Damn I hate when the website, my computer, or whatever “burps” and I had to type all this TWICE!
Thanks to all who have responded and thanks to BSA for posting the pic of the Pre ’64 magnum receiver, as it saved me having to find a picture to post.
We sort of got off on a tangent (which admittedly I started!), about the cartridge I envisioned. When I bought the rifle, had the .300 Weatherby been available in the configuration I wanted, I might have gone that way. But I have never considered the difference in performance between the Weatherby and Win. Mag., while definitely a significant difference, to be terribly important to me. Having said that, it wouldn’t hurt to open up the magazine to give the .300 Win. Mag. a bit more case capacity, especially because I tend to favor longer, heavier bullets. Had the longer magazine worked out, it was a logical extension (to me anyway) to continue on to a cartridge exactly like the .300 Win. Mag., but with a longer neck. This would have eliminated a criticism many have of that cartridge, i.e. the relatively short neck. (This issue usually doesn’t give people any real problems, but it is something I would not have done had I been designing that cartridge.) Further, in a pinch, I would have been able to shoot factory .300 Win. Mag. In such a situation, .300 Win. Mag. might be easier to find than .300 Weatherby. The idea was mostly a curiosity, and I wasn’t sure I was willing to pursue it, but I was willing to at least start down the road by swapping some parts. As it turned out, the sketchy ejection issue stopped me. I’m sure I could have modified the rifle enough to make it work, but I decided not to go forward.
Even so, my experience got me curious about the shape of the receivers of the Pre ’64 rifles for the .300 and .375 H&H cartridges. Why did they have the cuts on top of the receiver, but not have a larger opening on the right hand side, and yet, as far as I know, not have ejection issues?
To answer BSA, beretzs, and maybe some others, I installed the magazine, bolt stop, and ejector for the longer .300 Weatherby. The shorter bolt stop was necessary so the bolt could move back far enough to pick up a new round from the longer magazine, and the shorter ejector was necessary so that you could load rounds all the way to the back of the magazine. As far as I could tell, all the parts moved as freely as the original parts. If you look at how a control feed (not push feed) M70 ejects, the ejector pushes the cartridge such that it pivots (clockwise if you are looking straight down at the top of the receiver) and “spins” the cartridge out from under the Mauser style extractor. Because the case was about ¼” farther back before this pivoting began, the forward edge of the right side of the receiver bridge impeded this “spinning” out of the ejection port. (Interestingly, and a bit ironically, a fully loaded cartridge, having more weight and inertia once it got going, ejected better than an empty. This was interesting, but not particularly useful.)
We have already seen a picture of a Pre ’64 H&H magnum receiver. What would be great is if someone could post a side by side picture of a Classic “long” magnum (like a .300 Weatherby) compared to a “shorter” magnum (like a .300 Win. Mag.) I am pretty sure that with the Classics, the distance from the bolt cut to the front edge of the receiver bridge is shorter on the “long” magnums. I assume Winchester did this for a reason, but they did it differently on the Pre ’64 rifles. Yet, no one seems to have issue with how the Pre ’64 .300 and .375 H&H rifles ejected.
Beretzs, did you shorten both the bolt stop and the ejector on the Classic rifles where you lengthened the magazine? I wonder why I had trouble and you did not? Perhaps I have missed something or perhaps I am too particular.
I may never know the answer until I have a Pre '64 H&H in hand along with some empty cases so I can observe the small differences in finer detail. But perhaps not. Surely I am not the first to ask this question.
Again, thank each of you for your patience. I know this is not a great collector issue, but I find it intriguing in discussing the development of one of the best bolt guns ever.
Best,
Gun Doc
Last edited by GunDoc7; 04/21/17.
