.38 Long Colt vs. .38 Special ballistics

[vanfunk]

Hello all:

I recently acquired a Colt New Army (commercial model) in .38 Long Colt. The gun is mechanically sound, and the finish (including fire blued screws) is about 90%. Like many of these, the chambers are bored straight through. While the conventional wisdom is to shoot only .38 Long or Short Colt through these, a comparison of Long Colt vs standard velocity .38 Specials yields little difference:

.38 Long Colt: 150 grain bullet at 770 fps
.38 Special: 158 grain bullet at 755 fps

The web is full of admonitions NOT to shoot .38 Specials through these old Colts, but nowhere has it been explained to me exactly WHY. Can anyone share some info here? There wouldn't seem to be a hair's difference between these standard loads. What am I missing?

By the way, the action on this revolver, while extremely smooth, is quite heavy - prolly on the order of 16 lbs double action and 8-9 lbs single action. Other than giving the internals a good cleaning and lube, is there an easy way to lighten the trigger pull? The revolver is 110 years old, so I don't want to do much to it, but it would be nice if there's an easy, minimally invasive fix for the heavy trigger.

Thanks!

vanfunk

 

[451 Detonics]

Well other than being the wrong diameter bullet, wrong diameter case, and longer than the Colt cartridge I guess the Special isn't too different. This is a case of it may fit but that doesn't make it right.

As for the trigger a good cleaning will likely help as old oil tends to get gummy but the older Colts DAs were never known for light triggers.

 

[vanfunk]

The case diameter is the same, and the bore diameter is .358 on mine. Case length is different, of course.

Thanks,

vanfunk

 

[Old Fuff]

The ballistics properties of the .38 Special 148 grain midrange wadcutter is almost identical to that of the .38 Long Colt, and as such it's the only .38 Special ammunition I'd recommend for use in one of these older Colt's.

The mainspring is heavy for two reasons - during the era these revolvers were made, primers were less sensetive; and two, the maker wanted to be sure they would fire regardless of environmental conditions.

As for shooting it, I wouldn't. You didn't post a serial number, but since the model was discontinued in 1908 I can presume that it's over a century old. In the condition it's in (as you describe it) you have a valuable collectable, but not a particularly good shooter. Should you break any internal parts you will find that replacements are hard to find, as well as gunsmiths who are qualified to work on them. Thus any repairs are likely to be expensive at best.

On the other hand if you sell it on the collector's market the return you get should easily cover the purchase of another revolver that's much better for current day use, and finding the correct ammunition will pose no problem.

 

[vanfunk]

Hi Old Fuff:

Thank you for your insights. The considerations you posed seem to make sense regarding primers and reliability. Come to think of it, many of the old revolvers I've toyed with have smooth, but heavy actions, even single actions. As to shooting the old gal, I guess it's a personal philosophy that I shoot all my guns, assuming they're in good working order. This example was built in 1901 per Proofhouse.com, and appears not to have been fired much at all. It has carry wear in the usual places, and the front sight has met with a pair of pliers at some point to adjust POI, but it is mechanically new, basically. I like the idea of the wadcutters, which would make for a pleasant outing I'm sure.

I still wonder, though, given the ballistic similarities between the two standard loadings, why a run-of-the-mill 158 gr. LRN or SWC .38 Special at 750 fps would be viewed as too hot - are there pressure curve differences between smokeless loads of 100 years ago and those of today?

Thanks all!

vanfunk

 

[451 Detonics]

Bullet diameter on the Colt is .361, a 38 Special is .357...enough of a difference to be significant. Case diameter on the Colt is .381 versus the Special's .379, rim thickness is .060 versus .058.

Why not just use the proper ammo in it?

 

[Oyeboten]

Hi 451 Detonics,


You may be thinking of the .38 Short Colt Cartridge, which was the Heeled Bullet, and, was of a larger, .361 Diameter, and, was the parent, so to speak, of the .38 Long Colt Cartridge -


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.38_Long_Colt


The earlier Smith & Wesson 'Military & Police' ( K-Frame ) Revolvers, ( overlapping in time, the Colt New Army/Navy Revolvers, ) chambered either the .38 S&W Special Cartridge, or, the .38 Long Colt Cartridge ( aka 'U.S.Service Cartridge' )...as indeed, will any .38 Special Revolver Cylinder.

Far as I know, The .38 Long Colt Cartridge is merely a little shorter, and, usually, was or is loaded with a slightly lighter Bullet.


Probably, as others have said, Hollow Base, or at any rate, Mid Range Lead Wadcutters, and Loadings traditional for them, would be a good choice for this Revolver so as not to strain it.

Be interestng to know the Cylinder bore diameters and Barrel Bore diameter on the Colt Revolver.

 

[Oyeboten]

Hi vanfunk,


You'd asked -

I still wonder, though, given the ballistic similarities between the two standard loadings, why a run-of-the-mill 158 gr. LRN or SWC .38 Special at 750 fps would be viewed as too hot - are there pressure curve differences between smokeless loads of 100 years ago and those of today?

I doubt anyone would worry, if you stayed with Black Powder Cartridges.


As far as I accept it, the usual Smokeless Powders are usually regarded as making a more sudden or spikey form of pressure, compared to Black Powder, and, would not necessarily give as good of performance, either, when loaded prudently for old Revolvers, as Black Powder would.


If I had to guess, I would guess that the Smokeless Loads of 100 years ago, for .38 Colt or .38 special, were likely a little higher than the 'SAAMI' allowance now.


And, we must conceed, these Guns were a lot newer, then, too!



If it were my Revolver, I would be loading my own Black Powder Cartridges for it.

It is really a lot more fun anyway...nicer and different recoil, deeper heavier report, all round a big step "up" from Smokeless.


Safer for the Gun, and, more power and FPS than you'd get hedging your bets with the usual range of ( 'worrysome' in this context, of ) Smokeless.

 

[vanfunk]

Why not just use the proper ammo in it?

Hi there 451: The reason is availability - though I just found a site that loads .38 Long Colt with the old style heel-based 150 grain bullets, and it's not ridiculously expensive either!

Oyeboten: I'm thinking about the "Holy Black" too - In fact the place I'm ordering from will do either smokeless or black powder loads. I'm going to start with smokeless, for now.

Now, regarding Short Colt vs. Long Colt - I found an unopened box of Winchester-Western "Lubaloy" .38 Short Colts at my LGS last night, so I bought 'em. Other than being pretty low powered (125 grain bullet at 730 fps), is there any reason why I shouldn't try these out while I wait for my custom loaded Long Colts to arrive? They are also heel-based.

Thanks All!

vanfunk

 

[Old Fuff]

I still wonder, though, given the ballistic similarities between the two standard loadings, why a run-of-the-mill 158 gr. LRN or SWC .38 Special at 750 fps would be viewed as too hot - are there pressure curve differences between smokeless loads of 100 years ago and those of today?

We know that black powder has a much flatter/longer pressure curve then today’s smokeless powders usually used in loading handgun cartridges, even if both are loaded to the same maximum level. Because the old “charcoal propellant” is much slower burning. This longer distribution of pressure is gentler on the low-carbon steels used in older guns and these cylinders were not heat-treated. Also the round bars used to make cylinders and barrels in open-hearth foundries sometimes had seams or entrapped practical of carbon in them.

When it comes to early-day smokeless loads we don’t know. Velocity and pressures were calculated and not obtained using today’s chronographs and pressure barrels, and production runs of powder were not always divided into specific lots.

Concerning shooting. At this point I am going to be blunt, not as a put-down but rather to hopefully prevent you from making what could be a costly mistake.

I am well aware of the “I shoot everything I own” mind-set, but frankly too many folks don’t understand there is a difference between firearms and historical artifacts. Consequently they do not take into serious consideration what materials were used a century or more ago, nor the affect that time can have on those materials. Some also seem to believe that if a 19th or early 20th century gun is in what appears to be good shape it’s safe to shoot. Unfortunately this is not sound reasoning.

As I tried to point out, simply dry-firing (let alone shooting) can cause old internal parts to break – especially springs. If or when this happens you are going to find that parts are not easy to find, and most of those that are were originally fitted in another gun. Thus they may or may not work in yours. In any case they are likely to be expensive, as will the services of a handful of gunsmiths who are qualified to fix them. Again keep in mind that these Colt’s were individually hand built, and parts do not often drop in, as is the case with some today. Once something is broken the value of the artifact goes down substantially – how much depending on what is busted.

Which is the reason I suggested that you take advantage of your Colt’s value as a collectable, and use the proceeds to buy a much better “shooter,” which by all means you should go forth and shoot. You will find that it has much better sights, is more accurate, safely uses more easily obtainable ammunition, and most likely has a lighter action and trigger pull.

My opinions, as stated above are backed by David Chicoine – a gunsmith of considerable reputation who specializes in repairing and restoring these older firearms. You will find him at www.oldwestgunsmith.com

Save the link – you may need it.

 

[CraigC]

Let us also not forget that there will be a substantial difference in peak pressures between blackpowder .38Colt and smokeless .38Spl. To go along with the vastly more gentle blackpowder pressure curve. There's a very good reason for those warnings about using .38Spl in a .38Colt.

 

[Haxby]

Black Hills Ammunition website shows 38 Long Colt ammo.

 

[vanfunk]

Hi Old Fuff:

10-4, your point is well made and well taken. I have many "better" shooters, to be sure, but I do appreciate the nostalgia involved in shooting the older arms.

CraigC: I am definitely convinced of the "softer" characteristics of the black powder loads. What I don't understand is that the .38 Long Colt was loaded with smokeless powder for most of the Colt New Army DA .38 line during its service days, which reportedly involved a 150 grain bullet at a nominal 770 fps - not meaningfully different from today's typical standard .38 Special 158 grain bullet at 755 fps. That's why I am puzzled by the warnings.

Thanks again all!

vanfunk

 

[Oyeboten]

Hi vanfunk,


To my own mind, the resolution of the 'warning' ( in the context of how by the early 19-0hs, the .38 Colt was typically a Smokeless Cartridge anyway ) is that the Revolvers were a lot newer then!


Time alone is not going to make much difference for a revolver, but, cumulative use or cumulative Shots fired, will make some difference.


Are your Cylinders step-bored? Or bored straight through with no 'step'?

And, in either event, what is their diameter in their Bore area?


And, what is the diameter of your Barrel, across the Grooves, as it were?


My own understanding, is that the .38 Colt 'Short' was a Heeled Bullet, outside Lubed, of around .361 Diameter.

And, that the .38 U.S.Service Cartridge, was a non-Heeled Bullet, of around .357 diameter, inside Lubed.


However, I am still confused about Cylinder Bore diameters, and, whether the Cylinders were Step Bored, or not, and Barrel Bore diameters, in these Revolvers.

 

[Old Fuff]

The .38 Long Colt originated as a cartridge to be used in Colt converted .36 Navy cap & ball revolvers (or more often new guns made up using surplus parts left over after the Civil War). It was later featured in Colt's D.A. models 1877, 1888 Navy, and 1892 New Army/Navy.

In it's original configuration the round used a heeled bullet, .376" in diameter. The case was the same diameter, and would fit in the original .36 chamber after the back of the cylinder was modified. In later cartridge models the chamber was bored straight through (.381" - .385") without a shoulder.

Sometime during the late 1890's or early 1900's the heeled bullet was abandoned in favor of a inside lubricated bullet with a reduced .358" diameter. It came with a hollow base intended to expand to seal the grooves in what was now an oversized bore. Apparently it didn't work well (which should cause no surprise) so in 1903 the bore was reduced to match the bullet.

 

[Oyeboten]

Hi Old Fuff,



Good reminders there on that...


Which is some of why almost everyone, for a long time, has been at least a little confused or bemused or all three, with these New Army/Navy Colt DAs.


Where, only in some instances, will the present form of Cartridge/Bullet combo, match the Revolver very well.


I wish I could find mine to see which Model it is, and to measure some of these details of Cylinder Chambering and Bore and Barrel Bore.


I got it a long time ago, looked at it for ten seconds, put it away, and, have not seen it since.

It is some sort of Martial Model, anyway, with the designation on the Butt by the Lanyard Loop.