Smokeless powder ammo in old guns

[Warden Callaway]

Here is a vedio on using smokeless power ammo in antique guns - mostly Winchester guns.

 

 

[Colorado Coffinmaker]

 

Just heaps and gobs of dedicated pressure test equipment there.  CAVEAT EMPTOR.

[Trailrider #896]

This is certainly a loaded question (pun intended)! With modern-steel replicas available, there is no absolute need to continually shoot an original '73 in competition, given the number of smokeless rounds that would have to be fired.  OTOH, for occasional shooting of an original with smokeless powder loads, it can be done, IF the following steps are taken:

 

First, have the gun checked out by a gunsmith who is familiar with this make and model. In particular, the toggle-links should be carefully checked for cracks, particularly in the "knee joints". The toggles should also be checked to be certain the ends of both bear on the shoulders of the receiver and the bearing surface of the breach block with a GO headspace gage inserted in the chamber.  The pivot pins should be checked to see if they are belt. The best thing would be to replace them with hardened steel pins of the same diameter. The holes in the toggles should be checked to see if they are still round and not elongated.  Headspace should be checked using a NO-GO gage. If the smith doesn't have a set, they aren't too expensive.  

 

Next, the selection of ammo should be considered. Modern factory loads in .44-40 are pressure tested to keep the pressures within safe limits. Part of the problem with factory loads may be that they are loaded with jacketed bullets, which may be harder on the barrel.  If lead bulleted factory loads are available, they may be okay, but the bullet diameters may not match up well with the groove diameter of the barrel.  Best is to slug the barrel and check with a dummy round with a bullet that is close to groove, or a couple thousandths oversize.  The problem you may encounter is that a large enough bullet may not fit the chamber. (Winchester '73's had a tendency to be all over the place in groove diameter!) If that is the case, you may either have to live with the situation, and accept the accuracy, or have the chamber reamed out!

 

As to smokeless loads, always stick with those listed in the major handbooks, especially the Lyman 48th or later editions.  DO NOT attempt to heat up the loads!  Stick with the bullet weights that are equal to or close to the originals. I would not exceed 215 grains in the .44-40.  Stick with middle burning rate pistol powders, such as Unique, Universal.  W231/HP38 will also work. DO NOT attempt to reduce the loads lower than those listed in the handbook, and  use a firm roll crimp that is visible, but does not bulge the case away from the bullet.  I size my brass slightly smaller than the bullet behind its base, and expand only enough to start the bullet into the case. If you get any hangfires, STOP! Your loads are too light or the crimp insufficient.

 

[NOTE: I CANNOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ACCIDENTS OR INCIDENTS ARISING FROM THE SUGGESTIONS ABOVE IN GUNS OTHER THAN MY OWN, AND NOT EVEN IN THEM!]

[Nostrum Damus SASS #110702]

The first question that pops into my brain is "why?"

[Savvy Jack]

On 4/24/2023 at 10:34 PM, Nostrum Damus SASS #110702 said:

The first question that pops into my brain is "why?"

 

It is not all about if we should or should not shoot old guns with smokeless powders, special barrels or regular steel barrels. It is also about understanding the truth behind such myths and letting it go from there in whatever direction it goes....to each his own.

 

Fact - The only barrels that needed special steel were for those cartridges of "high-power", to include high-pressures (30,000lbs/35,000lbs and higher) that needed jacketed bullets at high-velocities (1,700fps or faster). It all started with the 30-40 Krag for the military (which turned into the 30 Army and eventually the 30-06.) These were the really high-pressure/high-velocity cartridges of the day.

 

If folks would dig deep in the history "books", I mean 100 years ago, you can find such information...not this modern, 1950ish regurgitated crud.

 

• The 30-40 was developed using the slowest burning "hottest" rifle powder at the time, W.A. .30-cal. All rifles using such powder and velocity/jacketed bullets needed special steel barrels.
• The 30-30 and 303 Savage was next, using slightly faster burning rifle powders "Laflin & Rand "Lightning", that were still "hot" burning. That along with the pressures created and velocities and the jacketed bullets, they needed special steel barrels
• Black Powder cartridges such as the 32-40 and 38-55 ONLY needed special steel barrels when loaded fully with the same "hot" burning powders. These cartridges loaded with faster, cooler burning powder such as Laflin & Rand/Dupont/Hercules "Sharpshooter", or Dupont's "Bulk for Bulk" Rifle powders did NOT need special barrels....per Winchester's quote of 1899: "Our 38-55 rifle will not be injured when 38-55 smokeless cartridges of our make are used. The bullet will not harm the rifling. Smokeless powder is more difficult to clean than black. Where smokeless powder cartridges are made to take the place of black powder cartridges in guns which were intended for black powder, such smokeless powder is used as will give the same pressures and same velocities as were obtained with black powder in the black powder cartridges intended for the gun originally. We do the best we can to have the combination give the same velocity as before, which it would be difficult to get same accuracy."
• Meanwhile the 44-40 High Velocity (1903 to 1938), using a nitroglycerin based "Sharpshooter" powder, originally manufactured by Laflin & Rand, manufactured for the 45-70 and faster burning than Lightning, neither created enough pressure (18,000lbs) or velocity (1,570fps) in the 44-40 to need special steel barrels...nor the much less pressure 44-40 normal loads of only 13,000lbs and 1,300fps jacketed loads.
• In 1904, Marlin did this: "The company is now arranging a line of their famous repeating rifles, Model 1893, to be known among the trade Grade “B”. These rifles will be in every respect the same as the regular Model 1893 with the exception that the barrels will be made of the highest obtainable grade of soft gun barrel steel instead of their “Special Smokeless Steel”. The intention is to meet the large demand for a high-class, carefully made arm on the part of many shooters who are not sufficiently interested in the smokeless steel barrels to pay for the extra cost. The new line is, of course, not intended for high power smokeless ammunition and its use in this grade is not advised by the makers: only black powder ammunition and equivalent loads such as low power smokeless should be used. The 32-40 and 38-55 sizes only will be made in this grade."
• Notwithstanding weak action arms, the entire concern for such special barrels was not about blowing up guns (although the ignorant did), it was about "eroding the bore", either by corrosive powders (high-pressures), corrosive primers (44-40 and Sharpshooter)...where the low pressures would not erode but would not blow out the corrosive residue from the primers, or shooting many many rounds of such borderline with jacketed bullets. This is why competition shooters chose the special steel barrels.

By 1900,

In this article, Stillwell speaks of the 30-30, 45-70, and the 38-55 (obviously soft steel barrels) on using such new smokeless powders. He also speaks of using high-pressure and splitting the barrels, rather than using the low-pressure smokeless powders. He then states that “Everything considered, a black powder gun with low-pressure smokeless is good enough for me.” 

 

Some guys were actually using Laflin & Rands "Infallible" shotgun powders in the high-powered rifles and blowing them up.

 

By 1902,

The start of new terms and trying to understand the definitions for what they mean where at hand. If you recall, black powder was called "gunpowder", but now with smokeless, the two were to be divide into "black powder" and "smokeless powder". This new smokeless powder is now getting separated, sliced and divided up for a better understanding of what is being used in what arms and why. By now the low-pressure, low-velocity shooters are becoming the new “peasants'', much the same today. If you shoot less than 2,000fps, you are the dirt of the earth.

 

By 1905,

Smokeless Powders were divided in two classes, low and high pressure. The first named being mostly used in old black powder cartridges the latter for cartridges of the military type.

1. Black Powder - Low Pressure

2. Smokeless Powder - Low and High Pressures

a. Low Pressure - maybe less than 30,000 lbs. "Bulk for Bulk" powders and some "Bulky" dense powders

b. High Pressure - greater than at least 30,000 lbs. slower burning rifle powders, WA-30, Lightning, .30-Cal smokeless and later, 1909 Military and it's replacement Military No. 20

 

By 1909, it was like this,

1. For "high-power" all strong steel barreled rifles (30-40, 30-06 types), full service loads - "Dupont's 1909 Military", "W.A. .30-Cal" and "Lightning". The 30-30, 303 Savage, 32-40 and 38-55 full service high-power loads would use the "Lightning" powder or maybe?? Dupont's .30 cal. powder of which the 32-40 and 38-55 needed the special steel barrels.
2. Black Powder Rifles adapted for use with smokeless powders, pending calibers, would use cooler burning "Bulk for Bulk" smokeless powders like Dupont's No. 1 "rifle" and No. 2 "rifle or revolver", or the more dense "Sharpshooter" or "Marksman" powders, to include the lighter loaded 32-40 and 38-55 of which DID NOT NEED SPECIAL STEEL BARRELS.
3. Laflin & Rand's "Unique" smokeless powder was used by the military in .30 cal. high-powered cartridges as reduced "Gallery" loads and for service revolvers. Eventually such powder was used for many things, owning up to it's "Unique" name.
4. Laflin & Rand's "Bullseye" pistol powder was the redheaded stepchild. Very fast burning pistol powder, participating in the Colt 1900-1909 saga, eventually used in some black powder rifle "dash" cartridges. Dupont created "RSQ", a "bulky" egg-shaped granular smokeless powder, and ceased using Bullseye by the end of 1909ish.

By 1915,

"W.A. and Lightning powders contained about 25 per cent and Sharpshooter and Infallible about 38 per cent nitroglycerine. The series of rifle powders now put out by the Dupont Company such as Military No. 10, Military No. 20 [replaced 1909 Military, which 1909 was also said to replace W.A. .30], and Military No. 21, contain no nitroglycerine. The presence of nitroglycerine enables us to obtain high velocities with minimum chamber pressures, but the heat of the gases causes serious erosion in the barrels if used at pressures above 35,000 to 40,000 pounds per square inch." ~Outdoor Life, April 1915

 

By 1918,

Townsand Whelen noted some nomenclatures.

1. Small Bore - .35 cal. and smaller

2. Large Bore - larger than .35 cal.

3. Low Power - up to 1,750fps

4. High Power - greater than 1,750fps - special steel barrels needed

5. High Intensity - Velocity greater than 2,400fps, special steel barrels needed

 

Worn bore reports varied greatly, even from the high-powered rifles, ranging from 1,500 to 2,000 rounds...and even then accuracy was only about an inch or two off. The US Government reported that the 30-06 bore faded at 4,000 rounds before needing to be replaced.

 

No one has to agree with it, but there is just a very small taste of what was going on out there during this new smokeless powder transition.

 

 

 

[Hoss]

It’s your gun. Your fingers. Your eyeballs. If you are off by yourself do what you want to do. It’s a free country! But don’t shoot it if TO, counters, brass shaggers and others are within range of parts flying off. While the pressure may be the same, the spike is usually quicker with smokeless. 
 

the best way I’ve heard the pressure spike described is if you are pulling a car out of ditch. Tie your top on bumper and ease into it, slowly pulling car out. (Black powder). Or leave 20’ of slack, hit the end hard, either pull the car out or tank the bumper off (Smokeless powder) 

[Savvy Jack]

1918,

Townsend Whelen also talks about the 44-40...and it is interesting.
 

 

Here is Whelen's accuracy tests

 

First I’d like to touch on what was I found to be expected accuracy from some of these rifles...

 

For the past several years, through my experiences, I began to settle on ten shot groups with the 44-40. I felt it better tells the story of true accuracy rather than the typical three shot groups popular today. I also settled on certain groups being about the best of the best for this cartridge at different ranges.

 

The following information from Whelen is somewhat the same among the groups achieved at the distances used.

I came up with my consistent best which would be 4″ at 25 yards with a revolver, (scoped) 3.5″ at 100 yards with a rifle, 9″ at 200 yards and 29 of 37 shots inside 14″ at nearly 300 yards. Doc Pardee also shared his 1873 results of about 4.16" 40 shout group at 110 yards with open sights.

 

My results seem to be fairly consistent with the following 1920 information. I thought some of these other cartridges may be of interest to some of you. 

 

By 1920

Townsand Whelen mentioned the use of a scope for some shots...but I have no idea which ones.

 

"In a number of cases a telescope sight was used to make certain of the aim and in the others an English orthoptic was used with open sights."

 

            CLASS A

2 INCHES AT 100 YARDS

4 INCHES AT 200 YARDS

 

280 Ross 

30 cal Model 1906 

30-40 Krag and Winchester 

30 cal Model 1903 

256 Mannlicher Schoenauer 

25-35 WCF (in single shot)

               CLASS B 

2 1/2 INCHES AT 100 YARDS 

6 INCHES AT 200 YARDS 

 

7 mm Mauser 

8 mm Mauser 

32 Ideal 

303 British

303 Savage 

25-35 Rem Auto (*)

25-35 Marlin 

25-30 WCF Low pressure smokeless 

25-20 Single Shot 

25-21 Stevens 

25-25 Stevens 

28-30 Stevens 

22 Long Rifle (in target rifle) 

            CLASS C 

3 INCHES AT 100 YARDS 

8 INCHES AT 200 YARDS 

 

30-30 WCF 

35 Rem Auto 

35 WCF 405 WCF 

45-70 Black and Smokeless 

32-40 Low pressure smokeless 

33 WCF 

32 Winchester Self Loading 

32-20 

25 Rimfire 

38-55 

22-15 Stevens 

                 CLASS D 

3 1/2 INCHES AT 100 YARDS 

12 INCHES AT 200 YARDS

 

32 Win Special 

351 Win Self Loading 

351 Self Loading 

32 Rem Auto (*)

45-70 

45 90 HV (1) 

25-20 HV and Black powder 

32-20 HV (1) 

38 WCF (1) 

44 WCF (1) 

401 Win Self Loading (2)

 

(1) Over 200 yards grouping is irregular 

(2) Over 150 yards grouping is irregular Many black powder rifles listed in 

(*) Rem Auto cartridges will show equal accuracy in Remington or Stevens rifles. Classes B and C will rank in Class A when used with hand loaded ammunition loaded by an expert 

 

 

 

[Nostrum Damus SASS #110702]

It is not just about barrels and steel and rifles.  Revolvers made for black powder cartridges should not be shot with smokeless cartridges.  I don't think that is "1950ish regurgitated crud."  Gun manufacturers of the time went to the trouble of marking barrels "32 S&W CTGE" or "38 S&W CTGE" to differentiate versions of their revolvers that were safe for smokeless powder from previous versions that were not.  I'm with Hoss on this one -- do what you like in the privacy of your own wherever, but please don't shoot smokeless cartridges in black powder era guns when I'm on your posse.  I have enough to worry about already.

[Savvy Jack]

7 hours ago, Nostrum Damus SASS #110702 said:

It is not just about barrels and steel and rifles.  Revolvers made for black powder cartridges should not be shot with smokeless cartridges.  I don't think that is "1950ish regurgitated crud."  Gun manufacturers of the time went to the trouble of marking barrels "32 S&W CTGE" or "38 S&W CTGE" to differentiate versions of their revolvers that were safe for smokeless powder from previous versions that were not.  I'm with Hoss on this one -- do what you like in the privacy of your own wherever, but please don't shoot smokeless cartridges in black powder era guns when I'm on your posse.  I have enough to worry about already.

Again, it was for the fast hot burning powders like Bullseye. Dupont No.2 was used all day long in the 45 Colt revolvers during that time by reloaders even though the factories may not have manufactured them. UMC never ceased 45 Colt production during 1900 through 1909.

 

Dupont No. 2 "Bulk for Bulk" smokeless powder for rifle and revolvers created less pressure than black powder. 

[Sedalia Dave]

Ok, I accept that back then some of the Smokeless powders were safe for BP firearms. 

 

Now which powders made today are safe as NONE of the powders made then are in production today. Yes I know the Unique and Bullseye names still exist today but can anyone say that they have the same pressure characteristics as they had before WWII?

[Nostrum Damus SASS #110702]

All of this mental masturbation may be fun or interesting to some, but I repeat my original question: WHY DO IT? Nothing said in this thread so far answers the question.  Just because you CAN do something does NOT mean that you SHOULD do it.  Just shoot BP cartridges in guns that were designed to shoot BP cartridges and shoot whatever you like in guns designed for smokeless cartridges, which can easily handle either.  In my opinion, doing anything else is called "experimenting" and running experiments intelligently requires different rules, different margins of safety, different precautions, etc etc etc -- NONE of which are possible under CAS match conditions.  End of discussion as far as I'm concerned; maybe not for some others, but definitely for me, whatever the "old" literature says notwithstanding.

[Savvy Jack]

46 minutes ago, Sedalia Dave said:

Ok, I accept that back then some of the Smokeless powders were safe for BP firearms. 

 

Now which powders made today are safe as NONE of the powders made then are in production today. Yes I know the Unique and Bullseye names still exist today but can anyone say that they have the same pressure characteristics as they had before WWII?

A better question yet would be why doesn't current load manuals say not to use such modern Bullseye and Unique powder loads in revolvers from 1900 to 1909? They stipulate what not to use for anything else!

 

6 minutes ago, Nostrum Damus SASS #110702 said:

All of this mental masturbation may be fun or interesting to some, but I repeat my original question: WHY DO IT? Nothing said in this thread so far answers the question.  Just because you CAN do something does NOT mean that you SHOULD do it.  Just shoot BP cartridges in guns that were designed to shoot BP cartridges and shoot whatever you like in guns designed for smokeless cartridges, which can easily handle either.  In my opinion, doing anything else is called "experimenting" and running experiments intelligently requires different rules, different margins of safety, different precautions, etc etc etc -- NONE of which are possible under CAS match conditions.  End of discussion as far as I'm concerned; maybe not for some others, but definitely for me, whatever the "old" literature says notwithstanding.

I see this topic really bothers you. Folks will do what they want, especially if it makes you angry.

 

Why would anything in this topic answer your question? You wouldn't like it if it did. "Just because you can doesn't mean you should" is very subjective. I can ride a bike without shoulder pads, knee pads and a helmet, but many think you should....same with horses!

[Nostrum Damus SASS #110702]

You misread my messages and intent.  What you do doesn't make me angry at all; it takes a lot more than someone's foolishness to make me angry.  I just think what you are doing is foolish and risky for no good reason.  And yes, you can ride a bike without personal safety equipment, or a motorcycle for that matter, and everyone else can pay the costs for the EMS and emergency health services (through our insurance rates and our own medical bills) that would not have been required had you acted more responsibly.  But, hey -- it's AMERICA, a free country, so you do what you like!  (One of my sons is a firefighter and EMT, and so much of what he does is -- by his own account -- totally the result of people failing to behave responsibly.) 

[Griff]

I've always looked at this question and figured that as a reasonably safe and cautious reloader, I wouldn't have a problem shooting loads I crafted with smokeless powder in an antique firearm.  Stupid people blow up modern firearms all the time, by failing to be reasonable and cautious.  Those particular folks shouldn't reload at all.  Prior to my involvement with cowboy action shooting, most of my shooting was to quench a need for speed.  Flat trajectories and pinpoint accuracy were my bywords.   Now that over half my reloading life has been in pursuit of simply a clang to go with a bang... that need has fully dissipated.  Even my .30-30 hunting ammo is at less than the max.  Some may say, "...not by much...", but the fact is, that it is less than max... even when I know I can go faster with no loss of accuracy...   So, I'd have say that if you can't get over "...a need for speed..." you probably have no business loading smokeless for use in a "BP" on firearm.  But, if you have an understanding of pressure curves, both unconstrained and constrained, can either inspect or have a knowledgeable gunsmith inspect your firearm for worthiness, then enjoy yourself and you gun.  However, it is also my belief that smokeless fouling is also harder to clean than BP.   There's only one thing that beats the smell of sulphur in the morning... and it certainly doesn't come from the business end of a firearm.

[Colorado Coffinmaker]

Here is my take.  Partly personal belief and partly after near 30 years as a Gunplumber.  Using information from (in some cases, over) a Century ago is a fools errand.  Quoting information for propellants that are no longer being manufactured and are not available in any case is  > > > just dumb.  It does nothing to justify the position.  And the position seems to be simply "Sure, go right ahead" and "Hey, No Problem."  And that kind of information fostered on unsuspecting neophytes may well get them seriously injured.  And awful lot of folks won't read beyond "Sure, It's OK" and not understanding the where as and why fore and why not.  A set up for disaster.  The they don't pay attention to the small print, "It's not my problem" when one is the source of the problem, is ludicrous.  We are responsible for what we do and we do bear responsibility for the results of jumping up on our Beer Crate and telling all who will listen "It's OK to jump in front of a Muni Bus."  

 

If Savy Jack wants to run Smokeless ammunition thru HIS 100+ year old firearm, go for it.  It's his problem when it all goes in the toilette.  It can also be considered HIS problem when someone is injured because he said "Go For It" and they were dumb enough to believe him. 

[The Surgeon]

My take on it is if you bought an antique firearm and intend to shoot it why wouldn't you shoot it how it was intended? if you want to shoot an antique firearm and don't want to deal with black powder then buy a reproduction. If you want an antique to say you have an antique and don't want to deal with black powder then buy a reproduction to shoot, and an antique to look at. If you don't like black powder why would you buy an antique in the first place. so many questions..... I don't want to shoot black powder all the time, but you bet if I bought an original Winchester I would shoot black powder with it.  

[Savvy Jack]

That seams confusing. Smokeless powder came out for use in revolvers in 1894 by both Dupont and Laflin & Rand with the "Bulk for Bulk" powders...eleven years after the Colt model 73' "black powder frame" revolvers were introduced. Bullseye powder for revolvers was introduced only three years later in 1897. Nothing was ever said for nearly 24 years of using bulk for bulk powder, but yet only after 3 years of Bullseye...and by 1900, the "not for pistols" made it's way across the land until at least 1906 and as long as 1909 by Winchester...even though Winchester still used the same "bulk for bulk" powder that created LESS PRESSURE than black powder. Why did Colt wait so long for "improvements"? Not sure what is so hard about understanding such data. Bulk for Bulk smokeless powder = GOOD, Dense smokeless pistol powder = BAD. Bad only because of the high pressures it created that was not nice to old thin cylinder wall revolvers.

 

While Colt still manufactured their revolvers, as they did (as folks say for "black powder"), rifle manufactures far surpassed such manufacturing in 1894, while it took Colt nearly 10 extra years to do the same? Black powder rifles still used the correct smokeless powders...as previously mentioned per the topic subject...and so did handloaders for revolvers, as well as UMC.

 

Ignorance is bliss and it happened a lot by 1900, folks using dense very fast burning powders as "bulk for bulk" loads and blowing up the world. The same was happening even with the high-powered rifles. Many stories about folks using dense "infallible" shotgun powders as "bulk for bulk" loads in the 303 Savage and 38-55 high-pressure barrels and blowing them up. Same with the other lower powered 30 cal rifles when trying to use the hotter burning powders.

 

Loading up Bullseye as a "Bulk for Bulk" powder in the 45 Colt was disaster. Loading a double charge of Bullseye was a disaster. As a comparison, a double charge of 6gr of modern Unique (12gr) in a 44-40 can create an estimated 25,752 cup. This would give you guys a scare for sure on a course,  but for the black powder frame Colt, KABOOM no doubt! I imagine a double charge of Bullseye would be even worse...and we all know that such charges were blowing Colt New Service revolvers with one shot. Thus the introduction of RSQ dense, but yet "bulky" smokeless powder. A double charge would not blow the gun....but may or may not blow a black powder frame.

 

Even with black powder, Winchester advised against reloading cartridges even though they sold components and equipment to do just that. The WHV loads were not be reloaded, and the 44 WCF loads noted "not to be used in pistols" was added from 1900 to 1909. It should be obvious that Winchester more than likely no longer manufactured 45 Colt loads at all, but I have yet to confirm such information like I have for UMC. UMC never stopped offering 45 Colt loads from 1900 through 1909 and designated such as smokeless loads.......yet another nine years. The SAA was only 11 years old when smokeless came out and it was soon noted that smokeless was there to stay and eventually phase out black powder.

I have no old Colt and if I did I would not shoot it at all, not even with black powder....my choice. But that does not dictate manipulating history that shooting the correct smokeless powder was bad for revolvers during that time...or even now.

 

 

 

By 1902,

 

 

By 1903, the 45 Colt is omitted

 

 

 

but....this 1906 Ideal data has the same data listed as Dupont's original datasheet "Wrapper" found wrapped on Dupont's bulk for bulk cans...as well as the above 1902 sheet.

 

By 1906, the 45 Colt data is still omitted in this chart but....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Abilene Slim SASS 81783]

Wasn’t this very topic was thoroughly flogged and dismembered a few months ago?

[Chantry]

The short version is that a gun in good working order can safely be used if the pressures of current ammo does not exceed the pressures of the ammo the gun was originally used with.  Since I can't control the gun and ammo a shooter might use, any responsibility is their's, not mine.

 

Here is a link to article by Ross Seyfried where he worked with Hogdon to come up with smokeless load that does not exceed the 7,000 PSI limit generally accepted for antique shotguns, including Damascus barreled shotguns.  https://wethearmed.com/shotguns/black-powder-and-low-pressure-smokeless-shotshell-loads/

 

On edit:  Also do a search on the Sherman Bell shotgun tests

 

I'll note that British auction houses are selling Damascus barreled shotguns that have gone through either the London or Birmingham proof houses and were re-proofed for modern shotgun ammo.  It is against the law in England to sell a shotgun that is out of proof.

[Colorado Coffinmaker]

There are NO Proof houses in the United States

[Ranger Dan]

On 4/24/2023 at 9:34 PM, Nostrum Damus SASS #110702 said:

The first question that pops into my brain is "why?"

Because black powder is hard to find and expensive, requires different lubricants on the bullets, some calibers totally different bullets than what is readily available. Black powder subs don't all equal real BP in measuring by volume or weight. Where smokeless load data is readily available and within saami specs, which is safe for black powder era guns. I have shot nothing but factory smokeless ammo in my winchester 73, manufactured in 1883. And finally it's easier to clean the guns!

[Bo B. Fetterman]

1 hour ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

There are NO Proof houses in the United States

now THERE is a niche market. Maybe hyrdotest cylinders on the side.....

[Savvy Jack]

As far as reloading the early smokeless powder loads for the 44-40, this was found on a sticker label on the bottom of an early 1895ish box.

Quote

"These cartridges are loaded by The WINCHESTER REPEATING ARMS COMPANY. The benefit of our great experience and careful supervision is given, beyond this we assume no responsibility. They should never be reloaded."

 

Why?

 

The Powder

If Winchester's use of the new "bulk for bulk" Dupont No. 1 Rifle smokeless powder created less pressure than black powder, why would Winchester frown on reloads since they sold all of the handloading items? To me, there was no experience in loading smokeless powder at that time. The powders were new and if someone loaded that wrong "high-power" rifle powder, or a full load of Bullseye or Unique....KABOOM!! Also, maybe illiteracy was an issue...1895...there were still a lot of folks that could not read....thus the load data was gibberish! Kind of still seams to be an issue today!

 

The Dies

The dies were not set up for loading smokeless powder loads. With such "bulk for bulk" smokeless powders on the market, where the bullet sat on top of the powder, the seating was not quite as firm and the crimping method was a bit different. Mainly because of the adding of the cannelure on the case at the base of the bullet, but also maybe due to the crimping of the new "Metal Patched" bullets that used a little different crimping method. Remember, Winchester and Ideal's lead bullets did not use a crimp groove, and Winchester instructed to use "Pure Soft Lead" which helped in creating a "crimp" by pressing the case mouth into the soft lead.

 

The Bullets

The lead bullets appear to be at least .427" but some early lead bullets could have been smaller. The new metal patched bullets were only .4255" PLUS there was a shallow crimp groove, which gave the need for a deeper crimp that may not have been able to have been created with the older original hand loading tools.

 

Ballistic Accuracy

Maybe handloaders could not load the new smokeless and get the same accuracy/performance as the Factory loads...or maybe the metal patched bullets were not released for handloaders? Who knows but later on Winchester did offer lead bullets with the new smokeless powder.

 

It was just all new at the time I guess.