33 WCF Factory loading card|General Discussions & Questions|Forum|Winchester Collector

Not a Winchester load but 2 loads published by Cartridges of the World by Frank Barnes with a 200 grain bullet are:

47 grains of 4895 for 2420 fps.

41 grains of 3031 for 2220 fps.

He notes that the Factory load produced 2220 fps.

Hornady uses the same powder charge as Barnes with 4895 but shows 2520 fps.  They also show a load with 32 grains of 4198 for 1925 fps.

steve004 said
I don’t necessarily disagree with any of these loads.  But keep in mind what is fine in one rifle might not be fine in another.  Begin with a reasonably reduced starting load and work your way up a half grain at a time.  Stop at any signs of pressure and back off a half grain (at least).
  

Truer words have never been spoken.  I learned my lesson 40 some years ago trying to work up a ball powder load for my (then new) Ruger 77RSI .250 Savage. 

Clay Harvey had listed a load of Olin 760 for a 100 grain Speer spire point that called for X grains that delivered close to 3000 fs from a 24″ barrel. Factory ammunition had a published mv of 2820 fs, so the Harvey load was pretty hot, to say the least. I was only looking for 2800 to duplicate factory velocity, so I started at .90X thinking that was plenty safe to start with. 

My first and only shot felt and sounded like a stick of Dynamite had gone off, with extremely hard bolt lift.  I had set the C.O.L. in the middle of the S.A.A.M.I. spec. What I later learned was that Ruger was then cutting very short chambers for these little carbines and I had unknowingly set the bullet right up to the lands.  I disremember the rifle Harvey used to develop his load but perhaps it had the 1-in-14  twist common in 250-3000 barrels for so long; whereas my 77RSI was cut 1-in-10. That would have done nothing good for chamber pressure, by itself. 

Lots and lots of little variables.  I was without a chronograph back then but I suspect the muzzle velocity of that only shot, even from the stubby 18.5″ barrel, would have impressed Roy Weatherby. 

Let me try another topic after fouling up on the 101 Winchester shotgun question.  First, of the few cartridge load cards I’ve seen (I think published for the 1895 book), most powders are either no longer made or if so made, likely have somewhat differing burn characteristics from original.  Hornady’s manual lists the 33 Winchester with 5 differing powders.  H4895 has the widest charge weights and highest muzzle velocities.  IMR 3031 (which is what I use) is second along with Win 748.  IMR 4198 and IMR 4064 are third  with top velocities achieved being 2000 fps.  All loads now are listed for the 200 gr FTX bullet.  Load data starts rather low if you ask me, but then they also state how the “1886 is not as strong as the more modern lever-actions presently available….” and maximum loads should be approached with considerable caution.  I won’t tell you what charge weight I use in my rifle, but will give the start charge and MAX charge per Hornady for IMR 3031 as an example.  Starting charge is 33.3 gr for about 1700 fps.  Max is listed at 40.0 gr for 2100 fps.  They used a Winchester 1886 with a 24″ barrel with 1 in 12 twist.  Remington case, WLR primer (this can be a big factor), and the 200 gr FTX bullet.  

Personally I use the 1886 in .33 Win a fair amount in our silhouette shoots and I do like it very much!!  BTW, the older Hornady book lists the same loads and velocities for the flat nose bullet they no longer make, so no changes there.  Same rifle, brass, and primer, etc.  

Tim

Chuck said
I have never loaded without a chronograph and learned over 30 year ago that the older powder is not as hot as today’s powder even though it says it is the same powder.  If using old load data start at least 10% lower.  The factories did not use the “standard” powders.  Usually they bought a high volume mix of their choice. 
  

Chuck – 

It is interesting that so much can be the same from what is outlined in an old loading manual – the same bullets, cases, primery about the same… but the, “same” powder may well not be the same at all.

I almost never load with a chronograph.  This doesn’t mean I don’t have one – I do.  This doesn’t mean I don’t believe in the utility of using one – I do.  This doesn’t mean I don’t want to use one – I do.  It’s just my local range (and the nearest by far) is very regimented.  Any sort of setting up, adjusting, taking down etc. of a chronograph involves a full range cease-fire.  They only do that to put new targets up (every few hours).  Ideally, I like to fetch my targets.  I almost never get a chance to.  I bring a camera with a long lens, take a picture of each target and print it out the ones I want when I get home.  I really envy those here that have a much more usable range situation.  Unfortunately, it really influences how often I go for a range session

steve004 said

Chuck said
I have never loaded without a chronograph and learned over 30 year ago that the older powder is not as hot as today’s powder even though it says it is the same powder.  If using old load data start at least 10% lower.  The factories did not use the “standard” powders.  Usually they bought a high volume mix of their choice. 
  

Chuck – 
It is interesting that so much can be the same from what is outlined in an old loading manual – the same bullets, cases, primery about the same… but the, “same” powder may well not be the same at all.
I almost never load with a chronograph.  This doesn’t mean I don’t have one – I do.  This doesn’t mean I don’t believe in the utility of using one – I do.  This doesn’t mean I don’t want to use one – I do.  It’s just my local range (and the nearest by far) is very regimented.  Any sort of setting up, adjusting, taking down etc. of a chronograph involves a full range cease-fire.  They only do that to put new targets up (every few hours).  Ideally, I like to fetch my targets.  I almost never get a chance to.  I bring a camera with a long lens, take a picture of each target and print it out the ones I want when I get home.  I really envy those here that have a much more usable range situation.  Unfortunately, it really influences how often I go for a range session
  

Steve,  I know what you mean. One solution to the problem is a Labradar or one of its competitors. There is a learning curve but you can usually set them up right in front of your bench and there are no sky screens to set up.or shoot through. Although the Labradar can be operated directly by using keys on its panel, the only practical way to use it at a busy range is with the Bluetooth connected app on your cellphone or laptop, which is a lot easier to learn, too. 

I mention this because Bluetooth chips were in short supply during the Pandemic and the manufacturer made a “discount” version of the Labradar that couldn’t be operated wirelessly. Don’t buy one of those. 

If you buy the unit, buy the rechargeable Li battery as well. It can be operated using a number of AA cells but it eats them fast – so fast that the Li unit is cheaper. 

I haven’t priced these chronographs recently but I suspect the price has come way down as competitive models have come into the market. 

450 Fuller said
Winchester kept factory load cards on their cartridges for reference. These involved weight of the bullet against
powder brand like “Hi-Vel No. 2” and powder weight in grains.
 
Does anyone know of the powder /weight load card for the 33 WCF cartridge, or if it exists?
 
Thanks in advance..
 
NRA-LIFE
  

A card certainly existed, at one time, but where that card is today? Or does it still exist? That is the question.

I’ve yet to come across a factory original a loading card, or chamber drawing for the .33 W.C.F. 

Only ever seen other calibers.

Sincerely,

Maverick

Bert, your old Hornady manual is older than mine, but the data is the same.  Always good to have old manuals.  Tim

I dont have a 33WCF, nor have I loaded for one, but I came across this magazine years ago, had some good info, maybe its useful for someone.  

I just looked through a bunch of old loading manuals and none of them had data above the 200 grain bullet.  I won’t even guess how much of a powder reduction would be required.   Barrel twist is fairly fast but not sure if it is fast enough for the heavier bullet. 

I would experiment by taking some weight off the bullets you have.  Make them shorter, hollow points or drill a hole in the base.