Howdy everyone, I have in my possession a New Model No 3 in 44 Russian. "Restored" at some point in it's life and S&W letter claims 1186 (if I remember off the top of my head) and 1915 shipment to Japan. Now at this point smokeless 44 Russian cartridges were being loaded and probably fired in this gun. So what I'm asking is simply if smokeless cartridges were available then can I fire them now. All other threads I see only blabber on about pressure curves and frame stretch, not actually answering question. I'm a little ashamed to admit that I've already fired more than a few cylinders full of older Fiocchi smokeless out of it with no ill effect as it's reasonable to assume it's eaten smokeless before. Feel free to call me an idiot as id rather have my reckless behavior berated out of me than hurt my gun (which to the best of my knowledge hasn't happened yet) thanks guys!
New Model No.3 .44Rus smokeless or no?
- Thread starter Czvz24
- Start date
OutAtTheEdge
Well-known member
I've looked into this myself, and I'll try to summarize my conclusions as simply as I can:
1. I believe everyone who says it's okay to shoot smokeless powder loads in a New Model 3 really believes it, and a good many of them do it without problems.
2. I own one, and won't do it.
1. I believe everyone who says it's okay to shoot smokeless powder loads in a New Model 3 really believes it, and a good many of them do it without problems.
2. I own one, and won't do it.
Ivan the Butcher
Well-known member
I own Uberti modern production No 3 44 Russians. The steel in mine is about 140 years newer than yours.
I use very light smokeless loads. I have all kinds of Magnum Revolvers to scratch the "Power Itch".
Ivan
I use very light smokeless loads. I have all kinds of Magnum Revolvers to scratch the "Power Itch".
Ivan
Dave Chicoine is very likely THE expert on the topic of what are black powder (ONLY) guns, and why. The NM #3 is on the list. The list appears in his book Gunsmithing Guns of the Old West----and comments continue in Smith & Wesson Sixguns of the Old West.
His book Smith & Wesson Sixguns of the Old West contains these words which respond to your question: "Smokeless powder loads should never be considered safe to shoot in any Smith &Wesson Model No. 3 top-break revolver regardless of its caliber or date of sale." A bit later, he has this to say: "Friend, you are not only in for a huge disappointment but you are about to learn the hard way why I have so long advised so strongly against smokeless powder use in Smith & Wesson top-break revolvers."
The good news is he has a whole chapter in S&W Sixguns of the Old West titled Reloading Ammunition for the S&W Top-Break. ALL the black powder cartridges are covered in detail---as are the loading techniques required by the use of black powder.
At this point I could go on in the same theme or just stop. My experience dealing with this topic suggests the latter as the best course of action, lest we hear even more than usual from the fans of using smokeless powder in these guns. (I've already heard it aplenty.)
Ralph Tremaine
Well, what the hell! I can go on and tell you what's going to happen to your gun given sustained use of smokeless loads. What I can't tell you is what "sustained use" means in numbers. You'll know it---after it's happened. You've already mentioned it in so many words----frame stretch. Here's what that means in plain English. The front to rear dimension of the cylinder window is going to change from what it was when it left Springfield to what it has become. That portion of the frame which has stretched is the bottom (recoil shield to barrel hinge) and the top strap of the barrel. The reason is the steel used to make these guns is steel in name only----and it's the best available---at the time.
So what are the symptoms? Easy, whatever has to do with the front to rear dimension of the window: Barrel to cylinder gap, Head space, Loose latch. These dimensional changes are measured in thousandths of an inch---small numbers of thousandths, so it's nothing you're going to see with your eyes----unless you get frisky, and blow your gun into little pieces. Some of these faults are fixable, but I don't remember which. I don't remember because I don't care anymore---and I know where to look it up. (That would be Gunsmithing Guns of the Old West----and I gave my copy away to what I deemed to be a worthy young man.) And up there where I said "it's nothing you're going to see with your eyes", that ain't necessarily so-----you can see gaps where there aren't supposed to be gaps in the latch. I've seen guns that rattle when you shake them!
His book Smith & Wesson Sixguns of the Old West contains these words which respond to your question: "Smokeless powder loads should never be considered safe to shoot in any Smith &Wesson Model No. 3 top-break revolver regardless of its caliber or date of sale." A bit later, he has this to say: "Friend, you are not only in for a huge disappointment but you are about to learn the hard way why I have so long advised so strongly against smokeless powder use in Smith & Wesson top-break revolvers."
The good news is he has a whole chapter in S&W Sixguns of the Old West titled Reloading Ammunition for the S&W Top-Break. ALL the black powder cartridges are covered in detail---as are the loading techniques required by the use of black powder.
At this point I could go on in the same theme or just stop. My experience dealing with this topic suggests the latter as the best course of action, lest we hear even more than usual from the fans of using smokeless powder in these guns. (I've already heard it aplenty.)
Ralph Tremaine
Well, what the hell! I can go on and tell you what's going to happen to your gun given sustained use of smokeless loads. What I can't tell you is what "sustained use" means in numbers. You'll know it---after it's happened. You've already mentioned it in so many words----frame stretch. Here's what that means in plain English. The front to rear dimension of the cylinder window is going to change from what it was when it left Springfield to what it has become. That portion of the frame which has stretched is the bottom (recoil shield to barrel hinge) and the top strap of the barrel. The reason is the steel used to make these guns is steel in name only----and it's the best available---at the time.
So what are the symptoms? Easy, whatever has to do with the front to rear dimension of the window: Barrel to cylinder gap, Head space, Loose latch. These dimensional changes are measured in thousandths of an inch---small numbers of thousandths, so it's nothing you're going to see with your eyes----unless you get frisky, and blow your gun into little pieces. Some of these faults are fixable, but I don't remember which. I don't remember because I don't care anymore---and I know where to look it up. (That would be Gunsmithing Guns of the Old West----and I gave my copy away to what I deemed to be a worthy young man.) And up there where I said "it's nothing you're going to see with your eyes", that ain't necessarily so-----you can see gaps where there aren't supposed to be gaps in the latch. I've seen guns that rattle when you shake them!
Last edited:
Smokeless transition
You MUST have more than a 3 second attention span in order to thoroughly understand the transition to smokeless powder.
Early smokeless loads are in no way the same as today’s. NOT EVEN CLOSE.
In the 1890’s they tried using smokeless shotgun and rifle powder in pistols. That resulted in pistols heavily fouling and being damaged by pressure spikes from obstruction.
So then they tried light “semi-smokeless” loads with the exact same results since the BLACK POWDER ERA was not standardized like the modern smokeless era. By non standard we mean that one gun in say 38 S&W did not match another gun in 38 S&W manufactured from another gun maker. That is ultimately the root of the problem. NON Standard ERA. THE BLACK POWDER ERA WAS A “NON STANDARD” ERA.
Manufacturers were so frustrated with powder companies and cartridge manufacturers that they came out with a common label found for several years and During the exact same time your “smokeless” load was made. Every gun box was stamped with:
“THE WITHIN REVOLVER IS NOT ADAPTED FOR SMOKELESS USE”
THIS continued until the industry became standardized in about 1907. At that point in time a standard smokeless load was available for each caliber.
Still the “smokeless squad” insists that means antiques are part of this transition. They are not.
Very simple. Call the company that manufactures your smokeless rounds and have them answer one simple question:
Can I use your smokeless rounds in my Antique Smith and Wesson revolver? You post on the forum what they tell you.
I’ll tell you what they will say: “CRICKET, CRICKET, CRICKET”
Or, they might actually answer you with the standard line:
Our smokeless rounds are specifically designed for MODERN GUNS IN GOOD WORKING ORDER.
Any other answer from a reputable CARTRIDGE MANUFACTURING firm is an invitation to PURE LIABILITY! IN OTHER WORDS THEY ARE ASKING FOR IT!
MURPH
You MUST have more than a 3 second attention span in order to thoroughly understand the transition to smokeless powder.
Early smokeless loads are in no way the same as today’s. NOT EVEN CLOSE.
In the 1890’s they tried using smokeless shotgun and rifle powder in pistols. That resulted in pistols heavily fouling and being damaged by pressure spikes from obstruction.
So then they tried light “semi-smokeless” loads with the exact same results since the BLACK POWDER ERA was not standardized like the modern smokeless era. By non standard we mean that one gun in say 38 S&W did not match another gun in 38 S&W manufactured from another gun maker. That is ultimately the root of the problem. NON Standard ERA. THE BLACK POWDER ERA WAS A “NON STANDARD” ERA.
Manufacturers were so frustrated with powder companies and cartridge manufacturers that they came out with a common label found for several years and During the exact same time your “smokeless” load was made. Every gun box was stamped with:
“THE WITHIN REVOLVER IS NOT ADAPTED FOR SMOKELESS USE”
THIS continued until the industry became standardized in about 1907. At that point in time a standard smokeless load was available for each caliber.
Still the “smokeless squad” insists that means antiques are part of this transition. They are not.
Very simple. Call the company that manufactures your smokeless rounds and have them answer one simple question:
Can I use your smokeless rounds in my Antique Smith and Wesson revolver? You post on the forum what they tell you.
I’ll tell you what they will say: “CRICKET, CRICKET, CRICKET”
Or, they might actually answer you with the standard line:
Our smokeless rounds are specifically designed for MODERN GUNS IN GOOD WORKING ORDER.
Any other answer from a reputable CARTRIDGE MANUFACTURING firm is an invitation to PURE LIABILITY! IN OTHER WORDS THEY ARE ASKING FOR IT!
MURPH
Last edited:
Model19man
SWCA Member
The thing is, the 44 Russian cartridge is not a pipsqueek by any stretch of the imagination. If the revolver were in 32 S&W for example, maybe I would say otherwise. But for this cartridge I would say black powder is the only answer.
You made your position crystal clear at the outset---and seemingly sought support for it. The fact that no support was forthcoming should tell you something worthwhile.
With one noteworthy exception, I opine none of us here have the expertise to give you chapter and verse on the topic. We, as members of this forum, represent a vast group with widely varying knowledge and experience ranging from toddling neophytes through collectors, advanced collectors, all the way to the top---which I choose to call Students. There are but a handful of Students. Bmur (Murph) strikes me as one of those very few, who have, in the vernacular, been there and done that--------on a WIDE range of sometimes absolutely weird and obscure topics. I, for example, didn't tell you what I know about any of this--I told you what an EXPERT told us in his writings---a good thing, because I don't know diddly about it--aside from enough not to press my luck.
You are free to do whatever floats your boat, secure in your opinion no harm will come of it. I wish you well--and I'll do my best to refrain from telling you I told you so should any misfortune befall you or your gun.
Ralph Tremaine
karotipir12
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2023
- Messages
- 25
- Reaction score
- 31
Remington UMC was loading Smokeless 44 Russian back as early as 1905.
The 44 triple lock didn't come out until 1908.
If they weren't loading Smokeless 44 Russian for the S&W Model 3, then what other gun were they loading smokeless for?
The 44 triple lock didn't come out until 1908.
If they weren't loading Smokeless 44 Russian for the S&W Model 3, then what other gun were they loading smokeless for?
Last edited:
Rpg
Well-known member
I
The issue of using smokeless power in black powder cartridges comes up regularly here. Unfortunately, most folks don’t research the literature on the topic very well.
There was a very enlightening series of articles in The Double Gun Journal by Ross Seifried a number of years ago about loading old British double barrel rifles with smokeless powder. These articles were accompanied by a series of articles by Sherman Bell in which he described his efforts to blow up Damascus barreled shotguns with smokeless powder loads with measurements of pressures occasioned with smokeless and black powder. Copes of many of these articles are still available, even though the Journal is no longer being published. Double Gun Journal Index and Reader - Contains complete article, author, and subject index from 1989 to 1996 plus new articles.
To cut to the chase: those dangerous Damascus or laminated barrels are a whole lot less fragile than are commonly believed.
Even more important: loading these old black powder cartridges with smokeless can be done quite safely.
These articles debunked many of the common misconceptions about using smokeless powder in black powder cartridges.
The issue of using smokeless power in black powder cartridges comes up regularly here. Unfortunately, most folks don’t research the literature on the topic very well.
There was a very enlightening series of articles in The Double Gun Journal by Ross Seifried a number of years ago about loading old British double barrel rifles with smokeless powder. These articles were accompanied by a series of articles by Sherman Bell in which he described his efforts to blow up Damascus barreled shotguns with smokeless powder loads with measurements of pressures occasioned with smokeless and black powder. Copes of many of these articles are still available, even though the Journal is no longer being published. Double Gun Journal Index and Reader - Contains complete article, author, and subject index from 1989 to 1996 plus new articles.
To cut to the chase: those dangerous Damascus or laminated barrels are a whole lot less fragile than are commonly believed.
Even more important: loading these old black powder cartridges with smokeless can be done quite safely.
These articles debunked many of the common misconceptions about using smokeless powder in black powder cartridges.
Last edited:
Reloading
95% of the people on this forum DO NOT RELOAD. 95% of the people on this forum get in that long line at the gun show and buy their ammo and only talk about reloading and perhaps read articles about reloading but they never actually reload.
Then you have those folks that walk the show and find a half empty box of 44 Russian smokeless and show up on this forum and ask. “Hey, it is ok to shoot smokeless in my antique Smith & Wesson? I read an article that debunks the dangers of smokeless powder so ?
Unknown to this person is the half empty box of ammo belonged to a reloader who actually loaded that ammo for a modern knock off and stepped up the performance 20% to increase accuracy.
The problem with smokeless as I have mentioned many times are pressure spikes that can occur from many influences.
There is no way to get around the pressure spikes and antique pistols can’t handle those spikes. Articles about shotgun and rifle smokeless are not referring to pistols. A 12 gauge in 1870 had the same dynamics as a 12 ga in 2024. Pistols are totally different.
I’m still waiting for the smokeless cartridge manufacturer to chime in and put their reputation on the line so they can end this endless bickering about smokeless/black powder. Honestly though it will never end because the smokeless squad refuse to believe different. They don’t read posts that clarify early listings and the transition to smokeless. There are many early smokeless listings at the exact same time the gun makers were stamping the gun boxes with warnings not to use smokeless powder. You have to read further and beyond looking at pictures.
Murph
95% of the people on this forum DO NOT RELOAD. 95% of the people on this forum get in that long line at the gun show and buy their ammo and only talk about reloading and perhaps read articles about reloading but they never actually reload.
Then you have those folks that walk the show and find a half empty box of 44 Russian smokeless and show up on this forum and ask. “Hey, it is ok to shoot smokeless in my antique Smith & Wesson? I read an article that debunks the dangers of smokeless powder so ?
Unknown to this person is the half empty box of ammo belonged to a reloader who actually loaded that ammo for a modern knock off and stepped up the performance 20% to increase accuracy.
The problem with smokeless as I have mentioned many times are pressure spikes that can occur from many influences.
There is no way to get around the pressure spikes and antique pistols can’t handle those spikes. Articles about shotgun and rifle smokeless are not referring to pistols. A 12 gauge in 1870 had the same dynamics as a 12 ga in 2024. Pistols are totally different.
I’m still waiting for the smokeless cartridge manufacturer to chime in and put their reputation on the line so they can end this endless bickering about smokeless/black powder. Honestly though it will never end because the smokeless squad refuse to believe different. They don’t read posts that clarify early listings and the transition to smokeless. There are many early smokeless listings at the exact same time the gun makers were stamping the gun boxes with warnings not to use smokeless powder. You have to read further and beyond looking at pictures.
Murph
Last edited:
Incendiary
Well-known member
Here’s my two cents.
If you aren’t willing to take any risks, you shouldn’t shoot your antiques at all, period.
I would definitely not suggest buying off the shelf ammo. You don’t know what charge they are loaded with.
I firmly believe that any antique revolver or revolver made from materials known to be weaker than currently accepted standards (for firearms) should be shot with caution. EVEN WITH APPROPRIATE BLACK POWDER LOADS THINGS CAN GO WRONG. Who knows what happened to that gun in the last 100 years. Certainly not any of us.
Smokeless in 1920 was way different than smokeless in 2024 is. We have dozens of varieties too, with wildly different characteristics.
Now, having said that…if you are going to shoot your antiques, I firmly believe it is just as safe to use a low pressure, well documented smokeless load as it is to use a full power black powder load. You have to be more careful not to over load the case. But it’s probably not any more or less likely to blow up IF DONE CORRECTLY.
I would suggest rolling your own smokeless ammo based on charts and data, and with a chronograph. The type and EXACT amount of powder is very important. The difference of half a grain could be enough to permanently damage your gun or injure yourself.
DO NOT just get a Lee loader kit and fire a scoop of Unique into the case.
If you are wanting to buy factory ammo and just fire away, buy a modern gun. Or be willing to accept significantly more risk than if property handloading.
Source: I reload. I own multiple antiques. I shoot black powder and smokeless out of my shooter grade stuff.
If you aren’t willing to take any risks, you shouldn’t shoot your antiques at all, period.
I would definitely not suggest buying off the shelf ammo. You don’t know what charge they are loaded with.
I firmly believe that any antique revolver or revolver made from materials known to be weaker than currently accepted standards (for firearms) should be shot with caution. EVEN WITH APPROPRIATE BLACK POWDER LOADS THINGS CAN GO WRONG. Who knows what happened to that gun in the last 100 years. Certainly not any of us.
Smokeless in 1920 was way different than smokeless in 2024 is. We have dozens of varieties too, with wildly different characteristics.
Now, having said that…if you are going to shoot your antiques, I firmly believe it is just as safe to use a low pressure, well documented smokeless load as it is to use a full power black powder load. You have to be more careful not to over load the case. But it’s probably not any more or less likely to blow up IF DONE CORRECTLY.
I would suggest rolling your own smokeless ammo based on charts and data, and with a chronograph. The type and EXACT amount of powder is very important. The difference of half a grain could be enough to permanently damage your gun or injure yourself.
DO NOT just get a Lee loader kit and fire a scoop of Unique into the case.
If you are wanting to buy factory ammo and just fire away, buy a modern gun. Or be willing to accept significantly more risk than if property handloading.
Source: I reload. I own multiple antiques. I shoot black powder and smokeless out of my shooter grade stuff.
Last edited:
elgatodeacero
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2015
- Messages
- 72
- Reaction score
- 130
You can certainly do it once!
Incendiary
Well-known member
“Smokeless” from 1905 was very different from what you will find in the powder section of your local gun store today. There are also umpteen varieties with very different burn characteristics.
Shooting any gun from the 1800s/early 1900s with any load (smokeless or otherwise) has risks. Act accordingly.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2022
- Messages
- 686
- Reaction score
- 1,122
Hi There,
Exactly right! Many varieties of "smokeless" powder that were
common in 1900 don't exist anymore. There were "bulk" powders
that were black powder substitutes a were loaded like black
powder (by volume, like Pyrodex) that contained a mixture of
Nitrated Cellulose (sawdust) and other things.
Cheers!
Webb
Exactly right! Many varieties of "smokeless" powder that were
common in 1900 don't exist anymore. There were "bulk" powders
that were black powder substitutes a were loaded like black
powder (by volume, like Pyrodex) that contained a mixture of
Nitrated Cellulose (sawdust) and other things.
Cheers!
Webb
Questionnaire
New member
- Joined
- May 13, 2024
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
There definitely is a way to get around the pressure spike(*). People for some reason think that black powder is like a gentle massage while smokeless is like a right hook from Mike Tyson. In BP handguns rounds psi can range anywhere from 4-12k psi depending on grain size, compression, and of course the powder charge and case volume, for bp rifles this can be even higher. For example, the colt SAA original bp load generated a mind blowing 624 foot pounds out of a 7.5 inch barrel which makes even modern 45acp look anemic by comparison. Now, it doesn't matter how flat the burn rate curve is for bp, you aren't getting that much power out of a 45 lc bullet from 4,6 or even 8000 psi without breaking the laws of physics or having a much longer barrel.
For pressure curves you can get pretty close to BP with reduced loads of medium burn rate pistol powder like unique or n330 and get nicely rounded pressure peaks of 8000psi with close to 300 foot pounds of energy. Like earlier posted, it isn't inherently dangerous to put smokeless powder in a bp gun, however due to the progressive burn rate of smokeless powder if you try for the same performance as BP you will get higher peak pressures and likely damage your gun which is why you have to go for lighter loads and be precise in your reloading.
For top break revolvers specifically, I reload for the 1887 webley mark 1 and with my reloading calc I keep the peak pressure to a very Conservative 7000 psi and 200ftp even though it's been proof marked for 13000psi of a nitro load when it was exported and have not experienced any ill effects.
Military trials
Welcome to the forum,
I’m not sure where you are getting your performance on the 45 Colt black powder round from? Please post your source.
I have the original Military trials documented from the early 1870’s when Colt was competing with other gun makers for the contract of pistols for the military. The original load during the trials was a duplex load totaling 40 grains. Later commercial loads would be FFG. However during the trials they were using an “experimental load” of FFFG with a possible primer load of FFFFG to heat up the round for the trials and impress the generals.
If you look at the photo posted? You’ll notice the max FPS listed by the military was 986 with 539 foot pounds of energy.
That’s the MAX READING FROM AN EXPERIMENTAL LOAD. They also later determined that this load was TOO HOT and replaced it with a common sense FFG load which brought the performance down to realistic and sustainable readings.
Also, PRESSURE SPIKES, can not be avoided using smokeless powder unless you clean the gun after every shot. Any obstruction can and actually does cause a spike in pressure. Modern guns can handle this but antiques can’t without eventual damage.
It’s not about the time pressure curve, or the formula, it’s about changes that occur from shooting any gun that involves fouling, residue, leading, and any form of obstruction. Smokeless or “nitro” powder doesn’t appreciate it and responds aggressively to any form of obstruction or delay in the bullet leaving the bore.
I can’t explain it any clearer than that. A time/pressure curve is meaningless using “nitro powder” when any form of obstruction is introduced. Often with antiques it’s as simple as corrosion in the 130 year old antique black powder bore. Rust and scum that has developed over a long period of time. “That’s an obstruction”!! It only gets worse from there.
Murph
Welcome to the forum,
I’m not sure where you are getting your performance on the 45 Colt black powder round from? Please post your source.
I have the original Military trials documented from the early 1870’s when Colt was competing with other gun makers for the contract of pistols for the military. The original load during the trials was a duplex load totaling 40 grains. Later commercial loads would be FFG. However during the trials they were using an “experimental load” of FFFG with a possible primer load of FFFFG to heat up the round for the trials and impress the generals.
If you look at the photo posted? You’ll notice the max FPS listed by the military was 986 with 539 foot pounds of energy.
That’s the MAX READING FROM AN EXPERIMENTAL LOAD. They also later determined that this load was TOO HOT and replaced it with a common sense FFG load which brought the performance down to realistic and sustainable readings.
Also, PRESSURE SPIKES, can not be avoided using smokeless powder unless you clean the gun after every shot. Any obstruction can and actually does cause a spike in pressure. Modern guns can handle this but antiques can’t without eventual damage.
It’s not about the time pressure curve, or the formula, it’s about changes that occur from shooting any gun that involves fouling, residue, leading, and any form of obstruction. Smokeless or “nitro” powder doesn’t appreciate it and responds aggressively to any form of obstruction or delay in the bullet leaving the bore.
I can’t explain it any clearer than that. A time/pressure curve is meaningless using “nitro powder” when any form of obstruction is introduced. Often with antiques it’s as simple as corrosion in the 130 year old antique black powder bore. Rust and scum that has developed over a long period of time. “That’s an obstruction”!! It only gets worse from there.
Murph
Attachments
Last edited:
This says it better
Without going too far into the dynamics?
The photo depicts two S&W 38 cal topbreaks in my collection. When you eyeball the bores they actually look quite similar. Both have visibly strong rifling and actually look/ appear shootable. Both antique revolvers are in overall excellent condition.
However, after slugging the bores you can clearly see that the left bullet reflects a NON SHOOTABLE BORE. By non shootable I mean not safe to discharge. Especially with a smokeless load.
The bullet clearly shows corrosion evidence from heavy scratching of the lead as it passed through the bore. Using smokeless powder in this bore will most definitely spike the pressure due to heavy residue and resistance from the corrosion in the bore resulting in more pressure generated by smokeless powder. The lead left in the bore after firing would only get worse with every round fired.
This represents only one of many problems with using smokeless powder in antique firearms.
The bullet on the right is the rare exception. When you slug modern firearms the bullet on the right is what is normally found.
Murph
Without going too far into the dynamics?
The photo depicts two S&W 38 cal topbreaks in my collection. When you eyeball the bores they actually look quite similar. Both have visibly strong rifling and actually look/ appear shootable. Both antique revolvers are in overall excellent condition.
However, after slugging the bores you can clearly see that the left bullet reflects a NON SHOOTABLE BORE. By non shootable I mean not safe to discharge. Especially with a smokeless load.
The bullet clearly shows corrosion evidence from heavy scratching of the lead as it passed through the bore. Using smokeless powder in this bore will most definitely spike the pressure due to heavy residue and resistance from the corrosion in the bore resulting in more pressure generated by smokeless powder. The lead left in the bore after firing would only get worse with every round fired.
This represents only one of many problems with using smokeless powder in antique firearms.
The bullet on the right is the rare exception. When you slug modern firearms the bullet on the right is what is normally found.
Murph
Attachments
Last edited:
Similar threads
