Round nosed bullets in a tubular magazine?

[Gabriel Law]

Round nose bullets in a tubular magazine:  can a person get away with it, or is there likely to be a detonation?

[Abilene]

"Likely" is a relative term.  I would say not "likely" but certainly possible.  I have read numerous first-hand accounts of magazine detonations from using round nose ammo.

[Gabriel Law]

Thanks...was likely just looking for confirmation.  Safety is important to me, so I'll stick to RNFP bullets in my rifle.  thanks.

[Advertising]

[Coffinmaker]

  Gabriel 

Just to "Pile On" to Abilene's post, I have actually seen the results of  two magazine detonations.  It twern't pretty.  And I do agree with Abilene.  A magazine detonation may not be "highly" likely, they certainly happen.  Round Nose in a tubular magazine be a "No No" fer sure.

[Gabriel Law]

I took out a single bullet set it on the tail of my machinist's vise, and gave it a tap with a ball peen hammer.  That created a flat about the same size as a primer.  Would that make using these bullets OK?

[Coffinmaker]

  Gabriel 

I don't know how many of these "round nose" you have, but that sounds like an awful lot of work for not much gain.  Pull Bullet > Whack Bullet > Put Bullet back in cartridge > Crimp cartridge??

Perfectly useable for revolvers.  For your rifles I STRONGLY suggest availing yourself of a supply of Truncated Cone for .38/357 if we are talking about a .38 or .357 rifle.  If we're talking something "larger" Round Nose Flat Point is what you want.

Compared to your Left Hand . . . . the correct bullets are CHEAP!!  Think about it.

[River City John]

I took out a single bullet set it on the tail of my machinist's vise, and gave it a tap with a ball peen hammer.  That created a flat about the same size as a primer.  Would that make using these bullets OK?

You are not going to get anyone to sign off on what has been patiently described as UNIVERSALLY accepted as an unsafe practice.



My apologies for being abrupt.

[Professor Marvel]

I took out a single bullet set it on the tail of my machinist's vise, and gave it a tap with a ball peen hammer.  That created a flat about the same size as a primer.  Would that make using these bullets OK?

My Good Gabriel

What you describe is not only unreliable in achieving the desired size of flat-nose, it will also “upset” the bullet to a larger diameter, leading to yet more issues, problems, and diabolical solutions!

Whilst it is techincally possible to swage a bullet to achieve what you desire, this will require
A specialized swaging die, a specialized flatnose swaging ram and a steel press of sufficient strength
( ie for example a 3 to 5 ton arbor press” . And the means to both extract the swaged bullet and etc etc.

As others have stated You are far better off trading off these bullets, using them in a revolver, or melting and recasting in a true flatnose mold….

[Cap'n Redneck]

My side of the pond roundnose lead bullets is all we have to choose from in .38 Special factory ammo.
So I use a coarse hand file (wood file) to create a flatnose on the factory ammo for our clubs loaner rifle.
Two or three strokes with the file will usually give the desired effect.

For handloads I use cast roundnose flatpoint bullets.

[Froogal]

My side of the pond roundnose lead bullets is all we have to choose from in .38 Special factory ammo.
So I use a coarse hand file (wood file) to create a flatnose on the factory ammo for our clubs loaner rifle.
Two or three strokes with the file will usually give the desired effect.

For handloads I use cast roundnose flatpoint bullets.

I like the idea of using a file to create a flatpoint.

[August]

Just use 'oddball' ammo in yer pistols.  I, too, have seen the results of a magazine detonation.  Usually, when the gun is mis-handled, or dropped, it ends up pointed at the shooter's head.  Proper bullets are available, why play the odds?

[Professor Marvel]

I like the idea of using a file to create a flatpoint.

It “does work” but accuracy will suffer tremendously beyond 15-20 feet….

[Bunk]

Since my 1860 Henry loads like a Daisy "Red Rider" I slide the rounds in holding the rifle with the but* on the table and the muzzle on my fist just to be safe, still use a flat nose bullet and hang on to that follower.
Better safe than KBOOM! and a ruined rifle and injured person.
*The rifle but not mine
Bunk

[Doc Holloman]

I found myself with a supply of round nose .38-40 that I loaded for revolver, and I no longer shoot that caliber in revolvers.  However I still shoot .38-40 in in 73 and 92 rifle. To avoid pulling all the round nose bullets, what I do is load the round nose bullets first and last, with the other bullets in the mag tube being flat nosed. In other words I load one round nose, 8 flat nose and then a single round nose.  I figure that the first bullet loaded is safe and the last one will be chambered first.  Lets me use up the round nose safely.

[Black River Smith]

Ok, I am asking these questions not to be causing problems but because -- I just cannot find a True Logical Justification for it.

Why after Winchester's long history of flat nose bullets in their developed rounds(44Henry, 44-40, 38-40, 45-75, 45-60, 40-60, 38-55, 32-40 and so on), just why did they introduce the 1894 -- 30WCF 30-30 in a Full Round Nose bullet?  IMO Winchester did a lot of experimenting and researching before releasing any of its designs and changes.  As seen in Herbert Houze book "Winchester Repeating Arms Company Its History & Development from 1865 to 1981."

And Then,

When did Ideal/Lyman offer the Flat Nose #311041 or #31141?   Also   Was it after the manufacture of the Round Nose #311241 or #311291, both for the 30-30 cartridge?  This following statement is taken from the Lyman and Ideal Description listing found on a website.  "The 311291 is much shorter than the 311299 and has a true round nose profile to allow use in lever guns etc. It is also a bore rider design many folks seem to find it more accurate than the 311041 in the 30-30."  Do not really know who made that statement.

So what is True and what is Myth?
 

[Black River Smith]

Ok, since there are no responses to my questions in the above post, I will add what I have found off the internet.

The Lyman 311291 bullet mold was produced in approx. 1906.

AND

To the statements about original RN bullets (I am sorry but no one can refute the original 1894 30WCF RN design), here is a statement taken from the Terminal Ballistics Research website.

"Due to the tube loaded magazines of the model 94 Winchester and Marlin 336 rifles, .30-30 ammunition  must be loaded with round or flat nosed bullets to avoid detonation of bullet primers in the magazine under recoil. These low BC projectile designs limit the effective range of  the .30-30 to around 200 yards, after which, shot placement becomes difficult to estimate due to the heavily curved trajectory not to mention wind drift. Low BC’s also cause a rapid loss of velocity, effecting both disproportionate to caliber wounding as well as mechanical wounding. This makes it very hard for bullet manufacturers to develop optimum bullet designs."

The website link is   --   https://www.ballisticstudies.com/Knowledgebase/.30-30+Winchester++.30+WCF.html 
See section -- Performance

Now please add on and comment.

The Real Truth behind all this RN bullet stuff TO ME is the actual design or shape.   A cylindrical body with the same sized half radiused spherical nose should or could be the appropriate shape to use.  Not a lot of Calibers have this 'type of bullet design' available to be used though.

[Tronicst1]

Round nose bullets in a tubular magazine:  can a person get away with it, or is there likely to be a detonation?

Reed Henry Kaboom in the 1860 Henry Post.
I use either flat nose or hollow points in my
1873.

[Black River Smith]

Ok, I am asking these questions not to be causing problems but because -- I just cannot find a True Logical Justification for it.

Why after Winchester's long history of flat nose bullets in their developed rounds(44Henry, 44-40, 38-40, 45-75, 45-60, 40-60, 38-55, 32-40 and so on), just why did they introduce the 1894 -- 30WCF 30-30 in a Full Round Nose bullet?  IMO Winchester did a lot of experimenting and researching before releasing any of its designs and changes.  As seen in Herbert Houze book "Winchester Repeating Arms Company Its History & Development from 1865 to 1981."

And Then,

When did Ideal/Lyman offer the Flat Nose #311041 or #31141?   Also   Was it after the manufacture of the Round Nose #311241 or #311291, both for the 30-30 cartridge?  This following statement is taken from the Lyman and Ideal Description listing found on a website.  "The 311291 is much shorter than the 311299 and has a true round nose profile to allow use in lever guns etc. It is also a bore rider design many folks seem to find it more accurate than the 311041 in the 30-30."  Do not really know who made that statement.

So what is True and what is Myth?

OKAY,  I am bringing this old posting up again because, 1. It came to mind and 2. I just bought a Cramer full round nose 358-158 bullet mold this week.  Also, I had time to finally go through all my Ideal/Lyman Reloading Manual starting in 1951 the 38th Edition.  I used the same 'idea' as I posted in my previous posting, that I quote here.

When was the Introduction of the 'Absolutely Necessary' Flat Nose 31141/311041 first offered or created by Lyman in the famous Winchester 1894 30/30?  When previously only Full Round Nose designs like the 311241 & 311291 were only listed for this cartridge.

The answer to that question was found in the 1956 - 43rd Edition.  It was the first time that Lyman mentions the use of this mold in the reloading section and also lists it as a mold offerings.

The following statement Or question is meant as a JOKE but think about the implications to some of your own statements.   So with this information IS EVERYONE in agreement that Lyman 'Detonated' bullets in every 30/30 Win and Marlin USED from 1894 to 1955?  But saved everything in 1956 to present with the 31141 design?  Also do not use the hardness issue in your argument we are talking cast lead CAS bullets, not Jacketed hunting bullets.

As I stated, I like the Winchester originally Flat Nosed designed bullets in all their early rifles/cartridges, I use them in my rifles.  But why did they feel alright/safe to produce a Full Round Nose bullets in the 1894 - 30WCF cartridge?

And Yes, I have read where people have had Detonations but never have seen full investigation or reports as to the WHYS.  So many other possibilities with reloading.  Yes to me, Flat Nose Bullets are the Safest Option and should be the Default for people that do not understand design shapes and terms.

Not all termed Round Nose bullet shapes are 'Full radiused' Round Nose bullets like the 311291 and 311241 designs.

Still would be interested in peoples comments, as to Why Winchester did that in 1895.

[Coffinmaker]

  B.R.S. 

I'm sorry, but some of your "Devils Advocate" argumentative bent is . . . . dumb.  You as WHY did Winchester do things sufficiently in the past, there is no one still living who could authoritatively answer that question.

You also ask "So What is True and what is Myth.  Have you really chosen to ignore the FACT there have been Magazine Detonations??  Do you really choose to ignore there CAN be Magazine detonations??

Or are you just determined to play the part of a TROLL??

 

[Black River Smith]

B.R.S. 

I'm sorry, but some of your "Devils Advocate" argumentative bent is . . . . dumb.  You as WHY did Winchester do things sufficiently in the past, there is no one still living who could authoritatively answer that question.

You also ask "So What is True and what is Myth.  Have you really chosen to ignore the FACT there have been Magazine Detonations??  Do you really choose to ignore there CAN be Magazine detonations??

Or are you just determined to play the part of a TROLL??

First off I do like discussing with you and I agree with you on most topics.   But I am not dumb.  I have been tested many times.  My comments are not dumb people just do not look at all aspects of the WHYS.

Next you did not completely read both of my postings. My line 6 in the last posting --- "And Yes, I have read where people have had Detonations but never have seen full investigation or reports as to the WHYS.  So many other possibilities with reloading.  Yes to me, Flat Nose Bullets are the Safest Option and should be the Default for people that do not understand design shapes and terms."  My comment is those that just jump to flat bullet shape 'or' you will have 'detonation', are just using the Safety 1st mentality and not looking for the real reasons.  My comment about the original Winchester 1894 design bullet is proof of this.  The Sear catalog 1897 & 1902 list a full round nose Metal Patch bullet as the 30WCF only cartridge.

My Asking for comments about old and newer bullets, lay out as this --- Winchester flat nose 1860 to 1895 = 35 years +.  Then the 1894 to 1956 = 62 years -- only Full Radius Round nose design in the 30WCF (Win & Ideal/Lyman molds).

You know that during that 62yr there where a lot of gun writers and catalog articles, being done.  Don't use the No Info exists.  My point, how many detonations were written about during that 62 years that we have suddenly gone to -- ABSOLUTE FLAT NEEDED.

Was it just a hunting change and not a detonation issue in tubular magazines, all the time?

Thanks