The 6.5 X 52 mm cartridge has taken a great deal of criticism as being underpowered and anemic. From a ballistic standpoint this is a little hard to justify. The Swedish 6.5 X 55 mm cartridge is considered an outstanding cartridge yet it is only able to produce 100 fps more velocity with a 156-grain bullet in the M96 rifle. The 6.5 X 55 requires a maximum average pressure of 55,000 psi and approximately 6 more grains of powder to produce this meager gain in performance. The . 30-30 Winchester, regarded as an adequate deer rifle and known to have killed many moose and bear produces 2,220 fps in a 24” barrel with a 170 grain bullet. The 6.5 X 52 mm fires a bullet with a higher ballistic coefficient, at a higher velocity, shoots flatter and has far more penetration capability than the .30-30. From the standpoint of a service rifle cartridge the 6.5 X 52 with its relatively low operating pressure, coupled with its modest powder charge would result in much less barrel throat erosion and wear. This would equate to longer barrel life and decreased operating cost. In fact, much of what was done in the Carcano rifle/ammunition system was aimed at long barrel life, as will be shown later. From my point of view the 6.5 X 52 is a very efficient cartridge, offering adequate performance for what it was intended.
The only fault that one might level against the 6.5 X 52 as a military cartridge is that it had relatively humane terminal ballistics. The very long, blunt nosed bullet coupled with the fast twist rate of the gun resulted in a bullet that was very stable with a very high resistance to tumbling. The cartridge was known to have inflicted many “through and through” wounds, just leaving a small wound channel. The bullet typically would not tumble inside its’ target unless it encountered something hard such as bone. When it did tumble the wounding effect is well known.
The original 6.5 X 52 mm Carcano design used a gain twist barrel. The gain twist results in a very slow initial twist in the barrel progressively getting faster until the full twist rate is attained at the muzzle. The slow initial twist results in substantially less torque being imparted to the bullet during the highest loading phase of the interior ballistic cycle. This results in significantly less barrel wear in the throat. This coupled with the very deep rifling of the barrel would result in barrels that would have a very long wear and accuracy life. This in fact is the case. Many M91 model rifles show signs of considerable amounts of ammunition being fired through them, because of the crazed/frosted condition of the bore, yet still show very strong rifling and shoot well with the proper size bullets. The 7.35 X 51 mm Carcano rifles used a standard fixed twist barrel. The Carcano bolt is the model of a simple, easy to field strip bolt. It is about as fool proof as you can get for a common soldier. The Carcano trigger has taken a considerable amount of criticism. The trigger is basically a Mauser type two-stage trigger. In almost all cases if you find the trigger rough or creepy simply polishing the sear and trigger mating faces result in a very acceptable trigger for a military rifle. For the most part I have found Carcano triggers have less creep, are more crisp and lighter than the majority of Mauser triggers I have encountered.
The materials used in the Carcano are excellent. These rifles were made from special steels perfected by the Czechs, for which the Italians paid royalties. If you have ever tried doing any work on a Carcano receiver you will find out just how hard and tough the steel is. The Carcano has also received a reputation as being a “weak” design. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Italians made a small run of Carcanos early in WW II chambered for 8 X 57 JS. The Germans rechambered some Carcanos to 8 X 57 JS late in WW II. These rifles were also proofed for this cartridge. The CIP minimum suggested proof pressure for the 8 x 57 JS cartridge is 73,500 psi. I hardly call this a weak action.
The Italians apparently realized that a 300-meter battle zero was a bit impractical and with the introduction of the M38 models went to a 200 meter battle zero. This zero results in a maximum height of trajectory of 5.5” – 6.5” at a range of approximately 100 yards, depending on barrel length. With this sight setting, by simply holding on the middle of the torso, it would have been hard to miss the target out to about 220 meters. The Carcano’s also used a unique sight picture. The proper sight picture for regulated sights on a Carcano is with the front sight in the very bottom of the rear sight groove. This is how the Italian army manuals instructed that the sights be used. Potentially, this would allow for two battle sight settings. The normal use as mentioned above would be a 200 meter zero. Using the Mauser sighting method, the front sight level with the rear sight, would result in a zero of 330 – 350 meters. This is about the maximum range practical for attempting to engage a target with iron sights. I contend with the Carcano the Italians had a very intelligent approach for a battle rifle. The fixed sights were basically fool proof. The Italians must have realized with the M38 models that nearly all small arms engagements occurred inside of 200 meters. The fixed sights with a 200 meter zero would have been fool proof for a soldier under stress, who was probably a poor judge of distance to begin with. The soldier would have had to do nothing but point and shoot at the middle of his enemy for ranges out to 220 – 230 meters. How much more simple and effective could it have been made.
The Carcano rifles are capable of outstanding accuracy. With the exception of a military issue type load in the short carbines they are very pleasant to shoot from a recoil standpoint. Because of the above mentioned sight picture for the Carcano, front sight in the bottom of the rear sight notch, it is very important to have a consistent stock- cheek weld for consistent accuracy. It is often very helpful to use a carbide lamp or a sight black product to blacken the sights, which improves contrast and sight picture.
The 6.5 X 52 is a very useful and capable cartridge. It served well as a military cartridge for over 80 years. The 7.35 X 51 would have been an even more effective military cartridge than the 6.5 X 52 had its timing been different. It is interesting to note that the .308 Winchester / 7.62 X 51 mm NATO and the 7.35 X 51 mm are nearly the same dimensions. Both the 6.5 and 7.35 cartridges are fun to shoot and properly loaded capable of very good accuracy. The Carcano rifle is a well made rifle that is by no means weak or poorly manufactured. They are reliable and strong rifles that are fun to shoot and offer a tremendous variety of types and markings for the collector. I will admit that they are a rather utilitarian rifle as compared to some others. However, they are probably one of the most efficient, cost effective, user friendly battle rifles produced in their era. The rifle, ammunition combination properly loaded is capable of accuracy that will rival the most accurate of the Mauser chamberings.
> The 6.5 X 52 mm cartridge has taken a great deal of criticism as being
> underpowered and anemic. From a ballistic standpoint this is a little hard
> to justify. The Swedish 6.5 X 55 mm cartridge is considered an outstanding
> cartridge yet it is only able to produce 100 fps more velocity with a
> 156-grain bullet in the M96 rifle. The 6.5 X 55 requires a maximum average
> pressure of 55,000 psi and approximately 6 more grains of powder to
> produce this meager gain in performance. The . 30-30 Winchester, regarded
> as an adequate deer rifle and known to have killed many moose and bear
> produces 2,220 fps in a 24? barrel with a 170 grain bullet. The 6.5 X 52
> mm fires a bullet with a higher ballistic coefficient, at a higher
> velocity, shoots flatter and has far more penetration capability than the
> .30-30. From the standpoint of a service rifle cartridge the 6.5 X 52 with
> its relatively low operating pressure, coupled with its modest powder
> charge would result in much less barrel throat erosion and wear. This
> would equate to longer barrel life and decreased operating cost. In fact,
> much of what was done in the Carcano rifle/ammunition system was aimed at
> long barrel life, as will be shown later. From my point of view the 6.5 X
> 52 is a very efficient cartridge, offering adequate performance for what
> it was intended.
> The only fault that one might level against the 6.5 X 52 as a military
> cartridge is that it had relatively humane terminal ballistics. The very
> long, blunt nosed bullet coupled with the fast twist rate of the gun
> resulted in a bullet that was very stable with a very high resistance to
> tumbling. The cartridge was known to have inflicted many ?through and
> through? wounds, just leaving a small wound channel. The bullet
> typically would not tumble inside its? target unless it encountered
> something hard such as bone. When it did tumble the wounding effect is
> well known.
> The original 6.5 X 52 mm Carcano design used a gain twist barrel. The gain
> twist results in a very slow initial twist in the barrel progressively
> getting faster until the full twist rate is attained at the muzzle. The
> slow initial twist results in substantially less torque being imparted to
> the bullet during the highest loading phase of the interior ballistic
> cycle. This results in significantly less barrel wear in the throat. This
> coupled with the very deep rifling of the barrel would result in barrels
> that would have a very long wear and accuracy life. This in fact is the
> case. Many M91 model rifles show signs of considerable amounts of
> ammunition being fired through them, because of the crazed/frosted
> condition of the bore, yet still show very strong rifling and shoot well
> with the proper size bullets. The 7.35 X 51 mm Carcano rifles used a
> standard fixed twist barrel. The Carcano bolt is the model of a simple,
> easy to field strip bolt. It is about as fool proof as you can get for a
> common soldier. The Carcano trigger has taken a considerable amount of
> criticism. The trigger is basically a Mauser type two-stage trigger. In
> almost all cases if you find the trigger rough or creepy simply polishing
> the sear and trigger mating faces result in a very acceptable trigger for
> a military rifle. For the most part I have found Carcano triggers have
> less creep, are more crisp and lighter than the majority of Mauser
> triggers I have encountered.
> The materials used in the Carcano are excellent. These rifles were made
> from special steels perfected by the Czechs, for which the Italians paid
> royalties. If you have ever tried doing any work on a Carcano receiver you
> will find out just how hard and tough the steel is. The Carcano has also
> received a reputation as being a ?weak? design. Nothing could be
> further from the truth. The Italians made a small run of Carcanos early in
> WW II chambered for 8 X 57 JS. The Germans rechambered some Carcanos to 8
> X 57 JS late in WW II. These rifles were also proofed for this cartridge.
> The CIP minimum suggested proof pressure for the 8 x 57 JS cartridge is
> 73,500 psi. I hardly call this a weak action.
> The Italians apparently realized that a 300-meter battle zero was a bit
> impractical and with the introduction of the M38 models went to a 200
> meter battle zero. This zero results in a maximum height of trajectory of
> 5.5? ? 6.5? at a range of approximately 100 yards, depending on
> barrel length. With this sight setting, by simply holding on the middle of
> the torso, it would have been hard to miss the target out to about 220
> meters. The Carcano?s also used a unique sight picture. The proper sight
> picture for regulated sights on a Carcano is with the front sight in the
> very bottom of the rear sight groove. This is how the Italian army manuals
> instructed that the sights be used. Potentially, this would allow for two
> battle sight settings. The normal use as mentioned above would be a 200
> meter zero. Using the Mauser sighting method, the front sight level with
> the rear sight, would result in a zero of 330 ? 350 meters. This is
> about the maximum range practical for attempting to engage a target with
> iron sights. I contend with the Carcano the Italians had a very
> intelligent approach for a battle rifle. The fixed sights were basically
> fool proof. The Italians must have realized with the M38 models that
> nearly all small arms engagements occurred inside of 200 meters. The fixed
> sights with a 200 meter zero would have been fool proof for a soldier
> under stress, who was probably a poor judge of distance to begin with. The
> soldier would have had to do nothing but point and shoot at the middle of
> his enemy for ranges out to 220 ? 230 meters. How much more simple and
> effective could it have been made.
> The Carcano rifles are capable of outstanding accuracy. With the exception
> of a military issue type load in the short carbines they are very pleasant
> to shoot from a recoil standpoint. Because of the above mentioned sight
> picture for the Carcano, front sight in the bottom of the rear sight
> notch, it is very important to have a consistent stock- cheek weld for
> consistent accuracy. It is often very helpful to use a carbide lamp or a
> sight black product to blacken the sights, which improves contrast and
> sight picture.
> The 6.5 X 52 is a very useful and capable cartridge. It served well as a
> military cartridge for over 80 years. The 7.35 X 51 would have been an
> even more effective military cartridge than the 6.5 X 52 had its timing
> been different. It is interesting to note that the .308 Winchester / 7.62
> X 51 mm NATO and the 7.35 X 51 mm are nearly the same dimensions. Both the
> 6.5 and 7.35 cartridges are fun to shoot and properly loaded capable of
> very good accuracy. The Carcano rifle is a well made rifle that is by no
> means weak or poorly manufactured. They are reliable and strong rifles
> that are fun to shoot and offer a tremendous variety of types and markings
> for the collector. I will admit that they are a rather utilitarian rifle
> as compared to some others. However, they are probably one of the most
> efficient, cost effective, user friendly battle rifles produced in their
> era. The rifle, ammunition combination properly loaded is capable of
> accuracy that will rival the most accurate of the Mauser chamberings.
Thanks for posting those DEAD links. Is that to remind us of what we lost? That's called rubbing it in. But at least you seemed to accurately quote the article which has been lost to us for many years. You know, the exact article I have quoted thousands of times before and you said did not exist and that I was making it up.
>> The 6.5 X 52 mm cartridge has taken a great deal of criticism as being
>> underpowered and anemic. From a ballistic standpoint this is a little hard
>> to justify. The Swedish 6.5 X 55 mm cartridge is considered an outstanding
>> cartridge yet it is only able to produce 100 fps more velocity with a
>> 156-grain bullet in the M96 rifle. The 6.5 X 55 requires a maximum average
>> pressure of 55,000 psi and approximately 6 more grains of powder to
>> produce this meager gain in performance. The . 30-30 Winchester, regarded
>> as an adequate deer rifle and known to have killed many moose and bear
>> produces 2,220 fps in a 24? barrel with a 170 grain bullet. The 6.5 X 52
>> mm fires a bullet with a higher ballistic coefficient, at a higher
>> velocity, shoots flatter and has far more penetration capability than the
>> .30-30. From the standpoint of a service rifle cartridge the 6.5 X 52 with
>> its relatively low operating pressure, coupled with its modest powder
>> charge would result in much less barrel throat erosion and wear. This
>> would equate to longer barrel life and decreased operating cost. In fact,
>> much of what was done in the Carcano rifle/ammunition system was aimed at
>> long barrel life, as will be shown later. From my point of view the 6.5 X
>> 52 is a very efficient cartridge, offering adequate performance for what
>> it was intended.
>> The only fault that one might level against the 6.5 X 52 as a military
>> cartridge is that it had relatively humane terminal ballistics. The very
>> long, blunt nosed bullet coupled with the fast twist rate of the gun
>> resulted in a bullet that was very stable with a very high resistance to
>> tumbling. The cartridge was known to have inflicted many ?through and
>> through? wounds, just leaving a small wound channel. The bullet
>> typically would not tumble inside its? target unless it encountered
>> something hard such as bone. When it did tumble the wounding effect is
>> well known.
>> The original 6.5 X 52 mm Carcano design used a gain twist barrel. The gain
>> twist results in a very slow initial twist in the barrel progressively
>> getting faster until the full twist rate is attained at the muzzle. The
>> slow initial twist results in substantially less torque being imparted to
>> the bullet during the highest loading phase of the interior ballistic
>> cycle. This results in significantly less barrel wear in the throat. This
>> coupled with the very deep rifling of the barrel would result in barrels
>> that would have a very long wear and accuracy life. This in fact is the
>> case. Many M91 model rifles show signs of considerable amounts of
>> ammunition being fired through them, because of the crazed/frosted
>> condition of the bore, yet still show very strong rifling and shoot well
>> with the proper size bullets. The 7.35 X 51 mm Carcano rifles used a
>> standard fixed twist barrel. The Carcano bolt is the model of a simple,
>> easy to field strip bolt. It is about as fool proof as you can get for a
>> common soldier. The Carcano trigger has taken a considerable amount of
>> criticism. The trigger is basically a Mauser type two-stage trigger. In
>> almost all cases if you find the trigger rough or creepy simply polishing
>> the sear and trigger mating faces result in a very acceptable trigger for
>> a military rifle. For the most part I have found Carcano triggers have
>> less creep, are more crisp and lighter than the majority of Mauser
>> triggers I have encountered.
>> The materials used in the Carcano are excellent. These rifles were made
>> from special steels perfected by the Czechs, for which the Italians paid
>> royalties. If you have ever tried doing any work on a Carcano receiver you
>> will find out just how hard and tough the steel is. The Carcano has also
>> received a reputation as being a ?weak? design. Nothing could be
>> further from the truth. The Italians made a small run of Carcanos early in
>> WW II chambered for 8 X 57 JS. The Germans rechambered some Carcanos to 8
>> X 57 JS late in WW II. These rifles were also proofed for this cartridge.
>> The CIP minimum suggested proof pressure for the 8 x 57 JS cartridge is
>> 73,500 psi. I hardly call this a weak action.
>> The Italians apparently realized that a 300-meter battle zero was a bit
>> impractical and with the introduction of the M38 models went to a 200
>> meter battle zero. This zero results in a maximum height of trajectory of
>> 5.5? ? 6.5? at a range of approximately 100 yards, depending on
>> barrel length. With this sight setting, by simply holding on the middle of
>> the torso, it would have been hard to miss the target out to about 220
>> meters. The Carcano?s also used a unique sight picture. The proper sight
>> picture for regulated sights on a Carcano is with the front sight in the
>> very bottom of the rear sight groove. This is how the Italian army manuals
>> instructed that the sights be used. Potentially, this would allow for two
>> battle sight settings. The normal use as mentioned above would be a 200
>> meter zero. Using the Mauser sighting method, the front sight level with
>> the rear sight, would result in a zero of 330 ? 350 meters. This is
>> about the maximum range practical for attempting to engage a target with
>> iron sights. I contend with the Carcano the Italians had a very
>> intelligent approach for a battle rifle. The fixed sights were basically
>> fool proof. The Italians must have realized with the M38 models that
>> nearly all small arms engagements occurred inside of 200 meters. The fixed
>> sights with a 200 meter zero would have been fool proof for a soldier
>> under stress, who was probably a poor judge of distance to begin with. The
>> soldier would have had to do nothing but point and shoot at the middle of
>> his enemy for ranges out to 220 ? 230 meters. How much more simple and
>> effective could it have been made.
>> The Carcano rifles are capable of outstanding accuracy. With the exception
>> of a military issue type load in the short carbines they are very pleasant
>> to shoot from a recoil standpoint. Because of the above mentioned sight
>> picture for the Carcano, front sight in the bottom of the rear sight
>> notch, it is very important to have a consistent stock- cheek weld for
>> consistent accuracy. It is often very helpful to use a carbide lamp or a
>> sight black product to blacken the sights, which improves contrast and
>> sight picture.
>> The 6.5 X 52 is a very useful and capable cartridge. It served well as a
>> military cartridge for over 80 years. The 7.35 X 51 would have been an
>> even more effective military cartridge than the 6.5 X 52 had its timing
>> been different. It is interesting to note that the .308 Winchester / 7.62
>> X 51 mm NATO and the 7.35 X 51 mm are nearly the same dimensions. Both the
>> 6.5 and 7.35 cartridges are fun to shoot and properly loaded capable of
>> very good accuracy. The Carcano rifle is a well made rifle that is by no
>> means weak or poorly manufactured. They are reliable and strong rifles
>> that are fun to shoot and offer a tremendous variety of types and markings
>> for the collector. I will admit that they are a rather utilitarian rifle
>> as compared to some others. However, they are probably one of the most
>> efficient, cost effective, user friendly battle rifles produced in their
>> era. The rifle, ammunition combination properly loaded is capable of
>> accuracy that will rival the most accurate of the Mauser chamberings.
>Thanks for posting those DEAD links. Is that to remind us of what we lost? >That's called rubbing it in. But at least you seemed to accurately quote >the article which has been lost to us for many years. You know, the exact >article I have quoted thousands of times before and you said did not exist >and that I was making it up.
For the record Marsh it was Ben Holmes that said you were making it up.
I defended you here but you know Holmes.
> > Dave Emary
> > Chief Ballistic Scientist
> > Hornady Manufacturing Inc
> > Grand Island, Nebraska
> > SHOOTING THE 6
> >http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/emary.html > > ____________________________________________________________
> > Shooting the 6.5 X 52 mm, 7.35 x 51mm Cartridges and the Carcano Rifles,
> > an article by Dave Emary, Senior Ballistician of Hornady Manufacturing
> > The 6.5 X 52 mm cartridge has taken a great deal of criticism as being
> > underpowered and anemic. From a ballistic standpoint this is a little hard
> > to justify. The Swedish 6.5 X 55 mm cartridge is considered an outstanding
> > cartridge yet it is only able to produce 100 fps more velocity with a
> > 156-grain bullet in the M96 rifle. The 6.5 X 55 requires a maximum average
> > pressure of 55,000 psi and approximately 6 more grains of powder to
> > produce this meager gain in performance. The . 30-30 Winchester, regarded
> > as an adequate deer rifle and known to have killed many moose and bear
> > produces 2,220 fps in a 24? barrel with a 170 grain bullet. The 6.5 X 52
> > mm fires a bullet with a higher ballistic coefficient, at a higher
> > velocity, shoots flatter and has far more penetration capability than the
> > .30-30. From the standpoint of a service rifle cartridge the 6.5 X 52 with
> > its relatively low operating pressure, coupled with its modest powder
> > charge would result in much less barrel throat erosion and wear. This
> > would equate to longer barrel life and decreased operating cost. In fact,
> > much of what was done in the Carcano rifle/ammunition system was aimed at
> > long barrel life, as will be shown later. From my point of view the 6.5 X
> > 52 is a very efficient cartridge, offering adequate performance for what
> > it was intended.
> > The only fault that one might level against the 6.5 X 52 as a military
> > cartridge is that it had relatively humane terminal ballistics. The very
> > long, blunt nosed bullet coupled with the fast twist rate of the gun
> > resulted in a bullet that was very stable with a very high resistance to
> > tumbling. The cartridge was known to have inflicted many ?through and
> > through? wounds, just leaving a small wound channel. The bullet
> > typically would not tumble inside its? target unless it encountered
> > something hard such as bone. When it did tumble the wounding effect is
> > well known.
> > The original 6.5 X 52 mm Carcano design used a gain twist barrel. The gain
> > twist results in a very slow initial twist in the barrel progressively
> > getting faster until the full twist rate is attained at the muzzle. The
> > slow initial twist results in substantially less torque being imparted to
> > the bullet during the highest loading phase of the interior ballistic
> > cycle. This results in significantly less barrel wear in the throat. This
> > coupled with the very deep rifling of the barrel would result in barrels
> > that would have a very long wear and accuracy life. This in fact is the
> > case. Many M91 model rifles show signs of considerable amounts of
> > ammunition being fired through them, because of the crazed/frosted
> > condition of the bore, yet still show very strong rifling and shoot well
> > with the proper size bullets. The 7.35 X 51 mm Carcano rifles used a
> > standard fixed twist barrel. The Carcano bolt is the model of a simple,
> > easy to field strip bolt. It is about as fool proof as you can get for a
> > common soldier. The Carcano trigger has taken a considerable amount of
> > criticism. The trigger is basically a Mauser type two-stage trigger. In
> > almost all cases if you find the trigger rough or creepy simply polishing
> > the sear and trigger mating faces result in a very acceptable trigger for
> > a military rifle. For the most part I have found Carcano triggers have
> > less creep, are more crisp and lighter than the majority of Mauser
> > triggers I have encountered.
> > The materials used in the Carcano are excellent. These rifles were made
> > from special steels perfected by the Czechs, for which the Italians paid
> > royalties. If you have ever tried doing any work on a Carcano receiver you
> > will find out just how hard and tough the steel is. The Carcano has also
> > received a reputation as being a ?weak? design. Nothing could be
> > further from the truth. The Italians made a small run of Carcanos early in
> > WW II chambered for 8 X 57 JS. The Germans rechambered some Carcanos to 8
> > X 57 JS late in WW II. These rifles were also proofed for this cartridge.
> > The CIP minimum suggested proof pressure for the 8 x 57 JS cartridge is
> > 73,500 psi. I hardly call this a weak action.
> > The Italians apparently realized that a 300-meter battle zero was a bit
> > impractical and with the introduction of the M38 models went to a 200
> > meter battle zero. This zero results in a maximum height of trajectory of
> > 5.5? ? 6.5? at a range of approximately 100 yards, depending on
> > barrel length. With this sight setting, by simply holding on the middle of
> > the torso, it would have been hard to miss the target out to about 220
> > meters. The Carcano?s also used a unique sight picture. The proper sight
> > picture for regulated sights on a Carcano is with the front sight in the
> > very bottom of the rear sight groove. This is how the Italian army manuals
> > instructed that the sights be used. Potentially, this would allow for two
> > battle sight settings. The normal use as mentioned above would be a 200
> > meter zero. Using the Mauser sighting method, the front sight level with
> > the rear sight, would result in a zero of 330 ? 350 meters. This is
> > about the maximum range practical for attempting to engage a target with
> > iron sights. I contend with the Carcano the Italians had a very
> > intelligent approach for a battle rifle. The fixed sights were basically
> > fool proof. The Italians must have realized with the M38 models that
> > nearly all small arms engagements occurred inside of 200 meters. The fixed
> > sights with a 200 meter zero would have been fool proof for a soldier
> > under stress, who was probably a poor judge of distance to begin with. The
> > soldier would have had to do nothing but point and shoot at the middle of
> > his enemy for ranges out to 220 ? 230 meters. How much more simple and
> > effective could it have been made.
> > The Carcano rifles are capable of outstanding accuracy. With the exception
> > of a military issue type load in the short carbines they are very pleasant
> > to shoot from a recoil standpoint. Because of the above mentioned sight
> > picture for the Carcano, front sight in the bottom of the rear sight
> > notch, it is very important to have a consistent stock- cheek weld for
> > consistent accuracy. It is often very helpful to use a carbide lamp or a
> > sight black product to blacken the sights, which improves contrast and
> > sight picture.
> > The 6.5 X 52 is a very useful and capable cartridge. It served well as a
> > military cartridge for over 80 years. The 7.35 X 51 would have been an
> > even more effective military cartridge than the 6.5 X 52 had its timing
> > been different. It is interesting to note that the .308 Winchester / 7.62
> > X 51 mm NATO and the 7.35 X 51 mm are nearly the same dimensions. Both the
> > 6.5 and 7.35 cartridges are fun to shoot and properly loaded capable of
> > very good accuracy. The Carcano rifle is a well made rifle that is by no
> > means weak or poorly manufactured. They are reliable and strong rifles
> > that are fun to shoot and offer a tremendous variety of types and markings
> > for the collector. I will admit that they are a rather utilitarian rifle
> > as compared to some others. However, they are probably one of the most
> > efficient, cost effective, user friendly battle rifles produced in their
> > era. The rifle, ammunition combination properly loaded is capable of
> > accuracy that will rival the most accurate of the Mauser chamberings.
> Thanks for posting those DEAD links. Is that to remind us of what we lost?
> That's called rubbing it in. But at least you seemed to accurately quote
> the article which has been lost to us for many years. You know, the exact
> article I have quoted thousands of times before and you said did not exist
> and that I was making it up.
I have no idea what you are talking about. You have me confused with
someone else. I've debated you before about quoting Emary correctly
and posted this article in past discussions.
