50 Remington Army M71

[KenH]

Hello all - looking for info here. I've an interest in this old round - I've chambered a Swedish 12/7X44 barrel that had a bad chamber to this round. I found the specs in 8th edition of "Cartridges of the World" book which says case length is .875" with a standard load of 25 grains of FFg. That's what I did - now I find in 4th edition of "The Handloader's Manual of Cartridge Conversions" the case is given as .570" length. Both books give a load of 7.0 grains of Unique and make case from 50-70 brass.

Does anyone have any real info on this round? .570 sure does seem VERY short to me. Almost the same length as head diameter: .570" length vs .565" head diameter.

Thanks to all for any suggestions or info.

Ken H>

[salpal48]

Yes, I have one. I shoot 50/70 out of It. From what I,v Heard Or Read . Bannerman's some Time in The past. imported them and had them rechambered to 50/70. . This might be True Or not. The original spec . The sweed cartridge is a little different
. The metric spec for the 50/70 is 12.7x48r.
That all I know about Them

[KenH]

Thanks Salpal48, but you missed what I was asking. I know the 12.7X44R Swedish is a "tight" fit for 50-70 brass - some chambers will accept 50-70 brass, others will not. The 50-70 brass is .050" longer than 12.7X44 and "should" be trimmed that .050". I've got 3 of the Swedish Rolling Blocks, two of which did accept the 50-70 brass (except for trimming rim diameter a bit), and one that did not. I had to use a 50-70 reamer to open up the 12.7X44 chamber just a tad for the 50-70 brass to fit. Since all my existing 50-70 brass has the rim trimmed to fit the 12.7X44 rim inset, I didn't change the rim in the chamber I reamed, just left it as it was.

What I'm asking about is the 50 Remington Army M71 ammo that Remington made for the Rolling Block pistol. It is the same brass as the 50-70 Government brass, except it's been shorten a LOTS. As I mentioned in first post, two different books give .570" vs .875" brass length. That's over 1/4" difference - I personally think the .875" makes more sense, but looking for anyone that can provide info on this ammo.

Ken H>

[KenH]

Looking at this image of an actual antique 50 Remington M71 round (http://www.soldusa.com/rainworx/detail.asp?id=50594) it does look like the brass MUST be more like .875" long - if not a tad longer. comments please.

Since I'm concerned about copy right infringement I didn't copy and post image here, but linked to website for a view. "IF" it's ok, I can post image here.

My hope is someone will actually have an antique round in their collection and be able to actually measure it.

Ken H>

[ndnchf]

I pulled out my old Black Powder Cartridge Rifles magazines and later Blackpowder Report magazines from the early 1980s. I recalled an article about the RRB pistols. I found it in the January 1985 issue. George Layman wrote a nice article about them. He mentions making ammunition for his M1867 pistol by cutting down 50-70 brass to .885" using a 350gr 512" bullet over 25gr of 3F. I don't know if this is the same as the M1871 or not. But I doubt that they would make a shorter cartridge later on.

[KenH]

Thanks for taking the time to look it up. You info is what I found in 8th edition of "Cartridges of the World" book and that's what I'm going with. I've popped off 3 or 4 test rounds using some 425 grain bullets I had on hand and they seem to do ok. 25 grains FFFg would be a compressed load, but not too bad. The .570" case length I found in 4th edition of "The Handloader's Manual of Cartridge Conversions" just didn't make sense. The photo linked to also supports the .875" case length.

Ken H>

[powderburnerr]

I do not have a specific measurement but had an old roller with a 50-70 chamber that broke brass right at your numbers ,I pretty much figured it was used extensively with the short ammo and they ruined the chamber,,

[missionary5155]

Greetings
Have one also. Something I have learned over the years with old firearms is that any information in print may not equal what I have. When we come to chambers, bores and groove diameters there seems to be a lot of variance. AS costs were kept to a barest minimum with military contracts exact tolerances were not strictly held to. Machinery and tools maybe were not carefully operated. Differences occurred but as long as they were OK to the military inspector all was well.
What I do with new arrivals at my house is to assume the inside of the barrel will be close to the books but close does not match accuracy. Look into the chamber and see if there is an obvious chamber lip where it ends and the throat area begins. Hopefully it is there.
I would start with a piece of full length 50-70, bell the case mouth slightly so it rubs the chamber with slight resistance. Slowly insert the case into the chamber till you hit the chamber ridge. Mark the case. Remove it and measure. Now you have a good "rough" measurement of your chamber. Cut that piece of brass to that "rough measurement plus .020. Bell the mouth and repeat. If too long cut off what you must till your case fits. I cut off in little increments as I want it right. An extra 5 minutes with good preparation means we end up with good fitting cases. Now you have a case that fits that chamber. I would cut all my brass that measurement minus .010.
You have to remember with military firearms they had to fire. Pristine accuracy was not the issue. Cartridges had to chamber and fire. Dirt, fouling and what ever else had to be taken into account. Cases were not made to the large side but much undersize so they would chamber.

It is hard to tell what factory made the antique cartridge whatever author may have measured. Also the chamber the author examined may be was altered. But it really does not matter. We can make our cases to fit our chamber. A case that fits properly will be far more accurate and last longer.
Mike in Peru

[KenH]

Well, as I mentioned in first post, I made the chamber where I wanted it. I cut the barrel off at the old 12.7X44 chamber, I made the reamer, rechambered the existing barrel to fit what I thought was correct, which was the .875" brass length. Only after I finished did I find the other book with different measurements for brass length. As Missionary says, doesn't really matter what the original "should" be, I'll make my brass fit what I made the chamber for. I was just looking for confirmation of the .875" - seems like .3" difference in case length is a bit much for manuf'ing tolerances.

Ken H>

[KenH]

Powderburner - on your chamber, could you see any rings or anything inside the chamber to indicate a bad chamber? Interesting they would have cut the 50-70 brass short.... I'll bet they were wanting light loads and rather than deal with partial case with COW to finish case, just cut all 50-70 brass short and could fill case full for light loads without realizing it would/could damage chamber. Does that make sense?

Ken H>

[powderburnerr]

Powderburner - on your chamber, could you see any rings or anything inside the chamber to indicate a bad chamber? Interesting they would have cut the 50-70 brass short.... I'll bet they were wanting light loads and rather than deal with partial case with COW to finish case, just cut all 50-70 brass short and could fill case full for light loads without realizing it would/could damage chamber. Does that make sense?

when I got the barrel it was chambered in 50-70 and in very poor shape , the chamber was rough as was the barrel but it had hexagon rifling so I wanted to use it. the more I scrubbed it the worse it got and no, when I started you could not see any discernible ring in the chamber ,when I quit shooting it and sleeved the chamber you could see a rough patch in the front of the chamber correlating with the broken cases . The only thing I could think of that would cause that was shooting the short case in it with corrosive primers and the chamber got etched. causing the front of the case to separate.
I do not believe they cut cases off to shoot in this barrel , rather they had a lot of the old military ammo and just used it , and probably didnt do a lot of cleaning, truly other than the rifleing style the barrel was trash,

[KenH]

OK, with the idea this could have been done a long time ago when they found a batch of 50 Remington Army ammo (well before it became collectors items) and shot a lot of it. Yep, with no cleaning that surely could do the damage.

Ken H>

[powderburnerr]

it was definitely done years go..I had to cut off 11 inches of barrel before the bore was truely visible as a bore, it really was junk and the cleaner I got it the worse it got , . I should have left it dirty,
but the hex bore was intriguing and I could not stand it setting there ,