Photographing barrel rifling -- Round 3

[earlmck]

Last Thursday I posted pictures of my 25 Remington's bad bore, but at that time I still hadn't got the bores clean on a 6.5 Arisaka and a 32 Special that have cruddy bores. I started in again last night with the old foam cleaner/soak a while/swab her out process. And now today I have finally got them to where they are bleeding just a light blue. So I called it good enough for now and here are the pictures of these.

ArisakaR1.jpg

ArisakaL1.jpg

32SpclL.jpg

32SpclR.jpg

I shot that old Arisaka years ago and bullets tended to tumble, and those that didn't tumble didn't exactly make a group. I have long thought it was by far the worst bore I had ever seen. Now I wish I had taken a picture before I started the latest round of cleaning -- it doesn't look nearly as bad now that I have most of the copper out of it. I may have to give it another try -- now that there are some riflings to grab onto a bullet and give it a spin it might not do nearly as bad. But it needs to be re-crowned, as I think you can tell from the pictures.

The 32 Special actually shoots decently even with this rough-looking bore.

Photo info: bore illuminated by a piece of white paper towel reflecting my desk lamp down the barrel. 1/4 second at f/19, and about 20 shots taken at slightly different focus points from muzzle to chamber put together with the focus program "Helicon Focus".

[SteveR]

I shot that old Arisaka years ago and bullets tended to tumble, and those that didn't tumble didn't exactly make a group. I have long thought it was by far the worst bore I had ever seen. Now I wish I had taken a picture before I started the latest round of cleaning -- it doesn't look nearly as bad now that I have most of the copper out of it. I may have to give it another try -- now that there are some riflings to grab onto a bullet and give it a spin it might not do nearly as bad. But it needs to be re-crowned, as I think you can tell from the pictures.

Wow, it looks like there is plenty of rifling get a good spin on them. Not to be dense, but could you have shot 6.5 out of the 7.7?

Steve

[vancelw]

I thought the bore on those Arisakas varied quite a bit in diameter. .264-.268?

[Old No7]

Very nice -- again!

So... As a service to those of us here...

Do we send our rifles to you -- or will you loan your camera/software to us???

I could easily see you setting up a booth at a gun show and charging $20 per image...

Ka-ching!!! $$$

Old No7

[ollogger]

Earl the photos have been interesting for sure, but I would argue with you on your idea of
a sewer pipe bore, you should have seen a 73 Winchester I had



ollogger

[Old Savage]

Very interesting Earl.

[earlmck]

Wow, it looks like there is plenty of rifling get a good spin on them. Not to be dense, but could you have shot 6.5 out of the 7.7?
Steve

No I didn't make that particular mistake Steve -- the 6.5 round is quite a lot smaller cartridge altogether than the 7.7 which is almost '06 sized. But I think you may be close in your diagnosis: my 6.5 was rechambered to 6.5X57 sometime before a friend gave it to me. Back in those early post WWII days people often called this rifle the "25 Jap" and since they didn't have access to 6.5X51 Japanese ammo they would rechamber to 257 Roberts (which then resulted in a 6.5X57) and then shoot 257 Roberts ammo in them (yeah, I doubt they hit much of anything with that combo). An undersized bullet skidding down the barrel would be a real good bet to have contributed to the incredible amount of fouling this baby had.

I thought the bore on those Arisakas varied quite a bit in diameter. .264-.268?

You've heard correctly, Vance. This one slugs out at .267, which doesn't help. But I believe you can turpentine the loads up to where a jacketed bullet will slug up that much just fine. For lots of years my hunting rifle was an old 7.7 Arisaka that had been converted to .308. It had a .314 bore but shot .308 bullets just fine so long as I loaded 'em a little warm (I used 3031 powder but the loads listed for 4064).

Very nice -- again!

So... As a service to those of us here...

Do we send our rifles to you -- or will you loan your camera/software to us???

I could easily see you setting up a booth at a gun show and charging $20 per image...

Ka-ching!!! $$$

Old No7

Ha! Now that's a thought. And I'm kinda' needing a supplement to my retirement income. For years I took tree-cutting contracts but this year I finally had to give her up because the old knees just will not walk up and down hills packing a chainsaw anymore. So... booth at the gunshow maybe? I'll have to get a lot more efficient at this than I have been so far or I'll be making about $5/hour Did I mention that it is real tricky getting everything lined up?

[vancelw]

For lots of years my hunting rifle was an old 7.7 Arisaka that had been converted to .308. It had a .314 bore but shot .308 bullets just fine so long as I loaded 'em a little warm (I used 3031 powder but the loads listed for 4064).

My cousin recently bought a Type 38 Arisaka that had been sporterized and turned into a .300 Savage. He converted it to .308 and that thing is a great shooter. It is a very vintage-looking gun, so I'm sure the original conversion was done in the late 40s-50s. He put an aged Redfield receiver sight on it.

[earlmck]

For lots of years my hunting rifle was an old 7.7 Arisaka that had been converted to .308. It had a .314 bore but shot .308 bullets just fine so long as I loaded 'em a little warm (I used 3031 powder but the loads listed for 4064).

My cousin recently bought a Type 38 Arisaka that had been sporterized and turned into a .300 Savage. He converted it to .308 and that thing is a great shooter. It is a very vintage-looking gun, so I'm sure the original conversion was done in the late 40s-50s. He put an aged Redfield receiver sight on it.

They did a bunch of them like that "back in the day". Your cousin's rifle probably looks like a twin brother to my old rifle, other than mine wore a Lyman receiver sight. I gave mine to a grandkid so I get to see it occasionally. I should borrow it back to get its "bore portrait" just for grins. Pretty decent bore in it as I recall.

[J Miller]

Earl,

In all the pics you've taken the rifling looks like Marlin Micro-Grove rifling. I'm thinking the camera settings are compressing the barrel length to a shorter appearance. There by making the lands and groves look much closer together.

Am I right or is this an optional delusion?

Joe

[Bill in Oregon]

Earl, I am impressed with your camera skills. I have a heck of a time getting rifling in any sort of focus with my pocket digitals.
Have you tried the Hornady .268 Carcano bullet in your Arisaka?
Given the bore on your .32 special, and the fact it shoots well, that sort of puts to rest the old myth that once a .32 barrel was even the least bit worn, accuracy went out the window.

[vancelw]

Earl, I am impressed with your camera skills. I have a heck of a time getting rifling in any sort of focus with my pocket digitals.
Have you tried the Hornady .268 Carcano bullet in your Arisaka?
Given the bore on your .32 special, and the fact it shoots well, that sort of puts to rest the old myth that once a .32 barrel was even the least bit worn, accuracy went out the window.

Mic McPherson addressed this years ago.

Winchester introduced the 32 Special. Considerable nonsense has since been printed, concerning the reasons behind Winchester's development of the 32 Special. This story reflects an oft-repeated theme in the firearms field: Someone says it, someone hears it, that person repeats it, another person hears it and then writes it, someone prints it, someone reads it and viola, it's a fact.
Why should these bullets tumble? Examination of the remaining loads revealed the puzzling answer. Maximum diameter of every bullet was 0.318 inches, which is quite odd for loads intended for use in a 0.321-inch bore. With the worn bore in the well used and somewhat abused Winchester '94 in which I tested those loads, those undersize bullets had no chance of catching the rifling without obturating. Obviously the load did not generate sufficient pressure to cause full obturation and the bullet therefore tumbled - accuracy was nonexistent.

His research found that bullets in factory ammunition were slightly undersized, so that when the rifles were brand new, they shot great. But, as the bore got a little wear, accuracy did diminish with factory ammo. However, with properly sized .321 bullets, the same rifles shot just fine.

[earlmck]

Earl,

In all the pics you've taken the rifling looks like Marlin Micro-Grove rifling. I'm thinking the camera settings are compressing the barrel length to a shorter appearance. There by making the lands and groves look much closer together.

Am I right or is this an optional delusion?

Joe

Yes it does look like an awful lot of lands and grooves, doesn't it Joe? In the Arisaka picture you can't really count the lands but in the 32 Special picture I think you can tell there are 6. Yes, the perspective is quite a lot compressed when making a one-dimensional picture of this very 3 dimensional object.

I tried to count the lands in the Arisaka rifle, not in the photo but in the flesh, so to speak. I am pretty sure there are only 6 but for a while I thought it was 7. For some reason they are hard for me to see; maybe because of the fast twist -- about 1 turn in 7.5".

I have a heck of a time getting rifling in any sort of focus with my pocket digitals.
Have you tried the Hornady .268 Carcano bullet in your Arisaka?
Given the bore on your .32 special, and the fact it shoots well, that sort of puts to rest the old myth that once a .32 barrel was even the least bit worn, accuracy went out the window.

That's the whole problem there, Bill is that even with the tiny f-stops you get such a short bit of depth-of-field at the close distance that you can't tell much about the rifling. I was still getting funny looking areas when using 12 focus areas: didn't get satisfactory looks until I got up around 20.

And no I haven't tried that .268 bullet. That' would probably be the way to go. But I have a whole bunch of 140 grain .264 bullets and if it won't shoot them I probably won't do much else with it (it is a junker--one of those things that you used to see a barrel full of 'em for $5 each in the Army Surplus store.) I'm not sure it is even worth the amount of foaming bore cleaner I have already used on the dang thing.

And I don't know that my 32 Special is a worn barrel. It is a pitted barrel for sure from historical mis-treatment. And of course, it has had nothing but .321 bullets used in it by me and it shoots them fine.

[Bill in Oregon]

Earl, did you ever get the foaming bore cleaner not to come out blue with your Arisaka? I nabbed a poor sportered Carcano the other day for $75, and I am on round 5 and still blue.
By the way, I came late to the party and just read the first two installments of your clinic on shooting rifle bores. Simply wonderful stuff. Will look up this Helicon thingy you mentioned!

[pdentrem]

Earl
Does your camera shot video? Maybe try video with continuous focus from end to end and then use the best stills to make the finish product. It is kind of like what astronomers call "lucky imaging" when doing planetary. They take a few thousands shots, pretty quick at 30-60 fps, and throw out the bad ones either automatically or manually before putting it all together.
Pierre

[earlmck]

Earl, did you ever get the foaming bore cleaner not to come out blue with your Arisaka? I nabbed a poor sportered Carcano the other day for $75, and I am on round 5 and still blue.
By the way, I came late to the party and just read the first two installments of your clinic on shooting rifle bores. Simply wonderful stuff. Will look up this Helicon thingy you mentioned!

I started leaving the cleaner in the bore about 12 hours before swabbing her out and was back to dark blue for another 5 or 6 treatments before it finally got down to just a light blue. That must be about 3 times the amount of treatment I gave the previous record holder for nasty fouled bore. Here is the picture I made after I finally gave up getting totally clean.

Arisaka4crop.jpg

Earl
Does your camera shot video? Maybe try video with continuous focus from end to end and then use the best stills to make the finish product. It is kind of like what astronomers call "lucky imaging" when doing planetary. They take a few thousands shots, pretty quick at 30-60 fps, and throw out the bad ones either automatically or manually before putting it all together.
Pierre

I guess I could do that, Pierre, but then I'd risk jiggling the camera a little bit while my big mitt was turning on the focus ring while the camera was taking pictures. My old tripod requires a couple seconds just to settle totally down before I take a shot after messing with anything on the camera. I'd better stick to the way I am familiar with.

[Chuck 100 yd]

Earl, these bore photo posts are very interesting and informative. Thanx!

[pdentrem]

Shaky camera while focusing is a problem.

A motorized follow focus rig would do it, but for the few times you need it, not really an option. If you had a solid set up plus the follow focus, you could have something for at the shows. Some camera shooters have built some for pretty cheap. If interested check for some builds on the web.
Pierre