Interesting read, it looks at the original loadings of paper patch and the neck diameter compared to bore diameter. Then the switch to grooved, lubricated bullets.

M.L. McPherson, Monday, February 16, 2015
(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

marlinguy wrote on Sep 12^th, 2018 at 11:48am:


"38-55 Winchester Modifications

In 1884, Winchester modified the 38-50 Ballard case by increasing the length to 2? (guess of .125 or so...) -inches. It thereby introduced a hunting cartridge under the moniker 38-55 Winchester Center Fire (WCF)."

It was a common thing of the time to have a slightly different load be referred to as a different cartridge. I think there was a "25-36 Marlin" where the difference was a different bullet weight, compared to the Winchester 25-35. Case dimensions the same.

So it is a relevant question, but does the answer matter? I am interested in the neck / bore diameter relationship.

Winchester did indeed simply put their name on a cartridge already developed by Marlin for the Ballard. It may not matter from a reloading point of view who was first, but if a myth is repeated often enough online, it soon becomes "fact", and that's the case with McPherson's article.
The .25-36M and .25-35 W are a similar situation, but Winchester was not quite as blatant in stealing that cartridge. They did not simply change bullet weight to make it theirs; they changed the shoulder angle, and slightly shortened the neck length. So the Win. .25-35 would fit and shoot in a Marlin .25-36, but a Marlin cartridge would not fit in the .25-35 chamber. Even more clever than simply stealing a design and calling it their own!

One thing McPherson was right about was his statement regarding many fine guns having their chambers reamed and ruined! And the vast majority of those ruined were on newer guns. My guess is that those who owned older guns were hesitant to change the chambers, or smart enough to know those chambers have worked for over a decade as they are.
The Manson reamer isn't a fix. It's just another reamer for the .38-55, and not one that was needed. I've got original .38-55 guns with groove diameters of as small as .380" to as large as .384", and shoot them all with fixed ammo.

How about 38-55 Ballard aka Win?

This is from Marlin's 1888 Catalog; "We guarantee the 32-40, 38-55, and 40-60 Marlin Rifles ONLY when cartridges made by the Union Metallic Cartridge Company are used, the ammunition manufactured by the Winchester Repeating Arms Company for these weapons not being properly made." 

BP wrote on Sep 28^th, 2018 at 2:58pm:


The .45-70 Marlin was identical to the .45-70 Govt. except it had small rifle primers. Marlin specified small rifle primers in their version for the Model 1881 to eliminate any chance of certain round nosed bullets causing a chain fire in the mag tube.
This was a real concern as the 1881 Marlin was entered into military trials in 1881 and Marlin specified their small primer variation to use in the trials. But Winchester supplied all the ammo for the various .45-70's tested, and the 1881 did indeed suffer a chain fire in the magazine tube after a couple hundred rounds fired in it as quickly as possible.
So this is the reason Marlin hung their name on the .45-70 with small primer pockets. Notice the small print in the bottom of that ad? It reflects Winchester's refusal to make the small primer pocket brass.

From the various ads, catalogs, etc. I've seen over many decades it seems that Marlin and UMC had a very close relationship. Not sure of the basis of this relationship, but most early cartridges developed by or for Marlin were first offered by UMC, and Marlin quite often recommended the use of UMC ammo in their guns.