I have been visiting as a guest, checking out the comments about various actions and I thought I would throw out a question or two since I like the way some of you think. I have been looking around trying to decide what type of single shot I could get that would be fun to shoot and hunt with. I like late 1800's actions, and don't mind reloading, but reloading is not what I really enjoy. I have always liked the 9.3x74 and thought that would be the cartridge I would use, but with an older style action. I began seeing some posts about the Borchardt action and remembered that I had gotten one in a trade years ago. I had started to fix it up after "Bubba the Gunsmith" had tossed everything but the action, but I lost interest. It has a 45/70 barrel and a partially finished butt stock on it now. I would like to end up with a mainly iron sight rifle in the business rifle style, but with the option of installing a low power scope. Do you think an old Borchardt is up to it? Any good gunsmiths around that like to do this kind of work? This is what I have to work with.
(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

Harry

Thanks for the quick response Harry. I had serious doubts about the 9.3x74 and the Borchardt. From the comments I have been reading, I thought that someone would know for sure if it would work or not. The barrel is going to need to be changed to get the look I want, so it was a chance to get the caliber I wanted too. I want something different from a 45/70, which is one of the reasons the Sharps ended up in the back of my closet to start with. Looks like I need a newer old style action to build this rifle on and I will need to save the Borchardt for a later project. Maybe a 40/70 or a 40/65 would do the trick. Thanks again for the information.

Harry  

I think either the .38-72 or .40-70 Sharps Straight would make an excellent choice.

Reckon I better hang up my own Borchardt 300 Mag. Man, what a downer! I been shootin' that rifle for a number of years now but little did I know how close I was to disaster!

All kidding aside, IMO Harry is being a trifle conservative. I have one unbarrelled Borchardt remaining, and one of my possible caliber choices is the 9.3x74R. Another good one would be the 40-70 SS if used with the .408" groove diameter since it's basically just a 405 Winchester with smaller-diameter bullets. Moulds for the 9.3's 0.366" groove specification are pretty scarce while both a wide variety of moulds and also some excellent jacketed bullets are available in the 0.408" size.

It is imperative, I repeat imperative, that a qualified single-shot gunsmith examine and update your action before barrelling to any smokeless cartridge. Not just any gunsmith will do, nor will just any single shot gunsmith be OK. You'll need a smith that's familiar with the Borchardt and please be advised that the 1878 Borchardt is one of the most-misunderstood of all the single shots, so qualified knowledgeable smiths are few & far between. I can recommend both hst and Buchsenmacher, both of this board.
Good luck, Joe

westerner wrote on Jan 26^th, 2007 at 2:30am:


Hello Joe and JD.

You forget I am several hours ahead of you in time. When you wrote your posts I was already in bed. As I write this, you've both got several hours of sleep left to enjoy.

O/k, Perhaps I am being conservative, but I see no sense in using high pressure cartridges in weapons that weren't designed to take anything like the pressures developed by them. The 45/70, 45/90 or 45/110 black powder rounds have much lower breech pressures than the .25 Krag Imp or .300 mag. These latter rounds are very likely to generate twice the breech pressure than the old BP rounds.

Old steels, unlike many wines, do not improve with age. The metalurgical qualities of 1870's steel leaves a lot to be desired by modern standards. Even modern rifles blow up. Sako recently had to recall a large number of rifles because several had blown up with factory ammo.

No one would expect the Wright Brothers 'flyer' to break the sound barrier or a 1920's Model 'T' Ford to win this years Le Mans 24 hour race, common sense says they weren't designed to do so.

Now it may well be that both of you are lucky, in that nothing has happened so far to your rifles, but are you using light loads just to be on the safe side? If so, then consider what might happen in a few years time when these rifles belong to someone else and they load cartridges generating higher pressures than you are using.

The USA doesn't have 'Proof Houses' so testing of weapons is very much a hit or miss affair with no real standards to set a guide. On various other boards I have seen suggestions that people who build their own rifles should fire a couple of rounds using a 10% over maximum powder charge, preferably pulling the trigger from a distance by means of a string. Hardly a scientific method of testing. No one seems to recommend checking on dimensional changes that may have taken place after 'proof' firing. That is a standard practice in European Proof Houses, along with a lot of other checks involving computers and chronographs etc. 

The cracking of actions under the stress of a high pressure load may not be noticed as they can be microscopic, the next couple of rounds may may blow the action apart. 

The cardinal rule of shooting is SAFETY in all things pertaining to the sport. I have to ask, is shooting a high pressure cartridge in a 120+ year old BP action safe? I don't honestly think so.

Harry

Hello Joe,

Regarding American 'Proof Houses'. I'm fairly sure that US Government Arsenals did carry out proofing on weapons they made or refurbished and that most manufacturers tested their own weapons for sale. Each would have their own standards as to what a proof load was. But there ism't a standard set across the board for all to adhere to.

What I was getting at was there isn't, and as far as I am aware, has never been an independant 'Proof House' governed by US Law which would test and proof fire all firearms either manufactured, imported or gunsmith made or altered, prior to them being sold.

The U/K has had such Proof Houses for a couple of hundred years. They were originally set up to weed out those manufacturers who made their firearms out of weak materials. Even today not all manufacturers are infallible. I must admit I'd rather a gun blew up in the proof house than when I squeezed off a round.

Re .303 British chambers, if your referring to the military rifle, this was produced in several countries all over the world including the USA. It was in service with the British armed forces from the 1880's to the 1970's and was probably the most widely used military rifle and calibre in history. Wartime production in both World Wars a little sloppy compared to those made in peacetime. 

Manufacturing and chambering tolerances varied considerably and I don't think anyone knows how many Marks of ammunition and variants of the same were produced. The rifle had to stand up to usage in just about every environment in the world, from the snows of northern Europe to the deserts of Africa and the tropical jungles of Malaya, and had to work reliably. It's still in service even today in several ex colonial countries. I've met a good number of different marks of the .303 rifle with tight chambers.

After the 100mph gales of last week, it is cold here now, it was -7 when I got up this morning. However it's only -3 in my living room. If it gets any colder I'll have to light the fire. lol.

Harry

Maurice Ottmar, since gone to his Great Reward, was one of the finest (IMO) gunsmith/stockmakers of the last century. He was a Guild smith, and built some of the best-looking rifles I've ever seen. I would not presume to question many of his choices, and the 25 Krag on a Borchardt is one that I consider to be as safe as any other cartridge that must be handloaded.

Please note: as safe as any other cartridge that must be handloaded.

In such a case, safety is totally dependent upon the practices of the handloader and IMO the action is a fairly minor factor in the overload equation, as long as the loader is knowledgeable and careful. Repeat: as long as the loader is knowledgeable and careful.

Yes, smokeless pressures can easily be double the BP pressures. So what? The only reason that pressures were lower back then was 'cause the BP simply wouldn't generate any higher pressures, not because the steel wouldn't stand it. True, the old steel has few if any alloying (strengthening) elements and so is normally case-hardened, but many of the modern SS actions are made from similar non-alloyed steels and are also case-hardened. Yes the old steel can be weaker but so can the new stuff.

Harry mentioned Sako rifles blowing up. This is true, and it was due to faulty barrel steel, could happen to any manufacturer who didn't take proper precautions with materials.

The much-vaunted European proof procedure didn't seem to help the Sako situation, did it?

I'll ask a very simple question: has anyone on this board ever seen or even heard of a Borchardt action blowing up or failing, in any way? Not saying it couldn't or hasn't already happened, just asking if anyone has ever seen it. I have my own theories as to the possible results but would welcome any hard information at all, since I've never read or heard of any sort of a Borchardt blowup of any kind other than primer piercing due to a non-bushed block.

John Buhmiller deliberately and repeatedly attempted to blow up a high wall, and only succeeded in blowing the firing pin out of the block even with the heaviest overloads. I personally consider the Borchardt to be stronger than the wall in every respect except possibly gas handling, and this lone area of concern is a function of the design rather than the age or the materials.

I don't limit the pressures in my Borchardts and high walls except the normal concern for flattening primers and swelling case heads & primer pockets. Like the man said in the Country song, "You keep going your way, and I'll keep going mine".
And of course YMMV, Joe

Thanks for all the comments about the Borchardt action. I have decided to look for some other action for my 9.3x74. I would not want to have to load it down and something just doesn’t seem right, to me, about using a metric cartridge in a Sharps rifle. Thanks again for all the information.

Harry

Harry,
Not too sure about what you say - the proof of all proof houses member of and recognized by CIP would be valid in any of the member countries - meaning also France, Spain, Slovakia, Czechia, Chili, Finland, Austria, Hungaria and some others...  And they do proof to a common standard - i.e. a 30% pressure overload for the proof.

I doubt that a U.S. "proof house" would fly...too much history of personal/gunsmith and corporate responsibility to the buying public versus the English and European reliance on the "nanny state".  All that being said, I still "trust but verify" when I buy something other than a factory built rifle, unless I know the gunsmith who did the work.  And a .50 BMG necked down to shoot phonograph needles in a crumbling block action rifle is not my idea of a good time!   

David
Montezuma, IA

Hello Joe,

Yes there were thousands of Martini-Henry 577/450 rifles converted to .303 buy bushing the firing pin and rebarrelling them.

Remember though, that the early .303 cartridges were Black Powder.  and also, that the Martini Henry action was far stronger than than any other or nearly any other BP SS action in the world.

I'm not absolutely sure, but I think that the MH conversions were restricted to certain Marks of the .303 round, at least those in the posession of HM Armed Forces were. What civilians did with them may differ. They also had to pass proofing after either conversion or new manufacture.

The conversions were used by troops throughout the whole British Empire, not just Australia. It was a stop-gap weapon, whilst experiments and developement of the bolt action Lee Enfield was being made.

I plan to use Walnut for stocking, I don't think there is a finer wood for doing so. The quality will be the best my old age pension will stretch too,
which unfortunately is not a lot. 

Harry

FWIW, the original BP martini .303 round actually delivererd more pressure than the 1st cordite version - really!  Don't forget that one was of the compressed charge type, and gave quite respectable MV's for BP...   Most of the time, the limiting factor seems to be the steel used in manufacture, and the appropriate modern steels are certainly better suited for current higher pressures.   
The Martini does have one advantage for use with nitro - much safer with pierced primers or case ruptures.

IMO the Borchardt should be perfectly OK for the 9.3x74R.  Harry, just because it uses smokeless powder it is not a particularly high pressure cartridge in factory loads.  It was designed, I believe before World War I, for top break single shot and double barrel rifles and combination guns that were and are a lot weaker than a Borchardt.

I have to agree with v and J.D. I know two guys who own, and shoot, Borchardt based 9.3x74R's, and have done so for 20+ years. Both rifles were built by the late Luft brothers, of Spokane, WA, and are very finely made, works of art. The x74R is a pretty tame round, pressure wise, given it's break action gun origens, as has already been noted.

Jeff

Gentlemen,

I'm afraid we must agree to disagree, as I said in an earlier post, everyone has their own opinions.

The mention of he late Elmer Keith brought back memories of when he was developing the .44 Magnum pistol round. I also remember a lot of .44 special revolvers were blown apart by people who thought they were strong enough to take the new round. All that they needed was a cylinder rechambering job, or so many shooters believed.

It's your perogative to have your rifles chambered in any calibre you want. But please excuse me if I don't stand beside you when you squeeze the trigger.

Harry

v,

I suspect that when you shoot your Luft rifles, you'll be quite pleased. Both of my friends still shoot/hunt their rifles. I've had the pleasure of shooting one of them several times. I totally agree; the Luft's built first class guns. The tang safety conversion, and trigger on these rifles are just superb. 

Jeff

westerner wrote on Feb 5^th, 2007 at 2:44am:


Joe, 
I've nothing against old actions (especially Borchardts) being restored  to shooting condition, provided it is done with respect for the age and strength of the action, and they are not pushed into accepting cartridges they weren't designed for.

Todays shooters now have the advantage of buying Borchardt actions from two current U.S. manufacturers who make them of modern steels. These should be capable of taking most modern (white powder) rounds.
(the manufacturers will probably advise on the range of cartridges they will be suitable for). 

Given the current price of an original Borchardt action in good condition, and the amount of money some people are willing to spend on their customisation or restoration projects, the modern reproduction actions are not all that much more expensive, and could, in some instances, be even cheaper.

I sincerely hope your Borchardt holds together for as long as you can use it, it's a beautiful looking rifle. My own Borchardt copy when it's finished will be chambered for the 45/90 cartridge and it will be BP only despite being made of modern steel.

Harry

Hello Harry, old steel, new steel, They can all be wrecked.

I sat down with pen and paper the other night. I know of eight rifle's wrecked In my area in the last twenty two years. One low wall, one Hepburn, one Sharps, five Ballards. 

All were chambered for blackpowder era cartridges. Two were made of modern steels.   

One of the more interesting failures was a new made Ballard . The cause was never detemined. It was chambered in 45/70 or 90. It was never shot with smokeless.  Black powder and lead bullets only.

I believe new steels are better than old steels. 

I dont know how modern manufacturers determine grain structure in new steels before machining. 
 
I do know however the grain structure in a vintage single shot rifle if it was forged. In some rifles it can be seen.   
The design of the action is what determines strength to a greater degree than the steel used. 

People make mistake's it's a fact we live with.  People learn by making mistakes.   
I prefer to trust people and live with the mistakes.   
                                                           
                                                                            Joe.

Harry, 

Of the eight rifle failures, only the new made ballard remain's a mystery. All the other one's were human error. 

Three failed with smokeless, five failed with black. 
Three overcharges, four barrel obstructions and one  unknown.

A tool and die maker or anyone with experience in drop forging can tell the flow of metal before it is even forged. I mean flow, or grain. as in stress proof steel that has a known grain direction. Martensite cannot be seen. Except by Superman, He could do it.

I dont know if modern billet steel is marked at the rolling mill to indicate it's grain, or rolled direction. It would be easy to tell at the mill. A different story once its cut into pieces and shipped. I dont know if heat treating modern steel changes that.                                                                                                 Very good steel was being produced in Germany England and the US when the Borchardt was made. 

Modern steel's should be better. Manufacturing techniques can effect the steels performance. ( forged vs cast or billet ). I have in the past, ordered steel that required a spec sheet. I alway's wondered if I really got what was ordered. Some supplier's comply with a snear. With steels's coming from all over the world and the low bidder system at work, well, I just wonder sometime's.   

Mistakes are also made in modern manufacturing.  

It makes no difference, new or old it can be wrecked. 
                                                                                 Joe.

All else being equal, a drop-forged part is generally considered to be noticeably stronger than an identical piece machined from a billet. At least that's what they atttempted to teach us up at the state cow-&-chicken school back in the '60s. Seems that I remember something about the grain structure being aligned and compressed, with the fibers tending to bundle together to strengthen one another instead of being cut in the machining process. But, I'm certainly not a metallurgist............

Specification sheets are available for most any steel made in the US and I'm sure that's true in other parts of the world as well. The reason I say this is because of my experience in the nuclear business, where each and every component in the Power Block must have these proofs on file and available for inspection & signoff. We called these records 'mill certs' (certifications from the various manufacturers) and all nuclear component had to have these proofs available for each and every stage of the manufacturing process no matter how many stages there were. IOW there was a piece of paper from the mine, another (several, usually) from the railroad(s) or barge line(s), another from the smeltery, another from the rolling mill, another from the heat treater, another from........but you get the idea.

Of course these elaborate record-keeping requirements are much more stringent in the nuclear business but similar mill certs are generated for each batch of steel made in any civilised country, for ease of tracking and proof of responsibility in the manufacturing process in case of liability. I know from personal experience that the suppliers charge an extra fee for supplying this paperwork and I don't think that they specify the direction of grain flow if any, the user is assumed to have enough sense to be able to determine this for himself based upon the method of production and the shape of the billet. It ain't rocket science.

In my experience the grain flow of a forged part is visible under three curcumstances: the first is when it is red-hot, almost white-hot, just out of the forge blocks; another circumstance is when it is being torn apart since it usually tears in the longitudinal direction, that is, aligned with the fiber flow; and the third circumstance is when some sort of oxidation has altered the surface finish of the steel and thus served as contrast for the fibers. Not saying these are the only three curcumstances, only saying that this is what I've observed personally.
FWIW, regards, Joe

There are a couple of conditions that will create or cause grain to show up in metals. One of the most common in forged material is improper or incomplete anealing or normalizing. In this case the material is in a phase change and has not completed going thru it and is cooled either too fast or improperly. When hardening carbon steels the carbon goes thru a change from martinsite to pearlite condition. (Now I may have these two terms backwards as I tend to do this) In any case if the material to be hardened has not  "Soaked" at the critical temperature long enough to be completely changed, or it is not cooled properly for it's chemistry. Air hardened, water hardened, oil hardened Etc. The carbon can get caught in both stages of phase change. The Carbon does not like this condition and tries forever to go one way or the other. This can and will show itself as stress lines or strain growth. I have observed this in Hiwalls that cover the whole range of manufacturing, from early first year production to late Winder Musket recievers. Usually it shows as a gentle curve line in the reciever along the length on the side and sometimes both sides just above the Lower Tang screw holes. And it won't polish out. Sometimes you can disguise it by Surface Grinding. But it may show up again when case colored or blued. I also have seen it on a Sharps Borchardt Military. I own. The Stress lines are so deep and pronounced as to make you feel it has been hacked at with a coarse tool of some type. But examination under a Microscope shows it to have just "Grown there" I worked in the Mold making business for twenty seven years making Optical molds for camera's. We found that the best steel for the optical surface was Carpenter 420F. it is a fine grained free machining material that will heat treat to 50-52 Rc. It also will take a really fine optical surface using optical generating and polishing methods. BUT, it must be cut across the grain of round diameter bar stock. If the part is made from stock where the grain is not at 90 degree's from the optical surface the rolling mill forge lines would jump right out at you. And the component would be junk, not fit for use. As to heat treat strength of mild or low carbon steels. When i was going to school we did a material strength test on low carbon (Cold Rolled) steel. I made a bunch of test samples all out of the same bar. some we heat treated by taking them up to 1550 Deg Fareinhieght and quenching them in water. We then set the sample up in a Universal Testing machine designed to pull, push, squash things to destruction. We calculated the ultimate strength of the unheat treated samples at 110,000 Lbs/ square inch. and when tested they yielded and necked right at those figures. The heat treated sample that still were the same hardness as the others  (About 25 Rc) were significantly stronger. Their yeild strength was up around 130,000
Lbs/in squared. The instructor said this was a result of the grain structure being aligned as a result of the heat treat.
On another note as to the strength of actions. Most of our better Single Shot rifles derive their strength not so much from the material as from the robust Design. If you look hard at the Hiwall, the Borchardt, the Rem Hepburn and maybe even the Stevens 44 1/2 you will see that they have as much or even more surface area supporting the breech block than many modern Bolt guns. The Rem Hepburn may be the strongest as many of them were built with some very sophisticated materials. Well enough for now, Regards, FITZ.

Brent, FITZ & notlwonk have described what I mistakenly attributed to oxidation. All the cases I've observed were guns that had rusted to some degree, and so I assumed...........But the condition FITZ detailed is an exact description of the condition I've observed, and so I figure that his explanation is the correct one for what I've seen.

It's been my experience that a good rust blue job will hide a lotta imperfections, that's one reason that folks acid-etch damascus bbls to better show the contrast.

(to digress for a moment, I'm consulting with the hammer man even as we speak so just be patient.....)
Regards, Joe

Brent, it's all in your mind, Harry Pope didn't need no stinkin' high-tech hammer! 'Course I did hear that he practiced 50 rds/day.........
Regards, Joe

Then again, there are those rifles without a hammer....   

No, bolt actgions is just carrying it too far - after all, any decent rifle has a block for lockup...  Bolts are for doors.

Old-Win wrote on Feb 8^th, 2007 at 10:14am:


Bob,
Annealing will 'cook out' the surface carbon present from the original case hardening, but it won't remove any carbon impurities placed within the metal during the original smelting of the steel. These are likely to be present all the way through the action.

Harry

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

“Let me hazard a guess. A Zischang Mid Range Borchardt with DST's and a take down barrel, or a damn good copy?”

A Zischang .32-40. 
 
”The flaw in the middle of the frame would appear to be what Fitz described as a fold in the metal formed during the drop forging process.” 

I’ve seen these in about every single-shot made, I always look a them as strictly cosmetic.
 
”Is there any reason that you know of, why there is a centre cocking plate screw? it's usually a press fit locating pin in that position.” 

The majority of Zischang-Borchardts I have seen have the pin replaced with a screw.   

Brent,

The action was probably fine when it left the shop.  The take down pin at the front of the receiver that aligns with the bottom of the barrel shank is tapered. If it is driven in to hard, it can and probably did crack the action. If memory serves me correctly , this rifle was up for bids A while back. In the auction description they describe the crack. I cant remember what was written. I'd have to look it up.        Joe.

MP, that stress crack is much like the one in my Military Borchardt only a lot less. Mine is much heavier and there are two or three laddered up and down. When I first got this Rifle I was concerned and disassembled it and cleaned it thoroughly so I could examine the inside under a microscope. No sign of the stress lines inside anywhere. I am not even sure it can properly be called a  "Crack" it just looks like it grew there. I agree with you that it probably was not even there when it left Zischang. These things do evolve over time. And due to the up and down activity in Schuetzen shooting many of these Rifles were parked in Rifle racks or stored out of sight for many years. The fact that mine has one leads me to believe it is a forging issue at least in Borchardts. I have gone at a Military action with a file and they are Buttersoft. I mean really soft. No sign of any significant heat treat at all. I was trying to see what it would take to trim down the reciever lines as Zischang did with files. Well I started out with a coarse file, it gummed up. Switched to a coarser one. Material still came off too easy. Ended up using a Auto Body Single cut curved rasp, the type they use for cleaning off bondo and such. The Metal just peeled off. like I was a manual milling machine. I was astounded at how soft this reciever was. It showed no evidence of having been annealed in any way. It had been used as a Barn door stop for many years and is basicly junk. I intend some day to make up Zischang style set triggers and this action will be my test mule for modification design and fitting up. It is interesting when you consider how many of the Military actions got modified into modern high pressure calibers. I have a Borchardt military action in .219 Imp Zipper and shoot top end loads with so far no evidence of issues. HTH, Regards, FITZ.

Fitz,

My experience mirrors your own.  The Borchardt military rifles can be cut with a knife. To the best of my knowledge they were never hardened like the sporting rifles.  My long-range Borchardt started life as a military rifle and was case-hardened after conversion. My friend who did the work on mine and many others say they (military) are like that. 

MP

akJeff, the one I took the file to was a barn door stop, no value lost there. The .219 Imp I have came on an original Long Range action and Stock. There is no Barrel maker indicated. The Rifle was the property of William Brophy of Springfield Arsenal fame. He wrote two or three books on the Arsenal's history. I met him a few times at The Hartford Ct. shows. Anyhow on buying the rifle at auction I brought it home and disassembled it. As I owned a Long Range Barrel and forend. The .219 barrel sat around for a couple of years and I needed a Varmint rifle so I screwed it into a Military action an installed a breech block with a high pressure firing pin conversion and have been shooting it ever since. I am sure a Hartung built rifle is a joy. Well enough for now. Regards, FITZ

Thanks for the info, Fitz and v. I've been looking for a copy Landis' book(s), as I've heard that he mentioned Hartung. Guess I'll have to kick up my efforts, and get his books in hand.

Regards,

Jeff

Thanks Harry!!!! Have never been to that web site. 

Regards,

Jeff

Jeff,


The Landis books (five) are worth having but if you can narrow it down to which book I’ll copy the info for you.   I looked in the only copy with “Varmint” in the title and don’t see his name in the index, of course it could be in the book.  I seem to remember a full stocked high-wall rifle in Simmons book but can’t find my copy.  Mark, can you help us out here?

Good work you were posting while I was writing .  I'll check it out. 


Jeff,  No real info on Hartung, just covers the work he did on this one rifle, if you want, stop by someday and borrow the book.

Quote:


Well we won't know until one of us finds our book .  Might be I remember this because of the rifle you just bought and that's were the Simmons reference come from.