Sunday, March 27, 2011
Handi Ejector to Extractor
Ejector: "This is one of my Handis, a 30-30, purchased from another GBO member, with a modification similar to one mentioned in the FAQs. Only difference is the material used. This has a piece of rubber/plastic tubing set to stop the ejector from catching and allows the cartridge to extract with the spring pressure and not fly out. The case comes out of the chamber much farther than those in the newer style extractors."
Handi Ejector to Extractor Mod
hr-ejector-mod: "Whatever your reason, changing the auto ejector to extractor is a very simple job. Begin by removing the fore end screw, and the fore end. Remove the barrel from the receiver. Now examine the under lug. You will note the ejector, the ejector catch, and three roll pins. The rear most roll pin should be drifted out ( either direction ) until the ejector catch is free. I prefer to leave this pin retained in the off side of the under lug. In this way it won’t get lost and is started, ready to drive back in. If you now pull the punch out, the ejector catch will drop downward and the ejector will move outward. If the ejector does not seem to be free, just pull down a little on the end of the ejector catch. Figure 1. shows the parts I have mentioned as well as a second ejector that has been ground down. Modification of the ejector required about 5 minutes with the use of a common “Moto Tool”. Refer to the drawing in figure 2., to see what metal needs to be removed."
More... including photos and diagrams
More... including photos and diagrams
Handi Ejector Work - Rimmed to Rimless
Ejector work
MSP touched on this in another thread, converting a rimmed caliber barrel to a rimless caliber and the change needed to the ejector mechanizm to work properly. I had a problem getting the ejector to work well in my 35 Remington rechamber from 357Max. As MSP learned, the difference in rimless and rimmed ejection is the presence of the lifter button on rimless ejectors, without it, the ejector doesn't drop down below the cartridge rim and hangs up of the back the the rim when closing the action.
MSP pioneered the change after talking with Gordon at H&R CS, all that needs to be done is drill a 1/8" hole in the spring seat of the underlug where the latch spring is and installing a lifter button in the hole which causes the ejector to lift up behind the rim so it will eject when the action opens.
I performed the change today but ran into another issue in that the post or vertical part of the ejector isn't the same on all rifles, it's much thicker on some barrels, about twice as thick, the thick one won't work in a barrel designed for a thin post ejector. The top ejector is a .270 Ultracomp ejector, the bottom a .223 ejector that I used in the 35 Remington before I installed a .30-06 ejector today that I ordered from Brownell's when I originally did the ejector work.
Hope this helps someone in the future and a big thanks to MSP for enlightening me!!
I've added this thread to the FAQs in the ejector work section.
Tim
The lift button is the small hat shaped piece above the small latch spring on the right. The lift button can be made from a nail, dimensions are .170" long, the head is .026" thick and .209" wide, and the shank is .121" in diameter. It can be ordered from Brownell's, part #427-400-461 $4.58.
Lifter button hole at the end of the paper clip. This is a factory drilled hole that's off center, the one I drilled is perfectly centered in the seat!! This is a barrel I'm working on with a different kind of shim to fit it, more on that later.
MSP pioneered the change after talking with Gordon at H&R CS, all that needs to be done is drill a 1/8" hole in the spring seat of the underlug where the latch spring is and installing a lifter button in the hole which causes the ejector to lift up behind the rim so it will eject when the action opens.
I performed the change today but ran into another issue in that the post or vertical part of the ejector isn't the same on all rifles, it's much thicker on some barrels, about twice as thick, the thick one won't work in a barrel designed for a thin post ejector. The top ejector is a .270 Ultracomp ejector, the bottom a .223 ejector that I used in the 35 Remington before I installed a .30-06 ejector today that I ordered from Brownell's when I originally did the ejector work.
Hope this helps someone in the future and a big thanks to MSP for enlightening me!!
I've added this thread to the FAQs in the ejector work section.Tim
The lift button is the small hat shaped piece above the small latch spring on the right. The lift button can be made from a nail, dimensions are .170" long, the head is .026" thick and .209" wide, and the shank is .121" in diameter. It can be ordered from Brownell's, part #427-400-461 $4.58.
Lifter button hole at the end of the paper clip. This is a factory drilled hole that's off center, the one I drilled is perfectly centered in the seat!! This is a barrel I'm working on with a different kind of shim to fit it, more on that later.
Handi ejector to extractor change
Buffalo ejector change?: "if you want an extractor, just fold up a note card about 6 layers deep by 1/8' wide and place it between the roll pin in the hole on the side of the mounting lug and the top of the hole. It'll hold the ejector sear from engaging and will let it extract. When you wanna go back to ejector, take paper out."
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Global Defence Review
Global Defence Review:
An ad hoc working group consisting of technical and operational experts from France, Belgium, Switzerland, USA, Germany, the UK, Italy and the Netherlands met in order to establish a final classification between both calibres. Six criteria were selected, namely incapacitation, hit probability in test tubes, hit probability in weapons with shooters, reliability, internal ballistics and penetrating power. The final outcome based on the results spoke for itself (see table).
Synthesis of the results and QRT analysis
In a first stage, the QRT selected three testing criteria and their respective weights: effectiveness (80 per cent), cost of ammunition (15 per cent) and barrel wear (five per cent).
The results of the QRT analysis (taking into account different remarks made by the competitors on the calculations of lethality have shown that the 5.7mm is 27 per cent more effective (Pi/h) against unprotected targets at 100m than the 4.6mm and 11 per cent more effective than the 4.6 against CRISAT protected targets at the same range.
Regarding the barrel erosion, the conclusion of the QRT was that despite the fact that no significant erosion had been highlighted by the ETBS tests (5,000 rounds), the design of the 4.6x30mm ammunition would suggest a greater potential risk of barrel erosion.
In addition to the abovementioned analysis, the QRT also integrated the calibre potential and its design maturity into its analysis.
Despite some remaining minor errors in the evaluations, it is clear that at the end of the complete ETBS testing (a six-month intensive testing, more than 20 different tests performed), the 5.7x28mm calibre won this technical competition and the victory was confirmed and amplified by the complementary analysis and tests performed by the QRT. Some countries seem now to question those results or even the evaluation process.
It should be noted that this latter had been clearly defined and was accepted by all actors, industrials as well as national representatives before testing. Unfortunately, NATO policies imply that a general consensus has to be reached before making any decision. Any country can veto any decision anytime without even having to provide acceptable reasons. With such a process, economical or political interests can easily make any project fail miserably.
Finally, let us not forget that at the present time more than 20,000 5.7x28 mm systems are really in service throughout the world, including some NATO countries like Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, the USA, etc… and that in the end, the major factor of success is, and will remain, customers' satisfaction.
In the line of fire
FN Herstal's 5.7 System has proved itself through an extensive series of tests overseen and verified by organisations and authorities from around the world.
Much has been said about the choice of NATO not to take a decision about the standardisation of the new PDW caliber. The story goes back to 1990 with the publication of NATO Doc D296 defining the requests of the personal defence weapon as a replacement for the caliber 9mm, declared obsolete and ineffective in the face of new threats and the emergence of new ballistic protections.
Based on those requirements, FN Herstal launched its 5.7 System, comprising a submachine gun - the P90® - and a pistol - the Five-seveN®. Both of these shoot a revolutionary cartridge of 5.7x28mm calibre - the SS190, defeating the new CRISAT target defined by NATO. The inherent qualities of this system gained it immediate interest all over the world, particularly from special forces.
In 1999, other competitors had come on the scene such as the 4.6x30mm caliber. Blocked in its decision process due to a change of standardisation rules, NATO decided to launch a competition between interested candidates. The first tests were made in the UK but the main evaluation was performed in France in 2002 by the ETBS (where six-month tests, comprising 22 different tests took place) and by a quick reaction team (QRT) designed by Nato NAAG in 2003.
Although the QRT clearly mentioned its preferences for the 5.7x28mm caliber, the standardisation process seems to be definitively interrupted.
Brief analysis of ETBS testing
ETBS testing has underlined the following positive points:
- Greater effectiveness of the 5.7mm calibre against unprotected targets and equal against protected targets; energy deposit much higher for the 5.7mm
- Level of perforation of the CRISAT targets superior to the 150m NATO threshold (> 200m)
- Better internal ballistics of the 5.7x28mm system; leading to a more restricted sensitivity of the 5.7x28mm system to variations in firing conditions (extreme temperatures) compared to the 4.6x30mm
- The 4.6x30mm system is much more aggressive in relation to the weapon: higher internal pressure, variations and deviations are more important
An ad hoc working group consisting of technical and operational experts from France, Belgium, Switzerland, USA, Germany, the UK, Italy and the Netherlands met in order to establish a final classification between both calibres. Six criteria were selected, namely incapacitation, hit probability in test tubes, hit probability in weapons with shooters, reliability, internal ballistics and penetrating power. The final outcome based on the results spoke for itself (see table).
Synthesis of the results and QRT analysis
In a first stage, the QRT selected three testing criteria and their respective weights: effectiveness (80 per cent), cost of ammunition (15 per cent) and barrel wear (five per cent).
The results of the QRT analysis (taking into account different remarks made by the competitors on the calculations of lethality have shown that the 5.7mm is 27 per cent more effective (Pi/h) against unprotected targets at 100m than the 4.6mm and 11 per cent more effective than the 4.6 against CRISAT protected targets at the same range.
Regarding the barrel erosion, the conclusion of the QRT was that despite the fact that no significant erosion had been highlighted by the ETBS tests (5,000 rounds), the design of the 4.6x30mm ammunition would suggest a greater potential risk of barrel erosion.
In addition to the abovementioned analysis, the QRT also integrated the calibre potential and its design maturity into its analysis.
- The 5.7x28mm is close to the 5.56mm NATO calibre both by its design and manufacturing process. It can therefore be manufactured easily on the same production lines as the 5.56mm
- The 5.7x28mm system is much more mature than the 4.6x30mm system
- A 5.7x28mm pistol family exists whereas the 4.6x30mm pistol project is only a paper concept
Despite some remaining minor errors in the evaluations, it is clear that at the end of the complete ETBS testing (a six-month intensive testing, more than 20 different tests performed), the 5.7x28mm calibre won this technical competition and the victory was confirmed and amplified by the complementary analysis and tests performed by the QRT. Some countries seem now to question those results or even the evaluation process.
It should be noted that this latter had been clearly defined and was accepted by all actors, industrials as well as national representatives before testing. Unfortunately, NATO policies imply that a general consensus has to be reached before making any decision. Any country can veto any decision anytime without even having to provide acceptable reasons. With such a process, economical or political interests can easily make any project fail miserably.
Finally, let us not forget that at the present time more than 20,000 5.7x28 mm systems are really in service throughout the world, including some NATO countries like Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, the USA, etc… and that in the end, the major factor of success is, and will remain, customers' satisfaction.
Reliability test
5.7x28mm
Total score = 127
Total score without taking into consideration the Belgian and German values = 96
4.6x30mm
Total score = 107
Total score without taking into consideration the Belgian and German values = 83
Total score = 127
Total score without taking into consideration the Belgian and German values = 96
4.6x30mm
Total score = 107
Total score without taking into consideration the Belgian and German values = 83
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Richard's Swaging Book
Richard's Swaging Book: "Richard B Corbin
Richard’s Swaging Book
Table of contents
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 Bullet Swaging Presses
Chapter 3 Lead Bullets
Chapter 4 Paper Jacketed Bullets
Chapter 5 Shotgun Slugs
Chapter 6 Tubing Jackets
Chapter 7 Cartridge Case Jackets
Chapter 8 Jackets
Chapter 9 Bullets, Metal Jacketed
Chapter 10 Special Bullets
Chapter 11 Making Dies
Chapter 12 Tables, Charts, & Stuff
Chapter 13 Swaging Business
Chapter 14 Addendum
click here to contact RCE, LLC
Click here to return to main menu"
Richard’s Swaging Book
Table of contents
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 Bullet Swaging Presses
Chapter 3 Lead Bullets
Chapter 4 Paper Jacketed Bullets
Chapter 5 Shotgun Slugs
Chapter 6 Tubing Jackets
Chapter 7 Cartridge Case Jackets
Chapter 8 Jackets
Chapter 9 Bullets, Metal Jacketed
Chapter 10 Special Bullets
Chapter 11 Making Dies
Chapter 12 Tables, Charts, & Stuff
Chapter 13 Swaging Business
Chapter 14 Addendum
click here to contact RCE, LLC
Click here to return to main menu"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)