Erma 22 kit se08 vs se08/2

[STEINBVG]

QUESION.
which Erma conversion kit works better- earlier design with the ejector in the magazine, no feed ramp or the later design- separate ejector, big charging ears, feeding ramp on the barrel insert, seemingly better magazine design[ overall looks better].

I have an earlier design and I believe It could do with some tuning to make it more reliable[ I have seen a few threads here- a quest of one member]

Thanks

[Vlim]

The SE 08/2 is less unreliable

I shot and killed an original 1930s barrel. The barrel is hard soldered to the chamber. I fired the bullet and the barrel at the same time. Interesting experience. Luckily the set was not matching numbers.

[hayhugh]

"Less unreliable" - so they are both unreliable?

[Vlim]

Yes. Picky on ammo and repeating is a challenge at times.
The original manual suggested lightly oiling the cartridges with an oily rag before loading and firing.

[STEINBVG]

Originally Posted by Vlim

The SE 08/2 is less unreliable

I shot and killed an original 1930s barrel. The barrel is hard soldered to the chamber. I fired the bullet and the barrel at the same time. Interesting experience. Luckily the set was not matching numbers.

Thanks. Which kit did you use?
So let me recapture:
1) Both kits are not very reliable?, but the the later version , I presume, they improved somewhat?
2) the barrel 22 insert is soldered to the sticking out piece- chamber? and can come apart?
3) I see in my sample the insert is not loose in the 9 mm barrel, but it doesn't seem too tight either- but it somehow ruined your 9 mm rifling/barrel?

My experience seem to point that the main unreliable issues are 1) magazine geometry, bad lips with that silly spring side plate.

2) problematic ejector placement with extractor being at 12oclock. However the fin shaped ejector in 9 mm seems to be doing the job fine. I wonder that the impact point of a a 22 kit custom ejector has to be improved and be as close as possible[ magazine restricts] to 180 degree from extractor, correct?

I'm working on something right now, it might be interesting to you guys, to be continued in a different post...

[Vlim]

The main issues are reliable feeding and extracting.

When Mauser tried to get their .22lr HSc to work, they chose to use a fluted chamber to improve extraction.

[ithacaartist]

Originally Posted by Vlim

The SE 08/2 is less unreliable

"less unreliable" sums it up pretty well, I think.

The toggle knobs in the SE 08/2 are definitely more aesthetically pleasing since they're visually closer to the ones which they replace.

It makes sense that these work better due to the feed ramp and dedicated ejector, and presuming they were an improvement over the preceding model.

But unless I'm mistaken, the extractor system of the SE 08/2 has an open top, unlike the earlier versions which are sort of "tunneled in." This leaves open the possibility that the extractor will decide to go flying off some day, just like happens to Erma's KGP series of toggle pistols.

My SE 08 kit wouldn't line up with the sear bar on my 1917 DWM, but fit just fine in my 6" 70s' Mauser Swiss pattern, which is its contemporary...that is, alter I fashioned a new spacer so it would fit into the 6" barrel. The original spacer is for installing the .22 sleeve barrel in a 9mm X 100mm barrel. I think it would fit into a 7" barrel with no spacer, but it's too short for an Artillery's 8" barrel.

Ammo picky is extremely correct. Golden Eagle Match Pistol 40 gr LRN does the best in mine--and I tried a lot of different ammo trying to get this thing to work, trust me!

You've also got me wondering if the chambers of the kits suffer from the tightness European-cut chambers when compared to chambers with SAAMI specs. I found a thread on another forum about running a "standard" or "Sporting" finishing reamer into the chambers of some of the luger-styled Erma .22s--including La-22, Ep-22 and KGP69--with terrific improvement in their feeding and extracting. I don't see why the process wouldn't also help a kit.

Running them "wet" also seems to help. After loading a mag, a spritz of Rem-oil into the mag's slot for the follower button will give improved function.

[STEINBVG]

Originally Posted by ithacaartist

"less unreliable" sums it up pretty well, I think.

The toggle knobs in the SE 08/2 are definitely more aesthetically pleasing since they're visually closer to the ones which they replace.

It makes sense that these work better due to the feed ramp and dedicated ejector, and presuming they were an improvement over the preceding model.

But unless I'm mistaken, the extractor system of the SE 08/2 has an open top, unlike the earlier versions which are sort of "tunneled in." This leaves open the possibility that the extractor will decide to go flying off some day, just like happens to Erma's KGP series of toggle pistols.

My SE 08 kit wouldn't line up with the sear bar on my 1917 DWM, but fit just fine in my 6" 70s' Mauser Swiss pattern, which is its contemporary...that is, alter I fashioned a new spacer so it would fit into the 6" barrel. The original spacer is for installing the .22 sleeve barrel in a 9mm X 100mm barrel. I think it would fit into a 7" barrel with no spacer, but it's too short for an Artillery's 8" barrel.

Ammo picky is extremely correct. Golden Eagle Match Pistol 40 gr LRN does the best in mine--and I tried a lot of different ammo trying to get this thing to work, trust me!

You've also got me wondering if the chambers of the kits suffer from the tightness European-cut chambers when compared to chambers with SAAMI specs. I found a thread on another forum about running a "standard" or "Sporting" finishing reamer into the chambers of some of the luger-styled Erma .22s--including La-22, Ep-22 and KGP69--with terrific improvement in their feeding and extracting. I don't see why the process wouldn't also help a kit.

Running them "wet" also seems to help. After loading a mag, a spritz of Rem-oil into the mag's slot for the follower button will give improved function.

Thanks, excellent summary.

Yes, I forgot the feeding issue+ the balance of the main and striker spring- both work against blow back and then during forward motion fight each other. Very narrow delicate balance for a reliable operation for variety of ammo.

As far as feeding, it appears that 22 round has to jump from the magazine to the barrel insert overcoming an empty space- no ramp[ not sure if the better looking ramp on se-08/2 solved that issue.

I'm looking at my 1911 RIA with advantage arms 22 kit- how well designed it is and reliable regardless of ammo. As i mentioned i even made it function well with s22 shorts.
http://forum.lugerforum.com/showthread.php?t=41131

I have a couple of ideas to try to improve the kit to the standards of modern conversion kits...
1)using Mec Gar magazine shell with the Ruger Mark magazine 22 inside of it[fits in perfect]- it seems to have much better follower and lips geometry.
2) fill the gap between the magazine and the rectangular chamber on the kit barrel with a drop- in ramp, or altogether remove the existing chamber and replace it with a custom that would incorporate much better ramp.

3) I have an extra ejector for 9 mm, it may need to be adapted to better kick out the 22 shell- or I may not need to with the new improvised magazine.

The original magazine had an ejector built- in and it seemed to fight the regular outside ejector- hence it had been recommended to be removed for earlier kits.

I will keep you posted..

[ithacaartist]

It's correct that the rear feed lip ejector conflicts with the original. I'd say that removal of the latter is more than a suggestion! I cheat a bit by wedging a small piece of plastic under the extractor to keep it out of the way when the SE 08 kit is installed.

In my experience (Yes, that dreaded phrase), Erma actions and mags most often present a jam with a round trapped nose-up by the returning breech block. Either that, or the sharp edge at the top of the chamber has dug itself into the front of the bullet. This is largely caused by the geometry of the business end of the mag and how the follower's upward pressure influences the round on its way into the chamber--after a certain point in its travel, the round's nose has a tendency to rise. How the front feed lips are tuned makes a great difference.

Each specific style of projectile nose is a little different, let alone those among various manufacturers. The front feed lips need to be quite close, without allowing lateral play of the round as it moves forward--if not provide just a whisker of resistance. This helps keep the nose down. The mags for the conversion kits that don't have dedicated ejectors each have one spring steel front feed lip which I opine was designed to help this situation without tuning.

I can see how a feed ramp might not have been initially created because the ammo generally needs little, if any, guidance/control to keep it from diving too far down while being chambered.

[STEINBVG]

I found this description of Gevarm rifle outstanding feeding and ejection quality( besides others), this should be applicable to any weapon:


...The gun fed and fired every type of ammo used ranging from standard velocity (Remington sub-sonic), hot truncated bullet, Remington Yellow Jacket and ultra-hot CCI Stinger. From solid to hollow point, the gun ate them all without a hitch. Even ammo that had a slightly bent and deformed bullet nose that jammed on other guns, performed flawlessly with the Gevarm.

The secret to the gun’s outstanding feeding reliability relies primarily on the feed ramp. Very few weapons in its class have this unique feature which assures trouble free operation. The rear end of the barrel has a built-in extension approximately 3/ 4-inch that encloses both sides of the magazine lips. Just below the chamber mouth of the extension is a well designed and perfectly machined and polished feed ramp. When a loaded magazine is inserted, the magazine lips seats slightly lower than the “U” shape barrel extension positioning the top round almost directly in line with the chamber mouth. As the bolt moves forward, its sides rides over the barrel extension, striping the top round from the magazine and assisting the cartridge towards the chamber and fires it as the breech comes to a full stop. The superb bolt to barrel extension arrangement virtually eliminated any side play or misalignment of the cartridge towards the chamber as it is being stripped from the magazine. The barrel extension prevented the cartridge from misaligning itself while, and after, it was being stripped from the magazine lips, it simply directs the cartridge to move straight towards the chamber with virtually no hesitation or snag. In addition, the magazine itself is positioned higher than in a normal self loader, preventing the usual tendency of the cartridge nose to glide upward as it hits the feed ramp prior to entering the chamber mouth, which in some cases contributes to jams as caused by lead being shaved off the bullet by a sharp unpolished chamber mouth or ramp.

[rhuff]

Originally Posted by ithacaartist

"less unreliable" sums it up pretty well, I think.


You've also got me wondering if the chambers of the kits suffer from the tightness European-cut chambers when compared to chambers with SAAMI specs. I found a thread on another forum about running a "standard" or "Sporting" finishing reamer into the chambers of some of the luger-styled Erma .22s--including La-22, Ep-22 and KGP69--with terrific improvement in their feeding and extracting. I don't see why the process wouldn't also help a kit.
.

On my two ERMA 22cal "carbines", I was having continual jam-a-matics with multiple different 22cal ammo. I polished the chambers of both guns well, and it made a huge difference!! Now both guns are happy even with bulk Federal 22LR ammo.

[Vlim]

When I was responsible for our shooting range arsenal, I would use a S&W .22lr revolver to shoot away deformed, dented and otherwise damaged. 22lr rounds that got mangled by the auto pistols.

That happened a lot.