Blackpowder or Smokeless ???

This concerns the big frame top break DAs, mostly .44 caliber. They were made from about 1881 and sold up to around 1913. It is said that all the frames were made before 1899. That reason is cited in the widely held belief that they are all to be considered 'blackpowder only".

I am seeking documentation or source information that establishes the fact whether a 'smokeless ban' should be accepted as warranted.

Background as I see it is that Colt's change to smokeless was around 1892 generally accepted as visible on pistols with the change in base pin retainer. S&W would be as interested as Colt in keeping up with the times. In 1890s big shift to smokeless was going on in rifle cartridges in Winchester and US Krag for example.

S&W had the best big bore DA revolver for a while but in the mid-90s probably saw the writing on the wall and fell far behind Colt in early 1900s when the the New Service came on the scene. The old top break DA was their only big bore revolver. Only around 1908 when S&W offered the New Century (triple lock) were they really able to compete. I will much appreciate any authoritative documentation offered, likewise serious commentary or critique is sought.

Howdy

You premise about Colt transitioning to Smokeless powder in 1892 is incorrect, although it is very commonly believed.

Starting around 1892 Colt began phasing in the spring loaded transverse cylinder pin latch on some target model SAA revolvers. This latch became pretty much of a standard item circa mid 1896. The earlier style frame which used an upward angled screw to fasten the pin in place is commonly called the Black Powder frame, so many jump to the conclusion that anything with the spring loaded latch must be a Smokeless revolver. That is the heart of the misconception.

In fact, Colt did not factory warranty the SAA for Smokeless Powder until 1900. Frames and cylinders of the early SAA starting in 1873 were not steel, they were made of high grade malleable iron. Starting around Serial Number 96,000 (mid 1883) to approx SN 180,000 (mid 1898), frames and cylinders were made from transitional low/medium carbon type steels. Cylinders and frames after SN 180,000 (mid 1898) began to be made from medium carbon type steels. By 1900 (SN 192,000) Colt felt confident enough in these steels AND their heat treating process that they first factory warrantied the SAA for Smokeless Powder. In 1901 Colt began stamping a V/P in an inverted triangle on the front left side of the trigger guard for Verified Proof. This symbol meant that the gun was proofed for Smokeless Powder.

The confusion about this issue is the commonly held believe that the emergence of the spring loaded cylinder pin latch marked the dividing line between Black Powder and Smokeless Colts. It did not. There were eight years between the emergence of that latch design and when Colt finally officially warrantied the SAA for Smokeless Powder.

For documentation of these facts and warnings about shooting pre-1900 Colts with Smokeless Powder, see The Colt Single Action Revolvers, A Shop Manual, Volumes 1 & 2 by Jerry Kuhnhausen. Information regarding the dates of the spring loaded latch is at the bottom of page 69. Information about frame and cylinder materials is on pages 70 and 71.

In his book Gunsmithing Guns of the Old West, David R Chicoine further warns against shooting the large #3 frame Smiths with Smokeless Powder on page 231.

I agree with you that Smith & Wesson would be keeping up with Colt as far as metallurgy was concerned, but they probably did not have access to steel that was any better than what Colt had. I have a couple of revolvers made before 1900, including my New Model #3 which left the factory in 1882. In keeping with what I have posted, I will be shooting nothing but Black Powder 44 Russian loads through my New Model Number 3.

The problem as I see it, is that most folks think it is much more complicated and difficult to make Black Powder cartridges, and it is much more difficult to clean them than it really is. I do both all the time, and neither is as difficult or complicated as most shooters believe.

But that is the subject for a separate thread.

P.S. I am attaching a photo of the VP symbol on the trigger guard of one of my Colts. Don't shoot Smokeless without it.

P.P.S. I noticed your comment on another thread about doubting frame stretch on the big Number #3 revolvers. Read what Chicoine has to say about that. He has worked on lots of them.

Thanks Drifty for your reply. I wouldn't begin to debate the Colt thing. I only used it as a 'generally accepted' belief. My issue is not based on it as a premise. I'm sure you are right but I wonder what kind of steel was used in the winchester 1894, 95s and the US Krag.

Chicoine's book has some good stuff but my copy of Chicoine 2nd Expanded Edition has Ruger on page 231. No matter because info about the big S&Ws is only about the repros & any info about the DAs is AWOL.

As for 'frame stretch' I think it is mostly imaginary as an erroneous explanation of cyl/bbl gap which I observe to be from erosion and corrosion. I have about a dozen of the .44 DAs, some pretty far gone from use and abuse. I did some careful micrometer measurements of those compared to others in EXC condition and could not confirm frame stretch. Frame stretch if it occurred, the top latch would become heavily stressed - none of that either.

So I guess I still have to hope for documentation about my subject. Thanks again.

OK, let's try this again.

I am referring to Chicoine's Gunsmithing Guns of the Old West. Perhaps my copy is the first edition. Anyway, he has a tremendous amount of information, both about the modern replicas and the originals. The information I am referring to is about the originals. His information is so good that I followed his instructions to the letter when I took down my new New Model #3.

I am probably bending the copyright laws a bit, but just so you can read exactly what he says I have photographed the pertinent page, along with the cover, so you can see what book I am talking about. Hopefully the photo has good enough resolution so that you can read the page. Read the entire page, there is some very good information, including information about frame stretch.

I dunno how much more authoritative a source you want regarding this. I have given you information and the pages from the most authoritative book there is about smithing the SAA, and I have showed you information from a highly respected gunsmith regarding early S&W revolvers. I suppose if you search long and hard enough you may find information that supports what you believe, but you ain't gonna find any information more authoritative than this. Remember, anybody can find anything they want on the internet to support whatever they believe. It may or may not be true.

It is important to bear in mind that the time period we are talking about was a period of great innovation in metallurgy. The Bessemer process for producing steel on a mass production basis had only been developed in the 1850s. Prior to that, steel was made in a variety of ways, but they were all labor intensive, and therefor very expensive. In addition, steel produced prior to the Bessemer process was usually only available in relatively small pieces. After the general acceptance of the Bessemer process, inexpensive steel became readily available, but it took further development to come up with the many high strength alloys that are available today.

I have another book that I heartily recommend to anyone who is interested in the various types of metals used in armaments throughout the centuries. It is Fighting Iron, A Metals Handbook For Arms Collectors, by Art Gogan. You can probably find it at Amazon. Regarding Winchester and late 19th Century steel, Gogan says they started experimenting with Nickel Steel as early as 1892. At that time the Navy was gobbling up just about all the Nickel Steel that was available in this country because they had found it to be far superior for making armor for battleships than the unalloyed plate that was previously being used. Winchester had a contract with the Navy which ultimately resulted in the Winchester-Lee Straight Pull Rifle of 1895. Because of their close association with the Navy on this project they were able to use Nickel Steel to build this rifle. Nickel Steel was one of the answers to the Smokeless Powder problem. It had first been discovered as early as 1825, but experimentation with it was very limited. During the 1880s Nickel Steel underwent a lot of development and was found to be a far superior material for arms. But as I say, in this country it was of limited availability. Perhaps that is why Colt and S&W were not using it. But Winchester was, and proudly stamped 'Nickel Steel' on many of their gun barrels at the time.

I've had Dave Chicoine work on a couple of my large frame top breaks. When I told him I had sparingly put a few smokeless cowboy loads through them, he basically smacked my hand and said not to do that again. As we all know, the pressure curve is much different for smokeless versus black powder. A 'hot' black powder load will cause much less strain than a very light smokeless load. If you charted the pressures on a graph, the smokeless would look more like a quick, sharp spike, while the black would be a much gentler, but longer pressure curve. Basically it spreads out the recoil over a much longer time period (due to burn rate) so it never peaks as high. My .44 DA had a bit of play when I got it and Dave said that was the cause. Now that he tightened it, he said if I stick to black powder, it should stay tight.

Chicoine's book I have is Expanded 2nd Edition, some 446 pages. Yes I found one page about the .44 DAs how to disassemble, plus and exploded drawing. Elsewhere is a paragraph about the mainspring stirrup on the DAs. As I said AWOL insofar as my issue is concerned. I give Chicoine all he deserves as an 'expert' in his book - but he doesn't mention a fix for the very common fault of the .44 DAs of not standing cocked for SA. It's a 30 minute fix.

But let's stay on point here. I would like to see documentation such as what kind of steel S&W was using, whether they changed it sometime in the 1890s to deal with smokeless, etc.

Still seeking ---------->

Well, best of luck to you. I have asked pretty much that same question here and have never gotten any kind of definitive answer. But if somebody can give you a breakdown per year like I did with the SAA, I will be very interested to hear it.

An answer if any is to be found might be in early Hand Ejectors. Colt automatics were smokeless from 1900. Competition being what it was S&W must have been keeping pace with industry.

You might have to find someone that was alive back in the 1890s to find the info you seek . In the meantime I think it's best to err on the side of caution and follow Dave's advise. I think it's safe to say the man knows what he's talking about and he has probably worked on 100s of blackpowder guns that were shot loose from shooting smokeless powder ammo.

I am not a collector of antiques although I read about them a lot and admire them.

However the following statment must be looked at from another angle.

"Competition being what it was S&W must have been keeping pace with industry."

It is supposedly a known fact that Colonel Colt was not impressed with bored through cylinders and metallic cartridges. He almost lost out due to that regard.

As such how many manufacturers/businesses then and now, listened to their own prejudices and not a better intellect and lost out due to such?

I would not put my faith in S&W keeping up with Colt on steel processes since they are not known.

Like Driftwood, I have shot a lot of black powder revolvers (repros). Using good tools and good methods I can clean a smokeless revovler in 25 minutes and a BP revolver in 40.

Taking a chance on destroying an antique to avoid cleaning BP is not a good idea to me.

With All Due Respect ----->

A common theme (I'll call it) seen in many responses to forum questions or issues raised is the urge to lecture or pontificate that seems to lurk somewhere in all of us. Another one is that of re-framing the issue or taking an oblique viewpoint from which state to their different understanding. Probably most common is the straying from the core issue raised by the source - that along with the offering of advice and/or stating what they will or will not do.

Now my lecture: popular opinion is usually based on solid evidence but can be the product of tradition, assumption, possibility and/or other causes. Lack of evidence in no way affects belief. In fact, a definition of faith is 'belief' whether or not supported by evidence or in face of evidence to the contrary.

I make no claim as to the 'whether or not' about S&W using steel intended for smokeless powder in the .44 DA breaktops. I believe S&W as one of the leading makers of the time would have been in the forefront of knowledge of and use of best materials. Stating my notions here would only be using the same tactics that I decry. I would like to see is documentary evidence about the steel used. I'm looking for 'beyond reasonable doubt.'

Perhaps if you were to contact Mr. Roy Jinks, the S&W company historian? I would assume he would have an answer if anyone would.

Good luck.

"It is supposedly a known fact that Colonel Colt was not impressed with bored through cylinders and metallic cartridges. He almost lost out due to that regard.

As such how many manufacturers/businesses then and now, listened to their own prejudices and not a better intellect and lost out due to such?"

Howdy

Pardon me if I venture into pontificating for just a moment. Rollin White was still an employee of Colt when he brought his idea of a bored through cylinder to Sam Colt. Colt decided he was not interested. But let's give Sam the benefit of the doubt. The prototype that White cobbled together to demonstrate his idea was a real nightmare. He had cobbled together some crazy rig on an existing Colt C&B revolver, a Dragoon if memory serves. Colt may be forgiven his prejudices somewhat considering what a monstrosity it may have been. Then White went out and patented it himself and Colt spent the rest of his life trying to figure out ways around the White patent.

As far as the leaders of industry at the time always striving for the best metals, let's not forget that Sam Colt as well as being a great entrepreneur was also a first class huckster. Indeed he made his living for part of the time between producing the Paterson Colt and the Walker as Professor Coult traveling around the country demonstrating laughing gas, just like a modern hypnotist gets people to cluck like a chicken. Later, he was advertising that his pistols were made with a superior type of steel called Silver Steel. Modern metallurgists have decided that a tiny bit of silver added to steel does not make it any stronger.

So much for always striving for the best materials. Nineteenth Century advertising was rife with exaggeration.

" 'It is supposedly a known fact that Colonel Colt was not impressed with bored through cylinders and metallic cartridges. He almost lost out due to that regard.' "

Henry Ford was convinced that the Model T was the best automobile one the market. By the late 1920s, he was wrong and it almost killed Ford Motor Company.

Semperfi's is the way to go. I had that in the back of my mind in the first place but hoped, with all the history and historians, there might be someone who would cite some available evidence. Letter to Mr. Jinks is next.

I shot an e-mail to Dave Chicoine about this thread. I thought maybe he might come over and give us his thoughts.

Perhaps the developement by Smith and Wesson of the smokeless .44 S&W Special in 1907 and the subsequent release of their new framed gun (The New Century) in 1908 might help narrow the timeline... Still 5 years before the topbreaks were discontinued in 1913. As stated in the OP, if the production of those frames was discontinued in 1899, it was a full 7 years before S&W was developing a Smokeless cartridge...

A bit of a drift from this thread but a thought I have always had.

Four of the greatest salesmen I know of (I'm sure there's more).

And this is not intended to be political but a description based on the comments here of Colonel Colt.

1) P.T. Barnum
2) Colonel Samuel Colt
3) The last democrat president.
4) The current democrat president.

rhmc24 said:

Chicoine's book I have is Expanded 2nd Edition, some 446 pages. Yes I found one page about the .44 DAs how to disassemble, plus and exploded drawing. Elsewhere is a paragraph about the mainspring stirrup on the DAs. As I said AWOL insofar as my issue is concerned. I give Chicoine all he deserves as an 'expert' in his book - but he doesn't mention a fix for the very common fault of the .44 DAs of not standing cocked for SA. It's a 30 minute fix.

But let's stay on point here. I would like to see documentation such as what kind of steel S&W was using, whether they changed it sometime in the 1890s to deal with smokeless, etc.

Still seeking ---------->

Click to expand...

Sir, I'm going to drift off subject for a minute here to ask you a question relating to this. You said it's a 30 minute fix for repairing one of these guns that won't stay at full cock. Is it the same fix on the smaller .38 caliber guns? I have a .38 that has this problem

Full Cock Fix

I have never seen inside one of the .38s so I will describe how I do it on the big frames. Assuming you have already removed the grips and the side plate. Release the mainspring from its link and remove it. Pull the trigger till the hammer is about half cock and free from interference & carefully lift the hammer out off its pivot. You will see the hammer has a notch that you sharpen to get it to stand cocked again.

I have a set of little diamond files and I use a triangle file to deepen the hammer notch. Then I put it back together. The diamond file may be necessary due hardness and need for a sharp angle in the notch corner.

These pistols have what I call the 'sear rocker' that acts like a hook holding the hammer at full cock. You will have to push it back to reinstall the hammer. The trigger pushes on the other end from the hook to fire the piece.

I have done this several times and it worked fine. I suppose the sear rocker hook end could get dull and need attention but I haven't had that. If it comes up I will have to figure out a fix for it - which should be obvious.

This is from memory. If you have a problem with it get back to me at [email protected].

Hope this helps.