[FloridaSteve]

That illustration is quite an eye opener. The miniscule amount of metal at the notch is a shocker.

 

[SavvyJack]

That illustration is quite an eye opener. The miniscule amount of metal at the notch is a shocker.

Yeap, busts the myth that the 44-40 pressure weak link is the Winchester 73's toggle! Here is a link to a few photos that show just that.

Chasing the 44-40 - Blow-ups and Barrel Bulges?

Three Foot Johnson SASS #47015

sites.google.com

 

[Cozmo]

Jack? Right on. Thanks for that. People don't always understand what they think they understand.

Under charged loads should never be used.

I hear, " its' OK, I use LWT cowboy loads" all the time. Ad nauseum.

Toggle link guns? Please don't get me started there of the drivel that gun writers keep repeating.

Modern '73s are being built chambered in the 44 magnum. I have shot a bunch of smokeless in a modern '76 that is simply hard to believe. Winchester's original tests said the same thing about the '76 and '73. It aint a toggle link. I'd guess that was more Winchester's "modern advertising" to sell newer, stronger guns. Better question might be, "is how strong do they need to be"?

6 grains of Unique in .38-40 and 6.5 grains in .44 Spl cases

Classic comment I'll pick apart. Sorry Jake.

The 38-40 case holds 39gr of water.
The 44 Special case holds 34gr of water

The 38-40 has about a 15% greater volume that the 44 Special case.
The 6gr load is 8% less in the 38-40 case than the 6.5gr used in the 44 Special case. The numbers add up. And not in a good way here.

Bigger case. Lighter powder load?

Light loads in a big cases. Bad idea.

Here is the deal. If the gun is safe to shoot smokeless, then the gun is safe. Use soem common sense on what "is" safe. VP stamp or 192,000 is a good data points for that decision. If you decide to use smokeless, shoot a moderate, factory equivalent load in it. If it is not safe for smokeless don't shoot smokeless.

It isn't the powder or peak pressures that wrecks guns. It is the difference in the power curve of smokeless and black powder that wrecks guns.

 

[SavvyJack]

It is the difference in the power curve of smokeless and black powder that wrecks guns.

What he said!!!!

Also, more than likely the reason most modern loads are slower (velocity) than original loads is because of two things,

• More often than not, faster burning pistol powders are used. In order to match original velocities (1,325fps-rifle), greater pressures will be generated and a sharper pressure spike can result. It is not necessarily the pressure created, but the sharp spike that can be the problem. That two is divided into two parts...immediate problems from over pressures and long term problems from over pressure.
• Manufacture Liability. I have noticed that most modern 44-40 ammo manufactures reduce the max load by about 10% to 20%. Some claim it is so the lower pressures "can be" used in "old guns"...hogwash. There are enough powders out there that can produce original velocities but are typically right at or slightly above SAAMI max recommended pressures.

Again, original 1895 bulk rifle smokeless powders (namely Dupont No. 2) actually created less pressure than original black powder loads...so said Dupont.

 

[Cozmo]

I have noticed that most modern 44-40 ammo manufactures reduce the max load by about 10% to 20%.

Some claim it is so the lower pressures "can be" used in "old guns"...hogwash.

 

[AAAPaul]

I would say that I cannot remember an early SAA that I encountered with a blown cylinder. That said, at least through the 1960’s ammo manufacturers loaded down their .45, .44-40 and .32-20. They were well aware that less knowledgeable people would shoot smokeless in old revolvers.

As an ammunition manufacturer for over 45 years we have never loaded any of our 44 or 45 Colt above 9,400 CUP because we can’t control the weapons people put it in. We didn’t even do the heavy loads for use in the Thompson or Ruger for the same reason.

 

[SavvyJack]

As an ammunition manufacturer for over 45 years we have never loaded any of our 44 or 45 Colt above 9,400 CUP because we can’t control the weapons people put it in. We didn’t even do the heavy loads for use in the Thompson or Ruger for the same reason.

Seems to fall in place with my tests results.
A little information on the 44 W.C.F. (44-40) ammunition during the "Not For Pistols" years.

Note:

• Winchester started manufacturing smokeless ammunition for the 44-40 in 1895. Winchester used 17gr of Dupont No. 2 smokeless rifle powder. This powder was used from 1895 until 1925, of which Winchester never changed the load.
• Dupont No. 2 Smokeless powder created less pressures than black powder loads (So why the hype? [45 Colt], see photo below).

My results (given the age of the Dupont No. 2 powder) were consistent with Winchester's advertised (Adv.)

44WCF (44-40) Chamber Pressure Timeline (My Test Results)
DATE/Adv. Vel/CUP/PSI/Test Vel/Remarks/Notes:
1874 1,325 16,550cup 14,000psi 1,373 Test #43 - Pre-1884 Unheadstamped thru 1883, my Swiss FFg black powder test load results
1874 1,325 14,000cup 12,648psi 1,356 Test #71 - pre-1884 Unheadstamped thru 1883, my Goex FFFg black powder test results
1884 1,245 12,500cup 10,519psi 1,260 Test #54&53 - WRA, Western and REM-UMC Solid, Semi-Ballonhead Headstamped cases thru the early 1900's, Goex FFFg black powder tests
1895 1,300 12,045cup 10,190psi 1,282 Test #84 - Dupont No. 2, 17gr Soft Point Dupont No. 2 was used from 1895 to 1925. Test cases were 1914 era.
1925 1,300 10,846cup 9,176psi 1,222 Test #85- Sharpshooter, 15gr Soft Point test loads. Sharpshooter replaced Dupont No. 2 and used until 1950
2019 1,245 9,817cup 8,305psi 1,235 Test #55 - Modern Starline cases, my Goex FFFg black powder tests

NOTE: All black powder loads tested were charged by weight, not volume. Each 40gr charge was compressed with a compression die enough for the bullet to be seated and crimped at the proper crimp location. Powder was compressed anywhere from .17" to .21" pending case and bullet used (seating depth), replicating many original disected cartridges loads.

During the middle of the "Not For Pistol" years, from Ideal's No.17 Handbook dated 1906!!

 

[dandak]

Well so interesting! I can add to this I think. My SAA in 41 LC, # 290666, lettered to March 1907, did not have a VP. After fixing the timing I shot it a lot with Pyrodex, after testing black (shot terribly as always) and Unique. Shot pretty good with pyrodex. Have since sold it, here is the only photo I have of the area where it would have been stamped.

 

[Kingcobb]

I always enjoy coming back and reading this thread. I know the discussion of VP marks on early guns was settled, but I will add one if anyone is still keeping a survey going. #232002 is VP marked. It has also been restored by Turnbull, don't know if it had been to colt previously or not.

 

[azshot]

That's good to know, I've got 256,xxx and it's not VP. But it is well after the period Colt said was ok for smokeless, I figure I could shoot smokeless in it. Several SAA experts agree. But I'm having so much fun shooting black powder in it, I may not.
But I know my Black Powder loads recoil like a magnum. The pressure of a FF load, even reduced like I do, has to be much more than a weak smokeless load of Unique or Titegroup. Steeper pressure spike and all. I'm not going to go back through the 250 odd posts of opinion. But Colt themselves said they made SAAs for smokeless at a MUCH earlier serial number than this 1905 date people are usually debating.
Think about it this way, people in 1900 may have also debated "are you sure?" about smokeless, years after Colt said it was OK. So Colt came up with the VP stamp to sooth worries. It's not like that day suddenly they changed their steels or created different hardening. Now Winchester and others had different types of steels as we transitioned into stronger and stronger cartridges. Fluid Steel, etc, and they stamped THAT on their barrels. Colt didn't need to, after about 1900. The steel was strong enough for smokeless. Colt just put the VP to keep selling and dominating the revolver market. Was the steel of a 1901 New Service any different than a 1901 SAA? I doubt it. Nobody worries about shooting smokeless .45 colts or .38-40s in an ancient New Service.

 

[Kingcobb]

Parker Bros began proving their Damascus shotguns for nitro powder in 1896. Whether marked or not. So we really don't know when they may have started without marking them, but I would be careful not to ruin a good colt.

 

[azshot]

Colt said their guns could shoot smokeless ammo in this serial number range. I'm sure most of these SAAs have spent several lifetimes shooting smokeless by many generations of previous owners. And like I said, a black powder load is likely much more pressure than a light smokeless load, I'll look it up later. There is a notation in Colt's shipping records stating that guns numbered before 180,000 are not for Smokeless (Kopec). And I said I shoot BP in mine anyway. Over caution is unwarranted.
There is a slippery slope of conservatism with smokeless in SAAs that you don't see with early Winchesters, Stevens, S&Ws for some reason. 25 years ago, people said anything after 1900 was OK (basing it on Colt records). Then people started saying only if marked VP (basing it on the misassumption that Colt didn't make SAAs safe for smokeless until they decided to start the VP process). Now they're saying only if after an arbitrary date, say 1909, 1920, 1935. Perhaps because of the rare blown up SAA (but ignoring other makes that blow up too) that was likely caused by a double charge of smokeless or other wildcat load.

 

[Kingcobb]

Colt said their guns could shoot smokeless ammo in this serial number range. I'm sure most of these SAAs have spent several lifetimes shooting smokeless by many generations of previous owners. And like I said, a black powder load is likely much more pressure than a light smokeless load, I'll look it up later. There is a notation in Colt's shipping records stating that guns numbered before 180,000 are not for Smokeless (Kopec). And I said I shoot BP in mine anyway. So the hand wringing is unwarranted.
There is a slippery slope of conservatism with smokeless in SAAs that you don't see with early Winchesters, Stevens, S&Ws for some reason. 25 years ago, people said anything after 1900 was OK (basing it on Colt records). Then people started saying only if marked VP (basing it on the misassumption that Colt didn't make SAAs safe for smokeless until they decided to start the VP process). Now they're saying only if after an arbitrary date, say 1909, 1920, 1935. Perhaps because of the rare blown up SAA (but ignoring other makes that blow up too) that was likely caused by a double charge of smokeless or other wildcat load.

Your preaching to the choir here. I dove and duck hunt and shoot skeet and trap with an 1896 and an 1888 damascus barreled parker shotguns. Both 12 gauge. The 1896 also has a set of 10 gauge barrels with it. Half the people that see me with them expect the barrels to suddenly explode. Even though testing has shown even rusted up wall hanger parker damascus barrels will hold to over 30k psi. But you have that warning on the ammo boxes. Note, I shoot vintage loads in mine, but that isn't because of the barrels, I am more concerned with cracking the stocks.

Btw, I know plenty of people who have posted about shooting old winchester 73s to be playing with dynamite.....

 

[AAAPaul]

Your preaching to the choir here. I dove and duck hunt and shoot skeet and trap with an 1896 and an 1888 damascus barreled parker shotguns. Both 12 gauge. The 1896 also has a set of 10 gauge barrels with it. Half the people that see me with them expect the barrels to suddenly explode. Even though testing has shown even rusted up wall hanger parker damascus barrels will hold to over 30k psi. But you have that warning on the ammo boxes. Note, I shoot vintage loads in mine, but that isn't because of the barrels, I am more concerned with cracking the stocks.

Btw, I know plenty of people who have posted about shooting old winchester 73s to be playing with dynamite.....

Yep I had people tell me you can’t

turn 8,500 RPM with a cast cam too. I did it for 30 years until I proved them right😂😂

 

[SavvyJack]

Rifle Powder
Winchester used Dupont No.2 rifle powder in their 44 WCF cartridges during this "not for pistols" timeframe between 1900 and 1909. Their Dupont No. 2 loads created less pressures (maybe 12,000cup) than their original 44 WCF black powder loads (maybe 16,500cup). By 1900 Winchester black powder loads were only creating maybe 12,500cup...still typically more than Dupont No. 2 loads, as advertised in the document I posted in an above #247.

Pistol Powder
The problem with Colt's revolvers and smokeless powder was from the 45 Colt cartridge with it's very thin cylinder walls and when using the fast burning pistol powder of Bullseye. I do not know what Winchester used for their 45 Colt loads during that time or if they even manufactured it, never went down that bunny trail.

The powder companies never removed the 45 Colt loads from their powder cans

Also...Back around 1909, 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!
I have seen box examples as early as 1910. The powder was reported dropped two years later with the Model 1911 but I have seen boxes dated as late as 1913.


Here are some statements by Smith & Wesson regarding smokeless powder
1900 - "While we do not guarantee our Revolvers when used with smokeless powder, and strongly advise against reloaded ammunition, we do not wish to detract in any way from its merits or discourage the use of properly loaded smokeless cartridges."
1905-1906 "Cartridges in which smokeless powder is used are made by leading manufacturers, and they posses valuable qualities not found in black powder ammunition. They do excellent work in our revolvers, and while we do not guarantee our arms when smokeless powder is used, and strongly advise against reloaded ammunition, we have no desire to detract from its merits or discourage its use when properly handled".
I also ran across this letter floating on the internet.
I decided to cut out the address and addressee
Sounds to me like this is a polite way of saying that their arms were safe but they pushed off any warrantees from stupid handloaders that pushed the limits.

 

[lestert45]

This thread is quite the eye-opener, especially (to me) the discussion regarding not shooting smokeless in the Long Flute SAA’s, even though they have the verified proof mark, because the cylinders are from an earlier era. I knew the cylinders were from an earlier era but figured since the gun was factory proofed together with the Long Flute cylinder there should be no problem using the Black Hills smokeless cartridges. I have shot my .38 WCF Long Flute a couple of times with the Black Hills smokeless loads, maybe 24 rounds total, and would not hesitate to use the gun with those cartridges in an emergency. But after reading this thread the gun is being retired from range duty.

 

[azshot]

OK, I spent a few minutes seeing when Colt started saying they guaranteed using Smokeless in ALL their arms. So far, I found 1906, I'll keep looking for earlier.

"All Colt Revolvers are guaranteed for use with factory loaded smokeless ammunition."

The Saturday Evening Post
Volume 179, Issue 2
1906

The Iron Age - pp 247
Volume 78, Issues 14-15
1906

 

[azshot]

In the April 1905 NRA magazine Shooting and Fishing Colt advertised the Officers Model can use Smokeless. Not as clear a authorization as the "all revolvers" above, but implying that their steels were considered strong enough by then.

I'm also seeing official US Army reports of smokeless being tested in small arms in 1897. Then a few years later that smokeless was used in the early Colt DA revolver. Need to find again the reference, but it was early 1900 or so.

 

[SavvyJack]

My interests are in the 45 Colt ammo manufactures during that time, such as Winchester.
Winchester's 44-40 smokeless loads note "Not For Pistols" starts about 1900-1903 and last till about 1909. I have not searched in detail for 45 Colt smokeless loads of that time period but.....

UMC lists 45 Colt smokeless loads in their catalogs for Sept 1, 1896, then from April 1899till I last looked at 1939. There is no omittance for the 1900 through 1909 years.

EDITED: Actually I didn't see a listing for thr 45 COlt smokeless loads for 1901. I can not find a 1902 catalog, so I don't know what the year offered./

Here is what I have so far.


UMC catalogs can be seen here

 

[Cozmo]

Interesting find last night. Not seen 1905 used as a cut off date before. 1980 copyright date 1998, 6th Edition