The "Dangerous Eaton Carcano" - A Myth Busted - Updated 2 June

Well, I just talked to Jason at Gunco on the phone. Turns out someone came in to Gunco today missing several fingers who lost them when his 6.5MS chambered Eaton's Carcano blew up back in the 70's!

First guy I ever heard of first-hand whose carcano blew apart. Aparently the receiver was fine, but the barrel grenaded.

Jason questioned the guy and was able to determine the round in question was a reload, so who knows what some dipsh!t did at their reloading bench 35 years ago... I suspect they probably had 6.5 Carcano brass and the wrong powder in the 6.5MS chamber... you know, stupid stuff.
 
It is very difficult to determine exactly what happened in situations like this. Was it a faulty handload? Was the barrel obstructed? Where did the barrel fail? Right at the sleeved breech? Midway? Andy's tests suggest that there is nothing in the design of conversion that would contribute directly to a catastrophic failure. In the 1970s the rifle had been in its converted form for 40 odd years. Presumably it had been used in that time. Why did it suddenly fail? Had anything been done to the rifle in the 40 years after the conversion and before the failure?
I have seen bulged Winchester and Remington, split Savage and Sako, and fragmented Parker Hale barrels. In every case the rifle had been in operational condition, and there was an obstruction in the bore. I have seen rifles damaged by problems with handloaded cartridges. I have never seen a rifle which destructed with a standard cartridge and a clear bore. It would be worth knowing exactly what happened, but it is unlikely that anyone will ever know.
 
"It is difficult to determine exactly what happened in situations like this"..... well is there even the remotest possibilty that there is fact behind the supposed problems with this rifle? Could there even be some civil liability if someone decides to resurrect their rifle? Just a thought. Dave
 
Given the age of these rifles, I don't know who would have civil liability for any unfortunate incident. In the case reported above, a handload was involved - could be liability there. Supplying a friend with handloaded cartridges is not without risk.
In Belton's book about Cooey firearms, he recounts the concerns about these rifles in the early 30s. There is no expanation of what or why. Rifles? Ammunition? Wrong ammunition? User error?
The early 30s were hardly a litigious period compared to the present. Eatons wouldn't have tried to recover the rifles if they hadn't thought they should. But I do not know what if anything was wrong with the rifle/ammunition combination.
 
did you slug the bore? My bore slugs out a .264, if you use the original carcano dia. bullet, (.268), presure is increased. My barrel shots great just reaload and use standard 6.5 bullets
 
Andy is truly the MAN. Any man who can beat word of mouth and BS with cold, hard factual science is king in my books. Way to go pal. Do you think the regular Carcano and Carcano carbines of WWI and WWII would hold up to your tests?
 
Apart from the barrel alterations and sporterizing, the Cooey/Eatons Carcano is fundamentally the same as an issue rifle. I only acquired my first Carcano a couple of years back - a 91/41 long rifle, in sound condition with a decent bore, made in Cremona. Guess what? It shoots just fine. The action and magazine system work smoothly. There is nothing wrong with it.
 
This now quailfies as a "Lazerus" thread - back from the dead after 3+ years! :rockOn: (as opposed to a "Methusaleth" thread that is active for more than a year - if you have no idea what I mean you didn't pay attention during Sunday School).

The Carcano action is very strong. Not my favourite (I don't care for the safety, the split bridge or the Mannlicher magazine), but not weak - despite the fact that it's not produced by an english-speaking country :rolleyes:.
 
I'm going to place a Caveat here. I'm not backtracking, but there remain respected people who believe that these guns are unsafe, based on unsubstantiated (as far as I'm concerned), stories that they were recalled by Eatons and that there was a lawsuit over a death caused by one. I have discussed this with the main proponent of this story, and he is holding fast to his beliefs. Once I can see more than "a guy who used to work there (now dead) told me", and a box of reduced load ammo made for the gun, I'll remain a sceptic. I'd like to see documentation such as from Eatons or Cooey related to suspected design flaws and a recall. Details of any court case might be useful, but only if facts relevant to the design were presented. What happened? Where is the flaw?

Here's what I do know:

- the barrel is not held in with a set screw as legend goes. It is screwed into a stub which is indexed with a set screw, much like modern Savage rifles. I have seen eight examples and they were all manufactured in this fashion; and
- I actually "Proof Tested" one and it help up to pressures that I doubt many modern firearms could. I can't believe that I found the one strong one. I also can't understand how you can explain that away; and
- even if a recall occurred and there was a lawsuit, that doesn't mean that the firearms are dangerous (see point above). Companies drop products when it makes economic sense, and perhaps they weren't making sufficient profit, maybe they ran out of parts, or maybe the reputation had been (unfairly) damaged.

We might never know, but I did some actual testing and shared the results.
 
I love, I LOVE, I LOVE it when someone demonstrates the ability to use critical thinking. Take note people, this is the thing we need to teach our kids if we want to take our society out of the dark ages we're still stuck into.

No, not to "blow up rifles" part, but the "use your brain to read between the line" kind of stuff. See through the smoke, below the surface.

Ok now if they blow up rifles while doing it, it just is cooler. :D

Thanks Andy for initiating and feeding this interesting thread, and thanks for those who joined in for the fun. I know I'm late inviting myself in it but it's the first time that I actually noticed it! Doh

Lou
 
When P.O.Ackley was checking the strength of military rifles by increasing the powder charge until they blew up, he found that the Italian Carcano action was one of the stronger actions. When a 6.5x52 ctg. is fired in a 6.5x54 chamber,the extractor holds the ctg. tight enough for the firing pin to fire the primer, on ignition of the primer,the primer pushes the case forward out of the extractor. Now you have up to 80 thousands extra headspace.The preasure increases in the case due to ignition sticking to the chamber walls causing the head to pull off the ctg. case.Now you have excessive gas cutting of the rifle action. The fact that a 6.5x52 slug is .268 to .269 and 6.5x54 slug is .263 to .264 would also increase the pressure in this ctg. This situation is what probably blew up most Eaton Carcanos.
 
I did have a chap ask me about a problem with is Carcano. VERY flattened primers. Suggested he try 6.5MS ammunition. These chambered correctly. Problem solved. As described above, the cases were being driven foreward, but instead of separating, were stretching back, and reseating the primer. He was lucky the cases were sufficiently ductile.
 
Bob Morgan said:
When P.O.Ackley was checking the strength of military rifles by increasing the powder charge until they blew up, he found that the Italian Carcano action was one of the stronger actions. When a 6.5x52 ctg. is fired in a 6.5x54 chamber,the extractor holds the ctg. tight enough for the firing pin to fire the primer, on ignition of the primer,the primer pushes the case forward out of the extractor. Now you have up to 80 thousands extra headspace.The preasure increases in the case due to ignition sticking to the chamber walls causing the head to pull off the ctg. case.Now you have excessive gas cutting of the rifle action. The fact that a 6.5x52 slug is .268 to .269 and 6.5x54 slug is .263 to .264 would also increase the pressure in this ctg. This situation is what probably blew up most Eaton Carcanos.
Click to expand...

agree, i had one, and its living with a member of this board right now.

the rifles, IIRC are stamped '6.5' on the barrel. not 6.5x54, so I imagine quiet a few uninformed owers, or people who bought these used just assumed it would fire the shorter italian round and the results let to these stories about the gun being unsafe.
 
Found this interesting.

ht tp://www.hungariae.com/Carcano.htm

" After the Russian Mosin-Nagant M91, the Carcanos were the most captured weapons by the Austro-Hungarian forces in WW1. About 49,500 Carcanos were converted to use the easily available 6.5x54mm Mannlicher-Schoenauer cartridge. These were designated '6.5mm M.91 Adaptiertes Italienisches Repetier-Gewehr'. These weapons were stamped with the 'AZF' marking on the barrel and 'Jt.u.GR.' chamber reaming mark on the buttstock. In 1916 the Austro-Hungarian Army captured so much Italian material, including ammunition, that further M-S conversions became unnecessary. Repaired, but unconverted Carcanos may carry the 'AZF' stamp.s of 6.5x52 ammo was captured."
 
Very interesting thread. I own one of these "Eaton's" Carcanos. I have one casing that was fired in the rifle and 13 loaded Norma rounds.

The fired primer seems normal enough. There is "6.5mm" stamped just behind the rear sight. Can anyone tell me if this means it is chambered for 6.5x52 Carcano or 6.5x54 MS? I will take a pic of the fired round beside a loaded factory round for comparison.

No, I wasn't the one who fired it! The fellow I bought it from had it registered as a - get this - Jap Army Rifle. That is what the marvelous registration certificate stated! Geez, no wonder people are blowing old guns up!!!:eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom