.30-30 ammo question

[Guy Miner]

According to my Speer manual, #13:

"The .30-30 cartridge has the distinction of being the first American small-bore sporting cartridge loaded with smokeless propellant. It was introduced in 1895 in the famous Winchester Model 1894 lever-action rifle and was an immediate success."

Does anyone know if the early ammo for it featured jacketed bullets or lead bullets?

Thanks, Guy

 

[SJB358]

I think they were some kinda jacketed. Then reloaded with cast.

Looking forward to this. I wondered that myself.

 

[PJGunner]

Dunno if this will help but I got this off Wikipedia. It does seem tostate what I emember in some of my reading.

"As originally produced by Winchester Repeating Arms (WRA) and Union Metallic Cartridge Company (UMC, who dubbed the cartridge .30-30), it was manufactured with a "metal patched" (jacketed) lead bullet weighing 160 gr. One year later, UMC produced a 170 gr. bullet offering, which is still the most popular loading for the cartridge. Both 150 gr. and 170 gr. bullets continue to be very popular, as seen in the number of these weights offered by current manufacturers, although the 160 gr. bullet weight has reappeared in modern cartridges from Hornady, as noted below. Jacketed bullets for the .30-30 are .308 inches nominal diameter. Cast lead bullets for the .30-30 are also popular, and usually are dimensioned to .309 inches in diameter for use in the .30-30."

Paul B.

 

[Oldtrader3]

This is why they introduced the .32 Win Special in 1905 with a 1:16 rifling twist. This was so that people could shoot jacketed 160 grain factory bullets in this caliber and reload with lead bullets which needed the slower twist to stabilize properly. The .32 Special never had factory black powder loaded for it as some believe now because of the 16 inch twist. The twist was for reloading lead bullets.

 

[onesonek]

And yet Charlie, the old technology of cast bullets is still undergoing evolution with todays knowledge in metalurgy, making for more than one way to skin the cat. It's darn near an art.

 

[Oldtrader3]

Dave, I realise that when I read about all of the special lead based, super hard bullets which are being developed for the .45-70 and other rifle applicatons.

 

[PJGunner]

This is why they introduced the .32 Win Special in 1905 with a 1:16 rifling twist. This was so that people could shoot jacketed 160 grain factory bullets in this caliber and reload with lead bullets which needed the slower twist to stabilize properly. The .32 Special never had factory black powder loaded for it as some believe now because of the 16 inch twist. The twist was for reloading lead bullets.

It is my understanding that the .32 Win. Spl. was so those who reloaded could use lead and black power. It seems lots of reloaders back then were leery of using the then new smokeless powders. The slower twist as was used in the 32-40 didn't foul up anywhere near as fast as the 1 in12" twist of the 30-30.
I shoot cast lead exclusively in the 30-30 and will be doing so in an M94 carbine I recently picked up in .32 Win. Spl. I'd been looking for one for a long time but many I saw had badly corroded barrels. Ther one I finally found had a very pristine bore and I'm looking forward to running cast bullets though it.
Paul B.

 

[Oldtrader3]

Most of the .32 Specials that I have looked at had clean barrels but most of these were made after 1946. Probably some people did use the .32-40 bullets and black powder with this rifle, dispite it being designed for smokless powder from the begining in 1905. I owned (3) of them at one time because I had a Model 64 .32 Special Standerd rifle and a Model 64 Deluxe also in .32 Special, this in addition to the standard carbine (1947) model 94 that I also owned in .32 Special

 

[onesonek]

Dave, I realise that when I read about all of the special lead based, super hard bullets which are being developed for the .45-70 and other rifle applicatons.

I know you do Charlie, I was just throwing it out there for those interested. Your post just was a convienent oppritunity, as Paul beat me to it with his post. And no reflection to your knowledge meant. Sorry, I could have been more concise on that point.

Just of late (last few years ?) there's been much experimentation. Not only in hardness, but toughness as well, and how to get it. Alot of it since the begining on how to keep the bullet from stripping the lands with the higher velocities capable with smokeless, and which was needed also for the smaller bores, to get the energy needed for then, lighter weight bullets of the time. Early on, without gaschecks, vel. pretty much, stopped at 14-1500 fps, with GC's about 1800 fps. Now there are those casting for .22's running at near jacket velocities. I my self been experimenting with varying amounts of copper to get the toughness and yet not so hard, for the 375JDJ. Even in that @2400 is beyond thought capable with good enough accuracy by some. Honestly 2300 does all I need of this 265 gr., some are running 2600 in some other caliber's.

There is that RPM threshold factor with lead, thought by some to be the limit. There's a lot of merit to that imo, but that to is being proven not to be the case with all alloy's. (so goes skinning the cat) So there's quite a bit of controversy on the issue. Quite a bit depends on the quality if the bullet cast itself also. That comes down to the alloy in part, but technique as well. Once a cast gets to a certain range of rpm, imperfections in cast come out, and accuracy goes to pot. Alloy type along with consistency in technique producing near flawless bullets, higher rpm threshold becomes less important. One can over spin them just as jacketed without much issue. I'll have to look up the sugggested RPM range of the formula that figures MV x twist of one's firearm. Which puts the most likely popular Postal design of the day right in the GSF of 1-1.5 dicussed in the other thread of late. It's good for beginners wanting to cast their own to follow imo.

Back in the day, they really only had tin (Sn) to work with, and it's cost was expensive, and it don't harded bullets like antimony (Sb) does. Sn helps more with mold fill out than any thing, but does toughen the bullet somewhat. Besides the reason of slowing the twist, was to keep from stripping the lands yet have the minimum twist for stabilization of the typical bullet profle of the day, was also to reduce fouling (compared to the 30-30's 12" twist) when using blackpowder instead smokeless. Sn was darn near like gold to caster back then, and it still ain't real cheap now when purchased in pure bars. Generally one can find Pewter at garage sale's or other scrouging methods, for it avgerages, 95% Sn content. The other alloy contents, aren't really enough to matter. As 1-2 ounces is all that is really needed in a 10-20 lb pot. I seldom go over 3& Sn in the alloy's I have found useful. I have gotten over 20 lbs over the past couple of years, at substantial cost savings for pure bars. I haven't researched it, but not sure they even knew what Sb was or if they did, had access to it. The only way they really harden bullets that I know of, was water dropping. It works yet today for a lot of applications. Hard isn't always the answer. Too many sometimes think hard is the way to go, but even in the big bore's, it's not always needed or wanted. Sometimes more velocity is desired with a soft bullet is wanted, getting that can be a little tricky depending on how much velocity. Paper patching was the answer for higher velocity back then, and still is useful today.

Often times I hear experienced caster's tell the newcomer, to buy this book and that book and that book, ect., before starting. I sometime's wonder if they don't work for the publisher's :roll: While not a bad idea, it really ain't necessary.
One can go to http://castboolits.gunloads.com/forum.php for all info needed. Read all you can here in the classic stickies and of the stickies in the cast and alloy sections. There's hundred's of dollar worth of books/info to be had there, costing one nothing but time to read. I read 6 months or better before starting, and I'm still learning every time I cast. But that reading will save a lot of headaches, or at least head sctratchin. It's really is a wealth of info money really can't buy.
Then this is link also listed there, http://www.lasc.us/CastBulletNotes.htm . But valuable knowledge you would likely spend on 2-3 books to aquire. But the R&D of cast bullets today is active as ever, if not more so. It's just more done by shooters than mfg's.

After starting casting my own, I truely can imagine what Nosler and other mfg's have to go through in core alloy selection and then the jacket as alloy well, for various design's. There is no one size fits all with those two components. An I can see, somtimes likely even the same design of the same cal. but different weights. The various combinations, are darn near infinite. The testing they must go through for development is unimaginable to me. I can't imagine the dollars spent also. Like getting the ABLR to perform at velocities down to 1300 fps, yet hold up at close range high velocity impacts, to me is about as revolutionary as it gets. I can't think of any other that gets below 17-1800. The testing had to be extensive, beyond what most shooters can truely understand imo.


P.S. if this repeats, as it does with Paul, since I start typing it,,,too many interuptions since I started it hours ago, plz forgive.

 

[onesonek]

This is why they introduced the .32 Win Special in 1905 with a 1:16 rifling twist. This was so that people could shoot jacketed 160 grain factory bullets in this caliber and reload with lead bullets which needed the slower twist to stabilize properly. The .32 Special never had factory black powder loaded for it as some believe now because of the 16 inch twist. The twist was for reloading lead bullets.

It is my understanding that the .32 Win. Spl. was so those who reloaded could use lead and black power. It seems lots of reloaders back then were leery of using the then new smokeless powders. The slower twist as was used in the 32-40 didn't foul up anywhere near as fast as the 1 in12" twist of the 30-30.
I shoot cast lead exclusively in the 30-30 and will be doing so in an M94 carbine I recently picked up in .32 Win. Spl. I'd been looking for one for a long time but many I saw had badly corroded barrels. Ther one I finally found had a very pristine bore and I'm looking forward to running cast bullets though it.
Paul B.

Cool Paul! My cousin has one in very very good condition, I been trying to talk him out of for years,,it ain't been working so well for me as one might imagine. Can't blame him though, as it was his grandfather's from 1914, and it never had blackpowder through it as far as his grandfather said. According to the story, his grandfather was frugal, but not so much as to keep up with the modern times and the use of smokeless. That and he said he didn't need to shoot it more than a few rounds a year, so cost wasn't really an issue for him. It sounded like it didn't have more than a couple hundred rounds, if that though it by the time his grandfather gave it to him in "74".

 

[Oldtrader3]

Well one thing good is that the .32 Specials are about the cheapest of the Model 94's to buy. Nobody wanted them and despite the fact that mine killed deer better than a .30-30 did not seem to matter. Mine was bought for $200 in NRA very good condition in 1973 or thereabouts. I hunted and shot it regularly and used it as a camp gun. Mine would shoot 2 inch groups with the Marble iron sights which came with it.

The .32 Special's also were produced at about a 1:10 ratio to .30-30's which means that they are much more scarce and this will become apparent as the years go by and people find that they are not that easy to find, as they were in the past because no one wanted them then. Having the .321 bore and the 16 inch twist should really help if you are going to shoot lead bullets in them of any hardness.

One thing about using lead, it is cheap and availible, despite the fact that tin and antimony are not particularly cheap. Dave, I have not really spent much time learning about lead alloying. I need to go over to Castboolit, read and pay some dues. I have always, honestly, beeen somewhat leery of working with lead because I already have an immune system CVIG level which was at about 300 a couple years ago (1000+ is normal). Now, through the miracle of chemistry, is over 1000 also.

I am curious though, so I will go there and read. Metallurgy has never been my field but one can learn and I am curious about how they are improving the properties of lead by alloying and processing tricks. One is never too old to learn new tricks.

 

[onesonek]

Note, take that few years with a rain of salt, it is likely the developments have been going on for some time. But metallurgy isn't my strong suit either Charlie. I find it fascinating to read about it from those guys that do, and how it all pertains or apply to their own cast, and whys and what fors. Cast is without a doubt. I wouldn't use cast for everything however, unless forced. But even with the most costly grain refiner I use, and if in the heaviest 470 gr. bullet I use, they would still cost less than 13 cents each. But the only alloy with that blend weighs 275 gr.s. costing quite a bit less. I can understand your leeriness also. I am getting conflicting thoughts on lead fumes however. Some say just handling lead in the solid form without gloves, as the fumes really don't develope until 2-300 degrees over what normal bullet alloy temps need to be. I just follow normal safe handling practices of gloves washing hands good after despite the gloves and plenty of ventilation. Then I don't worry, but now with chemo, I probably look into wearing a proper respirator.

 

[PJGunner]

Most of the .32 Specials that I have looked at had clean barrels but most of these were made after 1946. Probably some people did use the .32-40 bullets and black powder with this rifle, dispite it being designed for smokless powder from the begining in 1905. I owned (3) of them at one time because I had a Model 64 .32 Special Standerd rifle and a Model 64 Deluxe also in .32 Special, this in addition to the standard carbine (1947) model 94 that I also owned in .32 Special

I didn't say they shot 32-40 cartridges in the .32 Win. Spl. When the cartridge came out, many oldtimers were afarid of smokeless powders and preferred to use black powder. The 30-30 with it's too fast twist (1 in 12" fouled very badly with black powder so the .32 Spl. was brought out using the same twist rate (1in16") as the black powder 32-40. The just stuffed black powder in the .32 Spl. cases and put a well cast bullet to plug the neck.
I see you had a few M64 Winchesters. To my notion, they were the nicest handly of any of the Winchesters based on the m94 action. I have aDeluxe made in 1938, the year I was born and a standard made it 1951. The 64's were discontinued in 1957 as I recall.
Casting bullets with lead isn't as hazardous as the ecofreaks make it. I have been casting bullets since I was 16 years old and I'm pushing 75 right now. I have cast in unventilated garages, worked for a bullet casting company in San Francisco in a very small room with about 6 pots going all at once. Everybody smoked,ate and drank while casting the bullets, stuff consider no no's today. With all the fuss and bother from the ecofreaks, I became concerned and had the blood/lead serum level chacked . It seems that are two standards, depending when you were born. because of my age, a higher level was acceptable compared to those born after a certain year, which I forget. The difference had to with lead paint and the abloshment thereof. My level tested out lower than what was acceptable for those in the later year category. 8) Just don't smoke or eat while casting and wash your hands good when done. I'll add one more thing. Drink a lot of orange juice. :shock: OJ helps chelate the lead out of your systen, if any. I've been an OJ freak as long as I can remember and probably drink over a gallon a week. :lol:
On making alloys, plin old wheel weight work pretty doggone good as is, even though they no longer have as much tin or animony in the mix. Some old wheelweights I still have from a large buy back in 1973 will cast beautiful bullets as is and age harden to about 12 to 13 on the BHN scale. A lot of he current wheel weights will hardly make 10 on the scale and he last batch I got ran 8 on the scale. Pure lead is 5. I only run one alloy these days. !0 pounds of BHN 8 wheel weights, one pound of linotype, a three foot piece of 95/5 percent lead free solder and a one-third cup of magnum or chilled shot size 7 1/2 or smaller, preferably smaller. Seven and a half or smaller shot has a higher content of arsenic in the alloy and arsenic acts as a catalyst when water dropping bullets. My bullets will age harden in two weeks to a BHN level between 30 and 32 on the scale. That's harder than an IRS auditor's heart. :lol: :lol: :lol: I don't water drop my 30-30 bullets for hunting but do for target loads in the .308 and 30-06.
One of my .308 Win. loads will do 1.5 MOA at 200 yards and 2.5 MOA at 300 yards, at least if it ain't too darn windy. :wink: :lol: :lol:
Paul B.

 

[onesonek]

I agree with the all the lead issue's, and use a respirator when not enough ventilation or air movement outside.
Just curious, what temp you running casting pot at Paul ?

 

[Oldtrader3]

Paul,????? Give me a break! However, the .32-40 and .32 Special use the same diameter bullet and if you had Lyman lead casting molds for the .32-40, they were the same diameter and would work just as well in the .32 Special as bullet for reloads. I guess that I had to say the whole thing or somone would think that I think you can switch out .32/40 and .32 Special interchangeably? I only owned a .32 Special for over 40 years, how would I know?