I've been shooting 38-55 with cast bullets for a couple years now. I have half a dozen rifles in this chamber. We are all aware of the great accuracy potential of this round.
I have a number of molds as the bore diameters vary wildly. My most recent mold, .380 / 255g from Accurate Molds is an extremely accurate bullet even out of the rifles with .375 bores. 
But my recent accuracy success of a 219 Zipper with Jacketed Bullets has caused me to wonder if the 38-55 would even be more accurate with a jacketed bullet.
What say you....anyone have any experience wandering down this path?
Recommendations on a J-Bullet?

My 1894 Winchester will shoot factory 255 grain ammo into 1 1/2" groups at 50 yds with iron sights. The groove diameter is about .379, well over the bullet diameter so it is surprisingly accurate with jacketed bullets. I tried cast bullets but they won't chamber at .380 diameter and I'm not about to modify the chamber on a 95 year old collectable gun.

Barnes is about the only one making the proper jacketed bullets for the 38/55. The 220 grain Hornady may work but it is intended for the higher velocities of the 375 Winchester.

Deadeye Bly wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 7:47am:


Best jacketed .375 bullet I ever used was Hawk's 250g. flat-point.  Soft copper jacket & weighed to 1/2g uniformity.  This is the most accurate bullet I ever tried in my .35-55 Pacific.  Is this company still in business?

One thing to consider when shooting jacketed bullets in a gun chambered for .38-55 is the age of the gun. Pre smokeless era barrels are softer steel, and don't hold up well to a diet of jacketed bullets. These old blackpowder  barrels will wear quicker shooting jacketed bullets, so it should be kept to a minimum if it's an old collectable firearm.

Redsetter wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 11:36am:


And his first name begin with B? I've purchased from him too!

marlinguy wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 11:27am:


This seems quite logical and is what "everybody" says.  I more or less believe it myself.  However, countless untested "truths" have proven un-true when subjected to scientific testing.  Has this "common-sense" theory ever been subjected to comparative testing?  By which I mean firing a large number, say 1000, of cast & jacketed bullets in identical barrels, then measuring them both for bore wear?

I once went looking for the earliest clear statement of this theory.  Earliest I found was in Ideal Handbook #23 (my copy hand-dated 1912).  I suspect it was not based on any kind of comparative testing, but hearsay. During this period, highly erosive powders like Sharpshooter were being used, along with cupro-nickel jackets, & corrosive primers, so these factors alone would contribute to shorter barrel life.

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to refer to B.G  (yes, correct initials) a "fraudster."  I bought a very nice New York Remington militia carbine from him 3 or 4 years ago and it was better than described.  There was no hassel on returning the rifle, and sending it back and forth cost me no more than going to a gunshow in Missoula.

I have come to the conclusion that finding a Winchester, or most any "sporting" rifle else made for smokless powder between 1898 and 1940 with an "excellent bore,"  is really tough.  The rifle and ammunition manufactures were using the "you don't have to clean" as their biggest selling point; and most "casual" shooters believed them.  Yes, there was no powder fouling, but the corrosive primers still needed to have their residue flushed out.  So a very high percentage of these bores are going to be far from "excellent."   Sellers have all sorts of ways of hedging:  "bore is dark, but rifling is sharp;" some "frosting" in the bore, etc.  Buyer bewear!

George

Barnes Originals work just fine in my 38-55 chambered WRA 1894 rifle, which has a shotgun butt (1886-model 71 size plate) instead of the standard crescent plate. The old 38-55 Hi-Vel round is easy to duplicate.