Good afternoon everybody,

I've finally jumped in to the world of antiques with a S&W Model No. 1, and I'm stoked about the whole thing-but simultaneously extremely nervous about causing damage by firing it. I know that modern .22 Short is a big no-no, but what from I have read in some older threads here and elsewhere, .22 CB Cap ammo from CCI is something the old guns can handle without much trouble.

I wanted to run that concept by y'all to see if it still sounds like a not-too-risky idea. I haven't been able to find much of anything solid in the way of ballistics data on the old black powder loads (and have found absolutely zilch on anyone actually selling some), and I'm still feeling leery about the risk of even even a primer-only modern cartridge, especially because, looking at the numbers they put out, the CCI CB Cap looks like it is running a lot hotter than the also primer-only BB/CB Flobert ammo (similar speed at c. 700 fps, but making that speed with a 29 gr rather than 15-20 gr bullet), which makes me wonder about how much pressure it'll put on the cylinder, particularly if faster-burning smokeless powder is going to cause any extra trouble relative to its power. Of course, shooting the thing is going to be an absolute thrill, I have no plans to have this as only a display/safe queen, which puts me in this little predicament.

If it matters at all, mine is a Second Issue with the non-fluted cylinder, no idea if that has any bearing on how tough the little guy is-serial number puts the manufacture date as 1865.

So, I'm looking for a bit of wisdom from anyone with experience with old black powder .22s in general or this gun in particular and this kind of ammo, much obliged for any advice any of y'all might have to offer.

I have shot mine but only with the traditional style BB and CB caps. The only current manufacturer I can find is RWS (and they are pricey). I have gotten odd boxes of older BB and CB loads over the years at gun shows and flea markets and for no more than I shoot it even the expensive RWS stuff is okay with me.

The modern CCI CB shorts I have only used in old rifles and a few early DA 22 revolvers with one exception. I have an American Standard Tool tip up revolver that I have shot them in. It is however a scaled up clone of the S&W design with a heavier and thicker walled cylinder than a Model 1. Having fired both original style and CCI loads in it I would say that the CCI loads give the impression that they are significantly hotter than the old style loads. Some of that may be due to the heavier bullet and the rest I attribute to the presence of a small powder charge in the CCI loadings (where the original CB/BB loads were usually primer only).

I don't feel comfortable with shooting the CCI in my Model 1 so I stick to the old style CB/BB loads in it. I wish Aquila would offer their Colibri loads in the short case as I would use them if they did. Not likely to happen though so if I will stick to the old CB/BB loads for any shooting I do with my Model 1.

Back when I was doing research comparing BP to smokeless, I also did some work with 22 Rimfire. As often the case, vintage Black Powder factory loads turned out to be hotter than today's substitutions. The numbers are below. These revolvers are quite fragile compared to top-breaks and solid frame revolvers, but no more so today then when they were made. If your gun operates as designed and a close inspection is done, looking for any "pre-existing conditions", there is no reason not to shoot it now and then. As I always caution, any part can break on any vintage revolver, and parts for this model are almost impossible to find.

CCI 22 BB Caps – 400 fps
CCI 22 CB Caps – 475 fps
CCI 22 CB Short – 450 fps
UMC 22 Short – BP – 600 fps
Winchester 22 Short - BP - 625 fps

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

Thank you! This is exactly what I was hoping to find. Out of curiosity, do you know if CCI still makes the weaker BB caps? Or are those the same as the RWS BB caps?

RWS BB caps are all I could currently find.

22 BB Ammo | Best 22 BB Ammunition - AmmoSeek.com 2020

__________________
SWCA #3356, SWHF#611

CB Shorts are available at CCI 22 CB Short Ammo 29 Grain Lead Round Nose

I am not currently finding CB Caps or BB Caps for sale.

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

I have 3 nice #1's, but I haven't shot any of them. At their age I don't feel comfortable taking a chance of doing irreparable damage. I just look at them. I have plenty of other S&W's to shoot, including early .32 top breaks.

__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244

The one fellow I did find that tested out CB caps versus black powder loads seemed to find things flipped around-that the caps ran a lot hotter than the black powder cartridges in a Model 1, Third Issue (he handloaded).

In The Beginning…There Was The Smith & Wesson Model 1 In .22 Short | The Daily Caller

"It was even a bit spooky when I clocked some CCI Mini-caps. They averaged 576 fps (about what they do from a modern revolver with 6-inch barrel).....It is possible to pack 2.9 grains of 3Fg or 4Fg black powder into a Short case but then there is no room for a bullet. The 100 percent density load is 2.3 grains of either granulation under the heel of the 29-grain bullet. Loaded with a generic sort of 4Fg prime, my loads were loping along in the 300 fps range. High energy Swiss 3Fg upped the average to 443 fps while the traditional and probably guessed-at velocity is given as “circa 500 fps.” I got pretty good at the black powder conversions but there is room to hope the original Shorts were a bit better than my “reloads.”"


Any idea why that might be?

I'd just say if CB caps give you the willies, the RWS stuff replicates the Flobert ammo of those days and is the lowest power available..

__________________
SWCA #3356, SWHF#611

Unfortunately for me, the problem is mostly on "available". I've never had the good luck to see any of the RWS ammo in-store, and I'm essentially screwed on getting it online and having it shipped to me because of local laws.

You simply can not properly reload 22 LR. I went through that phase, trying to duplicate factory BP loads and it just cannot be done today. First, the powder used in BP 22 is almost as fine as talcum powder and if you want to take the time to had grind 4F down to that consistency, be my guest. I cannot imagine how explosive it is when it becomes fine enough to float around in the air.

Second, you cannot re-crimp properly and a solid crimp is necessary to achieve proper ignition. I can say that the term hotter is used in lots of contexts, but I can guarantee that you cannot reload a 22 case to obtain original velocities of vintage BP ammo. Having said that, his tests whatever was done, was still lower than old time factory BP loads at over 600 fps. I am not sure why he chose a 6" since there were no 6" Model 1 revolvers out there? Can't compare the velocities from a 6" barrel to that of a 3 3/16" barrel Model 1.

I wonder how you measure 4 grains of BP by volume, which is what is stated about original BP loads. One never weighs black powder unless they have established the weight of a BP load by weighing a volumetric load on a scale. The finer the grind on BP, the more actual powder you can load into a case. 4F is around 20% to 40% finer than 3F, and the powder that was loaded into a 22 case was at least twice as fine as 4F.

Lastly, CCI CB Caps used in a 3 1.2" Ladysmith @ 475 fps is totally consistent with a 6" barrel achieving 576 fps.

. . . but don't forget that if it is on the Internet, it must be true!

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

I believe he said that the velocity was similar to that you get out of a 6-inch barrel (he was using a Model 1 for the tests), but for everything else, that's fascinating. I never knew that the old loads were so much finer than the modern reproduction stuff, that's both pretty cool, and explains most of the 'contradictions' that confused me in my very amateur researching. Thanks mate!

As I just mentioned in another thread, I don't believe that it's responsible to shoot a Model 1. Period.

We can argue about ballistic pressures in modern versus old .22 loads, but that ignores the reality that these guns were made with very primitive metallurgy, and that the survivors are somewhere between 138 and 163 years old. Even if the gun looks like it's in good shape, it would take a *lot* of work to ascertain just how structurally solid the cylinder and barrel are.

And even then, do you really want to risk irreparably damaging a 150+ year old gun? I don't.

Some people fire ammunition through them and the gun seems to do fine. Over the years I've also seen split cylinders (and mismatched cylinders, which almost always happens because the original cylinder was damaged), broken hammers, etc. Guns that started as intact specimens are now damaged, and even if they're fixed they won't be in their original configuration. For me, that's a huge loss.

I take the custodianship of these guns seriously, and the only way I can ensure that they won't be damaged by live fire is to not fire them. That ensures that future generations will be able to enjoy these bits of history that will only continue to dwindle in numbers.

Some people consider me a bit "prudish" about this, and that's fine ... I just wanted to make sure that the other side was represented in this conversation. :-)

Mike

Great thread, great posts.

I only wanted to add the tests I performed with the .41 rimfire?
It's great that we are trying to understand the past? but the truth is we honestly don't know how they stuffed the original loads into rimfire cases. I searched for many hours and couldn't find the answer. All antique reloading was done with centerfire. So the rimfires were all performed by cartridge companies of the early era.

How the cartridge companies stuffed 13 grains of FFFG into the .41 rimfire cases "SAFELY"? Nobody knows. Also, as mentioned, loading data from that ERA varies. Some list FFG as the base powder. Some list FFFG but what happens when you stuff that load into the undersized case? It crushes it so much that it becomes a very fine powder, as mentioned. More like a FFFFFG. If that's possible.

Also, and this is important for research. The powder that we are using to test load? Is NOT the same powder they used back then. It's proven that the early gunpowder loads were stronger than Black powder manufactured today. Just like comparing Swiss to Goex?

You will get "totally" different results from different Black powders today that rate the same. So one FFFG powder will not react the same as another FFFG powder produced today from a different company. There was a shortage of Potassium Nitrate in the world that forced the industry to come up with a substitute prior to 1895. This is really the root cause of the manufacture of Semi-Smokeless and Nitro/Smokeless powders.

So even if you were to figure out how to stuff the loads into the little cases safely? "AND" achieve the very sharp case crimp that is impossible to mimic today? Your powder mixture still would not match "chemically" the original load. That information is lost to history unfortunately. One thing is for sure though. The Black powder Pre-1895 was most definitely stronger than what we are using today. They add so many chemical substitutes to todays black powder and those substitutes? No way it matches early black powder. So your test would be inaccurate from the improper powder to begin with.

You could try using black powder from an original case? but would that really be fair or accurate? Using powder that's 150 years old? So, it's a fun subject but we are clueless today regarding how they actually did it and what the exact chemical composition was of both the powder and you would also have to match the hardness of the high copper content cases. Because the crimp they applied was very sharp and deep. That also has a direct impact on powder burn. Which directly impacts FPS results.
There are too many mysteries to the early methods that need accurate answers before you can perform accurate tests or your results will ultimately be an approximate. Your answer will still be. "Well, we don't really know". So, I'm siding with Mike on this one. A responsible position is a position from knowing, not experimenting (guessing). Experiment with a modern gun. It can handle it.

Murph

The closest I've come to this are some original accounts of Charles Leet's ammo factory after he left Smith & Wesson. But those accounts don't get into the technicalities about how the ammo was actually loaded ... so like you, I still have far too many questions and far too few answers.

Anecdotally I've been told not to tumble antique cartridges that are still loaded, because the action of the tumbler can break down the powder charge into finer grains. And, heaven knows how fine the powder has become over time, given that these cartridges have survived for well over a century ...

Oh, I've been tempted.

I have some period-correct Model 1 cartridges that I've been so, so tempted to shoot. But I haven't for the reasons I've already articulated.

Miracles happen. :-)

Mike

As others have said I consider myself a custodian of the antique and near antique pistols I currently possess. I consider it my responsibility to maintain them in the best possible condition I can. I also support flying museums that keep 80 year old warbirds flying and always enjoy seeing antique cars chugging down the street. By the same token I believe old guns, in good condition should be shot. I do shoot mine but hedge my bets by using low power ammo. I load my own .38 S&W and .44-40 and for my model 1 I use CCI .22 BB shorts. I only shoot it twice a year but thoroughly enjoy it when I do.

I think this is where I ultimately fall on this. These old guns are beautiful weapons, but they are not pieces of art made solely for hanging on a wall, they were made to be used. Used does not mean abused and every precaution should be taken, but I think that with a significant amount of evidence/testimony that modern low-power options are as safe or safer than the original cartridges that they are worth the attempt, and I fully expect to very much enjoy the chance to use this piece of history.

Once I get my hands on some safe ammo I intend to very carefully give her a try. I'll report back here on how it goes, hopefully with some more backing for CB caps being a workable option for bringing some history to life.