Cas City Forum Hall & CAS-L
CAS TOPICS => The Powder Room - CAS reloading => Topic started by: Gabriel Law on August 04, 2023, 12:58:09 PM
-
Round nose bullets in a tubular magazine: can a person get away with it, or is there likely to be a detonation?
-
"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.
-
Thanks...was likely just looking for confirmation. Safety is important to me, so I'll stick to RNFP bullets in my rifle. thanks.
-
:) 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.
-
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?
-
:) 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.
-
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.
-
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….
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
I like the idea of using a file to create a flatpoint.
It “does work” but accuracy will suffer tremendously beyond 15-20 feet….
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
:) 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??
-
:) 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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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!
-
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).
-
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
-
Round nose bullets in a tubular magazine: can a person get away with it, or is there likely to be a detonation?
With all due respect to previous answers... As one who has successfully used a particular round nose bullet in a .38 special loading in CAS since about 1985, I'll say it depends:
1) on the hardness of the bullet;
2) how "round" the nose is, which can vary greatly;
and 3) velocity.
You also have to recognize that bullets in rimmed cartridges don't sit flat in the magazine, so even a flat nose can have a corner in contact with the primer. It is inertia that will set off primer, exacerbated by the weight of the column of cartridges in the magazine, how many times a particular primer is struck before it collapses the onto the anvil, which can be dependent also on the hardness of the primer.