Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Savvy Jack

nevermind

Recommended Posts

nevermind

 

 

 

 

Edited by Savvy Jack
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is Cartridges of the World that mentions that part of the reason this type of ammo was discontinued was because it was "hard on people that don't read labels"...

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Savvy Jack said:

 

I guess I wasn't clear on my meaning.

I use these all the time for Black Powder loads with no issues..cept for that one I would load smokeless in them but never needed too.

My purpose for the topic was for High Velocity loads. On the boxes of these HV loads, it said not to reload them. I always wondered why other than maybe the balloonhead pocket being too weak for the 22,000psi loads.

 

I understand, Im just wondering why the factory would include the statement "Not for pistols".  Maybe thinking older pistols might not be as strong as  long guns. Im curious. Maybe somebody with more knowledge than I have can enlighten us.

 

Imis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read the label in addition to warning "not for pistols" it also warns not to use them in 1873 riflles. They are only to be used in Winchester 1892 or single shot rifles in good repair. Although it says they are low pressure they obviously feel they are to much for revolvers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Imis,

 

At one time the vast majority of Early 44-40/44WCF handguns had cast iron cylinders.  Colt in particular.  Iron cylinders are really poor pressure vessels.  Also, the ammunition cited generated more pressure than was though prudent for the Link material in Toggle Link Rifles.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Imis Twohofon,SASS # 46646 said:

I understand, Im just wondering why the factory would include the statement "Not for pistols".  Maybe thinking older pistols might not be as strong as  long guns. Im curious. Maybe somebody with more knowledge than I have can enlighten us.

 

Imis

 

Oh good!!!

Yeah, has always been a controversial topic. When Winchester introduced smokeless powders, a short time after, even the normal smokeless loads were noted on the boxes not to be used in pistols. Probably a liability issue since Colt warned against it until 1909. I really have no other details except one from the military as well as handload data for revolvers around 1937.
 

L&R Bullseye...

...was introduced in 1898 to replace L&R's "Smokeless Revolver Powder. This is one of those powders that had several types. There were two versions of Bullseye, the first of which was known as Bullseye #1 or “dust” Bullseye. L&R Bullseye #2 was supposed to have been brought out in 1904 as small round black discs .038” dia. X .003”, ostensibly because there were insufficient quantities of #1 to meet demand. It contained 40% NG. This Bullseye #2 is what we identify today as Bullseye, and is believed that it has not changed formula since its introduction in 1898. It went to DuPont in 1907 and to Hercules in 1912. Bullseye, Unique, and Infallible were all made from the same formula, the only difference being granulation. It is still manufactured by Alliant in 2007. ~Klaus Neuschaefer

 

This could be the very reason why Winchester ammunition and Colt firearms had problems with factory smokeless revolver loads in both 44-40 and 45 Colt revolvers until 1909. The smokeless powders were evolving very fast and it was not until 1909 that Winchester Ammo boxes labeled such as okay for the 44-40 pistols. It has also been said the Colt did not advise the use of smokeless powder for the 45 Colt until 1909 as well.

On a side note, back around 1909, shortly after Colt approved(?) smokeless powders for revolvers, the US Government's loading machines kept dropping an occasional "double charge" of Bullseye in their M1909 45 Colt loads. Most of the time they would blow the gun with the first shot. DuPont came up with a replacement powder called RSQ. One could fire six consecutive double charged 38 caliber loads before it got ugly. Being "rescued" by DuPont, Major K. K. V. Casey requested it be called "RSQ"......Resque! The powder was dropped two years later with the Model 1911.



So from the Revolver's smokeless powder introduction in 1898 by Laflin & Rand, it took another 11 years before Colt would approve it for their revolvers. I am sure handloaders ignored such advisories.
 

Edited by Savvy Jack
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

 

Imis,

 

At one time the vast majority of Early 44-40/44WCF handguns had cast iron cylinders.  Colt in particular.  Iron cylinders are really poor pressure vessels.  Also, the ammunition cited generated more pressure than was though prudent for the Link material in Toggle Link Rifles.

Not arguing or disagreeing but would you mind posting a source to the cast iron cylinders information?  From what I have read the early Colt revolvers i.e. Paterson, Walker, Dragoon, etc. used wrought or forged iron cylinders, but by the 1860 army they were using steel and to my knowledge never produced a cartridge revolver with anything other than a steel cylinder.

Edited by July Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Savvy Jack said:

 

Well yeah but the whole reason for the topic was for the semi-balloonhead case's strength when used with these HV loads, not what firearm the HV loads should or shouldn't be used in.

 

Some days I just need to stay in bed.

Yes. And because of that they made their determination including the warnings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

July . . .  My bad.  I meant Wrought Iron.  There were Iron cylinders in some 1860s and in some 1873s.  Not that common, but still there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.