Received the 219B rifle advertised on this site; first impressions

[Mike Armstrong]

I don't have all the details on this gun thanks to our wonderful 10-day "waiting period"  (known here as "gun jail").  but I did get a decent look at it, just not long enough to copy all the markings--I'll get Garnett a complete "data sheet" when I actually get possession of MY gun....

Standard 219B Chicopee Falls markings, nice and clear.  NOT re-marked with the new chambering.  I was surprised to find a 5-digit "serial number" on the left side of the receiver, first 219 or 220 I've ever had that was serialed, if this is a true serial number.  Certainly professionally stamped, and looks "factory."

Metal is in very good shape; well taken care of outside and in.  The bore is a little eroded in front of the chamber, but not enough to affect accuracy, I think.  Some of that is probably because the re-chamber is for a very high pressure cartridge:  P.O. Ackley reported getting 3800 fps+ with his loadings of the .22-30-30AI!

In spite of that, the action is tight and locks up tightly, and the top lever is to the right of center, so either the person who had it after the rechamber either didn't shoot it much, or he kept the pressure down.  Lots of slightly faded case-colors on the receiver.

Missing both front and rear sights, with the rear sight slot filled with a Marbles slot blank.

Wood is a mixed bag.  Forend appears to be a shotgun forend, probably a .410 or 20 since both fit rifle barrels very well in my experience.  Very pretty factory-looking walnut with factory-looking varnish.

Buttstock not so hot: broken at the toe and amateur repair (I should know....), but the head of the stock is solid--no visible cracks, so that's good.  Butt wood doesn't match the forend well and I think it may be birch, covered with kinda muddy too-shiny finish. Sling swivels have been added; one screwed into the butt and the other on a half-ring on the barrel.  Usually a good setup if you're a hunter, which I am.

I got this gun for a decent price and will be putting a lot more into it than I paid for it.  The re-chambering won't stay--I'm afraid of it in a 219, and it clearly needs to be handloaded, and it's not a simple job.  No factory ammo available.  Would have preferred the original .22 Hornet chambering, for sure.

So the first step once I get it is to decide (with help of a 'smith) whether to reline to .22 Hornet or another small caliber, or to rebore it.  A rebore, because of the large diameter of the "new"chamber and the small muzzle diameter of the barrel, is limited to a very few current cartridges, most of them pretty much obsolete, or at least VERY different from the .22 Hornet.  I'll be talking to a bunch of 'smiths to see what's possible and then make a choice and lay my money down.

By the time I get it shootable, I'll be able to decide whether to refinish and keep the (now) ugly buttstock, or buy a semi-finished nice walnut one and fit and finish it to my liking.

But unlike some of my 219/220 projects of the past,  most of the parts are already there!  (My wife refers to my projects a "making a $350 gun out of $600 worth of parts."  What she doesn't know won't hurt her....).

Comments and advice appreciated, especially if you know a reliable 'smith who does relines!

Mike Armstrong

[Garnett]

Mike, your number sounds like a correct serial number.  Look on page 30 of my first book.  There is a very good picture of a serial number.  I will look forward to getting a data sheet.  Also, how about some pictures?  As to relining....is there any such thing as a .22-30-40 Krag?  Brass would be plentiful, and in the past RCBS would make any dies you wanted.   Please share with your wife, from me......"The only difference between men and boys, is the price of their toys!"   Good luck on your project!  Garnett

[Mike Armstrong]

There were several .22s based on the .30-40 case, starting with very early experiments by Ned Roberts and others.  In those days there were only two .22 CF factory ctgs., the .22 WCF and the .22 Savage High-Power.   The Winchester used 45 gr. .223 bullets and the Savage 70 gr. .228, so they required different barrels.  I don't remember the names that the early .223 wildcats on the Krag case had, but a friend of mine who collects P.O. Ackley guns has an Ackley made wildcat in what Ackley called .228 Ackley.  It uses the .228 barrel and is blown out straight, so resembles a .220 swift and Ackley loaded the .228 just as hot as a factory Swift!  That rifle is on a Winchester-manufactured Pattern-14 British "Enfield" (the Mauser type, not the Lee), one of the strongest actions available at the time, and very cheap.  Ackley favored BOTH features, and the rifle was originally a .303 British which just happens to have a case head and rim almost identical to the Krag.

Interesting, and the Krag case would clean up the existing chamber and throat of my rifle OK but I don't want another wildcat.   I also think these .22 CF hotrods are too hot for the 219 and don't want to prove it by picking bits of that nice little rifle out of my face.... And then there's the matter of rifling twist.  The 219 twist is set for the Hornet and I have no idea how it would shoot a bullet at near 4000 fps.  Badly, I suspect.

Maybe a .25-35?  Or, apparently, the only .32-20 219 still in existence?

[Garnett]

I have always liked the .25-35 and the .32-40, & 38-55.

[Mike Armstrong]

Those three calibers make the most sense conversion-wise, since this gun has a chamber for a .30-30 sized ctg.  The first two would require relining and the .38-55 could be a rebore (usually cheaper).  But I'm still more interested in the smaller ctgs.  We'll see when I get the rifle in my sweaty little paws and talk to some 'smiths.