLER until they could use it with the 7.5x54 cartridge.
Made for a machine-gun barrel which was extremely difficult to shoot out, even on an air-cooled gun.
The process was called "autofrettage".
The process is detailed in Chinn's massive bookset on machine guns.
.
Old 8mm rifle barrels were inserted into purpose-made heavy exteriors. A super-tight fit was assured by using a cold liner with a hot exterior, then jamming it all together with hydraulics. Then the whole thing was forged SMALLER until they could use it with the 7.5x54 cartridge.
Made for a machine-gun barrel which was extremely difficult to shoot out, even on an air-cooled gun.
The process was called "autofrettage".
The process is detailed in Chinn's massive bookset on machine guns.
.
Maybe this is the operation that the other poster was mistakenly thinking of.
Back on topic: Smellie, do you know of any source of information or reference to using 8mm rifle barrels on M92 service revolvers? That is what was being questioned. I would think that the rate of twist would be different to stabilize a 200 gr rifle bullet at 2200 fps and a 110 gr pistol bullet at 800 fps.
No doubt that 1892 is a high quality firearm. And as for now my favorite antique and the only revolver I own. I would like myself to prove this info about the barrels is true.
I did have one example of this gun with barrel that had no rifling left. What caused I have no idea.
Jet hunter thank you for all your advise. I will be looking to get more of them bullets you had. They work really nice. Load up without the die set. Pretty much improvised...nice and soft.
Op.. Sorry for complete hijack. Hope this discussion interests you.
I did have one example of this gun with barrel that had no rifling left. What caused I have no idea.
Jet hunter thank you for all your advise. I will be looking to get more of them bullets you had. They work really nice. Load up without the die set. Pretty much improvised...nice and soft.
Op.. Sorry for complete hijack. Hope this discussion interests you.
Is this you in the video? What are you using for loads? It has some recoil here...
- Location
- Not really sure.
3.3 GR's of unique with 110gr lead cast lubed.
No worries, it's all good. I have to slug my bore when my other 1892 comes. I bought 2 of them this month lol
