-
Forum Update: We've upgraded the software to improve security, performance, and the overall experience.
👉 Read why we made the change | Support the Forum
.32 S&W blackpowder and smokeless Questions
- Thread starter MAC1911A1
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Titegroups
Member
Just .32 S&W, or .32 S&W Long? Looks like they are the same. 12000CUP or 15,000 PSI. A lot of the old black powder era ammo runs in this pressure range. You might want to ask on the SASS forums about loading this round with black powder. Probably amounts to just filling up the case and leaving room for the bullet. I have loaded .32 S&W Long with 2.0 grains of titegroup and had good results, got to be careful with these tiny cases because just .2g extra of powder is a 10% increase in powder charge. If you go to load them with Black powder you need to make sure your powder measure is compatible with black powder, static electricity can possibly set it off. I shoot traditional B.P. guns also but not cartridge B.P. Just some quick thoughts. As far as when they started loading them in smokeless, I would guess about the time everything else went smokeless, around 1890-1900.
Last edited:
Gatofeo
Member
Black powder factory loads hung on longer than many realize.
I was surprised a few years ago to see listed, in a 1938 catalogue, Remington .45 Long Colt offered with 250 gr. lead bullet and black powder.
My understanding is that black powder loads were continued by the factories into the early or mid 1920s, so perhaps the catalog listed old stock.
I have a complete set of American Rifleman magazines from 1929 to the present, and all but a few issues to complete 1928. There are occasional references in these magazines to purchasing and using factory black powder loads, especially in shotguns.
Shotgun loads assembled with black powder had greater noise, recoil, blast and smoke than smokeless loads back in those days, so they were viewed as more powerful. Despite numerous ads and articles comparing the velocities of black and smokeless powder shotgun loads, that demonstrated there was little difference, many readers back in those days claimed the black powder loads killed farther and hit harder.
I suspect the last black powder shotgun shells may have been offered as late as the 1930s, owing to this.
As for handgun ammo, I think the last was manufactured in the mid to late 1920s, possibly the early 30s.
Some sources report that 1920 saw the last of black powder handgun cartridges, but my old magazines seem to indicate later production.
It's difficult to date old cartridge boxes. Dates of manufacture are rarely stamped on them and manufacturers tended to use the same box design for decades.
I was surprised a few years ago to see listed, in a 1938 catalogue, Remington .45 Long Colt offered with 250 gr. lead bullet and black powder.
My understanding is that black powder loads were continued by the factories into the early or mid 1920s, so perhaps the catalog listed old stock.
I have a complete set of American Rifleman magazines from 1929 to the present, and all but a few issues to complete 1928. There are occasional references in these magazines to purchasing and using factory black powder loads, especially in shotguns.
Shotgun loads assembled with black powder had greater noise, recoil, blast and smoke than smokeless loads back in those days, so they were viewed as more powerful. Despite numerous ads and articles comparing the velocities of black and smokeless powder shotgun loads, that demonstrated there was little difference, many readers back in those days claimed the black powder loads killed farther and hit harder.
I suspect the last black powder shotgun shells may have been offered as late as the 1930s, owing to this.
As for handgun ammo, I think the last was manufactured in the mid to late 1920s, possibly the early 30s.
Some sources report that 1920 saw the last of black powder handgun cartridges, but my old magazines seem to indicate later production.
It's difficult to date old cartridge boxes. Dates of manufacture are rarely stamped on them and manufacturers tended to use the same box design for decades.
Titegroups
Member
I guess 1890-1900 was the start of smokeless, not surprised the demand for B.P. continued for quite some time afterwords. Still run into people today who think B.P. has some special power that smokeless does not. Recoil was a bit heavier per charge weight due to the fact half the powder wasn't converted to gas, and the solid portion just added to the weight of the projectile being pushed out the barrel.
Huh? Been shootin' BP all these years and never heard anything like that. But what do I know. I've only got a half dozen Flintlocks and my guns progress all the way up to 45-110....in BPCR.
Learn somethin' new every day... Never knew that BP kicked more then Smokeless.
Last edited:
Dale53
Member
Recoil is caused by velocity, bullet weight, and a percentage of the "ejecta". Titegroups is correct...
Load a .45 Colt with 3F Swiss and run it over the chronograph. Then do the same with a smokeless load that gives the same velocity. The black powder load will feel noticeably heavier. I have done this.
Dale53
Load a .45 Colt with 3F Swiss and run it over the chronograph. Then do the same with a smokeless load that gives the same velocity. The black powder load will feel noticeably heavier. I have done this.
Dale53
This is not quite correct. Conservation of mass requires that if you load 40 grains of any powder, black or smokeless, 40 grains must come out of the barrel, whether it's in the form of gas or unburned particles. Burning a propellant and converting it to gas doesn't change its mass.
The reason black powder loads that develop the same muzzle velocity as smokeless loads have more recoil is that it takes much more black than smokeless powder to achieve that velocity. That extra mass of burning powder adds to the recoil - it has nothing to do with the fraction of unburnt powder.
Titegroups
Member
Good point, but one would also have to take internal friction within the mass into account also. The mass is in motion. It is my understanding that this plays a considerable role as a percentage of total recoil in rifle calibers that use large quantities of powder to the point it become a limiting factor in max. velocity. Would a mass consisting of a 50% solid to gas ratio not have much more internal friction than one composed of 90% gas and 10% solids? Your thoughts?
Last edited:
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. The only determinants of recoil energy in a given gun are the mass of the ejecta (bullet+propellant) and their muzzle velocity. Some of the energy released by burning the propellant goes into heating the gun and overcoming friction between the bullet and the barrel, but that doesn't affect recoil. I think what you're alluding to is the fact that the propellant in rifle cartridges contributes a lot more to recoil than in handgun cartridges - that's because it's a much greater fraction of the total mass leaving the barrel. I don't know what you mean by internal friction in the burning propellant or how that would affect recoil.
