Morning y'all.
Coffee and tea are hot.

'Tis 32 and sunny. High of 68 and partly cloudy.

Slim

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.

Thanks

I am in the process of selling a Chiappa Spencer Carbine in .56-50.  Someone told buyer the barrels were bored wrong. I think they are confusing them with the Pietta Smith Carbine.  Anyone hear of a problem with Chiappa Spencer barrels, other than maybe needing a little Loc-Tite?

What is the alleged problem with the barrels "bored wrong"?

Hello, B:
I waited a couple days to see if others responded.  Maybe silence is an answer.

Anyway, so you aren't hanging:

First, the 45 Colt cartridge has a relatively narrow case rim that can lead to cycling issues which can only be evaluated by test cycling a full seven (dummy) rounds from the magazine.
Next, verify that the firing pin strikes are well centered.
Be sure the trigger pull weight is satisfactory to you.
With you being in Canada, have a clear, written agreement about who pays for Warranty work and shipping costs, especially via a Canadian intermediary, to a U.S. location.

Very respectfully,
El Supremo/Kevin Tinny