Round nosed bullets in a tubular magazine?

[RoyceP]

I guess if you want to be stupid and reload ammo that is unsafe we can't talk you out of it. Go ahead, do whatever.

[Mako]

Black River,
Sadly, Coffin Maker, RoyceP and the others are right, not because that is the "way it was always done" but because it is not safe. So let's shed some light on this:

I think something that is being overlooked in this “discussion” is the difference between Large Rifle and Large Pistol Primers.

When discussing the .30 WCF cartridge, remember it uses Large Rifle primers that have a cup thickness of .027”.  The Large Pistol primers “all” have a cup thickness of .020”.  That thickness is 26% thinner than the rifle primers (plus some pistol primers are softer than others, I can attest to that).

These are the facts:

• We are talking about Round Nose Bullets  in .30 WCF.  We are not talking about spire points of any kind or plastic “Ballistic Tip” type of bullets.
• A rounded nose bullet in the .30 WCF rests against a relatively thick primer cup, so  we would expect less of a problem with that and with other Large Rifle Primer cartridges that are chambered in tubular magazine rifles.
• NONE of us shoot centerfire Rifle cartridges in standard Cowboy matches, we shoot “pistol catridges” in carbines and rifles.  This means we have to use Pistol Primers in any cartridge using a Large Primer (Large Rifle primers are too tall, the primer pocket in a rifle case is .007-.008” deeper.) You cannot use Large Rifle Primers in “Pistol Cartridges”) Therefore we have thinner primer cups for a less than flat nose bullet to push against.
• Don’t get this confused with Small Pistol and Small Rifle Primers, because YES, you can use Small Rifle Primers in Pistol Brass.  We used Small Rifle Primers in .38 Super, .38 Super Comp and 9x23 loads (back when Men were Men and we had a 175 Major Power Factor).  But, we could because the primer pocket depth is the same for Small Rifle and Small Pistol pockets. 
• Just so you know, Small Pistol Primers (including magnum) have an even thinner Primer cup, .017”.  So we used either standard Small Rifle Primers with .020” thick Primers and some pistols could set off the Magnum Small Rifle Primers (includes the CCI 41 for Mil-Spec ammo) with .025” thick cups.  All Small Magnum Rifle Primers have thicker cups.
• The worst case scenario for bullets hitting primers in a tubular magazine is someone dropping a magazine follower on a partially loaded 1860 Henry (Modern Centerfire reproduction) with less than flat nose bullets.  There have definitely been some magazine tube explosions. 

Winchester has not and never will advocate, recommend or allude to using a round nose bullet in a tubular magazine for a “pistol caliber” weapon.  I know the .30-30 well, I have four Model ‘94s in .30-30 (mine was made in the ‘50s but the others are prewar)  All have used Remington, Winchester and UMC ammunition over the years, both flat point and everything else, silver tips, power points, core-lokt, Lubaloy, you name it.  Entire family shot them, I have them all now and never heard tale of anyone even every hearing about a magazine tube exploding. I also never heard of trouble with ‘73s and ‘92s we had.  All of the ammo I inherited for these pistol caliber rifles and carbines had flat nose bullets.  Was that chance?  I think not, it's what was sold for them.

Even with all of my family experience with .30 WCF using in many cases round nose bullets you will never see me use, advocate or even hint that you can use less than a flat nose bullet in a pistol caliber tubular magazine carbine/rifle.

So as Coffin Maker and RoyceP and all of the others counsel, why take a chance with a pistol caliber tubular magazine carbine/rifle?  It’s not like there is a dearth of flat nose bullets out there for them.  And please don't add to the confusion (that's my job...)

~Mako

[Black River Smith]

Mako,

Go back to my #14 post and read the 1st line. You are the only one here to give an analytical statement that can be used in order to make a logical justification.  Not just that is the way WE say it is and you have to accept it or you are stupid.  I never saw or remember seeing this factor mentioned in this posting or any posting about round nose bullets.

Thanks for that relevant info. that I never looked up before trying to question and justify my argument line.  Nor had I ever read in any of the reloading manuals that I have and it is ssseveral.  Even Venturino, in his "Shooting Lever guns of the Old West" book used only the default statement (page 135) --"As stressed in many places in this book, only a flatnose bullet should be used with any tubular magazine lever action.  The .38 Special has mild recoil, but a roundnose bullet, especially a hard cast one, could set off a primer in the magazine".  All this with no real reasoning or justification for the statement.  Even his blanket statement (and many others peoples) was wrong and the 30WCF cartridge is my proof.  When he gets to talking about the 30-30WCF page 219, he writes -- "Every bullet manufacturer has a proper .30-30 bullets with either round or soft nose".  A total contradiction to his statement in the 38 Special section.

Mako I will still go with your quantifiable info.

Thank you very much.

RoyceP,

You need to go back into my posting and reread, especial the statements where I say I do use only the original Winchester designed bullets for 44/40, 38/40, 32/20, 45/60, 40/60 in Winchester molds, just because I can and like to. I even load the 30-30, 44Mag & 56/50 with flat nose bullet for image.  I recently bought a 357 rifle for fun and Yes I did work up a Lyman 358311 with flat nose added; a Lyman 358665 bullet; and a Lee 358-125 bullet.  Mainly because I like the looks and functions.  Because of Mako's info I will now put a flat nose on the Cramer 358-158-10B molded bullet and work up a similar loading.  And the reason is only because of Mako's response.

What I cannot, nor would not just take, is an arbitrary, You Must for everything (when history shows something else existed, see above), without having a Why like Mako provided.  I am not a Stupid follower with 30+ years of safe reloading and shooting.  What I cannot accept is just telling a new shooter or reloader you just have to without telling them the Why's or Wherefores.

Thanks

editted while Abilene was posting.  Just added the Venturino book info.

[Advertising]

[Abilene]

I'll admit my ignorance, I never knew 30-30 used large primers.  Obviously I never owned one nor reloaded it.  I had heard that they didn't have a problem with pointy bullets because the taper of the cartridges kept the bullet point from lining up with the primer in front of it.  I don't know if that part is true at all or not.  But thanks for edumacating me, Mako!

[Hair Trigger Jim]

I'll admit my ignorance, I never knew 30-30 used large primers.  Obviously I never owned one nor reloaded it.  I had heard that they didn't have a problem with pointy bullets because the taper of the cartridges kept the bullet point from lining up with the primer in front of it.  I don't know if that part is true at all or not.  But thanks for edumacating me, Mako!

When I lay .30-30 cartridges out flat in a line (and I'm using factory cartridges for this test), the points don't line up with the center of the next primer (see picture below).  They kind of straddle the edge of the primer pocket.  I assume they'd be similar in a magazine tube, although it would be dangerous to take that assumption too far.  For instance, spitzer points could still find their way into the outer part of the primer and set it off.

These also don't really have "flat points" although they are recent (a few years ago) Remington factory Core-Lokt loads.  The box doesn't even say flat point (just "soft point").  About half of them seem to have a small flat meplat little more than half the diameter of a large rifle primer.  The other half are really more of a round nose.  Not a lot of consistency even in the same box of ammo.  Obviously Remington doesn't consider this a long-range or target cartridge!

So a flat point doesn't seem strictly necessary for the .30-30, but that doesn't mean it isn't necessary for other cartridges.

And every .30-30 case I've seen (or noticed, anyway) used large rifle primers.  But that doesn't mean that it always has, all the time.  For example, we usually think of .38-40 as using large pistol primers, but I have some old  Peters cases that are sized for small primers.  But I also have a box of Peters .38-40 with large primers.  I've also heard that .44-40 cases can sometimes be found with large rifle primer pockets, not large pistol.  (After all, it started out as a rifle cartridge.)  I've never seen or heard of that with .38-40 but it's probably possible.

But I digress.  However, I would be pretty surprised to find a .30-30 with a small primer pocket, and that may be part of the reason they're safe with some round-nose bullets (provided they're not too pointy).

[Mako]

Jim,
You'll find that when the next cartridge to feed to the lifter is stopped by the link, that it sits very straight in the magazine tube.  The magazine spring pushes on that bullet nose and it normally straightens up relative to the magazine axis after "bottoming out".  Most won't know this unless they have worked on the '92s and '94s and/or had to write up a Design and Function explanation as part of their training.  That cartridge could easily be nose to center of the tail on the cartridge in front of it.  The rest do sit helter skelter especially with bottle neck cases.  There are cutaway rifles with a slotted magazine tube used for training and understanding the workings and you can see that jumble of noses up and down or left and right beyond the first shell against the link.

I've read the discussions about the older cases having "rifle depth" pockets, the truth of the matter is that there was NOT a standardized primer to begin with, Everyone made or had their design made.  I knew someone who dissected a lot of shells and the primer thicknesses were all over the place.  They were being used in low pressure Black Powder shells and you could get away with almost any thickness.  Plus a lot of them were copper instead of the brass alloys used later.  Balloon head cases, primers all over the map, it wasn't until the 20th century it really stabilized.

~Mako