Yesterday's Weapons Forums

I had a little time this morning so out to the range with cav carbine in hand I went. Shot from a bench with my shooting bag as a rest. The box was about 60 yards out. The larger group was 150 grain gas check cast boolets. It shot well from a short rifle but not so well here. I used Unique because it was all I had when I loaded these... time to try 2400.

The left group is jacketed 150 grainers using AA2520. Not that bad, but 2520 leaves a lot of granular residue after firing. I had some modern brass loaded with original boolets but a family showed up & a couple little kids were running around. With no hearing protection. Grabbed my target & back to town!

Both groups were about 2" high from point of aim @ 60 yards. ( 60 long paces) I used different points of aim to separate the groups.

(Joe P - this is one of the cav carbines you saw in eMail. ) SW


group 002 (1024x683).jpg [ 293.06 KiB | Viewed 4850 times ]



group 003 (1024x444).jpg [ 216.32 KiB | Viewed 4850 times ]

_________________
Slava Ukraini!!

I have many 7.35's but have never shot them. I have to get some ammo first. the surplus I have the bullets seemed to have been pulled and replaces with some hunting rounds and look a tad on the big side when sizing them with the muzzle of my guns. This will be the caliber to work on when I get my reloading bench made up.

Not the unspeakable caliber…. Say it isn't so. Well, you did hit something, so my hat's off to you. Is that an unspeakable caliber cavalry carbine? I am not worthy, nice piece.

Best Regards,

Mark

Despite what certain persons with a spittoon in each room suggest, this caliber is very much more forgiving to load that 6,5. I only wish they had made a long rifle in the caliber. SW

_________________
Slava Ukraini!!

I'm guessing fresh tooling made all the difference. Any info on QC at the armories? That would be interesting.

Best Regards,

Mark

QC was priority #1. We see evidence of this in the steel vendor code stamped on the right barrel flat. Also inspector initials on the rifle.

If there was a flaw, it was the design itself. One design aspect that has always amazed me is the magazine system. A double column mag - like the Type I - would have been exponentially better.

But they were ever in need of Lira. The Mannlicher design was bought and paid for. A Mauser style mag made under license would cost money they just did not have. In the German language Carcano book is shown an M38 with Mauser style flush magazine. A very small number were allowed to be made for trials. Boy, does it look odd!

But no money = no Mauser magazine. SW

_________________
Slava Ukraini!!

Did the Japanese just give the Italians their rights to the Mauser magazine when they made those TYPO I's? (I love mentioning it's a Carcano on any Japanese page BTW). Perhaps nobody was asking any questions when they did?

I sense tooling was worn out making 6.5mm's by 1943. Apparently maintenance could have been a low priority for Italians, especially in 1943.

I really was dumbfounded when I did the bullet test on a few Carcanos. The bullet went rather deep and then not that deep. That was scary. I stopped using cast bullets right quick.

Ummh, could you pull a reamer through to make your 91/40 "unspeakable". I somehow doubt it. That's a lot to pull out of a bore that long.

Best Regards,

Mark

Concerning the Type I magazine, was it an Arisaka design? I flat don't know. Other than that, if Italian arsenals were making the magazines for someone who had paid for the license, then it wouldn't matter. I think. SW

_________________
Slava Ukraini!!

I think the Japanese might have modified the patent to get around royalties. Then again, international patent law was likely a new concept to a degree we would recognize now. Of course, if you are on the same continent, you are likely being watched. The Japanese, not so much.

Yeah, a double stacked ten round magazine or more. I do love my Enfield's huge box-O-bullets.

I think I shall have to fire my Carcanos next shoot in Gibsonburg, Ohio. I can hear the cat calls now…… I think the 91/40 has hit the bullseye more than once. The others, not so much.

Best Regards,

Mark