This past December I received a Model 1886 Winchester(Browning Repro) that I had converted into 500 B/M Alaskan. This is simply a 50 Alaskan(.510) necked down to .50 caliber. The rational: Bigger choice of available bullets' I'm told. Anyway, nice gun but I must admit that I'm very new to these lever actions and big calibers.
I sort of arbitrarily selected a chamber length of 2.75 inches simply based on information from various websites. Turnbull, for example notes that his proprietary 475 Turnbull cartridge is to be loaded to an overall length of 2.68-2.75 inches. The 475 Turnbull is based on the 50 Alaskan, also; just necked down to .475. Out of ignorance, I thought that my cartridge(500 B/M Alaskan) might be able to be loaded to 2.750 given the 1886 platform dimensions and the information on the Turnbull website. Already, I have determined/discovered that this isn't going to happen.
Anyway, I am finding that I can barely chamber loaded cartridges(500 B/M Alaskan) having an overall length, including bullet, of 2.600 inches. I can load these bullets(loaded with a 500 grain Hornady flatpoints) only with enough effort that results in a pretty sore thumb. This strenuous forcing results in smeared and marred bullet tips, also. Now I’m not concerned about the appearance of these bullets, but, the amount of effort required to force these cartridges through the loading gate does make me wonder if this amount of effort is typical of these guns and if this effect can be reduced.
My questions:
1. Can the loading gate be slightly shortened(1/16-1/8 inch) to make the cartridge loading less strenuous and to allow for cartridges of a slightly greater length(2.650-2.700)? The loading gate will only depress down so far and the cartridge loading angle is so acute that the cartridge sort of binds as it maneuvers into the tube magazine. If the length of the loading gate was shortened slightly a shallower cartridge loading angle would possibly result and the cartridge loading path would be more linear. The binding angle would be reduced, hopefully. Since I'm new to these rifles, I don’t know what additional roles the loading gate plays, other than to cover the action internals, and this shortening process might affect other regulatory functions. Don't want to go off on a tangent here not knowing the consequences.
And can someone tell me what the loading gate actually does?
2. Can a small amount of receiver metal just forward of the loading gate be relieved, beveled, or removed(1/16-1/8 inch) to accomplish the same goal as stated above without effecting normal rifle functions. Once again, don't want to go tinkering where I shouldn't.
3. Are there any internal modifications/action smoothing that can be done to accomplish this goal? In particular, what part of the gun/magazine tube actually smears the Hornady rifle bullet tip as the cartridge is forcibly pushed into the tube magazine. Is there some part of the internal receiver/tube that can be relieved; possibly the junction where the magazine tube screws into the receiver?
I’m not trying to make the final loaded cartridge hold more powder. I'm just trying to get these cartridges to load easier. On the other hand, maybe this is how this action is designed. Any information or commentary is appreciated. Regards.
I sort of arbitrarily selected a chamber length of 2.75 inches simply based on information from various websites. Turnbull, for example notes that his proprietary 475 Turnbull cartridge is to be loaded to an overall length of 2.68-2.75 inches. The 475 Turnbull is based on the 50 Alaskan, also; just necked down to .475. Out of ignorance, I thought that my cartridge(500 B/M Alaskan) might be able to be loaded to 2.750 given the 1886 platform dimensions and the information on the Turnbull website. Already, I have determined/discovered that this isn't going to happen.
Anyway, I am finding that I can barely chamber loaded cartridges(500 B/M Alaskan) having an overall length, including bullet, of 2.600 inches. I can load these bullets(loaded with a 500 grain Hornady flatpoints) only with enough effort that results in a pretty sore thumb. This strenuous forcing results in smeared and marred bullet tips, also. Now I’m not concerned about the appearance of these bullets, but, the amount of effort required to force these cartridges through the loading gate does make me wonder if this amount of effort is typical of these guns and if this effect can be reduced.
My questions:
1. Can the loading gate be slightly shortened(1/16-1/8 inch) to make the cartridge loading less strenuous and to allow for cartridges of a slightly greater length(2.650-2.700)? The loading gate will only depress down so far and the cartridge loading angle is so acute that the cartridge sort of binds as it maneuvers into the tube magazine. If the length of the loading gate was shortened slightly a shallower cartridge loading angle would possibly result and the cartridge loading path would be more linear. The binding angle would be reduced, hopefully. Since I'm new to these rifles, I don’t know what additional roles the loading gate plays, other than to cover the action internals, and this shortening process might affect other regulatory functions. Don't want to go off on a tangent here not knowing the consequences.
And can someone tell me what the loading gate actually does?
2. Can a small amount of receiver metal just forward of the loading gate be relieved, beveled, or removed(1/16-1/8 inch) to accomplish the same goal as stated above without effecting normal rifle functions. Once again, don't want to go tinkering where I shouldn't.
3. Are there any internal modifications/action smoothing that can be done to accomplish this goal? In particular, what part of the gun/magazine tube actually smears the Hornady rifle bullet tip as the cartridge is forcibly pushed into the tube magazine. Is there some part of the internal receiver/tube that can be relieved; possibly the junction where the magazine tube screws into the receiver?
I’m not trying to make the final loaded cartridge hold more powder. I'm just trying to get these cartridges to load easier. On the other hand, maybe this is how this action is designed. Any information or commentary is appreciated. Regards.
