Why is a "38" not a 38?

[adcoch1]

So I just saw a post about 38's and the guy made reference to playing with them and then went on to list some mold sizes, not a single one over .360. Makes me wonder why I never have asked why a .357 bore is titled a "38"?

Sent from my LGLS740 using Tapatalk

[georgerc]

I guess back when they came up with the 38, which later became 38 long than 38 special, than 357mag/max, well they weren't using micrometers, maybe just eyeballed it yeahhh that looks about a .38 we'll call it that.

[georgerc]

ahhh, didn't know that

[BK7saum]

Frim wikipedia

The .38 Short Colt (.38 SC) / .38 Short Center Fire (.38 SCF) was a heeled bullet cartridge intended for metallic cartridge conversions of the .36 cal cap & ball Colt 1851 Navy Revolver from the American Civil War era.[1]

Later, this cartridge was fitted with a 0.359" diameter inside-lubricated bullet in the 125–135 grain range.[2][3]

The original 38s were 0.38" and heeled like a 22 rimfire to be the same diameter as the case.

[adcoch1]

I was wondering the same thing about heeled bullets, was just about to go Google it but then I saw the above post. The development of 357 mag makes sense, but as a lover of all things 44(.429) I have a tendency to ignore .357 stuff up until recently...

Sent from my LGLS740 using Tapatalk

[country gent]

Handguns 38 are .357 dia for the above reasons but 38 caliber rifles ( 375 H+H, 38-55, 375 win ect) are .375 or there abouts. Same with 25 caliber pistols are .251 and rifles are .257 dia. 45 cal pistols are .451-.452 and 45 caliber rifles are nominally .457. Things can get interesting

[Thumbcocker]

Always wondered why the Govt. didn't standardize .45 rifle and pistol bore diameters so they could use the same reamers etc. like the Russians did with Mosigns and Tokerov pistols

[adcoch1]

I've tracked down most of these variations over the years, and getting back into reloading has made this even more so, but I really must have had my head in the sand about the 38 development to have missed the heeled bullet thing. I probably just forgot, but I'm too young to be blaming my memory yet...

Sent from my LGLS740 using Tapatalk

[Ballistics in Scotland]

This drawing is for the .32 Long Rimfire and .32 Long Rifle, but it shows the transition which many centrefires made. Some, not all, employed a hollow base or fairly wide lubegrooves to permit passable, though perhaps not really good, accuracy with the wrong version.

179220

The early .38s used a case and bullet which were both close to .38in. Then the .38S&W and .38 Special used a .357 bullet, matching a revolver throat and groove diameter of about .357in., in the same case. So they didn't change the name.

When they lengthened it to a magnum version, however, pressures were much higher, and S&W advertised it as suitable only for men of powerful physique. With all sorts of chamberings around, it was an extremely important safety issue to deter people from using the new ammunition in guns not expressly built for it. Changing the name was part of that. We see the same thing with the .375 Winchester, which could be fired in a rifle built for, and only safe with, the .38-55.

[Blackwater]

As I understand it, and there are many stories and theories, the original cap n' ball revolvers were mostly ".36 caliber," with groove diameters of near .360". They shot round balls of .380" diameter, but the guns were called "36 caliber." Then, when we changed over to brass cartridges rather than loose powder and caps, the barrels were used as is, and the bullet size reduced to match the barrels. They no longer had to be larger than the groove diameter to shoot accurately. Somehow, and I don't recall how, they began calling them "38's," because the old balls had been .380 cal. in the cap n' ball guns. It's pretty confusing, and as with many historical things, it's very hard to know what the real story is, but I've seen it, and can't remember. That's what I remember of it, anyway.

[JeffinNZ]

So I just saw a post about 38's and the guy made reference to playing with them and then went on to list some mold sizes, not a single one over .360. Makes me wonder why I never have asked why a .357 bore is titled a "38"?

Sent from my LGLS740 using Tapatalk

Originally they were when the cartridges were loaded with outside lubricated bullets with a heel. Think about the .22RF. The bullet is .22 nominal the same as the outside of the case and uses a reduced diameter heel (.214) that fits inside the case mouth. When inside lubricated (what we use now) bullets were adopted the diameter of the bullet had to be reduced to fit inside the case so the inside diameter of the case dictated the bullet diameter whereas prior to that the outside case diameter did.

The .44-40 is a really good example. Modern bullets for the .44-40 will be nominal .428 to fit inside the case. Originally they would have been .44 nominal.

You will notice my liberal use of the word 'nominal'. This is because tolerances in the past were generous.

[dtknowles]

I don't think we are getting the whole story here yet. The 1851 was a 36 caliber handgun and the modern 38's are 36 caliber handguns, the only real .38's were the .38 colts with healed bullets and they still came out the barrel of the 1851 conversions as 36's right?

I think Smith and Wesson called them .38 for marketing because if you called them .36's then they would be smaller than the .38 Colts. Nobody wanted to be smaller.

Has anyone slug the bore of an old Colt New Line or Lightning in .38 Long Colt, what do those barrels run are any of them over .370 inches. I don't imagine shooting a .375 healed bullet down a .380 bore worked very well.

There were rifles in .38 rimfire or .38 Colt too, what were those barrels groove diameter.

Tim

[dragon813gt]

If everything went to metric I would be happy. 9mm and 10mm just make sense ;)

[Hickory]

The cap and ball revolvers in 36 caliber were just that, . . .36 caliber.
When S&W patented the brass self-contained cartridge this locked out all others until the parent expired. When the patent ran out there was a scramble by a lot of arms manufacturers to build cartridge guns. Manufacturer such as Colt had a lot of cap&ball revolves and parts on hand when this happened. To utilize the guns and parts, the first cartridge guns were open top just like the cap & ball revolvers were. The cylinders were also cap & ball cylinders modified to accept the cartridges. Because these cylinders were bored straight through, the cartridges were loaded with heeled bullets, just like the 22 rimfire.
When Colt introduced the 1873 Peacemaker, they kept the same bore & groove diameters as the cap & ball revolvers. They improve the cylinder by adding a forcing cone and the move away from heeled bullet began.

There is more to tell but I'll let others do that.

[wyofool]

If everything went to metric I would be happy. 9mm and 10mm just make sense ;)
Sure but what fun would that be!

[Oyeboten]

If everything went to metric I would be happy. 9mm and 10mm just make sense ;)

I'l soon be loading a bunch of 11.5x23R, and some more 7.94x33.4R, if that makes you feel any better.

[TXGunNut]

A 38 handgun is most likely a .36 bore, but then again so is a 35 rifle. A 38 rifle could be a .375 or a .380, depends on who made it and when. A 44 is much closer to a .43 caliber but I guess "44" sounds better; almost as cool as "444". Some 32 cartridges are closer to .31 but the 32 Special is a bit over .32. In the grand old BP carbine/pistol cartridges the 25-20 shoots a .257 boolit, the 32-20 a .313 boolit, the 44-40 a .429 boolit and the 38-40 shoots a .401 boolit so this confusion has been going on for a long time. It all makes sense until you start reloading (or more accurately, measuring) these cartridges with misleading names.
Forgot to mention my favorite caliber, the 45. I have a percussion revolver (or two) that shoot .451 round balls, but they're not "45's". Some of my 45 handguns shoot .452 boolits, others .454. My 45 rifles generally shoot .46 caliber boolits.

:coffee:

[dtknowles]

......................When Colt introduced the 1873 Peacemaker, they kept the same bore & groove diameters as the cap & ball revolvers. They improve the cylinder by adding a forcing cone and the move away from heeled bullet began..............

The forcing cone is not in the cylinder it is in the barrel. You are thinking about the throat.

Tim

[Malamute]

Always wondered why the Govt. didn't standardize .45 rifle and pistol bore diameters so they could use the same reamers etc. like the Russians did with Mosigns and Tokerov pistols

Didn't really matter, the rifles and handguns weren't made in the same factories.


As I understand it, and there are many stories and theories, the original cap n' ball revolvers were mostly ".36 caliber," with groove diameters of near .360". They shot round balls of .380" diameter, but the guns were called "36 caliber." Then, when we changed over to brass cartridges rather than loose powder and caps, the barrels were used as is, and the bullet size reduced to match the barrels. They no longer had to be larger than the groove diameter to shoot accurately. Somehow, and I don't recall how, they began calling them "38's," because the old balls had been .380 cal. in the cap n' ball guns. It's pretty confusing, and as with many historical things, it's very hard to know what the real story is, but I've seen it, and can't remember. That's what I remember of it, anyway.

The bore was 36 cal (bore being the size of the hole before rifling was cut, and what ends up being the tops of the lands of the rifling), the groove diameter was 375-380".


The cap and ball revolvers in 36 caliber were just that, . . .36 caliber.
When S&W patented the brass self-contained cartridge this locked out all others until the parent expired. When the patent ran out there was a scramble by a lot of arms manufacturers to build cartridge guns. Manufacturer such as Colt had a lot of cap&ball revolves and parts on hand when this happened. To utilize the guns and parts, the first cartridge guns were open top just like the cap & ball revolvers were. The cylinders were also cap & ball cylinders modified to accept the cartridges. Because these cylinders were bored straight through, the cartridges were loaded with heeled bullets, just like the 22 rimfire.
When Colt introduced the 1873 Peacemaker, they kept the same bore & groove diameters as the cap & ball revolvers. They improve the cylinder by adding a forcing cone and the move away from heeled bullet began.

There is more to tell but I'll let others do that.


A 38 handgun is most likely a .36 bore, but then again so is a 35 rifle. A 38 rifle could be a .375 or a .380, depends on who made it and when. A 44 is much closer to a .43 caliber but I guess "44" sounds better; almost as cool as "444". Some 32 cartridges are closer to .31 but the 32 Special is a bit over .32. In the grand old BP carbine/pistol cartridges the 25-20 shoots a .257 boolit, the 32-20 a .313 boolit, the 44-40 a .429 boolit and the 38-40 shoots a .401 boolit so this confusion has been going on for a long time. It all makes sense until you start reloading (or more accurately, measuring) these cartridges with misleading names.
Forgot to mention my favorite caliber, the 45. I have a percussion revolver (or two) that shoot .451 round balls, but they're not "45's". Some of my 45 handguns shoot .452 boolits, others .454. My 45 rifles generally shoot .46 caliber boolits.

:coffee:

It is confusing, but you hit the nail on the head when you said 36's bore (not groove) was 36 cal. I believe its the same for the 44 percussion guns. England did the same with their 303 rifle, the bore was .303", the groove diameter was .311-ish.

[Malamute]

Originally they were when the cartridges were loaded with outside lubricated bullets with a heel. Think about the .22RF. The bullet is .22 nominal the same as the outside of the case and uses a reduced diameter heel (.214) that fits inside the case mouth. When inside lubricated (what we use now) bullets were adopted the diameter of the bullet had to be reduced to fit inside the case so the inside diameter of the case dictated the bullet diameter whereas prior to that the outside case diameter did.

The .44-40 is a really good example. Modern bullets for the .44-40 will be nominal .428 to fit inside the case. Originally they would have been .44 nominal.

You will notice my liberal use of the word 'nominal'. This is because tolerances in the past were generous.

If I understand what you meant, then you were assuming all cartridges were heeled bullets at some point, which isn't correct. 44-40 never was, nor was 45 Colt and most other cartridges designed from the ground up instead of being a stopgap like the 38 colt for percussion conversions. 22 LR is the lone holdout of heeled bullets today, most other incarnations of them fell by the wayside. I think the 38 Short Colt and 41 Long Colt at the only ones that ended up having chambers and ammo change over time to inside lubed type after originally being heeled.

[Hickory]

The forcing cone is not in the cylinder it is in the barrel. You are thinking about the throat.

Tim
Tim, you are correct.
And I do know the difference.

[9.3X62AL]

38 Special and 357 Magnum case diameter is .379". FWIW.

Trying to compare cartridge and caliber nomenclature to logic and consistency is like trying to nail Jello to your dining room wall.

[Blackwater]

As to the old cap n' ballers, their barrels WERE @ .36 caliber. When shooting RB's, it's necessary (if they're not patched) to use an oversized (.375-.380") ball so that the ball is swaged down a mite, and the rifling has enough surface to grip the ball. The cap n' ball pistols are not like muzzle loading rifles, where the ball has to be a bit smaller than the groove diameter, and even the bore diameter. It's the swaging down of an oversized ball that makes the cap n' ball guns more accurate, and some can be amazingly accurate if fed the right stuff in just the right amounts.

But generally, in the end we're left with exactly what Al said above, which is jello all over the floor, and everywhere else. I think much of the naming of ctgs. is founded in what the folks making them think will sell. The .280 Rem./7mm. Express Rem. is just one sample of that type thing. And too, we shooters have pet names that we use for guns, and calibers, and the Madison Ave. Advertiser types don't shoot, and we get all sorts of weird ideas coming in from non-shooters. It's really pretty much a madhouse of terminologies that often don't jive with the nomenclature. I quit trying to figure it all out long ago, and just use or try what looks good or interesting ... or sometimes just catches my eye. It's the way of a real shooter. Too many neat guns around to waste time on stuff that can't possibly be figured out. But that's just me, I guess.

[Oyeboten]

Indeed and the old .44 Cap & Ball Revolvers, the Cylinder Bores were almost all 45.

.450, .451, .454, etc.

My circa 1864 Remington .44, the Cylinder Bores are .451 and so is the Groove to Groove in the Barrel.

[Mk42gunner]

Slight thread drift here, but the reason the modern .44's use a .429"-ish projectile is because of S&W's Russian contract. The first S&W .44's were in what is now called the .44 American, and used a heeled bullet. The Russians wanted an inside lubed cartridge so the projectile diameter was decreased to fit in the case.

Kind of funny, the .44's use a 43 caliber bullet, while the .43 Spanish rifle round uses closer to a .44 at .439".

Robert

[Ballistics in Scotland]

The cap and ball revolvers required a ball slightly larger than the chamber mouth to produce a belt on the ball to engage the rifling better, and to prevent a chainfire caused by hot gases leaking past the bullet into the powder charge. Once inside lubed cases came along, they required a case larger in diameter than the bullet. There is no real connection between these two things.

Smith and Wesson didn't patent the self-contained cartridge in general. Their most important patent was Rollin White's, which they bought. This was intended for a cylinder closed off at the rear with a thick card wad, a device so murderously dangerous that it is unlikely anyone ever tried it. But it gave Smith and Wesson the rights to the bored-through cylinder - in America, as Eugène Lefaucheux had patented the bored-through cylinder in France the year before Rollin White. Even one of the most valuable Colts, the Thuer conversion, must be considered an evasion revolver, as its special cartridges had to be inserted from the front and held by friction.

Both heel-bullet and inside lubed bullets were known when Colt introduced its first bored-through revolver, the Richards-Mason conversions (most likely from factory stocks rather than customers guns) of the 1860 Army and others. But there was a very good reason why the heel bullet type had to be used. I have a Richard-Mason conversion of the 1862 Pocket Police, which as a cap and ball had already undergone a calibre increase from .31 to .36, permitted by more modern steels, in just the same way as the 1851 Navy became the 1860 Army on what is basically the same frame. It is now a .38 rimfire, marked both .38 and .36.

This leaves the cylinder so thin over the chamber that I am convinced it sometimes blew out with normal loads. It wouldn't be a very dangerous failure, and quite possibly wouldn't even stop you shooting. But it made the use of an inside-lubed cartridge for that bore and frame completely impossible.

[Bent Ramrod]

It isn't spelled out explicitly but I got the sense, in reading Shooting and Fishing, that the ".38 Special" was a special bore, perhaps inspired by some unnamed gun crank. In those days, the Military and Civilian shooters used to shoot shoulder to shoulder in the same matches, for the same credit. The military officers were compelled to use issue pistols and ammunition, which was the 0.379" or so groove diameter Colt's D.A., firing the .38 Long inside-lubricated bullet, but the civilians could shoot whatever they wanted.

Contrary to Old West legend, in those days, probably 80% of the best shots and gun experts in the country could be contained in a circle of 150 miles radius centered in Boston, Massachusetts. Some of those competitors had the financial wherewithal and the competitive instinct to seek out whatever technical edge they could get to win. (The ancients were surprisingly modern in a lot of ways.:mrgreen:) Somebody surely would have noticed the fact that a .357" or so inside lubricated bullet rattling down a .379" barrel was not conducive to the best accuracy, and there were plenty of gunsmiths in the area who would make a "special" barrel up for them. There were a lot of closely guarded secrets to success in the old days, some of which were disclosed (like "duplexing" black powder charges) and some not.

For no stated reason, the Military suddenly announced late in the century, that no more Civilian/Military matches would be fired, at least officially. Coincidentally, the Military guys were not generally the winners in the match results published by the various gun clubs. A few years later, Smith and Wesson announced a new chambering, the ".38 S&W Military," perhaps in hopes of edging Colt out in a military contract with a more accurate revolver. By then, of course, complaints about the .38 calibers were coming in from the Philippine occupation forces, and the Military was looking for an increase in caliber. The .38 S&W Military became the .38 S&W Special a little after that.

I've not read Jenks' History of Smith and Wesson; there might be a complete contradiction of the above in there. But based on the reading I've done, the sequence above might well be the reason the manufacturers went to a "Special" 0.357" barrel for 0.357" inside lubricated bullets. And then, of course, improved both bullet and cartridge.

[Tackleberry41]

Try explaining these things to non gun people.

Like why a box of '44cal' round ball on the shelf say .451 cal, yet somehow a modern 44 cal is really 43 cal. Or why 38 is 357 but 357 is...357. Or who made 45 pistols 454, but 45cal rifles 458. Somebody somewhere had to sit down and designate such things. Was a time when 3 digits were british, tho oddly a 303 is really 311, sure makes sense. Did 311 Enfield make to much sense? And the US everything was 2 digits, then everybody else was metric. Want to have some fun try explaining inch calibers to someone who grew up using only the metric system. Im still trying to figure out if Britain even has rulers or tape measures since my 577/450 martini is actually .460 cal, but can be as big as .472 depending on the particular rifle.

We still use some rather archaic stuff like dram equivalents.

[dtknowles]

..................Contrary to Old West legend, in those days, probably 80% of the best shots and gun experts in the country could be contained in a circle of 150 miles radius centered in Boston, Massachusetts........................

I enjoyed your post and had many good points. I suggest that Springfield or Worcester would be more accurate than Boston. If you use Boston you include a lot of the Gulf of Maine and not enough of Western Mass. Hey, I am prejudiced, I was born in Springfield. It was a very special place and not just for the Armory.

Tim

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

If everything went to metric I would be happy. 9mm and 10mm just make sense ;)
I've been on the Metric bandwagon since I was in high school (in the late 1970s), and was told that is the direction we are going :veryconfu :veryconfu :veryconfu

[Malamute]

As to the old cap n' ballers, their barrels WERE @ .36 caliber. When shooting RB's, it's necessary (if they're not patched) to use an oversized (.375-.380") ball so that the ball is swaged down a mite, and the rifling has enough surface to grip the ball...

The original Colts Ive heard of had .375"-ish groove diameters. Which had .360" groove diameters?




It isn't spelled out explicitly but I got the sense, in reading Shooting and Fishing, that the ".38 Special" was a special bore, perhaps inspired by some unnamed gun crank. In those days, the Military and Civilian shooters used to shoot shoulder to shoulder in the same matches, for the same credit. The military officers were compelled to use issue pistols and ammunition, which was the 0.379" or so groove diameter Colt's D.A., firing the .38 Long inside-lubricated bullet, but the civilians could shoot whatever they wanted.


For no stated reason, the Military suddenly announced late in the century, that no more Civilian/Military matches would be fired, at least officially. Coincidentally, the Military guys were not generally the winners in the match results published by the various gun clubs. A few years later, Smith and Wesson announced a new chambering, the ".38 S&W Military," perhaps in hopes of edging Colt out in a military contract with a more accurate revolver. By then, of course, complaints about the .38 calibers were coming in from the Philippine occupation forces, and the Military was looking for an increase in caliber. The .38 S&W Military became the .38 S&W Special a little after that.

I've not read Jenks' History of Smith and Wesson; there might be a complete contradiction of the above in there. But based on the reading I've done, the sequence above might well be the reason the manufacturers went to a "Special" 0.357" barrel for 0.357" inside lubricated bullets. And then, of course, improved both bullet and cartridge.

Could you expand on the Colt models the military was using that had .379" groove diameter barrels? The 38 Long Colt had inside lubricated bullets in that period as far as I understand, if not from its inception. Some Smith & Wesson made guns were marked "38 military" (had one, and I believe a 38 spl wouldn't chamber all the way), but that was Smiths marking for 38 Long Colt guns in the period that it was the standard military revolver cartridge for a short time, not a different chambering altogether. The 38 Special was identical to the 38 Long Colt in every way except for length. The 38 name field was already pretty full by that time, considering the rimfires still in circulation, 38 WCF (38-40), 38 Short and Long Colt, and the short 38 S&W cartridge from the 1870s. The name 38 special was a marketing home run.

[dtknowles]

So it would seem that the early .38's were actually .38's. The .38 turning into 36's - .357's happened later and was S&W's fault. Cool except for 38-40 which should have been 40-40. I think Winchester missed the boat on that one.

Tim

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Try explaining these things to non gun people.

Like why a box of '44cal' round ball on the shelf say .451 cal, yet somehow a modern 44 cal is really 43 cal. Or why 38 is 357 but 357 is...357. Or who made 45 pistols 454, but 45cal rifles 458. Somebody somewhere had to sit down and designate such things. Was a time when 3 digits were british, tho oddly a 303 is really 311, sure makes sense. Did 311 Enfield make to much sense? And the US everything was 2 digits, then everybody else was metric. Want to have some fun try explaining inch calibers to someone who grew up using only the metric system. Im still trying to figure out if Britain even has rulers or tape measures since my 577/450 martini is actually .460 cal, but can be as big as .472 depending on the particular rifle.

We still use some rather archaic stuff like dram equivalents.

All around the world, inches or millimetres, the land diameter has been by far the commonest way of designating the calibre. In the case of the .303, except when it was made oversize, that has been the case. The .303 measurement is simply a conversion of the 7.7mm. used by Professor Hebler in Switzerland, who together with Colonel Rubin of the same country was the leading light in cartridge development at the time.

[Bent Ramrod]

I don't know much about the exact Colt model being used. It's my impression the Military ordered the double action revolver chambered for .38 Long, which was a 0.379" or so case and heeled bullet of the same diameter. However, they insisted on the inside lubricated bullet for cleanliness. This fitted into the inside of the case, which was about 0.359" diameter. The chambers were straight, I read, and the reason why people were worried that longer cartridges could chamber in them. The .357 Magnum case was lengthened to eliminate this possibility

With black powder, the hollow base bullets could expand enough to catch the rifling and give acceptable but not target accuracy. With the change to smokeless powder, the accuracy degraded further.

The magazine published one halfway decent target fired by a Lieutenant with the issue revolver and ammunition. It must truly have been "One of one thousand".

[PositiveCaster]

Bottom line - a cartridge's name may have little to do with its bullet diameter. Sometimes the name refers to the bore diameter, sometimes to the groove dimension, sometimes to something different.

.219 Zippper = .224"
.220 Swift = .224"

.243 WCF = .243"
6mm = .243"

.303 Savage = .308"
.303 Enfield = .312"

.38 Spl = .357"
.38-40 = .401"

.50 AE = .500"
.50 BMG =.510"

All that really matters is that we know the actual bullet diameter required. If you use a reliable reloading manual then there is no problem because nominal bullet dimensions are stated. An interesting historical discussion anyway.



.

[adcoch1]

This has been really fun guys, I never thought my light hearted musings would bring out so much interest, speculation, and history...

Sent from my LGLS740 using Tapatalk

[Geezer in NH]

Fun reading post Thanks all!! :drinks:

[TXGunNut]

So it would seem that the early .38's were actually .38's. The .38 turning into 36's - .357's happened later and was S&W's fault. Cool except for 38-40 which should have been 40-40. I think Winchester missed the boat on that one.

Tim


Or maybe 40-38, I dunno. I can't get anywhere near 38 grs FFFg into a Starline case but I suppose a balloon head case could have held 38 grs.

[Oyeboten]

Or maybe 40-38, I dunno. I can't get anywhere near 38 grs FFFg into a Starline case but I suppose a balloon head case could have held 38 grs.

You have to compress it...

Similarly, the original Semi Balloon Head Cases for the .38 Special, which began life as a Black Powder Cartridge, the original loading was 21.5 Grains of 3F Black Powder under a 158 Grain Round Nose Lead Bullet. Now, even with the 'period correct' semi Balloon Head Cases, one has to do some meaningful compresion to fit the .21.5 Grains in there for the Bullet to seat to the standard depth.

Modern .38 Special Solid Head Cases, one can get the original 21.5 Grains of BP in there and for a normal seating depth of the RNL 158 Grain Bullet, but one has to compress the charge a fair amount, which is some ways more compression of course, than for the same charge in a Semi Balloon Head Case.

I just loaded up a bunch of Semi Ballon Head and also new modern Solid Head Cases using the 21.5 Grains of BP and the 158 Grain Bullet, but, I have not been out to the Range to Chronograph them or compare them to see how they do.

[dtknowles]

Or maybe 40-38, I dunno. I can't get anywhere near 38 grs FFFg into a Starline case but I suppose a balloon head case could have held 38 grs.

How long is your drop tube and do you have a compression die?

Tim

[Texas by God]

All around the world, inches or millimetres, the land diameter has been by far the commonest way of designating the calibre. In the case of the .303, except when it was made oversize, that has been the case. The .303 measurement is simply a conversion of the 7.7mm. used by Professor Hebler in Switzerland, who together with Colonel Rubin of the same country was the leading light in cartridge development at the time.
Off topic but did Rubin design the first rimless cartridge or was it the German Rifle Commission? I figure you'll know. Best, Thomas.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

The .38 Special was for a very brief period available only in black powder. But that was in 1898, when the technology of smokeless powder in pistols was well developed. I think they always intended that that would become standard for the cartridge.

[TXGunNut]

How long is your drop tube and do you have a compression die?

Tim

I don't use a drop tube for pistol cartridges and I lump the 38-40 in with them along with the 45 Colt et al. The powders I generally use require little or no compression so I don't use a compression die. All kidding aside the 38-40 was developed with a 40 gr charge of BP so the most accurate description would have been "40-40".
I suppose one reason the 38-40 wasn't called the 40-40 was that when spoken it would sound too much like "44" and could lead to confusion. I prefer "44WCF", "38WCF", etc. but the generic name is more useful at times. I've read the early Winchesters were simply called "Winchesters" and for several years they were all 44's, until the 38WCF came along they didn't bother marking the chambering on the rifles.

[9.3X62AL]

I've read the early Winchesters were simply called "Winchesters" and for several years they were all 44's, until the 38WCF came along they didn't bother marking the chambering on the rifles.

I haven't (yet) handled an early-enough Win '73 example to note this absence of caliber marking. My 1897-made '73 has ".44 W.C.F." stamped on the barrel. There were 38/40 and 32/20 examples rolling around by 1897, so what you say makes a lot of sense. I guess nobody paid much attention to lawyers 120 years ago, which is another indication of good sense. Society did not suffer fools gladly in those less complicated times; these days, they seem to be grown and cultivated.

Speaking of the 38/40 WCF, it didn't set the world on fire as a revolver or rifle round, but its synthesized modern-day analog--the 40 S&W--is doing quite well. 180 grain 40 caliber bullet at 900-950 FPS sure does sound familiar to those acquainted with the 38/40 in a Colt single-action, and the 10mm does a pretty good imitation of the same 38/40 from a rifle barrel. (Both 38/40 performances refer to their 1880s-level/blackpowder loadings). When my old shop got around to adopting the 40 S&W in 1994, some of the caliber's cheerleaders went on at length about how it was uber-modern and a real trail-blazer. From this the reader can derive an idea of the depths of knowledge on display by many of our agency policy-makers, but I digress. I like and carry the caliber, in its rimless synthesized bottom-feeding form. The makers at least labeled their plagiarism correctly, after 100+ years of fol-de-rol and foo-fah-rah.

[dtknowles]

I don't use a drop tube for pistol cartridges and I lump the 38-40 in with them along with the 45 Colt et al. The powders I generally use require little or no compression so I don't use a compression die. All kidding aside the 38-40 was developed with a 40 gr charge of BP so the most accurate description would have been "40-40".
I suppose one reason the 38-40 wasn't called the 40-40 was that when spoken it would sound too much like "44" and could lead to confusion. I prefer "44WCF", "38WCF", etc. but the generic name is more useful at times. I've read the early Winchesters were simply called "Winchesters" and for several years they were all 44's, until the 38WCF came along they didn't bother marking the chambering on the rifles.

I just figured you could get closer to 40 grains of powder in the Starline brass if you used a drop tube and compression die. I would not know as I don't load black powder in any small cartridges.

Tim

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Off topic but did Rubin design the first rimless cartridge or was it the German Rifle Commission? I figure you'll know. Best, Thomas.

Rubin unless someone else had the idea, and it isn't generally known, well before the Commission produced its M1888 rifle. There were several purchases of rifles and ammunition by the British Magazine Rifle Committee, starting in 1885 with a rimless 7.5mm. round. At this stage it wasn't bottlenecked as we know it, but included a split brass ring in the neck, to hold a smallbore bullet. This was abandoned in favour of bottlenecking when the ring was found to sometimes come out, and either form a dangerous bore obstruction or prevent chambering of a new cartridge.

[TXGunNut]

Speaking of the 38/40 WCF...9.3X62AL

Only a few years of 1873's have un-marked elevators, the 38WCF came out in 1879. My 1873 was built in 1917, pretty much the last year of regular production. I've handled several "unmarked" 1873's, haven't found one I liked that I could afford yet, lol. The 1866's (and Henry's) were all 44RF so there was no confusion there, either. ;-) Those were the good ol' days, indeed.
Matter of fact, I fired a bit of 38WCF today. I picked up a nice circa 1915 1892 in Cody this past July and it's become a favorite plinker.
While we're committing extreme thread drift on an excellent thread I think we're on the same page with the 40 S&W. I wasn't terribly impressed as I was aware of the 38WCF at the time. I was totally wrong about the future of the round, I must admit. My "expert" opinion was that it was somewhere between two excellent auto pistol cartridges (9mm Para and 45ACP) with the good points of neither. In my opinion it was a flash in the pan and would be considered an oddity in a few years. Oh well, if you want a good laugh sometime ask me about my early assessment of the 17HMR.

[TXGunNut]

I just figured you could get closer to 40 grains of powder in the Starline brass if you used a drop tube and compression die. I would not know as I don't load black powder in any small cartridges.

Tim

I believe you're probably right. To be quite honest most of my 38WCF ammo these days is loaded over Unique.

[9.3X62AL]

Unique or Herco isn't a bad call at all for the 32/20, 38/40, or 44/40. I have 102 fresh Starline 44/40 hulls sitting atop my bench with CCI #300s installed, awaiting some powder-pouring and bullet-sizing. Herco will likely become my go-to fuel in 32/20 revolver loads, with SR-4756 being cashiered. Black powder will only appeal to me again as cartridge fuel if I get REALLY BORED.

Yeah, one never knows what the buying public will take a liking toward--or let fall flat on its face. How the 40 S&W took off while the 10mm and 41 Magnum kinda "sat there" is a poser, indeed. I just work here, though.