Bottleneck vs Straight wall cases

[Dragoon 45]

I was talking with a local gunsmith this past weekend and mentioned that I was thinking about getting a .38-56. He then proceeded to tell me that there has been a number of recent articles published that state bottlenecks are much less accurate than straight wall cases. To my knowledge this is a load of bunk, as in the record of the .44-77 on target ranges proves. As I read just about anything I can get my hands on about BPCR and have not seen any articles in any magazines on this subject, I wonder where he got this. He couldn't remember the magazines he read this in.

Anybody recall any thing recently published on this subject?

Thanks.

[cwskirmisher]

I was talking with a local gunsmith this past weekend and mentioned that I was thinking about getting a .38-56. He then proceeded to tell me that there has been a number of recent articles published that state bottlenecks are much less accurate than straight wall cases. To my knowledge this is a load of bunk, as in the record of the .44-77 on target ranges proves. As I read just about anything I can get my hands on about BPCR and have not seen any articles in any magazines on this subject, I wonder where he got this. He couldn't remember the magazines he read this in.

Anybody recall any thing recently published on this subject?

Thanks.


If that were true, then most of the high power shooters shooting 5.56 and 7.62 don't know it... if it is referring to specifically the ballistics of BPCR, I have not seen any of those claims or articles, but my gut tells me it is bunk. I have an original Win 1886 in 38-56. The parent brass is 45-70. I don't shoot it often, as it is in near mint condition - but I have put a few rounds downrange with it and IMHO I will tell you it is indeed extrememly accurate out to at least 200 yards (I don't have a range I can shoot further), and from a rest it put every round into a 6" paper plate at 200 yards with the factory open sight.

[BrentD]

Certainly, the .38-56 lacks the reputation for fine accuracy that both the .38-50 and the .38-55 have.

I would not opt for a .38-56 over either of those two cartridges.

Bottleneck cases are a pain to clean and they tend to have little or no leeway in regards to options for compressing powder like we commonly do in straight cases.

I shoot a .38-72 as well as a .38-55 and the 72 is a very fussy case for me. I have yet to attain even good accuracy with it, yet its bottleneck is very very slight.

Straight is great. Stick with it... :)


Or not.

Brent

[Lead pot]

I agree with Brent.

I had the .38-56 in the 86 Winchester and I shoot two .44 bottle necked cartridges now and soon to get a .44-77 and I had .40 bn's and 44 bn's and the .43 Spanish in rolling blocks they all shot good except the .40 bn but the .38-56 was on the bottom of the list, maybe because it was chambered in the repeating lever rifle.

[Chicken Thief]

My experience with bottleneck cases is that they tend to burn hotter/cleaner and thus the rifle is easier to keep clean.
I will call BS on them not being as accurate as "straight" cases, and the fact that they are not represented in todays matches is coincidencial. At Creedmoor the 44-90 was king despite them hawing straight cases galore!

[Dragoon 45]

As I said I don't buy into the theory that bottleneck BP cartridges are any less accurate than straight walled ones. They might be a little bit more finicky to get to shoot but that doesn't mean they are less accurate.

I was just hoping someone might know where he might have read this claim so I could look it up and read it for myself. The guy is a fairly decent gunsmith from all accounts, but he is a little bit opinionated.

Re: the .38-56. I like a challenge if can afford it. The .38 BP calibers kind of intrigue me and plus I like to have something different from what everyone else is shooting. I like the idea of being able to form cases from common .45-70 brass without paying an arm and leg for the cases. I considered a .38-55 for a while, but as I understand it the .38-56 has much more case capacity than the 55.

[Chicken Thief]

Maybe he just did some backyard reasoning regarding the cases used in current BPCR shooting, and falsly deducted that since no bottleneck cases are used it is because they're not accurate?

[Chicken Thief]

I just thought of this:

Regarding compressing powder, the more you compress the more like a cigarette burn you get.
So given enough compression the powder is like a big solid pellet burning from the back, slower burn in a long barrel. Slower/less recoil and better SD?

Consistant powder compression is almost impossible in a bottleneck, sooo?
The powder has to burn in the case and that might lead to what?

[BrentD]

If you like more case capacity, the .38-50 has more than the .38-55 and I think more than the .38-56 (not entirely sure). Brass is pretty easy.

the .38-70 is easily formed from Hornady .405 and for sure has more case capacity.

And the .38-70 fits in there too somewhere. But of all of them, the .38-56 is least popular and has the worst reputation for accuracy. Might be myth. Might not be. Chase a dream if you wish,. for damn sure, I've chased more than a few.

Brent

[martinibelgian]

I have experience with a .45 BN case (#2 Musket), and it proably is one of the most accurate and easiest to get to shoot cartridges I know. I still remember taking my very 1st loads (to fireform the cases) out to a match, and - to my great astonishment - winning the match with them. If that's no accurate and easy to load for... OTOH, no experience with the 38-56, but BN cases will shoot quite well.
Brent does have a point about compression - with a BN you're limited to using none or just a little: too much usually will not give good accuracy results. Then again, I can load 90+ grains in my cases, so...

[Lead pot]

Both of my .44-90 BN's are very accurate out to mid range but fall off at Creedmoor distances with the bullets I used when I had a chance to shoot 800 - 1000 yards and I fell flat on my face using them..
The two .44-90's have shot the tightest groups at 200 yards and I find that they will not tolerate to much compression. I have loaded as much as 110 grains of 1FG in the case and never found a second spot where the groups tightened back up like the straight walled cases. .002 is as much as I can compress it and keep the ES and groups good.
I read in the old books that they used a load of 100 grains with a 520 grain bullet for the creedmoor matches but I think they had a twist faster then 1/19 or 1/20.
I can get 100 grains in the case with little compression not using a lube wad but it will separate the case just about every second or third shot with out the lube wad.
Right now I have a swage die being made from a reproduction of a original bullet that was used for the Creedmoor in it's hay days.

[excess650]

The 38-72 may have too much capacity for the diameter. The 38-55 was a lengthened version of the 38-50 Ballard cartridge and not to be confused with the larger 38-50 Remington Hepburn cartridge.

I had a 40-70 Gov't (40 2.1" BN)and it was very accurate, but also recoiled harder than I cared for (silhouette). It didn't foul with reasonable loads. It didn't need much compression and that may be a function of the BN design in general. The BN funnels the powder gas from the body into the smaller diameter neck and increases pressure. My 43 Mausers don't foul much either with reasonable loads. The key here may be larger granulation powders and moderate compression.

BTW, the BPCRS long run record on turkeys (32) was shot with a 40-50BN. I witnessed it along with about 50 other folks including a memeber of the NRA Competition Division staff. The rifle was not cleaned between shots or banks of targets and took only the normal few breaths with a blowtube and a dry patch to have the bore near spotless after the run was over.

38-56 might be OK for a hunting rifle caliber with BP, but I wouldn't do one for silhouette.

[Lead pot]

I only had a .38-56 like I said in a 86 Winchester when you could still buy them for less then $200. and it had a bright bore but it did not shoot for sour grapes using factory loads or reloads. It made a fine deer caliber for the Mich. woods.
It might be a different story if that caliber was in a High wall or roller, I dont know.
I saw a fellow shoot a 86 chambered in .38-56 at the Quigley a few years back and he was doing good when I stood behind him when he was shooting it.
If you get it build let us know how it shoots.

[Don McDowell]

Dragoon I can't think of any articles talking about the bottle necks that way. Like many things bpcr there's plenty of opinion about things by folks that have no actual experience...
Last spring in Phoenix and the creedmoor cup , a 44-77 was in the top 3 so much for them not shooting.

On your 38-56, go for it. If the thing doesn't work out your just a barrel swap from something different or, running a 375 ouchnouch reamer into the chamber, and then you can either go after elephants or really send out clouds of smoke. That H&H case holds 92 grs of black with a 255 gr bullet seated to the driving band and that bullet flies out of the barrel like it was jet propelled.[smilie=w:

[The Goose]

When I got home last night I looked through what related literature I have and did come up with one potential source. In Mike Venturino's Shooting Buffalo Rifles of the Old West he takes a pretty negative position on the bottleneck cartridges. Although he does not directly say that all straight walled cases are inherently more accurate he certainly does say that all other factors being equal the .44-77 cannot be made to shoot as accurately as either the .40-70 SS or the .45-70. In his reviews of the .40-70BN, 40-90 and .44-90 he makes reference to hard fouling ahead of the chamber and that no major competition have been won with these rounds. He also mentions that the Sharps Rifle Co. gradually shifted to straight walled cases because of the fouling issues.

Because this was one of the very first books that I read when I was getting into BPCR shooting I can tell you that it definitely gave me the impression that bottleneck cases were more problematic and less accurate in general. Please understand that I am not taking any position on this matter, I lack the first hand experience to do so. Just passing on a potential source of where that gunsmith may have garnered his information. Not a magazine or even recently published, but it is out there.

[Lead pot]

Like Don said " Like many things bpcr there's plenty of opinion about things by folks that have no actual experience..." I remember reading some of MLV writing articles saying he got poor accuracy shooting black powder in the .45 Sharps, but he is doing very good with them now days.

I can show you some groups shot with the .44 BN that are as good as some of my high power hunting rifles @200 yds. I will say this that the only problem with some bottle necked cases is getting dies and brass, but the brass problem is solved now that Jamison at a great expense o there part is now making brass for the .44 bottle necks and a few other obsolete calibers and I can see that the accuracy has improved in my load developments in recent weeks using there brass that is very consistent in the inside volume of the cases, case neck thickness and flash holes.
The first thing I noticed the first time I sent a round down range with my new .44 BN using the same weight bullet and powder load in a .45-90 was the dust kicked up a lot faster then the .straight walled case does.
My inconsistent long range accuracy problem I have at this point is the high BC prolate and elliptical bullet I been trying to use that does not work with the twist I have in these two BN rifles.
There is no reason that the .38-56 wont shoot in a Sharps, roller or high wall type of action with the fine bullet moulds that are available for the .38's
If the .38-56 is what you want.....go for it.

LP.

[Dragoon 45]

One reason I am thinking about getting a .38-56 is its parent case. Rebarreling a rifle to it shouldn't be that involved as the .45-70, .40-65, and .38-56 all share the same rim diameter and thickness. There shouldn't be that much work involved modifying the extractor or any other parts beyond changing out the barrel. Then if I find out the .38-56 isn't going to perform that well, I can put the old barrel back on with a minimum of fuss.

[martinibelgian]

If you want to experiment with a BN case with 45-70 head specs, I for one would go with the 40-50 Sharps BN case (not the straight one), which also uses the basic .45 case. That one looks like it would be an ideal sihouette round...

[wills]

Venturino has an article in the current issue of Handloader on the original Sharps cartridges, you might find relevant.


He points out Sharps stopped making rifles chambered for the bottlenecked cartridges except for specific orders, and concludes the cartridge we now call the .45 – 70 was the most sold, and they probably knew what they were doing.

[405]

Maybe he just did some backyard reasoning regarding the cases used in current BPCR shooting, and falsly deducted that since no bottleneck cases are used it is because they're not accurate?

CT, that would be my guess also.

I have both types in quite a few calibers and different guns - single shots and Win levers. I can't tell any difference between bottle neck and straight wall.

The one single shot that stands out in my herd (for at least a couple of reasons :) ) is an original Sharps 74 in 44-90 SBN... it can stay right with the modern Shiloh 74 in 45-70 and C Sharps 74 in 45-110.

But, anecdotes don't prove much, so statistically, all in all, my experience is a small sample.

[Don McDowell]

I think Sharps stopped the bottlenecked cases except for special order, to make a difference between themselves and Remington. Remington stuck with the bottleneck for a long time after sharps.
Sharps was also hot after a military contract and that would go along ways to explain why the 45 2.1 was standard chambering except in the longrange guns and that was 45 2.6. Also they were in reorganization when the 45 standardization came about and it was probably a book keepers decision to keep inventory to a simpler and less expensive thing.
Unfortunately there was nothing they could ultimately do to keep the doors open.

[Lead pot]

I think the .45-70 gained favor back then like the .223 gained favor over the .222 and the .22-250 does now, a lot of surplus on the market.

I have to maybe rethink the posts above some. Lately I been working with a new powder to me since the Goex Express powder has been discontinued. The Goex always shot best with less then .100 compression in both of my .44-90 SBN's also the swiss and the Goex shot very good in the 44's but this year I changed over to 1.5 KIK.

Here is a topic I just posted on a different site about the .44-90 SBN..

I think that we finely came to an understanding.
After several years of butting heads like a couple young bore goats I finally listened to what it was trying to tell me.
I been shooting some pretty respectable 5 shot groups these last few weeks like 1/2" vertical and 1-3/8 horizontal for several 5 shot groups under 2" and no more then 3" horizontal @ 200 yards I think from the wind mostly.
I been using 100 grains of 1.5 KIK with .218" compression with a 1/40 alloy 1.322" long with the original stile ogive cast with a Brooks adjustable cup based .432 mould. With this soft alloy it weighs 480 grains.
This is going with me to the Milan midrange shoot in a few weeks to see if it will hold up at 600 yards.
Man I hate developing loads at a match but it has to be.

I'm also pulling the bullets loaded for the .44-77 and replace them with these.

This makes me think that the no compression for bottle necked cases does not always hold true.
The case will hold 107 grains of 1.5 KIK uncompressed powder.
Might be worth a try sometime to see what it will do.

LP.

[Chicken Thief]

I think the .45-70 gained favor back then like the .223 gained favor over the .222 and the .22-250 does now, a lot of surplus on the market.

I have to maybe rethink the posts above some. Lately I been working with a new powder to me since the Goex Express powder has been discontinued. The Goex always shot best with less then .100 compression in both of my .44-90 SBN's also the swiss and the Goex shot very good in the 44's but this year I changed over to 1.5 KIK.

Here is a topic I just posted on a different site about the .44-90 SBN..

I think that we finely came to an understanding.
After several years of butting heads like a couple young bore goats I finally listened to what it was trying to tell me.
I been shooting some pretty respectable 5 shot groups these last few weeks like 1/2" vertical and 1-3/8 horizontal for several 5 shot groups under 2" and no more then 3" horizontal @ 200 yards I think from the wind mostly.
I been using 100 grains of 1.5 KIK with .218" compression with a 1/40 alloy 1.322" long with the original stile ogive cast with a Brooks adjustable cup based .432 mould. With this soft alloy it weighs 480 grains.
This is going with me to the Milan midrange shoot in a few weeks to see if it will hold up at 600 yards.
Man I hate developing loads at a match but it has to be.

I'm also pulling the bullets loaded for the .44-77 and replace them with these.

This makes me think that the no compression for bottle necked cases does not always hold true.
The case will hold 107 grains of 1.5 KIK uncompressed powder.
Might be worth a try sometime to see what it will do.

LP.

I think the difference is that straight wall cases will compress "evenly" throughout the powder column, whereas the bottleneck will compress at the top and not dristibute evenly to the bottom.

[wills]

I recall reading the military gave away ammunition to buffalo hunters. That supposedly had something to do with the popularity of the .45-70.

[Chicken Thief]

I recall reading the military gave away ammunition to buffalo hunters. That supposedly had something to do with the popularity of the .45-70.
Accessibility is more like it. They tore the round, recast the boolit and scavenged the powder, in most cases.
Back then a (storebought) cartridge cost up to 25 cents and the hide could bring $3 + 25 cents for a salted tongue. So money was scarce.

http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/resources/archives/five/buffalo.htm

[Dragoon 45]

I recall reading the military gave away ammunition to buffalo hunters. That supposedly had something to do with the popularity of the .45-70.

From the histories I have read, the US Army gave away rifles (mainly .50-70 Trapdoors), ammunition (both .45-70 and .50-70), and reloading supplies to just about anyone on the Frontier. A number of accounts talked of the Army giving rifles and 100 rds of ammunition to members of wagon trains for protection from the various tribes, not just to buffalo hunters. As numerous accounts state this from different areas of the frontier I believe it to be true.

[Don McDowell]

There's more myth than truth to the Army giving away ammunition, and they never dealt out rifles. Some state and territorial militias would issue arms to folks in remote places, but mostly either muzzleloaders or shotguns, and the amount of ammuniton they included with those issue arms was minimal at best.
The Army had their own ammunition supply problems and weren't about to cut their supplies short.
At some posts mostly in the Texas/Kansas buffalo fields, IF you could proove to the commanding officer that you had a 50-70 rifle, and IF you could proove you had no means of getting your own ammo , they MIGHT issue you enough 50-70's from the ammo supply to get you to home, providing they had any 50-70 ammunition.
I've not come across any credible evidence they freely handed out any 45-70's to civilians not employeed as scouts or hunter/gathers.

[Ed in North Texas]

snip
The Army had their own ammunition supply problems and weren't about to cut their supplies short. snip

I recently read a book by a unit CO which detailed the problems he, and the Army, had in preparing for the Cuba invasion. The Army supply system prior to, and during preparation for, the Spanish-American War was unique (for want of a better word in a family friendly site). The Army of the late 1800s was about 47,000 (my best recollection from the book) troops in strength and, from a supply standpoint, was operated as if the entire Army was a single unit. Every request for supplies had to be sent to DC and the Quartermaster General (himself) had to sign off on the approval. It is highly doubtful that any Regular Army unit had sufficient supplies of anything to give arms or ammo away. And if they had enough, they sure wouldn't be likely to give it away when the supply system might not replace it.

Needless to say this system just about totally broke down when the Army went from 47,000 troop strength to about a quarter million for the Spanish-American War.

[Dragoon 45]

There's more myth than truth to the Army giving away ammunition, and they never dealt out rifles. Some state and territorial militias would issue arms to folks in remote places, but mostly either muzzleloaders or shotguns, and the amount of ammuniton they included with those issue arms was minimal at best.
The Army had their own ammunition supply problems and weren't about to cut their supplies short.
At some posts mostly in the Texas/Kansas buffalo fields, IF you could proove to the commanding officer that you had a 50-70 rifle, and IF you could proove you had no means of getting your own ammo , they MIGHT issue you enough 50-70's from the ammo supply to get you to home, providing they had any 50-70 ammunition.
I've not come across any credible evidence they freely handed out any 45-70's to civilians not employeed as scouts or hunter/gathers.

Don

Most of the accounts I read came from the immediate post Civil War period before the Buffalo hunts really got going. These accounts were in a collection of personal memoirs in the University of Oklahoma Library. I was doing some research for a term paper at the time on a different subject when I found them. Officially the Army may have never given away/sold arms or ammunition, but unofficially they did. There are just too many first person accounts that state they did both from the civilian and the military perspective to dismiss. The most frequently mentioned round was the 50-70, but also mentioned were the various Spencer cartridges. I read another account from Ft Supply, Indian Territory, written circa Fall 1876 that talked about issuing .45-70 ammunition to civilians during the scare immediately after the Custer Massacre.

The incident where I referred to where a trapdoor and 100 rds of ammo were issued to a wagon train members happened according to the account because political pressure was brought to bear when the Army could not provide an excort through Comanche Territory. The rifles were surplus .50-70 Trapdoors as was the ammo.

[1Shirt]

IMO, Straight wall cases are just sort of cool! Kind of nostalgic also I think. Other than revolver cases, only have 45-70, and 444 in long rifle cases, and 357 and 44 in lever guns. Cool-just cool!
1Shirt!:coffeecom

[Ed in North Texas]

Don

Most of the accounts I read came from the immediate post Civil War period before the Buffalo hunts really got going. These accounts were in a collection of personal memoirs in the University of Oklahoma Library. I was doing some research for a term paper at the time on a different subject when I found them. Officially the Army may have never given away/sold arms or ammunition, but unofficially they did. There are just too many first person accounts that state they did both from the civilian and the military perspective to dismiss. The most frequently mentioned round was the 50-70, but also mentioned were the various Spencer cartridges. I read another account from Ft Supply, Indian Territory, written circa Fall 1876 that talked about issuing .45-70 ammunition to civilians during the scare immediately after the Custer Massacre.

The incident where I referred to where a trapdoor and 100 rds of ammo were issued to a wagon train members happened according to the account because political pressure was brought to bear when the Army could not provide an excort through Comanche Territory. The rifles were surplus .50-70 Trapdoors as was the ammo.

It would appear that, for most of this, the Army was disposing of excess and obsolete rifles and ammunition. At this time I don't believe (though I could be mistaken) that the various state militias were supplied by the Feds (the Springfield Armory was able to make some commercial sales, as government demand allowed, up the 1930s IIRC), the states had to provide the weapons for their militia. With the Territories not having an independent source of funding, it isn't beyond possibility that the surplus .50-70 Springfields (and ammunition) were disposed of by distributing to certain civilians.

Just a thought about how this could have occurred.

Ed

[Don McDowell]

Yes they did hand out weapons and ammunition in a few instances for defensive purposes,that's never been questioned.
But anything handed to the buffalo hunters other than a very very small amount of obsolete munitions, would be seldom if ever.

[TXGunNut]

Supplying buffalo hunters with arms and munitions would make sense if it were part of a larger plan to destroy the way of life of the plains Indians and move them onto the reservations.