You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
6.5 carcano
- Thread starter buck
- Start date
Hold on!
Not such a good idea, Buck! It would require a bunch of work, including opening up the bolt face to the .472 or so for the .30-06 and .308 case head dimension, and then you have to ream the chamber to the new cartridge. A 6.5-08 would be easier, close to the 51mm of the original 6.5 Carcano, but I don't know if there's enough meat to comfortably support the fatter .308 round after rechambering. A 6.5-06 would be much harder to do, being 64 mm long, etc.
Then you have to consider if that Carcano action is strong enough to handle the pressures of the 6.5-08 and 6.5-06. There's enough folks out there afraid of the striker assembly coming back into your eye even in the original chambering to seriously question wanting to open up that action for a hotter round like the 6.5-08. Not that I've ever seen or heard anybody come out with concrete evidence that the striker/eye accident really did happen with some frequency, though.
Matter of fact, there were a bunch of late-war Carcanos chambered and rebored to 8x57 Mauser. As an impromptu test, I helped to purposely blow one up by stuffing an 8mm Mauser case full of WW231 and a 170gr 8mm roundnose bullet into the chamber. The bolt stayed in battery, but the front ring let go, sending the barrel forward. Granted, it was much more oomph than the 6.5-08 or 6.5-06 would provide, but I wanted to see if that striker would budge.
Truthfully, if you want a 6.5-08 (aka .260 Remington)or 6.5-06, build one on a proven 98 Mauser action, or a newer Remington, Winchester, Sako, or Ruger action, it would be better dimensioned, and have a better safety margin.
Not such a good idea, Buck! It would require a bunch of work, including opening up the bolt face to the .472 or so for the .30-06 and .308 case head dimension, and then you have to ream the chamber to the new cartridge. A 6.5-08 would be easier, close to the 51mm of the original 6.5 Carcano, but I don't know if there's enough meat to comfortably support the fatter .308 round after rechambering. A 6.5-06 would be much harder to do, being 64 mm long, etc.
Then you have to consider if that Carcano action is strong enough to handle the pressures of the 6.5-08 and 6.5-06. There's enough folks out there afraid of the striker assembly coming back into your eye even in the original chambering to seriously question wanting to open up that action for a hotter round like the 6.5-08. Not that I've ever seen or heard anybody come out with concrete evidence that the striker/eye accident really did happen with some frequency, though.
Matter of fact, there were a bunch of late-war Carcanos chambered and rebored to 8x57 Mauser. As an impromptu test, I helped to purposely blow one up by stuffing an 8mm Mauser case full of WW231 and a 170gr 8mm roundnose bullet into the chamber. The bolt stayed in battery, but the front ring let go, sending the barrel forward. Granted, it was much more oomph than the 6.5-08 or 6.5-06 would provide, but I wanted to see if that striker would budge.
Truthfully, if you want a 6.5-08 (aka .260 Remington)or 6.5-06, build one on a proven 98 Mauser action, or a newer Remington, Winchester, Sako, or Ruger action, it would be better dimensioned, and have a better safety margin.
All of the above, plus you can't get the 6.5-08 in the Carcano clip. Since having special clips made would simply not be feasible, you would have to modify the magazine to work without the clip as was done on some of the German Model 1888 conversions.
I second the motion to go with a good 98 Mauser action. (In fact, a Remington Model 7 in 7mm-08 would probably do everything you want, look a lot better, be drilled and tapped, and be cheaper in the long run.)
Jim
I second the motion to go with a good 98 Mauser action. (In fact, a Remington Model 7 in 7mm-08 would probably do everything you want, look a lot better, be drilled and tapped, and be cheaper in the long run.)
Jim
Hi, Paul,
Today, I agree, to a point. But I have often asked one question. If, in 1891, you had to fight a war and had a choice between the Carcano and the U.S. service rifle at the time (the trapdoor Springfield), which would you choose?
In the context of the time and what other nations were issuing, the Carcano was not a bad rifle. It is not really suitable for any kind of decent sporter conversion or for conversion to any other caliber or feeding method, but that does not make it junk, only an obsolete rifle that is probably better retired.
Jim
Today, I agree, to a point. But I have often asked one question. If, in 1891, you had to fight a war and had a choice between the Carcano and the U.S. service rifle at the time (the trapdoor Springfield), which would you choose?
In the context of the time and what other nations were issuing, the Carcano was not a bad rifle. It is not really suitable for any kind of decent sporter conversion or for conversion to any other caliber or feeding method, but that does not make it junk, only an obsolete rifle that is probably better retired.
Jim