I just happened to have an original round out and calibers. The bullet is 0.267 at the case mouth. I can’t make out the head stamp.
Carcano shooting
- Thread starter Claven2
- Start date
I don't blame you for asking as it's poor. Sorry, but no - it's a drawing I pulled off of The "Italian Firearms" Forum on Gunboards. I too would love a legible drawing.
I did happen to find this too - it shows an open base 0.268" bullet! They all seem to be French drawings:
Attachments
If you look at the base of the projectile in that last drawing, it's clearly designed to obturate. Kind of like a Minie ball in miniature, all the force will direct the base of the jacket out into the rifling.
It's also. 6.80mm, which is .268" exactly, though the other drawings showd the bullet narrows as it get up toward the nose.
The Hornady .267" bullet is uniform diameter through most of its length. To be honest, I never had issued with my examples of the hornady bullet, and I didn't bother with magnum primers. Go figure. I was shooting them primarily in a nice M41 at the time. I still have about 100 left, 50 of which are now loaded into so graf brass to try in my moschetto carbine next time I'm out.
It's also. 6.80mm, which is .268" exactly, though the other drawings showd the bullet narrows as it get up toward the nose.
The Hornady .267" bullet is uniform diameter through most of its length. To be honest, I never had issued with my examples of the hornady bullet, and I didn't bother with magnum primers. Go figure. I was shooting them primarily in a nice M41 at the time. I still have about 100 left, 50 of which are now loaded into so graf brass to try in my moschetto carbine next time I'm out.
I know that thread and like most threads of its kind, there's an opinion, usually based on someone else's opinion, that becomes truth. It's "according to DocAV", but no-one dares ask "How do you know that?" He might be correct that someone french took one rifle and bullet (or hundreds!) and carefully measured it (Reverse Engineered it), but it seems much more likely that it's simply a translation of Italian documents - but I don't know.
That said, does it matter, 130 years later, with thousands of people shooting these, that we ever know? Is it possible that with today's materials that we could create bullets that shoot better than "originals"?
I bet someone here will.
Last edited:
I did a search on the google.it site (Italian Google) and found a number of websites that will not show on google.com. Go there and enter: "proiettile Carcano" (Carcano bullet) or "munizioni carcano" (Carcano ammunition) and these websites are among what comes up. You can then do a google translate to English:
https://www.munizioni.eu/italiane2/18-italiane/6-5-x-52-mannnlicher-carcano/tipi/77-palle.html
https://www.munizioni.eu/italiane2/...cano/44-6-5-x-52-mannnlicher-carcanobase.html
https://www.il91.it/munizionamento.html
https://www.munizioni.eu/italiane2/18-italiane/6-5-x-52-mannnlicher-carcano/tipi/77-palle.html
https://www.munizioni.eu/italiane2/...cano/44-6-5-x-52-mannnlicher-carcanobase.html
https://www.il91.it/munizionamento.html
Last edited:
Well I don't have a spare 6.5 Iam willing to pull without ruining my collection/Display. I'll gladly pull a 7.35 if you guys figure the bullet construction is the same. the 6.5 bullets are measuring .265 both from 1935 and 1939
Thanks Craig0ry, though I suspect the bullet's maximum diameter may be at the skirt. The design will encourage obturating from the drawing.
Also the military bullet has a deep crimp, which means the metal either side of the crimp would be naturally flared out a bit.
Also the military bullet has a deep crimp, which means the metal either side of the crimp would be naturally flared out a bit.
IMHO, I doubt that. The secret to those bullets shooting well is that their jackets are a cup with an inserted lead core, which is exposed and when the bullet is fired, the pressure forces the jackets to obturate properly to fill the rifling.
For some obscure reason, even experts seem to have forgotten what helped to make these relics reliably accurate for field use back in the day.
This started to change just before WWII but it didn't stop most manufacturers around the world from producing exposed lead base bullets.
Some manufacturers went so far as to produce several different diameter bullets with covered bases to make up for the extremely important feature and reason for the exposed cores, for use in sporting rifles, where accuracy was usually a more demanding concern.
Many manufacturers, such as Kynoch, would custom load bullets, tailored to an individual customer's rifle. They required a chamber cast and a bore measurement to do this in such a manner the rifles they were to be used in, shot to point of aim at a "regulated" distance.
Well I had an "eventful" day today trying out my new 1941 Brescia Moscetto.
Day went like this: 1 clip of the PPU soft point .264 that's for sale everywhere. Fed and shot just fine, but can't comment on accuracy. I was shooting on the back 50, kneeling, in dying light at a metal gong at 50 meters. 1 round hit the plate at the top edge, other 5 were misses - presumably high. I had forgot my glasses, it was getting dark, and I was burying the post in the bottom of the notch and using a 6 o'clock hold. Next time I'm out with it, I'll bring my glases, a bench, and big paper targets to see what it's really doing. FWIW, windage was about right.
So function test went well with the .264 bullets in factory rounds.
I decided to try the leftover loads that had shot well in a Modelo 1941 rifle I had a few years back - noting the 41's don't have progressive rifling and have shallower lands.
First round - no issues, but stouter than the factory PPU. Hit about 14 inches high on a paper target (again, kneeling in bad light, probably not my bext effort and the elevation was likely more me than the sights).
Second round - felt like the first round - except the bolt would not open. I eventually got it open by slapping the handle hard a few times. when it came out, the extractor had slipped off the rim and the spent primer fell out of the rifle. Not a good sign. Brass was seized in the rifle. I ejected the rest of the clip and packed up - I was understandably purturbed.
When I got home, I easily knocked out the shell with a piece of .630" brass rod. Here's what I found:
Notice the primer pocket is visibly enlarged. I tried dropping a fresh WLRM primer in the pocket it fell right out again - so the pocket is significantly swelled larger.
Here's round number 2's casing (bottom) next to round No.1's casing (top). Both shot the hornady .267" bullet:
Notice the chamber mouth made a distinct frosted ring around the base of the case on the second round. This is the thickest part of the case head, but it swelled out 7 thou in diameter (!). I'm hugely lucky the case didn't fail - thanks PPU for making good brass.
Someone will ask, but I followed Hornady's load manual for this bullet to the letter. Here is the recommended data for this bullet:
I went with 30 gr varget over a WLRM primer in virgin Graf/PPU brass. Clearly well within the recommended load range. This nearly blew up the case in a progressive twist moschetto.
The rifle checks out OK, thankfully. No bulges, no damage, no measurable change in headspace. But I think firing these again would be a very bad idea in this carbine.
This week I'm going to break down the remaining 48 rounds I have into components and stop using this bullet in carcanos.
So there you go Andy - a verifiable bad experience with the Hornady bullet including pictures. Before today, I was in the "hogwash" camp on these bullets over-pressuring guns, but no longer.
I have 100 of the .268" PPU rounds coming that I'll try, but those have a much shorter bearing surface and thinner jackets - I think they'll likely do better.
Day went like this: 1 clip of the PPU soft point .264 that's for sale everywhere. Fed and shot just fine, but can't comment on accuracy. I was shooting on the back 50, kneeling, in dying light at a metal gong at 50 meters. 1 round hit the plate at the top edge, other 5 were misses - presumably high. I had forgot my glasses, it was getting dark, and I was burying the post in the bottom of the notch and using a 6 o'clock hold. Next time I'm out with it, I'll bring my glases, a bench, and big paper targets to see what it's really doing. FWIW, windage was about right.
So function test went well with the .264 bullets in factory rounds.
I decided to try the leftover loads that had shot well in a Modelo 1941 rifle I had a few years back - noting the 41's don't have progressive rifling and have shallower lands.
First round - no issues, but stouter than the factory PPU. Hit about 14 inches high on a paper target (again, kneeling in bad light, probably not my bext effort and the elevation was likely more me than the sights).
Second round - felt like the first round - except the bolt would not open. I eventually got it open by slapping the handle hard a few times. when it came out, the extractor had slipped off the rim and the spent primer fell out of the rifle. Not a good sign. Brass was seized in the rifle. I ejected the rest of the clip and packed up - I was understandably purturbed.
When I got home, I easily knocked out the shell with a piece of .630" brass rod. Here's what I found:
Notice the primer pocket is visibly enlarged. I tried dropping a fresh WLRM primer in the pocket it fell right out again - so the pocket is significantly swelled larger.
Here's round number 2's casing (bottom) next to round No.1's casing (top). Both shot the hornady .267" bullet:
Notice the chamber mouth made a distinct frosted ring around the base of the case on the second round. This is the thickest part of the case head, but it swelled out 7 thou in diameter (!). I'm hugely lucky the case didn't fail - thanks PPU for making good brass.
Someone will ask, but I followed Hornady's load manual for this bullet to the letter. Here is the recommended data for this bullet:
I went with 30 gr varget over a WLRM primer in virgin Graf/PPU brass. Clearly well within the recommended load range. This nearly blew up the case in a progressive twist moschetto.
The rifle checks out OK, thankfully. No bulges, no damage, no measurable change in headspace. But I think firing these again would be a very bad idea in this carbine.
This week I'm going to break down the remaining 48 rounds I have into components and stop using this bullet in carcanos.
So there you go Andy - a verifiable bad experience with the Hornady bullet including pictures. Before today, I was in the "hogwash" camp on these bullets over-pressuring guns, but no longer.
I have 100 of the .268" PPU rounds coming that I'll try, but those have a much shorter bearing surface and thinner jackets - I think they'll likely do better.
Hornady specifically says NOT to go below their starting load with this bullet - supposedly as it could get stuck in the bore. It's .267" diameter for around a full inch of its length - that's a lot of friction in a progressive twist barrel, I think.
I've just ordered the 270-165FN-E1 NOE mold and the buffalo arms .270 sizing die for my RCBS lubrisizer. Will try that next with hornady 6.5mm gas checks, after I try the .268 PPU bullets.
The lead bullet hold promise because it's only .270" on 3 short driving bands and it much less diameter everywhere else. It's what "Thekoba49" is recommending on youtube anfd gunboards for carcano shooters, so we'll see.
The lead bullet hold promise because it's only .270" on 3 short driving bands and it much less diameter everywhere else. It's what "Thekoba49" is recommending on youtube anfd gunboards for carcano shooters, so we'll see.
For those who are less adventurous - the factory PPU ammo shoots fine and safely, just won't win any accuracy competitions. Expect 4 or 5 MOA from what I've read - I don't have enough time with the load to say if I am getting that or not. Maybe on my next outing when I have more time I'll find out.
