Winchester 1907 Question

N

NorthCoastBigBore

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
64   0   0
Location
Northwest BC (Rural) 103-I-##
Been meaning to ask this for some time. Maybe it's one for the Gunsmithing section but I'm hoping someone with experience specifically in these rifles can chime in.

I have a beautiful M1907 and some very expensive brass to feed it (yes I know I can make it but time is sometimes more valuable). The issue I've got is the case mouths are getting beat to heck on ejection.

RHwt43H.jpg


WXtcwZr.jpg


First thought was that the cases may be kicking out slightly too soon, but after asking some folks 'round here and doing some more reading, it seems this could also be caused by the extractor shape, or an overly ambitious ejector...I understand (and could be wrong) that this sort of issue can sometimes be resolved by "reshaping" the extractor OR the receiver around the ejection port - but I don't know and don't want to mark the receiver, it is ~95% original blue. I'm hopin' someone who has one of these and has had the same problem can point me to a more specific resolution....?? 351 WSL brass is pri$ey. With annealing and careful resizing "yes" these are still useable but case life is probably shortened.


So there it is: Anyone else have this issue with their 1907? If so, any suggestions to resolve it?
Thank you!
 
I think it might be the shell is not clearing the ejection port fast enough and the breach block is pushing the shell against the receiver as it closes on the next shell. You might try increasing your load slightly. I had a 1907 briefly and managed to stick a bullet in the barrel by using too little of a slow burning powder. Powder began to burn with a slight pop which pushed the bullet a short ways forward and the breach part way back, then a pause and a hell of a bang with lots of flame that left the shell flared at the muzzle. The guns seem to need a fairly fast powder

cheers mooncoon
 
That is a great suggestion and it makes a lot of sense. These loads are on the low side of the recommendations and I have room to move up safely. I see some very hot loads out there in internet land for the .351 which I'm not signing up for in a 100 year old rifle but it speaks to that need for a hotter load in these.

I'd guess that "pop/bang" effect you describe comes from the blowback design? - That would get the heart racing a bit I'm sure. I take the point about sticking a bullet in the barrel (and risk of an out of battery) under those conditions.

Not a rifle to load for casual plinking. Great fun to shoot though, this one is far more accurate than I am and the sound of the shot is really neat (no pop/bangs here yet! But it has a unique report, speaks with authority).

I'll try it out, Thank you!!
 
Last edited:
Slower powder will fix. Have owned 4 and seen plenty of that. Lots of folk think that blow back action means fast powder. Your fast powder locks the case in and makes for incomplete bolt travel. I don't know Your components but remember the orig 180's had loads of contact. That also lengthened bolt function. Basically your cases are getting out........BARELY
 
mooncoon said:
I think it might be the shell is not clearing the ejection port fast enough and the breach block is pushing the shell against the receiver as it closes on the next shell. You might try increasing your load slightly. I had a 1907 briefly and managed to stick a bullet in the barrel by using too little of a slow burning powder. Powder began to burn with a slight pop which pushed the bullet a short ways forward and the breach part way back, then a pause and a hell of a bang with lots of flame that left the shell flared at the muzzle. The guns seem to need a fairly fast powder

cheers mooncoon
Click to expand...

The first sentence is right, but quiker powder just worsens it
 
rimfire458 said:
Slower powder will fix. Have owned 4 and seen plenty of that. Lots of folk think that blow back action means fast powder. Your fast powder locks the case in and makes for incomplete bolt travel. I don't know Your components but remember the orig 180's had loads of contact. That also lengthened bolt function. Basically your cases are getting out........BARELY
Click to expand...

Interesting thanks for that confirmation, rimfire.

I'm loading with 4227 right now (recommended powder in Lyman's handbook) which is sort of in the middle. I'll bump it up closer to maximum and see what happens, looks like a clearer path forward though. I'll change powders if the charge doesn't do it.
 
I couldn't find any load data and started with green dot which worked OK in terms of firing and cycling. I can't remember loads nor what powder I switched to but it was much slower (3031 maybe). Anyway I erred on the side of what turned out to be too much caution and since smokeless needs pressure to burn properly, the primer ignited the powder which put out some gas and started the bullet and the breach moving but then the pressure dropped and the burn I guess became a smoulder until the breach was half way open when there was enough ignited powder to create the pressure and bang with lots of flame.

cheers mooncoon
 
NorthCoastBigBore said:
Interesting thanks for that confirmation, rimfire.

I'm loading with 4227 right now (recommended powder in Lyman's handbook) which is sort of in the middle. I'll bump it up closer to maximum and see what happens, looks like a clearer path forward though. I'll change powders if the charge doesn't do it.
Click to expand...

I had a compressed charge of H4227 under a 180 grain RN. I got what You have in your pics if I went less powder, faster powder or less bullet weight
 
Thank you - that makes a lot of sense. The notes in Lyman's manual say their best load of 4227 (max load) was a compressed one.

I'll get some loaded today and update when I can, may be able to sneak out to the range tomorrow morning. Heck the snow's melting fast I may be able to get down a logging road around the corner
 
Good news, bad news. I looked in my old notes and AA 1680 seemed to accept the widest variance of bullets with best bolt operation. Says in my notes, even happy with cast. Now the bad news,to find AA1680
 
Full cases of H4227 is all I use in the 351WSL and 401WSL. I've tried various other powders and concluded that H4227 is the optimum powder for those cartridges and the guns chambered in them (M1907 and M1910).

Not an antique BTW.
 
H4227 isn't the same as IMR4227 powder. Very close, but not the same. And not interchangeable.
Lyman's 45th too. Unique and 2400 are the other two. Few more powders on Reloader's Nest.
 
sunray said:
H4227 isn't the same as IMR4227 powder. Very close, but not the same. And not interchangeable.
Lyman's 45th too. Unique and 2400 are the other two. Few more powders on Reloader's Nest.
Click to expand...

I found the latter two to fast for bolt stroke. Kind of gave me the issues the op is having
 
I use trailboss in mine, its fun to shoot once in a while and trailboss is good for that. It works great on 180 gr boolits. I make brass as i need it, the ejecting of the brass can be hard on the mouths.
 
Good discussion thanks for all the info. I couldnt try anything out today and out of town all week but I'll try it out next weekend. I am aware of the subtle difference between H4227 and IMR. Lyman actually recommends IMR which is what I'm using. Cartridges of the World (my old edition) only says "4227" without specifying; charges are the same. Online it's all over the place.

I got some useful PMs on this for some more troubleshooting.

much appreciated

NCBB
 
I have a number of the 1907's (soft heart for old autoloaders) and I have not found my brass getting beat THAT bad, but definitely appreciate that the function of the action is really the crux of the scale and scope of issues. For my part, I have no problem with case mouths, instead I have more issues with the bases growing a bit upon firing, as if the action begins to cycle sooner than the pressure has escaped the case, therefore the base is somewhat unsupported by the chamber. I was using Unique for these loads and after my research felt it was a function of too little too slow. It may also be an issue that my mainspring is somewhat weakened (however one wouldn't know just by cycling it! Man its still tough!).

Sounds like I have to try 4227, anything that emanates from Andy seems to be a pretty sure bet! ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom