Quote:
Originally Posted by bmcgilvray
Not gonna state that anyone else should do this, but I shoot plain ol' 148 grain wadcutters over 2.8 grains of Bulls Eye put up in .38 Special cases through my U. S. military .38 Long Colt when I'm too lazy to load up the same bullet in proper .38 Long Colt cases. The load is mild. The .362 diameter bore of the revolver appreciates the hollow base which expands to fit and the flush seated wadcutter .38 Special cartridge chambers with room to spare. Accuracy is decent out to 15 yards or so.
I do load up .38 Long Colt cartridge case using that bullet, but as I don't frequently shoot the revolver I'm not too picky about which cartridge case I have loaded with the wadcutters when I take the revolver out for exercise.
|
Funny, but I was thinking of doing exactly the same thing! I've only been able to find loads for two bullets for the 38 long Colt - both on the Hodgdon site. One is a 125gr LRN and the other is a 150gr LRN. The odd thing is that they both show using about the same range of powder weights - within 0.01gr for HP-38 (2.6gr min for both and 3.2gr max for the 150gr vs. 3.3gr for the 125gr). The really odd thing is that the COL for the 125gr is 1.400" and for the 150gr it is 1.390". So the longer bullet gets seated 0.010 DEEPER, with basically the same powder charge?
Anyway, I have some 124gr LRN, some 146gr LSWC, and some 148gr LWC. I to load up the 145 LSWC with 2.8gr - just a little over the 2.6gr min. I was thinking the same charge under the 148gr LWC with the same COL in the standard 38 special case would leave even more space in the case and therefore even a little less pressure. Your experience is a good sanity check on that thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmcgilvray
Stocks style differences are the most immediate way to tell the difference in what is otherwise the same gun in all respects. The other way to determine if one has a New Navy rather than a New Army is to open the cylinder and find an "N" roll marked on the inside of the front of the frame.
New Navy revolvers with their characteristically styled hard rubber stocks.
|
I knew about the difference in stocks, but the "N" marking is new info for me. Mine had one of each style of stock so that wasn't a clear indicator. Since mine doesn't have the "N" marking in the yoke (crane) cutout, I guess that makes it an Army model?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmcgilvray
The Colt New Army/New Navy may have a couple of redeeming qualities despite its undeniably primitive design however the trigger isn't one of them. Its single action trigger, crisp if somewhat heavy, may be easily mastered once one becomes familiar with it. The double action trigger gives an extremely poor pull. Finger-straining heavy, one gets the feeling that something inside the revolver will break before the hammer finally drops. The revolver would best be employed double action at powder-burning point blank range only.
|
Funny but the trigger on mine doesn't seem that bad. A little heavy, but not unmanageable, and pretty smooth. But I have pretty strong hands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmcgilvray
I've seen a very late one that was tight. It was an early Colt Officers Model. Officers Models were first built on New Army/New Navy frames and for only a few years. I've looked at lots of New Army and New Navy revolvers over the years and they are all loose ... bullet shavin' loose. I fear to shoot mine double-action much for lock up is so hinky.
|
I must have just got really lucky with this one - or else the person who did the refinish really knew his stuff and refurbed the action too, because this one really does seem to lockup well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmcgilvray
They're neato to own and even to shoot on occasion for the historical exercise and learning aspects of it all. Some say they aren't safe to shoot, but I never was too bright. Shoot 'em or don't shoot 'em, but be assured that they aren't very satisfactory to use.
|
I guess I'm right there with you in the "not bright" group, 'cause I had fun shooting mine and it seemed to shoot just fine to me. Maybe I just don't know the difference.