H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619

As long as this... I had decided to give up, and at the same time, I was told to give up.

Use the "formula" for Trail Boss. The case full of powder that just touches the base of the bullet is the max load. 70% of that is the minimum. Use a load somewhere in the middle. Will be very pleasant to shoot. (IF Trail Boss really does come back in the near future.) But I'd not fire a low number 03 with anything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.45_Black_Powder_Magnum

My Iver Johnson is a later one that is good for smokeless, and it works just fine. Even won a pocket pistol side match with it. But I still shoot mild loads in it. There are other safe for smokeless top breaks, but the early IJs are not one of them.

Well, if we're gonna go this way, I could just go with .38 Short Colt. No mods needed except getting it to work with the short cartridge.

You do know about my "Big Iron," right?

...

Well, that's a dream too. That someone would do this, in that caliber for both the rifle and pistol versions of the Volcanic.

Why? Because I really, REALLY like the caliber. At the moment, I do have 1 main match pistol chambered for it, a S&W New Model 3. Colt also chambered the SAA and Bisley in the caliber back in the day, but in very limited numbers, making them uber expensive. Having a rifle in the caliber would just be really nifty.

A question for the gunsmiths here. How much trouble would it take to create a Main Match rifle in .38 S&W? Which rifle would be the easiest to do it for? 73, 92 or Lightning? I'd guess the 73 would take the lease amount of action work, you could probably use that carrier that lets you run .38 Short Colt, and the other two might need a lot more work to make it function with such a short cartridge. I'd assume that some work to the bolt face might also be needed. But the biggest question would, I think, be the barrel. The needed .360 bore just doesn't exist on any rifles I know of. So I assume it would need an all new barrel that would have to be drilled out for the purpose. I doubt very much that any of the makers of rifles for our game would ever create one in this caliber, so I am just wondering if it's even possible to have one custom made/modified. Yeah, anything can be done with enough money, and if it's prohibitively expensive, never mind, but I just don't know if it would be.

Now THAT is a fascinating variation on the Hollyweird Henry theme

It is entirely possible that your chambers may be too tight. I have never had problems with chambering in the following guns... Rifles Winchester 73 Winchester 92 Colt Lightning. (I have not yet tried my Marling 1888) These are all vintage rifles. The Colt and the Marlin are antiques, so they were probably all "chambered" to original specs for the cartridge. (Whatever that means. Pistols Colt Bisley #1 Colt Bisley #2 Antique SAA that started life as a .44-40 and was changed. Likely some time in the 1920's Notice that everything on this list is over 100 years old. S&W Model M&P made in 1903, so again, a vintage gun with no problems. This gun gave me problems... 3rd Generation Colt SAA Some of the chambers were fine, some were just too tight for my ammo it fit in the chambers. I took it to a gunsmith and he reamed the chambers for me, now it works just fine. Curiously, I have have had similar problems with .44-40, older guns just fine, modern guns not so much so. With the modern guns it didn't matter who made them, Colt or whoever, rifles and revolvers. It was not a universal problem, but one that recurred with annoying regularity. I have a feeling that the WCF cartridges are prone to some variation from the manufactures that can lead to problems from time to time.

Hee hee.... If' I've got a Gatling Gun, I am prepared to shoot it. I've also GOT plenty of Tommy gun mags, and I reload .45 ACP, so, it wouldn't be *too* bad, But I am a strange duck.

Is that the one that uses Glock magazines? I always have thought that one in .45 ACP that uses Thompson mags would be preferable.

What is the renegade? 92, 73, something else?

Nice video. But I will never understand why when the guns, 97 and 87, are made to hold 5, Wild Bunch insists on doing 6 round stages. It requires you to modify your gun, and that's just silly. That being said, do they make a long barrel (28 to 30 inches) version with a full choke?

Yep, makes sense. I'll freely admit to not knowing the ins and outs of the category

I want one of those in .45-70 to "pair" with the 88. That does bring up a good question. Which would be of "more" interest? The pistol caliber, or the rifle caliber rifle? And would they give it traditional rifling? (If Marlin themselves, or whoever Marlin is these days, were to do it)

.32WCF isn't good for Classic? I did not know that. Guess it makes sense.

Not too long ago, I found a Marlin 1888, the old top eject model, in .32-20 for a very reasonable price, so I acquired it. I have to say, I really like it. I've never really been interested in the Marlin in general because of the side eject, and I shoot left handed, but I knew of this rarity, and always wondered about getting one if I could. Well, I did, and I did. I've not fired it yet, but I will soon. The action is remarkably soon, and I don't think it's just because it's really old. But letting all that go, would a replica of this model be a viable product? I know that in some ways, it would be a niche within a niche for interest, but I suppose anything is possible. Uberti did come out with a top eject 94 after all. And there was limited run of Burgess reproductions. I think there might be enough interest, but does anyone else?

Chiappa costs more, but you get what you pay for. No stupid safety. Runs great out of the box. Action as smooth as a real Winchester. Can't say any of that about a Rossi. They are still good guns, but not as good as the Chiapp.

7 Bore is British for 7 Gauge. It's an error in the story for sure.

Me, shooting my Walker with a conversion cylinder and an SAA.

Thanks, J-Bar. That makes sense.

Ah. It seems my memory of the dates of the origin of the .357 Magnum was off by about 20 years. Thanks for clarifying that point. I wonder if it's fair to say that the .38/44 that led to the .357 Magnum was essentially .38 Special +P?