I just bought a S&W Model 1 1/2 .32 RF (labeled as a 3rd issue by the store). #99690. It came with a box of Navy Arms .32 Long RF ammo (approx 33 rds). Great gun, but I'm wondering about the ammo. I never shoot ammo in an old gun unless I'm sure of what it is. The box says "Smokeless cartridges," which bugs me.
I'll probably break a cartridge down to check it out.
I like to fire a round or two from my antiques before I display them.


Ooops...I should have searched before posting. It's been covered before.

Hello DM, years ago when that ammo was on the shelves, some of us would shoot our #2 Armies. At that time we had no issues. Just a good clean afterwards.

__________________
Mike 2796
SoFo Bunch member

I have shot over a flat of Navy Arms 32 Long and Short Rimfire over the last 25 years. Shot in literally dozens of S&W Model 1 1/2 and Model 2 Tip-Ups. Shot in 32 Rimfire Remington Rolling Block No. 4 as well. Great ammunition and very mild to shoot.

Not sure if I posted these tests earlier, but velocities are lower than tested BP loads. Felt recoil was also very light.

Navy Arms Long Factory . . . 532fps
Navy Arms Short Factory . . .425fps
UMC Factory Black Powder . .650fps
Winchester Black Powder . . .550fps

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

After I posted, I did a search and your test results came up. It's very interesting that the BP velocities were higher. I'm a little ballistically challenged, so I wonder how the pressure would compare between smokeless and BP.
I'll probably fire off a round, maybe two, then display the gun.
But, I gotta admit, I'm curious about making some rimfire rounds.
I reload for many calibers but they're all center fire. Tempting, just to give it a try.

DM, keep us posted. Very intriguing endeavor. Dont even know where to start.

__________________
Mike 2796
SoFo Bunch member

Some believe that even light smokeless loads produce a dangerous “pressure spike.” I have yet to see any documented evidence of that. Note that old BP-era cartridges such as .32 S&W and .38 S&W have been lightly loaded with smokeless powder for the last 125 years, and I have not heard of their use causing any of the old top break revolvers in those calibers to come apart.

I just purchased a full box of the Navy Arms .32 Long RF from a Forum member...but for display purposes only. They were almost as expensive as current .22 LR.

__________________
Alan
SWCA LM 2023, SWHF 220

Does anyone know why the .41 rimfire and .32 rimfire "smokeless" loads from Navy Arms were discontinued?

Oh, I know why, because nobody would buy them right? Because not enough folks would purchase them so we can't justify manufacturing lots of them? Sure, I believe that one.

I actually wrote a book on the 41 rimfire. Spent countless hours researching that cartridge. Dissected hundreds of "Antique" derringers and small revolvers that chambered that round and the .41 Long rimfire in late production.

The problem is the bore dynamics do not even come close to matching from 1 company to the next during the black powder ERA. I found some derringers have bore dynamics that measure .383 groove diameter. That's a FACT, not an opinion.

So, what would happen if you punch a smokeless round with a bullet that measures .401 through a bore that has a .383 Groove diameter. That's a whopping .018 difference between the bullet diameter and groove diameter. Smokeless Standards are "NO MORE THAN .003" That's the required tolerance.

Lets ask the Smokeless Squad? Since they've done so much research on the subject?

Murph

I have a few guns that were made during the BP to smokeless switch-over era, and I always opt for the BP (a .41 Swiss Vetterli and an 1889 Marlin .32-20 for example). Both seem to be fine with smokeless but the older I get the more cautious I get.
I'd like to pull one of the Navy Arms bullets to see what's in there, but I don't think I've ever broken down a rimfire round. With my luck...
I bought a box of .351 Winchester rounds online once, from a well-known company, and for the heck of it I broke some down. I found a variation from 17 grs to 21 grs of (unknown) powder. That's why I load my own.

As part of my research for the .41 rimfire I did dissect the Navy Arms .41 rimfire round. See photo.

They used a slow burning Smokeless powder in line with Blue Dot powder. As long as you meet "Smokeless Standards" the load is designed to match the early Black Powder rimfire.

The problem that I have been trying to get across, is that there "WERE NO STANDARDS" during the Black Powder ERA.

Lets review history. Smith and Wesson introduced the rimfire cartridge. They actually set the standard for the .32 Rimfire. So when Smokeless .32 rimfire cartridges were introduced? Smith and Wesson was covered since those cartridges met the original designed Black Powder cartridge.

The problem being that Other gun makers did not meet Smith and Wesson standards. They made up their own during the Black Powder Era. Which is a "huge problem" when we introduce Smokeless "pistol powder" to the mix. "Smokeless pistol powder demands standards" or it will spike in pressure. The result could be damage to your antique gun.

This is also why the Government many years ago listed Antiques as "NON Firearms". That's the still existing ATF definition? The term Firearm "DOES NOT APPLY"??

Very simply because they "DID NOT" meet "SMOKELESS STANDARDS".

Murph

Attached Images

78758F27-B14B-474D-B168-E85779D406BA.jpeg (142.5 KB, 13 views)

Here is what PO ACKELY found would happen with smokeless powder when you took a 30-06 and re chamber the throat area so it would take a 358 bullet and fired it. Nothing nada and no excess pressure. Bulllet instantly became a .308 That is a whooping .050 in diameter

Ackley proved that if the chamber neck is large enough so as not to pinch the neck onto the oversized bullet, there will be no pressure increase, due to powder pressure maximum which is produced some distance down the bore, dependent on the powder used. The average would run 8" to 12".
In his test, he bored the chamber neck so a .30/06 case could hold and discharge a .358", 150gr. bullet without pinching. He used a standard 150gr. load of 4895 & there was no pressure increase over the same case loaded with a .308" 150gr. in the original chamber. In the article, 1st or second edition of his book, he noted that during the was (WW11) |The Germans experimented with a rifle barrel that was .323" groove to groove at the breech, but tightened to .257" at the muzzle and attained "wonderful velocity/pressure ratios. This prompted this experiment.

If you have ever sized bullets with a little short handled sizer you would know it doesn't take a lot of force to size lead bullets. When I first loaded some 32 S&W rounds I had no .312 bullets. I took some 36 caliber round balls and easily ran them though a sizer dia I made using a 5/16" reamer (.3125). I that case it peeled of material from the ball ad well as reducing it. But I am sure using a tapered die you could easily just shove them though with considerably less pressure than any gun creates.

I am not advocating the use of oversized bullets, hut it is hardly as huge as some think. The main problem with oversized bullets is them being pinched in the chamber and not releasing. Say a .318 bullet in a 30-06 with a normal chamber, The bolt cams it on in the chamber but the neck is squeezed tight on neck. Bullet fails to release. Boom

Interesting info on the 30.06. Did Ackley ever have squibs? Did he use lead or jacketed bullets?
I still wonder about the pressure in a smokeless round compared to a BP round, even if the smokeless rounds are slower.
I use soft lead .321 roundballs sized to .311 in my .32 short rounds (with smokeless powder).

And a lot of people don't believe in shooting 22 Mag through a 22LR bore. Excessive pressure, malarkey.

__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244

Hatcher’s Notebook relates firing a .45 ACP round in a M1903 rifle. Nothing bad happened, it just resulted in a long, skinny .30 bullet coming out of the muzzle.

Assuming use of a lead bullet, firing a .401” bullet in a .383” bore would result in nothing more than squeezing the bullet down to .383”. Lead squeezes down very easily.

Regarding a non-firearm, what GCA-68 does is to define what a firearm is by regulation. Certain classes of guns are specifically excluded by BATFE from that GCA-68 definition, e. g., muzzle loaders and most guns made before 1899. So what BATFE did was simply to declare them as not meeting the regulatory definition of a firearm. Nowhere does GCA-68 call them non-firearms, they are simply firearms which are not regulated under the language of GCA-68, so GCA-68 does not apply to them. Some states, and the USPS, have different views in their regulation of antiques and muzzleloaders.

I find the 22mag .224 through the .222 22 lr bore worries especially over blown in light of all the people with over sized 45 colt throats firing .454 or larger bullets down .452 bores, While both may be .002 over sized your reducing way more mass with a 255gr bullet over the 40gr of a 22mag.

A squib with a any sized bullet is a whole different animal. I am sure firing a light load and an over sized bullet is more apt to cause a bullet to not make it out the bore. But in his experiments he used full power loads. Interesting guy. He did blow up a lot of guns, mostly on purpose.

I actually like the classification of the S&W 1 1/2 as a non firearm. A few months ago I bought a rifle that I've always wanted. I told my wife that it was my Holy Grail rifle and it'd be the last "firearm" I'd buy. Well, the S&W 1 1/2 is an antique, and technically not a firearm. She chuckled.

When you reside in an anti-gun State it helps to know “ All” the penal codes. The term “ Firearm” does not apply to Antique firearms can still be found. It’s old and they’ve tried real hard to distort and eliminate but it’s there!

Murph

Attached Images

76A1B976-E490-4F12-96FA-0248B1AE8DB2.jpeg (54.7 KB, 13 views)

I live in MA. I bought the gun in ME. Since it is a "cartridge" gun, they would not sell it to me in the store. Store policy says they have to ship it to an FFL in MA. Didn't matter that it's an antique.
Luckily, I have a C&R.