Revolver Cartridges in Rifles

[JohndeFresno]

A great article in the latest issue of Shooting Times magazine -
December 2016 / January 2017 - "Revolver Cartridges in Rifles" by Layne Simpson

Simpson gives us some factory loads and handloads for these calibers:
.357 Magnum, .38 Special, .41 Magnum, .41 Special (the Henry Big Boy rifle handles this), .44-40, .44 Magnum, .44 Special, .44 Russian, .44 Colt, .44 Magnum, .45 Colt, and .45 Schofield (Rossi's offering).

He talks about the characteristics, various ammo proclivities, and some facts and figures about several rifles and loads in this article. For instance:

"The Marlin 1894 used for testing had a stainless-steel barreled action. It gobbled up .357 Mag. and .38 Spl. ammo, and while it did feed .38 Spl. with a semiwadcutter bullet, it preferred bullets with smoother nose profiles..."
AND
"Henry Big Boy Henry Repeating Arms offers the blued-steel receiver version of its Big Boy lever-action rifle in .357 Mag., .41 Mag., .44 Mag., and .45 Colt. Barrel length options are 16.5 and 20 inches. The receiver is shallower than the Winchester 94, and its breech-locking design copies the Marlin 336, making the BigBoy a very strong and easy-carrying rifle..."

This issue had some other good articles. I rarely save my mags anymore. Some of you may remember that I offered for free - you pay shipping - a couple of decades or so of American Rifleman, Guns & Ammo, Shooting Times, Gun, etc. magazines. My limited storage space needed to embrace my ammo and components. No takers!

So I slowly distributed them to some friends and relatives, never to save them again. Well, I saved this issue. It's a corker. You may want to check it out at the newsstand. It might follow you home. Article starts on Page 52.

[jeepnik]

Read it. But, maybe I'm getting old, but it seems to be a rehash of articles I read decades ago. Certainly it's not word for word, but the information contained is pretty much the same.

[JohndeFresno]

All of that load data, for instance, for the .44-40 and the .44 Colt? I don't recall seeing so many handgun caliber loadings for rifles in one place before.

I must have missed some good material; or you've been at it a lot longer than me!

I liked, also, how he compared several handloads to the newer commercial ones, like several Buffalo Bore cartridges - COAL, FPS, Muzzle Energy, and 50 yard accuracy for each load.

[Chuck 100 yd]

With untold thousands of magazines/books published for every new development in the firearms field, authors are having a hard time finding something new to write about. My friend Tomas Tabor from Stevensville MT. Writes for several gun magazines, a couple in OZ. He tells me finding ideas for a subject can be the hardest part. I try to help him when I can with ideas. That is why I have dropped almost all my subscriptions.

[crs]

I just read an interesting article on the Dan Wesson .360 in a rifle; you might like to see it as it was not in the list you gave us.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.wideopen ... ifles/amp/

[Malamute]

Revolver Cartridges in Rifles....except, technically, the 44-40 is a rifle cartridge in a revolver.

[AJMD429]

All of that load data, for instance, for the .44-40 and the .44 Colt? I don't recall seeing so many handgun caliber loadings for rifles in one place before.

What irks me is the "reloading manuals" that purport to give "rifle" and "handgun" loads and list them in separate sections - but the LOADS are the exact same - all they do is report the different muzzle velocities from the longer barrels...

[JohndeFresno]

I should have said that I have not seen a magazine article with so many handgun caliber rifle loadings in one place before; not counting the many reloading manuals!

I just read an interesting article on the Dan Wesson .360 in a rifle; you might like to see it as it was not in the list you gave us...

Thank you for that, CRS. Due either to my aging organic memory chips or else non exposure, I (for one) don't recall hearing about that cartridge. It sounds like a reasonable compromise for those wanting a big more power in the .357, as noted.

Since it is a modification and even more of a specialty item, I can see why it was not in the article.

...technically, the 44-40 is a rifle cartridge in a revolver.

Yup, Malamute, that is perzactly what the author said:
"...I realize that the .44-40 was introduced as a rifle cartridge in 1873, so strictly speaking it was not created as a revolver cartridge. Revolvers chambered in .44-40 did not appear on the scene until 1878. However, Editor In Chief Joel J. Hutchcroft excercised his editor's prerogative and went with the title."

What irks me is the "reloading manuals" that purport to give "rifle" and "handgun" loads and list them in separate sections - but the LOADS are the exact same - all they do is report the different muzzle velocities from the longer barrels...

Yes, Herr Doktor, but there be folks like me that don't want to see 'em all lumped together - pistol and then rifle barrel lengths with the different velocities. Too much stuff on the page! I like the two separate sections.

You brilliant medical guys are used to ferreting out a liver, gizzard, epinephrine gland or starter motor in a mess of gooey stuff. The rest of us poor saps struggle with just reading the correct row and column to figure out our starting loads!

[GunnyMack]

The Jan/Feb issue of RIFLESHOOTER has a levergun article as well. Although this article is on 30-30's.
Winchester 94, Marlin 336C and Mossberg 464. Why not the Henry?

[Griff]

All of that load data, for instance, for the .44-40 and the .44 Colt? I don't recall seeing so many handgun caliber loadings for rifles in one place before.

What irks me is the "reloading manuals" that purport to give "rifle" and "handgun" loads and list them in separate sections - but the LOADS are the exact same - all they do is report the different muzzle velocities from the longer barrels...

And that is precisely the point. If they were to segregate out the acceptable loads for rifles like the Winchester 94, Marlin 1894 and the Winchester/Rossi 1892s from the much less power tolerant 1873, 1866 & 1860, you would end up with even more sections. The older toggle links are still out there, in ever increasing numbers, and load data must be kept to their pressure levels. I for one, would rather see separate sections, similar to what they show for 45-70 in various strength arms, so that I'd have a better idea of what my Ruger level loads are doing, pressure wise... but then I do have a chronograph!

[Blaine]

Our Erstwhile friend, Jim, "Bestlever" shot my Chrony.... I imagine he's Up There still laughing his butt off...dang thing flew 20 feet in the air....

[JohndeFresno]

...I for one, would rather see separate sections, similar to what they show for 45-70 in various strength arms, so that I'd have a better idea of what my Ruger level loads are doing, pressure wise...

Three of several reasons why I use my Hornady manuals way more than any others -

1) The book itself is excellent. Each edition gets better. 6th Edition was two volumes, the second one holding extensive trajectory and ballistic tables. Folks objected to this so they dropped it. Too bad for them; what happens when we get hit by a terrorist's EMP bomb, the Internet fizzles, and all our computers become paperweights? That is a very likely scenario, ya know, whether we choose to be ostriches or not.

Besides superb reloading info for the beginner and even more experienced cranker, it has many other well presented chapters. The descriptions and large color detailed graphics of their bullet line is second to none.

2) I use more of their jacketed bullets than other jacketed bullets - established reputation for a great general balance of accuracy, penetration, and expansion - at a good price; and

3) They separate power level loads on the the most commonly used separate power levels for handloaders. The mailman just brought me the 10th Edition, which way more cartridges than Ed. 9, as expected. And old-time cartridges coming back into the mainstream - like the .38-40 - are included. I paid around 40 bucks with the shipping added in, but it was definitely worth it to me, even if I never load some of these rounds.

I briefly scanned the Table of Contents and might have missed one or two listings, but here are the double and multilevel load listings:
Handgun Section
.22 Hornet (Handgun)
.221 Remington Fireball
.222 Remington
.223 Remington
.243 Winchester (Encore)
.256 Winchester Magnum
.270 Winchester (Encore)
7mm-08 Remington
.30 Carbine (T/C)
.30-30 Winchester (T/C)
.32-20 Winchester (T/C)
.357 Maximum, .357 Maximum (Thompson Center - T/C)
.35 Remington
.375 Winchester (T/C)
.44-40 (There is a Rifle listing, too)
.44 Remington Magnum
.44 Remington Magnum (T/C)
.44 Marlin (T/C)
.45 Colt (Revolver)
.45 Colt (Ruger & T/C)
.45-70 Gov't (T/C)

Rifle Section
All of the above!
Plus these breakdowns or rifle listings for handgun calibers:
.223 Remington
.223 Remington Service Rifle Data
.357 Magnum (Rifle) (Besides the Handgun listings)
.44 Remington Magnum (Rifle)
.45 Colt (Rifle)
.45-70 Government (Trap Door)
.45-70 Government (1895 Marlin)
.45-70 Government (Ruger #1)

Surely this should satisfy even a seasoned curmudgeon who is a deadly shot from horses! I smiled when I said that...

The book is bulky. But if you are attacked from behind while studying your next load, you can swing around quickly and use this for a formidable weapon.

Now, class... Any questions?

[Grizz]

Griff,

how about if the manufacturers just quote the pressure their equipment is rated for.

kind of like the octane sticker on the car door, but much more useful . . .

[Blaine]

Griff,

how about if the manufacturers just quote the pressure their equipment is rated for.

kind of like the octane sticker on the car door, but much more useful . . .

Lawyer rules....

[jeepnik]

Our Erstwhile friend, Jim, "Bestlever" shot my Chrony.... I imagine he's Up There still laughing his butt off...dang thing flew 20 feet in the air....

Some memories last forever. That's a good thing. Jim is missed by many, he was just that kind of a guy.

[Griff]

Our Erstwhile friend, Jim, "Bestlever" shot my Chrony.... I imagine he's Up There still laughing his butt off...dang thing flew 20 feet in the air....

Some memories last forever. That's a good thing. Jim is missed by many, he was just that kind of a guy.

As long as we remember, he's not gone.

I like my Lyman books the best... for they do list pressures... except where they used a specific firearm that doesn't have a transducer. I just picked up their 50th Edition handbook. Next are the Sierra & Hornady manuals, as they list anticipated velocities for a range of charge weights... unlike all the others which list a min and max only.

[Old Savage]

I use them all and Ken Waters.

[JerryB]

I think Tycer had a couple of 360 Rossi 92 carbines made up and did a lot of loading with them.

[JohndeFresno]

...I like my Lyman books the best... for they do list pressures... except where they used a specific firearm that doesn't have a transducer. I just picked up their 50th Edition handbook...

Yes, I have the Lyman 50th, 49th, and 48th and these are my primary resources for cast loads.

Unfortunately, even Lyman #50 still uses C.U.P. (copper crusher method) pressure listings for almost all loads. They do not correlate with the modern PSI (pounds per square inch, piezoelectric measurement method) ratings.

One needs the PSI measurement to work with QuickLoad, or to compare the loads with SAAMI suggested pressures for the different firearms. So, when Lyman suggests a load, I run it through QL if the tables have that matching bullet or if I can reproduce its characteristics accurately. More work than necessary.

I don't understand why Lyman folks cannot retest these loads by now, and offer PSI indexes. After all, they've been around much longer than I have. As a matter of fact, I was born considerably after 1879.

[GunnyMack]

http://www.marlinowners.com/forum/reloa ... rmula.html

I haven't done the math but here try this

[Grizz]

As a matter of fact, I was born considerably after 1879.

and here I thought we were about the same vintage . . .

[JohndeFresno]

Thanks, GunnyMack.

I created a new thread with this information, that offers a quick and simple Excel spreadsheet calculator to use, with results on one of the loads:

ROUGH C.U.P. to PSI Conversion for Handloaders
http://www.levergunscommunity.com/viewt ... =1&t=67597

Now the Lyman data, and that of others like Lee's handload book, will be much more useful.

Thanks again, GunnyMack!