38Long Colt ammo
- Thread starter bluey
- Start date
Just your reloading bench.
My research has taught me that this was a notably poor black powder cartridge that led to a whole mess of confusion. The wiki on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.38_Long_Colt
"The .38 Long Colt's predecessor, the .38 Short Colt, used a heeled bullet of 130 grains The cylindrical "shank" or "bearing surface" of the bullet, just in front of the cartridge case mouth, is .374 or .375 in (9.50 or 9.53 mm) in diameter, the same as the cartridge case (exactly like the .22 rimfire cartridges). A smaller-diameter portion of the bullet, the "heel", is crimped inside the case mouth, and the lubricant is outside the case, and exposed.[2]
In contrast, the .38 Long Colt uses a .357–.358 in (9.07–9.09 mm) bullet, the bearing surface and lubricant of which are entirely contained within the cartridge case. This keeps the waxy lubricant from collecting grit which can damage the revolver's barrel. Colt, however, retained the single-diameter charge hole, so the bullet was grossly undersize as it traveled through the chamber throat. It was supposed to expand in the throat and be "swaged down", or reduced again in diameter, as it entered the barrel, but expanded unevenly producing poor accuracy. Velocity was the same 770 ft/s (230 m/s), but bullets weighed 150 grains (9.7 g), resulting in a muzzle energy of 198 ft·lbf (268 J)."
So the 38 long colt was undersized and used a hollow-based bullet to compensate. This performed poorly in both accuracy and power. To try to solve some of the accuracy issues, some makers actually made their barrels smaller to better fit the bullet. Barrels weren't usually marked with the caliber back then either and there were other 38 caliber type bullets as well, 380 bulldog etc. 380 revolver etc.
What you end up with is a mish-mash of stuff called 38 caliber that may be anywhere from .350 diameter all the way up to .380. A significant difference when you are talking about bullets. For this reason I would recommend that anyone with an early 38 caliber firearm should slug the barrel and measure their bullets before using them.
Of all the antique calibers that I reload for I have found the greatest variation and misinformation in 38.
My research has taught me that this was a notably poor black powder cartridge that led to a whole mess of confusion. The wiki on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.38_Long_Colt
"The .38 Long Colt's predecessor, the .38 Short Colt, used a heeled bullet of 130 grains The cylindrical "shank" or "bearing surface" of the bullet, just in front of the cartridge case mouth, is .374 or .375 in (9.50 or 9.53 mm) in diameter, the same as the cartridge case (exactly like the .22 rimfire cartridges). A smaller-diameter portion of the bullet, the "heel", is crimped inside the case mouth, and the lubricant is outside the case, and exposed.[2]
In contrast, the .38 Long Colt uses a .357–.358 in (9.07–9.09 mm) bullet, the bearing surface and lubricant of which are entirely contained within the cartridge case. This keeps the waxy lubricant from collecting grit which can damage the revolver's barrel. Colt, however, retained the single-diameter charge hole, so the bullet was grossly undersize as it traveled through the chamber throat. It was supposed to expand in the throat and be "swaged down", or reduced again in diameter, as it entered the barrel, but expanded unevenly producing poor accuracy. Velocity was the same 770 ft/s (230 m/s), but bullets weighed 150 grains (9.7 g), resulting in a muzzle energy of 198 ft·lbf (268 J)."
So the 38 long colt was undersized and used a hollow-based bullet to compensate. This performed poorly in both accuracy and power. To try to solve some of the accuracy issues, some makers actually made their barrels smaller to better fit the bullet. Barrels weren't usually marked with the caliber back then either and there were other 38 caliber type bullets as well, 380 bulldog etc. 380 revolver etc.
What you end up with is a mish-mash of stuff called 38 caliber that may be anywhere from .350 diameter all the way up to .380. A significant difference when you are talking about bullets. For this reason I would recommend that anyone with an early 38 caliber firearm should slug the barrel and measure their bullets before using them.
Of all the antique calibers that I reload for I have found the greatest variation and misinformation in 38.
Last edited:
- Location
- Alberta, let freedom reign!
Here's .38 short colt. May work?
http://www.irunguns.com/product.remington-target-38-short-colt-125-grain-lead-round-nose-50-rounds
Dealer on here and can import to Canada. Remington @ 35$/box
http://www.irunguns.com/product.remington-target-38-short-colt-125-grain-lead-round-nose-50-rounds
Dealer on here and can import to Canada. Remington @ 35$/box
I've a couple of 1892's in 38 LC.
While the HB principle is an accuracy limiter...my longer bbl'd 1895 is pretty accurate.
I used a Keith style 158 HB; with a decidedly thin skirt on the HB.
IIRC I went with 3.5 gr of Unique to provide a rapid upset of the HB
While the HB principle is an accuracy limiter...my longer bbl'd 1895 is pretty accurate.
I used a Keith style 158 HB; with a decidedly thin skirt on the HB.
IIRC I went with 3.5 gr of Unique to provide a rapid upset of the HB
As mentioned in the Wikipedia quote I posted above the 38 long colt and 38 short colt are very different with one being inside lubricated and one being outside lubricated and heeled. They are 2 different diameters. With that being said the 38 short colt is supposed to be a heeled bullet but the picture you posted appears to show a non heeled bullet so I don't know what is up with that. The only way to be sure is to slug the barrel and compare that to the bullet diameter to be used.
I contacted Ellwood Epps and asked them about OWS and Ten-x. Their reply was: "As of 2011, Ten-X and Old Western Scrounger have not renewed their export licenses which would allow them to ship ammunition to Canada. We are no longer able to order or acquire any ammunition from these two companies."
So I guess that isn't an option either. I would love to get my hands on some 38 Short or Long colt but it doesn't look very promising.
The one upside to using a .357 HB bullet is reloading is a snap. I didn't have proper 38 LC brass so I used an ad-hoc replacement; trimmed 38 spl / 357 mag brass, which fits a tad loose.
But the 38 LC doesn't have enough pressure to fireform the brass to the cylinder. So other than de-capping / priming the only thing req'd is a crimping die. I champhered the brass to facilitate bullet insertion, which is easy as the bullets are slightly loose fitting in the thicker ( but champhered ) brass. In fact they can be forced flush with your thumb!
Actually the real PITA is casting the bullets. The thin HB skirt req's a mold at exactly the correct temp; the first time I cast IIRC it was 45 min's before I got a decent bullet.
The thin skirt is much more forgiving with WW's too. My 41 LC HBmold has too thick of a skirt and won't upset the HB into the rifling with WW.
I've 50-100 rds of cut-down brass to give away actually on the EE now.
Get a 310 Lyman in 38 spl and bullets non-withstanding, you are ready to go.
But the 38 LC doesn't have enough pressure to fireform the brass to the cylinder. So other than de-capping / priming the only thing req'd is a crimping die. I champhered the brass to facilitate bullet insertion, which is easy as the bullets are slightly loose fitting in the thicker ( but champhered ) brass. In fact they can be forced flush with your thumb!
Actually the real PITA is casting the bullets. The thin HB skirt req's a mold at exactly the correct temp; the first time I cast IIRC it was 45 min's before I got a decent bullet.
The thin skirt is much more forgiving with WW's too. My 41 LC HBmold has too thick of a skirt and won't upset the HB into the rifling with WW.
I've 50-100 rds of cut-down brass to give away actually on the EE now.
Get a 310 Lyman in 38 spl and bullets non-withstanding, you are ready to go.
I was curious about the 38 short colt in the picture being inside lubricated instead of outside lubricated and heeled as they originally were.
I found a discussion here: ht tp://iaaforum.org/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=14013 that says that Remington changed their design of this bullet around 1979-1980 to inside lubricated. Apparently the round is used in some sort of competition due to its very low recoil. They use it in 38 special / 357 revolvers. I would be interested in knowing if the new design is hollow based or not. Since the 38 long colt is a non heeled bullet as well, this may indeed work for the OP. I would still slug the barrel and compare the bullet to be safe.
I found a discussion here: ht tp://iaaforum.org/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=14013 that says that Remington changed their design of this bullet around 1979-1980 to inside lubricated. Apparently the round is used in some sort of competition due to its very low recoil. They use it in 38 special / 357 revolvers. I would be interested in knowing if the new design is hollow based or not. Since the 38 long colt is a non heeled bullet as well, this may indeed work for the OP. I would still slug the barrel and compare the bullet to be safe.
