WTF (Want to find) complete chamber or case dimension for 30-30 Wesson. I have the base, rim dia, length, but it would be useful to have the neck dimensions and taper dimensions to make a reamer. I have seen here information on smaller neck sizes for allowing tight fit and neck reaming.

Or, if someone has a used reamer to sell or rent.

Thank you,
Charles

Unfortunately the 0.907 degrees per side does not work. It leaves a neck length of 0.060". For a guessed neck length of 0.5" and assumed .380" base and .330" neck gives a single side angle of 1.268 degrees. 

Maybe someone can give suggestions on the range of neck lengths would make a great BS and fixed cartridge.

Thank you,
Charles

I would suggest a neck of .320, that gives you one caliber with a little extra to trim or not.

Remember on your taper that you have end it at .200 forward of the case base. That area is solid and won't take a taper. If you have a .330 neck and a .376 case head, you need a included taper per inch (TPI) of .042 or 1.203 deg. per side over a distance of 1.11, from the solid case head to the start of the neck.

The 357 Max has a .010 neck thickness and I make my necks .330 for a .310 ID before firing, if your chamber neck is .330, after firing it will be .329, a perfect fit for a .309/.310 bullet.

This is a cartridge that I've wanted to use for about 3 years and that is the design that I would have made if I do one.

Frank

The 30-30 Wesson used a large rifle primer so the 357
Maximum would not replicate the original design.

From Cartridges Of The World
Case type - Tapered
Bullet dia. - .308"
Neck dia. - .329"
Base dia. - .380"
Rim dia. - .440"
Case length - 1.66"
C.O.L. - 2.50"
Twist - 12"
Primer - Large

That is good question Frank and one for the ASSRA Schuetzen Meister to address not me and probably should be looked into if meeting the traditional class is also one of the goals. I was simply pointing out that the use of the Max. case would not be the correct choice for duplicating the original and I do not believe you could call it as such. It would simply be another new cartridge based off of the Max. case. We had a couple of our top competitors jump on the 30-30 Wesson for competitive use quite some time back and really gave them a run for the money but they just didn't pan out and I don't remember the parent case they were using to make their brass.

JLouis

This is a great discussion! The intent would be for traditional otherwise I would simply ream it as a 327 Federal magnum and be done with it. That begs the question on how close does the dimensions have to be to be "traditional"? If they get out the micrometer I'd bet a high percentage of the "traditional" rifles out there would fail. Most of my originals have generous chambers nothing like the competition rifles of today.

That is still the information we already have but does not help in the location of the transition from neck to taper or taper angle to draw the complete cartridge.

We are talking apples and oranges here, John. Brass is a consumable rifles are forever. I don't understand your logic here. Brass cand conform quite a bit to  chambers that are a little different and as a matter of fact, I've never heard of a "brass" rule, is there such a thing?

Are my 30/40 Krag case that I swage to 32/40 legal? Are my 30 American case legal in 32/40 and 32/35? Are lathe turned or reduced capacity RMC cases legal? Are stortened 9.3x 74R or 35 Winchester cases legal for 40/63 Ballard? And last, if I open the 357 Max primer pockets to LRP size, will that then make them legal?

The Coors matches (god bless them) were never part of the ASSRA. ISSA may be a off shoot of Coors but, now a days, not really.  Since Coors ISSA and ASSRA has tried to make rules conform as best they can.

That said, you might be better off going to ISSA and trying to get them to allow FIX actions in the ISSA Traditional class. 

Frank

This has turned away from the original intent. Save yourself some time and do not read the following rant:

I remember the original reason I fell for the Schuetzen game was due to the simple original (Coor's for me) rules:

1) Plain based bullets only.
2) Weather appropriate clothing only (no cheater coats).
3) No bolt actions (I really wouldn't care if they were allowed, lets face it Bolt guns predate the 44 1/2 and why is the 44 1/2 allowed in BPCR it is ten years after smokeless came out).

Rules #1 and #2 set comfortable limits. Then came the ridicules Schuetzen pistol class followed by the Traditional class which created space races for meeting these new rules and those with means had the best equipment for each class so that no originals could really compete....It was never about winning but having fun. I always wondered why guys were traveling to all of the Coors regionals until I placed and I was supprised when they gave me a check (who knew?). Now I understood that for some it was the money. I think we should add rule #4 "Honorable mention only".  Thirty years ago we talked about using formed wads and boattails but dismmissed it because even polywads seemed wrong. Although I am a firm believer in advancing the science it is with some limitations. 

Sorry for the rant,
Charles

40-Rod based on the below traditional rules I would have to gracefully dissagee.

Technology cutoff of circa 1917 as regards patents, sights, cartridges, loading techniques, and general configuration of the Schuetzen rifle.

JLouis

John you have a valid point I don’t agree but that doesn’t make your point any less valid. Now I’m not busting your chops, I am curious as to how far tradition goes. If I am shooting a Ballard #8 with correct iron sights in 32-40 in a barrel that has a 1:14’ twist does that make it a non-traditional rifle? Ballards in 32-40 had 1: 16” barrels. 

40 Rod

yes, and you could order a 33-47 or any other chambering you could dream up. Short of new materials post 1917 nothing else is available now that was then.

I believe that I have the answer to this problem. The case that is pictured is out of my cartridge collection. 

I believe it would be ok to use and would meet any "Traditional" rule, to make 30/30 or 30/40 Wesson cartridges out of original 38 XL cases or cases that are the same basic 38 XL size (read 357 Max).

The case head of this original 38 XL cartridge is .377, the body forward of the head and extending to the case mouth is .3805 and case is exactly 1.62 long.

Frank

Quote:


?
What does a 30/30 Wesson, necked down to 28 caliber have to do with this discussion? Are you confusing the "Traditional 28" rules with the ISSA or ASSRA Traditional rules?

Are you saying that the rules would prevent reforming the 38 XL to 30/30 or 30/40 Wesson? 

What would Pope have said about that?

Frank

JLouis wrote on Jan 29^th, 2014 at 9:33pm:


The words that I highlighted in red are Johns OPINION they are not rules. It seems as though he does not want anyone to shoot this cartridge, period.

The Wesson cartridges have very unique primers, either the Wesson case or Wesson primers are available today. They were patented primers. 

Continued

Frank if you would have posted the rest of the rules beyond where you opted to stop
as it would also have included the following very specific and restrictive information.

Currently there are no restrictions placed upon any equipment other than the rifles, sights, cartridges, and loading techniques.

Please do not falsely use me to push your agenda as it is becoming quite obvious that you do not agree with the current rules and would like to establish your own by the very liberal portion of the rules you posted while leaving out the four very specific restrictions that are not so liberal. It is clear that our forefathers who included cartridges as one of the restrictions clearly felt an important need for them to do so. It possibly could have been to insure preservation or possibly something other than. The bottom line is the rules do exist, are specific in restricting four defined categories and cartridges is one of them and it surely has nothing to do with me but it must have been extremely important to them!

JLouis

John,
What I posted was The Sprit of the Rules. Here they are again, highlighting and underlining are mine:


The success of the Traditional Class depends upon the shooters themselves. Radical, fringe interpretations of the rules will not be productive towards preserving our Schuetzen heritage. Traditionally minded shooters have a common sense grasp of what was typical and/or appropriate for the pre-1917 competitor. It is not the intention of the Traditional Class to exclude or in any way restrict participation in the Schuetzen discipline. Since the inception of Traditional Class there have been many questions regarding what modern equipment is allowed.

Now I ask you. What is the diffinition of cartridge? Is it not devise of ASSYMBLED, case, primer, powder and bullet? Will you now require people to shoot only a cartridge in traditional matches as that is what the rules say and stipulate by your diffinition of them.

I really believe the people that put the rules together ment that the chamber had to be original (common since).

typical and/or appropriate, I believe that this statement would cover what we've been talking about and doesn't hold any part or the Traditional rules as "hard and fast". Anyone in our sport (with maybe one exception) would think that it is reasonable for golden age shooters to adapt any case (w/o changing the chamber) to their needs if they had that case in hand and wanted to shoot it, because of availablity or any other reason.

Frank

Obviously another thread evolved into a pissing match between Louis and Frank. Referee'd by 40-Rod. 


            Joe.

Also, by your strick inturputation of the Traditional rules, the CPA would not be legal.

Since it was not made by Stevens, or by modifing a Stevens, the barrel thread would disqualify it. Breech block safety measures have been done to  original Stevens but, I do not know of any Stevens receiver ring ever being bore out and rethreaded to a larger thread diameter.

Frank

I'm not missing the point in anyway. You are trying to make a perfectly legal and traditional chambering unavailable to compete in matches. Is that the intent of the governing bodys? Tell me what the following quote  means and most of all tell if the CPA meets the Traditional rules as YOU put them forth.

Quote:


Also tell me what this quote means in your opinion:

Quote:


Would that include Pope, Zischang and other Golden age shooters?

Frank

PS
Don't forget your opinion on the CPA. I believe it clearly doesn't conform to your diffinition.

Can someone please explain what is 30 American brass ? tia

30-30 brass with small primer pocket. I think. 

         Joe.

Frank I have never said that the CPA did not qualify, I simply questioned the slight modifications. I received clarification from the powers that be and I am good with it. I might add that all of my Traditional Class honors over the years were shot with my CPA so why in the world would I want to shoot myself in foot!

Questioning the rules is healthy, if our mission statement is preservation it is our duty to see that it does indeed remains preserved. Whether or not someone agrees with the rules is neither here nor there but it is critcal as good stuarts to insure that they are being adhered to as the are written. I might also add that I never said that I agree with the cartridge rule as I read it you took it upon yourself to make that determination.

JLouis

Frank absolutely no it would not be safe to say! Once again it is not my call to make nor is it yours, there are elected officials within each organization, ISSA and ASSRA that are charged with interpreting the true intent of the rules as they are currently written. With that being said I would not build a rifle with the intent of shooting the traditional class around a replacement cartridge that might not qualify? I am not trying to prevent the gentleman from doing any thing, I am simply saying it might not qualify per the rules to possibly save him from a very expensive disappointment.

JLouis

Quote:


And what I'm saying is that there is more chance that the CPA "might not qualify" for the Traditional class if a official protest were lodge because of the thickside, large barrel thread and in many cases, the draw bolt but, you call these slight modifications? I call them major modifications. Much more intrusive than a primer size change, that could fall under the pre 1917 patent clause.

After all it is specifically addressed in the Quote:


Also, you never responded to my question on your thoughts about:

Quote:


OR:

Quote:


Would that include Pope, Zischang and other Golden age shooters?

I do agree that it not yours or mine to dictate what the rules mean but, your original post was that it would not qualify. I was pointing out what the sprit of the rules are and that because of the special Wesson primer, there could never be a cartridge made exactly like the Wesson. Also, that a pre 1917 shooter could very well have made 30/30-40 Wesson cartridges out of the 38 XL.

Frank

7Groove interesting comment, would that fall under the loading techniques rule or the cartridge rule?

JLouis

Frank I will leave it to the governing powers that be from each organization to address your questions. My thoughts on the matter as are yours are really meaningless and without merit so I am done with with subject. I would suggest that you send in a written request of interpretation to both organizations and when you receive their written responses please scan and post the letters for all to review.

JLouis

BP they are actually key and very critical to keeping things in check thus I laid mine on the table with hopes others would do the same. Unfortunately in this instance it has now become meaning less and without merit and seems to be in need of an official interpretation from the powers that be. I would sure enjoy hearing your thoughts on the matter after fully reading and analyzing the rules as well as those from others. I have had enough of the current one and I am done with it but new ones would be quite refreshing to hash around. 


JLouis

Quote:


JLewis,

If you have issues with the various primer sizes that could be used, then if you are shooting traditional class, and following along with what I seem to be hearing is your line of reasoning, everyone had better submit chamber casts from their rifle to the Schuetzenmeister before competing in that class to verify that their chamber and throating fully comply with the original Manufacturer’s specifications per the 1917 rule.
If someone has used a throating reamer to modify the chamber from the Manufacturer’s specs, do you feel the rifle can no longer be used in traditional class? 
Is this where you really want to take things?

I agree with 40 Rod’s comment that traditional class does not equate with Amish class.

Easy way to solve the issue seems to be that if something is not already accepted as conforming with the 1917 rule, and you desire to use it in Traditional class, then do your research and provide your documentation supporting your position to the Schuetzenmeister for a decision about compliance.

PS: Don't think it would hurt things if you are planning on building a rifle (or having one built) to be used for traditional class, to submit your plans to the Schuetzenmeister to confirm compliance or for any needed revisions to your plans before spending a big chunk of change.

BP I no longer compete in the Traditional Class by my choice in equipment, all though both of my rifles  are in the Traditional style my choice of action and cartridge for the 28 do not meet the rules and I use a non traditional scope on my 52 CPA 32-40 as well as the 28. What I was trying to do was to determine the intent of the cartrige rule in the traditional class based on both the manufacture requirement and the pre 1917 criteria as spelled out in the rules. In other words I would like to know where the line in the sand has been drawn to insure that we can properly preserve this class and it's history for future generations. The rules have become so liberal that last year a rifle that did not fit the design criteria took first place honors in the traditional class at the National event. As you might know by reading some of the posts here by some of those who were elected or have volunteered to over see the health and wefare of this organization have stated that the Traditional class our roots and the organizations mission statement in there opinion is nothing more than a token class now. All though I choose not to shoot in the class it is imperative that the rules be stringently adhered to, to insure that our true heritage is preserved. If we do not question what the true intent of the four specific rules are it will go from a token class to being historically incorrect and then non-existant and we are rapidly moving in that direction. 

JLouis

We are back to the same old argument how Traditional is Traditional enough. If we keep going down the rabbit hole where only black powder is Traditional then what’s next? Is Goex not legal because it wasn’t manufactured in 1917? How bout those non-mercuric primers? SPG, no way bub. 
  This usually boils down to “my way is Traditional yours isn’t.” 
  What we need is an ASSRA Inquisition where a traveling auto du fe’ is held at each member local club. We could have sinners tearfully come forward confess their sins and toss their Millers in the bonfire. Followed by an execution or two. 
Purity above practicality

40 Rod

40Rod it was a simple question that needs to be addressed, the organization made the rules and it should take the time to clearly define them. If they need to be revised to preserve the class then revise them least we loose the class all together. It is not a matter of my way or hit the hi way by individual thought nor by the discretion of each individual Schuetzen Meister. Its a matter of the organization stepping up to the plate to clearly define the rules in a manner that is clearly understood, without question or debate. Is that really asking to much from those that pay their dues and support the organization? 

JLouis

40_Rod,

To my way of thinking, the best way to keep from having to repeatedly go down a rabbit hole is to not have ever allowed the hole to get dug in the first place.
      

During this discussion, the small rifle primer issue was brought up regarding it's use in 32/40. Another forum member advised me that Marlin had small rifle primer cartridges made for their rifles, in 32/40, 38, 40 and 45 calibers. So, if there was any consern of the legality of using 30 American case for 32/40 here is the 1887 article written by Marlin to customers. Lots of other reading to be had also

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

Frank

I have some really old 32 Win Special cases with the small rifle primer which I use to make 32/40  and  32/35 cases.   Ledball

Ouch! and I suspect that is with a fixed pilot. 

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

I think John Holland is/was also looking for one. 

HTH