22-250 rechambering question

[longfellow]

I have a commercial mauser (Husky) in 270 Winchester that I'd like to have rebarelled to 22-250.
To try to get an idea how well this medium action will feed and extract the new case, I purchases and fed some 22-250 rouonds; they fed just fine, popping out of the magazine and up under the extractor exactly as the 270 cases do. However there is a brief instant with the 22-250's when the bolt loses full control, the case comes back out from beneath the extractor, and I can pul the bolt back without it having control over the case. They still go completely in to the chamber just fine, it just acts like a push feed action from about a point when the bolt face is about a half inch away from disappearing in to the receiver ring.
My question is whether the fact that the chamber is not correct might be partially responsible; will the action truly behave as a controlled round feeding action again when the approproiate 22-250 chambered barrel is installed or do your (I am speaking hopefully to gunsmiths out there) customers just live with a push feed action? Further, if this is the case then how is durrability affected when now the claw extractor is going to be snapping over the case as opposed to the case slipping beneath as it was designed to do?
I do not want any alterations to the metal. I may go back to the 270 chambering some day and the action is too beautiful; so any of the more extensive rail or extractor modifications are unacceptable. If they are typically done with a rebarelling job such as this, I will just go purchase a 22-250 rifle.
Thanks,
ed

 

[44 AMP]

I would recommend buying a .22-250 rifle. Not because the .22-250 can't be made to work in your action, but because of your stated desire to be ble to easily go back to .270.

Typically, when turning a standard length action into a .22-250, a spacer is used in the magazine box (along with a new follower and spring), to make feeding more reliable. It may not be necassary, but it is often done. Also, due to the difference in case length and taper, modification to the action feed rails may be done as well. Again, sometimes not needed, but it might be. There's more to getting the shorter tapered cartridge to feed right in the long action than often assumed.

That being said, back in the 1970s I had a .22-250 built on a Mauser action, without a blocked mag, and as far as I know, any alterations to the rails, and it fed just fine. And I don't remember any issues with the extractor having to snap over the rim, either. If a mauser action is relieved to allow the extractor to snap over the rim of a chambered round, there's no problem. If it isn't, then you risk damage to the extractor if you force it.

Over all, I think you would be happier if you got a .22-250 and kept your .270 the way it is. IF nothing else, you will have no regrets about "ruining" your .270.

 

[James K]

In a so-called "controlled feed" action, extractor engagement depends in part on support of the round from the chamber. In other words, unless the round enters the chamber part way and fits reasonably tight, it can be loose enough to drop out of the extractor. IF the extractor is tight and the case head is the right size, that shouldn't happen, but things are not always perfect.

I think the problem you are seeing is due to the .22-250 being both shorter and smaller at the front than the .270 case and things would be OK in a .22-250 barrel.

But if you are serious about wanting to keep or go back to a .270, then buy a .22-250 rifle and keep the one in .270 that shoots so well. There have been rifles made with interchangeable barrels but they cost as much as two ordinary rifles.

Jim