I own a S&W New Model 3 manufactured in 1880, in very good condition. I would like to put a few rounds down range, occasionally, and spent some time reading the handloading threads on this board. Unfortunately components remain scare or expensive, so I haven't reloaded anything yet.



I was at my LGS on the weekend and a fellow offered to sell me two boxes of surplus Ultramax 44 Russian Cowboy factory rounds. 200gr RNFP, in a red box. I have never heard of Ultramax ammunition. I googled and they have a website, but it is incomplete, and the ammo is listed on several retail sites, but typically "out of Stock" or "Out of Production".



So, long story, but my question is 1) is this ammo any good?, 2) is it safe to shoot in my 1880's revolver (assuming the gun is safe, of course), and 3) the big one, should I even be shooting the pistol?



My collection so far has been Lee Enfield rifles, so this is a little new to me. Thanks for your advice.

I used to sell some of the Ultramax ammo through the store a few years ago. Never had any issues with it, including shooting a bit of their 45 Colt, 44-40 and 32-20 ammo. Not sure if they are still in operation as many of the smaller companies have struggled with component shortages and other issues the last couple years.

Most "cowboy" loads are fairly mild in my experience, intended for the "cowboy action shooting" type events where recoil recovery (and speed of fire) are important. Personally I would have no issue in shooting them out of a mechanically sound older revolver. Not knowing about yours the call would come down to what you feel comfortable with. A truly pristine gun from that era should probably not be shot at all value wise. There is always the risk of lowering the value if anything goes wrong.

I own and shoot several antique revolvers but all are less than pristine while still being mechanically sound. I am willing to take the risk of springs or other small parts failing. I have used factory ammo in several guns though I have gone more and more to loading black powder as it seems to be more consistent than light smokeless loads. And I don't find the cleanup to be a big deal, probably because I also shoot muzzle loaders regularly.

The so-called “Cowboy” loads are about the mildest factory loads made, used principally in the Cowboy Action Shooting events which mandate light loads. About the only way to get lighter loads would be to load them yourself, possibly with black powder. I can’t say how safe they would be in your revolver, but I suspect they would be OK. I think new .44 Russian brass is available, or you could shorten .44 Mag or .44 Special cases, if you wanted to load your own using BP or a BP substitute.

Thanks to the replies. My reading suggested the cowboy loads were light loads, which was appealing to me - I really don't want to stress the gun. I have found some reviews also suggesting Ultramax is a decent ammunition. I understand the advice is on the ammo only, not on the condition or risks of actually shooting it in my revolver. I think I may take him up on the offer, while I ponder if I want to actually use it!!

I shot a box or so of the ultramax thru an not so good shape Model 3 that i had....mild ammo, no issues. It should be fine for your gun in my experience.

Robert

__________________
Robert
SWCA #2906, SWHF #760

As a rule, I only shoot black powder in ANY revolver made before 1905. The pressure spike with even the mildest smokeless load far exceeds the heaviest black powder load. I know Colt didn't warranty their SAA for smokeless until 1903, and even then, many made between 1903 and 1905 didn't survive the experience. When I was contemplating using some of the Ultramax .45 Schofield in my original, a member here put me back on the straight and narrow. Just do yourself a favor and don't do it. These old guns are little more than cast iron.

The Ultramax company went out-of-business when a fire destroyed their production facility in South Dakota.

The thread should be locked after this comment. Hopefully you won’t lose any body parts if your gun decides to blow up.

It's "always" a better choice to use the original designed Black Powder load for these antique revolvers. Or a Black Powder designed substitute.

Over many years I have repaired antique guns that have "come apart" from Smokeless use. "NONE" of them were double charges as some would have you believe.

In the photo's you'll see one of several projects that I am working on now. This is an 1883 Colt lightning that was used by a Range Master to explain Smokeless use in an Antique revolver. The shooter had used a "STANDARD SMOKELESS LOAD" . The result was a chamber explosion that blew the cylinder wide open and launched the top strap into sub-orbit.

So, I replaced the cylinder and welded a new top strap back on the gun. It's not quite finished yet. Some more fine detailed welding to perform and a touch up to the nickel finish. I've done this with many antique revolvers over the years. Several top-break Smith and Wesson as well.

When smokeless was introduced? The concept of smokeless use OK after 1907 was not intended to be for guns manufactured 30 years prior with low carbon metal and "black powder rifling". Some experts? seem to miss that point constantly.

Black powder doesn't react to pressure. That can be caused by rust, pitting, thick and wide black powder rifling, "leading in the forcing cone", etc..... but you try that trick with smokeless and you'll get a pressure spike that antique guns often "can not handle".... see photo's.

Those blown up Colt's are "NOT" the result of double charges. They were standard Smokeless loads. These guns were manufactured before Standardized machining. If you don't understand the concept PM me and I can explain in detail.

Murph

Attached Images

	A61450C5-7258-4594-983B-7F6908E2B1FC.jpg (66.8 KB, 83 views)
	89383953-9135-46C6-AAF8-E879D6AF7081.jpg (105.3 KB, 84 views)
	48EF1AAA-B434-457F-A156-A3A5AA3E865E.jpg (54.8 KB, 77 views)

When I first started using .44 Russian in a New Model .44 top loader I first tried it out in my .44 special. It felt so mild that I decided to give it a try and found that although the impulse from smokeless is different that black powder the "cowboy" loads were much milder than a standard black powder loading in .44 Russian. You get much more buck and roar from 18gr. of 3F black powder than you do from any of the "cowboy" loads.
Now that I have a good supply of .44 Russian brass I only use blackpowder, it is what the revolver was designed around and I shoot black powder almost exclusively anyway.

I hit the like button on this post only in appreciation of the information not the terrible fire.

I’d say that ammo in the original box is now collectable.
I recently saw a price guide catalog for collectable ammunition from 1937! I had no idea folks were collecting ammo back then!

Murph

I don't know diddly about all this, and so go with those I know who do.

This from Dave Chicoine: "On the never use smokeless list are:

All the large frame, Model Number Three Smith & Wesson top break revolvers.

Any small or medium Smith & Wesson top break revolver made before about World War I."

Ralph Tremaine

Now would be a good time time to mention that today’s modern manufacture Black Powder replica revolvers are made of high carbon steel which withstands high pressure smokeless pressure with the 1858 Top Strap Remington clone being the strongest. Some replicas are made of stainless steel. This is why there are cartridge conversion cylinders made for them.

Modern cartridge clones of the 1851 Navy, 1860 Army and 1871 Open Top Revolvers are safe to use with low velocity smokeless powder loads. These guns are made for Cowboy Action Shooting that encourages low velocities.

Smokeless power will still disassemble a modern Blackpowder revolver. Just clearing up the differences in 19th century steel/iron and 20th century carbon and stainless steels.

Not to be a contrarian but Ruger went out of their way to try and blow up a Ruger Old Army blackpowder revolver. According to legend they filled a cylinder with Bullseye, loaded a ball and set it off...everything held together. There has never been a better built black powder revolver, they are very accurate, dependable and damned near fool proof, they are heavy, one target shooter I know loads one at a time to cut the weight. I've known a character that loaded one up with 4F priming powder and survived to tell the tale. The beauty of black powder is that you can't overload any revolver as long as you are using anything coarser than 3F. I use 3F Swiss in most of my revolvers, burns cleaner and requires less compression than others. Most problems with black powder revolvers usually regard tinkerers trying to improve on a proven system. People that try to shim up cylinders fall afoul of primers contacting the recoil shield. I've only witnessed one "chain fire" and it was not due to not using grease at the front of the cylinder it was a tinkerer attempting to take up a little play in his cylinder by installing a shim at the rear and upon recoil two other cylinders went off by contacting the recoil shield, not a pretty sight, he was lucky it was the two adjacent to the one under the hammer, both balls cleared the barrel, the holes remain in the upper section of the range roofing. If you use a felt wad under the ball the only need to grease the cylinder ends is to reduce fouling and possibly add a bit of lube to the ball as it flies down the barrel. Always be wary of spent caps getting lodged between the cylinder and recoil shield.

Let me start by stating 1880s structural steel could have been produced with around 20,000 PSI tensile strength. Almost all revolvers back then were built to accommodate pressures up to around 15,000 PSI. By 1900 structural steel was over 30,000 PSI. It also must be noted that well established gun factories were using higher strength alloys than building construction materials, so companies like S&W were certainly capable of using steel with tensile strengths well above 20,000 PSI. Unfortunately, there appears to be no information available from the factory detailing late 1800s steel strengths.

50 years of experimenting with smokeless loads in BP era revolvers taught me many things, but most important is that almost all antidotal information posted is from people who never truly researched the subject.

Early in my gun collecting days I had antique Colt 45 SAA revolvers and always adhered to information that I had read about never putting smokeless powder loads in a BP gun or you and your gun will blow up. I recalled the felt recoil was very strong, but not knowing better, I kept loading to original BP specifications. I found no comfort in the articles stating ONLY USE BLACK POWDER IN ANTIQUE GUNS since there was never data or experiences that supported these authors’ opinions!!

Since writers never accompanied their research and findings regarding the use of the dreaded smokeless in BP guns, no research proving the demise of any firearm using smokeless powder noted, just standard message repeated, don't do it. Well, that was worthless information as far as I am concerned without solid reasoning why not!! Sure, there were many failures in the early days of smokeless powder, giving rise to the evils of smokeless powders, but information on how to reload with smokeless left a lot to be desired. People who loaded BP all their lives would load smokeless powder with the same tools, including using the same powder measure that they used for BP loads. Loading smokeless powder, the same volume as BP would guarantee failure since it was likely at least 3X too much powder. To complicate matters further, in the early days there were high-bulk smokeless powders out there that were designed to be loaded by matching the volume to black powder and they worked fine. The danger stories lasted forever and scared many, and are still being perpetuated today.

Back to my 45 Colt revolvers. I had committed the mortal sin by switching to just shooting standard nitro loaded ammo bought at the hardware store. It shot fine and nothing ever happened to me or my guns. The lower recoil made the 45 Colt cartridge much more comfortable to shoot and I kind of forgot about the mule kick offered by BP. As I read more, however, I worried worried that maybe I was tempting fate, so loaded up some old-time cowboy loads with 35 grains of 3F under a 250 grain lead RN. For those of you who have actually shot a full-boat load of BP from the 1800s, you know where I am going with this, but for those of you who preach BP only, try it sometime. It was originally so heavy, 40 grains under a heeled balloon bullet, that Colt backed off the load to 30 grains after too many guns failed the proof testing. Later it was raised back to 35 grains. There were tests done that a 7 ½” gun could run over 1000 fps with the 35 grain load! Pressures would have exceeded 20,000 CUP (roughly the same as PSI at those pressures)!

The recoil was so fierce that I thought the gun would fly out of my hand. After that, I started experimenting and seeking information on chamber pressures for antique handguns and pressures obtained in smokeless loadings. I now can reload just about any antique Colt or S&W caliber out there and can guarantee that there are smokeless loads available with pressures reduced by almost 50% from original BP loadings. Besides, as an added safety measure, I load lighter bullets to further reduce peak pressures. Almost all my S&W caliber loadings average under 10,000 psi. 44 Russian, as one example, can be loaded to less than half the published pressure limit of this caliber and still average over 700 fps with a 200-grain bullet.

Now the next excuse will be that BP exhibits peak pressures in a different portion of the firearm???? Who cares about that anyway? Theory is that the pressure curve is different with BP and that smokeless powder exhibits peak pressure very rapidly compared to BP. First question is why does this matter if the smokeless loads are over 50% lower peak pressure in the first place? In the second place there is research data out there that clearly shows smokeless loadings can be loaded to match BP loads and show almost identical pressure curves. The simple answer is that it is easy to load all BP calibers with smokeless powder and demonstrate a significant reduction in peak pressure out of a revolver and that is a fact. Find your caliber, find your load and give it a try.

Bottom line is that all BP calibers can be loaded with substantially lower pressures than original BP. I still shoot BP in muzzleloaders and Colt Walker reproductions. I shoot those guns with BP for the smoke, plus they are relatively easy to clean up.

45 Colt
IMR Target . . . . 5.0g – 200 RN . . . 802 fps . . . 7,500 PSI
BP . . . . . . . . . . .35g - 250 RN . . . .900 fps . . 16,000 PSI

44 Russian
HP-38 . . . . . . . .4.2g – 200 RN . . . 763 fps . . .7,300 CUP
BP . . . . . . . . . . .20g – 246 RN . . . 750 fps . . 14,500 PSI

The publicly available information above are just a couple examples, but clearly demonstrate one can load and shoot smokeless powder in BP guns with complete, and I can add, increased safety over BP.

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

This is my last post on this thread. I'm kinda tired of the Black Powder vs Smokeless argument. It seems endless to me. Many folks have very closed minds.


Tensile strength has nothing to do with final product strength. Using numbers to sensationalize is not the safe approach.

As an example: ( Photo 1) Grade 2 low carbon steel has a tensile strength of up to 64,000 psi. However, Grade 2 steel is what we use to manufacture bicycles. NOT MOTORCYCLES, bicycles.

If you were to use a GRADE 2 BOLT to construct a car engine, the result would come apart seconds after you started it.


Final product strength is what we should be focused on. So, how strong is an antique firearm? That's the real question.

Photo 2 The cylinder photo'd is from a 32cf antique topbreak revolver. The damage associated and seen clearly in the photo is from smokeless use. Again, NOT a double charge. Standard smokeless loads. 3 chambers are bulged and one is cracked. Also, notice how thin the metal is on each chamber?

Smokeless is only safe when every aspect of the Engineered product is met. When only one aspect is off? Smokeless powder will spike big time. Even light loads of Smokeless will spike and cause damage usually at the cylinder, forcing cone, bulging a barrel, etc. There is NO MARGIN FOR ERROR with smokeless use in an antique firearm.


WE can play with numbers and formulas all you want but ultimately using smokeless in an antique firearm is risky at best. Reckless at worst. Even leading in the forcing cone can damage an antique firearm with smokeless use. Any powder load formula can be tossed out the window when you lead up a forcing cone or introduce any obstruction. Smokeless powder only gives steady pressure results when everything is perfect.

Include a dirty bore, leaded up forcing cone, oversized bullet, or undersized bore, etc., etc.? and smokeless will spike to double or triple the listed pressure. "BLACK POWDER WILL NOT". That's the simple point. Black powder does not introduce a "Spike" in pressure with a dirty bore, leaded forcing cone, mild obstructions. Smokeless does, "BIG TIME"... Black Powder does not react to pressure or obstruction. The burn rate does not change at all. Smokeless "spikes" big time. That's what damages the low carbon steel of the antique firearm.

Modern firearms are of Grade 8 base product steel. They can handle smokeless spikes in pressure without damage. High carbon steel gun manufacture was the result of the introduction of smokeless powder.

This is "NO BRAINER" stuff. If you can't get passed this then you risk damage to your antique revolver and potential injury to the shooter. "SAFETY FIRST" means use Black Powder or Black Powder substitute in antique revolvers. Unless you are absolutely sure your antique firearm meets minimum "Smokeless Standards" at all times. Many antiques DO NOT!!! Even if they do at present, after shooting several smokeless rounds the conditions can change dramatically due to lead build up at the forcing cone, excessive residue in the black powder rifling, poor alignment of the antique cylinder to forcing cone, a ring of lead left in the bore from using hollow based bullets. I can go on and on. None of these conditions has any impact on safety when using Black Powder. Nor do they change the burn rate of Black Powder.


Murph

Attached Images

	B2DAEB01-4B9A-41D3-AD6D-1DF04A950545.jpeg (47.3 KB, 31 views)
	046FE9E8-2B48-4E6E-ACFC-DD4F633B0A86.jpg (38.1 KB, 45 views)

While I will not go far into the black powder only debate other than agree that restriction to movement causes exponential pressure increases with smokeless and not black. I will also state you could use slow enough light enough charges of smokeless in a really gun in good mechanical shape.

A gun in poor condition with an obstructed bore isn't safe period, even with black powder.

Listing the tensile strengths of steels is all fine and good, but has little direst relations ship with the pressures of loading. A thin piece of of heat treated 4140 with 95,000 psi tensile strength will let go before a thicker section of mild 1018 steel at 64,000psi..

Part of what is missing in this discussion is that production CONSISTENT QUALITY steel was in its infancy from 1870 into the early 1900s. America was a world leader in this. After that there have been many improvements but all in much smaller steps. Even so you will find an occasional flaw in high quality modern steel. I bought some late 1990s production (have the spec sheets) German production D2 and found a inclusion in a knife blank I cut from a piece. This kind of stuff would have been way more common in the 1880-1910 period, plus inspection methods were no where near as good.

You can roll, hammer forge hot steel all you want, but if their is a slag inclusion in the initial billet it isn't necessarily going away. It might get broken up and dispersed in smaller pieces. It hopefully will make it to the surface. But, it might end up right where you do not want it. The odds of that happening in a piece of 1880s open hearth steel were way way higher than in say a piece of 1920s steel and higher still in a piece of 1990s steel made in a inert atmosphere induction furnace.

I would suspect the steel in a gun blown up by a low pressure smokeless more than the smokeless itself. Anyone who believes a gun can't blow up with black powder is wrong. I doubt the first failure was after smokeless. I also have no doubt that when smokeless first same around plenty of mistakes were made.

One of the big questions should be is where did S&W or any other gun manufacture during this period get their steel? How consistent was it?

While I will not go far into the black powder only debate other than agree that restriction to movement causes exponential pressure increases with smokeless and not black. I will also state you could use slow enough light enough charges of smokeless in a really gun in good mechanical shape with no metallurgical flaws.

A gun in poor condition with an obstructed bore isn't safe period, even with black powder. Safer yes, safe no.

Listing the tensile strengths of steels is all fine and good, but has little direct relations ship with the pressures of loading. A thin piece of of heat treated 4140 with 95,000 psi tensile strength will let go before a thicker section of mild 1018 steel at 64,000psi..

Part of what is missing in this discussion is that any production scale of CONSISTENT QUALITY steel was in its infancy from 1870 into the early 1900s. America was a world leader in this. After that there have been many improvements but all in much smaller steps. Even so you will find an occasional flaw in high quality modern steel. I bought some late 1990s production (have the spec sheets) German production D2 and found a inclusion in a knife blank I cut from a piece. This kind of stuff would have been way more common in the 1880-1910 period, plus inspection methods were no where near as good.

You can roll, hammer forge hot steel all you want, but if there is a slag inclusion in the initial billet it isn't necessarily going away. It might get broken up and dispersed in smaller pieces. It hopefully will make it to the surface. But, some might end up right where you do not want it. The odds of that happening in a piece of 1880s open hearth steel were higher than in say a piece of 1920s steel and way way way higher still in a piece of 1990s steel made in a inert atmosphere induction furnace.

I would suspect a steel flaw in a early gun blown up by a low pressure smokeless more than the smokeless itself. Anyone who believes a gun can't blow up with black powder is wrong. I doubt the first failure was after smokeless. I also have no doubt that when smokeless first same around plenty of mistakes were made.

One of the big questions should be is where did S&W or any other gun manufacture during this period get their steel? How consistent was it?

If the highest pressure spike using smokeless is below that of the black powder pressure why would you think the smokeless would blow the gun up? It will NOT.

I’m the OP and appreciate all the very detailed analysis and opinions. While I seemed to have stoked a old topic of contention, it seems being prudent and using BP maybe the best choice. However I am leaning more towards admiring rather then shooting my model 3. Again, thanks for the detailed overview.

On the contrary . . .

The steel quality debate will never be settled either and is not the topic of this thread. By the 1880s, steel was no longer in its infancy, but rather steel companies could produce high quality steel. Using steel strength as the answer not to use smokeless powders today is to totally ignore the fact that smokeless powders can, and should be loaded at much lower peak pressures the original BP in vintage guns. We do not live in the early 1900s but live in an era where loading information is at your fingertips.

I will state at great peril that in an era of limitless low pressure options for vintage calibers, it is actually more dangerous to shoot antique guns with original black powder loadings than today's available low pressure smokeless! Smokeless powders loadings are available that offer 30% to 50% lower pressure than BP in just about all the vintage calibers. Also, the selection of a lighter bullets further reduces pressures, so with careful smokeless load selection one will be less likely to harm to an antique gun than using BP would.

The question of whether Untramax commercial ammunition is safe to use in BP revolvers? While reloaders can access information detailing pressures, most commercial manufacturers do not print pressures, so contacting the ammo manufacturer is necessary to know what you are shooting. Also, there is no guarantee that your antique gun is safe to shoot with any type of propellent, so must be checked out carefully. before shooting, but after close inspections, I have shot literally hundreds of pre-1898 revolvers, not one has failed to perform their task with low pressure smokeless.

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

Note that smokeless powder has been in use since about 1894 and had pretty well displaced black powder by the early years of the 1900s. Back then, virtually all guns had been made in the black powder era. Handgun ammo in the “old” calibers of that time was loaded lightly using smokeless powder in recognition of that fact, and still is even today. Chamber pressures are equivalent to or even less than the original black powder loadings of the 19th century. Regarding the “pressure spike” alleged for smokeless powder vs. none for BP, I would like to see some substantial evidence of that before I believe it. And old tales are not acceptable evidence. Has anyone ever seen a warning on a box of, say, .38 S&W ammo warning against its use in an old top break revolver? I sure haven’t.

It is not that steel production was in its infancy in 1880. But the production of large melts of consistent quality alloy steel still was.

I did try to find pressure data on the Ultramax but I could not. I found some velocity data and energy data, but not pressure data. GLOWE posted some compelling pressure data above which highlight relative low pressure of the smokeless. I had to look up CUP vs PSI. Also, GWALT raises a good point on the pressure spike argument. When you read each argument individually they are compelling, when you compare them it can be confusing. In the meantime, I am going to find myself an antique S&W expert in my area to inspect my revolver - this seems to be a great starting point while I continue to educate myself on ammunition.


If anyone happens to find or have Ultramax pressure data I would love to see it. Thanks,

I shoot Fiocchi .44 Russians in this old S&W Double Action. I haven’t tried the Ultramax, but I wouldn’t hesitate to use it should I come across some.

Attached Images

F8BBC798-04EB-44E5-99CC-44589F67E021.jpg (75.7 KB, 27 views)

__________________
Rule of law, not a man.

I have consistently seen postings regarding 32 and 38 S&W cartridges being no problem in antique guns so why is 44 different?
Are guns from the 1870's more of a problem?

That is true. The old BP cartridges which transitioned to use smokeless were lightly loaded for that reason. Many of the surviving BP-era revolvers have probably fired far more smokeless rounds than BP.

Some may be aware that the .38 Special cartridge started its life as a BP loading but transitioned to use smokeless within a couple of years. For unknown reasons, .38 Special ammunition continued to be available in factory BP loadings until the 1930s. Ballistics were about the same as today’s standard smokeless loadings.

Give them a call and report back.

Untramax Ammunition
2112 N Elk Vale Rd, Rapid City, SD 57701
Phone: (605) 342-4141

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

Several resources claim they are Permanently closed. The fire was in 2018 so they’ve been out of business since then.
The fire completely destroyed their facility.



Murph

Attached Images

	9AACA6FC-F37F-4292-AE89-263B3775EC24.jpg (24.2 KB, 19 views)
	F3498101-C63F-495F-AAC8-414DF4EC120E.jpeg (186.3 KB, 22 views)
	589165A2-4E12-4447-BD1A-A85ECF5C3CCA.jpeg (90.1 KB, 22 views)

Regarding the box of Ultramax ammo, you might consider that it now may have some collectible value given that the manufacturer has bitten the dust. As there haven't been any revolvers chambered specifically for the .44 Russian cartridge made for well over a a century, I'd have to believe that the Ultramax ammunition was manufactured to duplicate the ballistic performance of the original .44 Russian BP cartridges of the 19th Century. That performance is given as a chamber pressure of 12,000 CUP (about 15,000 PSI peak) and a MV of 750 ft/sec.

I let this post get a little old, but I never purchased the Ultramax, but did speak with Black Hills and I have some information on Black Hills 44 Russian Cowboy action. 210 gr flat nose, loaded to 10,000 PSI and 650fps. I spoke with Black Hills and they were very helpful. Said that there is no SAAMI standards on this round, and they load it to 10,000 PSI and max pressure of 15,500 PSI. They also recommended not to fire smokeless ammunition in a gun built for Black Powder.



Earlier in the thread someone posted the following example of BP Pressure. I don't know how to compare 7300 CUP to 14500 PSI and could not find in conversion calculator - it would be good to compare apples to apples to better understand. I added the Black Hills Ammo as a data point.

44 Russian
HP-38 . . . . . . . .4.2g – 200 RN . . . 763 fps . . .7,300 CUP
BP . . . . . . . . . . .20g – 246 RN . . . 750 fps . . 14,500 PSI
Black Hills Smokeless...N/A - 210 FPL..650fps..10,000 PSI (Max 15,500 PSI): SOURCE: Black Hills Technical Help Desk.



I am not familiar with the characteristics of BP - what is it about BP that avoids the SPIKE pressure and other pressure related safety concerns. Thanks again.


EDIT. I missed this snippet from Dwalt which was informative on the conversion of PSI/CUP, so it looks as though the Black Hills is loaded to the peak pressure of the original BP load.

I posted a little soon. I did speak with Buffalo Arms, who hand loads .44Russian Black Powder to original specs, but the agent I spoke with did not have these specs on hand - so no updated BP pressure statistics. I'll try to get these and post when I can. Sharing as much information as I can find.

Check here for a previous discussion of smokeless in blackpowder era firearms:

Shooting an original 2nd Model American

I've never used or owned Accurate 5744 but based on this I might in the future.

Link:Accurate 5744 Powder: Versatility in a Bottle - Gun Digest

__________________
S&WHF #946
S&WCA #3824

Buy a few boxes of the ultramax take apart and load a LIGHT BP load and have fun sell the other box to a collector to pay your way win win

That results in a blown up gun - black powder needs to be compressed a bit so there is no light loading - unless a filler is employed on top of the BP.

__________________
S&WHF #946
S&WCA #3824