Back in March, I started a thread on this subject, see:http://www.gboreloaded.com/forums/index.php/topic,203653.0.html
The majority opinion seemed to feel that the Savage 24 wasn’t really suited to any higher pressure round than the .30-30. Some seemed to feel that it really wasn’t even up to the .30-30 round! Drilling Man opined that a .30-30 Ackley Improved might offer a modest increase without increasing pressure.
I also started a related thread - Little (Rifle) over Big (Shotgun) … see:
http://www.gboreloaded.com/forums/index.php/topic,206467.0.htmlIn this I stated that I believe the rifle over shotgun configuration is ergonomically superior to the shotgun over rifle configuration.
This single limitation is what keeps me from purchasing a Valmet 412 (or any other combi rifle/shotgun for that matter).
And after handing a number of shotgun over rifle combo’s at various Cabela's over the last six months, I’m even more convinced that a Savage 24 really has the much more desirable barrel configuration. Shame they're not better made/designed, eh.
So; what to do? Since I can’t afford to have Peter Hoffer build me a reverse combination gun (ie. rifle over shotgun), I’ve gone back to contemplating how to
SAFELY re-chamber the .30-30 in my Savage 24.
Yes, I do know that the .30-30 has been used (successfully) to take every game species in North America. But still, with only a single rifle shot (even with having a 3,300 ft-lb 3" slug for backup), I would be happier with ‘more rifle’.
Yes, I could buy a double rifle, but I would really rather have just one gun that suits all my hunting needs. So, needing both a rifle and a shotgun, a combi (with the rifle over the shotgun) is what I really want.
So, the Savage 24s safe operating pressure limitations would seem to be:
1) SAAMI chamber pressure for a factory 170 gr. .30-30 load is 42,000 CUP
2) Breech face pressure is about 5,300 lbs
After months of digging around on the internet, communicating with quite a few gunsmiths, and referring to many of the classic older ‘wildcat’ oriented reloading publications, I believe that I have come up with a potential solution:
The .35/.30-30 (ie .35/30)
This is a .30-30 (or .32 Win Special) case necked up to accept a .35 Remington bullet. Evidently this was once a fairly popular way to extend the life of worn out .30-30 and .32 WS barrels.
By all accounts the .35 Remington is considered to be a much more capable round than the .30-30. (especially when the quarry is bigger and tougher than a whitetail deer), and it is still popular in some areas for use on bear, elk, and moose in heavy cover at short ranges.
The .35 Remington figures are –
1) The SAAMI chamber pressure for a factory 200 gr. load is 33,500 CUP
2) Breech face pressure is about 5,000 lbs
Granted, the .35 Remington has a larger case capacity than the .30-30 (although from what I’ve read the .35/30 can be reloaded to achieve .35 Remington performance without difficulty), but there is a work around for this as well.
Use the 7-30 Waters case (a necked down .30-30 case for a 7mm bullet), reform it with an Ackley Improved shoulder configuration, and neck it up to accept a .35 Remington bullet.
This would shorten the .30-30 neck by .169" and lengthen the main body by .150".
See:
.30-30 Win
http://www.stevespages.com/jpg/cd3030winchester.jpg7-30 Waters
http://stevespages.com/jpg/cd730waters.jpg .30-30 Ackley Improved
http://stevespages.com/jpg/cd3030ackleyimproved.jpgA standard .30-30 case has a water weight capacity of 44 grains. A 7-30 Waters case has a water weight capacity of 47 grains. An Ackley Improved .35/7-30 case would have a water weight capacity of 50 grains.
Having a larger case capacity would allow the use of slower powders (like WW760) to drive 200-225 gr bullets at nearly 2300 fps (and 180 gr bullets at over 2500 fps). All at pressures well below the SAAMI .30-30s 42,000 CUP.
The Accurate Arms loading manual shows 39.0 grains of 2520 (not the slowest burning powder) with a 200 gr RN bullet developing 2205 fps at only 27,800 psi peak pressure in a .35 Remington.
Every comment I’ve read about this (and similar) loads states that the ‘on game’ performance under most 'woods' conditions significantly exceeds what a 170 gr .30-30 round at 42,000 CUP would ever be able to achieve.
So this should subject the Savage 24s to much lower pressure/stress levels. This would be considered a good thing I assume.
Having to re-bore the Savage 24 from .30-30 to .35 would also enable me to increase the twist rate to around 1:10 (the .35 Remington standard rate is 1:16), which would (from what I've been reading lately) much better stabilize heavier bullets at close ranges.
The downsides? Well, this is definitely deep into the realm of wildcatting and I imagine that there could well be a ‘one step forward, two steps sideways’ learning process involved. I’ll never be able to buy over the counter ammo. Recoil will be increased. Effective range will most likely be reduced a bit (the .30-30 is ‘flatter’ shooting than the .35 Remington).
By doing this it would seem that (given AA’s 27,800 psi peak pressure mentioned above) I would have a ‘pressure window’ of around 10,000 psi in which to develop suitable rounds below the SAAMI .30-30s 42,000 CUP limit.
Granted, these improvements would entail spending more than I paid for my Savage 24 (but perhaps much less than the .30-30/12ga versions being advertised on the internet currently). But this would perhaps enable me to continue to enjoy the benefits of a rifle over shotgun layout, without the risk of having my re-chambered Savage 24 ‘blow up’ in my face.
So; do any forum members have any experience with the .35/30?
Lowering the pressure by upwards of 25% (compared to the SAAMI .30-30s 42,000 CUP) while significantly improving ‘on game’ performance of the Savage 24 would seem to be a win/win idea to me.
And I wouldn’t have to struggle to access the .30-30 cartridge under the hulking 12 ga shell (which has been further complicated by my fitting a scope with a 49 mm rear body diameter) while wearing gloves in cold weather. Can life get any better I ask myself!
Many thanks for all who responded to my original posting on this subject. All your comments were most appreciated and helpful.
Best regards,
Steve
