S&W Smokeless OK in Old Revolvers

[rhmc24]

This is not really news but probably worthwhile to post again. In this correspondence with S&W, by 1909 they approve smokeless powder ammo in their guns, provided it is factory loaded ammo. They were sensitive to use of reloads using smokeless, apparently due to the usual practice of the time to reload black powder by volume which was a no-no with same measure of smokeless. Find approval wording at bottom of second page.









Of possible interest, I shoot .44 Specials in my formerly .44 Russ DA
BBQ.

[glowe]

Based on prior posts for this topic, you will get a pretty much divided opinion on smokeless powder in pre-1900 guns. I will guarentee that almost every antique S&W saw smokeless powder use during its life.

I have a 1912 edition of "The Revolver" catalog that still has the same statements about smokeless powder and lists all ammunition in the catalog with black powder loadings.

The only reference to black powder left in the 1925 S&W catalog is a reference to ammunition used in the 38 Safety Hammerless. ".38 S&W with black, semi-smokeless, or smokeless powder and lead, full metal patched or metal tipped bullets. Also shoots the Colt New Police .38."

In reality, the pressure curves of some of the newer fast powders, like Clays, almost perfectly mirror the old black powder loads, but extra care must be taken to find that load that is never above the velocities of the original BP loadings, plus the added a safety factor of loading lighter bullets than original BP ammunition.

I shoot my 44 Russian DA with smokeless powder. The original BP loadings were 23 grains of BP with a 256 grain bullet. This gave 715 fps velocity. I stay under the Hodgdons loading data and get 650 fps using 2.8 grains of Clays with a 200 grain soft lead bullet and am confident I am well under BP loads. The standard load from Hodgdons lists 200 grains, 3.2 grains Clays and yields 750 fps and 8000 psi.

On the other hand, I would be scared to death to be around you if you are actually shooting factory 44 Specials out of your 44 DA.

[rhmc24]

Latest info I have is something 2006 from Winchester in which .44 Russian and .44 Special specs are the same. Yes, I do shoot factory .44 Specials.

A kindred issue, I have read claims that overloads cause frame-stretch in the old S&W .44 DA topbreaks, resulting in increased BC gap. Seems to me a pipe dream considering the frame is many times more massive than the top strap. If frame stretch were a reality it would cause a bind in the top latch system unless the top strap stretched equally. I've been unable to confirm any frame stretch in my far-gone pieces.

[glowe]

I find that the standard SAAMI pressures for 44 Special ammo is 15,000psi, which is almost double that of the original 44 Russian. Frame stretch is probably real, but overall excessive wear and ending up with a loose gun is a strong possibility with higher pressure loads than designed.

The other issue is that you have no idea of what type of powder is used in factory ammo and what pressures they develop. Slower burning powders, for instance, can cause higher pressures than fast burning powders. Reloading is really the only way to be sure of what you are shooting. I assume that the reason you are not shooting original caliber is cost, but I would certainly pay more for the ammo and not have to worry about replacing the gun.

In my mind, you do not have a BBQ gun, you have a very nice and historical S&W that has some decent value. Go buy a $500 shooter and wear it out. Save the engraved one for others to enjoy in future generations.

[GaryS]

I asked a similar question regarding some Remington 88 gr .32 S&W (short) ammunition I was selling along with a New Departure. The best answer I got was that the smokeless powder loadings were reduced to keep the pressures in the same range as the black powder ammunition for which it was originally designed.

[glowe]

Originally Posted by GaryS

I asked a similar question regarding some Remington 88 gr .32 S&W (short) ammunition I was selling along with a New Departure. The best answer I got was that the smokeless powder loadings were reduced to keep the pressures in the same range as the black powder ammunition for which it was originally designed.

That is pretty much correct for most late 1800s calibers, but when you start substituting calibers not originally intended for a revolver, that changes everything. S&W never designed the 44 DA to shoot 44 Special ammunition.

The classic example is the 455 N frame British military guns that were often converted to 45 ACP and 45 Long Colt. 45 ACP and full power 45 Colt result in pressures above the proof pressures for the original 455 frame. There are many references in this Forum cautioning shooters not to shoot factory 45SCP or 45 Colt in these guns. There is no evidence of these guns blowing up, but my opinion is that the shooter is just asking for trouble. Why take the chance of ruining these fine old guns. I am not that brave!

[rhmc24]

Thanks for worrying for me. I doubt I'll be shooting it enough to damage it measurably. If I do, I'll have to engrave another one (as I did this one) and switch grips -- and ream its cylinder a little deeper.

[glowe]

Originally Posted by rhmc24

Thanks for worrying for me.

Actually, I'm worried about the gun. The owner charts his own destiny, but the gun can't.

BTW - nice job on the engraving.

[rhmc24]

Glad you like it. It gets great care and not much shooting. See its other side below.

[Wiregrassguy]

The classic example is the 455 N frame British military guns that were often converted to 45 ACP and 45 Long Colt. 45 ACP and full power 45 Colt result in pressures above the proof pressures for the original 455 frame. There are many references in this Forum cautioning shooters not to shoot factory 45SCP or 45 Colt in these guns. There is no evidence of these guns blowing up, but my opinion is that the shooter is just asking for trouble. Why take the chance of ruining these fine old guns. I am not that brave!

Gary,
Is there any evidence that S&W made the .455s differently than the 1917 or the .44 specials. It would seem to me that it would be impractical to have a separate process to dumb down the proof on the .455s. It seems more reasonable that the frames, cylinders and barrels were made using the same metallurgical process as the other N frames and were bored differently to meet the calibers desired. Am I off base here?

[glowe]

Guy, as I am sure you read the comments on this forum, there will always be differing opinions on the 455. First, as I can find what information is available, the original loadings for the 44 Special and the 455 produced similar pressures, around 10,000 to 12,000psi, with a maximum of a little over 13,000 psi. Today's SAMMI maximum loading for a 44 Special is around 15,000psi.

Modern 45ACP produces pressures of around 20,000psi, but the casing and the bore was slightly smaller. The bore for a 45ACP is .450" and the brass was slightly smaller diameter. If the exterior dimensions were the same as the 455, there would be a little more steel in the cylinder and barrel. Would that make a difference in strength? Also, I have not found any information of the pressures developed by WWI era 45ACP ammo, but maybe they were not as hot a load as today?

Anyway, I am not a fan of doing things to old guns that they were not designed to do. Too much risk for me. I have heard that the 455 Webley was a much stronger gun than the S&W, but read accounts of them coming apart, so better safe than sorry.

Here is an interesting link with additional commentary:
CAUTION RE .455 REVOLVERS ALTERED TO SHOOT .45 ACP and .45 Auto Rim in British Military Revolvers and Other Handguns Forum

[Wiregrassguy]

Interesting reading. Thanks, Gary. I can certainly understand the issue of using .45 ACP in a Webley revolver. But, the S&W revolvers made on the N frame using a non-heavy lug barrel were issued in calibers of .44 Special, .45 ACP/Autorim, .45 Colt, .38-40 Winchester and .455 Eley. They all had the same 1.57" cylinder length, except the .45 which was milled to 1.55" to accommodate moon clips. I have checked my 1917 and my .44 HE, 2nd Model and the cylinders are the same diameter. From a manufacturing standpoint, with this many variations of calibers for the same basic gun, it would be more cost effective to make them the same and just mill for the different calibers. So, if you made them all using the engineering specs for .45 ACP, then boring one of the smaller diameter calibers out to .45 ACP or Colt would not affect the safety of the gun, IMO.

In fact, the SCSW states about the Triplelock:

Calibers other than .44 Special or .455 are worth multiples of the standard model values. In the 12000 - 13000 serial number range some .45 caliber handguns will be found, most believed to be originally .455, some converted to .45 Colt, possibly by the factory. Others that may have been converted to .45 Colt by the factory are listed in Neal & Jinks, in the 98xx serial number range with guns from that group having been observed in both .455 &. 45 Colt.

Supica, Jim; Nahas, Richard (2006-12-20). Standard Catalog of Smith & Wesson 3rd (Standard Catalog of Smith and Wesson) (p. 145). F+W Media, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

I'm not trying to be argumentative about this. From a manufacturing standpoint, it just doesn't make sense to manufacture very similar guns to different engineering specs based on the cartridge used. And, I think S&W was very savvy about saving every penny as has been noted here many times.

[DWalt]

I have brought the issue of commonality up before several times. From a manufacturing economics and quality control perspective, it makes very little sense to make essentially the same revolver using different steel alloys and heat treatment for each caliber it is offered in. Yet no one seems to know exactly what the revolver manufacturers actually did, like it was (is) a big secret.

The old revolvers made in the predominately black powder era are safe to use with modern smokeless loads of the same caliber, as they are fairly puny loadings for exactly that reason. Much of the early S&W concerns were the result of smokeless propellant being the new kid on the block, and its technology was not well established or understood at the time. Were it dangerous to use ordinary factory smokeless ammunition in, say, .38 S&W or .32 S&W in an old 19th Century breaktop, you can bet there would be dire warnings against doing so prominently displayed on the box for protective legal reasons. There are no such warnings that I have seen.