A couple of years ago, my Dad bought an 1879 Martini-Enfield chambered in .22/30-30 for me. I was primarily interested in the action, but I played with the cartridge, and it was interesting. I was able to drive a 45-grain .22 bullet in excess of 4500 f/s. That kind of muzzle velocity always gets my attention. Still, there were elements to this rifle that just didn't sit right with me.
 
First, this was an action that was over 125 years old with a barrel that was chambered in a cartridge that was definitely not of the same vintage. Second, while I really like small bullets going very fast, already owning a .17 Remington pretty well covered all of my small-bore-fast-bullet-needs in Alaska. I simply couldn't come up with a consistent, practical application for the Martini-Enfield in .22/.30-30. Finally, I have been smitten with big bore cartridges for a while now, and the Martini was definitely originally designed for big bore cartridges. It seemed appropriate to get it back at least toward a configuraton that was more in keeping with its original intent.
 
Among the big bore cartridges for which the Martini was originally chambered, the .577/.450 was the most probable candidate for rechambering. Unfortunately, getting or making cases would be a major challenge. I wasn't particularly interested in seeking out 'cahllenges'. Also, while .45 caliber is certainly "big bore", I actually was more interested in big bores - .50 or bigger. In that vein, I have had an interest in the .50 caliber cartridges of the commercial buffalo hunter era. Nomenclature and revisionist history have seriously muddied the water sorrounding these .50 caliber cartridges. Suffice it to say that my interest was focused on a .50 caliber cartridge that might have been used during that era, and that would fit/load in the Martini. Both the .50-70 Government, and the .50-70 Sharps, while very different cartridges, looked like the best candidates. Unfortunately, once again, getting brass meant taking out a second mortgage.
 
While discussing (whining about) this dilemma with (to) Jay, he commented that he had solved the 'problem' by using .348 Winchester brass. Adding that the resulting case blown out to .50 caliber, was the ballistic and esthetic equivalent of the "Big Fifties" of the commercial buffalo hunter era. Turns out, this cartridge was experiencing a bit of a resurgence in popularity. Sufficiently so, that there was even brass made for it, headstamped with the "modern" moniker - the 50 Alaskan. So I did some checking about, and to make a long story at least a little shorter, the .50-.348 turned out to be an excellent candidate for the Martini rechambering.
 
This is the point at which daydreaming actually has to change to action. I got to figuring the actual mechanics of getting accomplished what I wanted. Getting a .50 caliber barrel would be no sweat, and cost only about $200-ish. Getting it chambered for .50-.348 (.50 Alaskan) would be equally easy, at a cost of ~ $100+. However, it is at this point that 'things' got a little 'complicated'. The barrel of course would come 'in the white' and require bluing. The Martini action is in excellent conditon and has a beautiful blue-job. Getting a new barrel to match the action would require having both re-blued. I really didn't want to go through that rigamarol unless there was no alternative. In additon, the extractor of the Martini would have to be modified from the .30-30 rim to that of the .348 WCF. Furthrmore, the bbl would have to be properly threaded for the Martini action, AND the breech properly fit to the extractor. Even discounting the cost, I wasn't too happy about leaving that work to just anybody. To complicate the matter, there's not a gunsmith in Alaska that I would trust to do the work competantly. I'm sure there must be one or two capable of it, but I don't know them.
 
Enter Ol' John. He had recently had some reboring work done by a fellow in Arizona, and was pleased with the result. Reboring solved many of my 'problems'. No new bbl required. No bluing either of the bbl or the action. No need for the 'smith doing the chambering to 'know' Martinis in order to get the bbl/receiver fit right. The extractor was still an issue, but I had a solution to that problem if indeed it turned out to be one. So I called Dan at Cut Rifle, and we discussed the project. He was 'game', and said the extractor "issue" wasn't a problem. He added that while he didn't have a .50-348 (.50 Alaskan) reamer, interest was growing in the cartridge, and he'd cover the cost of the reamer, as he was sure he'd have more requests for it. So now it was down to some real detail.
 
First, was there enough 'meat' in the existing .22/.30-30 bbl to allow reaming it out to .512-ish? Half an inch is a big hole, and a large diameter bbl is necessary for such a bore. The good news was that the .22 bbl was a "bull" type barrel with a uniform taper from breech to muzzle. After extracting the .512" from its muzzle diameter, there was still plenty of metal left. Whew! But bad news was coming. When in preparation for shipping, I took the forearm off the barreled-action, I noticed that the attachment screw for the forearm was threaded into the bbl, not into a post attached to the bbl. That significantly reduced the 'meat', and it was back at a 'bad' point - not too far in front of the chamber. I measured the depth of the hole, and it was 'close', but on the skinny side. That was very disappointing news. After calling Dan back up and disussing the new information, we decided that once he had the bbl in his hands, I would let him decide if he thought it was safe. In case it wasn't, I had another bbl he could use, and I'd send it along just in case. So, late January, off the metal went to Arizona. In the mean time, I started looking at .40-ish caliber cartridges as probable candidates instead of a .50.
 
After Dan had a chance to inspect the rifle, he thought that there was sufficient metal left for a .50 IF I wasn't going to push the pressure envelope. Say keep it under 35,000 PSI. This was really good news, because in fact, I was intending to keep the muzzle energy down around 3100 ft-lbs (I'll explain the choice of that figure later.) Doing so, it would be easy to keep the chamber pressure below 25,000 PSI. In that case, says Dan, there's plenty of metal for a .50 caliber. :D Oh yeah, his charge for re-boring to .50 caliber, cut rifling (8 lands and grooves), and rechambering was $285. $25 for modifying the extractor, and $30 for shipping and insurance. Total - $340. That beat the heck out of a new bbl with all its associated extra costs and concerns.
 
That's the Reader's Digest condensed version of getting to the point of actual action. The story continues.
 
Here's a picture of the rifle before it left for Arizona.
 
Paul

:D paul I don't know a whole lot about the 50 Alaskan, but that is one nice looking rifle, plus a good looking forarm, every time I see one of those action's it bring to mind that zulu move, Ron

Hmmm we wait with baited breath for the nest installment!

I didn't realize that there was factory brass for the 50 Alaskan....do you have the rifle back yet and fired at all or have any hunts planned for it?

Ron,
 
Thanks for the compliment. Actually though, just about everything you see that is wood will be changing dramatically. Again, the style, while appropriate for a "bench gun" in .22/.30-30 is not, at least to my way of thinking, 'appropriate' to the .50-.348. I've already started reshaping the butt. The cheekpiece will go completely away, and the butt will have the form that, while not exactly like the original, will be much more in tune with it. The forearm will be thinned (side-to-side), and I think I'm going to put a schnabel fore-end made of dall sheep horn on it. I'd put a skeleton buttplate on, but the length of pull is too short for me without a recoil pad. Finally, while the birdseye maple is very pretty, I'll be staining it 'brown'. How brown I do not yet know, but one will not be thinking maple when one sees it.
 
Also, there won't be a 'scope. The rear sight will be the multi-leaf 'safari' type, setting on a quarter-rib (or maybe not). The front ramp and post will be on a muzzle ring. (Bluing issues emerge here again. I'm thinking I may have the quarter-rib and muzzle ring color case-hardened. Then the difference in their color/finish from the barrel would be planned as opposed to mis-matched.)
 
I'm still preparing the images for the second installment. Hopefully I'll get it posted later this evening.
 
Paul
 
Sorry BH and M1 - I was composing while you were posting.
 
I just got it back last week, and no, I haven't shot it yet. (Sorta :) ) Preparing to shoot it will be a significant part of the second post. It's really no small matter. In fact, one of the primary reasons I started this thread was to present the tale of what is really involved in making a custom rifle chambered for an obsolete or uncommon cartridge. More stuff soon to follow.
 
Paul

Okay. So now that I have the .50x.348 in my hands the desire to shoot it is ‘real’. So what do I need? There is actually .50 Alaskan ‘factory’ ammo available… and it’s only $70 to $90 per 20 rounds. As a reloader, I simply couldn’t sleep if I paid $3.50 to $4.50 per round for ammo. So... I need bullets, brass, powder, primers and dies. Powder and primers aren’t a problem, but bullets, brass and dies are no small matter. The whole idea of chambering for the .50-.348 WCF was to be able to use the .348 brass which was supposedly more readily available and less expensive. This was, for the most part, true. But as usual, I had to rely on a little help from my friends at THL. Hunterbug found some .348 brass at a local reloading shop near Denver, and M1Garand pointed me to a place called Gamaliel that actually had some in stock. Cost ended up about $0.50 a piece. Cost of Starline .50 Alaskan, (‘proper’ headstamp), brass was a little more than $1.00 a piece after shipping. While I was visiting my local pawn shop just to shoot the breeze with the proprietor, I mentioned the .50x.348 and cost of brass etc. He said he just happened to have an old box of .348 WCF ammo on hand, and he’d give it to me. Great! I’ll be making .50x.348 brass quicker than I thought.
 
Once home from the pawn shop, the mechanics of making the .50x.348 brass from the .348 brass got a little more complicated. I didn’t have any expander balls that would get me from .348 to .510”. L Rats! Thwarted again. So I sat on it over night.
 
I got to thinking about fire-forming other cases, like the .338 MAI, or the .22/.30-30 or the .257 Roberts AI. However, in those cases, I was re-forming a case to the same caliber (the .338 MAI was necked up before fire-forming to AI), but different case shape. In the case of the .50x.348, I was reforming to a different caliber, (and a substantially larger one at that), as well as a different case shape. I wasn’t confident that simply fire-forming would actually get the cases properly formed. Furthermore, I wasn’t sure what would happen if I fired a .348 cartridge in the .50x.348 chamber and bore. The bullet really would have no resistance to it. Hmmm…
 
In the three example cases mentioned above, my fire-forming loads didn’t use bullets. Instead, I used a small, 15-grain load of Bullseye beneath a case-full of Cream-of-Wheat, topped off with a small wad of toilet paper to keep everything in the case. I could do the same with the .348 cases, but there’d be a big jump from .348 to .510. Still, the urge to ‘get to it’ was great. I’d give a try.


It worked like gangbusters! See the pictures below. Not only did it form the case perfectly, it was fun too! My 14-year-old helped me load and fire the other 19. Which was a hoot, as a very nice 'boom' accompanied each shot.
 
As you can see, there is a little bit of the .348 case that extends beyond the chamber into the throat. That works out just fine, as that blown-forward case mouth is fairly uneven. That 10th-of-an-inch allows me to file the case to precise length with a nice square mouth. I could use my case trimmer if I had a .510” pilot. (Gee, I wonder if Drinksgin would care to enter the .50x.348 fray? ) In the mean time, I can ‘make do’, and cases are no longer an “issue”.
 
Next of course is dies. This worried me a bit, as I hadn’t inquired about dies before I forged ahead with the rebore and rechamber. I knew I could get Hornady to make them for me, but I also knew, based on the MAI experience, that it would run me the better part of $150 for custom dies from Hornady. I checked a few places, and ‘no soap’, so I sent Hornady and e-mail requesting pricing and delivery times. I got a pleasant surprise. They informed me that they make .50 Alaskan dies “standard” and that I could get them from a variety of places including Mid-South and Midway. Armed with the Hornady part number, I found them at Midway for $57. I’m very happy about that. I should have those dies by Tuesday.

Now for bullets. I knew bullets would get ‘complicated’. Not only because of the caliber, but also because I tend to get a little ‘focused’ when it comes to bullets and ballistics. :)
 
I’ll put bullet and ballistic stuff in the next post.
 

In the picture, a newly formed .50x.348 case is left-most followed by a .50x.348 case trimmed to length, followed by a 'practice' .50x.348 cartridge given to me by Jay, followed by one of my .45-70 cartridges followed by a 'factory' .375 H&H Magnum cartridge right-most.
 
Paul

So now it's on to bullets. For reasons not completely understood, I prefer fast, light-for-caliber bullets in calibers smaller than .323. On the other hand, in those calibers greater than .40, I prefer heavy-for-caliber bullets. Since .510 (groove diameter of this rifle), is considerably larger than .40 (especially when considering bullet diameters), I would like a big, heavy bullet for the .50x.348. However..., since one of the prime intended uses of this rifle is buffalo hunting, and up here, the free-ranging herds often offer 200yd-plus shots, I'm also interested in as flat a trajectory as I can get while still keeping to heavy bullets. This presents a bit of a dilemma in more than one way. Not only do heavy bullets generally have trajectories not often described as "flat", those folks that shoot rifles chambered for these "old" cartridges, generally "like" blunt-nosed bullets, and therefore there are precious few molds for "spitzer-type", large caliber, cast bullets. Blunt-nosed bullets, even heavy ones, have relatively low ballistic coefficients, and therefore have even worse trajectories. (Slow muzzle velocities coupled with low BCs equals "rainbow-like" trajectories.)
 
The .45-70 is a good case-in-point. The most commonly used cast bullets in .45-70 are flat-pointed bullets with BCs in the vicinity of .250 to .300. (With .300 being very rare.) The bullet you see in the .45-70 cartridge in the above picture is, with lube and gas-check, a 515-grain bullet – a "heavier-than-normally-used" bullet weight. Yet, its BC is .443, and its trajectory is significantly flatter than the "normal", flat-nosed .45-70 bullet that weighs 450 grains, and leaves the muzzle about 150 f/s faster. Now I'm not criticizing those that want to use 'traditional' bullets in their 'traditional' rifles and methods. I simply choose not to. Furthermore, the 'spitzer' design of the 515 grain bullet mentioned here actually dates from the 1800s, or so I read.
 
Now I could design my own bullet, and have Lee or somebody else make it, but even Lee, the least expensive of all the mold-makers, wants something like $130 for a custom mold. I don't begrudge them that price; I just don't want to pay it. Especially in light of the fact that their "regular" molds only cost about $20. Move away form Lee to the "serious" mold-makers, and the price goes up fast and a bunch. L
 
Jay sent me two cast bullets that he used in his .50x.348. One is a 465-grainer, and the other is a 525-grainer. Both would be just fine for my purposes, but I think the molds are either RCBS or Hoch, or Saeco, or Rapine, or... meaning at least $65 each, which I would be willing to pay, but I don't think they are in production any more. I could be wrong about that 'in-production' though. Lee sells two .515" bullet molds; one 450-grainer and one 500-grainer, (BCs .220 and 283 respectively). Jay's 465-grainer is flat-nosed, but the meplat is definitely small – about 0.200". I don't know its BC, but I suspect it's in the vicinity of .300. Plenty respectable, especially in light of its weight. Unfortunately, I don't think I could get the mold without finding a used one. That means an indeterminate amount of time spent before I could use the rifle.
 
I found a really 'nice' 650-grain, .512", 'spitzer' mold, but the manufacturer wants $165 for it. L (Pictures of all these bullets are attached below.) So... where does that leave me? Here is what I'm thinking at the moment. I'm interested in 5 possible bullets. The two Lee bullets, Jay's two bullets, (if I can get the molds), and the Mountain Mold 650-grainer. (However, considering the Mountain Mold price tag, I could get Lee to make me a similar one for at least $35 less.)
 
There are some very interesting ballistic comparisons coming in the next post.
 
Paul

So now that we’ve looked at bullets, let’s consider the ballistics of the bullets and the cartridge. In other words, the external (bullets) and internal (cartridge) ballistics. As mentioned in the first post, I intend to keep the chamber pressure at or below 25,000 PSI. This was a pre-condition even before the barrel wall thickness issue raised its ugly head. The reason being that I intend to keep this rifle pleasant to shoot. In my .45-70, I shoot the 515-grain Postell at ~ 1650 f/s. This yields a muzzle energy of ~ 3113 ft-lbs. In the nine-pound Buffalo Classic, I can shoot that load ‘all day’. (The Martini weighs 11 pounds before I modify the stock.) Furthermore, with that ‘spitzer’ bullet, that muzzle velocity, and a “zero” of +6” at 100 yards, the bullet is only 36” low at 300. That’s “minute of buffalo” out to 300 yards. It is extremely unlikely that I would shoot at a buffalo at 300 yards with open sights, but in the off chance that the stars lined up right, I hate to aim off an animal. Anyway, getting back to the .50x.348: my .338 Win Mag delivers MEs in the low 3 thousands also, and it is also ‘pleasant’ to shoot. Therefore, I have decided that an ME in the low 3 thousands is probably within my ‘comfort zone’. I therefore selected MVs that yielded chamber pressures below 25,000 PSI and selected loads that produced MVs that produced MEs in the low 3 thousands.
 
In order to select a “proper” load, I used QuickLoad, and had it select loads that kept the bullet’s exit from the muzzle at a theoretical “good” node. All things combined, I created a scoring algorithm that ranked the powder choices.
 
Have a look at the attached charts.
 
Paul

Paul,

What type of trimmer do you use? is it by chance a Lyman Universal?

If so I can make you a .510" pilot I use the Lyman myself and had to make a .26 pilot for doing my 6.5mm cases as I couldn't get one locally. Sorry I don't have a 0.510" already just checked and I have 3 .45 ones . It cannot cost much to post a little thing like that and Air mail you should get in a day or so. Let me know I am about all day and will be on and off the net during it.

PS.   Oh are your aware the Potassium Permanganate B.P. cystal when mixed in water makes an excellent permanate stain for wood. The colour is purple but don't be worried it turns the wood a brown shade and you can do it more than once to get the depth of colour you like.

Well, Paul, all I'll say is WOW!!
What an amazing project.
It seems like such a short amount of time since we were discussing what you should chamber your Martini to.
Should make a darned big hole in any buffalo that comes along.
This also makes me think about how I'll do my own Martini although it'll be a 45-70.
Out of interest, how hard is it to put one down?
Does it actually require solids at times like water buff do on most occasions?
Incidentally I was speaking to a guy when I was at the Big Game Rifle shoot a couple weeks back.
He sells big game rifles & alot of Woodleigh bullets.
His opinion was to find the heaviest bullet you could and load it as most water buffalo shooting is done no further than 75yds away so the projectile has maximum effect.
Whether it's trundling along at 1500fps or sailing along at 2200fps the mass really makes the difference.
I am quite amazed that your 50 Alaskan will push @ about 1750fps without breaking the 25,000 psi mark.
The Martini is reasonably well up to 44,000 psi loads but it pains me to think what that would be like on the shoulder with the 50 cal!! :o

BH - That's a very generous offer.

Quoteis it by chance a Lyman Universal?

[/COLOR][/SIZE]Nope, it's an old RCBS hand-powered one. I've attached a picture of a .44 cal. pilot I have. I would have made a drawing, but I don't think the dimensions are that critical. Probably the most critical one is the shaft diameter.
 
Shaft diameter = 0.155"
Shaft length = 0.440"
Pilot length = 0.257"
Pilot diameter = 0.425"
 
I add the last dimension to illustrate the reduction in diameter of the pilot relative to the nominal caliber. In this case, the pilot is for a ".44 caliber" which is actually either .429" or .430". RCBS chose to make the pilot about 0.005" smaller than the actual diamater of the projectile. Using the same logic, the pilot diameter for the .50x.348 would be approximately 0.505". Lemme know if you need any other specs.
 

QuoteWell, Paul, all I'll say is WOW!!
What an amazing project. Thank you.
It seems like such a short amount of time since we were discussing what you should chamber your Martini to. Tempus fugit I suppose, but it doesn't seem that short a time ago to me I assure you. :)
Should make a darned big hole in any buffalo that comes along. That's my thinking too.
This also makes me think about how I'll do my own Martini although it'll be a 45-70. I think that's good a good choice. However, I must add, that getting .577/.450 brass must be easier in OZ than it is in the US - No?
Out of interest, how hard is it to put one down? Well, since I've never actually shot one, I can only speak from having seen them shot, and they are not particularly 'tough' in my opinion. Many are shot with .30 caliber bullets at long (200+ yards) ranges, and die quite readily. They are simply big, and big means they can absorb - literally - a great deal of punishment.
Does it actually require solids at times like water buff do on most occasions? Personally, I do not think so. Others might disagree.
Whether it's trundling along at 1500fps or sailing along at 2200fps the mass really makes the difference. I tend to agree.
I am quite amazed that your 50 Alaskan will push @ about 1750fps without breaking the 25,000 psi mark. Well, it's really all about the burning characteristics of the powder and the length of the bbl. As you can see from the charts, there are at least 30 powders that are capable of producing between 2850 and 3400 ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle (my lower and upper limits for this exercise), while still keeping the pressure below 25,000 PSI. In fact, the chart doesn't include them all. There are actually about 50. However, my interest is primarily in those that produce the best velocity (and resultant ME) with the least pressure AND have reasonable load densities and burn %. Those that combine all those characteristics get the best "scores" in my calculations.
The Martini is reasonably well up to 44,000 psi loads but it pains me to think what that would be like on the shoulder with the 50 cal!! In fact, I'm quite certain I was way higher than that (44,000 PSI), when I was pushing the .22/.30-30 to 4500 f/s. I'll post a chart of the .50x.348's capabilites (along with MEs), allowing the chamber pressure to go up to 44,000 PSI. With bullets whose weights exceed 500 grains, the MEs exceed 5000 ft-lbs. I have no interest in shooting at that level even if the rifle could take it. Personally, I start to 'dislike' the recoil when the ME starts to push the 3600 ft-lbs figure. Of course, the weight of the rifle makes a big difference in felt recoil. Still, anything over 3600 ft-lbs, regardless of rifle weight, gets a frown from me.

Paul

Leave us not forget that moving the case mouth from .348 to .50 caliber should really be done in stages starting with annealing for fired brass.

On the right from the bottom:

1. .290" to .355"

2. .340" to .400"

3. .395" to .452"

4. .450" to .501"(depending on groove size)

Easy stages and annealing are insurance against lost cases.  Some might think that step #1 is not necessary.  Trial and error have shown different over the years.  Alignment is quite necessary for step #2.

Almost forgot: You will still need an expander ball with the taper for flaring the case mouth.

QuoteLeave us not forget that moving the case mouth from .348 to .50 caliber should really be done in stages starting with annealing for fired brass.

No doubt. And might I add that that is a fine set of resizing dies. Probaly wouldn't cost more than a couple of hundred dollars to get Hornady to make a set up. :) However, since this brass was unfired, and the brass coming from Colorado is unfired, (I think), and since there was no loss among the first fire-formed 20, I'm comfortable sticking with fire-forming for unfired brass.[/COLOR][/SIZE]
 

QuoteYou will still need an expander ball with the taper for flaring the case mouth.

No doubt.
 
I've attached a couple of charts in response to Kombi's comments regarding what the .50x.348 might do if the chamber pressure were allowed to rise to 44,000 PSI. There are more powders that could be used, but I restricted the output to those whose ME was at least 4000 ft-lbs. If the ME drops below 4000 ft-lbs, there's no need to consider chamber pressures up to 44KPSI. I would urge "you" to look through the charts thoroughly. There is interesting info there - top to bottom. If I need to 'decode' it, let me know.
 
Paul[/COLOR][/SIZE]

BH - Regarding the potassium permanganate - Yup, I'm familiar with it. I've used it to darken antlers of animals that were shot while 'in velvet', then had the velvet peeled. My experiences with it tend to have me looking for something less finicky. I've really had to work at getting it to color evenly. It can of course be done, but it seems to me to be considerable work relative to many other stains. I may try it on some birch I have around and see what it looks like.
 
I've been experimenting with pecan and hickory hulls as a dye source, but haven't realized much success. Very difficult to get it as dark as I would like. It takes 10 coats on local birch to get it to even show up. This, when the liquor is so dark you can hardly see through it.
 
Thanks for the suggestion.
 
Paul