Schmidt Rubin 30-30 Conversion 1960s?

Just from what I have seen the G96/11 and G1911 are pretty much the same the major differences being the magazine cuts on the receiver were originally configured for the 1889 style 12rd magazine, so new cuts were made on the receiver for that. The stocks are also different, the 96/11 has the pistol grip grafted on to the stock (as it was originally straight) and the butt plate is curved instead of straight (like on the 1911 long rifle). I remember I was able to use my 96/11 bolt in my 1911 (I just wanted to see if it would work), but those were the big differences I noticed. Unfortunately I don't have the my two examples on hand so I can't check them in person.

If I were to guess why they made the names like the 96/11 instead of the 1911 or the 00/11 carbine instead of 1911, it likely would be to help distinguish those that had spent part of there life as the previous configuration (I am pretty sure the 96/11s were sold off before the 1911s), and to also for separate parts (for example, the different butt plates) in the inventory system as they were conversions but there are still slight differences. Either way both shoot GP11 the same, and both are about the same for accuracy.
 
Hmm. I read they both shoot GP11 but I can't help but wonder if the M96/11 actions have a sowewhat lessened safty margin shooting it than the M11 actions.
Kind of like the difference between a 1873 trapdoor springfield in 45-70gvt and a 1886 winchester in 45-70gvt...both shoot the same cartridge but you can load a winchester above and beyond what a trapdoor will hold.
 
Last edited:
I inherited a Schmidt Rubin converted to 30-30 from my father. Always thought they must have re-barreled the rifle. Closer inspection today shows the barrel has the same serial # as the receiver. It also is stamped 30-30 Win. Haven't used it in 25 years, it seemed to work back then. The magazine did not feed reliably.
 
In general, I am not enthusiastic about sleeved chambers in centerfire rifles. Having said that, I've never heard of one failing.
Back thrust against the bolt can be calculated using the pressure level generated, and the area of the base inside the cartridge case. .30-30 backthrust is going to be less than either the G11 or .308 even if pressures were the same. But .30-30 runs at a lower pressure level than either of the others, so backthrust will be reduced.
 
rombat said:
I inherited a Schmidt Rubin converted to 30-30 from my father. Always thought they must have re-barreled the rifle. Closer inspection today shows the barrel has the same serial # as the receiver. It also is stamped 30-30 Win. Haven't used it in 25 years, it seemed to work back then. The magazine did not feed reliably.
Click to expand...

Not every Globco gun was converted using the same method or to the same level of perfection across the differing methodologies. For instance a soldered in chamber adapter could be perfectly adhered to the barrel on one gun but may have a small pocket of flux/ slag/ air on another and only an x-ray would determine this.....or destructive inspection.
Likewise a gun with its original chamber being of correct headspacing might have its original chamber completely removed when correctly headspaced for the new chamber...but an over sized out of tollerance one might leve some of the original chamber in tact. Shure the go/ no go gauges say its in spec and headspac IS just fine, but a gauge won't expand into a ring left by the original chambers shoulder, base, throat the way a brass case or bullet will.
Not EVERY Globco gun failed. There are lots still around today often way overpriced at gunshows...but back in the day a few did fail which was the downfall of the company.
 
Last edited:
tiriaq said:
In general, I am not enthusiastic about sleeved chambers in centerfire rifles. Having said that, I've never heard of one failing.
Back thrust against the bolt can be calculated using the pressure level generated, and the area of the base inside the cartridge case. .30-30 backthrust is going to be less than either the G11 or .308 even if pressures were the same. But .30-30 runs at a lower pressure level than either of the others, so backthrust will be reduced.
Click to expand...

What you are not taking into account how ever tis the back thrust on the chamber insert.
If the area of the case head must be taken into account than so must a chamber insert. So take your .506" 30-30 case head Dia and now increase that to 1" (or whatever the insert dia is) now insert that square area into your formula and see where your pressure stands in comparison to a 7.5x55

When sleving a barrel AND chamber you need not calculate it this way as the chamber and barrel "lining" are constructed of one piece. However a soldered in chamber adapter and an original bore Dia there is a junction point between chamber and bore and this must be taken into account.
 
Last edited:
I had toyed with the idea of working up some low velocity loads in 30-30 and letting the kids use it as a plinker. Probably safe but a bit of an unknown, may have to rethink that idea. They have been using my P14 with 100gr pistol bullets at 1500fps, that should have an adequate safety margin.
 
ciphery said:
What you are not taking into account how ever tis the back thrust on the chamber insert.
If the area of the case head must be taken into account than so must a chamber insert. So take your .506" 30-30 case head Dia and now increase that to 1" (or whatever the insert dia is) now insert that square area into your formula and see where your pressure stands in comparison to a 7.5x55

When sleving a barrel AND chamber you need not calculate it this way as the chamber and barrel "lining" are constructed of one piece. However a soldered in chamber adapter and an original bore Dia there is a junction point between chamber and bore and this must be taken into account.
Click to expand...

Doesn't that assume that somehow gas pressure is being applied to the front of the insert? If the insert isn't moving, no backthrust is going to result. It isn't a floating chamber. The backthrust from the cartridge is created by pressure being applied to the inside base of the case. This amount is transferred to the entire external casehead, but it is reduced in the process.
 
I can remember these .30-30 conversions in the stores. This was pushing 50 years ago. While I am very lukewarm to the concept of sleeved chambers, I have never heard of any of these failing during the last half century.
 
tiriaq said:
I can remember these .30-30 conversions in the stores. This was pushing 50 years ago. While I am very lukewarm to the concept of sleeved chambers, I have never heard of any of these failing during the last half century.
Click to expand...

Nor have I, which is why I asked above if there is any documented evidence of injury or litigation.

Ted
 
ciphery said:
Hmm. I read they both shoot GP11 but I can't help but wonder if the M96/11 actions have a sowewhat lessened safty margin shooting it than the M11 actions.
Kind of like the difference between a 1873 trapdoor springfield in 45-70gvt and a 1886 winchester in 45-70gvt...both shoot the same cartridge but you can load a winchester above and beyond what a trapdoor will hold.
Click to expand...

It would be neat to do some sort of testing like what P.O. Ackley did with the firearms after WWII with all the Swiss rifles to see where the actions will actually give out at (and to see if there is a actual difference). Unfortunately (or fortunately) I don't have the heart to do that type of testing to Swiss firearms. Maybe one day I will acquire some badly sporterized Swiss rifles just for this purpose.
 
Why not? said:
Nor have I, which is why I asked above if there is any documented evidence of injury or litigation.

Ted
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I was thinking. This is sounding very much like the endless talk about Damascus barrels being dangerous to shoot. A friend of mine who has been in the gun business all his life, says he has never heard of one of these Schmids blowing up. I would also like to know if all of the chambers were sleeved during conversion, or did some have the barrel turned back and a whole new chamber reamed? This would be an important point to consider if I decide to go looking for one of these.
 
I wish I could remember who the guy was I traded my bolt to. I wonder if he ever shot the gun?
 
I have never seen one that showed any evidence of the barrel being set back and rechambered. If you consider the diameters of the Swiss round and the .30-30, and the diameter of the barrel, you will see that the barrels could not be cut back and rebreeched.
 
tiriaq said:
Doesn't that assume that somehow gas pressure is being applied to the front of the insert? If the insert isn't moving, no backthrust is going to result. It isn't a floating chamber. The backthrust from the cartridge is created by pressure being applied to the inside base of the case. This amount is transferred to the entire external casehead, but it is reduced in the process.
Click to expand...

Yes it would require gas to impinge upon the front of the insert.....and that's the issue with soldered in chambers. One small crack in the solder, minute gap in the chamber adapter or void from an impurity or not enough solder and this situation is fully possible. Add lord knows how many heat cycles from firing and storing, vibrational/stress crystallization of the soldering alloy, the full likelihood of inter metallurgical/galvanic corrosion and many years to the mix and the likelihood of that chamber coming out.
 
Last edited:
ciphery said:
Yes it would require gas to impinge upon the front of the insert.....and that's the issue with soldered in chambers. One small crack in the solder, minute gap in the chamber adapter or void from an impurity or not enough solder and this situation is fully possible.
Click to expand...

Right! I remember Ackley telling me about sleeved barrels doing the same thing when the chambering resulted in cutting through the liner.

I wonder if threading the insert, tinning, and the soldering would be more secure?

Ted
 
Why not? said:
Right! I remember Ackley telling me about sleeved barrels doing the same thing when the chambering resulted in cutting through the liner.

I wonder if threading the insert, tinning, and the soldering would be more secure?

Ted
Click to expand...

And considder how much surface area is in a 4"-24" long barrel liner vs. a short little chamber sleve....much more holding power to the barrel liner

I can see the threading option adding a mechanical advantage to the holding power....but I can also see the roots of the mating threads trapping, impurities, flux, air etc and potantially detracting from the soldering flow, perhaps gashing the threads in a couple places would lessen this effect....now a days a class 1 thread and some green loctite and you may be in a better state than the solder of yester year.
 
Last edited:
Of course assuming that the soldering and fitment of the chamber sleeve went flawlessly, you would still have inter metallurgical corrosion from the galvanic reaction between the iron of the insert and barrel, Tin, Lead, copper and silver of the solder...then the heating cycles and vibration/shock loading that will crystallize the solder...and whatever bore cleaners might do to the joint over the last 70 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom