[Cozmo]

Interesting, I have been in a deep dive this morning looking at the US Military's use of smokeless and BP 45 Colt ammo. If I am correct, it turns out that the first smokeless 45 Colt ammo was produced for the M1909 Colt, at the Frankford Arsenal. And interesting enough the 1909 date matches up pretty closely with arbitrary date of 1906/1907 as to when Colt's VP stamp was most commonly first used on the SAA.

 

[cascabel]

Your gun, do as you like. An educated decision, when made on what is actually known about the manufacture of these guns, might make one ponder on the rational of shooting smokeless in a 45 Colt LF. Personally, I'd still have some concern on the 44-40 and 38-40 versions as well.

That is not a concern for the more typical, vintage Colt collector, who isn't planning to ever shoot their guns. My impression is a good many owners in these conversations simply don't shoot, they just want to talk about the nuances of Colt ownership. I get that, right up to the point the conversation turns to nonsense.

I took mrcvs' original post as a well meaning, public service announcement, attempting to help LF owners understand the LF guns better. The post was a little confusing for me so I tried to break it down some and point out that it is really the 45 Colt cylinders that would be my first concern, with 44-40 and 38-40 to follow. If you never shoot them (mrcvs does shoot his guns) it should be of no concern to you.

I also shoot mine. I value the history of my own guns. Shooting them and discussing the nuances of manufacturing are both equal parts of my own enjoyment in collecting old Colts. I'd like to keep them all in one piece Hopefully the more I learn about these guns the better they will be for the next generation of ownership.

My 1892 Colt in 45.
View attachment 827077

I definitely fall into the category of the "more typical vintage Colt collector who isn't ever planning to shoot their guns." And I don't own a LF SAA so, for me, this post is entirely academic. I readily admit that you fellas are the experts and I would never want to challenge that. I think my point was that I fail to understand what was being shot in these guns from the period 1915, when they were manufactured, to whenever they were retired to the collector's closet? Was everyone who owned them diligent in that they knew of the cylinder's delicate nature and made certain to only use Black Powder ammunition or were most of these fired with whatever ammunition was sold on the gun store counter?
In other words, is the answer to mrcvs's question axiomatic: the fact that these guns still exist with their original cylinders indicates that they can, and have, been fired with modern smokeless ammunition.

 

[Cozmo]

the fact that these guns still exist with their original cylinders indicates that they can, and have, been fired with modern smokeless ammunition.

True enough.

And most of them in the weaker 45 Colt version. But they aren't new guns anymore. Most of them likely saw little use after 1940 or so. They are all over 100-year-old guns now. Most of them aren't in the best of condition. Less than 1500 made.

Was everyone who owned them diligent in that they knew of the cylinder's delicate nature and made certain to only use Black Powder ammunition or were most of these fired with whatever ammunition was sold on the gun store counter?

I am obviously guessing here In 1915, just as now, a quality Colt handgun was expensive. I doubt there were many owners that could afford to intentionally misuse their new Colt and just go buy another. That said, dang few, if anyone thought the LF guns were fragile. Most owners were very likely just as uneducated as most (not on Internet forums) today and bought whatever ammo was available without a 2nd thought.

If my family's experience is any example (3 generation prior to me) were shooters tells me anything, it's folks never shot a lot by comparison to what many do today. Shooting more than one (maybe two!) 50 round boxes of pistol ammo a year was unusual. More than a box of 20 rifle ammo? Unlikely. I have the old boxes of brass and loaded ammo for the Bisley to recognize that. On the other hand, common enough for me to shoot several hundred rounds of handgun ammo a week.

I'm now the caretaker of my Grandfather's 1911 Bisley, given to him by his father when new. I have ammo for that gun going back to the '30s. The gun has little finish but no pitting. Original grips. The holster and gun show some wear but not a lot of signs it has been shot. No finish on this gun, which means to me it was cleaned a lot more than it was ever shot. I've not shot in much in 40 years. And very likely I more than doubled its lifetime the round count when I did.

I am unlikely to ever shoot the Bisley again. No real reason not to, unless of course I break something internally. Bisley parts are hard to come by.

 

[victorio1sw]

I definitely fall into the category of the "more typical vintage Colt collector who isn't ever planning to shoot their guns." And I don't own a LF SAA so, for me, this post is entirely academic. I readily admit that you fellas are the experts and I would never want to challenge that. I think my point was that I fail to understand what was being shot in these guns from the period 1915, when they were manufactured, to whenever they were retired to the collector's closet? Was everyone who owned them diligent in that they knew of the cylinder's delicate nature and made certain to only use Black Powder ammunition or were most of these fired with whatever ammunition was sold on the gun store counter?
In other words, is the answer to mrcvs's question axiomatic: the fact that these guns still exist with their original cylinders indicates that they can, and have, been fired with modern smokeless ammunition.

One other thing to consider -- is that about a dozen factory engraved LF SAA's do exist. So if Colt was already "walking on eggshells", then why take a graver and add v-notch stress risers to these "frail" cylinders?

This one shipped to Praeger Hardware Company, San Antonio, TX on Sept. 23, 1914 in a one gun shipment.

 

[GRI]

Interesting, I have been in a deep dive this morning looking at the US Military's use of smokeless and BP 45 Colt ammo. If I am correct, it turns out that the first smokeless 45 Colt ammo was produced for the M1909 Colt, at the Frankford Arsenal. And interesting enough the 1909 date matches up pretty closely with arbitrary date of 1906/1907 as to when Colt's VP stamp was most commonly first used on the SAA.

I am sure that the 1905 Colts that were issued already would have been given the smokeless rounds to use. It is doubtful there was any caveat, unless one appeared on the ammunition warning not to use in any gun other than the 1909. It is likely the military smokeless was loaded down like civilian ammo to make them safe in older guns. I will add that it is good to remember that the military was issuing smokeless cartridges in 1900.

 

[TrueGritFnG]

I guess we better ask if the cylinders were produced in house or outsourced. I deleted 4 paragraphs until later LoL

 

[Cozmo]

I am sure that the 1905 Colts that were issued already would have been given the smokeless rounds to use.

It is likely the military smokeless was loaded down like civilian ammo

Please offer a source for your opinion. Not saying you are wrong, just like to see the documentation of US Military smokeless 45 Colt ammo prior to 1909.

So if Colt was already "walking on eggshells", then why take a graver and add v-notch stress risers to these "frail" cylinders?

Not helping your cause any and one of the most clueless comments made about the strength of a LF cylinder I have seen written. Neat gun however.

 

[victorio1sw]

Please offer a source for your opinion. Not saying you are wrong, just like to see the documentation of US Military smokeless 45 Colt ammo prior to 1909.



Not helping your cause any and one of the most clueless comments made about the strength of a LF cylinder I have seen written. Neat gun however.

"Not helping your cause any and one of the most clueless comments made about the strength of a LF cylinder I have seen written".
You simply cannot control yourself. I know that you were booted off this forum at least once. Easy to see why.

 

[Mikebiker]

1909 Ammunition will not fit a standard 45 Colt. The rim was enlarged for better extraction that is why it is the Model 1909.

 

[Cozmo]

Good stuff Mike.
Are you 100% sure that the 1909 smokeless 45 Colt ammo can't be chambered in a SAA? Or can they be chambered in every other SAA cylinder, making the SAA a 3 shooter? I am guessing a three shooter is possible.

"In 1909, the .45 M1909 round was issued along with the .45 Colt New Service revolver. This round was never loaded commercially, and is almost identical to the original .45 Colt round, except having a larger diameter rim (.540 in (13.7mm)). The rim is large enough that it cannot be loaded in adjacent chambers in the rod-ejector Colt model.[4] "

If so the next question might be, "was all the Frankford Arsenal 45 Colt ammo production prior to 1909, BP only"? And when was BP 45 ammo last stored in the US military inventory?

 

[Cozmo]

A quick look at the 1899 Winchester catalog and the 1905 to 1910 Sears & Roebuck catalog shows that not only was BP ammo still being sold but it was the majority of the sales in the Colt SAA calibers.

That sorta turns my thoughts about went the SAA went smokeless on its head. Makes a number of conversations we've had here recently, and the assumptions made, obviously in error.

 

[Mikebiker]

You must also take into consideration that some people held fast to their old ways and balck powder was going to used ant the new fancy high priced stuff.

 

[TrueGritFnG]

quick observation is that all the ammo surplus still had to be sold and used. they aint wasting nothing and could still turn a profit on its sale or distribution. I wouldn't swerve yet.

 

[Cozmo]

Price difference on the ammo would have been an issue in 1899. From the Winchester 1899 catalog.

45 Colt BP ammo 255 ball $22.00 per 2000
45 Colt smokeless ammo 255 ball $24.50 per 1000

1910 Sears & Roebuck catalog lists

45 Colt BP 255 ball @ $14.92 per 1000
45 Colt and 44-40 smokeless ammo is not listed
38/40 and 32-20 smokeless rifle ammo is.
44-40 BP rifle ammo is as well.

 

[superdave269]

1909 Ammunition will not fit a standard 45 Colt. The rim was enlarged for better extraction that is why it is the Model 1909.

I found this so interesting I had to try it myself (since I have some loose rounds)
I also discovered that the case is approx. .010" longer than the 45 Colt.
The 1909 cartridge will not chamber in a SAA with proper chamber dimensions. If the chamber is a bit long you can still only put three in due to the wide rim. They stuck out of a 1890 vintage SAA that I tried them in.
1909 New Service is not chambered for the 45 Colt although it is intended to accept the cartridge in a pinch. I imagine it would also take the Scofield round too.

I learn so much from this forum even when I have not set out to. Mike's post made me take a closer look at the 1909 ammo that I have. When I bought it the seller told me it was 45LC. I bet he wasn't aware of the differences.
Now how long until I forget all of this? LOL.

 

[azshot]

OK, I got tired of all the conjecture so 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

 

[mrcvs]

OK, I got tired of all the conjecture so 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
View attachment 827302

That was AFTER the last Model 1878 was manufactured and prior to the assembly of the first Long Flute Model in 1913. So, does this account for the Long Flute Model which did not exist in 1906 and when the Long Flute Model was assembled with Model 1878 cylinders collecting dust at Colt’s, did anyone even consider, 1913 to 1915, that these cylinders are black powder components? My guess is “probably not”.

 

[Cozmo]

Only two members here post, and then call their comments a "trade secret". That answer makes the point. I really don't have to. But nothing wrong with a little cheese to go with the whining 🤣

Good stuff SDave. Thanks for making the effort to check the 1907 .45 ammo in a SAA.

did anyone even consider, in 1913 to 1915, that these cylinders are black powder components?

I have to agree...."probably not".

I'd going as far as to say, "I'd bet they didn't even consider as an issue". Looking back in history to at least the '20s (and much later up to the '40s by the antidotal evidence) 45 Colt smokeless ammo simply wasn't easily available and when it was it was, it was a lot more expensive that BP. More than twice the price if you could find smokeless 45 Colt or 44-40. The world had few liabilities, less Government oversight, fewer lawyers, no seat belts, and an economy fully driven by capitalism. The idea was to make a $, not throw away "good parts" from a gun, that was long dead, 10 years prior to 1915.

There was still a market for the SAA in 1915, and none for the M1878.

Caliber production of the LF guns:

965 produced in .45.
28 in .44 Special.
207 in .38-40
110 in .32-20.

44 Special
38-40
32-20
By 1910 all were all three easily available in smokeless, if I am to believe my vintage catalogs. All of those calibers have stronger cylinders in a SAA that a 45 Colt or a 44-40. I have to wonder if that was an intentional choice by Colt. Again, I'd bet it an intentional choice on their part.

Funny enough smokeless 45 Colt ammo was not easily available as one might have thought in 1915. Twice the price in the Winchester catalog BP verses smokeless. And smokeless 45 Colt ammo simply not listed in the Sears and Roebuck catalog. Of course 45 Colt BP ammo was listed there.

What I found in the two vintage ammo catalogs is telling for anyone willing to look. There were a LOT of changes happening when the US was still using a good deal of BP ammo, while the rest of the world was already fully engaged with smokeless ammo in almost all their common calibers. The takeaway from the research I did was this, "Smokeless ammo came to the newest rifle calibers pretty quickly, after 1895 in the US. The same was not true of pistol calibers. It took new guns, starting with the M1892, then the Colt 1905 Colt Semi Auto pistol with 45acp smokeless ammo (which eventually ended with the Colt 1911 design and ammo) and then the 1907 Colt dbl action revolver using a smokeless "45 Colt cartridge" smokeless, with its limitations. By 1892 (the Colt M1892) if was obvious the SAA was an obsolete design. DBL action revolvers and semi auto handguns would soon dominate the marketplace.

A good bit of my comments are pure conjecture on my part, "an educated guess", nothing more. No secret there.

 

[cloverleaf]

The Colt model 1900 38 ACP is built for smokeless.
But there were never any black
powder loads

 

[Mikebiker]

None of us were around when the change from black to smokeless occurred. We either assume they were stupid or did not care about safety. Their reputations depended on their products being safe. If the introduction of smokeless powder into the same exact cartridges that were currently in use was causing failure all the time don't you think something would have been done to remedy it? I contend that nearly all guns could handle the higher pressures well enough and even the cheap stuff. The breaktops and other similar hinged designs eventually shot loose but they apparently did not blow up or suffer catastrophic failure at a high rate.

The men at Colt knew what they were doing when they made decisions. They either knew the LF cylinders were okay or did some testing beforehand. Does anyone here know the actual test procedure that was done before applying the VP or the WP mark on a gun? Was it just done as a step in the manufacture or were the guns actually proof fired? If it was proof fired then it passed the test with a proof load and was considered safe for normal loads in that caliber.

All the book learning and test track info can never duplicate real life experience. We all know that nearly every gun made that uses a modern caliber has been fired with smokeless powder. Catastrophic failure does not apper to have happened very often but the guns did shoot themselves loose much quicker. Even today a S&W with a steady load of magnums will start to loosen and show wear.