Driftwood Johnson, SASS #38283

Oh please! The concentration of Hydrogen Peroxide in normal drug store hydrogen peroxide is about 3% if I recall correctly, the rest is water. After being diluted with alcohol and Murphy's Oil Soap the concentration goes down to about 1%. The only thing the H2O2 does is add a little bit of fizzing action to the mixture. Although the Germans were using Hydrogen Peroxide in the V2 rocket, it was a highly concentrated version. 1% of H2O2 is not going to rust anything. Before I started using this mixture, about 20 years ago, I doused a piece of carbon steel with the mixture and let it sit overnight until the mixture evaporated. Guess what? No rust.

Howdy Here is my pair of 2nd Gen Colts that I have been shooting in CAS for many years. The one with the 7 1/2" barrel shipped in 1973, the short one shipped in 1968. Both chambered for 45 Colt, and I only shoot them with ammunition loaded with Black Powder.

Howdy Boys. Thanks to H.K. for including my old post about cylinder bushings on original S&W revolvers and how they allow an antique revolver to be fired all day long with Black Powder without needing cleaning. I am slightly annoyed about the video by the guy shooting BP out of a new Uberti Schofield because the photo of a close up of a cylinder a S&W Top Break was my photo, used without my permission. Also, he opines that S&W should have chambered the Schofield for 45 Colt in the first place. Clearly he does not know what he is talking about, S&W were in the middle of producing about 150,000 Top Break revolvers for the several European governments at the time. S&W's standard cylinder length was 1 7/16", which was fine for cartridges such as the 45 Schofield and 44 Russian. But chambering the Schofield revolver for 45 Colt would have required a cylinder 1 9/16" long, and the frame would have needed to be stretched 1/8" to accommodate the longer cylinder. S&W was not about to create new tooling for a longer cylinder and frame while producing thousands of revolvers with the 1 7/16' cylinder. If memory serves, there were only something like 7,000 Schofield revolvers produced, so clearly S&W made the correct decision regarding not changing tooling mid-stream. I have not been on the Wire much recently, but I am going to try to post a few photos anyway. The first is of an actual antique Schofield in my collection. This is a First Model Schofield, which shipped in 1875. Full disclosure, I have never actually fired this revolver, but if I did I am sure it would function beautifully with Schofield cartridges loaded with real Black Powder. Next, a pair of S&W New Model Number Three revolvers. I have shot these many times with real Black Powder. They are chambered for the 44 Russian cartridge, as were many of this model. I can shoot these revolvers for an entire match without needing any cleaning or spritzing or anything. They just keep on shooting because of S&W's brilliant cylinder bushing design. This is a photo taken at the end of a match before cleaning them. Note how sooty they are, but they kept on shooting for the entire match just fine. Lastly, I never use any sort of Black Powder substitute. My powder of choice is Schuetzen FFg for all my Black Powder cartridge shooting. Yes, this is the same stuff Graff sells. Schuetzen uses better charcoal than Goex does, and the result is less fouling. Yes, Swiss creates even less fouling, but I have never seen the need to buy the more expensive Swiss when Schuetzen performs so well in my revolvers, shotgun, and rifles. Lastly, cleaning. Number one: Black Powder is no where near as corrosive as many shooters think. It was corrosive when combined with the old corrosive primers, but we don't use corrosive primers any more. I clean my Black Powder guns with the old equal parts Hydrogen Peroxide, Denatured Alcohol & Murphy Oil Soap solution. I seldom clean them directly after a match, I am too tired to clean 4 guns after driving home from a match. I try to get to them within a week, but I am not going to state here how long I have been known to delay cleaning them. Much more than a week. After cleaning I lube with Ballistol. There you have it.

Nope. I'm not gonna dissect one of those rounds to find out.

PREVIEW? Howdy. As a confirmed Luddite I am having a few growing pains with the new software. I don't seem to be able to find the ability to preview a post before I send it. There is a Preview icon, page with a magnifying glass, to the far right of the text box tool bar. I think Preview is its intent. I have always found this a very useful feature, because I like to edit my post before I send it. I too liked the old way. You all know I tend to get blabby at times and I need to make sure my spelling is correct and see that I am saying what I need to say. I always see my mistakes after the Reply has posted, why should you be different. That was a joke. The Preview was a great feature that allowed me to do that. Am I just not finding it, or is Preview gone? If it is gone, I would really like to see it back. Tried to preview this post too, could not do it before sending. Let us know if the Preview icon meets your needs. However, it seems to be part of the new version of the Software, which can't be easily changed like User Preferences and Settings. Thanks WAIT! STOP THE PRESSES.I should have read your entire message before trying to reply. Lesson learned. Thank you! I just found the teeny tiny preview button at the upper right of the tool bar. You hit the teeny, tiny, microscopic preview button that looks like a teeny, tiny magnifying glass over a teeny, tiny sheet of paper. Then you hit the X that shows up on the far right to return to editing mode. Maybe the preview button could be made a little bit bigger or more descriptive so those of us who are half blind will see it better?.It is basically the same size as the other buttons/icons/tools. Now that you know where it is, I doubt it will be a problem for you. BTW, thank you for bringing this up so everyone can learn from it. Gripe, gripe, gripe, gripe.........I have them too. However, the Administrator "Control Panel" is much more user friendly than it was in the past. I feel like I am up-to-speed, or nearly so, now. I'm sure y'all will be soon.

As you all know by now I seriously dislike the term Period Correct. However the guy all the way on the right in that photo is Geronimo, and you can bet what he is wearing is historically accurate.

Well Griff, as I've said many times, it is the cylinder that contains the pressure of the cartridge firing. The frame, which includes the top strap, does not see the pressure of the cartridge firing. However the frame does see the pounding of recoil, and a thicker top strap will be important in keeping the frame from stretching or otherwise failing from the heavier recoil of the 44 Mag cartridge.

H.K. The most useful photo is #7, comparing two cylinders together.since both cylinders are 44 caliber, that is an apples to apples comparison. Talking about thicker top straps and stuff is all well and good, but the pedal hits the metal, so to speak, in the cylinders, which must contain the pressure of the cartridges firing. It appears to me that the web between chambers is slightly thicker on the Uberti 44 Magnum cylinder than the Colt 44 Special cylinder. A simple measurement with a caliper could confirm this. An even better photo would be a side by side comparison of both cylinders from the rear. Well lit of course, so it can be seen if either cylinder has more metal between the cylinders. A simple measurement would suffice too. I am talking about a photo like this, which clearly shows how much bigger and stronger the 'old model' Vaquero cylinder is tjam tje Iberto Cattleman on the left and the 2nd Gen Colt on the right. All three cylinders are chambered for 45 Colt. I suspect the difference between you Colt 44 Special cylinder and the new Uberti 44 Mag cylinder may not be quite so obvious, but this is the type of photo I am talking about. There are other considerations, such as how deep the bolt cuts are, but a measurement of the metal between chambers would go a long way towards confirming if the Uberti 44 Mag is indeed beefier than a standard Colt or Uberti in 44 Special. There are other things too, the diameter of the Mag cylinder could be larger, allowing the chambers to be set further out, which would increase the distance between them, but getting an accurate measurement on that might take some fancy measuring techniques. But a simple measurement of the diameters of the two cylinders could also be useful. Just some thoughts. The Uberti 44 Mag would have been proofed in Italy with proof loads for 44 Mag, and European proofing standards are actually a little bit higher than American standards. So that 44 Mag should be safe to shoot with standard 44 Magnum ammunition, I suspect it would not be limited to 'cowboy loads' unless that was clearly stated somewhere in the owner's manual.

Well, it's just as well that I am too busy this weekend to go to the show in Marlboro. I have been spending too much money on guns lately. Looking at the Uberti web page they do list 44 Mag as one of the calibers for the Cattleman. But looking at the specs it appears that the only one chambered for 44 Mag is the Callahan model, which comes with either 4 3/4" or 6 1/2" barrel. There is also the 'target' model with 6 1/2" barrel only. So that model probably is heftier to take the 44 Mag cartridge. What say you H.K? I know you have a few Colts. Is your 44 Mag heftier than a standard SAA?