Shooters Forum banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
554 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I just got a new Miroku/Winchester/Browning/whatever 1892 .44 mag and I'm trying out Marshall's 265, 280, and 300 gr WFNGCs.

I think they are all the same shape and length above the crimp groove(?), with the additional weight added inside the case. They feed fine (hooray), but closing the action impresses the leade and seats the bullet a little more, etc. The case length is 1.279".

Can I just shorten the cases to shorten the OAL for these WFNs? I figure around .10-.15" shorter is needed. Is there a downside in doing so (other than less powder capacity)?

Regards,

Charlie
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,365 Posts
No Problem with shortened cases

Charlie,

You're on the right track, and shortening the cases slightly so that a chambered round won't engrave the rifling won't be an issue, other than you need to slightly reduce your starting loads, as less case capacity will induce higher pressures.

Let us know how those bullets shoot in your rice-fueled Brownchester 92! (By the way they are well executed, beautiful guns!)

God Bless,

Marshall
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
188 Posts
Hi Charlie,

If you need to go a full .1" shorter, I would suggest 44 special cases to save yourself so work and to eliminate any confusion as to which cases you are working with.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
Hello Charlie-

The approach of shortening the case by .1" to .15" may work for you. I recommend that you might want to try it first with only a couple pcs. of brass though.

I had tried this approach on a Marlin .45-70 to be able to use a bullet where the nose was too long to cycle through the action with std. length brass. But... there was a problem. The shortened brass left significantly less in the way of sized case neck to hold the bullet (Redding dies), AND was then too short to crimp (Redding dies or LEE factory crimp die)!

With the .44MAG - you would certainly have the option of switching to .44Spcl. dies to work around this problem - an option I did not have with the .45-70.

Good luck!

Sky C.
Longmont, CO
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
554 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Yah, the .44mag/.44spl dies are the same -- just crank down a little more.

I don't think I'll have to go too much further down on the trim (waiting for the forster trim spindle). Probably down to 1.20 or maybe a little longer.

Charlie
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
554 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
I just finished loading the BTB 265s, 280s and 300s for the Nipponese Brownchester 1892 .44 mag.

OAL came out to 1.572" for all (same nose sections), which gave about .020 off the origin. All run slick through the action.

To crimp the case in the groove *for the 265s and 280s*, I had to shorten cases to 1.250, which is .030 from new Win brass (1.280).

The 300grs actually had a "longer" crimp groove and used the standard case length.

Can't wait to shoot'em.

BTW, the crescent butt is as painful as you might imagine. (I find doing a "trapgun mount" really helps to find the right seat -- mount the gun at 11 o'clock and bring it down to the target.) I haven't even tried heavy loads, yet...

It seems accurate: generally, 4 shots @ 50yds in about 3/4" then the fifth opening the group to 1 1/2" to 1 3/4". Haven't experimented with differing loads, yet. The big holes in the paper are very satisfying.

Regards,

Charlie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
362 Posts
Charlie, I just read an article in Sept. 9 Shotgun news on a Win. 1892 "Short rifle". Is this what you have? The article said they are from Davidson distrubutors. Are they out yet? Were did you get yours? How much money? Did you have to wait? The author said that the first caliber out was going to be the .45 then the .44. Did I miss my chance at a .45? Supposed to only be 500 of each caliber. Thanks for a reply.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
554 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I don't have the poop on the doin's at Brownchesta-ku. They called it their "Traditional" series in 2000: a Low-wall "hunter" mentioned by another post, the 1892 Short Rifle, a lightweight 1886, and the ephimeral .405 1895. Limited numbers, all made by Moruku. The price in the local shop was $630. Most you see NIB are around $700 now.

The photo shown on the Davidson's 1-500 is the right one and the specs look the same. $500 would be a good price. Davidson's seems to be the small batch test market for new guns. Winchester probably will continue to "small-batch" the model as Browning did previously. I paid $550 incl shipping and taxes, but I shopped for a year.

The fit and finish is very good and the trigger is good. The sights take a getting used to (semi-buck with a small square slot and a front gold bead) and aren't the quickest rig I've used. I bought a white bead and will probably add a Lyman receiver or Marbles or Columbia tang soon.

I'm getting used to the crescent butt: it's pretty but is not a good design. It's OK up to 1500fps with 240SWCs; beyond that speed it gets annoying. The bore is smooth and has not lead up with any of my hot non-GC loads and is really clean with the GC BTBs. It balances beautifully in the hand (no sling swivels). It's a joy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
362 Posts
The .45 colt version is on the way. Your problem makes me wonder if these rifles have chambers that are "short" for the caliber chambered? Am I going to have to shoot "short" handloads in the .45 colt?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
554 Posts
Discussion Starter #12 (Edited)
It's not the gun. The issue was that the cannelure was cut differently (more nose) on the batch of 265s and 280s. The rounds actioned fine, but were getting land impressions when chambered. The 265s, 280s and 300s seem to have the same front end, only a longer tail to add weight. The 265 and 280 cannelure needed a case length of 1.250 vs. the 1.280" of the new Win brass.

The 300grs work fine in standard length cases. I doubt you'll have an issue.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top