Any problems with H&R .38-55 Target?

[Jbar4Ranch]

I bought two of these about eight months ago and both of them had to have the front & rear sights drifted/adjusted to get 'em on target - there wasn't enough adjustment in the rear sight alone. Chucking the barrels between centers in a lathe and using a dial indicator showed both barrels to be bent! I returned both of them to Remington and one was repaired by straightening the barrel, but they said the other one couldn't be fixed, and no more .38-55 barrels were available, so they bought it back. The returned one is better than it was, but still requires rather extreme sight adjustment. Both were quite accurate as they were, and the repaired one still is, but the sights were drifted about as far as they could go to get them on target. Anyone else have one of these and have the same problem? FWIW, the s/n's were more than thirty thousand numbers apart, which might not mean anything - H&R may not have used sequential numbering or numbering may have been spread out among different models.

[jlchucker]

That particular model of rifle was the low point of 2008 for me. Nothing I did would ever make it shoot right. I ended up selling it to someone who, with stars in his eyes over the caliber (like I was) after I got it and some handloads to a point where keyholes were fewer and farther between. This guy is now a happy (?) camper because after much load development and fooling around, he only gets a keyhole every 20 rounds or so. When H & R got swallowed up I did not weep--not after my adventures with this rifle. Check thru the postings on this website and others. You'll see more horror stories from experienced shooters/loaders than you will see praises about this model.

[garandsrus]

Jbar4Ranch,

My H&R 38-55 shoots fine. Accuracy is good and the sites are pretty much centered. I really like shooting the rifle.

The main complaint was always that the chamber was not big enough for the bore size. H&R fixed the problem late in the production run. The most common solution for the older rifles was to re-cut the chamber a little larger so the .380 or .381 boolits would fit in the chamber.

The only time I have gotten keyholing with this rifle was when the boolits were too small for the barrel.

John

[OBXPilgrim]

I don't think theres been any more problems with them than any other manufacturer. I happen to like the Handi Rifles quite well, but have had problems myself with one or two barrel/receiver sets.

If you do a search, do it on the caliber, not just on the Handi Rifle & I believe you will find the specs for this caliber allowed for a larger bore size than the slug that can often be chambered in it. I've seen folks with the same complaint from old Winchesters, Sharps and others - usually it's the Handi that get the "cheap junk label" over this deal though.

Seems most of the others that I've read about that had problems with the oversize bore got them to shoot by using soft lead boolits as large as would chamber and/or cutting the chamber larger.

Did you buy these barrels (rifles) new or used? I've not heard of any bent barrels coming from the factory, but I'm sure it could happen, especially when Joe Gardner, Mass factory worker found out his job was moving from Mass to NY. But, the 38-55 was already discontinued by that time. I am a witness to some of their sloppy barrel fitting though - and the Illion NY Remington plant seems to be worse.

[EDG]

My rifle has the large bore & small chamber that is easier to work with using the thinner Starline brass. The barrel is straight with the front sight centered the rear is dead center.
There are two things that I don't like. The rifling is only .0025 deep and the fitting of the barrel lug to the hinge pin does not provide uniform engagement.
To manufacture any modern product to obsolete SAAMI chamber standards that are obviously incorrect is not excusable. Both the customer and the company paid the price for that bone headed process.

[C A Plater]

No bent barrel with mine but it did have the small chamber problem. I rented a reamer with a .400" neck and that has cured the tumbling bullet problem.

[JohnH]

To manufacture any modern product to obsolete SAAMI chamber standards that are obviously incorrect is not excusable. Both the customer and the company paid the price for that bone headed process.

As I understand it (knowing that I have a teeny brain that is diffucult to open) there actually never were any SAAMI standards for the 38-55. That cartridge was commercially dead when SAAMI was created.

Ultimately the problem is the progression of 375 barrel dimensioning. Here in the states, a barrel size is typically (though not always) given as it's groove diameter size. In the old days 38 was the groove diameter of a 375 bored barrel. Here, the 38 died out. In Europe, particularly among those hunting Asia and Africa however, there was a lot of development in the 9.3 chamberings. When Holland and Holland developed their 375 Magnum, they did one thing to set it apart form the 9.3's, they increased the groove diameter to 375 from 366. It was a sales gimmick. They could say thiers was a larger bullet. (.010" WOO HOO!) But marketing being what marketing is....

Somewhere in the late 20's I believe it was that Winchester began to offer the 375 H&H Magnum chambering. And so here was the point where 368 bore and 375 groove became the "standard" for what had once been 375 bore/380 groove.

Move up in time 60 years and Winchester is trying to breath new life into the Model 94. They do this by beefing up the bolt locking area of the reciever and introducing 3 new cartridges, the 307 Winchester, the 356 Winchester and the 375 Winchester. The first two are rimmed versions of the 308 Winchester case, the latter is a modernized version of the 38-55 with a slight difference in case taper and diameters at the case mouth to prevent chambering in an older, weaker 38-55 rifle. The case was strengthened, pressures increased and WALLAH Winchester has a "big bore" lever gun, using 366/375 barrel dimensions.

Obviously it flops. What it does though is confuse the issues for the rebirth of the 38-55 as a result of BPCR and CAS. It was well known that the old barrel dimensions were 375-380 (give or take a thouandth either way) But now we had SAAMI specs for a cartridge that was a remake of an older cartridge. So what happened? What appear to be SAAMI spec Winchester 375 chambers showed up wearing 38-55 dimensioned barrels. The fit was a disaster. Being neither fish nor fowl, eithe bullets were not gripped by the rifling or were too big for the chamber. There have been several paths of remedy taken by owners of new vintage 38-55 chambered guns, but once again we are seeing the 38-55 dying commercially, in part because of the makers refusal to work honestly with these dimensoning problems and the conflicts of reloading component sizes. In point of fact is that Winchester continues to offer a 38-55 loading using a 250 grain bullet of 375-376 diameter...... Go figure

[John Boy]

John - that was one heck of a good post. Enjoyed the read and is now in my 38-55 reference material. Thanks!

[Jbar4Ranch]

I bought both of these new at Sportsman's Warehouse, and both have the chamber/bore mismatch requiring an oversize bullet. I need to rent a chamber reamer, but .379" sized bullets work well and still chamber OK. I've also got a .500 S&W Handi Rifle and a .45-70 Buffalo Classic, and both are great shooters with no sight problems.

[EDG]

>>>As I understand it (knowing that I have a teeny brain that is diffucult to open) there actually never were any SAAMI standards for the 38-55. That cartridge was commercially dead when SAAMI was created.<<<

John you are right but the ammo and rifle companies use some standard to guide them.
The dimensions given the in the "Cartridges of the World" show the chamber and groove diameter disparity. My copy was printed before the .375 Win was produced.

A friend of mine had a Remington Hepburn in 40 2.5 Sharps Straight with the same problem.

[JohnH]

>>>As I understand it (knowing that I have a teeny brain that is diffucult to open) there actually never were any SAAMI standards for the 38-55. That cartridge was commercially dead when SAAMI was created.<<<

John you are right but the ammo and rifle companies use some standard to guide them.
The dimensions given the in the "Cartridges of the World" show the chamber and groove diameter disparity. My copy was printed before the .375 Win was produced.

A friend of mine had a Remington Hepburn in 40 2.5 Sharps Straight with the same problem.

I agree with you, in fact I believe we agree more than disagree. The real question is how do at least 4 different makers arrive at the same goofy decision in respect to chamber/barrel dimensions for 38-55? You'd think at least one of them would get it right......

One thing I didn't speak to was the thinner walled 38-55 brass that Starline makes. This seems to have resolved some of these issues and at the time I first heard of this brass, it was being said that original 38-55 brass was thinner walled than present 375 brass which is what most of us shooting 38-55's were stuck with prior to Starlines product. For all I know that's true. I've never had orignal brass to measure current manufacture against.

To put that in perspective, 375 winchester brass is made on the same drawing dies as 30-30 brass. In it's early production 375 brass was heavier than 30-30 brass. Winchester went so far as to make 375 and 30-30 brass the same dimensionally to reduce internal production costs. Some have advocated using this brass to load hotter 30-30 loads...... Some may also not be aware that the 38-55 is the parent case of the 32-40, 30-30 and 25-35 so there is a lot of room for what was to get lost...

I have a copy of the NRA reloading handbook that has a set of cartridge drawings in the reference section. They show both the 38-55 and the 375. These drawings can be seen at www.leverguns.com and yes, there are more discrepances than you can shake a stick at. Without doubt the differences were known at the time of the 38-55's revival. Rather than make 375-380 barrels, why did they not use 366-375 barrels as most reloading components were designed for these barrel dimensions. Further, considering that the 375 was designed to NOT fit a 38-55 chamber, this would have been a logical conclusion as one could use current components, chamber 38-55 get good resulsts and not be able to use higher pressure ammo in the gun.

The only reason I can think of that makes using the larger bore sensical is that increasing bore diameter would also have the effect of reducing pressure. One sure way to keep things safe

True 38-55 cases were unavailable as recently as 5 years ago. Because of extra case length, 38-55 will not chamber in 375 Winchester. Yet commonly available 30-30 brass when opend to 375 makes 375 length brass. It may well be that the currently available brass length is what dictated the decision to use the 375 chamber (I'm guessing here of course.) I"m sure no one like Winchester was going to make correct 38-55 brass, what little they do make is not entirely correct, it is short.

In the end I can only agree that a very lousy decision was made on the part of the firearms manufactuers. It certainly ain't their first. Winchester as we've known it no longer exists because of bad decisions. How is it that the most popular lever action rifles in CAS are the 1873 and the 1892 and at no time did Winchester attempt to re-issue them in original or modernized form? Oliver must have rolled over in his grave.

Marlin to my knowledge never corrected the problem, though they finally did acknowledge one existed, they offered to make the chambers good, they lapped them out I've read. In general the industry response to the problem has been to simply quit making 38-55 rifles. Now theres a solution for ya.

Winchester re-issued so few 38-55 Model 94's and Model 1885's that I"ve no feeel for what if any problem they have, but Pendersoli replica High Walls have the problem...... Perhaps they are all reading from "Cartridges of the World"....

In thinking of this, Can it be said with a straight face there there was any demand for cartridges like the RUUM series or the WSM/WSSM series? I can't give proper credit at this moment, but it was recently said elsewhere by one in the firearms industry that firearms engineers are typically neither shooters nor hunters. They are making products to satisfy the sales department, who are neither shooters nor hunters. So with that environment in mind, why would we expect to have a properly dimensioned rifle chambering a cartridge that was commercially dead at least 80 years ago? I wonder how many working on those projects had ever even heard of the cartridge prior to their work. I'm certain that it was too much to ask that someone spend time on the range, pop some primers burn some powder, sling some lead and see what it was they had wrought.....

I had an NEF 38-55 Target. The gun would shoot well, if one used the sizing die as a sort of taper crimp die and lightly sized the loaded round so it would chamber. (Do a search, I described this a couple years back) I did a ton of reading to find out why I was having the problems I was. In the end the action crapped out and I became disgusted with it and traded it away. Was a great deer slayer though.

[northmn]

My brother in law bought a 38-55 Winchester Highwall Repo. I believe a Uberti. He had keyholing problems until he used larger bullets. It was about a 381 bore. Marlin did that with their lever Cowboy model. I was told that Uberti repoed off an original and took the dimensions to the tee. He sold the Uberti. Seems to be a common problem as was stated with new 38-55's. Its a caliber that creats some interest and might fly a little better if some care were given to its rebirth.

Northmn

[Junior1942]

Its a caliber [38-55] that creats some interest and might fly a little better if some care were given to its rebirth.

Northmn

100% correct. I'd own one if I knew what I was buying was (a) bored correctly; and (b) chambered correctly. Who wants to buy a rifle when it might have one problem or the other problem or even both problems?

[NickSS]

I have a 38-55 Handy rifle that shoots just great with .379 dia bullets. I have never bothered to slug the bore as it has shot these so well that I am already at my own capabilities for accuracy with the rifle. I also have a high wall made by C Sharps of big timber. The bore is .3755 on this rifle and I mostly shoot .375 dia bullets with black powder in it. It will hold minute of angle groups out to 200 yards so I have no complaits with it.

[leftiye]

The chamber with the undersized case neck area sounds like one designed for black powder and paper patched boolits. They used boolits maybe .010 under bore diameter and patched up to fit into the bore on top of the lands. They were supposed to (and did) bump up to fill the grooves with the black powder.

[EDG]

>>>The real question is how do at least 4 different makers arrive at the same goofy decision in respect to chamber/barrel dimensions for 38-55? You'd think at least one of them would get it right......<<<
JohnH ,
I think you covered all the bases pretty well. Mike Venturino tested a Browning 1885 TH .38-55 in one of the Rifle Magazines. I think the bore was .377 and he got exceptional results. Either Browning found an acorn or the guy that designed the chamber for the 40-65 BPCR still hangs his hat there.
PS I use the sizer die to squeeze the first 1/8 inch of loaded rounds for my H&R and it works ok so far. I am pretty sure I picked that up from one of your earlier posts. Thanks for the tip.

[Urny]

Just to throw a monkey wrench in to the whole discussion, my early Wesson and Harrington variant of the H&R Target Model sports a barrel of .374-.3775 bore and groove dimensions. It shoots .378" boolits ok but really prefers .379" and much prefers gas check boolits. In Winchester .38-55 brass .380" or larger will not chamber. I've played a bit with black powder loads without much joy yet.

Merry Christmas.

[boommer]

JOHNh I'm glad you did all that typing for me and much better than I explain in type IT'S A BASTARDIZED CARTRIDGE now days and the dies are cut to 375 Win specs, chambers are tight,bores are larger. The only way I can sum it up,soft bullets and fat as you can chamber with a taper crimp or roll crimp then taper on lever guns. This is only a band-aid you really need to ream out the chamber and then open up your dies or buy some custom dies.I also think that this is some lawyer thing too!I would say if a shorter,hotter 45-70 would have been developed before it got new lungs(we would see the same) and will see if the 38-55 with it's new following, will standardize from 375 Win with all the problems that have been stated to manufacturers. probably not.

[44mag1]

I have a 45-70 buffalo classic that had to be sent back because the sights couldent be adjusted enough to match the POI. it shot great when I sent it in and it shoots great now. I suspect it had a bent barrel. when I got it back it had marks on the barrel like they put it in a vice.

[stillhunter]

JBAR, I wasted a year of fiddlin with one of these. My H&R was an early one with the plastic trigger guard. I tried 5 different kinds of cast bullets and any number of loads. A consultation with a dealer who is a friend revealed that in addition to the chamber/bore problem, it is often necessary to epoxie the scope mount to get it stable. I sold it and got a Ruger #1 in 45-70. With the tune ups given in this forum I am getting 3 shot clusters at a hundred yards. I'd recommend that you follow the same course,,!!