You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
reloading an odd cartridge 38-40-wcf rifle
- Thread starter georgehwbush
- Start date
Jim Watson
New member
Fourth one down
.38 Win '73 14000.
Pretty sure that is what we now and non-Winchester companies then call .38-40.
And .38 WHV '92 21000 is the hot load for same.
My CAS is an 1892 rifle that the previous owner had pounded with heavy loads but said was less accurate than his carbine. Turned out it was a rather rough rebore from .38 to .44. I had Redman reline it to .44 rather than .38 because i had already bought .44 reloading supplies and revolvers.
Unique has been the default Nitro For Black powder for a long time, but Alliant cutting off the commercial market has everybody scrambling for substitutes.
.38 Win '73 14000.
Pretty sure that is what we now and non-Winchester companies then call .38-40.
And .38 WHV '92 21000 is the hot load for same.
My CAS is an 1892 rifle that the previous owner had pounded with heavy loads but said was less accurate than his carbine. Turned out it was a rather rough rebore from .38 to .44. I had Redman reline it to .44 rather than .38 because i had already bought .44 reloading supplies and revolvers.
Unique has been the default Nitro For Black powder for a long time, but Alliant cutting off the commercial market has everybody scrambling for substitutes.
Ah. Thanks. I finally found a reference to it in this article. Apparently Marlin started stamping 38 W on their barrels chambered for this round in 1888 or 1889, and that seems to be the source of the second name.
The explanation for the discrepancy between the CIP pressure number I drew on (more exactly, 1150 Bar., or about 16,700 psi) and those used in the old table is simple. The modern CIP numbers are measured on their piezoelectric transducer pressure measuring system, while numbers on a table published in 1917 will be copper crusher readings, which were believed to accurately report psi at that time. That date precedes the earliest practical piezoelectric transducer for use in firearm pressure measurements. Of course, SAAMI's introduction of the CUP unit to distinguish psi-by-copper-crusher from psi-by-transducer was non-existent before the firearm pressure transducers were available to the industry.
The explanation for the discrepancy between the CIP pressure number I drew on (more exactly, 1150 Bar., or about 16,700 psi) and those used in the old table is simple. The modern CIP numbers are measured on their piezoelectric transducer pressure measuring system, while numbers on a table published in 1917 will be copper crusher readings, which were believed to accurately report psi at that time. That date precedes the earliest practical piezoelectric transducer for use in firearm pressure measurements. Of course, SAAMI's introduction of the CUP unit to distinguish psi-by-copper-crusher from psi-by-transducer was non-existent before the firearm pressure transducers were available to the industry.
georgehwbush
New member
well that may be true "Pretty sure that is what we now and non-Winchester companies then call .38-40." but the 73 winchester i have made by winchester in "?" last patent date mentioned is 1871, not sure when they built it, is plainly stamped 38-40 so i suspect that winchester called it a 38-40 back then. the listed 38 win may indeed be the same thing. and that is a safe "looking" pressure, for this old gun. i wonder what the pressure for 40grs ffg would be in that cartridge?
edit; though i doubt it will hold that much. a full case of water is only 38 grains and it is 40 cal bullet go figure...
edit; though i doubt it will hold that much. a full case of water is only 38 grains and it is 40 cal bullet go figure...
CAUTION: The following post (or a page linked to) includes or discusses loading data not covered by currently published sources of tested data for this cartridge (QuickLOAD or Gordon's Reloading Tool data is not professionally tested). USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The Firing Line, nor the staff of TFL assumes any liability for any damage or injury resulting from the use of this information.
Georgehwbush,
I you follow the link to the article I posted, you can see when the additional name was added.
If you look at this post, you will see a detailed description of black powder bulk density. Goex 3FG measured about 10% greater than the density of water when settled, which would be 41.8 grains when your 38-grain water capacity case is filled with it. You then must consider it is standard practice to compress black powder loads some. The Goex rifle load data includes a 40-grain charge under a 180-grain bullet for rifle, but don't include it in their handgun loads.
For pressure, I don't know. Unlike smokeless powder, adding more black powder doesn't always increase pressure. If the grains get packed tightly enough, it can actually slow the burn rate. I think this is because it is digressive burning. The progressive smokeless powders get the bullet moving and, therefore, the burning space expands well before the pressure peak, whereas a digressive burning powder starts out making gas fast, reaches its peak value earlier, and its rate of gas generation then slows as the grains burn down to a smaller surface area.
A guess: The only digressive powder I have in QuickLOAD is Bullseye. If I load it to match the velocity Goex gives for their lighter load (164-grain RNFP lead bullet seated 0.264" into the mouth of a max length case over 36 grains of powder), the peak pressure is 8,750 psi. and for a jacketed bullet the same size and weight and seating depth, 9,250 psi. For a 180-grain lead bullet seated 0.310" into the maximum length case, this method predicts 12,840 psi, and for a jacketed bullet of the same dimensions and seating depth, 13,360 psi.
Naturally, that won't be an exact conversion for BP pressures, but given the cartridge ratings, it's an approach that is not a grossly erroneous guess, I think.
Georgehwbush,
I you follow the link to the article I posted, you can see when the additional name was added.
If you look at this post, you will see a detailed description of black powder bulk density. Goex 3FG measured about 10% greater than the density of water when settled, which would be 41.8 grains when your 38-grain water capacity case is filled with it. You then must consider it is standard practice to compress black powder loads some. The Goex rifle load data includes a 40-grain charge under a 180-grain bullet for rifle, but don't include it in their handgun loads.
For pressure, I don't know. Unlike smokeless powder, adding more black powder doesn't always increase pressure. If the grains get packed tightly enough, it can actually slow the burn rate. I think this is because it is digressive burning. The progressive smokeless powders get the bullet moving and, therefore, the burning space expands well before the pressure peak, whereas a digressive burning powder starts out making gas fast, reaches its peak value earlier, and its rate of gas generation then slows as the grains burn down to a smaller surface area.
A guess: The only digressive powder I have in QuickLOAD is Bullseye. If I load it to match the velocity Goex gives for their lighter load (164-grain RNFP lead bullet seated 0.264" into the mouth of a max length case over 36 grains of powder), the peak pressure is 8,750 psi. and for a jacketed bullet the same size and weight and seating depth, 9,250 psi. For a 180-grain lead bullet seated 0.310" into the maximum length case, this method predicts 12,840 psi, and for a jacketed bullet of the same dimensions and seating depth, 13,360 psi.
Naturally, that won't be an exact conversion for BP pressures, but given the cartridge ratings, it's an approach that is not a grossly erroneous guess, I think.
georgehwbush
New member
unclenick; that's good info. thanks. and just to be clear i was answering jim not you in my previous post.
Savvy_Jack
New member
It was Marlin that got UMC (Union Metallic Cartridge Company) to change the 44 WCF to 44-40 for Marlin, same with the 38 WCF. The 44 WCF was listed in catalogs with different names depending on the manufacture.
Apparently UMC wanted to profit from everyone, so they made all manufactures happy.
UMC's catalogs listed the following "44-40" cartridge options.
U.M.C.s shop notes shows that they started headstamping "44-40" for Marlin in February 1890....but continued with other headstamp designations for other arms manufactures.
The 38 WCF was basically identical with identifications options just like the "44-40".
Both "rifle" cartridges were offered for use in rifles and revolvers, thus Winchester put them in a separate category in 1879, referred to as "pistol sized" (not to be confused with "pistol caliber"), short length cartridges. This was due to the increased popularity of the Winchester 73'...and Winchester (ammunition) put them in this category to offer a more liberal discount than was offered for the Military and Sporting cartridges.
As you can see from the chart I posted earlier, Winchester called the 44-40 and 38-40...in 1917...still as 38 Win. and 44 Win., of which loads were made for the Winchester 73', Revolvers and the HV loads for the Model 92' rifle.
Now as far as black powder charges...Winchester charged their 44 cartridges using WEIGHT and compressed the powder whatever amount needed to properly seat the bullet. UMC offered a 28gr charge in Oct 1904.
The Winchester 73' was introduced in late 1873' (Sept) with only about 16 rifles being shipped by the end of the year.
Apparently UMC wanted to profit from everyone, so they made all manufactures happy.
UMC's catalogs listed the following "44-40" cartridge options.
U.M.C.s shop notes shows that they started headstamping "44-40" for Marlin in February 1890....but continued with other headstamp designations for other arms manufactures.
The 38 WCF was basically identical with identifications options just like the "44-40".
Both "rifle" cartridges were offered for use in rifles and revolvers, thus Winchester put them in a separate category in 1879, referred to as "pistol sized" (not to be confused with "pistol caliber"), short length cartridges. This was due to the increased popularity of the Winchester 73'...and Winchester (ammunition) put them in this category to offer a more liberal discount than was offered for the Military and Sporting cartridges.
As you can see from the chart I posted earlier, Winchester called the 44-40 and 38-40...in 1917...still as 38 Win. and 44 Win., of which loads were made for the Winchester 73', Revolvers and the HV loads for the Model 92' rifle.
Now as far as black powder charges...Winchester charged their 44 cartridges using WEIGHT and compressed the powder whatever amount needed to properly seat the bullet. UMC offered a 28gr charge in Oct 1904.
The Winchester 73' was introduced in late 1873' (Sept) with only about 16 rifles being shipped by the end of the year.