Hmmm. Perhaps that is why primer pockets loosened up in my Starline brass once the Lyman & RCBS 250s got sent past 1700 FPS. The steel buttplate on my flatband 94 enhances recoil dynamics wonderfully. ENOUGH--two reasons for speed limits in that combination.
I see many people who are frustrated when lubing bevel based bullets with thevLyman style lube/sizers.
I only have a few bevel based molds. This type of bullet does fine with PC, or tumble lube.
The thing that I wonder about is are bevel base bullets more or less prone to leading?
I use one in a 40 s&w that I have had leading with. However, in my situation I think it has more to do with improper sizing, sharp throat entrance, and the high pressure nature of that cartridge.
With a bevel base you end up with a shorter driving band, which leaves you less surface area to seal, and sealing prevents the expanding gasses from cutting the lead. But proper sizing is how you get your seal, not from the linear length of the sealing surface. Right?
I also wonder how short can the bottom driving band be and still hold pressure?
Most of my irritation with bevel-base bullet designs has to do with lube-sizing and the leakage they allow during that lubing step. They make a mess. I prefer a thicker base/bottom drive band lacking a bevel on my plain-based bullets because I believe that a longer base band sized to fit closely to throat and grooves will contain propellant gases behind the bullet more efficiently. I liken bullet base form to that of piston rings in an engine--piston rings have square forms of their leading edges that move in both directions.
I'll pass on whether or not a bevel base bullet creates a less than desirable gas seal and that it causes some degree of leading, because I've not done any proof testing. However, and for sure, a bevel base and traditional lube do not go together, and for that I do have the proof.
After reading it, it seems to me that if I was choosing, then l might just go with the wildcat. As has been mentioned the 35-30 dies aren’t cheap. But I already have a good supply of 30-30 brass that would definitely offset the cost of buying all that “good” 38-55 Starline brass.
I also am pretty sure I will be able buy 30-30 brass in 25 years. I don’t know if Starline will still be in business that far into the future.
That is some SUPERB information you posted. THANK YOU!
That Jesse Ocumpah of JES Reboring knows his business. I bought Starline's longer (2.125") brass for my Win 94, and it was a bit long for the JES-cut chamber--so I trimmed it to the 2.080" length. Note--this was BEFORE the expanded primer pockets' occurrence. Bullets seated in the shortened cases of .377" diameter fit well in all respects, so some combination of well-fit bullets and/or thickened case bases (less powder capacity) led to elevated pressures that still expanded primer pockets. Hence my caveat to "Make haste slowly" when working up loads.
I have made mention more than once of Ross Seyfried's "formula" using IMR-4198 in black powder cartridges (nominal BP charge weight X 0.4 = weight in IMR-4198 to deliver equivalent velocity and other empirical performance goals. I don't know if or if not H-4198 behaves the same way, and although the late John Kort made much use of the somewhat similar burn rates of RL-7 in 100%-density loads in 32/20 and 44/40 loads to support Lymans #311008 and #427098, neither of the 4198s or RL-7 should EVER be considered as interchangeable with each other. "Similar burn rate" classifications are only a small element within a large and complex calculus. Bulk density and net pressure yield per grain are variables every bit as critical as burn rate. We extrapolate at our own risk, and perhaps at our peril on occasion. Make haste slowly, indeed.
Speaking of brass, does anyone have any Starline brass in the 2.125 that I could buy? 30 or 40 would be great. Starline is out, Midwayusa is out. Buffalo Arms has some Winchester but that I believe is .009 neck thickness. I do have 18 CIL brass that is 2.125 long but the necks are .009 thick. I haven't tried the CIL brass yet, but my groove on the High Wall is .382, so I suspect it might be a problem.
I would be interested in ordering from Starline but 250 as a minimum order is more then I will need. I would go for 100 if there's anyone that might want the balance. Of course that is once they are back in stock..
Just a thought......Starline makes their brass on a schedule of some sort, and I suspect it is driven to some degree by both general demand and by pending back-orders. This most recent shortage started about the same time that COVID took hold, and got a dose of steroids when the election got sideways in November. In the midst of that mess (about June IIRC) I ordered 500 pieces of 9mm Luger brass, and expected to wait months to receive it. To my surprise, the brass arrived about 6 weeks later.
Just scan this thread's content--I count a number of people considering a refreshing of their leverguns from 30/30 WCF to 38/55. I respectfully suggest that you get in the back-order queue for the 38/55 brass of your choice from Starline. It will likely arrive sooner than expected, and when it does you will have a ready market for whatever brass you have that is surplus to your own needs. If we have learned nothing else from the serial shortages that have beset this hobby field for 25+ years, it is that cartridge brass is--at minimum--a semi-precious metal. Though my own rifle dotes upon the shorter 2.080" flavor, I would purchase the 2.125" variant because regardless of chamber form, that longer brass can be trimmed to fit if necessary, making it saleable to all.