Worst Gun Show EVER

[Spitpatch]

Good point, drew.

Runnin' a lil late 2day, but stay tuned.

 

[Spitpatch]

Okay (credit to drew to point out my oversight), here she is.



You will note and appreciate here, the 24" barrel, and a REAL shooter's sling: able to be cinched target-style to the lower bicep of the left arm for a solid anchor, Camp Perry style. These features were commonplace in the '50's: lost technology these days, it seems.



Here you will see the fine Redfield peep, and the beveling of the cutout relief to allow it in the stock. Beveling in this area will prevent future chipping. (Seems to have worked for 65 years!)



Detail of the pristine buttstock (original aluminum Remington buttplate), and the shooter sling. The gentleman who bought this gun originally was a marksman, and took GOOD care of his guns.



Closeup of the short 722 action, and note NO corrosion on the bolt handle or shaft (in the white as from the factory). Obviously well-oiled in its lifetime.

Not too shabby a find from an overcrowded Portland show, for less money than it takes to fill up my pickup truck twice! Y'all mofos kin diss da Potelin shows alls ya wants. Jus' makes mo fo me!

 

[ridurall]

Oh how I miss the Washington Arms Collector shows I used to attend when I was stationed at McCord AFB back in 1979. I would often go with Pistol Smith John Lawson and got some of the best deals I ever made at a gun show. Back then they were not full of people selling Chinese junk or trinkets. They were normal Joes just trading and selling their excess items. My best deal I ever made was purchasing a Leupold VXIII 1.5X5 scope for $25. There was nothing wrong with it and it was not very old. 33 years later the scope's adjustment broke and I sent it back to Leupold and they sent me a brand new one that sells for $399.00. Now down here in Oklahoma the gun deals are hard to find. Spitpatch your talent for describing waiting for our Constitutional Rights hit a point. We are losing our rights faster and faster and if we don't put our feet down we will not be able to acquire any weapon. Obama will not be satisfied until only his people have the weapons. I guess I better get off my soapbox now. My hat is off to you Spitpatch.

 

[Certaindeaf]

That was great. Those old girls are the best dancing partners anyway.

 

[Swedish K]

Spitpatch - How does she shoot?

 

[gehrheart]

That is a very nice looking rifle!

 

[RVTECH]

Now down here in Oklahoma the gun deals are hard to find.

They weren't in 1986 when I was stationed at Tinker! I can't remember the particular show but it was somewhere in OKC and big. I bought a Marlin Golden 39A for $100. I traded an early Combat Commander and a $100 for a NIB Series 70 Gold Cup NM in the wood presentation case. And, at the same show I bought something that was relatively new - It was something called a Glock and it was made of this cool material called 'polycarbonate' and was not to be confused with plastic. I recall there were only two styles available, a Glock 17 and a Glock 17 LS which was an inch longer and came with a test target to prove it's 1.5 " 25 yard capability. I bought the standard but now wish I had gone with the LS!

 

[drew]

Very nice.

 

[Spitpatch]

Spitpatch - How does she shoot?

Finally got a chance to ask her for the privelege of her company. Last Sunday, I dug into my ammo cabinet and found five boxes of Remington Green 180 Roundnoses (relatively new stuff). Also found my bevy of 50 rounds I had loaded for my fine Remington 81 (and killed a blacktail with 3 or 4 years ago). 150g Nosler Ballistic Tips on R-P nickel cases, Benchrest primers (what I call a Cadillac Handload). Only 10 left of these.

Shooting at a 4" black bull at 100 yards off sandbags, I could easily keep five rounds inside with the Remington Green/Yellow 180's. (Minor adjustments necessary on the Redfield to get it there.)

The (very warm) handloaded Noslers grouped a full 8 inches high and 2 inches right of that bull, but two five shot groups (one shot by me, one shot by "Handy Neighbor Teenage Buddy" who has younger eyes) went inside of 2.5 inches. I loaded these at the top end to insure cycling of the Remington 81 Auto. The 722 told me (what the 81 couldn't) that these were a shade on the TOO WARM side. (Two firm bolt lifts in 10 rounds). Will back off in future ventures, although it was a book load.

A 4" black bull is PRECISELY the same size as the front bead on the 722 when viewed thru the Redfield peep: this allows for a perfect "figure eight" of two black dots seen at 100 yards, holding at 6 O'clock. Kinda looks like a Snowman with no head, only dark. Relatively precise.

Chrono readings went about 2490 for the 180 Green/Yellows, (Standard Deviations hovering around 40-50fps). Velocities for the 150g NBT Handload stayed just shy of 2900fps with a solid 15-18 fps Standard Deviation. (This is why it is so accurate, but I'll relinquish that for some judicial safety now that I know it is hot.)

Friends say I should scope it with an "of the period" Weaver K4, or such. It could well be an MOA gun with optics. I am reluctant.

What do you think?

I'm in love. Don't like to change things I love, don't like things I love to change me. Reminded me of this verse:

"...

Black mascara, Loreal on her lips,

Tribal tattoo, just above her hip,

A Honky-Tonkin' Woman...who wears her age well,

Some things here under Heaven are just cooler'n Hell.

Yeah, some of this stuff down here's just cooler'n Hell."

Ray Wiley Hubbard: Delirium Tremolos

 

[drew]

Spitpatch,

I'd be tempted put a period optic on it but that's my tendency and I like optics.

That said, I also like having rifles with open sights in the same caliber that I have a scoped rifle.

You'll figure it out and have fun doing so.

 

[Spitpatch]

I'lll add ya to the crew, drew.

I like optics too, but with my blackpowder and single-shot ventures, as well as being a smallbore competitor who KNOWS an Anschutz 64 shoots BETTER with peep and globe than scope, I'm dragging my feet against the crew.

Go ahead with better (more precise) "of the period" suggestions than a K4 for a .300 Savage. Keep in mind: (this from a friend that says keep it like it is), "What the heck are ya gonna shoot with a .300 Savage where ya need a scope?"

My answer was, that I'd carry it for my yearly Pronghorn venture in Montana, and insist (comfortably) on a kill at over 300 yards with it. (I am now in the habit of taking weird guns there, guiding others, or going home empty-handed: 40 years of doing it requires archery, muzzeloaders, handguns or something equally uncommon.)

Anyway, your input is duly recorded. Thanks!

 

[Spitpatch]

I should add in reference to my earlier postings (about the .300 Savage being so far ahead of its time, and the veritable Genesis of "short-fat" sharp-shouldered cartridges), that my velocity readings out of the 24" barrel are surprising, and pretty darned impressive.

Step forward, youngsters and witness early developments: The .300 Savage cartridge was developed to duplicate the initial .30-06 loading, but in the short and lever-action Savage Model 99. We miqht qualify that the first "Thirty Ought Six" was actually the "Thirty Ought Three", and loaded only a bit more modestly than what later would be accomplished.

Savage was successful. Just as successful as they were with breaking the 3000fps barrier commercially with their .250-3000. NO cartridge before the .300 Savage ventured into a closey-approaching straight-walled cartridge (all previous were significantly tapered for chamber insertion/extraction). NO cartridge before the .300 sported a radical sharp-shoulder.

The "Short Action Ultra Mag" afficionados of today owe their very lifeblood to the .300 Savage Cartridge.

The .300 Savage paternal Genesis extends even further, and into aspects some might not realize how pervasive: Witness the .7.62 NATO. Genesis for this cartridge began and was totally centered on the .300 Savage: a short cartridge that had managed to equal ballistics of the (initial, if not the final) version of the .30-06. In finality, and after lengthy experiments, the 7.62 NATO cartridge was designed PRECISELY around the .300 Savage, with military accomodations added for feeding and reliability which included a slightly more tapered body, and a less abrupt shoulder.

Interesting that no Savage 99 in .300 Savage in my experience or in my proximity (quite a large number of them, in hunting situations) has ever failed to feed or eject flawlessly. Levers might hold a very small advantage of reliability against autos, but the civilian automatic Remington 81 shows flawless reliability with the .300. The US Government may well have been "correcting" a problem that never actually ever existed. Not the first or last time for that, as a few might profess.

It is my contention that without a general military view that any war cartridge simply HAD to be tapered and with a gradual shoulder, the .300 Savage cartridge should have righteously been adopted from the outset.

We honestly now should be dealing with "7mm-.300", ."243 Savage", ."358-300", and the like ( Rather than such diameter bullets being inserted into the current NATO cartridge).

But we can't change history, and our efforts to change politics toward what is sensible regarding firearms fail as nearly as futile. I will say, that for any young guy who is thinking about a "Custom .308 Build for a Long Range Gun", take the road less traveled:

Buy your barrel in .300 Savage. If you present your project to Dan Lilja, or Dennis Olsen (lives right down the street in Plains Montana, and really likes his neighbor's barrels), you will probably hear a squeal of delight that extends to the West Coast.

These boys know a good cartridge when they see one.