Uberti .38-55 high Wall

[oldred]

Any gun should be cleaned before putting away but with smokeless a fella can get away with it for a long time without cleaning, not so when shooting BP and even worse with most BP subs (BH209 maybe being an exception). Sure BP and the subs NEED to be cleaned soon after shooting but as already said that is not a problem especially with rifles like a HighWall. Simply open the breech and swab till clean, quick and easy and it does NOT require any fancy Black powder cleaners to do it! Unless a person gets a lot of blow-by and junk into the receiver then there is no reason to disassemble the whole rifle just for cleaning, however if a HighWall does need to be disassembled (a real 1885 HighWall, not the Jap version) then it's quite simple and easy to do. In fact it's one of the simpler designs that with a bit of practice can be completely stripped and reassembled in minutes with little more than a screw driver, the newer Jap version contains MANY more small parts and can be a real bugger to reassemble!

[bigted]

Most folks these days look at getting a 375 Winchester ... not a 38-55.

They call them 38-55 but in fact that snazzy new model 38-55 is in fact nothing more than a 375 Winchester.

Not a thing wrong with the 375, but it aint no 38-55. All 38's are at least a .380 barrel. This is proper.

Therefor the rifles CALLED 38-55 are not in fact a 38 rifle. Beings this is fact, the crowd got used to calling the 375 a 38-55 and hence the modern cornfusion twixt the two.

The rifles that maintain the true 38 cal are getting a uncalled for bad rep for having a huge bore. They do not in fact. It is a sad confusing problem that in fact is not a problem at all.

Lotza 38 cal dies out there to shoot the correct boolit in a correct bore size.

[indian joe]

Most folks these days look at getting a 375 Winchester ... not a 38-55.

They call them 38-55 but in fact that snazzy new model 38-55 is in fact nothing more than a 375 Winchester.

Not a thing wrong with the 375, but it aint no 38-55. All 38's are at least a .380 barrel. This is proper.

Therefor the rifles CALLED 38-55 are not in fact a 38 rifle. Beings this is fact, the crowd got used to calling the 375 a 38-55 and hence the modern cornfusion twixt the two.

The rifles that maintain the true 38 cal are getting a uncalled for bad rep for having a huge bore. They do not in fact. It is a sad confusing problem that in fact is not a problem at all.

Lotza 38 cal dies out there to shoot the correct boolit in a correct bore size.

TED????? (a new 38/55 is really a 375 Winchester)
HECK NO IT AINT !!!!!-----maybe its a 38/55 with an undersize bore - but a thin walled angle eject 94 with full house 375 Winchester loads - that could get someone killed.
A 375 Winchester will have that stamped on the barrel and be built to take the 50,000psi (or whatever) pressure that 375 winchester load generates -
If you wanna get pedantic about this - what about all the other 38 stuff ups that are out there ? 38 special is a 35 cal and 38/40 is a 40 cal with a whole bunch of craziness filling the space between.
375 Winchester was not the smartest thing they ever did but there was always a clear distinction from 38/55 in the load strength and firearm required to contain it. 375W also had a shorter case and supposedly stronger case walls. They aint the same thing - not even close to it ballistically. Shame about the interchangeable cases!!!

[oldred]

375 Winchester was not the smartest thing they ever did

You sure got that right!!!! In fact it was a down-right dumb thing to do! The least they could have done was slightly increase the case size or maybe the rim slightly or even maybe add a belt, ANYTHING but what they did.

[bigted]

Ok ok ok i concede that my words were not picked correctly.

I of coarse would never hope anybody stuff a 375 Winchester in a 38-55 . I have never tried this but if it is possible then you guys are correct in saying that this is a disaster in the waiting.

What i should have said was the modern 38-55 is really a 375-55.

The correct diameter in the 38-55 is still in fact a .380+ diameter. This is one of the cartridges from yesteryear that the number designator is correct, same as the 45-70.

I guess what i was trying to get at is that Uberti's 38-55 rifles may be a small bit oversize at .381 or .382 but this is in spec for the old 38-55's. Nuttin i see especially off in the bore of their rifles

I apologize for my miss use of my words and sincerely hope it caused no body to be led astray.

[oldred]

TED????? (a new 38/55 is really a 375 Winchester)
but a thin walled angle eject 94 with full house 375 Winchester loads - that could get someone killed

Maybe not????

Seems there may not have been total negligence when designing the .375 even though it will slip right into a 38-55 and seem to chamber just fine, this might lead someone (probably has!) to fire a .375 in a 38-55 rifle such as that thin walled 94 Winchester. Seems like making a high pressure round that fits so well into older 38-55s, some of which date back to black powder days, would be very negligent vs designing some feature into the round that would prevent such easy chambering but those guys not only didn't do that they even made the .375 a tad shorter which insures it will indeed fit in any 38-55 chambered rifle regardless of make or age! So what were they thinking? After checking around on this seemingly dangerous situation I found folks that claim to have knowledge of the idea behind it, one fella even says he has first-hand info from a Winchester engineer. Ok it goes like this (supposedly anyway) the shorter case was part of the solution to the problem of the high pressure round/low strength older 38-55s as well as the smaller .375 bullet and this may even explain how the .375 bore got mixed up in this? The thinking was (again supposedly!!!!) that the shorter case would cause a long jump to the rifling if the .375 was fired in a 38-55 chamber thus lowering the pressure somewhat, then the .375 bullet would simply slide down that .380+ bore with little resistance lowering the pressure even more. So apparently the .375, when fired in a 38-55 chamber and .380 bore of the older rifles, would not develop near the same pressures it would in a .375 chambered firearm. This does not mean firing a .375 in 38-55 is safe but apparently they thought it would not blow up if someone did and the decision was made to do it that way instead of making the case long enough to not chamber in a 38-55 simply because it would become too long for the .375 by doing so.

Any that's what the scuttle-butt says about it and I suppose it makes sense but to me it still makes little sense that new rifle manufacturers would build 38-55 rifles with a .375 bore, perhaps those that do assume their rifles are strong enough to handle the .375 so there would not be a problem????

[indian joe]

Maybe not????

Seems there may not have been total negligence when designing the .375 even though it will slip right into a 38-55 and seem to chamber just fine, this might lead someone (probably has!) to fire a .375 in a 38-55 rifle such as that thin walled 94 Winchester. Seems like making a high pressure round that fits so well into older 38-55s, some of which date back to black powder days, would be very negligent vs designing some feature into the round that would prevent such easy chambering but those guys not only didn't do that they even made the .375 a tad shorter which insures it will indeed fit in any 38-55 chambered rifle regardless of make or age! So what were they thinking? After checking around on this seemingly dangerous situation I found folks that claim to have knowledge of the idea behind it, one fella even says he has first-hand info from a Winchester engineer. Ok it goes like this (supposedly anyway) the shorter case was part of the solution to the problem of the high pressure round/low strength older 38-55s as well as the smaller .375 bullet and this may even explain how the .375 bore got mixed up in this? The thinking was (again supposedly!!!!) that the shorter case would cause a long jump to the rifling if the .375 was fired in a 38-55 chamber thus lowering the pressure somewhat, then the .375 bullet would simply slide down that .380+ bore with little resistance lowering the pressure even more. So apparently the .375, when fired in a 38-55 chamber and .380 bore of the older rifles, would not develop near the same pressures it would in a .375 chambered firearm. This does not mean firing a .375 in 38-55 is safe but apparently they thought it would not blow up if someone did and the decision was made to do it that way instead of making the case long enough to not chamber in a 38-55 simply because it would become too long for the .375 by doing so.

Any that's what the scuttle-butt says about it and I suppose it makes sense but to me it still makes little sense that new rifle manufacturers would build 38-55 rifles with a .375 bore, perhaps those that do assume their rifles are strong enough to handle the .375 so there would not be a problem????

Maybe ---Maybe not ??
Oldred's surmise on this makes a lot of sense
I bought a 375 big bore back in the early 1990's when the blurb was still circulating in gunmags and etc - proly the best built 94 I have had - when I got it in my hands something about the advertising blurb did not fit for me - I looked at that rifle action and ---- yeah they left some more metal around the locking lugs area - the simplest and most attractive trick if you were looking to make a point of difference with a 94 action - but there was not one grain more metal where it counted - in the action sides between lockup and barrel face - my question was how could that be substantially stronger than a normal 94 action ?
Second point was the "specially made heavy walled" brass made to stand the extra pressure - 375 headstamp was way more dollars than 30/30 - so I sectioned (dismembered) a few to take a look see - ok I didnt have a micrometer, I was just eyeballin it but my eyes were pretty good those days and dang it I could see no difference between winchester 375 and 30/30 brass (winchester and pmc) so I bought a couple hundred PMC 30/30 and ran a neck expander down em (they finished a little short and are a few grains less weight - not a lot in it)

I sold the 375 BB and later bought a top eject Oliver F Winchester commemmorative in 38/55 (still have it) - slugged it this morning - it goes .3785 - my LEE mold drops at .379 and it shoots fine
I have been highly sceptic about all this since I first heard it - advertising hype to sell stuff - I reckon someone at Winchester shoved a 375 barrel in a normal 94 action and went at it with basic 30/30 brass and figured the modern steel 94 will take this ....now we gotta sell it without gettin ourselves in court ! ? ...............

[marlinman93]

That explanation makes sense to me. I wont test it, but it certainly makes sense in theory, and should prove out. I know a fella who is a retired Winchester engineer, but not sure if he was there when the .375 Win. was developed or tested. I'll have to see if he has any insight on it also, and can add anything?

But interestingly Marlin adapted the .375 to the 336 Marlin without doing anything to the receiver. They simply put a .375 groove barrel on the 336 and chambered it for .375 Win. Then put Model 375 on the gun and sold them. They were poor sellers, and it didn't last long. Fairly collectable today.

[nhithaca]

I happen to own one of the Marlin 375's. Early gun without safety. Shoots factory 200 grain and reloads with the 220 grain jacked bullets very well. And surprisingly it shoots 250 grain GC cast bullets just as good. Even with the fast twist rate of 1 in 12" vs the 38-55's standard of 1 in 18". And it is Micro-Groove too. Expect to keep it forever.

[shafer44]

my Uberti 38-55 slugged .382, I size to .383 and it shoots well with 240gr and 255gr to 600yds.