barrels?

Rick W. · 08-18-2002, 01:55 PM

i

Hugh · 08-18-2002, 04:54 PM

Rick,

I have found the same as you on the tightening of original bbls, the new ones made in Germany, and the older ones from Numrich. The new 30 cal bbls I get from Numrich now have to have the shoulder shaved somewhat in order to tighten & line up correctly. [img]frown.gif[/img]

unspellable · 08-18-2002, 10:44 PM

I don't see much point in setting the barrel back with a correspondingly deeper chamber if the ramp and extractor slot remain in place. The loading ramp is the weak point in almost any self loading pistol, this is where the brass has the least support and you haven't moved it. Same argument applies to the extractor cutout to a lesser extent.

If you can move the ramp back with the barrel and still get the pistol to work you might gain something. But what? The new setup is not proofed. The design working pressure is actually much higher than the actual working pressure to begin with so you are sort of gilding the lily.

If you are planning on REALLY hot loads, you are running pressures for which the pistol has not been proofed with either setup.

A note: design working pressure is the intended maximum working pressure for the design. Prooving is intended to uncover flaws in the metal, not the design. If the pistol has been prooved for a lower working pressure there is no gurantee a higher pressure will not uncover a flaw even though you are still inside the design pressure. This is a significant point in the case of the Luger because the design working pressure is for the carbine. The pistol proof loads ran about the same pressure as the carbine working load, hence they were proofed for working pressures well below the design working pressure.

Hugh · 08-19-2002, 11:07 AM

Rick.

Murphy's Law; The one damaged is always the ONE you don't want damaged!
<img src="graemlins/cussing.gif" border="0" alt="[grrrrrrr]" />

08-18-2002, 01:55 PM	#1
Rick W. User Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 339 Thanks: 81 Thanked 359 Times in 198 Posts	barrels? i

08-18-2002, 04:54 PM	#2
Hugh RIP Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Southeast Texas Swamp Posts: 2,460 Thanks: 2 Thanked 165 Times in 64 Posts	Rick, I have found the same as you on the tightening of original bbls, the new ones made in Germany, and the older ones from Numrich. The new 30 cal bbls I get from Numrich now have to have the shoulder shaved somewhat in order to tighten & line up correctly. [img]frown.gif[/img] __________________ *TRUMP FOR PREZ IN '20!*

08-19-2002, 11:07 AM	#4
Hugh RIP Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Southeast Texas Swamp Posts: 2,460 Thanks: 2 Thanked 165 Times in 64 Posts	Rick. Murphy's Law; The one damaged is always the ONE you don't want damaged! <img src="graemlins/cussing.gif" border="0" alt="[grrrrrrr]" /> __________________ *TRUMP FOR PREZ IN '20!*

08-18-2002, 10:44 PM	#3
unspellable User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Iowa Posts: 768 Thanks: 0 Thanked 18 Times in 10 Posts	I don't see much point in setting the barrel back with a correspondingly deeper chamber if the ramp and extractor slot remain in place. The loading ramp is the weak point in almost any self loading pistol, this is where the brass has the least support and you haven't moved it. Same argument applies to the extractor cutout to a lesser extent. If you can move the ramp back with the barrel and still get the pistol to work you might gain something. But what? The new setup is not proofed. The design working pressure is actually much higher than the actual working pressure to begin with so you are sort of gilding the lily. If you are planning on REALLY hot loads, you are running pressures for which the pistol has not been proofed with either setup. A note: design working pressure is the intended maximum working pressure for the design. Prooving is intended to uncover flaws in the metal, not the design. If the pistol has been prooved for a lower working pressure there is no gurantee a higher pressure will not uncover a flaw even though you are still inside the design pressure. This is a significant point in the case of the Luger because the design working pressure is for the carbine. The pistol proof loads ran about the same pressure as the carbine working load, hence they were proofed for working pressures well below the design working pressure.