Remlins in my 336 30-30

[stagpanther]

Bought my first Marlin lever a few months ago--in what else, a 30-30. I put a williams rail on it since it included a peep in the rear. Mounting a scope with see-through rings gives me quick access to both.

I had problems right from the start, groups spread unpredictably sometimes as wide as 7", and that was with the scope. Tossed the Marlin in the safe since I had some other pressing projects to attend to.

Deer season is fast approaching, and as usual my dilemma (having too much to choose from) is what to choose. Decided to revisit my 336 to see what I could do.

A couple of boxes of core lokts and power points, and I still couldn't get things to tighten up. rail and rings were tight, so that wasn't the problem. I remembered that my rossi initially shot abysmally due to the mag tube putting a leverage pressure on the barrel--so decided to check the 336 if something similar could be happening. Sure enough--the fore-end was cocked to one side and held there by the barrel bands. It was easy to see when looking at the fore-end butt end where it meets the barrel and magazine tube. just a bit of loosening of the band screws, re-alignment and done. The next target was the scope rail--I previously had the front scope ring out on the "overhang" portion of the rail which is not contacting the receiver. Moved the rings back so that nothing was on the "overhang."

Things got a lot better immediately, though it's hard to say what made the difference--the fore-end re-alignment or the ring repositioning.

 

[stagpanther]

So here is the core lokt 150's at 100

And Winchester Super X 170's

Core lokt 150's at 85 yds using just the peep sight

 

[stagpanther]

Decided to whip up a fresh batch of hand-loads; here are hot core 170's driven by leverlution. What a classic cartridge--over 100 years old and still great!

 

[Deaf Smith]

Well done!

I have a older 336 made in 1967. I use LeverRevolution powder and Sierra 170s. They make a great pair!

Deaf

 

[stagpanther]

Thanks Deaf--my plan is to find the best load using the scope and then see how well and consistently I can shoot it with just the irons, would love to be able to ditch the scope, the woods in Maine are so thick that shots over 50 yds are very rare unless hunting powerlines or fields (which are also rare, roughly 95% of Maine is forested).

 

[Deaf Smith]

You can get a Skinner 'Minimalist' sight like I have on mine. Uses the existing front sight.

Deaf

 

[stagpanther]

The peep works great--I just have to get used to it--I have bad eyes! ; )

 

[stagpanther]

Went out and fired the hot cores today--a bit disappointed they didn't group any better than the factory stuff except the milder load at the bottom of the ladder--around 33 grs--grouped just over MOA

The peep on the rail I have does work with the stock front sight--I simply popped the hood off the front sight.

 

[Slamfire]

It takes a lot of work and testing to get the rifle to shoot 3 MOA. I worked at it, found a load with N135 and got a true ten shot group of 2" at 100 yards. My best ten shot group in Nov was 5.8" at 200 yards with the same load. That is perfectly acceptable for a lever action.

First ten shots, getting familiar with the sights and bull

Better ten shot grouping

This load was the old standard, still shot well, but vertically strings.

Rifle with its 1 X 4 Luepold scope.

I lubricated all the cases and shot them lubricated. These are the greased cases and bullets all ready to go. A little dab will do you!

The reason I lubed these new cases is that the chamber in my JM Marlin was huge. If I had not lubricated the cases they would have stretched so much that I would likely would have had case head separations on the first firing, or within a couple of firings. As it was, once I lubed the cases, instead of the case neck and shoulders sticking to the chamber, and then the case stretching to the bolt face, once lubed, they were unable to grip the chamber walls. Upon firing my cases slide to the bolt face, the shoulders fold out, and I end up with a perfectly fire formed, stress free case. Just as National Champion Bench rest shooters do, when they are fire forming cases. Cost is a consideration to me, for some rich retirees on the web, cost is not important, but I want my cases to last as long as physically possible. When re sizing these cases, I use my case gage to determine just how much to bump the shoulder back, which is about 0.003". Just enough to ensure perfect chambering and extraction.

After extensive testing of my rifle, I am of the opinion, (assuming the patterns I saw are real!) is that this rifle shoots best with ammunition just at factory velocities. Velocities, and thus pressures, above and below factory did not shoot as well. Also, N135 gave very tight velocity extreme spreads and standard deviations. I think that was critical because lever action guns are extremely complex dynamic structures. If the fore end is slightly loose, if the tube moves, if anything rattles, these rifles don't group consistently. These are not target rifles and never will. They have taken millions of deer and other animals, because the shots were close and well placed. This is not a 700 yard rifle and cartridge.

I am going to try the thing at 300 yards, just to see what happens, but the day I zero'd it a CMP, I though, 200 yards is far enough for the thing.

 

[ThomasT]

I have never heard of greasing cases. Cases are supposed to expand and grip the walls of the chamber to help keep some of the pressure off the bolt. Or so I have always read. Like it is you are expecting the bolt and locking lugs to take the complete force of the round going off. Oh well, its your gun.

And yes the 30-30 is a classic cartridge. I could have killed every deer and elk I have killed with a 30-30 except one 250 yard deer I killed with a 243. I could do all the hunting I am likely to do for the rest of my life with a 30-30.

The 30WCF cases don't really last as long as say a 30-06 case mainly because they are thin walled. But the good thing about 30-30 cases is You can buy them once fired off GB. I bought 500 for around $50 a few years ago. If I just get 4 reloadings from them thats like having 2000 cases. Plus I already have over a 1000 cases on hand.

I have a 170gr mold I hope to do some casting with when it cools down. Using lead bullets lets you get in some cheap practice and with lower power charges the cases should last for many loadings.

Nice groups. On my Marlin 44 mag I had to fit the forearm because it was just a little long and put pressure on the barrel. I refit the wood from the reciever to the forend cap and also sanded the barrel channel and glass bedded all of it for a no pressure fit. My groups went from 5" to 2" at 100 yards. Thats about all I expect from pistol caliber carbine.

 

[stagpanther]

That's some mighty fine shooting there slamfire. I don't have any N135--but I do have quite a bit of H322. My Marlin has a pretty stiff trigger--your groups reflect superb technique.

 

[Slamfire]

I have never heard of greasing cases. Cases are supposed to expand and grip the walls of the chamber to help keep some of the pressure off the bolt. Or so I have always read.

What you have read is nonsense from Gunwriters. Gunwriters are a bunch of brainless twits who lack analytical or critical analysis capabilities. They simply repeat what they have been told by authority figures. The authority figures in this situation is the US Army Ordnance Department. The Army built over 1,000,000 defective M1903’s, the low number M1903’s. When one blew up, the Army blamed grease. The practice of the time was to grease bullets because the bullets of the era jacket fouled something awful. The Army, like all large organizations, never admits to fault and will create some big whopper lies to hide its failures.

So when one of their defective rifles blew up with issue ammunition, the Army blamed greased bullets. This is Swiss greased bullet ammunition. They issued ammunition with greased bullets up the 1980’s.

It was common practice to grease the bullets of steel jacketed centerfire ammunition prior to the invention of gilding bullet jackets. Steel jacketed, armor piercing bullets were hard on barrels which is why steel jacketed ammunition was issued with greased bullets. The Army seems to be completely unaware of the greased bullets used in 280 Ross ammunition, totally unaware of the greased bullets used by the Austrians, Italians, Russians, and more.

Gunwriters have accepted this explanation, repeated it, expanded on it, it has become dogma among many in the shooting community. I find this totally amazing that a coverup over a century old is still one of the core beliefs in the shooting community. It is one of the longest lasting coverups that I come across and actively adhered to. The US Army knew its audience. Since Gunwriters are the primary source of knowledge in the shooting community, whatever they say, and whatever they believe, the shooting community repeats and believes. Garbage in and garbage out.

Gunwriters don’t know their history either. There were lots of mechanisms that used oilers. This is a Nambu machine gun. That cap, beside the hopper, is the cap to the oiler. The Italians, the Japanese, the Austrians, and the Americans, used machine guns (or machine cannon) that had oilers. The Americans also used a machine cannon that used greased ammunition. No one seems to remember that though.

Like it is you are expecting the bolt and locking lugs to take the complete force of the round going off. Oh well, its your gun.

Absolutely. That is what the locking mechanism is there for, it is there to carry the full bolt thrust of the cartridge ignoring any case friction. This is true for all designs, unless you are an especially stupid and negligent designer.

Let me ask this question, by how much would you weaken the locking mechanism, assuming the case carries some of the load? Maybe this is too difficult to understand, so I will make it simple. Let’s say that the maximum possible bolt thrust is the OD of the cartridge (at maximum case head separation) time maximum pressure. That will give a load in pounds. Instead of a number in pounds, let us just say it is the 100% load. Then, at what load do you design the locking lugs to fail? Say, 80% of the load, maybe 70% of the load, or 50% of the load? If you don't design the mechanism to carry 100% of the load, then the cartridge case has to carry the rest. Just what is that number you use to weaken your locking mechanism, and how do you maintain it?

That is a very important question, what if the shooter ran an oily patch through the barrel and left some oil in the chamber. Well there you are, 100 % load and you, the incompetent designer, designed the locking mechanism to break at an 80% load. The gun will be damaged and the shooter may be injured, and you will have a nice lawsuit that you, the incompetent designer, will lose in court. Or, what if the shooter uses neck sized brass. To repeat, if the case is not carrying load, the locking mechanism has to carry the rest of the load. Neck sized brass is typically a crush fit in the chamber. A non interference fit means the case is not stretched during combustion. For the case to carry load it has to be stretched, therefore, with a crunch fit case, the locking lugs are carrying the 100% load. Therefore, for the mechanism that was weakened, assuming the case carries load, neck sizing is dangerous.

So, back to the question, how much do you weaken the mechanism, assuming the case carries some of the load?

If you are worried about bolt thrust, cut your load. Reducing the amount of powder in the case is the absolute most positive means to reduce combustion pressures and thus, reduce bolt thrust. No one ever does this though.

 

[ThomasT]

Slam fire you make a good a point and yes I am repeating what I have read. I do remember the oilers on some of the guns but thought it was to oil the mechanism. So thanks for the information. Excellent 200 yard shooting too. I have shot my Marlin 30-30 out to 300 yards shooting up a couple of bowling balls. These guns will shoot far better than some give them credit for.

 

[Slamfire]

That's some mighty fine shooting there slamfire. I don't have any N135--but I do have quite a bit of H322. My Marlin has a pretty stiff trigger--your groups reflect superb technique.

Try some H322, it is a good powder in the 30-30 Winchester. My Marlin also has a stiff trigger, but I think trigger pull had gotten heavier over time. What I have noticed, with my Ruger #1, and other mechanisms, is that vertical stringing is more likely with a heavy trigger. You tend to pull the shot down as a heavy trigger breaks. It is a lot more work to shoot a good group with a heavy trigger.

In terms of groups and technique, I am not a believer in three shot groups. This is more Gun writer nonsense. These guys get a flat fee for their articles and they reduce the cost of bullets, powder, and time, by shooting as few rounds down range as possible. I have lived through the era when Gunwriters fired ten shot groups, now it is three, and I predict that the shooting community will accept one shot groups, or virtual groups. Virtual groups will consist of the Gunwriter sitting before his computer screen, maybe yelling "Bang" and imagining what the group looks like.

If you shoot in a competitive sport what you learn is that consistency is hard. And winners are very consistent. The good ones, amazingly consistent. You have to see the groups fired by a National Champion to understand the amount of improvement needed to shoot at his level. It can be very humbling. If you shoot F Class, the typical match is 60 rounds for record. You shoot 20 rounds for record, three times over. No one wins the match with a three shot group. Three shot groups are basically worthless in determining accuracy or inherent accuracy, which again, are more reasons Gunwriters shoot them. They don't want to put out definitive information that readers may use, and use not to buy the rifle they are shilling for.

One of the absolute best shooting sports that I have engaged with, that has improved my technique, is smallbore prone. You shoot a 22lr rifle, match winner is decided after a total of 120 rounds, or 160 rounds, evenly divided at 50 yards and 100 yards. To be good at this game you have to have your fundamentals down. The fundamentals of position, sight alignment, and trigger pull. To be great, you have to read the wind as though it was large print text. I don't know how the greats do it, but, I am getting better at it.

100 Yard Match target, ten shots, prone with a sling.

 

[tango1niner]

From what I have read the military blamed poor heat treatment procedures of the day for failed Springfield receivers and not greased bullets. Never heard of such nonsense. The next step was to double HT the receivers and bolts, that worked. Then switch to nickel steel, that was a further and final solution/improvement.

The .30-30 headspaces on the rim. It would appear that your rifle suffers from excessive headspace. The block that holds the bolt in battery when the lever is closed may be undersized which is somewhat common. I've seen a few. The block on mine was undersize and allowed primers to back out at starting load pressures. Found a good one at a gun show and it cured the problem. The datum dimension of the angle was off allowing the bolt to sit too far away from the chamber when in battery. AKA excessive headspace...

 

[Slamfire]

From what I have read the military blamed poor heat treatment procedures of the day for failed Springfield receivers and not greased bullets. Never heard of such nonsense. The next step was to double HT the receivers and bolts, that worked. Then switch to nickel steel, that was a further and final solution/improvement.

You have not done your research. I also believe you are looking back at what we know today and are creating a false story with a fake chronology. What did the Army know and when did they know it?. When did the Army Ordnance Corp fully inform the shooting public about the defects of its low number receivers? The typical “Hatcherite” depends solely on his copy of Hatcher’s Notebook. I don’t think you have referred to yours, if you have one. But, it is worth looking at, for what not only Hatcher says, but of the things he had to know, but did not state. That is, you have to do your own independent research and look at more than what Hatcher wrote.

We know that Hatcher knew of the low number receiver blowups that occurred at an ammunition plant. He was part of the failure analysis team, and in that time period, which was 1917, the Army figured out that its plant had antiquated equipment and procedures. Some of these we have been able to tell from the corrective actions they took. Other problems we will never know because the documentation does not exist. The Army had antiquated equipment, no temperature gages in the forge or heat treatment shops. The Arsenals did not have incoming material inspectors or inspection either. Early in 1918 these things were fixed, but by then, over 1,000,000 low number receivers had been built. They had been making the things since 1903, and they had been blowing well before 1917, but Hatcher, is dismissive of that period and glosses over the failures that occurred. This is called "hand waving". Someone just waves their hand and makes the problem go away. It never happened, nothing important, move along. The Army had a mature cover up well before the 1917 incident at the ammunition plant, well before the so called “double heat treat receivers”.

So when pray tell, when did the Army tell everyone about its defective low number receivers? I have read all the Arms and the Man magazines available prior to WW1, after WW1 and all the American Rifleman magazines up to now. I am curious, just when did the Army fuss up and admit that its low number receivers might blow up because they were defectively built? What did they know and when did they know it? And what were they claiming when one of their rifles blew up? What did the Army Ordnance Bureau tell the public?

And when were these defective rifles withdrawn from service?

Tell me about your research.

The .30-30 headspaces on the rim. It would appear that your rifle suffers from excessive headspace. The block that holds the bolt in battery when the lever is closed may be undersized which is somewhat common. I've seen a few. The block on mine was undersize and allowed primers to back out at starting load pressures. Found a good one at a gun show and it cured the problem. The datum dimension of the angle was off allowing the bolt to sit too far away from the chamber when in battery. AKA excessive headspace...

Could be. I don't have 30-30 headspace gages, but I am not worried as long as the rifle does not show excessive side wall expansion. I would be very concerned about excessive case head protrusion, that is the primary safety concern about "headspace". The assumption is, if the headspace is correct the case head protrusion is correct. If the headspace is excessive, it could be that case head protrusion is excessive and that would lead to blown case heads. It would be interesting to have a head space gage and measure what is going on with the Marlin headspace. Marlin may have been using its own standards instead of SAAMI. I used to be worried about headspace in the 303 British, and every British Lee Enfield I measured, the military rifles always had much more headspace than allowed by American headspace gages. I finally came to the conclusion that the British knew what they were doing and trying to "fix" the headspace on those rifles did nothing in terms of safety. I don't have a photograph of the 30-30 case shoulders, but on fired cases, they are radically different from a new case.

 

[Deaf Smith]

If worried about excessive headspace in the 30/30 just get a neck sizer die. Let the case shoulder become what the rifle headspaces on.

Deaf

 

[tango1niner]

My only "research" done is the reading of a few peoples opinions of what they saw in the arsenals heat treatment facilities and my formal study of Metallurgy during the apprenticeship I completed many moons ago. At the turn of the century most heat treating was done by eye and far from an exact science, as it is today. Much variation was bound to happen between different workmen and shifts. Tempering was done pretty much the same way. As technology advanced heat treating greatly improved. I'm sure production requirements ( the clock ) within the arsenal at that time played a role in how consistent the products were heat treated.

Concerning the headspace and using the "shoulder". The only way to really do that is to have the bullet engage the rifling upon chambering thereby holding the case head back against the bolt face. If not done then no one knows where the case is in the chamber at the moment of firing. Only then could you neck size only and be in good shape. Headspace on the rim and we're good to go. No gages? How about measuring a rim thickness then adding say .010" shim to the bolt face. If H.S. is good bolt would most likely not close... With product liability I would be very surprised at Marlin for not using SAAMI standards.

 

[Jim Watson]

Once upon a time, I shot a .30-30 Contender in IHMSA.
We soon learned to fireform and neck size. The rim was just for extraction.

While I take the point about lubricated ammo/chambers, "This is a Nambu machine gun. That cap, beside the hopper, is the cap to the oiler." is perhaps not the best example. It is a knockoff of the Hotchkiss except the Japanese could not be bothered to copy the French guns' primary extraction, thus needing oil to run. Stripping cartridges out of rifle clips had to add a mechanical load to the action, too; kewl as it may seem.

 

[Sure Shot Mc Gee]

Pitch the Remington brass. Load up some Federal and see your groups tighten.