Modern ammo in older rifle
- Thread starter desij99
- Start date
Cool read on the 1903 Springfield if a person wants to go down the internet rabbit hole. Some articles claim they kill at both ends while others say even the low numbered ones are perfectly safe. Some articles say to avoid some European ammo (Sellier and Bellot in particular) and Hornady Superformance. The actual incidents recorded are vague to say the least, often based on hear say. I have a high numbered one re-barreled to 7x57 and have had some interesting comments on it over the years.
For the record, I store my rifles with the bolts out. It allows much more storage room in a crowded safe without safe bumps.
For the record, I store my rifles with the bolts out. It allows much more storage room in a crowded safe without safe bumps.
Indeed. We see lots of gun owners on this site that can't wait to bend over for the government and admonish anyone with the nerve to suggest that our insane laws and regulations are idiotic and unnecessary, along with inventing extra rules to placate the government and the sheep that support it.
Mark
- Location
- Western Manitoba
Some years ago, I was trying to find "lowest pressure" rimfire .22 Long Rifle - I know what SAAMI sets for pressure levels for that cartridge today, but the rifle was probably made 1896 - several decades before SAAMI existed as a formal organization - I do not know what was used as a pressure standard then - or even IF a standard existed for North American makers of rifles and ammo. But many makers were stamping their stuff as ".22 Long Rifle" - I have, so far, no reason to know that "22 Long Rifle" in 1896 implies the same thing as "22 Long Rifle" in 2026. But I never did find out what standard existed then (pre-SAAMI) that made that so. And, about no maker publishes the "pressure level" of their ammo. Even worse (for me), I received a similar aged single shot .22 made in Germany - so what was the standard then, in Europe - was it the same as North America?? Up until now, I have only used CCI Quiet in those guns - thinking that the lower muzzle velocity might mean lower breech pressure - but some shotgun reloading information tells me that might not be so.
Hence, I am not sure that what is stamped for calibre or cartridge on the barrel means much, except for the chambering, originally - I am sure the original "proof test" proved that barrel, action and bolt lock-up - but wear, deterioration, rust, etc. might have changed that. I am not sure that some steel changes much with age - I read there are 500 year old Samuri swords that are still limber and flexible like they were originally. But that may or may not apply to "ALL" steel, especially the stuff used in barrels by various makers, over the centuries.
Hence, I am not sure that what is stamped for calibre or cartridge on the barrel means much, except for the chambering, originally - I am sure the original "proof test" proved that barrel, action and bolt lock-up - but wear, deterioration, rust, etc. might have changed that. I am not sure that some steel changes much with age - I read there are 500 year old Samuri swords that are still limber and flexible like they were originally. But that may or may not apply to "ALL" steel, especially the stuff used in barrels by various makers, over the centuries.
maple_leaf_eh
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
We have not reached that point in firearms technology yet. But period cast iron cannons should never be fired as hot or as fast as the Royal Navy trained.
First off, cast iron is not steel. Second, that lack of safety is not due to deterioration of the cast iron on a molecular level, but is due to uncertain storage and treatment over a 150+ year lifespan in a material that was prone to brittle failures when new.
This concern simply doesn't apply to any rifle that was manufactured in the smokeless powder era and is in good mechanical condition.
Mark
