Headspace in non-belted rifle cases

Case head protrusion has NOTHING to do with headspace UNLESS it is caused by a short bolt face. A headspace gauge can not check this. I have seen some really shot out barrels (That is why the separated case extractors in machine gun kits) and the barrel seems to lose dimensions faster than the bolt. Your mentor Guffy is worried about blowing out the side of a case because he only works with guns known for the problem. A problem with machining, not headspace. Once you go past the head on the brass in an unsupported condition, there is usually trouble. Funny everybody brings up the .308 as an example. In recent years the load books have added two sections for this round. The reason being that there is actually 3 headspace dimensions for this cartridge. European, U.S. Military, and SAAMI. I have been working with SAAMI specs long before the internet, and they are not the endall to questions about headspace. Sometimes a little judgement is involved. BartB, not sure about the tolerance you are talking about. You may be right, but I think when you add in all the dimensions, maybe not. Headspace is not a linear movement on MOST rimless cases.
 
How do you have one without the other? Like flight without air or drag. Back to basics:

I already explained that. They are not the same thing and are not even related, except that if you know how deep the chamber is drilled AND you know the headspace AND you know the profile/feed ramp angle THEN you could calculate case head protrusion.

That's something that virtually no one does, I don't recall ever even hearing it mentioned before and it still comes quite solidly down on the (I would have thought) inarguable fact that case head protrusion and headspace ARE NOT the same nor even related in a general sense.

Legalistic argument, hiding behind definitions behind which you do not understand either the assumptions or implications.

I appreciate the insult but it's entirely unnecessary. I fully understand both the definitions and implications of both matters. "Hiding behind definitions"? Yeah, lots of us do that when... you know... we want other people to know what we're talking about. I don't just call "blue" red because I think it's neat. Blue is not red. Headspace is not case head protrusion and they're not even related in a general sense.

Why should I believe this?, and, even if it was off, where was it off?

Don't believe it. Find some semi-auto pistol barrels, measure the headspace, measure some cases, measure the extractor play and report back to us.

And that is not case head protrusion?,

Yes.... it is.... and it has precisely ZERO to do with headspace. A different barrel with the same exact headspace and a different feed ramp geometry will have less (or more) case head protrusion.

Case head protrusion is not headspace.
 
Are there any headspace gauges that measure case protrusion from any flat breeched barrels such as Mausers and push-feed Winchester 70's?
 
Why should I believe this?, and, even if it was off, where was it off?

Don't believe it. Find some semi-auto pistol barrels, measure the headspace, measure some cases, measure the extractor play and report back to us.

That’s is a fool’s errand. Why don’t see if you can convince pistol manufacturer’s that they don’t know how to build pistols or measure headspace, but you do. Maybe they will hire you as a consultant.


That's something that virtually no one does, I don't recall ever even hearing it mentioned before and it still comes quite solidly down on the (I would have thought) inarguable fact that case head protrusion and headspace ARE NOT the same nor even related in a general sense.

Assume both designs have the same bolt face to chamber shoulder length, that is, same “headspace”. One of these is a better design, for a particular operating system, because it provides better case head support and allows more case movement prior to ejection from the weapon. The other design, with more case head protrusion, the dwell would be shorter resulting in a more violent action movement and more likely burst case heads.
 
Are there any headspace gauges that measure case protrusion from any flat breeched barrels such as Mausers and push-feed Winchester 70's?

Not that I am aware. I have read material, and I forget where, on how one gunsmith measured case head protrusion when he did chambering jobs.

I have not found any table providing guidance on appropriate case head protrusion by cartridge. Conceptually it can be understood that case sidewalls taper and at some wall thickness the brass will burst at a given pressure. This is something that could be, and most certainly has been calculated, given the hardness of the brass, the thickness of the sidewall, a rupture strength could be calculated, and the limits of safe case head protrusion calculated for a particular mechanism. I have asked several gunsmiths, they get their numbers from examinations of existing rifle mechanisms.

I would never let anyone barrel any rifle I own who by his response, indicated that he was clueless about the importance of case head protrusion. In the end, it is my head, my face, my eyes behind the thing, and if a darn fool cuts the cone or bevel too deep, because he thinks headspace has nothing to do with case head protrusion, I might be blinded.
 
Slamfire said:
That’s is a fool’s errand. Why don’t see if you can convince pistol manufacturer’s that they don’t know how to build pistols or measure headspace, but you do. Maybe they will hire you as a consultant.



You're good with the little jabs. It really doesn't add a thing to your argument though.



It's got nothing whatsoever to do with knowing how to build a pistol. It's got to do with a little thing called "tolerances". You don't even need to go measure. Just look at the SAAMI chamber diagram for 9mm Luger.



Chamber headspace is .754 minimum, max of 0.776. Case length is max of 0.754 with 0.744 minimum.



Do you know how much play is in an extractor? It depends on rim thickness but it's usually right around 0.015" or less. What is 0.744+0.015? 0.759. That means a minimum case in a maximum chamber will be 0.017 short of proper headspace. A SAAMI max case in a SAAMI max chamber will still be 0.007 short of proper headspace. They will headspace on the extractor. In fact, a chamber must be no more than 0.769 for THE LONGEST case to be able to "properly" headspace. A chamber headspace longer than 0.759 and the shortest case can never headpsace properly.



Cases tend to be toward the short end of their tolerances and chambers tend to be at the long end. Know what that means?



The very questions and incidents that prompted the OP? The idea of firing a 40SW in a 10mm or a 45GAP in a .45ACP? Those are proof of concept. The extractor can (and does) hold a round just fine and dandy. More often than folks think, as it turns out.



Assume both designs have the same bolt face to chamber shoulder length, that is, same “headspace”. One of these is a better design, for a particular operating system, because it provides better case head support and allows more case movement prior to ejection from the weapon. The other design, with more case head protrusion, the dwell would be shorter resulting in a more violent action movement and more likely burst case heads.



You're absolutely right... and your diagram exactly proves the point that I've been making all along. Headspace and case head protrusion are entirely different and unrelated.



Which action is better or worse is also a completely unrelated topic.

Glock changed their design slightly and almost completely eliminated the kB problem. Same headspace though.

A completely unchanged design, like say a Savage 110, could have case head protrusion changed by the chamber not being reamed as deep. Headspace would be identical, case head protrusion would not be.
 
Last edited:
The 0.200" measurement is designated as Basic, which means that it theoretically has 0 tolerance.

I do not think the .200" Basic on the cartridge and chamber drawing is measuring the .200" of casehead protrusion that FGuffey speaks of.

The SAAMI .200" is a reference, like the .400" datum circle on the shoulder. There is no physical landmark or structure there, it is the forward location where the case and chamber diameters are measured.

Dick Casull designed a rifle with fully supported chamber, akin to the second drawing in Post 44. His version used cases with a steel head, countersunk for a bolt nose and an extractor hooking into an internal groove. You could do about as well with a rimmed case and an extractor notch not as deep as the case head thickness.

I am reminded of the Mann-Neidner "Hamburg Rifle" so named because of what it did to a woodchuck with a .25 Krag bullet. It had (Has, a contemporary picture may be Googled.) interrupted thread locking lugs. As Mann described it, it screws the bolt right up to the head of the cartridge. No head clearance, cartridge headspace equal to chamber headspace; no "back leash" in Mann's term.
As I recall, no longer having the gunzine article, it also had a safety firing pin, details not given. Mann said the primer would not be pierced even though the chamber were bulged.

In the 1960s there were a lot of Astra 400 pistols, caliber 9mm Largo = 9x23 Bergman Bayard, sold surplus. Largo ammunition was hardly available, so it was common for them to be advertised as "interchangeable 9mm". Sure enough, you could load it with 9mm P and if the round came up out of the magazine under the extractor a la "controlled feed", it would work just fine. But it didn't always come up under the extractor. Maj. Geo. C. Nonte did some tests with 9mm P cartridges NOT engaged by the extractor. The gun has effectively unlimited firing pin protrusion, like a 1911, and the round in ahead of the extractor hook would fire. It would also blow the primer and cut loose a fireworks demonstration out the breech. Could be why the Germans bought Astra 600, 9mm P'08.
 
Perhaps a few comments can either help or add to the confusion.

Excess headspace with a rifle designed for a rimless case means that the distance between the shoulder datum point in the chamber and the face of the locked breechblock exceeds specs. To be dangerous, it must also exceed the distance the brass can stretch without tearing or allow the case to extend out of the chamber far enough that the thin point above the base is unsupported.

A lot of confusion is caused because excess headspace can manifest itself in two ways. Let's use, as an example, a bolt action rifle with excess headspace caused by badly worn and battered bolt lugs and/or lug seats.

What I might call Condition 1 is when the bolt is all the way forward, seating the cartridge fully into the chamber. The wear has created space behind the locking lugs. The initial pressure will force the front of the case walls outward against the chamber walls. The rearward pressure is contained for an instant by the inertia of the bolt before the rear of the case is forced backward, pushing the bolt back as far as it can go. That will cause the case to stretch. If it can stretch too far, it will tear; if the separated base does not obturate enough to seal the chamber, gas will be released into the action, possibly damaging the rifle and injuring the shooter. If the case can move back far enough, part of the case walls will be outside the chamber and damage will be severe.

What I will call Condition 2 is if the bolt, with the same gap between the lugs and the log seats, is closed in such a way that it is fully to the rear, and the case is against the bolt face (held perhaps by the extractor). Firing the round will result in the case swelling out at the front and the shoulder, but not tearing, since the rear part of the case cannot move backward.

Condition 1 becomes dangerous if the bolt can move back far enough that the case will be unsupported by the chamber walls and rupture. Condition 2 becomes dangerous if the case extends far enough outside the chamber that the thin part of the case wall ahead of the base is unsupported. In both conditions, the case walls ahead of the base will rupture and high pressure gas will be released into the action. The result is usually a ruined rifle and possibly injury to the shooter. So the two conditions can produce the same result, even though the initial situations are different. More important, some excess headspace can give different symptoms. In one case, stretched brass, in the other a shoulder moved forward. Because of that, excess headspace is often not recognized or the shooter may believe that some "quick fix", like heck sizing the cases will "correct" the headspace problem, as it might, for a while.

Now how about a rimmed or belted case? Since the case cannot be forced deeper into the chamber than the rim will allow, some people conclude that Condition 1 is impossible with a rimmed or belted cartridge. That is not true. If the bolt does not support the base, the cartridge, rimmed/belted or rimless, can stretch and tear.

Jim
 
I can take a perfectly good barrel, with tight headspace, and mill the extractor notch .250 deeper than it should be. It will still have perfect headspace, but the brass will probably have a blow hole by the extractor notch. On rimless cases there is usually about .200 of "Head" (Solid brass). You have to have some common sense. You can replace a bolt and get proper headspace, kind of, but the dimensions on the chamber may still be way oversize. Not dangerous, but poor brass life if you full length size. People really underestimate the strength of brass with REASONABLE loads. I really have some good wrong bullet in the gun stories over the years.
 
You're absolutely right... and your diagram exactly proves the point that I've been making all along. Headspace and case head protrusion are entirely different and unrelated.

I am beginning to see that any further discussion will be fruitless as what I see is a severe group think based on what I will call Strong Pressure Vessel Delusion or SPVD. The human mind is always trying to make sense of the world, people cobble together a view of how the world works based on their experiences, their intuition, and what trusted authorities tell them. Frequently the theories that come out make sense logically, legalistically, but are actually physically impossible. We argue all the time about how the universe works, and this thread is just another example of how different foundation theories, stated or otherwise, result in confusion and conflict.

I think someone suffering Strong Pressure Vessel Delusion perceives the world something like this:

It just makes sense that the cartridge case is strong: the weakest portion of a 308 case bursts just at 650 psia, the heaviest probably above 40Kpsia. From what I have read the strongest human jaw can create a bite force of 256 psia, while the Nile Crocodile can create a bite force of 5000 psia! So given that you cannot crush a case in your hand or pierce it with your teeth, your brain understands that a cartridge case is very strong. Being strong, the cartridge case can do the job, unsupported, like all the other pressure vessels you have ever seen or experienced. You have reasoned while firearms have chambers, they are not really necessary. You could, with duct tape or clamps, fasten the case down, hold the case mouth up in the bore, to form a gas seal, and all it takes is primer ignition and gas will vent out blowing the bullet up the barrel. In a way similiar to the many times you have used a compressed air tank to clear debri. Compressed air tanks are plenty strong, they don’t need to be inside something to work, they just need to be on something to work. In an analogous mode the chamber is there simply for precise alignment of the bullet to the bore, which is why we have all these discussions about neck sizing or partial neck sizing: these are simply ways to best utilize the precise launching axis that a chamber provides. The wise posters in these threads reinforce your concepts of SPVD. Ideas of case head support are baffling and inexplicable: it does not matter how much the case sticks out of the chamber. Case head protrusion has nothing to do with nothing and is related to nothing. As you have noticed, all firearms are different, case head protrusion is all different, this supports your view that the case does not need support, it is strong enough on its own to handle any and all combustion pressures. This is all very obvious. Cases are strong, so are compressed air tanks, fire extinguishers, and CO2 cartridges. All of them strong pressure vessels. While you do understand that headspace is a measure between base and shoulder, and you have found that too much space between case shoulder and chamber shoulder will cause a case separation, the fact that case head separations occur do not alter your view that a cartridge case is a strong pressure vessel: you don’t ponder this, or it is just one of those exceptions that prove the rule. Barrels are heavy and chambers are thick just for the weight and the subsequent recoil reduction that provides. In fact, you have concluded that the locking mechanism is just there to keep the cartridge in place and by itself does not need to be very strong. Given sufficient friction between case and chamber you could discard the locking mechanism entirely because the case would stay locked in place. You notice that drag racers use wide tires. From this you have deduced that the larger the case, the more gripping area. The more gripping area the more friction there must be between case and chamber. Thus it is theoretically possible to make a case so large that a locking mechanism is not needed. Unfortunately there is never enough friction and the locking mechanism has to be there to prevent the case from floating off into the air like a carnival balloon or a bottle rocket.​

I believe the case is a gas seal: that is it is very weak, has to be supported or it will burst under combustion pressures . Since we are approaching this issue from two diametrically opposed views of the universe, I feel that nothing I say will alter your view of the universe. And really, nothing you are going to say is going to alter, by much, mine.
 
Last edited:
Slamfire said:
I feel that nothing I say will alter your view of the universe. And really, nothing you are going to say is going to alter, by much, mine.

Certainly true, because you're essentially arguing with yourself.

The weakness of the case, the danger of unsupported case heads, all that is very real and I understand it.

It's also very irrelevant to this thread and still completely and totally unrelated to headspace in any general sense.

I guess you can call it "group think" if you want to.

You've never explained why headspace and case support are the same thing.

Now, if you set headspace incorrectly, by way of improperly cutting the chamber, in a certain gun design, you may well and truly have too much unsupported case. So what?

Some guns are poorly designed and have too much unsupported case head when they have perfectly acceptable headspace. So what?

None of that has one damn thing to do with equating headspace to unsupported case head nor does it have anything to do with any question asked by the OP.

He's talking about firing 40SW in a 10mm or improperly sizing cases in a beltless cartridge. He's not building a gun. He's not setting headspace. He's not designing an action.
 
Here is a bizarre one for you Brian. Years ago I was at the range with my Buddy and we had a couple different rifles we were playing with. Stupidly, we had all kinds of ammo on the one bench. I had an Arisaka I reworked to 7.62x54. I made the bolt and I copied the head from the Russian, small extractor included. The barrel breech all so had the long extractor cut like the Russian barrels. Anyway: My Buddy was shooting it and without looking or thinking, he reached in a box and loaded a .300 Savage in the magazine well. This set up was a push feed and it did. He thought it really had a mild recoil and was shocked when he picked the empty up off the table. We looked at other empty .300 savage brass fired in a .300 Savage and could not see a difference. You would think that the brass would be tremendously distorted because there could be no support on the main body diameter. It looks as if the case was trapped between the shoulder and the bolt face. The case was not even stretched out, so apparently it had the right headspace? I often wanted to try it in a Russian (Under controlled conditions), but never got around to it. It was a factory Remington Cartridge, but I do not remember what grain bullet.
 
That is an interesting one...

I don't find it hard to believe that it would chamber and fire. The back end of the 54 chamber is plenty big enough to let the .300 case in and their shoulders start at almost exactly the same place (1.558 vs 1.553) but the .300 is 5 thou longer with a narrower case, so I have to wonder if the shoulder of the 54 at 5 thou in might just be close enough for the .300 to touch there, at least within the reach of the firing pin.

I assume the barrel was .311/2? If so, I would expect almost no pressure at all although it would be mildly surprising that there wasn't even enough to expand the case. Wouldn't be the first surprise in the world, though.:D
 
Yes, it was a reworked .311/.312 barrel(Arisaka). No real pressure loss there. I doubt there is enough difference to matter. I had an Arisaka that was set back and chambered to .300 Savage. It was quite accurate @ 100 yards. I have seen quite a few at flea markets and yard sales. I also had an Arisaka that was re-cut to 30.06 by the U.S. Military. I still have an Arisaka (I used to collect them) I did into 7.62x39, and the most accurate 150 grain load I use is with .308 bullets. A lot of shooters use .224 bullets in their Savage Hi-Powers with reasonable results. Nothing to do with headspace, but I never believed that .001 or .002 difference in a barrel really mattered much @ 100 yards. The old horror stories about bullets tumbling into a target or giving unbelievable large groups is more than likely handed down rumors resulting from using the wrong bullets in that twist rate. I actually had a 6.5 Arisaka do that. I re-cut it to 6.5x55 and @50 yards the bullets (139 GR) key holed the target. Like all loaders, I went up and down. 160 grain bullets will cut clover leaves with 3 rounds. I did some study on this and it turned out that the real early 6.5's had a different twist rate.
 
Back
Top