Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Express Rifles and Big Bores Only .404 Jeffery Barrel Contour ?

Aren't all guns neat ?
some are just a little neater than others

Yours are "more neater"...

Besides, I like those old classics and new guns built along those lines, like your M-70 with D'Arcy's Legend stock in 9.3x62, light and sleek.

Your gun designs reflect years of use and lots of carrying.

DF

neat guns Phil.....especially since i keep thinking i need to turn my M1917 into a 404.....like the sight on the Rigby though....really want one of those for my Mannlicher Schoenauer....but have yet to find one that doesnt cost an arm and a leg.....

I've seen some great looking 1917 conversions, but you could be looking at a bunch of smith work, getting there.

Getting a donor M-70 in a RUM round, swapping barrels and doing some minor smithing on the action may be the least expensive way to get into a .404J. Selling off the surplus donor parts helps defray the net cost.

The one I showed earlier in this post is at around $1,200 all up as you see it. You could easily end up spending more than that with major smithing plus barreling the 1917.

DF

except i have a 1917 that is sporterized in 338-06 now so it just needs a new barrel and a smith to work on the action to get it to feed right....cant see how thats gonna eat up more than $1200.....

If you're just rebarreling, then around $500-600 plus some minor smith work on the action and bluing.

How about photos of that gun.

DF

doesnt look the best at the moment cause.....well im not going to go into that but here it is:

You have it looking pretty good. Everyone may not, but I like that safety.

For me, I'd have to replace the dog leg bolt handle and I'd have to go with a Timney or other good aftermarket trigger. And, of course, the cock on opening conversion kit. You may have that already.

It will take some smithing on the bolt face, the box mag, with feeding issues addressed for a .404J conversion.

I can't tell from the photo, but is there enough beef in that barrel to bore it out to .404J?

That ole '17 should make a good .404J.

DF

guess cause i know what it looks like in person im a lil rough on it....its a slight sore spot, was a learning experiance with what not to do when it comes to gunsmiths, even members here, didnt get what i was promised....i was young and stupid....

not enough beef for a 404 unless i cut it down to 18in or so....actually i like the cock on closing, or atleast im used to it as one of my first centerfires was an SMLE....have a 1895 and 1896 Mauser aswell, all cock on closing.....the trigger thats on it is fine, damn fine actually...

Sounds like you got a good start on a very nice big boomer.

You probably can't tell, but I really like the .404J...

DF

Here's a nice one, a .404J in a '17 action. Not mine, just a photo I had on my hard drive. I saw a photo of one by Tom Burgess that was even nicer that this one.

DF




Edited to add, I found the Enfield .404J by Tom Burgess. They don't get much nicer than this.

only complaint on Tom Burgess's rifle is if im going to change the saftey i might aswell start with a Winchester or Mauser....i like the 1917 on its merits and am not interested into making it something else.....that said the craftsman ship is outstanding....

my interest in the 404 is cause of my large Africana library, the Rigby and others are often stars of certain books but the 404 did the yoemans work for the majority of hunters using a bolt for the very reason of Phil's picture above and shows up more than any other in Classic Africa.....much nicer rifle to be packing day in and day out than the magnum mauser action.....

The quality of Burgess' work is breath taking.

Like I was pointing out earlier, one can spend a bunch of money turning an Enfield into something like this.

I see nothing wrong with the original Enfield safety and wouldn't change it to a 3 position, M-70 type. If that's what I wanted, I'd start with a M-70 donor and build a .404J like I posted.

DF

to me the 1917's safety is far more natural to use than anything hanging off the bolt.....but i also understand others wanting what they are familiar with, especially in a rifle meant for DG....

A couple of .404J links, more info, more photos.

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/7143935/1

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/7030594/1

I think I must have imprinted on one of the early 1950's H&H rifles when I was a kid as I too kind of like the retro look and usefullness of the 1917 Enfield safety

Like I wrote, earlier. Phil, you got some neat guns.

I really like this one. Fixing that ole ugly, dog leg bolt handle does a LOT for an Enfield, IMHO.

DF

Two questions here. Does anyone know the barrel dimensions of a .404 Jeffrey?

2nd..Does the Jeffrey .404 have the same outside barrel dimensions as a Rigby .416 or the WR .425.

The reason I'm asking is that if we want to build a rifle similar to a British medium bore rifle, we would also want it to "hang" offhand like a Brit rifle. Also, since all of these rifles came out of the same Mauser factory and are similar in caliber, the outside barrel dimensions should be the same/similar. The only major difference would be the action itself. Thanks for any input.

The .416 was housed in the Magnum Mauser action and only 'til after WW2 was it shoehorned into a standard action.

The .404 was shoehorned into the standard actions originally and later into the larger Magnum action when the larger action became available to Jeffrey.

The .425 I believe was always in a standard sized action since it was the shortest cartridge of the 3.

I don't see much positive stuff on the .425 as I do on the other two.

Not sure about some makers, but the M-70 Classic has the same outside contour for their express rounds. With the .458, and .416, probably not so bad. With the .375 H&H, way too heavy at 24". Much better cut to 21".

I think a M-70 .375 H&H bored to .423" for a .404J should work out OK. It would take some smithing on the bolt face, the box mag and feeding ramp, none of which is that major.

CZ's are pretty heavy in the big rounds.

DF

'Farmer...not too much positive on the .425 like you say but, there were a few out there that made them work. I've still got an article by Jack Lott about the .425. He owned one of the early high end WR rifles with a long tube. Those were not prone to mis feed like some of the later post war rifles were.

Precision Shooting May 2005 Has an article about all three of the .40 medium bores by J. C. Munnell called A GREAT TRIUMVIRATE. His solution for feeding problems was to have .425 brass made with a .532 rim....If a person wanted to do something similar, he could just use Ultra Mag brass, or if you didn't want any rebate at all....just use cut down and resized .404 Jeffrey brass.

The 1993 Handloaders Digest has an article by Francisco Magahaes detailing his experience with the .425 from the mid '50s until 1967 when he was unable to get any more ammo. All three of these articles provide some good info on the .425.