Buffalo Arms .50-95 supplies

[ndnchf]

I called Buffalo Arms late last week to order .50-95 loading supplies for my Uberti '76.  I was disappointed to find out they were out of everyting I wanted - dies, bullets, loaded ammo.  I was also told that the .510", 300gr bullets (Item #510300) that their website recommends for the .50-95, is in fact NOT recommended due to the size of the meplat.  They say it is too small to use safely in tubular magazines.  I was also told the bullets used in their own loaded ammo (AMO5095WINB) were a different, prototype bullet than the #510300.  Looking closely at the photos of the loaded ammo and the #510300 bullet, there does seem to be a slight difference in shape.  I was told the bullet used in the loaded ammo is no longer being used either 

Now the good news.  They have desgined a new bullet with a larger meplat.  Molds have been made and sent to the bullet supplier.  I was told that the new style bullets should be coming in next month.  They will be loading their ammo with these bullets and selling them seperately.  Also, the 4D Uberti .50-95 reloading dies are backordered, but expected next month too.

[Wes Tancred]

This is most unusual and somewhat disconcerting information. The meplat listed for Buffalo Arms' #510300 is .300 inch. The meplat of the bullet in their loaded .50-95 (Uberti) cartridges measures to .300 inch, as is the case of their 56-.50 Spencer load, also used in tubular magazines. The figure for the Ten-X Triple-7 .50-95 load is .283 inch. A Black Hills .44-40 cartridge I checked for comparison has a bullet meplat of .281 inch.

Have there been any accounts of detonation of rounds in the magazine tube, in .50-95 Winchester 1876 replicas? Have Ten-X had a problem with the smaller meplat of their .50-95 bullets? Surely something must have happened for Buffalo Arms to make these changes.

[ndnchf]

Wes,
I had the same thoughts, but have no information on the reasoning behind the change.  When I called BA, I talked to a fellow named Chris.  He put me on hold for a couple minutes while he talked to Dave Gullo about what was going on.  This change may be out of prudence, just to be on the safe side.  .50-95 recoil is significantly greater than a Spencer round.  Perhaps they are concerned that the stiffer recoil increases the chance of a magazine detonation compared to the same bullet being used in other cartridges. 

I'd be curious to know what the meplat is on original period manufacture ammunition.  Not that safety standards 125 years ago were the same, but they had a lot more real world experience.   

[Wes Tancred]

Ndnchf,

Look at Buck Stinson's excellent photographs of original .50-95 moulds, and a bullet nose:

http://www.cascity.com/forumhall/index.php?PHPSESSID=172fc0bdd1f9f5eb9d159a7a52a1539b&topic=18745.msg237858#msg237858

To my eye, the meplats are consistent with the bullets under discussion, if not on the small side. The copper express cup is supposedly just about .220 inch in diameter, which can help to convey an idea of the meplat diameter.

If a rifle has had a magazine explosion, it could possibly have been due to some other factor, such as a primer that was not fully seated; perhaps, as you say, Buffalo Arms would rather be safe than sorry.

I have fired my .50-95 Uberti 1876 with Ten-X Triple-7 loaded cartridges (350-grain bullet). It certainly does recoil more than the Spencer, but since the rifle is so heavy, it is not bad at all, nor is the motion at all "snappy".

[ndnchf]

Wes,

Buck has posted some great photos.  I agree the meplat looks consistent with the BA bullets.  Just as another data point I measured the meplat of a Mav Dutchman .44-40 bullet.  This is a modern bullet designed expressly for cowboy shooting in lever guns.  It too has a meplat of about .300". 

I suspect this is Dave Gullo is just erring on the side of safety.  Chris told me the meplat would be a lot bigger on the new bullet.  Geez, I hope it doesn't look like a wadcutter     

[ndnchf]

Buffalo Arms now has the "new" .510" - 300gr., .50-95 bullet listed.  Comparing the specs with the old .510, 300gr. bullet, the big difference is the meplat.  The old bullet (item# 510300) has a meplat of .150" (the .510, 350gr bullet has a .300" meplat).  The new bullet (item# 510300A) has a meplat of .300".  They don't have a photo of the bullet, just a line drawing.  Here's a link:
http://www.buffaloarms.com/browse.cfm/4,4636.html

I'll be trying them out as soon as I get them and my dies 

[Wes Tancred]

Now this is bizarre news, Nndchf! I have here the "old" Buffalo Arms 510300 mould that I received at the beginning of July. I had not examined it before, since I have little opportunity to shoot large calibre rifles at my current location. I just measured the meplat as closely as possible with a vernier calliper, and found .303 inch. Even allowing for the slight difference in as-cast diameter, depending on the alloy, this appears to be spot-on for a bullet meant for a tubular magazine in a rifle with relatively heavy recoil, and consistent with old and new bullets for the .50-95.

I just checked your link and realised you are referring to bullets, not to the mould itself. The new bullet you cite is described as cast from the JIM510300 mould, which is the number listed on the box for my mould.

I realise now what has happened. The #510300 refers to a .50-calibre bullet with small meplat:

http://www.buffaloarms.com/browse.cfm/4,3910.html

This is not appropriate for a tubular magazine, and is quite properly not recommended for Winchester 1876 rifles.

The JIM510300 mould has been correct all along:

http://www.buffaloarms.com/browse.cfm/4,7083.html

The ammunition for Uberti 1876s in .50-95 has been correct too (my lot is from last Summer):

http://www.buffaloarms.com/browse.cfm/4,4204.html

Thus, the safety of bullets with meplats in the .300-inch region is no longer in question, and the correct BACO bullet is the one you cited:

http://www.buffaloarms.com/browse.cfm/4,4636.html

Thanks for posting the follow-up message—it was quite a relief!

[ndnchf]

Wes,

I think you'vew got it right.  It does seem odd that they are just now beginning to offer this bullet, when the mould has been around for a while.  I'm still a bit confused about the bullet they were using in their loaded ammo.  Chris at BACO told me it was a different bullet that was no longer available.  He said the new bullet will be used in their forthcoming loaded ammo. It sounds like this will be a good bullet, I'm anxious to give it a try.