Winchester 1895 and .500S&W

[hq]

Ok. This is a long shot as no-one seems to have done it before but chances are someone has done at least some groundwork so I'll have to ask.

What would it take to rechamber a Russian contract 1895 Winchester to .500S&W? The baseline dimensions, a rimmed cartridge, 7.62x54R, are awfully close to .500S&W as is the max pressure, meaning that if possible feeding issues with a shorter cartridge can be dealt with, it seems like a perfectly doable conversion.

I'm asking this because I gave my thumper (Marlin 1895XLR) to my son a while ago, I kind-of miss the knockdown power of .45-70 and I have a spare Winchester 1895 collecting dust, as an ideal starting point for a project like this. The 7.62x54R isn't a bad cartridge at all, quite the opposite, but its effective reach of 250yd+ would warrant using a scope and I both want to keep peep sights on the 'Win as well as have as much momentum as possible with a big bore caliber.

As a plus, .500S&W from a rifle-lenght barrel seems to be the ticket for the biggest moose out there as possibly some African big and even dangerous game. Am I daydreaming or am I onto something here?

 

[Sunray]

A Russian contract 1895 Winchester is probably far too valuable to do that. One of 'em sold on a U.S. auction site for just under 2 grand US in 2011. However, you'd need a new barrel that will be 100% cu$tom made plus a complete redesign of the internal parts to make 'em work with the much shorter cartridge. And a redesign of the bolt face and extractor due to the difference in diameters(87 thou) and shape(The 7.62's rim is not flat.).
Highly unlikely to be even remotely cost effective. How easy is it to get .500 S&W ammo in Finland? It's virtually non-existent in Canada.

 

[hq]

A Russian contract 1895 Winchester is probably far too valuable to do that.

Not exactly. Mine was a $150 impulse purchase a few years ago, mint, 95%+ original finish, butchered (sporterized) stock and rechambered to now-obsolete 7x54R so there's nothing to lose by doing something fun and useful with it. Russian contract 1895:s are a still a dime a dozen around here. Bolt face is flat to start with so .500 S&W rim won't be a problem either. .500 ammo is plentiful if not always cheap, Finland is a handgun silhouette shooting stronghold so all powerful revolver cartridges are very easy to come by, as is brass and I have a Dillon XL650 just in case LGS has run out of my favorite factory loads...

The only major question is whether any major modifications will be needed to make a shorter cartridge feed reliably. I might as well get a box of .500S&W and try but someone must already have thought about this and tried. Hopefully.

 

[Speedo66]

The 7.62x54R isn't a bad cartridge at all, quite the opposite, but its effective reach of 250yd+ would warrant using a scope and I both want to keep peep sights on the 'Win as well as have as much momentum as possible with a big bore caliber.

Limit yourself to shorter shots with the peep sights and think of all the money you would save.

 

[LoonWulf]

Sounds like an interesting project im gonna keep my eye on this one. If you cannget your hands on a round or two of 500sw maybe try it in the mag. See how far it will go or if it binds up.

 

[someguy2800]

I don't know, if you do the math on base diameter and pressure a 500 SW would be about 25% more bolt thrust. I would be nervous about putting a 60,000 psi cartridge with a big base diameter in a 100 year old gun. Do they make any interesting wildcats off a 7.62x54r?

 

[mavracer]

Not sure about 500 S&W, but I know a 405 Winchester will feed thru a 1895 action and provide plenty of thump.

 

[SamT1]

I stumbled across a custom shop selling rifles similar to what you want. I believe you had to send them your marlin 1985 and they turn it into 500 or 460 smith.

http://www.bighornarmory.com/catalog/big-horn-armory-products/model-89-carbine-2/

 

[Slamfire]

A WW1 action is made of plain carbon steels, not the alloy steels which are used today. The steels of the era have lots of "junk" in them. The same steels today are stronger because they are cleaner, but as a class, plain carbon steels are so inferior in all properties that gun designers stopped using plain carbon steels and used alloy steels instead for firearms by the 1950's. Winchester was using alloy steels around WW1, all pre war M70's are made from alloy steel.

I have seen data, but can't remember it exactly, for the WW1 loading of the Russian 7.62 X54R. It was in a WW1 era Arms and the Man. At the time the US was manufacturing Mosin Nagants for the Russians and the article had the pressure of the service cartridge at the time. It was less, like in the upper 30,000 psia range, not any where near 50,000 psia of the 500 S&W. I have not taken the measurements of either the 500 S&W or the 7.62 Russian, but you should. Measure the maximum OD of the cartridges. The OD size times chamber pressure gives bolt thrust. If the bolt thrust of the 500 S&W is more than the 7.62 Russian, the conversion is not appropriate. Based on what I saw in the WW1 magazine, I am going to give the opinion that the conversion is not appropriate. I recall reading that the 1895 Winchester had problems even with the 30-06 that were un related to shooters firing 8mm Mauser cartridges.

Of course, I do not have a 1895 in 500 S&W so I don't know if my concerns will translate into structural problems as I have not tested my opinions. But, I would not do this.

 

[Scooter22]

Not sure about 500 S&W, but I know a 405 Winchester will feed thru a 1895 action and provide plenty of thump.

Yeah go with the 405. It was made for the 1895. Short handgun rounds might not feed reliably. Ship some of those over here. I have plenty of dimes and I don't need a dozen. Damn importing rules!!!

 

[hq]

Thank you for all the responses and insight. The point isn't really saving money but spending some, to build something out of the ordinary. Possibly all the way to upgrading the furniture to exhibition grade classe 3 or even 4 wood too. The receiver is really mint, deep black and shiny and there isn't a scratch in sight. If the original barrel was still there and the forend section of the stock unmolested, it would be a high grade collectors' item. But that's not the case and if I wanted a nice original example most gun stores have at least a few to choose from for quite a bit less than rebarreling would set me back.

Here's what piqued my interest:



The rim diameter difference is only 0.26mm (.001"), case diameter of .500S&W is 1.09mm (.043") larger at the base and 1.85mm (.072") at the shoulder, which incidentally is 1.58mm (.062") further away from the rim than in 54R, smack in the middle of its shoulder taper.

In essence, if I was to create a wildcat of my own by shortening the 54R case by the length of its neck and necking the remaining case up to a straight wall configuration, the result would be very close to the dimensions of .500S&W except for the slight taper and approximately .420 neck inside diameter for seating the bullet, accounting for wall thickness of the casing.

SAAMI/CIP pressures aren't that far apart, 60,000psi (410MPa) vs. 56,565psi (390MPa), meaning that the hottest handloads and some factory loads like Buffalo Bore are out of the question, but it should have plenty of safety margin for mainstream factory loads as well as anything that's approximately halfway between a starting load and maximum. Marginally smaller rim diameter helps in this regard too. As a sidenote, it was a common practise to shoot surplus 7.62x54R anti-aircraft ammo with both Mosins and 1895:s back in late 1940's and 50's; it didn't seem to cause problems and it was pretty much the hottest ammo ever loaded for the caliber, at or over the SAAMI/CIP max pressure specs.

The dimensions suggest that it shouldn't be too difficult to get the .500 to feed reliably from a magazine designed for the 54R. Everything is very close and differences are limited to fractions of an inch, with the exception of a much longer COL, slight tapering and shoulders of the 54R.

What I have in mind is a custom "best gun" -style 20"-barreled carbine with nice rifle-pattern furniture and aperture sights, in a big bore caliber rarely if ever seen in a 1895. .405 is out of the question, it's been obsolete around here all along and even brass and dies have to be ordered abroad.

I hope this explains what I have in mind. I've been hoping that someone, somewhere has had the same idea and possibly even some research data on the subject, as the last thing I want to do is try to re-invent the wheel.

 

[FL-NC]

I would never butcher a Russian 1895. In fact, I really wish I had one.

 

[hq]

I would never butcher a Russian 1895.

Frankly, neither would I if they didn't grow on trees around here or if this particular gun wasn't already butchered to start with. But they do, this is and I already consider it gone.

 

[db_tanker]

how about a 9.3x54r conversion? seems I have heard about that being a somewhat popular wildcat round in your area? I have heard some folks even working on a 416 dia conversion but would require the case being blown out and shoulder moved a bit possibly.

one interesting thing...looking at the case...you could possibly blow out the case to a near straight wall and have a modified 45-70 govt class cartridge.

in point of fact I think that would be an interesting project using a Mosin...block the mag well and turn it into a single shot...sorry but I digress.

have fun regardless sir

 

[hq]

how about a 9.3x54r conversion? seems I have heard about that being a somewhat popular wildcat round in your area?

Otherwise maybe, but there are a number of them floating around in second hand market already, as there are 8x54R, 9x54R and 7x54R mine's currently chambered in. It wouldn't be difficult to find one if need be but I'm looking for something different, with factory-loaded ammo as an option. Flying with mis-headstamped wildcat handloads is great way to arrive at the destination with no ammo and no chance to get some on a short notice. The half-an-inch option is also tempting, considering that it can match the .450-400 Nitro Express ballistic performance at 4000ish-ft-lbs E0 and a serious TKOF.

 

[Gtscotty]

I would have the same concerns about the metallurgy as Slamfire. Also, with the pressures cited in your post and the difference in cartridge max diameters near the base, assuming similar interior case geometry, you're looking at around 26% more bolt thrust from the .500. Even at the same pressures, the .500 should deliver about 19% more bolt thrust. I don't think that's a set of dice I'd be interested in rolling a whole lot, but it's your skin.

 

[hq]

Straight walled and -cased (w/ a shoulder) cartridges exhibit a significant binding effect in the chamber under pressure, reducing bolt thrust compared to tapered cartridges. Chamber pressure and its effects to bolt face is a more meaningful factor. Historically 7.62x54R 1895:s have held up fine firing up to tens of thousands of rounds of whatever ammo the Imperial Russia managed to ship to the front in WWI, including MG & AA AP/API/tracer/etc. Mine is in such a great shape that it can't imagine it having gone through more than a few hundred. If that. No wear marks to speak of in bolt or locking bolt. Considering how much abuse and what kind of rechamberings 1895:s have been subjected to, including 65,000psi (450MPa) .270Win from the factory and similar pressures combined with a 54R-sized rim from the current chambering of mine, 7x54R, I have no doubt whatsoever that the action will hold up fine with .500S&W. Having talked to a number of gunsmiths who have rechambered dozens of 1895:s, the only common problem with some large case diameter cartridges has been older/cheaper/weaker barrel steels that have had too little material thickness between the chamber and frame threads, causing deformation over extended periods of time. I'm not about to skimp on that, it'll be Krieger, Lothar-Walther or Lilja blank.

Now that we have this out of the way and a confirmation that I know the (negligible) calculated risks, is there anyone who could shed some light on the possible feeding issue or would it be more appropriate to conclude that nobody knows (yet...) and close the thread for now?

 

[stringnut]

The feeding issues probably are not all that bad. The 1895 was chambered for straight and nearly straight rounds such as the 405 and 38-72. You would have a longer lever throw then is needed, but, that makes no real difference. The 1895 is pretty valuable here in the states. It never was never real popular for customization. The 500 Smith is a recent development. For these reasons you probably won't find much info on the conversion you want to do. I think your next step would be finding a good Smith and getting their opinion.

 

[eastbank]

I would find a H&R handy rifle in 500 S&W, a friend has one and he loads for it and it is indeed a thumper. I have a ruger #1 in 460 S&W and it is also a thumper. eastbank.

 

[hq]

I would find a H&R handy rifle in 500 S&W

Thanks for the suggestion but I already have plenty of thumper rifles, all the way to .460WbyMag, and the whole point in this case is making use of something I already have but rarely if ever use. Maybe this thread would've been more appropriate in gunsmithing section after all...

 

[eastbank]

please disreguard my post. eastbank.

 

[CraigC]

I don't think this is a good idea in an original 1895. A modern one, maybe but better options exist. What may seem like a marginal increase in diameter and pressure is actually really quite significant.

 

[hq]

I don't think this is a good idea in an original 1895. A modern one, maybe but better options exist. What may seem like a marginal increase in diameter and pressure is actually really quite significant.

Thanks for the insight. 60k psi of .500S&W is nothing to scoff at but neither is the 65k-ish psi of the 7x54R it's been chambered in for the last half a century. The mid 1910's vintage 95:s don't have the metallurgy of later Browning/Miroku rifles but the bolt and locking bolt aren't the weak points and the barrel - which is - will get a substantial upgrade. OTOH, the current 7mm barrel is a high grade Sako replacement, common back in the 50's and 60's and if it wasn't pencil profile I'd probably just have it bored out.