Conversion to Modern Cartridge

the 38spl/.357 one is a matter of interpretation of the laws as written.Literally you could have the .357 as the chambers are longer and although they "will" allow for .38spl they are not designed specifically for that cartridge.
Just because a modern .357 will chamber and fire 38spl does not make it a .38spl,it is still a .357mag.
That said,that is a court case I'd rather not fund!
I think the same is true of the .22mag but because there are differences in the chambering beyond mere length of case it would be easier to show/prove that the chambering is legal as antique.
For proof it would be easy to carry a 2 inch piece of old .22lr barrel to show that a .22 mag will not chamber.The fact that it would in the revolver should make the revolvers designation clear.
But again,another court case I'd rather not fund.
We have to remember that this is all at the discretion of the LEO that happens across you and your antique.That's a chance that has to be weighed with the pros and cons of the endeavor.
jmo


oh and I'd stay away from .38 designations and call the round a .357 minimum or 380Min ;)
 
If you have 12.6 converting to .38S&W would be feasible. Dimensions are very close: Here is one comparrison.


________bullet_____mouth_____base_____rim__ case length____O.A.L.

.38RF___.374"_____ .377"_____ .377"___ .441"___ .879"______1.360"
.38S&W_.383"_____ .378"_____ .378"___ .437"___ .877"______1.353"
 
Even .38 spl and .357 are not on the list.... And the books I have list different diameters even though the 38 spl was adapted from the 38 colt. The beauty of the .38spl is that it fits in the chamber with no reaming (not length wise though).... Only firing pin work is needed. Of course maybe it would be simpler to use .357 cases just so there is no number in common with the no-go list.
 
JUst a dumb thought here.... Anyone sell unstamped brass? Stamping your wildcat's caliber on brass could solve a lot of issues... Antique letter and a box of ".358 BP" would make life much simpler... ;)
 
Hmmmmmm......

Punch the neck down on a .38Spl. to .32 cal and make a shorter case than the 32-20 (or longer, I suppose), maybe. Call it a 32-15, and go to town. Maybe a 32-20 die set with .080 or so whacked off the end, so the cylinder cannot chamber the 32-20 ammo. Lots of ways to skin that cat. Same could be done with a 44-40 die set. But 44 special is easy and has a history in the Prescribed Antique world.
Mainly only useful if you have the capability to do some machining or modify an existing part to work.

I've been eyeballing the .22 Mag route as well. Might be worth a letter off to the fine folks at the CFC, or a phone call, to see what their call on it is.

Really, with a folded up piece of paper, wadded in between the cylinder wall and a 22 long rifle round, it 'can' be made to fire. Same with any smaller centerfire round, in a larger center fire cylinder chamber. Not accurate, not meant to be done that way, but able. It's really the exact principle that the "Acorn" blank .32 rimfire adapters use, in metal. I'd say, from a personal perspective, looking at the numbers of Prescribed Antiques out there, that the emphasis really is more on what the chambering is supposed to be, rather than what 'can' be dropped in or otherwise made to discharge.
What I see anyway.

Lots of cartridges that are too modern for the "list", that could be made to work. Dunno what the CFC/RCMP has to say as far as that goes.

I'd be interested in knowing how much of the firing load a frame actually see's as opposed to the load on the cylinders when fired. ISTR mention made of more modern cylinders being grafted into older SAA frames.

Cheers
Trev
 
Tex Critter said:
If you have 12.6 converting to .38S&W would be feasible. Dimensions are very close: Here is one comparrison...
Click to expand...

That would be a no go. Altering an antique to fire .38S&W would be creating a prohibited firearm. It is not possible to register a new 12(6), even with 12(6) endorsement on a PAL.

.38 Special is not on the "Not Antique" list. But there could be a problem with .38 Colt.

.22 Magnum is hot. A sleeved chamber could handle the hoop stresses; I'd be worried about the breechface. If there was any excess headspace, unsupported rim, poor firing pin/frame fit, blown caseheads could result.

.22WRF could be an alternate. Winchester has made the ammunition recently, it is not .22 s-l-lr compatible, and is a pre-1898 designed cartridge, if that matters.
 
mooncoon said:
why not chamber for the .22 morris shell. It can be made from shortend 22 hornet shells and is center fire and not on the no go list

cheers mooncoon
Click to expand...

More info please ?
The thing about the 22 Mag is its cheep to buy 50 rds for like $12 and alot of fun to plink was my thinking there.

About the suport of the 22 mag case rim i have given that some thought as well. it must be tight but some 22 mag Revolver cylinders i have seen do not have the rims surounded by steel there just like a 45 colt with the rim sticking out flush against the Cylinder rear face.
I wouldnt want much play if any front to back tho.
 
.297/.230 Morris Short is a little .22 centerfire bottlenecked case used in early Lee Enfield .22 conversions. Some rook rifles were made in the caliber as well. It looks like a tiny .577/.450 round. As mooncoon suggested, .22 Hornet cases can be altered.
 
I have a large frame martini that I intend to rebarrel and chamber in that caliber once I finish my current project which is a 12 mm S&W (belgian copy). As soon as I do some kitchen remodeling to keep the better half happy, I can get back to pulling my hair out on the revolver :>).
the biggest problem with making shells for original chambers is that the original morris shells had necks that were only about .007" thick and the hornet shells are about .01" thick and too tight for the chamber without thinning.

cheers mooncoon
 
There are a number of antique guns (and the CFC says so) that are capable of firing cartridges on the no-go list. The fact is that they were not intended to fire those rounds. The fact that they will chamber and shoot factory ammo is just a bonus... I've got to call the RCMP in the morning regarding some other antique stuff so I'll ask the question and see what response I get.... Although the woman I spoke with today had no clue at all about antique firearms. I said I needed the extension number for requesting an antique letter and she said "You have antique muzzleloaders?" I said no, I own several antiques status handguns and she was quick to inform me that they couldn't chamber any currently available cartridge. I very politely corrected her that that was untrue and that they were not allowed to be chambered for any cartridge on "the list". I think she was a little confused....
 
I think thats true common sence should be used when Adapting any Antique.

Now if you happen to buy a WG army in 455/476 and it cycles and fires 45 Long colt thats AOK because Webley never chambered the WG in 45 LC the fact it happens to fit in some models is no problem.'
But if you get something and Alter it to shoot 45 LC thats another story.
The problem i see is when "your" doing the altering or Adapting.
Thats why if i do it im keeping the 22 mag reamer as proof that the chamber was altered to a Caliber or cartridge not on the NO list.
the Cylinder is useless to me in 22 Lr so i want to do something cool with it. but be legal at the same time.
22 Mag and 22 Lr use the same Dia bore but diffrent sized chambers.
 
Once the antique is tested and found to fire 38S&W you would have an uphill battle proving your intent.
Click to expand...

#1. 38 S&W will not chamber

#2. The poor bugger test firing my XL4 with a modern 38 load will probably lose his hand and god knows what else. (I'm not sure you can fire spur triger from a vise). If there's a law in this country regarding wildcat calibers, would someone please show me?
 
Probably would... Pressure wise it would destroy the firearm though and in doing so, make it rather apparent that it was not "designed or adapted to" chamber that particular cartridge. I'm going to discuss this further with one of the lawyers at the gun club and see what he thinks of the situation.
 
dingus said:
22 Mag and 22 Lr use the same Dia bore but diffrent sized chambers.
Click to expand...

Check on that. As far as I know, the Mag uses a .224 barrel, the Long Rifle, a .223. Not a huge difference, but a difference.

On the plus side, there are a bunch of .224 barrels available in various twists, and blanks can be got in either to make the new barrel or a liner out of.

Ruger apparently uses a .224 barrel on their convertable revolvers (read it here) and they supposedly shoot better with a Mag than a LR as a result.

Cheers
Trev
 
trevj said:
Check on that. As far as I know, the Mag uses a .224 barrel, the Long Rifle, a .223. Not a huge difference, but a difference.

On the plus side, there are a bunch of .224 barrels available in various twists, and blanks can be got in either to make the new barrel or a liner out of.

Ruger apparently uses a .224 barrel on their convertable revolvers (read it here) and they supposedly shoot better with a Mag than a LR as a result.

Cheers
Trev
Click to expand...

Thanks for that info. I didnt know that.
I have a Antique orignal SAA Barrel with the 22 LR Cylinder thats been relined to 22 Cal at the same time the cylinder was done. its a very old redo i think the bore tho shiney and worn would be close to .224 but i will slug it and check. it has fine Rifleing in there its hardly noticeable tho.

No doubt the timeing and barrel cylinder line up opon fireing must be deadly perfect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom