H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619
-
Posts
7,285 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619
-
-
5 hours ago, Duffield, SASS #23454 said:
If you use 9mm Luger dies you can reload with 357 bullets and use the factory barrel. Mark it "9 mm Rimmed" so that someone doesn't try resizing .360 bullets by firing them in it, that would cause a pressure spike! The .357 bullets will work OK in your other guns for our game.
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.
-
49 minutes ago, watab kid said:
might have to be one of those custom things we sometimes do "JUST BECAUSE" ?
You do know about my "Big Iron," right?
-
1
-
-
...
-
13 hours ago, Reverend P. Babcock Chase said:
howdy H.K.
I'm not going to ask why you want to do this. If you want it, that's good enough. Now, from what folks here are saying, It sounds like it might be a bit pricey. So, no half measures. Get someone to make you a Volcanic repro for the .38 S&W. It might put you in the poorhouse but it would top the charts in style points. I want the second one.
Rev. Chase
Well, that's a dream too. That someone would do this, in that caliber for both the rifle and pistol versions of the Volcanic.
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, watab kid said:
it sounds like a labor of love , as i think it would be way more trouble than its worth , why might i ask - would you want that ? i know of no main match revolvers chambered for the 38S&W ,
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.
-
2
-
-
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.
-
7 hours ago, Brimstone Bill Willson said:
I made my first meme:
Now THAT is a fascinating variation on the Hollyweird Henry theme
-
1
-
-
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.-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Joe LaFives #5481 said:
Well only if you wanted to add to the expense of shooting it.
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? -
49 minutes ago, PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L said:
SHB p.7
Yep, makes sense.
I'll freely admit to not knowing the ins and outs of the category
-
1 hour ago, Bailey Creek,5759 said:
They are fine Rifles.
I would like to see a Model 1881 Marlin Repro.
I think it would be well received.
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) -
1 hour ago, Griff said:
It'd be an interesting added rifle for the Classic crowd! (If 38WCF OR 44WCF).
.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?-
2
-
-
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.-
1
-
-
On 2/14/2024 at 1:53 PM, Abilene, SASS # 27489 said:
There are conversion cylinders available for them, too.
Me, shooting my Walker with a conversion cylinder and an SAA.
-
2
-
-
Thanks, J-Bar. That makes sense.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, J-BAR #18287 said:
The 38/44 was created in 1930 in response to law enforcement requests for a cartridge that would penetrate cars. Apparently the .38 Special was sufficient for crooks on foot or horseback, but wouldn't go through car doors or other car parts reliably. So S&W souped up the .38 Special with more modern powders and made a heavier N Frame revolver to handle it. Unfortunately, some folks tried to use the souped up cartridges in their smaller regular .38 Special guns, resulting in dangerous spontaneous disassembly. So in 1935 S&W lengthened the .38 Special case by 1/10" to prevent chambering in .38 Special guns, and called it the .357 Magnum. The early .357 Magnum revolvers were the "Registered Magnum", quite expensive. The 38/44 revolvers remained popular with police departments because they were just as powerful and lots cheaper. 38/44 revolvers were manufactured from 1930 to 1966 (except for the war years 1941-1946), when less expensive .357 Magnum revolvers became available.
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?-
1
-
-
In simplest terms, .38 Short Colt made a little longer is .38 Long Colt. .38 Long Colt made a little longer is .38 Special. .38 Special made a little longer is .357 Magnum.
In more detailed terms, .38 Short Colt started out as the cartridge used in centerfire conversions of old .36 caliber cap and ball revolvers.
Both the Short and Long Colt used a heeled bullet where the bullet's caliber was identical to the outside diameter of the casing. The bore size for these guns was .375". At one point in the late 1890's, the bore diameter was reduced to .357" when the LC cartridge switched to an inside the case bullet. Modern Short and Long ammo is loaded with the inside the case bullet, although as far as I know, no guns were ever made specifically in Short Colt with the smaller bore. This was "overcome" by loading the cartridges with a hollow base bullet so they would engage the rifling in older, larger bore guns. I have vintage firearms of the same make and model in .38 Long Colt with both the large and small bore.
At one point, the Army decided to ditch the .45 Colt and adopted the .38 Long Colt as it's new caliber for side arms. All was well until the Spanish American War and the Philippine Insurrection happened. First, the .38 Long Colt was found lacking in stopping power. Second, Colt couldn't churn out .38 DA revolvers fast enough to meet the need, so S&W was asked if they could supply the Army with a revolver to supplement the Colt. Thus was born the S&W Model 1899. (Known today as the Model 10) It was chambered for the .38 Long Colt, or .38 MIL CTG as it was stamped on the revolvers. (I know, I have one.) Anyway. soon after delivering these pistols, knowing of the LC's lack of performance, S&W developed the .38 Special round by making the Long Colt a little longer. It was more powerful, and the extra length was to prevent people from chambering it in older LC revolvers that could not handle the pressure. The Army eventually bought some 99's in the caliber, and off and on over the years, especially during WWI and WWII, they bought a bunch of M&Ps, VictorY models and Model 10's in .38 Special that were finally withdrawn from service in 1986, making the revolver America's longest serving sidearm, even if it was a supplemental one.
Anyway, sometime in the late 50's/early 60's (I don't know exactly when) it was decided that the .38 Special wasn't powerful enough. The first solution to this was something called the .38-44, essentially a hot loaded .38 Special. But eventually they instead lengthened the case again to create the .357 Magnum. All of this adds up to why the guns chambered in these calibers are "backwards compatible" with the earlier ones..38 S&W is a completely different animal, not a part of this Short Colt to Magnum family, and not interchangeable in any way. Among other things, it uses a .360" bullet.
But the .38 S&W has it's own peculiar history and derivatives.
The first was the .38-44 cartridge, which is NOT the same cartridge as the .38-44 that led to the .357 Magnum. This much earlier .38-44 was a .38 S&W case made to be the same length as the cylinder of the S&W New Model 3. The bullet would sit entirely in the cartridge case. Designed for target use, it was a VERY accurate round. You can safely chamber .38 S&W in anything chambered for the old .38-44. I do it all the time. (Black powder only)Oh yeah, there is also .38 New Colt Police. This IS .38 S&W, that's just what Colt called it in their guns chambered for it
The other .38 S&W derivative is the .38-200 round that the Brits made their standard sidearm caliber just before WWII. It uses the same case as the .38 S&W, but is loaded to much higher pressures. While it can be safely chambered in the Mark IV Webley and Enfield revolvers it was designed for, as well as Lend Lease Victory Model S&W's, loading .38-200 in an older .38 S&W revolver will blow it up. But, you can of course load the older weaker round in the modern revolvers if you wish to do so. I have never been able to find an ammo with the ,38-200 headstamp, but it is possible to use regular brass and load to those levels if you so desire.
And I think, that sums it all up in a nice general way.-
3
-
6
-
-
I tired. Now, out of stock.
-
14 hours ago, Trailrider #896 said:
No .44-40's? Bahhh! Humbug!
I do find it odd that it's .357 Magnum only. But thinking about it, there are a few reasons why this may be the case...
1. It's just the introductory caliber. Other calibers may come later. I would bet on .44 Magnum, and maybe .45 Colt.
or
2. .357 is believed to be what will be the best seller. If it will reliably also feed .38 Special, then it's all the more viable from a marketing POV.
or
3. The gun is aimed at the more general market, and not CAS specific. This would be why .44-40 won't make an appearance in the short term. If it winds up being a great seller, that may change.
In the end, I suspect all three reasons were factors, especially, number 3. If they were really going for the CAS crowd, they'd all have front sights like the brass one. But the more modern front sight on the carbines suggests to me a more general audience appeal than folks like us. Plus, the specific large loop used seems to me to support this idea as well.
Light loads for 38 s&w
in SASS Wire
Posted
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.