uncle john

I have not had any trouble on sizing down the .270-got to trim the neck though, as the brass flows out. As I mentioned earlier, my rifle has a snug chamber, so I run the brass through a 30-06 small base die after I have sized it in the 6.5-06 die. That squeezes it down a wee bit more and makes chambering a loaded round a lot easier. Another step, but worth it. You might try coating a tight round with black magic marker and running it into the chamber to see if you can see where the tight spot is. The marker should rub off there, leaving a bright spot.

My mistake on the above post: I said to run .270 or 25-06 brass through a 6.5x55 die. I meant a 6.5-06 die.

I have one. I put this rifle together about 10 years ago, had the local smith put a heavy 26 inch stainless Hart barrel (# 5 contour as I remember) with a 1 to 10 twist on a 98 Mauser action I had. Over the years prior, I had gained a respect for this bore diameter while wearing out a a Swede 6.5x55 carbine barrel and a .264 Win mag barrel. Had a Douglas barrel put on the .264, but it would not shoot to my specs with the bullet weight I wanted, so I decided to try the 6.5-06, mostly because of the economy involved. Brass can be formed by running 25-06 or .270 through the 6.5-55 resizing die, a trim and you're good to go. Also the 6.5-06 has about 3/4 the appetite for powder as the .264. I primarily wanted to use this rifle on deer here in Pennsylvania, but due to the cooperation of the local herd during archery season, I have never taken one with it. The twist rate I chose tends to favor the lighter to medium bullet weights. The Nosler ballistic tip in 120 grain does very well for me with a reasonable amount of H4831. My rifle has a very snug chamber, and I use less powder than the info available suggests, and still get good velocities. The 120 grain does about 3200 fps. A person has to be careful on working out a load, as the pressures can go up dramatically with the addition of a grain or two at the top end. (The .264 is worse!) I have not gone through the whole range of bullet weights with this rifle, but it does acceptable work with the Hornady 140 and the Nosler 140 partition. I prefer the slower powders and a 26 inch barrel for this diameter bore. All said, the 6.5-06 does almost as well as the .264 Win, and with less cost. The thing is, you never know exactly what you have in a custom caliber until you shoot it a bit. The first .264 barrel I put on a 98 action back in the late 1960's cost me $18.95 (P & S Sales, Tulsa, OK--likely an E R Shaw barrel), and it would shoot 1/2 to 3/4 inch groups with almost any bullet. The Douglas barrel hurries itself to do a 2 inch group. The Hart barrel does about 1/2 with the 120's and about an inch with the 140's and it set me back $300 10 years ago. I don't post a lot on this forum, and don't read it regularly, but "Strut" who is married to my niece, will inform me if I miss something, as he did with your post. uncle john

I'd agree to let the scars alone. If this rifle is a tool that you use, it will suffer from time to time. Not from abuse, but honest use and accident. A little oil finish in a bad gouge or scrape will help keep water out. If you do decide to totally refinish, be careful in removing the old finish, steam up the dents, and go carefully with the sandpaper. You can remove a lot of wood in a hurry with sandpaper, especially on areas where the metal meets the wood. These are areas where you can detract from appearance quickly. Rubber sanding blocks of various sizes help control the process. I usually don't use any paper coarser than 320 for the first work, and for final sanding, 400 grit. Some stains and oils can be made less evident by wiping with alcohol.

Many times, the failure of rings to securely hold a scope is the result of poor alignment of bases/rings with respect to the scope tube. We would all like to think that machine produced receivers are perfectly made, but this isn't always the case. I recently helped a friend figure out that his factory new Remington 700 varmint rifle had the back part of the receiver about 20 thousands low compared to the front. Test installation of three different sets of bases from different credible manufacturers confirmed this. Mounting holes can be out of alignment also. A simple test to determine if you are getting proper surface to surface contact between the mounts and the scope tube involves holding the base saddles upside down in a candle flame to give them a thin coating of carbon. Lay the scope in then, a wiggle it a bit, then remove it. You will see where the contact is. Two remedies for a poor fit: lapping the saddles, or installing Burris Signature Zee Rings. If fit is good, rosin works well, and lighter scopes tend to move less. Would like to add also, that a major cause of scope failure is over tightening of rings, especially in variables. It only takes a few thousandths of crush to compromise the innards.

Something else on holding a scope in the rings: put a little powdered rosin in the rings before setting the scope in them. The scope will come out easily, it cleans up easily, AND it holds.

I've been handloading for mine since I got it. It doesn't seem too hard on brass, some I've refilled at least 10 times. They do require trimming every few loads. I full length resize each time, as hunting requires a round that will feed easily. All of this, though, depends on the chamber and die dimensions a good bit. It does cost a bit more than lesser calibers. I have been using Hodgdon's H-1000, and you only get about 70 rounds per pound with the 225 grain bullets. Nosler's better bullets aren't cheap either, but they fly straight in my rifle. One thing I've noticed about recoil. A smaller person like myself has less inertia to overcome, and the recoil from the shot will move the rifle AND me quite a bit more than it will on a heavier person. I go about 165 at 6 ft. A person with more upper body mass has more inertia to overcome, and the jolt seems to be more severe to them. Just keep a good grip on it, don't get your eye too close to the scope, and it's a lot of fun. You just have to remember that it's not a .223! I have thought about putting a brake on it, but 26" plus 2" more makes a pretty long stick to carry through the woods.

Since Strut had to go and bring up my name, I gotta throw in my 2 cents. For years, I used a .264 Win., and took a nice collection of antelope, mulies and whitetails with it. Very adequate out to my limits which are in the 500-600 yd category without a rangefinder. For animals of a larger size, you are better served with a larger bore. I picked up a 700 Rem in .338 ultra a few years back, and have been very satisfied, especially after I replaced the factory "rubber" stock with one from H S Precision. Accuracy is better, and felt recoil is less brutal. I have been using 225 AccuBonds at 3100 fps and they do quite well. It's a decent handfull for a skinny old man, but the performance outweighs the price.

To me, the .264 is a love it or hate it deal. My first experience with one was when I cranked a barrel I bought from P & S Sales in Tulsa, into a Czech M 98 action. The barrel was likely an E.R. Shaw and cost me $21.95 plus a couple of bucks for shipping. It shot factory Winchester 100 and 140 grainers like a dream. So I tried some Sierra 140 BT's and couldn't keep them in a paper plate at 100 yards. This was back in the late 1960's when surplus H-4831 was about a dollar a pound. After trying several brands of bullets, including Winchester, I discovered it would drive tacks with a Speer 120. Many groundhogs and a few deer died. Then, it got contemptible and I found 85 gr Sierra hollow points worked well. This only lasted a short while, likely due to the fact I had run a total of at least 2000 rounds down the tube by that time, and as I said, powder was cheap, so I used it. Finally, all it would shoot was 140 Hornadys, and when they started to keyhole, I gave up. About 10 years ago, I had a very competent smith screw in a Douglas barrel. I got out some of the old Hornady 140 bullets, and was rewarded with a group slightly over a half inch. Bought some new stuff and couldn't do any better than a 2 inch group. I discovered that the old slugs were .264 inches behind the crimp mark on the ball, and .260 in front of it. The newer ones were .264 the whole way. Go figure. I got disgusted and had my smith put a Hart barrel on another M 98 action I had, and chamber it in 6.5/06. This rifle shoots very well with Ballistic Tip 120's and doesn't eat as much. The trajectory is pretty good, too. All in all, the .264 is a fantastic cartridge for thin skinned stuff, and I made some shots at extreme ranges that were with the limits of myself and the rifle I had. You gotta watch when handloading. There is a point where the pressures go off the charts, and it is very peculiar to the individual gun. I would encourage any serious shooter to try one, especially if you handload. The rewards can be super. uncle john

From my experience, the problem should be due to one of three things: Ammo - if all the shooting was done from one box, or lot of handloads, it is unlikely the problem is ammo. Scope - if scope adjustments do not produce results, I would first check to see if the scope is responding properly. Sand bag the rifle, and while an observer is looking through the scope, run the windage/elevation screws in and out. You should see consistent movement of the crosshairs on the target. There are things that can go wrong inside a scope due to recoil. Loose screws - as the previous post stated, loose scope mounting screws are a likely culprit. The ones that hold the bases to the receiver should be very tight. The ones in the rings that hold the scope need to be good and snug, but over tightening can actually cause damage to the inner working parts of a scope by deforming the tube. Assuming this is a bolt action, the screws holding the action and stock together need to be snug also. These can be overly tightened, too. If you decide to tighten screws, MAKE SURE you use a good quality driver that is a proper fit for the slot. If you are not sure of your own abilities to check things out, get competent help.

I know we don't discuss actual loads on this forum, so I will direct you to the Hodgdon's website for loads on the Hornet. Many of the max loads listed are compressed, and that's not always bad. With any particular firearm, it is advisable to start at less than max, and work up, while watching for signs of excessive pressure. The first thing is usually flattening of primers, then cratering of the dent where the firing pin hits (caused by the flow of primer metal back around the firing pin)and finally, a difficulty in lifting the bolt to extract. Having a chronograph helps a lot to figure if you are in the right speed range. The bottom line is safety. A few more feet per second isn't worth a risk. It's a lot safer and cheaper just to buy a rifle with a bigger case that will shoot faster.

I would advise keeping the chamber free of oil. I have read accounts of this causing case failures. It is possible that the chamber has crud built up in it instead of pits. A pitted chamber will allow brass to flow into the pits, and this is evident on a fired case, as the 'bumps' will shave off bright spots when the case is extracted. A dirty chamber will cause extraction problems also, and a chamber cleaning brush will usually solve that problem.

I agree with the previous post as to bore diameters and bullets to use. Although I have been handloading since the early 1960's, I never had the opportunity to work with a Hornet until recently. I started with a Ruger 77-22 and it didn't please me, so I now have a CZ 527 which shows great promise. I have found out that brass is very important. The Remington brass I am using shows as much as .004 inch variation in rim thickness. I weeded out the odd stuff, and fliers have nearly disappeared. Winchester brass is usually far more consistent, but locally I haven't had time to come across any. I find that LilGun and a 35 gr VMax will put most of them in a .4 inch spot at 100 yds. I never use nickle plated brass if I can avoid it. Another thing that is important is the primer. Sometimes a small pistol primer will produce better results than a small rifle primer. Necks are very thin and fragile, so running a deburring tool lightly inside helps a lot in avoiding the crinkled necks.

I have had limited experience with loading Hornets, but I have found that the inside of the case mouth needs to have the de-burring tool run in it to eliminate the sharp corner. Bullets will seat in much easier. The depth to which a bullet is seated will determine the internal capacity of the case. With a small case like the Hornet, deeper seating will cause higher pressures when the powder burns. This may be why an overall length is given. This is very important in loading pistol cartridges, I have seen the backs blown off .45 ACP cases by having the bullet seated excessively deep over a normal charge of powder. Seating a Hornet bullet 10 or 15 thousands too deep is not going to do this, but it will raise the psi's a little. Stick with what the book says, and stay out of trouble. If you have a Ruger Hornet that will shoot under a minute of angle, hang onto it. In general, they are not known for accuracy. There are a few other issues this rifle has, you can do a google search if you are interested. uncle john

Our hunting group has had good results with both accuracy and terminal performance using Nosler bullets. The 180 gr Partition in 300 Win has done well on several bulls. We have also had VERY good accuracy and clean kills from the AccuBond, but these were in 338 and 8mm bores.

Welcome, I was number 61, and my life has been steadily improving since!!!

Gun Trader's Guide, 27th Edition, 2005: Remington #4, NIB $901, Ex $669, Gd $412 Even though this is 3 years old data, maybe it will help. I find that the actual money you can get tends to run a few years behind the current data.

I'll agree with the advice on the heaviest bullet the rifle will shoot well, and the ones with the best penetration. I also agree with the lung shot, if possible. It worked for me on the only one I ever shot at.

Have not had any experience with these bullets, but another relatively new frangible is made here in PA. Sinterfire, is made in Kersey, PA. This part of PA is known for it's sintered metal products. I have toured the plant, and also a separate facility that loads ammo using the Sinterfire bullet. They are exceptionally accurate in my Colt AR. The handgun bullets are very accurate also. These are solid sintered slugs, mostly copper, with some tin. I have never shot a critter with the rifle bullets, but have taken out a few woodchucks with solids in the .357. When they hit something hard, they go to dust. They make a hollow point handgun slug they has an impressive gel test result. If you are interested, www.sinterfire.com is the site. Prices are comparable to standard ammo. One thing I might mention, is that the .224 slugs require a fast twist to stabilize them. 1:9 works good. The other ones don't seem so touchy, especially the handgun slugs. They make buckshot and 12 ga. slugs, too.

My experience with cleaning center fire semi's is limited to Garands, M-1 carbines and AR's, but I'll give you my thoughts. You will be getting a lot of dirt, but not all of it. Also, you might be removing lube that needs replacing. Unless you are shooting 100's of rounds, likely you aren't causing problems. The military rifles are easy to field strip for cleaning, but this isn't usually the case on regular hunting guns. Unless you are good at mechanical stuff with flying springs, etc., it may be prudent to get some help.

Using the word "partial" to describe a quantity that is so small that it defies measurement, is just not fair! Even the word "slightly" would be stretching things.

Go with the .375 RUM case and neck it up.

Everything in Texas is big, if that was where he was hunting. Iffn the deer he is shootin at is 30 inches down through, a dead on hold would get him. Like my neighbor always said, "Put salt on the end of the bullet to keep the meat from spoilin til you can get yerself over there and take care of it"

Shimming a base up can help with the problem. I would say a piece of brass shimstock, or even aluminum flashing metal would be better than paper. What can happen, though, is the shimming can create an alignment problem that puts shear stress on the scope tube. You can fix this by lapping the ring saddles, but unless you are part gunsmith and have the necessary lapping equipment (Midway), I would look at the rings that Burris has available. Their signature series have inserts that go inside the rings to take care of alignment problems. You can get these inserts in various amounts of offset. You put the lower half of the ring on the gun, then pick which insert you need (they come split) and by rotating it, you can achieve an offset of up to 20 thousandths up, down, left or right on both the front and back rings. Also, these inserts swivel inside the rings so that all shear stress and torque is eliminated. They do work, and they grip well. Burris Signature Rings with Pos-Align Inserts. A set of rings and the additional set of inserts, if you need them will set you back about $50. They are steel (inserts are a plastic material) and well made. It takes a little tinkering, but you can get things close to perfect. uj

OK, You had me concerned. I don't keep very good track of what Winchester is doing, or who owns it anymore. Any clues as to what yer buildin? uj #61