Winchester calibers.

[Nath]

In my mind Winchester has come up with many a good caliber, some not popular now but were still good in my opinion.
Was or is there any bad lemons in their line up?

Nath.

[perry owens]

I wouldn't call it a lemon but I am curious about the .38WCF, aka the .38-40. Why bring out a necked-down .44-40 when the .44-40 is already well established? Also, why call it a .38-40 when the nominal bore diameter is .401? Wouldn't a .40-40 make more sense? Maybe there were competitiive issues involved.
Perry Owens

[Don McDowell]

I wouldn't call it a lemon but I am curious about the .38WCF, aka the .38-40. Why bring out a necked-down .44-40 when the .44-40 is already well established? Also, why call it a .38-40 when the nominal bore diameter is .401? Wouldn't a .40-40 make more sense? Maybe there were competitiive issues involved.
Perry Owens

Neither cartridge was "well established" they both came out at the same time in the new 1873 model. they named the 38-40 backwards, it holds 38 grs of powder, and uses a 40 cal bullet. Once a person shoots a 38wcf in either the handgun or the rifle loaded to the levels it was originally intended for you loose all doubts about why.....

Nath, there's a pretty long list of cartridges Winchester came out with that were/are duds, but I don't think any of them were necessarily lemons. 256 and 225 come to mind, along with a few of the cartridges that they trotted out in the late 1800's and the pre worldwar 1 days.

[arjunky]

The 35 winchester is kind of an oddball. The 35, 351, and 401 were kind of worthless at the time. I still wouldn't mind shooting them though.

Byron

[Old Savage]

Nath - another way around is the best that went away so to speak and that would be the 25-35 and the best that never was the 35-30.

[Nath]

You guys know alot more than me!
I was curious about the 38/40 too Perry but it is kinder hanging on still.
I did not know of the others mentioned, thats how much I know!
Was the 35/30 based on the 30/30 and smokless?

Nath.

[Old Savage]

Yes but it was a wildcat not a factory round. I would like to see you pick up a 25-35 and test it's effectiveness on foxes and the like and load it with light bullets for your other work.

[Sixgun]

In my view, the 38-40 is a better balanced cartridge than the 44-40. I have shot tons of both out of many various firearms and if the bullet is matched to the gun (tolerence wise) the 38-40 has an edge on the 44-40 in accuracy, recoil and just plain old being-able-to-put-the-bullet-where-you-want-to. (if that makes any sense)

The non-standard 200 grain bullet in the 38-40 beats the heck out of the non-standard 240 grain in the 44-40, mostly because of ease of loading and feeding through various lever and pump guns. (yea, I've made 'em all work with ease but the 200 gr. 38-40 is a no-brainer)

As the 225, 401, 256, 32 SL, 35 SL,38-70, 40-70, 40-110 Ex., and all the way up to the 45-125 Ex. were never popular, its just that they had specific uses, in specific guns, or were chambered after another well established cartridge was made. Is does not mean they were duds, as I've played with most of 'em, and found them to be just as accurate as the popular cartridges.

The 25-35 is an excellent cartridge if you know it's limitations. Very, very accurate, (the best IMO) and decently flat shooting. The 117 gr. has excellent sectional density.

The same can be said for some cartridges in the Remington line, such as the 25, 30, and 32 Rem. Now the 22 Jet, IS a worthless caliber. I never could get any Model 53's to be tackdrivers. With all of the aggravation that came with the 22 Jet/Mod. 53, you could do almost as well with a no-hassle .22 mag.--------------------Sixgun

[Nath]

Going off on a tangent, I have always liked the calibers formed via Mr Mauser. I don't know all of them but the common ones I think are fantastic.
Remington has done well altering the 308W to 260Rem, has Winchester been known to alter some one elses case?

Nath.

[Old Savage]

The 270 was formed from the 30-03 Springfield case.

[Nath]

Oh yeah
Any others OS?

Nath.

[Old Savage]

To the extent that the 308 was also developed by the Govt with Winchester taking the civilian branding the 358 and 243 are semi in that category.

[KirkD]

I make a distinction between cartridges that were duds in performance and cartridges that never became very popular sellers. Thinking through all the old lever action cartridges, I don't believe there were any duds when it came to performance. Some rifles with badly oversize bores, however, were near duds, but that was on a case by case basis.

There were few old levergun cartridges that never became very common. For example, the 38-70 in the '86 and the 38-72 and 40-72 in the '95's.

[Doc Hudson]

Nath - another way around is the best that went away so to speak and that would be the 25-35 and the best that never was the 35-30.

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you O.S.

In my opinion the best Winchester Cartridge that was a commercial flop was, and is, the .358 Winchester. The only reason it is still being loaded is for us few die-hard .358 Fanatics. I don't think any rifles were made, or at least readily available, for over 20 years, and they are still mighty scarce. IIRC, the only rifles ever chambered for it were the short-lived Winchester Models 88 and 100, a few Savage Model 99's, a very limited run of Ruger Model 77's, and occasionally Browning BLR's (noted more for the catalog listing than actual manufacture).

I've long wanted to build a .358 Win bolt-action on a Mauser Short Action with a full Mannlicher stock.

[Doc Hudson]

RE: .38-40 WCF

Lots of old-time gunfighters were of the opinion that the .38-40 WCF was a better killer of men and medium sized game than the .44-40.

Apparently, Smith & Wesson agreed since the wildly popular .40 S&W is nothing more than the ballistic twin of the .38-40. I sometimes tease .40 Short & Weak fans that their pet pistols are just .38-40 ACP's.

[Sixgun]

In my opinion the best Winchester Cartridge that was a commercial flop was, and is, the .358 Winchester.

+1000

[GEOFF]

Doc Hudson,

I LIKE that, .38-40 ACP! Great sense of humor. Will have to remember that one!

Geoff

[Old Savage]

Well Doc, a great pair they make but because they are in very different categories I am going to have to claim a tie but as I implied - if you had both you wouldn't need anything else.

Ah, maybe a 22LR.

[Terry Murbach]

NATH, YOU SOUND LIKE A GOOD CANDIDATE FOR A FRESH COPY OF THE BOOK, " CARTRIDGES OF THE WORLD."

[Old Savage]

THATS NATH!

[Hobie]

THATS NATH!

I agree. Can those Brits get gun books without having to register them?

[KirkD]

Speaking of book recommendations, Nath, I think you would thoroughly enjoy Clyde Snooky Williamson's massive tome 'The Winchester Levergun Legacy'. It covers most of the old levergun cartridges with the exception of those for the '76s. I've read and re-read it many times. I know you would very much enjoy it.

[Kansas Ed]

I know someone will disagree with me here....but IMO the 264 Win. Mag, was one of the most overbore and useless rounds ever conjured up by New Haven. It may be fast, but had so many drawbacks to make it impractical.

And BTW, count me as a die hard 38-40 fan also...

Ed

[Mike D.]

Two calibers that were introduced too late really catch on were the .38-70WCF and .40-70WCF in the Model 1886. The .35WCF for the Model 1895 was popular and remains a very potent number. The .351 and .401 SLs were well received by law enforcement, but lagged sales to the hunting public. Better cartridges were already on the market, and the guns were heavy, bulky rifles to bear.

[Old Savage]

Ed - good to see you here. I think it is actually a precursor to much more muscular rounds and with todays slower powders it is a good choice for some specialty purposes and some could use it for an all around cartridge.

[Doc Hudson]

I know someone will disagree with me here....but IMO the 264 Win. Mag, was one of the most overbore and useless rounds ever conjured up by New Haven. It may be fast, but had so many drawbacks to make it impractical.

And BTW, count me as a die hard 38-40 fan also...

Ed

Would you go so far as to say it is a Winchester version of a Weatherby Magnum Cartridge?

I've no great appreciation of any of the Weatherby Magnums except the .257 WM, and I'm not fond enough of that one to buy a Weatherby rifle.

[Gobblerforge]

"Neither cartridge was "well established" they both came out at the same time in the new 1873 model. they named the 38-40 backwards, it holds 38 grs of powder, and uses a 40 cal bullet."
Actually the 44WCF came out with the 1873. The cartridge was called the "Winchester Model 1873", also. The 38 WCF came out in the 1879 catalog and was produced starting in 1880. The original round held 40 grains of powder and was later loaded in both 40 and 38 grain rounds.
Gobbler

[Nath]

Very good reading this is.
Yes Terry I am a candidate for the book Cartridges of the world and was planning visiting a small book shop in Wigtown, Scotland that sells shooting books etc last holiday but alas we did not go there but maybe next year now. I may even order one off the net!
Strikes me that man does keep reinventing the wheel some but it also strikes me from reading your comments Winchester didn't really turn much bad stuff out, put another way would you say Remington have had more failures over Winny?

Nath.

[iceman]

Another round that didn't really catch on is the 284 win. Rebate rim, introduced in the mod 88 and mod 100. Savage put out a few mod 99s but hard to find. I really would like to find a 99 in this. Close if not better than a 280 rem. Only draw back heavy bullets take up too much powder space. Just my .02

[71fan]

I know someone will disagree with me here....but IMO the 264 Win. Mag, was one of the most overbore and useless rounds ever conjured up by New Haven. It may be fast, but had so many drawbacks to make it impractical.
Ed

I'm flattered to have my favorite round mentioned on this esteemed list It does have it's problems, but it's nothing a new barrel every couple decades can't fix. I love my 264 WM but will never deny that the 7 Rem Mag is a better cartridge. The only thing the 264 can do that the 7 mm can't is shoot 85 gr pills at 3800 fps, if I ever actually wanted to

[airedaleman]

Very good reading this is.
Yes Terry I am a candidate for the book Cartridges of the world and was planning visiting a small book shop in Wigtown, Scotland that sells shooting books etc last holiday but alas we did not go there but maybe next year now. I may even order one off the net!

Nath.

Nath, I have a copy of the 10th edition of "Cartridges of the World." It's yours if you are willing to stand the postage to get it to you, okay?

[Nath]

Pm on the way airdaleman

[Buck Elliott]

Yes, the .225 was the epitome of uselessness, considering the .220 swift was still around -- and IS still around! The best thing about the .225 is the basic case, which has inspired JDJ to wildcatting excellence.

The .256 is in itself a wonderful round, which suffered from the lack of a really suitible platform. I do not consider the Ruger Hawkeye or the Marlin/Buck Rogers levergun to be worthy of the little cartridge, but in a Winchester '92 the .256 is a varmint levergun without peer.

The .375 Win. is another cartridge that filled no apparent need, whereas the .358 is an excellent round in either a levergun or one of the rare M-70s in that chambering.

[Griff]

RE: Win vs. Rem ammo foopahs, I think you have to remember that Remington has been around a LOT longer than Winchester, yet their cartridge development seems less audacious; might just be my impression, but their strength seems to be taking an existing cartridge & improving it, less "from the ground up" development. (Just my inexpert, unknowledgeable opinion. Mainly because IMO, their Wunder-cartridge, the 7mmRemMag., outweighs all tnier less-than-successful attempts, uch as the 30WCF's success trumps any of Winchester's flawed designs.)

"Why let facts cloud our thinking."