I need some help identifying this one

KePet

KePet

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Super GunNutz
Rating - 100%
242   0   0
Location
Redneck Central
Okay, wife’s cousin has an old rifle left to him by his uncle. It’s an old bolt action on a Mauser 98 action. Has a side safety installed.

On the left side it says, “FIREARMS Co MADE IN ENGLAND”
On the right side it says, “ALPINE MODEL SPORTER”

Up close to the action on the barrel it has a crown stamp with: 300 MAGNUM 2.62”
BNP 19TONS PER SQUARE INCH

Now google tells me possible J.C. Penney made by Parker Hale. Seems to be some kind of Parker Hale off-brand. What’s making me hesitant on it is that 19 tons equates to 42560 PSI, and modern 300 win mag is 62,366 psi (C.I.P) or 64,000 (SAAMI). Is this thing even safe to put modern factory ammo in?

Generally I don’t get stumped to often on a rifle, but this one has me asking questions, especially since he wants me to put a new scope on it and sight it in for him.

Thanks for any help you can give me
 
This came up here not too long ago actually.
Alpine was a short lived company that sold rebranded PH rifles, not all that exciting of a history lol.
 
300 MAGNUM 2.62” - that is telling you about the case of the cartridge that was used to proof test that action - the case was 2.62" long - 300 Win Mag was perhaps "standard length" - case is circa 2.62" long - COAL was circa 3.340" (30-06 length). 300 H&H was probably original "magnum" length - that case is 2.850" or so - COAL was circa 3.600". So you likely have a rifle chambered and proofed for 300 Win Mag or similar - I am told was MANY variations of 300 Magnum created in 1950's and 1960's. 308 Norma Magnum had 2.559" or so case - likely similar for various wildcat 30-338 and similar. Many variations only had a couple degree difference in shoulder angle - inventors of such, made some pretty "wild" claims for what that accomplished.

You will be able to find on Internet how to determine year that the BNP proof test was done on that rifle - related to those symbols stamped there - might need magnify glass to read them - goes to establish the year - then from that, up to you to determine what was called a "300 Magnum", in Britain, then, compared to what we call same thing today in Canada.

Go here: https://www.hallowellco.com/proof_date_codes.htm
 
Last edited:
KePet said:
300 MAGNUM 2.62 BNP 19TONS PER SQUARE INCH

What’s making me hesitant on it is that 19 tons equates to 42560 PSI, and modern 300 win mag is 62,366 psi (C.I.P) or 64,000 (SAAMI). Is this thing even safe to put modern factory ammo in?
Click to expand...

The British had their own system of measuring pressure which differs from c.u.p. or p.s.i. The rule of thumb I read many years ago in a loading manual, was to add 20% to the British figure to get a rough equivalent in c.u.p., but the conversion isn't exact.

I wouldn't hesitate to use modern factory ammo in it.
 
Ganderite said:
You sure it is a M98 and not a p17 action?
Click to expand...

Nope, model 98 Mauser. Was just glad it wasn’t a 96, cause there’s no way I’m shooting 300 Win Mag outa a 96 action. Heck I’m even a little iffy out of a 98. If I wasn’t, I wouldn’t be on here asking questions.
 
9.3mauser said:
The British had their own system of measuring pressure which differs from c.u.p. or p.s.i. The rule of thumb I read many years ago in a loading manual, was to add 20% to the British figure to get a rough equivalent in c.u.p., but the conversion isn't exact.

I wouldn't hesitate to use modern factory ammo in it.
Click to expand...

Potashminer helped me out a lot on this one - thanks Bud. He explained a little of how they do their proofs different. Even adding 20% to the figure I’m still only 51,070, which is still a ways away from 62,000.

I have no doubt the previous owner ran factory ammo in it for years with no problems, but I always remember (especially in the firearms world) that just because you CAN do something- it doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.
 
Potashminer thanks again. Proof mark on barrel! Crossed swords? I thought it was just an “X”

Anyway, crossed swords with an X, 3, and a B. Looks like Birmingham, 1972, Inspector #3.

Given a 1972 date I’m thinking it should be good for modern ammo as the 300 Win Mag was standardized in 1963? Or thereabouts.
 
KePet said:
Potashminer thanks again. Proof mark on barrel! Crossed swords? I thought it was just an “X”

Anyway, crossed swords with an X, 3, and a B. Looks like Birmingham, 1972, Inspector #3.

Given a 1972 date I’m thinking it should be good for modern ammo as the 300 Win Mag was standardized in 1963? Or thereabouts.
Click to expand...

If you can see an X on left side of the crossed pennants and B on right side, I agree that is proofed at Birmingham Proof House in 1972.

As I understand, the specific Inspector who did the proof test is identified below the crossed pennants - I've never seen a list of their names with their ID, and likely makes not much matter anyways.

So, as mentioned, your challenge now is to find out what was called "300 Magnum", in Britain, in 1972, and that had a case that was 2.62" long - what would we call that in Canada, today - getting to be a really short list around 300 Win Mag, I think?

Actually, I think, it is a list of one cartridge - that is both 30 caliber bore and has case 2.62" long - 300 Win Mag. Not real sure how I got from "300" to "30", but seems to work out??
 
Last edited:
Yep - not uncommon to see in "gun writing" - lots of numbers thrown around, but not paying attention to the units. Classic that I know of is US Army circa 1950's - the procedure used is clearly a copper crusher test - so usually would expect to see results expressed as CUP. Nope - they reported them in PSI - and then "modern" piezo testing also reports in PSI numbers - the two PSI are NOT the same units - you will not get the one number using the other test. Go to that kwk guy's pressure standards chart on Internet - can see that both SAAMI and CIP report some cartridges in CUP, some in PSI and some in both units - not many are identical numbers - both organizations use or have used at least TWO ways of measuring pressure, that result in different numbers because each testing protocol actually produces different units of measure. I had been told that a US mathematician guy circa 25 years ago, finally worked out a formula to convert CUP to PSI and vice-versa - is not linear - is not the same relationship one cartridge to another - but is the same "pressure" generated by the fired cartridge.
 
Potashminer said:
I had been told that a US mathematician guy circa 25 years ago, finally worked out a formula to convert CUP to PSI and vice-versa - is not linear - is not the same relationship one cartridge to another - but is the same "pressure" generated by the fired cartridge.
Click to expand...
As you say, the relationship is probably not linear and will vary some among cartridges, but I've seen the following linear relationship, based on analysis of European CIP data, presented as a good approximation for rifle cartridges (not handgun or shotgun), although probably only accurate in the 40,000 to 60,000 PSI range.

Pressure PSI to and from CUP:

PSI = 1.2091(CUP) – 2806.88;

CUP = .8271(PSI) + 2321.443

Another formula based on regression analysis using SAAMI data by, (I believe) Denton Bramwell, gives:

PSI = 1.516(CUP) – 17,902

CUP = .6596(PSI) + 11,809

I believe the first set of conversions based on European CIP data is more accurate than the second set based on SAAMI data. However, both sets yield quite similar results in the 45,000 to 60,000 range.


Edit. Added some qualifications
 
Last edited:
I suspect it’s a 300HandH, which should be just fine in a M98 action. If it is 300HH, a 300wm round won’t even chamber in it. The shoulder will be too wide and too far forward.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom