Loading 44-40

[Hawkeye Kid]

I was reconnoitering a few forums on cast bullet loading and using smokeless powder in older firearms.   TrailBoss is often erroneous offered as a potential candidate, mostly due to the assumption that it’s hard to overload a cartridge case and overloading leads to damaging the firearm.  The issue with TrailBoss is the initial very high pressure spike.  Many individuals also state never to use smokeless powder in a firearm that was made during the black powder era.  However, it very difficult to believe that the owners of these firearms kept using PB cartridges when smokeless cartridges became available.  It seems the consistence is the smokeless cartridges of the early 1900s where probable loaded with DuPont #2.   The quest is to find a modern smokeless powder with a burn rate similar to DuPont #2 that was also similar to the burn rate of black powder.  I was able to find Blue Dot, 2400, 4227 and 4198 listed in the forum as candidates.   2400 was mention in quite a few forum articles with a starting load of 13g as very low, and 14.5g as mild for a 44-40 cartridge.  My Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook listed 2400 (200g bullet) with a load of 13g @ 885fps and 7,900 CUPs.  For comparison the normal TrailBoss load I use is 5.5g @ 737fps and 10,700 CUPs.  Manual also listed a 205g bullet and using 2400 at 12g with a pressure of 5,100 CUPs. 

Loaded a few cartridges with 2400 @ 13.5 g and 12.5g with a 200g soft lead bullet.   At the range – I thought I had a squib for the first shot, sounded like a puff.  The chronograph measured 200fps.  The next 10 were anywhere from 175 fps  to 300 fps, one round was at 450 fps.  Significant amounts of unburn powder dumping out of the barrel and cylinder.  Temp was 37 degs.   Used Federal Large Pistol primers.  All rounds had a good solid crimp.    QUESTION – Why the low velocity and un-burned powder? 

[Hillbilly Drifter]

You refer to 2700. I assume you meant 2400?

[Hawkeye Kid]

yes  2400, thanks for catching that

[Hillbilly Drifter]

My first guess would be not enough crimp.

[Hawkeye Kid]

I have had issues in the past when crimping the WCF cartridges (32, 38, and 44).  Using the seating crimp die followed up by a Redding crimp.  When setting up dies, to test the crimp I will push bullet in the test cartridge against the bench as hard as I can to see if it moves.  Then will tap with hammer, takes a good hit to move the bullet.  I don't see how I can get any better crimp than I have. 

 

Has anyone tried using 2400 in WCF 44 or WCF 38?  Goal is to find a smokeless powder safe to shot in an 1st Gen Colt Frontier Six Shooter.

[Crisco]

Interesting, my Lyman cast bullet handbook doesn’t list any loads with 2400, but in a later Lyman manual (50th) it lists 13.2 to 16.5 grains 2400 with a 200 lead bullet.  It also specifies a WLP primer.  In my experience, cold weather will amplify any difference between loads to a huge degree, so the primer might be the culprit.

I also have to agree with the need for a really aggressive crimp when using that light a charge of 2400.  I have never managed to get 2400 to burn clean no matter how hot I load it.

[Garrison Joe, SASS #60708]

Smokeless powder burns progressively.  It requires some of the powder to burn fast enough and generate sufficient pressure to accelerate the rest of powder burn, with a very quick pressure rise.   Too slow a powder, or too small a charge of powder in a cartridge, or too little restriction by the crimp and projectile moving down the barrel, all can lead to insufficient pressure to start that "complete burn" process, thus low velocity and squibby rounds with lots of powder unburnt. 

 

Black powder does not burn progressively, so either a small charge or a large charge both burn at the same rate.  If there is enough gas generated by the charge of BP, the round WILL make it out of the barrel.  You won't really match the slow-rise pressure curve that BP generates, with any current smokeless powder.   

 

Sure you can use 2400 in a .44 WCF cartridge - in a firearm that will stand up to the smokeless pressure curve.  Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook 4th Edition shows a starting load of 13 grains with a 200 grain bullet, making about 8,000 CUP.  BUT, the pressure rise is very sharp and quick compared to BP's slow pressure rise.   That sharp pressure rise can blow apart the iron barrels and cylinders of a BP designed gun.   Unique is shown in that same loading book with a starting load making only 6700 CUP.    Better, but possibly still too much of a sudden pressure burst. 

 

Why did you have a real squibby load with 13.5 grains of 2400 and a 200 grain slug?  Do you have a 0.001" over-groove-diameter slug?   If you loaded a .427 bullet and have a .430 barrel, you 're not keeping what little pressure you generate in the chamber and barrel - it could be blowing by.,  It's also much harder to load for revolver than rifle in this cartridge - the rifle barrel and no cylinder gap means that rifles generate more chamber pressure than a revolver will.  Lyman data for "pistol" loads was generated in a universal test barrel (no cylinder gap) with a 6" barrel.  A small amount of slow powder (like 2400) in a revolver, especially with a healthy barrel/cylinder gap, could indeed be very weak.

 

So, I don't think you will find anyone who is willing to guarantee even a minimum load with smokeless is safe in a BP era revolver.  You could try calling Hodgdon or Alliant and asking.   But I agree with your earlier statement, Trail Boss is not your friend for this handgun. 

 

The goal you are reaching for, of keeping pressures down and "not sharp" in your BP SAA, would be easily met using something like the BP substitute,  APP.  It will not be smokeless, though.

 

Why blow up a valuable old gun?  Shoot what it was made for.   Just MHO.

 

Good luck, GJ

 

 

 

 

[Sedalia Dave]

Triple check your scales and be 1000% positive you are loading the powder charge you think you are.

[Hawkeye Kid]

Thanks for all the replies.  For the record I was using a 3rd gen Colt with .428 dia soft lead bullets.  The 3rd gen - slugged out at .427.  The 1st gen (1897) at .430.  So I definitely  need to buy some larger diameter bullets before shooting that pistol. 

 

Interesting - that the frame of the FSS made in 1897 and a 1st Gen 45 made in 1911 have the same cut-out in the top strap next to the barrel.  Was the steel that different between 1897 and 1911 to have one revolver proofed for smokeless and not the other (assuming smokeless cartridges were available in 1897 to allow proof testing).  My 1912 1st gen converted to .357 (with the * marked cylinder) also has the cutout. 

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

The difference is the steel in the cyl and bbl.

If you have WW231/HP38(same powder), try 5.5 gn under a 200gn lead bullet.

Yes-Use a good crimp.

2400 and super cold weather don't go well together............

OLG

[Driftwood Johnson, SASS #38283]

Howdy

 

Actually, the difference is in the steel of the cylinder and frame, not the barrel.

 

The pressure vessel of a revolver is the cylinder. If anything is going to fail, it will be the cylinder before the barrel.

 

Here is a Merwin Hulbert that did not survive a high pressure incident. Notice the barrel is intact, but when the cylinder let go it took the top strap of the frame with it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regarding the specifics of the iron and steel used in Colt revolvers over the years, here is a quote from Jerry Kunhausen's The Colt Single Action Revolvers, a Shop Manual Volumes 1&2:

 

 

"(1)  1st Generation S.A.A. cylinder material changes began to occur at about the same time that S.A.A. frames were being metallurgically updated. Cylinders prior to approx. s/n 96,000 (mid 1883) were made from materials generally resembling high grade malleable iron. Original cylinders from approx. 96,000 to about 180,000 (mid 1898) were made from transitional low/medium carbon type steels. These cylinders and their parent frames were not factory guaranteed for smokeless powder cartridges. Cylinders after frame s/n 180,000 (about mid 1898) began to be made from medium carbon type steels. Later versions of these cylinders were better and more uniformly heat treated. S.A.A. revolvers with cylinders of this final type were factory guaranteed in 1900 for standard factory load smokeless powder cartridges.

 

(2)  1st Generation 357 Magnum cylinders were made from fine grain, higher tensile

strength ordnance gun quality steel. These cylinder blanks, identified by a 5 pointed star imprinted on the front, turn up on other caliber S.A.A.s made during, and after, 1935. (The 357 Magnum was introduced in 1935.)

 

Historical Note: Disagreement apparently still exists amongst historians and collectors as to when Colt factory conversion to smokeless powder S.A.A. revolver production was finally completed. Some believe, incorrectly, that all frames made beginning with, or after s/n 165,000 (mid1896) are smokeless powder frames. As far as actual changeover to smokeless powder S.A.A. concerned, three things are absolutely certain.

 

(1)  Colt S.A.A. revolvers produced up to serial number 180,000 (reached in about mid 1898) were not guaranteed by the factory for smokeless powder cartridges.

 

(2)  Colt did not specifically guarantee S.A.A. revolvers for smokeless powder cartridges until 1900 (beginning s/n in 1900 was about 192,000).

 

(3)  The smokeless powder verified proof (the letters VP in a triangle) was not stamped on Colt S.A.A. revolver trigger guards until sometime in 1901."

 

 

 

 

So the viability of shooting old Colts with Smokeless ammunition gets down to the final version of the steel, with better heat treatment methods.

 

 

 

The presence of the so called "Black Powder Relief" cut in the top strap of a Colt really has nothing to do with whether or not the gun was meant to be shot with Black Powder or Smokeless ammunition. It was put there in the belief that it would present a void for BP fouling to collect in without binding up the gun.

 

This is the cut in a 38-40 Colt Bisley from 1909.

 

 

 

 

 

This is the cut in a 2nd Gen (1968) top strap:

 

 

 

 

 

Both guns have the cut, both are guaranteed for Smokeless powder ammunition.

 

 

 

 

Here is the Verified Proof marking on the trigger guard of the 1909 Bisley. I have seen this mark on many Colts, both single action and double action. Kuhnahusen states that this marking did not show up until 1901.

 

 

 

 

 

Regarding shooting Black Powder Colts with Smokeless Powder ammunition. I prefer to err on the side of caution. I don't shoot any of my old Colts, even with the VP on the trigger guard, with Smokeless, only with BP. The same with my antique Top Break Smith and Wessons. They only get Black Powder ammunition fired in them.

 

Clearly there were old, early Smokeless powders available, often called Bulk Powders, that were meant to simulate the loadings of Black Powder.

 

Note: I have had discussions over the years (arguments really) with a guy over on the S&W forum who claims there are a couple of Smokeless powders that can duplicate the rather slow pressure spike of Black Powder.  Sorry, I don't remember what those powders are, I never was interested in pursuing it. I prefer to shoot my old guns with Black Powder, and am quite used to cleaning them afterwards. Besides, he had pressure measuring equipment, which I lack, so I have never wanted to pursue his data with my guns.

 

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

To continue with what Driftwood said, I have come to believe that it is best to err on the side of caution with your older guns and just load them up with black or a BP sub.   Yes, I have fired some "mild" smokeless rounds in some of my old guns with no ill effect, but I feel I was "young and foolish" when I did so.  It's sort of akin to running .45 ACP ball ammo in a shaved Webley, you can do it for a while, but eventually those essentially proof level loads will beat the gun to death.

 

All of that being said, if some powder maker were to suddenly market a smokeless powder, and specifically SAY that it duplicates black powder pressures and is safe to use in antique cartridge revolvers, I would probably use it.   But until such a thing exists, I'll keep the smokless in my modern guns.

 

For what it's worth, my smokeless powder of choice IS Trailboss.   While it does have much lower felt recoil than many other powders and is all but impossible to "overcharge" someone I respect greatly explained to me the very high pressure spike it has, and how that makes it a very bad idea to use it in old guns.   Since then, I have to done it again.

 

I have also read that some of the subs out there actually create higher pressures than black does, and that they are not recommended for use in genuine antiques, only modern made guns.

 

Last night my nephew was asking me about cap and ball guns, and what he should use.   I said "real black."   My reasoning was that you can't screw up with it.

[Rooster Ron Wayne]

Never Ever load Smokeless powder in a Black Powder Firearm. 

Just Sayin. 

Rooster 

[Trailrider #896]

In addition to what Driftwood, et al have posted, let me add the following about smokeless powders:  Smokeless powders require between 5,000 and 7,000 psi (NOT CUP) to initiate stable burning.  The slower the burning rate of the powder, the greater pressure required for stable burning.  That does not mean the powder won't ignite at all, but unless there is a fast-enough rise in pressure before the bullet starts to move out of the cartridge case, there can be a significant delay in reaching stable burning (the delay being measured in milliseconds, but slow enough). Meanwhile, there can be enough pressure generated to start the bullet moving.  But, if the force on the bullet is too low to allow the bullet to have the rifling engrave in its surface, the bullet may hang up in the forcing cone!  If that happens, the pressure can rise sufficiently to get the rest of the powder burning progressively, i.e., the higher the pressure, the faster the burning rate, and the higher the pressure, etc.  If the pressure exceeds the ultimate tensile strength of the cartridge case so the cartridge ruptures, the hot flame can act like a cutting torch on the chamber wall(s).  The pent-up energy is then released and usually the top of the cylinder comes off and takes the topstrap with it!  The fact that your bullets exited the barrel prevented that from happening.  As has been posted, one way to prevent this is to use a heavy crimp and good bullet tension by the case on the bullet.  HOWEVER, in general, pistol/light rifle powders such as 4227 and 2400 are too slow when loaded at the lower end of the recommended ranges.  They are fine for higher velocity loads in rifles or strong handguns (modern M1892 "Winchesters"...Rossi's or Miroku-made rifles) or Ruger OM Vaqueros, etc.), with loads higher than SASS-approved ones.  For SASS-approved velocities, smokeless powders no slower than Unique or Universal are okay, when loaded to at least the mid-point of recommended loads.  For lighter loads, W231/HP38 (same powder, different label) are better, again, in guns proofed to smokeless powder pressures.  Of course, these powders are dense, and the handloader must be careful to avoid double charges.  Trail Boss is supposed to solve these problems by being bulky, but I would caution against loading at the bottom of the range shown in published data.

 

The statements about the steel alloys used before about 1901 are correct.  Historically, one notes that the first lot(s) of Colt's Single Action Army revolvers had a number of ruptured cylinders reported when used with 40 grs. of BP and a 250 gr. bullet!  Those cylinders were, as posted above, more like malleable iron.  In addition to Colt's going to a higher-quality steel in their cylinders, the Army cut the charge to 30-35 gr. of BP under a 230 gr. bullet.  When the S&W Schofields came our, the charges were reduced to 28 gr. behind the 230 gr. powder, and a shorter cartridge case, to accommodate the shorter cylinders of the Schofield.  The latter cartridge was then standardized, even after the Schofields had been surplussed off.

Happy New Year, Pards!

[Savvy Jack]

On 12/27/2018 at 6:50 PM, KH24 said:

I was reconnoitering a few forums on cast bullet loading and using smokeless powder in older firearms.   TrailBoss is often erroneous offered as a potential candidate, mostly due to the assumption that it’s hard to overload a cartridge case and overloading leads to damaging the firearm.  The issue with TrailBoss is the initial very high pressure spike.  Many individuals also state never to use smokeless powder in a firearm that was made during the black powder era.  However, it very difficult to believe that the owners of these firearms kept using PB cartridges when smokeless cartridges became available.  It seems the consistence is the smokeless cartridges of the early 1900s where probable loaded with DuPont #2.   The quest is to find a modern smokeless powder with a burn rate similar to DuPont #2 that was also similar to the burn rate of black powder.  I was able to find Blue Dot, 2400, 4227 and 4198 listed in the forum as candidates.   2400 was mention in quite a few forum articles with a starting load of 13g as very low, and 14.5g as mild for a 44-40 cartridge.  My Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook listed 2400 (200g bullet) with a load of 13g @ 885fps and 7,900 CUPs.  For comparison the normal TrailBoss load I use is 5.5g @ 737fps and 10,700 CUPs.  Manual also listed a 205g bullet and using 2400 at 12g with a pressure of 5,100 CUPs. 

Loaded a few cartridges with 2400 @ 13.5 g and 12.5g with a 200g soft lead bullet.   At the range – I thought I had a squib for the first shot, sounded like a puff.  The chronograph measured 200fps.  The next 10 were anywhere from 175 fps  to 300 fps, one round was at 450 fps.  Significant amounts of unburn powder dumping out of the barrel and cylinder.  Temp was 37 degs.   Used Federal Large Pistol primers.  All rounds had a good solid crimp.    QUESTION – Why the low velocity and un-burned powder? 

First lets take a look at when Winchester offered smokeless powder for the 44-40 rifle...it sheds some light on revolvers and smokeless powders.

The year 1895 marks that date, Winchester offered smokeless powder for the 44-40. The boxes were red labeled and specifically calls For The Winchester 73' on the top label, busting the myth that smokeless powder should not be used in the old original "black powder 73's. HOWEVER, on the side of the boxes notes NOT FOR PISTOLS. meaning the weak link is the revolvers thin weak cylinders, not the toggle link on the 73'.

Early 44-40's (44 WCF) were loaded with Dupont #2 and is believed to have a burn rate close to 4227. At some point, I forget exactly at this time, Dupont #2 was replaced with Sharpshooters and SR80 and is believed to have a burn rate close to 2400.
 

As we all know, Ailliant's magnum powder is 2400 and IMR-4227 is IMR's magnum powder. How ironic!

Lyman's 49th handloadning manual lists BOTH IMR-4227 and 2400 loads for the Winchester 73' as well as pistol loads.

I would not shoot Smokeless Powder in black powder revolvers, Winchester warned against it.

Myth Busted!!

Even with max charge, smokeless rifle powder loads, only about 50% of the powder will be burned. Not very efficient but cheaper than a blown firearm!

[Savvy Jack]

Using a strain gauge...my testings (AND I COULD BE WRONG) of 40gr by volume of compressed Swiss BP in modern cases results in 9,000psi (<11,000psi Max) while a compressed caseload in original semi-balloon head cases resulted in 14,000psi (>11,000psi Max).

Using Lyman's 49th suggested smokeless powder loads for 2400, Unique and 4227 resulted in 9, 000psi, respectively with one load up to 11,000psi.

My data, scroll to bottom of page an download DOCX

 

 

 

...just food for thought.