The bad ones are to tight for the most part. The edge grasping the rims is just to tight. I managed to get a few working by polishing the ridges down a few thousandths narrower and it helped with a couple but not enough to make them feed smoothly.
Carcano shooting
- Thread starter Claven2
- Start date
Longbranch1943
Member
- Location
- Annaheim, SK
I’m reviving this thread because I think you guys all got quite close to solving this .268 hornady 160 grain bullet issue. As you all are aware, there is lots of info out there about what is right, what is wrong and all the assumptions that go with it (regardless if you trust hornady’s #2645 bullet or not). I have cross reference a lot of online forums, not just in north america but also italian and even French forums (where the most work on modern loads for this cartridge has seemed to come from ironically). I can’t fit all of my notes i to this or it would take me a whole day but I will present some key findings I have made. First off all this information supports what Dave Emary talks about in his article on the #2645 bullet while also expanding a bit. First off, he talks about extruded progressive powders like varget and N150 with in his words, no powder slower burning than varget nor equal to or more progressive a burn than N-150 which he firmly states. This is 100% true. He also mentions that only two poder he found from the hornady tables that were safe in all circumstances was W760 and H414. Now I don’t know if he ran these loads through any progressive twist barrels, but frankly he doesn’t state it so for now those two are safe in standard rifled barrels. Anyways, what he forgets to mention is case capacity. The entire secret to getting safe reliable ignition in any single carcano from what I can tell is uniform, decisive, and reliable ignition coupled with a fast burning powder. The standard military bullet was engraving itself into at average a 0.256 diameter land with a 0.2675 diameter bullet. That’s deep. Couple that with little to no freebore space and such a long bearing surface, the military carcano projectile most definitely faced the exact same static and dynamic frictional challenges that our #2645 bullet experiences today. As for the jacket of the #2645, the thickness is double of normal yes, but what is normal? As well, we talk about the extra force needed to get this #2645 bullet accelerating as compared to a thinner jacket on an original italian ordinance projectile but it is failed to mention that those original projectiles used a malichort jacket which is much more shear resistant than copper and thus much harder. The italians used this and steel tombac for bullet jackets, both much harder than todays modern copper jackets. Sp bow that I have gotten this all out of the way it is time to address the varget mishap that occurred to Claven2. I believe the cause of this was not the jacket but in fact a case powder density issue. Depending on what case you are using, you will fit about something like 45 grains of varget into a case until it is 100% full. Now couple that with a 30 grain charge and you are looking at only 65% of the case capacity being used. This even with the most reliable powder will inevitably cause pressure spikes with the characteristics the carcano bullet must overcome as states above. On the other hand, a powder like N140 which preforms similarly to varget in terms of burn rate can fit about only 44 grains into a 6.5x52 case. Now using a higher charge which I have seen loads tested with overseas, a minimum safe load in my opinion for N140 is 33-35 grains. That is 75-80% of the case capacity!!! And that is much more conducive to reliable predictable and uniform ignition. In my opinion N135 is even better than that. Couple this all with a tight crimp (which I have seen recommended on more than one occasion) magnum primers, and a good uniform extruded powder like N135 or 140, And I think we have the load solution to every carcano that has a bore size in spec with italian specifications. Of course this is my working theory, compiled by tirelessly reading through countless forums, articles and discussions. With that said I will he testing this theory on a number of carcanos. I have over 30 at my disposal. I will get down to the bottom on this. I would love to hear anyones thoughts and/or criticisms about what I just presented! Always open to new info and improvements if possible.
Claven2 Andy bearhunter
Claven2 Andy bearhunter
Last edited:
I no longer own or shoot milsurp Carcanos.
Not because I don't like them, because I do.
I'm one of the few people here that's been able to compare the Type I Japanese Carcano, chambered for the 6.5 Jap, against the Italian issue Carcano, chambered for the 6.5jap.
I had three of the Italian made Type I Carcanos, and several of the Italian Carcanos. The only real difference was the Type I rifles had a swing flooplate/triggerguard and an internal magazine, rather than the Italian enbloc system.
I was a bit surprised to find the Japanese and Italian bore diameters were within a few thousandths of each other, between all of the rifles.
You're likely onto something about the jacket material, but IMHO, the real difference was the "exposed lead bases" in the original Italian and Japanese ammunition, along with faster powders of the time, which enabled the jackets to be forced into the grooves better than powders/bullets available today.
I have a bunch of milsurp cupro-nickel 160 grain RN, exposed lead base bullets made for the 6.5 Swede.
These shot acceptably in all of the rifles, but not quite as good as the Hornady .268 solid base.
Hornady solved the problem that exists today, by making bullets to properly match the the bore specs of the Carcanos, and many 6.5 Jap chambered rifles.
Not because I don't like them, because I do.
I'm one of the few people here that's been able to compare the Type I Japanese Carcano, chambered for the 6.5 Jap, against the Italian issue Carcano, chambered for the 6.5jap.
I had three of the Italian made Type I Carcanos, and several of the Italian Carcanos. The only real difference was the Type I rifles had a swing flooplate/triggerguard and an internal magazine, rather than the Italian enbloc system.
I was a bit surprised to find the Japanese and Italian bore diameters were within a few thousandths of each other, between all of the rifles.
You're likely onto something about the jacket material, but IMHO, the real difference was the "exposed lead bases" in the original Italian and Japanese ammunition, along with faster powders of the time, which enabled the jackets to be forced into the grooves better than powders/bullets available today.
I have a bunch of milsurp cupro-nickel 160 grain RN, exposed lead base bullets made for the 6.5 Swede.
These shot acceptably in all of the rifles, but not quite as good as the Hornady .268 solid base.
Hornady solved the problem that exists today, by making bullets to properly match the the bore specs of the Carcanos, and many 6.5 Jap chambered rifles.
Last edited:
Thanks for reviving this as it certainly hasn't been solved for all time.
I've said about all I have to say and until someone conducts comprehensive and truly scientific research, all we'll have are "solutions" without really knowing the cause of the problem. Then there's the "problem" - which doesn't seem to be reproducible (like "flashover") and that's Step One.
I've said about all I have to say and until someone conducts comprehensive and truly scientific research, all we'll have are "solutions" without really knowing the cause of the problem. Then there's the "problem" - which doesn't seem to be reproducible (like "flashover") and that's Step One.
I have recently acquired some ww2 era surplus Italian military rounds from auctions and trades.
I plan on dissecting them this winter as a project to inspect the bullets, powder, and cases. They do load quite nicely in my rifles. No hang ups like the prvi cases.
I plan on dissecting them this winter as a project to inspect the bullets, powder, and cases. They do load quite nicely in my rifles. No hang ups like the prvi cases.
