|
|
|||||||
Does anybody have experiences or info they can share about the 360 Rimless Westley Richards cartridge? What rifles was it chambered in, case dimensions, loads..... From what I can gather it's the 400/360 NE (2 3/4") Westley Richards case with the rim turned off and an extractor groove cut for use in a Mauser bolt gun with a 30-06 sized bolt face. COAL = 3.6" (so it needs a magnum length action) Case length = 2.75" (same as the 350 Rigby's) Bullet Dia = .358" Shoulder dia .437" steps down to Neck dia .375" so should be enough for head spacing a rimless case in a bolt gun. Don't know the shoulder angle. Looks like cases could be made by modifying a 9.3x74R case. Can anyone confirm these dimensions are correct? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
This is all I could find in the 1939 Stoeger: The full page: |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Interesting. I’ve not heard of a 360 W.R. Rimless cartridge. Will look it up. I do believe that the Westley 400/360 listed above is the rimmed variant which just has a thicker rim than the Purdey version. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
From the 'net: cartridgecollector.net "360 WESTLEY RICHARDS RIMLESS NITRO EXPRESS This appears to be a rimless version of the 400/360 WESTLEY RICHARDS NITRO EXPRESS. It was listed in the 1912 Westley Richards catalogue and designed to be used in a bolt action magazine rifle. The headstamp is right on the edge, so it seems that existing case were used where the rim was turned down and the extractor groove added. It might have been some experimental following the European tradition to have a rimmed and rimless cartridge in the same caliber." Another reference: ammo-one.com "The 400/360 Nitro Express (2.75" case) was introduced in the very early 1900s. Westley Richards, Fraser, and Evans versions have .358 to .360" diameter projectiles. The Purdey version used a .364 to .367" projectile. Westley Richards also made a rimless version." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Quote: I don’t think that is accurate. The Fraser 360 I owned had a bore of .360” and I used regular .366” projectiles in it. There is no way it would have used a .358-.360” projectile. I’ve owned that rifle, have a Manton 360 (WR case) as well as a Lang which uses the Purdey case and none use a bullet that small. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Going by the cartridge name one could assume the "360" refers to the "bore" size and not the "bullet" diameter but that is only an assumption. My info above suggesting .358" bullet is from COTW so no guarantee it's correct. Huvius your experience confirms there is some confusion there. The neck size given for the 400/360 WR is .375" and for the 400/350 Rigby is .380" which suggests a .358" diameter bullet and only a .350" bore. Unless they used thin brass in the 360's The 360 No.2 NE has a neck dia of .393" for it's .367" dia bullet. The 9.3x62 also has ~.390" neck for it's .366" dia bullet depending on the source. PT&G has a reamer listed for a 400/360 Rimless but no info on dimensions. A cartridge drawing showing correct dimensions would be nice. Does anybody have one? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
I had no idea this cartridge existed...! Love this forum! Another one to add to the wish list..! Edit: if I read the above correct it’s a 310gr bullet at 1900fps? I like it! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
I have a Westley Richards 400/360NE Double Rifle for the Rimmed case & 314gr bullet, I was hoping it was the 360No2 & I could use 9.3 bullets but I think they are too large as the Kynoch rounds I have are .359.5-.360 & .35Cal .358 are too small & tumble if I use them, really if is was a 360No2 in this rifle it would have too much recoil, has a bit in the Westley Richards ! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Sarg, you will have to resize .366 projectiles down or 'dump' .358 up to your groove dia. Woodleigh doesn't appear to make that size projectile? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
From what I've read, the old original FLANGED 400-360 WR Kynoch ammo was indeed loaded with .360" diameter projectiles. Groove size varies in these older doubles, so definitely slug the barrels. IMO it's way easier to reduce 9.3 bullets down to size rather than bumping up .358's. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Quote: Sarg are you able to measure the case capacity in grains H2O of one of your empty shells. I'd like to compare it to a 35 Whelen or 9.3x62 (which is around 75 gr H2O case capacity) to see what it would be capable of loaded with modern powders and chambered in a bolt gun. Could you also measure the neck length of your cases. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Ill have a look around & dig some out, I was hoping to shoot a Buff or two with this rifle as it is very cool but thinking it was low on power but again the only cartridges I have are all Kynoch 314gr Solids so must be intended for Big thick skinned game ? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Case Capacities. 35 Whelen-71gn H2O 9.3x62-77gn H2O 9.3x74R-82gn H2O 400-350 Rigby-78gn H2O The 400-350 Rigby case is very similar to the 400-360 WR. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
That tiny shoulder on the rimless version 400-360 wouldn't have done much for its popularity for use in Africa back in the day. This might be the reason few have even heard of it's existence these days. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Ok I have never done this before but I filled a couple of cases to the top & the Bertram was 78gr of water & so was the Kynoch, so yes the same as 400/350 Rigby ! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Thanks Sarg, good to get confirmation. The 9.3x74R cases I have measured were from 79gr to 82gr H2O depending on the make. But the 9.3x74R case is 2.92" long compared to 2.75" long for the 400/360's and 400/350. Barnes gives the following measurements for each of these cases as: 400/360 WR = .437" at the shoulder all the other 400/360 variants = .417" at the shoulder 400/350 Rigby and 350 Rigby No2 = .415" at the shoulder 9.3x74R = .414" at the shoulder (Pierre van der Walt shows .409" shoulder) So the 400/360 WR is the only one with enough shoulder to head space on once the rim is turned off. 4seventy the 400/360 WR shoulder gives a .062" step at the shoulder to head space against which is the same as the 9.3x62 at .060" according to the CIP drawing in van der Walts book. Sarg are you able to measure one of your cases for shoulder dia, neck dia, neck length and overall case length to comfirm? Looks like it could be a fairly potent medium bore going by case capacity. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
My 9.3's measure .454" shoulder and .393" neck, fired case, for .061" step, which is more than enough. Is this correct? If so, more than enough shoulder for headspacing. However, one must be careful with the shallow shoulder angle. Richards Type Rifle Place of origin United Kingdom Production history Designer Westley Richards Designed 1900 Specifications Case type Rimmed, bottlenecked Bullet diameter .358 in (9.1 mm) Neck diameter .375 in (9.5 mm) Shoulder diameter .437 in (11.1 mm) Base diameter .470 in (11.9 mm) Rim diameter .590 in (15.0 mm) Case length 2.75 in (70 mm) Overall length 3.59 in (91 mm) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Nobody would have been hand loading this cartridge back when it was created. Factory ammo was the only source. Kynoch 400-350 Rigby ammo (similar to 400-360 WR) from that era measures only .038" difference between shoulder diameter and outside neck diameter! That means the 'step up' from the neck to the shoulder is only .019" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Quote: This isn't quite correct. To avoid confusion it probably needs clarification although the info is already provided in the thread. The 400/350 Rigby case is similar to all the other 400/360 variants (but not the Westley Richards version). They all have a similar length at 2.75", similar shoulder diameter at .415" and different neck sizes depending on the bullet diameter used in each case. They are all rimmed cases and head space off the rim so the small .038" step at the shoulder of the Rigby case or the .028" step at the shoulder of the Purdy case is irrelevant. This is machined into the chamber. It has nothing to do with hand loading. The 400/360 Westley Richards case is a similar length at 2.75" but the shoulder dia is larger at .437" and the neck dia is .375" giving a step at the shoulder of .062". This case is also rimmed and head spaces off the rim so the larger step at the shoulder is irrelevant. The rim appears to have been turned off this case to create the "Rimless" variant which is the topic of this thread. Now the larger .062" step at the shoulder becomes relevant as the cartridge has to head space from this shoulder. There are plenty of rimless cartridges which head space off a .060" shoulder so it shouldn't be a problem. Maybe Westley Richards had a rimless version in mind when they designed their 400/360 case different to all the others. I don't know. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
I can see by eye that the 400/360 WR has less shoulder than the 400-350NE cartridge I have here & measurements seem to confirm that ! WR 360 is neck 0.384 shoulder 0.419 so 0.035 400-350NE is neck 0.379 shoulder 0.0416.5 so 0.0375 WR 400/360 is NL 0.579 & OAL is 2.745 400-350 is NL 0.545 & OAL is 2.740 Bit hard to measure neck length on these buggers ! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Quote:Sounds like great rifle! any pictures? is it a drop lock? Cheers Steve |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Hi Rhodes, Please allow me to explain what I was talking about in my post above. First let me say that I do fully understand the difference between headspacing on the shoulder compared to headspacing on the rim. The 400-350 Rigby is a cartridge that I do know VERY well. I have a double rifle chambered for this cartridge, and have been reloading, shooting and hunting with the 400-350 for close to 20 years. That double is my favourite hunting rifle. Now the reason that I mentioned handloading is because cartridges which have very small shoulders CAN be presisely matched to the chamber/s they will be used in by careful handloading. However, rimmed cartridges manufactured in the early 1900's were rarely 'precisely' matched to their chambers. They were made to easily fully enter chambers which were were often made to inexact dimensions. They didn't need to fit precisely because they headspaced on the rim. Case life meant nothing back then, as nobody was reloading their cartridges. Reliable chambering and reliable ignition were important, and the rim provided both. That is the reason I said that a RIMLESS VERSION of an existing RIMMED cartridge which featured a tiny gently sloping shoulder, may not have been popular back at the time. (early 1900's) Note that around the same time Rigby's 400-350 NE was also available in bolt rifles, but Rigby chose to stay with the rimmed case rather than create a rimless one. This despite requiring major modification to the magazine of the mauser 98 which was used. It's interesting to note that Sarge's 400-360 WR Rimmed case actually has a SMALLER shoulder than the 400/350 Rigby. To finish off, the 400-360 WR Rimmless would most likely have enough shoulder to headspace for reliable primer ignition with accurately headspaced handloaded cartridges, but back in the 1900's there was only factory produced ammunition. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Here are the measurements of the 400/360 WR rimless cartridge. Reference . British sporting rifle cartridges by Bill Fleming ( if you can find this book. buy it.) Case length 2.740"/2.748 Rim Dia .465"/.468" rim thickness .049"/.059" Base .465" Shoulder .415"/.420 Case Mouth .382"/.385" Bullet dia .359"/.360" O/A Length 3.585"/3.592 Kynoch loaded 4 bullet types all loads had 41 grains of cordite and a 314 grain bullet Round nose cupo nickel solid " ' " ' soft nose " " " soft nose split Westley Richards round nose capped all bullets were non magnetic. Apart from the usual red and yellow box there was also white/yellow label white/white label and brown. The case was head stamped kynoch 400/360 Where the rimmed case has as many as 24 different head stamps. Hope this helps |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
The Mausers that Rigby’s 400/350 was built upon was an entirely new action from Mauser, not a modified standard action. All Rigby did was tell Mauser what they wanted and Mauser made it. Also, there was some amount of hand loading going on in the early 20th C. Certainly not to the extent that it was done in the BPE era but Kynoch did provide cases, primed and unprimed, as well as projectiles as did Westley Richards with their proprietary LT capped bullets. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Quote: Which reinforces my point that Rigby could have simply used a rimless version of the 400-350, but they didn't. It would have been far easier to get Kynoch to supply a rimless version than to get Mauser to build a completely new action! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Quote: I wonder how many back then were actually handloading the RIMLESS 400-360 WR? I'd say none. How many have ever handled a rifle chambered for the rimless 400-360 WR? How many have ever handled an original rimless 400-360 WR cartridge? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Quote:Quote:Sounds like great rifle! any pictures? is it a drop lock? Sorry Steve on my slow reply, not a drop lock (wishing) I'm afraid, I have some pics on my computer some where ill see if I have time to post them, it is a beautiful little thing & will have to hold me till I get a big stopper ! Oh I might have posted them already, I will look for a link maybe ? Yep did & no pic now under WR 400/360 but I don't know how to ink it . |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
I've seen 1 in all my years at the glastonbury,conn. gun show about 30 years ago it had a slanted drop box that was added on like whats done with the 425.,,the gun was completely restored by duane weibe ,,i guess its more rare than the rigby in 303....paul |