My experience reloading for old 38-55's (photos added)

KirkD · Post by **KirkD** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 2:53 pm

My first 38-55 was an old Winchester Model 1894 octagon barreled rifle made in 1899 according to the factory letter. Slugging the bore, I got a groove diameter that varied from .379 to .382, depending upon whether I was measuring the leading edge of the groove or the trailing edge. I've listed a few things I encountered that may be of some help to others.

.379 hard cast (20 BHN), bevel base bullets, didn't shoot worth a hoot. The same bullet sized to .380 was not too bad.

Soft cast was the way to go (8 BHN). .379 soft cast, bevel base bullets give me five shot groups of about 2 to 3" at 100 yards.

For the soft cast bullets, bumping them up gave better accuracy. For example, faster (say, SR 4759) powder gave more accurate results than slower stuff like IMR 3031.

Medium fast powders like 2400, 5744, 4227, and SR4759 seemed to be better than slower powders like IMR 4198 and IMR 3031. I believe this was because, for the same velocity, the faster powders gave a higher pressure spike, causing the soft cast lead bullet to bump up to seal the bore better.

Toilet paper filler gave a substantial improvement in accuracy and burning consistency. I haven't tried cornmeal to see what it would do.

Here's my opinion:

For traditional velocities (i.e., 1,200 to 1,500 fps), stay away from hard cast bullets.

I'm not a big fan of bevel base bullets. In my opinion, they are for people you don't like to slightly flare the case mouths, but they don't do diddley for accuracy.

Soft cast (I would included wheel weights) bullets are the way to go, with a plain base. If you are rich, use a gas check.

2400, IMR 4227, IMR SR4759 and 5744 all seem to work well.

Toilet paper covers a multitude of sins. It is the poor man's gas check and it also holds the powder agin the primer. I like it and use it for the 38-55 for normal loads.

I've had two other old 38-55's, sold one of them and still have the SRC. The above approach works for all of them. None of the above applies for 1,600 fps and higher. I've not much experience in the stratosphere.

2ndovc · Post by **2ndovc** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 4:10 pm

I'll have to try your suggestions.

I posted last summer that I was having trouble with loads for Grandad's 38-55 / 94.

My hand loads were hitting @ 12" high at 100 yds with the rear sight all the way down and my ammo from my stock pile of Imperial were dead on at 100.

Sixgun told me that he had chrono'ed some of that old Imperial around 1400fps.

i backed off the 4198 to 24.5 grains under a Barnes 255 sp and was right on at 100 yds.

Been meaning to try some cast bullets. Thanks for a good starting point.

Post by **Old Savage** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 6:11 pm

Well Kirk, if you would break down and buy something a bit newer like my Marlin 38-55 (marked Marlin 375) you could shoot whatever you want through it. But, if you are going stick with those old used rifles then .......

I guess you are jsut going to have to deal with those little quirks.

Modoc ED · Post by **Modoc ED** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 6:16 pm

Kirk -

Can you explain why there are two different case lengths for the .38-55?

KirkD · Post by **KirkD** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 6:47 pm

Old Savage, I can see you really like your new knife!! Careful when you're sleeping that you don't roll over and cut yourself.

Modoc, the original length of 38-55 brass was 2.125". I don't know why the brass manufacturers shortened the length, but if I had to guess, it was to save money, since the shorter length was the same as the 30-30. That's my wild guess. I can't speak for those fancy modern 38-55's like Old Savage's, but if you got an original 38-55, the longer 2.125 brass from Starline is the cat's meow. I got my own private stash of them this past winter. I had to be careful the first few nights after I got them, because every time I'd roll over in bed the brass would jingle, wake up my wife, and she would say, 'what in tarnation are you sleeping with now!' Y'all know how it is when you get something new.

Post by **Old Savage** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 6:53 pm

Kirk, when did the change occur in the 38-55 length?

BTW,don't have it yet - and can't have it until Father's Day so rest easy my friend.

KirkD · Post by **KirkD** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 7:02 pm

Old Savage wrote:Kirk, when did the change occur in the 38-55 length?

I don't know when the brass was shortened, but when I bought my old 38-55 SRC, the fellow gave me a box of Dominion 38-55 cartridges (the 1,600 fps variety) and they were the original 2.125" in length (the brass was). I'm guessing it was made in the 50's or early 60's, but I really need a cartridge historian to shed some light on my ignorance here. Here's a photo of the box, so if someone knows the date, we can infer that 38-55 was still the original 2.125" length at that time. (Note the price on the box. If it was still that cheap, I don't think I'd be reloading.)

While I'm posting photos, I might as well post a photo of my two Winchester 38-55's. The top one is the rifle, made in 1899, and the SRC was made in 1907 according to the Cody letter.

And here's another photo of my SRC:

Post by **Old Savage** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 7:28 pm

When Ken Waters tested the 38-55 for Pet Loads published in May of 1976 he reported that new Remington brass measured 2.120.

2ndovc · Post by **2ndovc** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 7:31 pm

My Grandfather's 1907 vitage 38-55.

Not a very good photo but inside she's perfect

Modoc ED · Post by **Modoc ED** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:49 am

KirkD wrote:Old Savage, I can see you really like your new knife!! Careful when you're sleeping that you don't roll over and cut yourself.

Modoc, the original length of 38-55 brass was 2.125". I don't know why the brass manufacturers shortened the length, but if I had to guess, it was to save money, since the shorter length was the same as the 30-30. That's my wild guess. I can't speak for those fancy modern 38-55's like Old Savage's, but if you got an original 38-55, the longer 2.125 brass from Starline is the cat's meow. I got my own private stash of them this past winter. I had to be careful the first few nights after I got them, because every time I'd roll over in bed the brass would jingle, wake up my wife, and she would say, 'what in tarnation are you sleeping with now!' Y'all know how it is when you get something new.

Thanks for the reply Kirk.

I hope Old Savage doesn't stick himself during the night on Father's Day!!

Nice looking rifles all you guys. Got a picture of your .38-55 handy Old Savage?

Post by **Old Savage** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 11:55 am

Here you go, I call it a 38-55 because it will chamber those too. It is a Marlin 375. Kirk's lever rifles run from the late 1800s to 1954. Mine run from 54 to 06 in manfacture date. I think this is 1980 - pre-safety. It also has the variable optically enhanced sealed aperature sighting system. Very modern!

Modoc ED · Post by **Modoc ED** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 12:14 pm

Old Savage wrote:Here you go, I call it a 38-55 because it will chamber those too. It is a Marlin 375. Kirk's lever rifles run from the late 1800s to 1954. Mine run from 54 to 06 in manfacture date. I think this is 1980 - pre-safety. It also has the variable optically enhanced sealed aperature sighting system. Very modern!

Very good OS!! Thanks for the pic.

Jayhawker · Post by **Jayhawker** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 12:18 pm

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the 38-55 brass was shortened so that it chamber in the new (at the time) 375 Win rifles. The reason being that the 38-55 was pretty much obsolete and not being chambered in rifles at that time. By shortening the brass, one could continue to use the 38-55, much like the 38 Spec in the 357 Mag. I don't know if the writer was reporting actual fact or speculation. I seem to remember it was in an old reloading manual somewhere.

Gihon · Post by **Gihon** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 12:22 pm

Kirk D./OS
A good start to another fine post concerning an actual levergun topic. My hats off to you sir

I have been reloading for the .38-55 for a very short period of time and have only loaded with new Winchester brass which seems to average at around 2.082" as new in the package. I also purchased a quantity of the new Starline " short " brass when it was introduced, to stock up, but I have not loaded with it yet.
I know little of the .375 Winchester round, but understand that they are quite similar to the .38-55 in dimension. Is it possible that Winchester changed the dimension of their .38-55 brass when the .375 BB was introduced?

Cast Bullet Hunter · Post by **Cast Bullet Hunter** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 12:48 pm

Jayhawker wrote:I seem to remember reading somewhere that the 38-55 brass was shortened so that it chamber in the new (at the time) 375 Win rifles. The reason being that the 38-55 was pretty much obsolete and not being chambered in rifles at that time. By shortening the brass, one could continue to use the 38-55, much like the 38 Spec in the 357 Mag. I don't know if the writer was reporting actual fact or speculation. I seem to remember it was in an old reloading manual somewhere.

The "short" .38-55 brass is still about 1/16" too long for a .375 Winchester chamber, so this isn't the answer. My suspicion is the real reason is production. One basic draw length can be used for a "basic" case for .30-30, .32 WCF and .38-55 that are then head-stamped and sized to the various end cases. This would save a lot of excess scrap from useing a basic case long enough for the .38-55 and trimming the majority to the shorter .30-30/.32 Spl. length. There is no functional difference in the .38-55 except to a handloader. All .38-55 chambers are long enough for the "long" case, in spite of what you may read on the internet about short Marlin chambers, etc. SAAMI standards prevail to avoid the complications which could occur if a "long" cartridge was shot in a "short" chamber, this is whyy the SAAMI was organized by the industry.

Bis · Post by **Bis** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 1:08 pm

KirkD- Did you have any luck at all with the hard cast bullets, like Oregon Trails. I have been trying to work up a load with 379 and 380 dia. hard cast bullets using 5744 and have a ways to go, old eyes don't help much. It sounds like I am going to have to start casting bullets.

Jayhawker · Post by **Jayhawker** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 1:30 pm

Cast Bullet Hunter,

My Lee reloading manual shows a brass length for the 38-55 to be 2.085" while the 375 is at 2.020". The 38-55 can be used in a rifle chambered in 375 with those brass lengths, while the newer long 38-55 would cause problems if it could be chambered in the same rifle even with standard pressures.

Nath · Post by **Nath** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 2:36 pm

Say, why do they put that crimp below the bullet? I often wonder.
Good photos guys.
Nath.

Post by **AmBraCol** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 2:49 pm

Nath wrote:Say, why do they put that crimp below the bullet? I often wonder.
Good photos guys.
Nath.

That's a cannelure (sp?), Nath. It raises a ridge inside the cartridge which keeps the bullet from being forced back into the "boiler room". You REALLY don't want to fire a cartridge that's had the bullet forced back inside, does freaky things to the pressure curve. Anyway, that's what that "second crimp" is about.

Nath · Post by **Nath** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 3:20 pm

So they do that instead of crimping the bullet then. So why do they do it to 22s then?
Sorry for pushing in KirkD

Nath.

Post by **AmBraCol** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 3:23 pm

Nath wrote:So they do that instead of crimping the bullet then. So why do they do it to 22s then?
Sorry for pushing in KirkD
Nath.

To the best of my knowledge it's a "both and" not an "either or" as far as crimp goes. As for the 22's, I'm not familiar with cannelured 22 ammo, but I live a sheltered life...

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 3:28 pm

Heres my 38/55.

Never tried soft lead bullets, mine likes .381 hard cast but maybe I been missing something.

Bis · Post by **Bis** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 3:47 pm

Nath- If my memory servse me right. The 22 rim fire is a "Heel" type bullet that was normal when metalic cartridges first came out. The base of the bullet sets inside of the brass and then the rest of the bullet sets on the top of the brass with the same dia. as the brass and there is no way to drive the bullet into the case. That is why the original 38 rim fire bullet was about .380 because it was flush with the outside of the case, where as today a 38 is .357 because it is the same dia. as the inside of the case. Keep in mind that this is comming from a person that has senior moments and can't remember what he had for dinner last night

KirkD · Post by **KirkD** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 4:06 pm

Bis wrote:KirkD- Did you have any luck at all with the hard cast bullets, like Oregon Trails. I have been trying to work up a load with 379 and 380 dia. hard cast bullets using 5744 and have a ways to go, old eyes don't help much. It sounds like I am going to have to start casting bullets.

I've found that hard cast bullets work fine if they are properly sized to your bore (i.e., about .001 greater diameter than the groove diameter). For example, hard cast bullets sized to .381 seemed to give decent accuracy in my 38-55. I found hard cast bullets in my 44-40 seemed to work fine as well, but I suspect that larger diameter bores are more forgiving that smaller diameter bores. For example, I've found it relatively easy to develop an accurate load for 44 or 45 cal guns, but the 25-20 was more of a challenge.

However, I was talking with an old caster this past week and complaining bout the fact that all the commercial casters seem to sell only hard cast bullets. He replied that the reason for that is that hard cast bullets drop out of the moulds easier and commercial operations are all about the most money for the least amount of work. I don't know if that is true or not.

For hunting, I much prefer a soft cast bullet that might expand, over a hard cast one that for sure won't. Also, I've been using my soft cast bullets up to 1,500 fps with no leading (although I found that toilet paper filler really cuts down leading). My take is this, soft cast for velocities up to 1,500 fps, and at higher velocities, use a real gas check. I'm pushing medium-hard cast bullets up to 2,100 fps with no leading BUT they have a gas check.

I just do not like hard cast bullets for the sake of hard cast bullets.

Nath · Post by **Nath** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 4:10 pm

Thanks Bis, I am familiar with the construction of the heeled bullet and thus the reason for the question " why add a canular/crimp to a 22 case below the bullet"?
It don't matter any ways.
Nath.

Bis · Post by **Bis** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 4:35 pm

KirkD- I have a dumb question, but what is with the tiolet paper. Do you stuff TP into a loaded (powder only) case until it is near where the bullet will buttom out? Does this increase the pressure? Also how many fires have you started

KirkD · Post by **KirkD** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:49 pm

Bis wrote:KirkD- I have a dumb question, but what is with the tiolet paper. Do you stuff TP into a loaded (powder only) case until it is near where the bullet will buttom out? Does this increase the pressure? Also how many fires have you started

I drop the powder in, then I fold a piece of toilet paper (single ply) in half, then roll it up loosely, then fold the roll loosely in half and stick the two butt-ends in the case first, then shove the TP in until it contacts the powder. It keeps the powder against the primer, resulting in a much lower extreme spread in velocities, and it also acts as a gas check. The TP blasts out when fired. It looks charred on the edges, or sooty, but I've never observed a smoking piece of TP in the thousands of rounds I've fired. It does raise pressure slightly, as evidenced by a velocity that rises about 100 fps, so I reduce powder accordingly.

I been using TP for about 3 years now in the following cartridges:
44-40
38-55
45-70
45-90
45-60
40-82

Sixgun · Post by **Sixgun** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 6:45 pm

2ndovc wrote:
Sixgun told me that he had chrono'ed some of that old Imperial around 1400fps.

Jason,
You had me thinkin' about that velocity number so I checked my notes and the Imperial ammo chronographed at 1610. Maybe I wrote it up wrong but I do remember that ammo being a little spunky.

Kirk,
I ain't rich but I have found that a lot of aggravation can be cured with a gas check, especially when dealing with the old guns. TP does work great but with my adult a.d.d., it gets me frustrated dealing with items that intrude with my progressive loading machines.
You results mirror mine with your powders but with exception of the soft alloy. Maybe its because I use gas checks, but 99% of my bullets used are Lyman #2 or a reading of 8-9 on the Saeco scale. While that is not real hard, its more hard than soft. (make sense?) I also make sure bullets are sized correctly at groove dia. or a thou or two over.

As for brass length, all I use are 30-30's neck expanded. They come out at 2.00 even and then I trim to 1.90 to square up the mouth. I seat the bullets out to normal dimensions. I know this sounds weird but I accomplish two things by using 30-30 brass. One is that it cheap and two I find I can get a bigger diameter bullet in the chamber that normaly could not be done with full length brass.---------Sixgun

KirkD · Post by **KirkD** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 7:51 pm

Sixgun, you do use short brass! My only concern, which may be groundless, is erosion of the chamber just before the throat, due to the short brass. As I said, however, it may be groundless ..... I've heard it raised re. using 45-70 brass in a 45-90 chamber.

arjunky · Post by **arjunky** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:01 pm

KirkD wrote:Sixgun, you do use short brass! My only concern, which may be groundless, is erosion of the chamber just before the throat, due to the short brass. As I said, however, it may be groundless ..... I've heard it raised re. using 45-70 brass in a 45-90 chamber.

Probably more corrosion than erosion years ago.

Byron

KirkD · Post by **KirkD** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 9:29 pm

That may well explain it, especially if the old mercuric primers were used with short brass.

Post by **Ysabel Kid** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:31 pm

Stunning Kirk! Your taste in Winchesters is simply impeccable!!!

Jaguarundi · Post by **Jaguarundi** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:52 am

Ysabel Kid wrote:Stunning Kirk! Your taste in Winchesters is simply impeccable!!!

+1

!Sweet eye candy thanks for posting.

w30wcf · Post by **w30wcf** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 2:57 pm

I did a little research on .38-55 brass length and it appears that only the later W-W and Winchester headstamped brass were of the shorter 2.08" length. The change most likely took place sometime in the 1970's for whatever reason is anybody's guess.

The original U.M.C., and the later REM-UMC and still later R-P brass had the 2.12-2.13 length. It appears that R-P discontinued .38-55 ammunition production in the mid to late 1960's since it is not listed in their 1968 and later catalogs.

Kirk,
It would have been the later chlorate (corrosive) primers that were the culprits in barrel corrosion rather than the earlier mercuric primers that were hard on brass.

w30wcf

KirkD · Post by **KirkD** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 9:15 pm

w30wcf wrote: Kirk,
It would have been the later chlorate (corrosive) primers that were the culprits in barrel corrosion rather than the earlier mercuric primers that were hard on brass.

w30wcf

Good info, John. Do you know approximately what range of dates the chlorate primers were in use?

w30wcf · Post by **w30wcf** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 9:22 pm

Kirk,
Winchester used them from about 1920 to the early 1930's. I believe Remington was the first company to produce a non mercuric, non chlorate primer about 1925. They called it Kleanbore priming.

w30wcf

KirkD · Post by **KirkD** » Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:13 am

That explains the pitting I often see just in front of the chamber when the rest of the bore is in good condition. It may also explain why my grandfather taught me to never put the gun away without a cleaning, if it had been fired. Nowdays, when I thinking about buying an old Winchester, no matter how good the bore looks, I still check the area just in front of the throat. A moonscape there can lead to easy leading.