Longest Service Timeframe

[ColourCaseHardened]

On the antique guns, what is the longest timeframe you have observed for still having a factory rework stamp on a gun?

I was looking at a Model 1-1/2 recently that had what I gathered to be a 1976 rework stamp? Is this possible?

 

[SlamFire]

If I had one of these, would that qualify?

This 1777 vintage muzzle loading musket had a trap door cartridge conversion, and then was used by a rear echelon German in Belgium.

 

[Alk8944]

On the antique guns, what is the longest timeframe you have observed for still having a factory rework stamp on a gun?

I was looking at a Model 1-1/2 recently that had what I gathered to be a 1976 rework stamp? Is this possible?

S&W would still service antique models clear into the 1970s at least, as long as they still had parts for them. So, yes, it is possible that the gun you asked about could have legitimately been stamped with a "service date" from the 1970s. I own a 3rd Model .44 DA "frontier" made about 1888 that I has re-nickled by the factory in 1974, and it has the service date stamped on the frame.

 

[ColourCaseHardened]

Very Interesting

That's really impressive!

I've been fascinated with the little short 32 S&W and while I've never had much interest in antiques the Model 1-1/2's are such beautiful little revolvers!

 

[handejector]

Which Mod 1-1/2? Tip Up or Top-Break?
If it is a Tip Up the date could mean 1876.

 

[ColourCaseHardened]

Lee,

Top break...

Since you're the authority on these, if timing and lockup are good, and no issues noted on the gun am I correct in understanding that the Remington Green Box load is widely considered "safe" to shoot? (Again assuming the gun is in decent shape) Or is this a holy black only gun?

 

[desi2358]

Lee,

Top break...

Since you're the authority on these, if timing and lockup are good, and no issues noted on the gun am I correct in understanding that the Remington Green Box load is widely considered "safe" to shoot? (Again assuming the gun is in decent shape) Or is this a holy black only gun?

Don't know what Lee will say but this topic is usually good for hours of (often heated) discussion. Some will say it's perfectly okay, others will insist you're destroying the gun by using modern smokeless loads. Since I reload I mainly use black in my antique revolvers (I find the soap & water cleanup simple & easy) but have used very mild smokeless charges sometimes.

 

[handejector]

Lee,

Top break...

Since you're the authority on these,

BUT, I am NOT. I am a student of top-breaks and tip-ups, and I do observe them, but I am by no means an authority.
Now, if ya wanna talk Hand Ejectors, I'm your huckleberry.

 

[ColourCaseHardened]

Understood, thanks for the advice!

 

[H Richard]

I have been told on multiple occasions that "standard" velocity factory .32 S&W are safe for the top break models as they are loaded specifically with the top breaks in mind. I have fired the green box Remington's in my .32 top breaks with no problems.

 

[glowe]

No need for heated discussion. The exterior design of the 32 Double Action revolver remained unchanged starting with the 2nd Model. That is the proper name for the revolver as well. The 32 S&W is a very anemic round with pressures low enough to be safe to shoot with modern commercial rounds. Having done extensive testing of loadings for many top-break loads, the current Remington and Winchester loads are 25% lower velocities compared to original black powder loadings and therefore lower in pressure. Notice that current factory velocities are way below that of original BP loadings. Obvious reason is that there are no recent revolver designs that use this caliber, but millions of old top-breaks out there that are still in good condition. Below are test results shot using a 32 S&W DA with 6" barrel shooting the Remington green box ammo and two original black powder factory loadings.

32 S&W . . 88g RN . . Remington . . . . . 580fps
32 S&W . . 88g RN . . BP Peters . . . . . . 740fps
32 S&W . . 85g RN . . BP US Cartridge. . 800fps

 

[glowe]

If I had one of these, would that qualify?

This 1777 vintage muzzle loading musket had a trap door cartridge conversion, and then was used by a rear echelon German in Belgium.

There are several things wrong with that image and description. I do not believe that the soldier is German for obvious reasons. First, the Germans of the era did not appreciate or respect other races of people. They would not have seen service in their military. Also, his uniform seems more likely to be from from Japan or another Asian country. The rifle is a Nouvelle converted military arm, likely from a 1853 percussion French musket. It was a percussion musket, not flintlock. It was called a Fusil Albini Braendlin after the inventor of this style breech. Belgium did convert many French muskets into rifled 11mm breech loaders and sold them around the world. The same breech design was copied by the Japanese using British Enfield muskets and also made full replicas. One of the oldest conversions of military muskets that started in the late 1860s with Braendlin and Snyder breech conversions before the US started converting their percussion Civil War rifles to trap door cartridge conversions. These rifles and other early bolt actions made in France, Netherlands, Italy saw service around the world into the early 1900s. Below is an 1853 Fusil Belgium conversion and a Japanese copy of an Enfield done around 1870.

 

[BMur]

Smokeless

SAAMI STANDARDS WERE NOT IN EFFECT UNTIL 1926.
Those modern standards are applicable to all smokeless ammo PRODUCED post 1926.

They list the following;

32 S&W Long MAX PRESSURE : 15,000 psi
32 S&W Short MAX PRESSURE: 12,000 psi

My original Laflin & Rand catalog circa early 1890’s lists the following;

32 S&W ( before the long was created)
9 grains of FFF powder
85 grain 20/1 Lead/tin mix
808 FPS
5,500 LUP ( Lead unit of pressure)
Also listed as their MAX OR LIMIT UNDER PRESSURE

There is no comparison between smokeless post 1926 and black powder loads pre 1900. They were dramatically different.

MURPH

 

[glowe]

. . . There is no comparison between smokeless post 1926 and black powder loads pre 1900. They were dramatically different.

MURPH

As usual, another opinion without data to back it up.

 

[ColourCaseHardened]

As usual, another opinion without data to back it up.

What is a "Lead Unit of Pressure" and how does it compare to copper pressure and contemporary PSI measuring systems?

 

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,


Lead Units of Pressure are used for measuring low pressure
loads. If memory serves, Lead Units are used in the 0 - 20-
000 psi and Copper Units are used for cartridge chamber
pressures above that level. Most modern cartridges are mea-
sured using the Copper Units of Pressure.

The measuring process uses small, precisely made cylinder that
is placed between a piston (under chamber pressure) and an
anvil to back-up the other side. The cylinder is squished between
the piston and anvil when pressure is applied to the piston and
the resulting crushed cylinder is carefully measured and then
the result of the measurements are compared to a table that
lists the amount of distortion and the associated pressure.


Cheers!
Webb

 

[BMur]

Modern Reference?

If you want Modern Black powder and Black powder pressure references you can pick up a copy of Lyman Black powder Handbook 2nd Addition.
Thousands of loads are listed in this book by a respected Black powder professional.
Photo 1 is the 1926 SAAMI STANDARD SMOKELESS PRESSURE for the 38 Special. Listed as 17,000 CUP MAX. This is industry wide!

Now photo 2 referring to the 38 Special using various Black powder and substitute loads. VERY CLEARLY LISTS PRESSURE ALSO IN CUP. Notice how much lower the pressure is? From smokeless loads??? Pretty obvious. 8 different loads and every one of them is WAY BELOW 17000 CUP!

What is amazing is how close they are to my 1890’s Laflin & Rand catalog. The ORIGINAL BLACK POWDER MANUFACTURER using early methods like LUP.

Oh,
As far as comparison between LUP,CUP,and PSI. They represent different methods to achieve the same result. There is no conversion between them therefore no comparison. Both SAAMI AND LYMAN ping pong between CUP AND PSI.

Some like to accuse one type as inaccurate but the truth is the observation is inaccurate. Remember that every load is very specific to case type, powder load, overall case length, crimp type, bullet weight and also notice they used a magnum primer for those loads listed. That also impacts pressure. Change any of those and the pressure changes.


Murph

 

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,


"As far as comparison between LUP,CUP,and PSI. They
represent different methods to achieve the same result. There
is no conversion between them therefore no comparison."


Most of what you posted I agree with but I will take exception
with the above statement. I will assume the PSI is for transducer
strain measurements. PSI by itself is just a unit of measure and
is the conversion between them. Both LUP and CUP measure
maximum pressure only. A transducer is able to determine
the pressure in real time. It is only limited by the refresh rate
of the computer.


Cheers!
Webb

 

[ColourCaseHardened]

You guys weren't kidding when you said fanatical arguments would ensue... sheesh HOLY BLACK really is a religion lol.