Home Main Category General Firearms

A purposeful range trip

JunkCollectorJunkCollector Posts: 1,159 Senior Member
In regards to my 38-55 question.

I Had to try the ammo and see where it hit using the buckhorns.
I sure wasn't going to try the peep one on a bear.
Dawned on me I haven't even tried them yet.
I also had to see if the rifle even liked them. It did.
I have my hunting rounds for it.





No adjustment made its a bit high and a bit right of center.
For size reference the white circle is quarter size.

Then I wasn't liking that 1st barrel pattern at all on the 16 gauge double.
I wanted to get a better idea of what to expect from it.
Picture turned but aiming point was between the green circles.

Much happier now.
I ran the test a few times with a much better pattern than day one.



Definitely relieved 

Replies

  • sakodudesakodude Senior Member Posts: 4,604 Senior Member
    Yogi look out!!!
  • sakodudesakodude Senior Member Posts: 4,604 Senior Member
    Different ammo in the 16?
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 7,928 Senior Member
    WW made good ammo. I suppose the old bullets will expand. Still plenty of mass to push em' after impact.

    That S×S of mine will pattern some loads alot better than others. The full choke barrel will reach out quite aways.
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 9,467 Senior Member
    edited September 2021 #5

    For size reference the white circle is quarter size.
    And the bullet holes are .38" in diameter too.  (It's alright JC, we'll get there. ;))

    Good news for you!  My experience with the .38-55 is not SUPER extensive ,being loosely connected to only four guns chambered in it, but ALL of them want to shoot well - even a super early 1855 with an out-of-round chamber.  It seems to be one of those magic cartridges that almost nobody seems to have accuracy troubles with.

    I'm really glad the round has been enjoying a comeback.  For those types of hunting where long range trajectories are not needed, its enough gun for darn near anything and it does not pound you.  It served as the parent case for the .30-30 because smokeless and velocity were the fad in the 1890's, but 20/20 hindsight makes me ask "WHY DID THEY BOTHER?"  I guess they had all those Ballards and Maynards they didn't want to blow up, but otherwise, we could have just carried on with .38-55.

    Now go get us some game pics!
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • JunkCollectorJunkCollector Posts: 1,159 Senior Member
    sakodude said:
    Different ammo in the 16?
    Two were exactly what I used day one.
    One was an old paper Remington shur shot all did much better than day one.

    I am thankful.
    I Was thinking I might have a good one barrel gun. :smile:
  • JunkCollectorJunkCollector Posts: 1,159 Senior Member
    WW made good ammo. I suppose the old bullets will expand. Still plenty of mass to push em' after impact.

    That S×S of mine will pattern some loads alot better than others. The full choke barrel will reach out quite aways.
    I think these will perform admirably Mike. It's not terribly vintage ammo and bullets.
    Especially for me....lol
    More a special run by WW.
  • JunkCollectorJunkCollector Posts: 1,159 Senior Member
    Bigslug said:

    For size reference the white circle is quarter size.
    And the bullet holes are .38" in diameter too.  (It's alright JC, we'll get there. ;))

    Good news for you!  My experience with the .38-55 is not SUPER extensive ,being loosely connected to only four guns chambered in it, but ALL of them want to shoot well - even a super early 1855 with an out-of-round chamber.  It seems to be one of those magic cartridges that almost nobody seems to have accuracy troubles with.

    I'm really glad the round has been enjoying a comeback.  For those types of hunting where long range trajectories are not needed, its enough gun for darn near anything and it does not pound you.  It served as the parent case for the .30-30 because smokeless and velocity were the fad in the 1890's, but 20/20 hindsight makes me ask "WHY DID THEY BOTHER?"  I guess they had all those Ballards and Maynards they didn't want to blow up, but otherwise, we could have just carried on with .38-55.

    Now go get us some game pics!
    I've got the confidence to work on that now.

    Yogi was close Friday 


  • ZeeZee Senior Member Posts: 27,683 Senior Member
    That’s a cool looking cartridge. 
    "To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
  • JunkCollectorJunkCollector Posts: 1,159 Senior Member
    Zee said:
    That’s a cool looking cartridge. 
    :smile:
    Interesting 
    Maybe it's like the 308 of the lever world.

    You need one.....


  • Wambli SkaWambli Ska Posts: 3,498 Senior Member
    Yeah I need one.  It’ll fit between the 30-30 and the .444
    I’m baaaaaaaaack… 😬
  • CHIRO1989CHIRO1989 Senior Member Posts: 14,377 Senior Member
    Bigslug said:

    For size reference the white circle is quarter size.
    And the bullet holes are .38" in diameter too.  (It's alright JC, we'll get there. ;))

    Good news for you!  My experience with the .38-55 is not SUPER extensive ,being loosely connected to only four guns chambered in it, but ALL of them want to shoot well - even a super early 1855 with an out-of-round chamber.  It seems to be one of those magic cartridges that almost nobody seems to have accuracy troubles with.

    I'm really glad the round has been enjoying a comeback.  For those types of hunting where long range trajectories are not needed, its enough gun for darn near anything and it does not pound you.  It served as the parent case for the .30-30 because smokeless and velocity were the fad in the 1890's, but 20/20 hindsight makes me ask "WHY DID THEY BOTHER?"  I guess they had all those Ballards and Maynards they didn't want to blow up, but otherwise, we could have just carried on with .38-55.

    Now go get us some game pics!
    I've got the confidence to work on that now.

    Yogi was close Friday 


    Range report on a bear?
    I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11
  • JunkCollectorJunkCollector Posts: 1,159 Senior Member
    CHIRO1989 said:
    Bigslug said:

    For size reference the white circle is quarter size.
    And the bullet holes are .38" in diameter too.  (It's alright JC, we'll get there. ;))

    Good news for you!  My experience with the .38-55 is not SUPER extensive ,being loosely connected to only four guns chambered in it, but ALL of them want to shoot well - even a super early 1855 with an out-of-round chamber.  It seems to be one of those magic cartridges that almost nobody seems to have accuracy troubles with.

    I'm really glad the round has been enjoying a comeback.  For those types of hunting where long range trajectories are not needed, its enough gun for darn near anything and it does not pound you.  It served as the parent case for the .30-30 because smokeless and velocity were the fad in the 1890's, but 20/20 hindsight makes me ask "WHY DID THEY BOTHER?"  I guess they had all those Ballards and Maynards they didn't want to blow up, but otherwise, we could have just carried on with .38-55.

    Now go get us some game pics!
    I've got the confidence to work on that now.

    Yogi was close Friday 


    Range report on a bear?
    Haven't been out since 
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement