Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Mike,
I am of the opinion that it looks considerably better today than it did when I held it in my hands in Cody a few weeks ago. You did a great job of “doing no harm” to it, and leaving it in its original condition, albeit with a properly executed deep cleaning. Congrats on a job well done!
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
November 7, 2015
Offline
Thanks, Bert. Pretty happy with the way it turned out if I do say so myself. It was an educational project and I put a lot of work into it…..and I’m proud to say it doesn’t look like it. It looks like a hard-working, well maintained old Winchester. I feel pretty certain that’s exactly what it was for most of it’s 120+ years.
Like the way it turned out – refurbished with all it’s honest wear and tear left as earned through the years.
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
November 7, 2015
Offline
Thanks, Wayne. That’s the result I was hoping for. Headed to the range with some nice fresh loads to see how she shoots. Had some tolerance stacking issues with the gas checks on the bullets I cast Friday but they should work just fine. Not sure why I spec’d this mould as a GC anyway.
TXGunNut said
Not sure why I spec’d this mould as a GC anyway.
Not sure why either but…….the 38-55 is a great old cartridge that can be quite accurate when using the correct (longer) length brass. Since you’ve got a Model 1894 you can certainly push the velocity beyond the original factory load of 1380 fps and anything around 1600 fps or more will require a gas check.
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
November 7, 2015
Offline
This particular design has a GC but I could have spec’d a PB. I have no intention of pushing it hard enough to need a GC but sometimes a GC has advantages at the lower velocities. My thought was a GC would allow me to use a very soft alloy that would expand for hunting applications at the lower BP 38-55 velocities. The biggest problem with that line of thinking is that they were using very soft alloys in this cartridge 120 yrs ago with no GC’s. My other thought is that GC’s sometimes give a bit more accuracy but that is probably more a function of bullet design…but then again I’m shooting an old levergun with a less-than pristine bore so not sure why that line of thinking applies anyway.
Heard back from Tom @ Accurate already, he has a solution for my GC issue but I may just order another mould, this time a PB. Seems I need to order a mould for another rifle so I might save a little postage.
Range trip was pretty much a bust, broken firing pin. At least my old 75 shot well, well enough to embarrass a guy with his tricked-out 10-22. 
The adventure continues.
TXGunNut said
My other thought is that GC’s sometimes give a bit more accuracy but that is probably more a function of bullet design…but then again I’m shooting an old levergun with a less-than pristine bore so not sure why that line of thinking applies anyway.
Years ago I figured out that gas checks serve to clean leading from the grooves and increase accuracy. My speculation is that the leading edge of the GC acts as a sort of scraper as it thunders down the barrel. Made and old 1873 32-20 with a 5 – 6 bore shoot 2″ 5 shot groups @ 100 yards. Worked well also with an 1892 32-20 as well as an old 1894 in 32-40. All at original (BP era) velocities.
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
November 7, 2015
Offline
I’ve heard those reasons for GC’s but this will be my first time to test that theory. Got a firing pin from Homestead yesterday and tonight I tackled that little chore. 
I know I’ve had a 94 action apart before and it wasn’t much fun to get back together but I don’t recall it being such a PITA. It would have helped if I’d done it in the right order. 
Maybe tomorrow’s range trip will go better.
1 Guest(s)
