Popularity of the 44 Smith & Wesson Russian

BMur · #1 12-10-2020, 10:44 PM

Completed my research on the Target calibers 32-44 and 38-44 for the New Model 3 but what knocked me over was just how popular the 44 Russian was "PRIOR" to 1902.

This has got to be a record. I documented over 12 specific loadings for the 44 Russian Revolver. I'm not talking about from a reloading manual. I mean there were 12 different rounds available for the 44 Russian before 1902..

Here is the list:

275 Grain outside lubricated ( 1870)

246 Grain round nose heavy (First seen in 1888)

230 Grain round nose heavy (Military)

215 Grain Semi-wadcutter (1902)

200 Grain Wadcutter (1900)

205 Grain Wadcutter ( 1901)

175 Grain heeled Round nose (Target Bullet 1888)

160 Grain Hollow based (Target Bullet 1888)

110 Grain heeled ( Target Bullet 1888)

106 Grain Hollow based (Target Bullet 1891)

100 Grain Hollow Base ( Listed as a Gallery RN 1888)

110 Grain Gallery Ball

130 Grain Gallery Ball

I'd like to see "ANY" other revolver of that ERA surpass that amount of rounds available? These were actually commercially produced loads. Even the Ball loads. I found a few actually listed in Sears!

See photo's below of just a few. I'm amazed and had no idea. I guess the 44 Russian wins the title as the most POPULAR round in the old west. "Without Question"!! I mean there is nothing that even comes close!

Murph

BMur · #2 12-10-2020, 10:57 PM

Here are a few more

Murph

merl67 · #3 12-11-2020, 12:30 AM

The round ball loads got me to thinking about the Dixie Gun Works catalog I have lots of great info in the back including an article written by Turner Kirkland he talks a bit about reloading obsolete black powder cartridges using a round ball of the correct size. He would fill the case with black powder and thumb press the ball into the case compressing the powder.

Oyeboteb · #4 12-11-2020, 01:03 AM

.44 Russian is my own favorite Cartridge of all the hand Gun Cartridges over time.

And I am sure, was also the favorite or a great many people back when, also..!

It was THE Premier Target Round in general, never succeeded by .44 Special for Target use even though in theory Ballistics and Loadings delivered same performance.

It has everything going for it in every way.

Energy delivered to the Target is on par with .45 ACP, which was originally designed to close to .44 Russian for energy delivered.

And with all this, it was the first inside Lube Cartridge of them all, too.

BMur · #5 12-11-2020, 01:59 AM

With this researched information I definitely plan on working up several different Black Powder loads that mimic those original rounds on the list to see how they perform in a New Model 3 and some of the double actions in various barrel lengths.

I think its totally accurate to say that literally every New Model 3 is a Target gun in 44 Russian caliber! That's what this information is basically saying. The only difference being the sights. The gun is exactly the same. So I personally think we are missing the boat on experiencing the "accuracy" of the 44 Russian by not using all the available "original" period black powder rounds. So often on this forum 44 Russian collectors use only "The Heavy" bullet. I'd like to see how well these guns perform with the wadcutters, the various target bullets, in various bullet weights, etc. Evidentially there were a lot of them!

I think that common report of "It shoots High" will go away real fast when we see some nail driving results.

I guarantee that Ira Payne was not using the Heavy 230+ grain bullet when he was scoring high in the shooting contests. He was using one of the target bullets on the list. I also believe that they had developed a wadcutter prior to the earliest patented wadcutter in 1900. Those early targets having perfectly round holes are pretty solid evidence of a wadcutter in use. However, I've never shot a target bullet so I can't say for sure that it wasn't a flat nose target bullet that was making those holes? Up close, the face of those target bullets looks a lot like a wadcutter.

I have been fortunate enough to find a few target bullet molds recently so I hope to find out.

Murph

Oldmanwesson · #6 12-12-2020, 01:36 AM

Quote:

I guarantee that Ira Payne was not using the Heavy 230+ grain bullet when he was scoring high in the shooting contests. He was using one of the target bullets on the list.

In the 1894 book "Modern American Pistols & Revolvers" the author A.C. Gould writes about Chevalier Ira Paine's famous match against the US pistol champion W.W. Bennett in 1887. He states that although Paine did shoot a 38-44 S&W which was "a special arm, made to order and taking specially prepared ammunition", Paine preferred the .44 Russian, factory loaded "heavy or full charge". In the book he states that a full charge will customarily shoot 18 inches above the bulls-eye at fifty yards, whereas the lighter loads are more accurate when using the short target sights. The oversized, tall half-round sights on the standard models are supposed to compensate for this up-kick of the full charge. The various target front sights available at that time were intended for different loads and he states that "the person who desires to shoot several kinds of ammunition accurately in one revolver, must carry about with him several front sights of various heights which will interchange". Paine and Bennett both used UMC and Winchester factory loaded ammo, however the book does not state bullet weight or charge. On an interesting side note, Gould and Paine experimented with the maximum distance they could shoot a .44 S&W Russian "Army Revolver" accurately and found they could hit a man-sized target reliably at 250 yards!
BTW - I found this book at the Sally Ann for $.50...

I think I will stick with one set of sights and pick the most appropriate ammo. Too bad we don't have the amount of choice they did back then!

BMur · #7 12-12-2020, 11:52 AM

Oldmanwesson,
Very interesting article.

I personally will have to remain skeptical until I see things for myself at the range. I'm not saying that the article isn't accurate? I'm only saying that in a "highly competitive" sport the best of the best do not tend to volunteer any trade secrets. Like their personal best load/bullet select. Sort of like asking for a person's Pin number to their bank account.

I will have to see a pistol shooting 18" high at 50 yards before I believe it. Also, notice that he did not disclose his "specially prepared ammunition" for his 38-44? From my experience with competitors, That to me makes sense.

My Grandmother went to her grave never revealing her recipe for Apple Pie to anyone. I still remember that pie. It was the best I've ever had but nobody knows how she made it.

Some people are like that and highly competitive people are "very much" like that. They will often steer you in the wrong direction so they can stay on top and that is a true statement!

I also have a very rare New Model 3 in my collection that was one of about 30 guns that went to target shooters in about 1892. It has a vertical adjustment screw that is milled into the front of the barrel that allows the shooter to actually adjust the height of the front sight. "HOWEVER", you can not remove the sight to replace it without carefully punching out the horizontal pin....So, one would have to have some type of quick change front sight mounting that I've never seen or heard of in order to replace that sight at the range. I guess it's possible but not realistic.

I was part of a target shooting club years ago and the standard procedure was to "DIAL IN" a load. Never was it any sort of a procedure to shoot loads that shot 18" high and try to compensate for that during competitive shooting. The load was "dialed into the sights" that's the concept. Anything else is a Yarn.

UMC, Winchester, U.S. Cartridge Co, & Peters all made Target loads for the 44 Russian. You can call them full loads but they were for "TARGET bullets". Those that I listed above. I'm still trying to locate TARGET loads for the TARGET bullets but I honestly doubt that I will find them. Even loading manuals leave them "BLANK"....It's up to the shooter to generate.

Murph

junglefighter · #8 12-12-2020, 12:39 PM

Fiocchi makes a 247 gr. LRN for the 44 Russian, it is mfg. in Italy. I wonder how this load will shoot in a modern 44 Spl./44 Mag.?

BMur · #9 12-12-2020, 12:49 PM

I would often shoot a target hand load of 5 grains of bullseye powder with a 240 grain Semi-wadcutter in my long barrel 44mag Model 29 in between pig hunts just to practice hold and stance. I would expect the Fiocchi load to be the same type load. Target loads to me are like getting into the batting cage. Lots of fun and an important part of maintaining accurate shooting with a pistol.

Full load magnums should not change your hold or stance.

Murph

Helipat13 · #10 12-12-2020, 02:18 PM

Hello

I had excellent results with my SW44 Russian with 118gr round ball with 12gr of FFG.

I will order an Accurate mould : 43.115C Wad cutter with a nice grease groove.

keep you informed

Patrick

Oldmanwesson · #11 12-12-2020, 03:08 PM

Murph, you are probably right and I'm sure Paine had a few tricks up his sleeve...
Here are a few pictures of various "standard" front sights: .38-44 "Lyman". .32-44 standard S&W target, a Schofield, a No. 3 New Model, and a 3rd model Russian.

Oldmanwesson · #12 12-12-2020, 03:09 PM

You can see on the No. 3 how the extra height of the front sight would compensate for a kick-up of the barrel.

Oldmanwesson · #13 12-12-2020, 03:10 PM

Changing front sights would be extremely difficult if the gun wasn't specially modified to allow for this.

BMur · #14 12-12-2020, 05:55 PM

I just wanted to clarify the difference between a "Modern" Target load and the original "Black Powder" Target load?

I think there is some confusion between the two. If we remain ERA specific?
Black Powder Target loads are "FULL LOADS"
Black Powder "Gallery Loads"are " LIGHT LOADS"

Smokeless Powder Target loads are "Light loads"

So, Patrick:

I think you made a great choice with that light wadcutter for distances up to 25 meters. Further would require a heavier bullet of 165/175 grain at least for 50 meter accurate shooting.

I would recommend you load several charges of Black Powder. Not just one....I would start with 15 grains of FFFG and work up 2 grains until you reach the maximum charge. As an example before you go to the range I would load 6 at 15 grains, 6 at 17 grains, 6 at 19 grains, 6 at 21 grains, and 6 at 25 grains. Using different seating depths with each load. Please do not use fill with the lighter loads. That will not give you "nail driving" results. Pressures will vary.
Simply seat the bullet firmly against the powder. You can always use a 44 sizing die to make sure it stays firmly against the powder.

The accuracy should improve with the heavier charge of powder until you reach the optimum, based on bullet weight vs powder charge vs shooting distance. Should be extremely impressive results.

Murph

BMur · #15 12-12-2020, 06:06 PM

I haven't located the original Black Powder target loading for the 44 Russian but if we do the simple Math? Here are the results from known Black Powder target loads:

Example photo 1: If we compare the 32-44 and 38-44 Target loads listed in antique Distributor catalogs? We see a heavy load of FFFG black powder with a Medium weight bullet for that caliber.

32-44 83 Grain RN Target Bullet 19 Grains FFFG

38-44 140 Grain RN Target Bullet 23 Grains FFFG

44 Russian 160-175 Grain RN Target Bullet 28-30 Grains FFFG
(*Estimated load for 44 Russian Target New Model 3)

This solution makes sense and might be surprising for some but the load is designed to be "HEAVY". The problem being that in order to achieve that load you must use a "Balloon Head" case. I have several Semi-Balloon Head cases in 44 Special. See Photo. That I plan on using for this test after trimming them down to correct length for the 44 Russian revolver chamber. See photo of original 44 Russian Winchester "TARGET BULLET" in a balloon head case. Unknown load but estimated at between 28-30 grains of FFFG "compressed". Likely a "NAIL DRIVER" at ranges up to and including 50 yards!!

*** All of these loads should be "extremely" accurate. In fact I would stand them up against "any" smokeless target load at ranges up to 50 yards for off hand pistol shooting. Perhaps beyond that range?

Murph

BMur · #16 12-13-2020, 02:26 AM

I got impatient and decided to compare case volume of a Semi- balloon head case on the left (Early 44 Special altered to 44 Russian) in the photo with 32 grains of sugar with the modern solid head 44 case volume using the same load of sugar. I’m amazed at the difference in the earlier Semi- Balloon 44 Special altered case.
I can’t load for a few days. It’s too damp out and rain is forecast. So I’ll post examples when it’s dry enough out to load.

Anyway, you can clearly see that a lesser load of 30 grains compressed FFFG Black powder would easily work in the Semi- Balloon head case with a lighter 165-175 grain target Bullet. Especially a hollow base bullet! I just wanted to “see” not only the case volume difference but if it could be done. So the answer is Yes, it can be done.

Murph

Oyeboteb · #17 12-13-2020, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMur

I haven't located the original Black Powder target loading for the 44 Russian but if we do the simple Math? Here are the results from known Black Powder target loads:

Standard Service Load for .44 Russian, was / is 23 Grains, 3F, and, 246 Grain Bullet ( and small variations in weight of either component, also existed ).

Quote:

Example photo 1

Quote:

: If we compare the 32-44 and 38-44 Target loads listed in antique Distributor catalogs? We see a heavy load of FFFG black powder with a Medium weight bullet for that caliber.

32-44 83 Grain RN Target Bullet 19 Grains FFFG

38-44 140 Grain RN Target Bullet 23 Grains FFFG

44 Russian 160-175 Grain RN Target Bullet 28-30 Grains FFFG
(*Estimated load for 44 Russian Target New Model 3)

Of course, with Black Powder Revolver, heavier Bullets have a little higher FPS than lighter ones, or maybe quite a bit more, depending...

Larger charges for lighter Bullets may be less efficient than smaller charges and Bullet seated deeper, or lighter charges and having 'filler' to allow normal compression and normal Bullet Seating for Bullets one wishes to crimp at a normal Crimp location ( Malto Meal, Corn Meal ) otherwise one is just blowing out a lot of un-burned Powder since the lighter Ball or Bullet accelerates out of the Barrel sooner, having less inertia, giving less burn time for the Powder, and not reaching as much FPS as a heavier Bullet would have.

Quote:

This solution makes sense and might be surprising for some but the load is designed to be "HEAVY". The problem being that in order to achieve that load you must use a "Balloon Head" case. I have several Semi-Balloon Head cases in 44 Special. See Photo. That I plan on using for this test after trimming them down to correct length for the 44 Russian revolver chamber. See photo of original 44 Russian Winchester "TARGET BULLET" in a balloon head case. Unknown load but estimated at between 28-30 grains of FFFG "compressed". Likely a "NAIL DRIVER" at ranges up to and including 50 yards!!

*** All of these loads should be "extremely" accurate. In fact I would stand them up against "any" smokeless target load at ranges up to 50 yards for off hand pistol shooting. Perhaps beyond that range?

Murph

As far as I gather -

What we now call 'Balloon Head' are what was originally called "Solid Head".

'Folded Head' was the original Metallic Cartridge Case, and was used for all the Rim Fires, who's wall and rim and head section was about the same all over, and the original external prime Primer Pockets of the earliest external-prime Center Fire Cases, the Primer Pocket was merely made by shaping or folding in and up and over, the center of the Case Head, who's Head thickness was about the same as the Case Walls, and, of course, this was a little weak, but more so, I suspect was evolved out of for being a little tedious for the Manufacturer to shape and form, requiring more annealing pauses, and more steps and draws than the 'Solid Head'.

"Solid Head" ( which we see mentioned on 1880s, 1890s Ammunition Box Labels or in advertisements for Ammunition of that time on onward for quite a while,) was the advent of a Cartridge Case having a slightly thicker Head face area, ( less tedious to make the Primer Pocket and more material to punch or draw it in to,) with the Primer Pocket shaped or formed in a heavier section, and these when we look in to the empty Case, we see the elevated Primer Pocket, with a Moat or Trough around it.

The next step eventually was to have a very thick Head, as thick as the Primer Pocket is tall, where in looking down in to the empty Case, we see merely a slightly dished bottom, and the center flash hole.

Logically, this is what one may expect the term "Solid Head" to mean, but oddly, the "Modern" Case design does not seem to have a name.

I am not sure when the term 'Semi Balloon Head' came in, or if it is a modern term, retro-actively applied, nor how it is imagined to differ from a Balloon Head proper...unless "Balloon Head" is understood to mean the earliest Folded Head Center Fire Cases, and Semi Balloon Head taken to mean what at the time was called "Solid Head", and what generally we now call "Balloon Head" with the latter being the 'Semi Balloon Head'.

I did compare ( what we now call ) Balloon Head ( nee: 'Solid Head' ) and modern Brass some time back, for .44 Russian and others to determine difference in Case volume, and I do not know where those notes are at the moment.

If memory serve though, I think for .38 Special, the difference is about 15 percent.

Larger diameter Cases, the difference is a slightly larger percentage.

Let us bear in mind, that if appealing to 'Smokeless' Loading Tables from the earlier 1900s, or from before WWII, which were written with the original 'Solid Head' - now called 'Balloon Head' Cases as tacit / given, if one is using the usual 'Smokeless' Propellants listed in these Loading Tables, and using modern Brass, one will have a meaningfully smaller Case Volume and a very different 'Loading Density' than intended...

...which will then result in higher pressures, or even send things in to over-pressure if using higher loadings...and, I suspect this is why sometimes on Forums one sees people writing in, saying Bullseye or Unique must be stronger now than 'back when', having loaded up some Revolver Cartridges using a 1920s IDEAL Handbook or other Tables of the time, and full or max charges of Bullseye or Unique, when, it is the loading density difference of Case volume, with their smaller volume modern Brass of today, that is at issue.

Catastrophic "Over Pressure" could possibly result if using max Charges of Bullseye or Unique if substituting modern Brass for the Brass intended from the era the old Loading Table was written.

If I am remembering right, new 'STARLINE" Brass, .44 Russian, 23 Grains of BP, just about fills the Case up to the Case mouth...presenting then an awkward conflict if one were intending Standard, Black Powder Loading, of Service Rounds...as the amount of 'compression' needed for the 246 Grain Bullet to seat and crimp as expected, would be enormous or impractical to achieve with usual Loading Tools.

While, for light to medium Black Powder Loading Charges in .44 Russian Black Powder, 20 odd percent or so smaller volume modern Brass ought to work fine and allow a nice usual compression.

BMur · #18 12-13-2020, 07:11 PM

Case volume based on early cartridge design (Balloon head) can be an issue with various Black Powder Antique Pistols. As an extreme example the 45 Colt with 40 grains of powder compressed would likely use much less of the Black powders potential in say a 3" barrel Sheriffs model. Especially since the cartridge and case volume was originally designed for a 7 1/2" barrel Cavalry revolver. Possibly one distinct disadvantage to Black powder loads?

However, I don't think we have that issue here with the 44 Russian "Target" revolver having a 6 1/2" barrel. The Case volume for the 44 Russian cartridge is not a lot to begin with and if you look at the original "Target" cartridge that I posted a photo of? That's a Winchester Factory loaded Black Powder cartridge and it has a very heavy case crimp above the Target bullet. There are other ways of slowing down a bullet besides bullet weight when using black powder loads. A Heavy case crimp is one of them. The round is also obviously FACTORY engineered for the longer target barrel. I think Winchester knew what they were doing?

I also believe that when a bullet leaves the barrel that last millisecond of powder burn is very important for bullet stability on its way to the target. That's why the muzzle crown condition is also a critical part of overall accuracy. So I don't think we will have a problem with "too much" powder for the Target Bullets of 160-175 grains with a solid case crimp. I look forward to trying it out. I also will try to chronograph the results if I have that opportunity. I believe the bullet speed will be much higher than the standard 230/246 grain heavy. Which translates to much better accuracy.

Lets also try to believe that those "Factory" loaded and original Period stats (photo'd above) for the 32-44 and 38-44 high volume Black Powder loads are there for a reason? I have complete confidence that they knew what they were doing in the 1880's and 1890's. After all, they were there when the guns were being manufactured and smokeless powder was still on the drawing table.

I mean 23 grains of FFFG for a 140 grain 38 caliber? That's the heaviest load I've ever read about in that pistol caliber. That's heavier than the original 38 special full load in 158 grain round nose.

That's even heavier than the original 41 Long colt and "literally" matches the 44 Russian original heavy bullet load? I've loaded and shot the 41 Long colt with 21 grains of Black Powder and a "200" grain bullet and it's impressive.

I intend to load the Semi-Balloon head case to match my estimate of original case powder load with known and research proven bullet weight and designs for the Target New Model 3 in 44 Russian. None of this is "Hot Rodding" or modification. It's an accurate duplication of what was.....as close as possible.

Murph

BMur · #19 12-14-2020, 01:38 AM

Well,
I found a ton more information about the 44 Russian cartridge and also what happened to the New Model 3 when smokeless powder was perfected in about 1907. I found an early book written in 1908 and According to Target shooters of that era the early Smokeless powders presented several problems prior to 1907. It wasn't until about 1907 that they perfected smokeless powder for pistol use. (worked out all the bugs?) These early smokeless powders were actually designed for NEW Smokeless guns according to Target shooters of that ERA.

I don't know who started the rumor or who documented the shooting of the 1 1/2" grouping at 50 yards? but it "WAS NOT" the New Model 3. It was the New Service Hand ejector in 44 Russian caliber having a 6 1/2" barrel and it was done with Smokeless loads post 1908. Likely with target sights.

Target shooters appreciated the New Model 3 history as an accurate target gun but once Smokeless was established and perfected in 1907 the New Model 3 was instantly "obsolete" according to several Target shooters of that early 20th century timeframe? The New Model 3 became obsolete in favor of the New "Smokeless" Hand ejector in 44 Russian and 44 Special in 1908. Right about the same time Smith and Wesson guaranteed their revolvers for smokeless???

They even clearly state that the New Model 3 was for Black Powder only in Target calibers including the 44 Russian and they were Not adapted for smokeless use. These are "Target Shooters" talking that were there! They simply changed over to the New Service Double actions in 1908 as the new and improved Target guns that just happened to be chambered in 44 Russian. So the early Smokeless loads in 44 Russian were actually designed for this modern smokeless double action. "NOT" the NEW Model 3's or the earlier double actions. The smokeless loads were designed for the new smokeless pistols according to the early Target shooters. They saw the New Model 3 as obsolete in 1907!!

So, I guess we are on our own regarding the accuracy of the original Black Powder Target loads for the New Model 3 and earlier Double Actions.

Murph

BMur · #20 12-14-2020, 02:45 AM

I found the source of the 1 1/2” grouping. Read the attached article of the extensive tests performed with Black powder loads with Target New Model 3’s in various calibers. The historians forgot to mention that the miracle shots were performed with a shoulder stock attachment, telescopic sights, and a sand bag rest?
Not to mention it was the best grouping of 10,000 rounds fired?
I swear, the more research I perform the more I realize that a good yarn is always part of human history!

I wonder how they mounted the scope?

Murph

P.44 · #21 12-14-2020, 08:21 AM

GREAT & very interesting thread !

So -after a bit searching- I found out:
You can read the complete book
Gould: The Modern American Pistol and Revolver (1888 !) on-line

The modern American pistol and revolver. Including a description of modern pistols and revolvers of American make; : Gould, Arthur Corbin, 1850-1903 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

P.44

BMur · #22 12-14-2020, 11:45 AM

P.44,

The listing you posted is a great reference but we must remember that in order to perform accurate research you must use as many references as possible. You will find "many" revisions and often a book that has been as an example copyrighted in say 1904 that has been revised in 1906, 1910, 1912, 1915, and 1918....So you might be reading a book that has been edited so many times that you are missing out on the authors original intent. The information then becomes inaccurate. Contract editing is an author's nightmare. I've been there.

Example: The Himmelwright book that was written originally prior to 1905 was revised several times and if you refer solely to that reference you will believe that the "miracle" shots were performed off hand. When actually the reference article I posted is the "Root source" of the later published accuracy of the 44 Russian pistol with 6 1/2" barrel. Unknown to the reader of the later edited version? Those posted and charted results were actually performed 30 years prior with Black Powder loads, with a shoulder stock, sand bag rest, and a "scope" mounted on the gun!!!....So,, that's a distortion of the facts that was edited out of later manuals...Revisions often do that by streamlining information. So you have to read "ALL available resources"!

You also miss the boat if you only read early references since the Smokeless change is not documented until after the 1908 revision. So you must actually read several revisions in order to see the big picture. That's how research works. Putting the "Edited" pieces together.

As a published author I personally think its criminal what contract editors do to your original work. They basically cut it to pieces until you don't even recognize your work.

Murph

BMur · #23 12-14-2020, 06:02 PM

I was doing a little more reading and decided to go with a 200 Grain Flat Nose and the original 175 Grain Heeled bullet.
See Photo 1

I guess a World Record was achieved with the 205 Grain round nose bullet so I'm trying to get close to that design in addition to the original heeled 175 Grain Target bullet. So the 200 Grain FN is a pretty darn close match to the World Record holding bullet. I'm also going to try several powder loads and bullet seating depths with that bullet at the 25 yard target. See which load performs the best.

See photo 2

Comparison of the 200 Grain with the standard heavy round nose 246grain. More case volume in the 44 Mag cases trimmed down but still not enough to match the Balloon head cases that will allow 27 grains of FFFG with the 200 grain Flat nose. The Mag cases only allow 23 grains compressed and the heavy only 19 grains compressed.

Photo 3 Is the 2 cavity LEE Mold that I decided to use for the medium weight bullet test.

Once my target mold arrives in the mail I'll mold and load them all up.

Murph

Herky Bird · #24 12-14-2020, 10:19 PM

For more specific data to Carlin, Reynolds, and Himmelwright long range test one can reference Outing Magazine Volume 41 1902-1903 on page 516. According to Himmelwright’s essay in ‘Guns, Ammunition, and Tackle,’ this was conducted in the summer of 1890.
Side note, I believe this test as attested in A.C. Gould’s book might be the earliest published use of a telescopic sight on a handgun.

Oyeboteb · #25 12-16-2020, 07:41 PM

Here's a fun old 'IDEAL' 429-er, don't know the weight, but will cast some up soon and find out.

Looks to be a close kin to the two in Murph's old period Line Drawing.

Hosted on Fotki

BMur · #26 12-16-2020, 08:39 PM

Phil,
I think it’s this bullet on the old Ideal listing. It's definitely a heavy at 251 grains. Should shoot well in the long barrel.

Yours though looks like it might be a bit lighter. The Base of the bullet looks smaller. So 225ish?

Murph

Oyeboteb · #27 12-16-2020, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMur

Phil,
I think it’s this bullet on the old Ideal listing. It's definitely a heavy at 251 grains. Should shoot well in the long barrel.

Yours though looks like it might be a bit lighter. The Base of the bullet looks smaller. So 225ish?

Murph

Good call Murph!

I had to root around some to find the Mold to check, but, indeed - it is the "429 436"..!

They did sometimes change some details on these old ones while keeping the same Number over time.

Might have been folks wrote in saying "Make that bottom driving band a little less tall please!", and they did...( just a guess...)

BMur · #28 12-17-2020, 12:53 AM

I agree Phil,

The oversized lube grooves are a great feature and the dome head would take this round further down range In theory more accurately as compared to say a Wadcutter. I’d like to see a range report on this one using black powder full loads.

Murph

BMur · #29 12-17-2020, 06:52 PM

My Target Mold arrived today. It’s an absolute treasure. Notice you can reverse the core insert to manufacture both a heeled Bullet or a hollow base bullet. You can also slide the core back and forth to change bullet weight so it’s a great mold.

The catalog photo is a later bullet reference that actually ID’s the lighter bullets as UMC design. That’s news to me. This would be a pre-1911 listing and likely right around 1900. Also some very unusual bullets are listed as well as the World Record bullet of 205 grain RN.

Interesting to note that this World Record holding bullet was actually replaced by a Semi-Wad cutter with gas check soon thereafter. So the original round nose mold I would imagine would be as rare as it gets!

Murph

6518John · #30 12-17-2020, 07:00 PM

I have never shot these old guns and cartridges or really been fan of them either. But I absolutely love reading these threads and learning about them.

Thank all of you who contribute in this section of the forum. Your posts are absolutely fascinating.

Helipat13 · #31 12-20-2020, 04:09 PM

Hi MurpH

I'm awaiting your result on target 25 yard .

Please keep us informed

Today i got excellent group with your recommendation : 15 gr 3fg , Starline shell , .433 Round ball 120 Gr on powder15 gr 3fg.jpg
15 3fg only.jpg

i love this revolver .

I waiting accurate mould 429.172 & 429 -115

I wish you a merry Christmas
Patrick

BMur · #32 12-20-2020, 09:41 PM

Hi Patrick,

Outstanding work! I think you have your gun dialed in with Gallery type loads. 2 inch groups at 20-25 meters means you are there. To better test your load you should use a red dot in the center of the target. You can just cut a small red circle and tape it if you want? That improves your sight vision.
If the group tightens even more to say 1 1/2”? You have hit the perfect load. You should log it. If not then try a little soft lube right before shooting on the bullets and just inside the brass case with a Q-tip. Guaranteed to tighten your group.

I’m still loading rounds. I just got my target mold in the mail so I want to load some of those also. When I go shooting it’s an all day event for me. I’m ready with my 38-44 Target and have my 200 grain load ready for the 44 Russian. So once I get the 160 & 175 target loads ready? I’ll be good to go.

I did also get side tracked a little cuz I’m working up loads for my Frontier S&W DA in 44 WCF to test that gun as well. Probably be ready right after the New Year.

Merry Christmas to you also!

Murph

nbedford · #33 12-25-2020, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P.44

GREAT & very interesting thread !

So -after a bit searching- I found out:
You can read the complete book
Gould: The Modern American Pistol and Revolver (1888 !) on-line

The modern American pistol and revolver. Including a description of modern pistols and revolvers of American make; : Gould, Arthur Corbin, 1850-1903 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

P.44

Wow, that is a great find! Thank you.

BubbaShakers · #34 12-25-2020, 11:21 AM

Also of possible interest to the topic at hand on archive.org:

The Art of Revolver Shooting by Walter Winans.

There are several late 19th/early 20th century firearms books from this era and earlier, scanned from originals in the Library of Congress.

The copyrights on these have all expired, and some of these are available as reprints from various if you want hard copies. The 1894 edition of the Gould book above was put out in a fancy leatherbound edition by Palladium a while back and sometimes shows up on ebay for less money than a "print on demand" reprint from amazon.

applefish · #35 12-25-2020, 04:16 PM

Found some old Union Metallic Cartridge company catalogs from 1896 and 1905.
The best part it they have the old load data, with powder measurements and bullet weights!

It's interesting to see that there were two types of gallery cartriges for the 44 russian.

The standard 44 russian load looks to be a 256 gr bullet on 23 grains of powder.
The gallery 44 russian load could be bought in either with either a 110 gr round bullet, or a grooved conical bullet also weighing 110 gr. Both were seated on 7 grains of powder. Interesting that the grooved conical bullet was also 110 gr, it would be a very short bullet if it was .429"!

For the 38-44 target standard load, the grooved bullet is 146 grs sitting on 20 gr of powder.
The 38-44 gallery load is a 70 gr round ball on 6 gr of powder.

BMur · #36 12-25-2020, 07:09 PM

Outstanding Reference Applefish!

It’s amazing how many different loads you could find for the old Smith & Wesson Revolvers. Even Hand ejectors had Gallery loads.

I’ve found that Winchester loads were typically the hottest followed by UMC, then Peters and finally U.S Cartridge Co. There are actually others but they were not common. Like Eley, American Cartridge Company and Phoenix. Just to add a few. A few in Canada also if you were riding the Great Northern Rail.

Murph

Nagloc68 · #37 12-27-2020, 11:52 PM

New to this forum so I'll introduce myself. I'm an Aussie living in Chicago and starting my personal collection of Australian firearms, especially Lithgow examples. At the risk of driving up prices, I need some advice on Model 3s. A recent auction had several South Australian Model 3s listed. I bid on one, but it was my first ever auction bid and I was in a meeting so I absentee bid and lost.

. One of the model 3s is being resold, not the one I bid on, but another example. The gun is has some mismatched numbers and was refinished at some point. Its a nice example, but not as pristine as I would target. How do I think about collecting - do I put this rare gun in my collection while I wait, or should I remain patient and disciplined for a better example. Readers of this forum probably know there are only 310 examples in existence. Thanks

TripLeader · #38 12-28-2020, 12:24 AM

Thank you guys for posting all this info. The link to the book is an incredible find.

I am the owner of an heirloom New Model 3 in .44 Russian. This stuff really helps me appreciate it more.

My old revolver:
S&W New Model 3 in .44 Russian (Pics Added Post 7)

Oyeboteb · #39 12-28-2020, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nagloc68

New to this forum so I'll introduce myself. I'm an Aussie living in Chicago and starting my personal collection of Australian firearms, especially Lithgow examples. At the risk of driving up prices, I need some advice on Model 3s. A recent auction had several South Australian Model 3s listed. I bid on one, but it was my first ever auction bid and I was in a meeting so I absentee bid and lost.

. One of the model 3s is being resold, not the one I bid on, but another example. The gun is has some mismatched numbers and was refinished at some point. Its a nice example, but not as pristine as I would target. How do I think about collecting - do I put this rare gun in my collection while I wait, or should I remain patient and disciplined for a better example. Readers of this forum probably know there are only 310 examples in existence. Thanks

I would say, hold out for an example which has not been re-finished.

Mis-matched Numbers, hard to guess from here, other than, if it is common with these from their Armorers doing that at-the-time, then, it is not as big of a "minus" as it would be otherwise.

But, of course matching Numbers will always be the most highly regarded.