Idle Thoughts of an Idle Fellow

mooncoon

mooncoon

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
22   0   0
Location
Vancouver Island
Several times now I have suggested changing a 32 cal prohib to 22 morris shell. I finally got around to actually doing it. The gun is a S&W top break from the 1870s or 80s and was 32 S&W and therefore prohib instead of antique. The shells are made from 22 hornet shells cut roughly in half. On this particular gun the cylinder is so short that I had to chamber it to the 22 morris short. The gun that I practiced on first was a Hopkins and Allen 38 S&W and with the longer cylinder I was able to make it to the 22 morris long. For anyone considering making one of these changes, be advised that the CFC recognizes 3 length ; the short, long and extra long.

Anyhow I made cylinder bushings from an old piece of 22 barrel and soldered them in place. The barrel liner was from a centerfire 22 barrel turned down to roughly 5/16 and I through bored the barrel on the gun to slightly larger so that the CFC could not say that the gun could be converted back by removing the barrel liner. Maximum charge of the 22 morris long in a strong gun is somewhere around 2.0 grains of Green Dot but with the short morris and in a weaker action I had to drop down to 1.2 grains. Because the bullet is seated much deeper in the shell, pressures run a lot higher for the same amount of powder. The remaining problem is that I have to drop down to a 40 bullet because with 45 grain bullets they are still keyholing at 15 yards. I have to assume that in the original rifle, they were probably traveling 3 times as fast as my velocities and the added velocity stabilized them

cheers mooncoon



 
Fascinating project. I wonder if you could seat the bullets less deeper (hence, allowing one to use a bit more charge to bring the bullet closer to original velocities) if you used a round nosed, cast bullet (it would have more mass per unit length of bullet so would not need to be seated as deep)?
 
Win 38-55 said:
Fascinating project. I wonder if you could seat the bullets less deeper (hence, allowing one to use a bit more charge to bring the bullet closer to original velocities) if you used a round nosed, cast bullet (it would have more mass per unit length of bullet so would not need to be seated as deep)?
Click to expand...

I want to try cutting back to a 40 grain bullet which would be a bit shorter. Two reasons, one of which caught me by surprise; the rifling twist does not stabilize the 45 grain slug and the other is that the cylinder is so short that it very much limits the maximum length of the loaded shell. I am also leaning towards making a round nosed bullet mold which obviously would be shorter for the same weight and hopefully get around both problems. The pressure increase in going to the short morris version was quite noticeable with the primers flattened when using 1.5 grains. I test fired the long morris in a modern S&W with a chamber insert and a temporary barrel, and it could comfortably handle 2 grains of powder but it is also a larger solid frame gun. It sort of has the opposite problem; the 38 special chamber is so long that there is too much bullet jump to the rifling and the gun was fairly inaccurate. Might be fun to make some more dies and a different chamber insert and create a shell and bullet combination plus slower powder to match the cylinder length

cheers mooncoon
 
Really nice idea Mooncoon anyway we can turn a prohib into a antique status gun is a good thing.
Thats a great way to do it.
I know how much work that is to do you did a great job.
Id love to have a antique handgun like that.
 
The original morris shells had heeled bullets and the neck was thinner in diameter. I felt that was a bit too impractical to load and because I was making my own reamers, I wasn't limited to a factory version of the shell. I will have to measure again the bullet diameter on an original shell; I don't think they are actually .230 even though that is the official name for them. Many years ago I made some dies for the 250 - 297 (or vice versa) and I think the owner of the gun opened the neck a smidge for the same reason. Those guns shot a tiny slug intended for the 25 auto. I am not completely sure just why the British had three lengths of the same shell because I don't think it made a lot of difference in performance which one you shot (in the correct chamber). Sort of like why was the 22 long ever made since it was pretty close to a long rifle shell

cheers mooncoon
 
mooncoon said:
The original morris shells had heeled bullets and the neck was thinner in diameter. I felt that was a bit too impractical to load and because I was making my own reamers, I wasn't limited to a factory version of the shell. I will have to measure again the bullet diameter on an original shell; I don't think they are actually .230 even though that is the official name for them. Many years ago I made some dies for the 250 - 297 (or vice versa) and I think the owner of the gun opened the neck a smidge for the same reason. Those guns shot a tiny slug intended for the 25 auto. I am not completely sure just why the British had three lengths of the same shell because I don't think it made a lot of difference in performance which one you shot (in the correct chamber). Sort of like why was the 22 long ever made since it was pretty close to a long rifle shell

cheers mooncoon
Click to expand...

yes I don't see much difference only a tad more powder I would like to make up a new version of the morris tube when I get the chance. by the way the only difference in .22 long vs .22 LR is bullet weight making the bullet shorter in the long the case is the same
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom