metallic bullets

[Jay Bradley]

According to the importer the replicas currently being imported can use metallic bullets and smokeless powder.  Anyone try doing that with a 56-50?
Also how many cartridges were there:  56-56, 56-50, etc

[Sedalia Dave]

I know of no source of jacketed bullets that would work in a 56-50

[RattlesnakeJack]

Even pure lead bullets are "metallic" … it just isn't a very hard metal. Assuming you really meant jacketed, as Sedalia Dave has surmised, I also am unaware of any jacketed bullets suitable for loading the likes of .56-.50 cartridges.

If, on the other hand, this refers to the "pistol caliber" Spencer reproductions, such as those chambered in .45 Colt, I suppose it may well be possible.

As for original cartridge chamberings of Spencers, the first thing to keep in mind is that, unlike most "hyphnenated number" cartridge designations of that era (in which, generally, the first number was the nominal fractional inch bullet diameter and the second number was the black powder charge in grains - example .50-70) in the Spencer cartridge designations the first number was the outside diameter of the cartridge case just ahead of the rim and the second number was the outer diameter of the cartridge case at the mouth.  No help there with the actual caliber of the firearm (for example, in a .56-.56 cartridge, the effective bullet diameter is only nominally about .52") nor any indication of powder charge.

Note, by the way, that to recognize (and emphasize) this odd basis for Spencer cartridge designations, I try to make it a habit to write the cartridge designations as they were originally - i.e. the two cartridge case diameters, both expressed as a decimal fraction of an inch and separated by a hyphen - such as ".56-.56" - rather than the more commonly seen versions with no decimal in front of the second number.  (Even the labelling of most period commercially-loaded cartridges for Spencers seems to have quickly adopted this "incorrect" way of describing the cartridges … and that method - e.g. ".56-56" - seems now to be the alsmost invariable norm.)

The standard cartridges were the .56-.56 and .56-.52.  From my reading, the .56-.50 is essentially the same as the .56-.52, but is the designation given to the cartridge (by the Frankfort Arsenal, if I recall correctly) which redesigned it somewhat (lengthening the case and going to a completely inside-lubricaed bullet) and changed the designation so that the second number indicates the nominal bullet diameter instead of the outer case-mouth diameter.  Finally, at some point a sort of early "wildcat" cartridge was developed as the .56-.46, a necked down version of the .56-.56.

[Advertising]

[El Supremo]

Hello, Jay Bradley:

May I please share some information:

Gun bores are designed for intended cartridges. The bullet type, such as jacketed, unjacketed/bare lead alloy, etc, velocity, powder type, such as smokeless or traditional black powder and its "substitutes", and powder fouling, are usually reflected in rifling groove depth and rifling twist rate. These often involve compromises so a wider variety of these can work well enough.  But, compromise can introduce accuracy issues.

While not absolute, rifling groove depth is shallower for jacketed bullets primarily designed for smokeless powder.  Bores primarily for black powder and "naked" bullets have relatively deeper grooves to minimize fouling accuracy issues. 

Gun makers consider these and often select a rifling groove depth that will accommodate both jacketed and unjacketed bullets and powder fouling factors.  The problem arises when the shooter encounters a barrel specifically designed for one intended bullet and powder combination to the exclusion of most others

One gun maker's Customer Support technicians shared that their fine lever action 1800's era replica had quite shallow, .003" deep rifling grooves, and while chambered for cartridges usually using unjacketed bullets, the bore was deliberately set for jacketed bullets and smokeless powder.  Unjacketed bullets with black powder would be less accurate. I do not know if they changed groove depth, but that particular, otherwise impressively made rifle was not popular with cast bullet shooters.

Our Forum includes experienced members who have shared much.  Their information can be found by Searching topics and reading all their Threads/Posts. The info's here, it just has to be dug out and studied because short answers can exclude other related factors and fresh info may be added.

Please keep asking.
Smiles.
El Supremo/Kevin Tinny