32 Bicycle Box With "WE DO NOT GUARANTEE WITH SMOKELESS"

[BMur]

Hand ejector damage

The early hand ejectors are often found damaged from smokeless use. The most common being a blown/ cracked forcing cone. Lady Smiths, 32's, and 38 special all suffered.
It was only one chapter of many that suffered during the transition to smokeless. The last photo is a beefed up forcing cone to correct the problem.
I mentioned in a previous post that early manuals sometimes listed too heavy a charge for the earlier guns. The photos show the most common damage. It took many years to correct the problems all amounting to strengthening the guns weak points.

Murph

 

[tarro3220]

The early hand ejectors are often found damaged from smokeless use. The most common being a blown/ cracked forcing cone. Lady Smiths, 32's, and 38 special all suffered.

I mentioned in a previous post that early manuals sometimes listed too heavy a charge for the earlier guns. The photos show the most common damage. It took many years to correct the problems all amounting to strengthening the guns weak points.

I know about people mistakenly damaging ladysmiths from firing 22lr instead of 22 S&W or 22 long.
And any bad reload can damage a quality gun.

But how come I've never heard anyone warn against shooting factory remington or winchester 38 special smokeless loads in 1899's and 1902's hand ejectors? Those would've both been designed before the 1905 hand ejector, which is around when smokeless started being approved.


The standard catalog of S&W has warnings against firing modern 22lr in the ladysmiths, but only warns against firing +P 38 specials in the 1899's and 1902, and says to stick with standard pressure 38 special.

 

[BMur]

Simple solutions?

It's much more complex of a problem that took place for a significant amount of time to offer a black and white response.

Example: photo 1 that I previously posted was not a singular event. This forcing cone hung on for a while before bursting. You can see the hot flash damage to the face of the cone. It took many rounds that were too hot to cause the ultimate failure.

Question: What is a standard 38 Special load? I can list dozens of standard 38 special smokeless loads. Even factory loads vary for this caliber. Pressures also vary tremendously based on a huge variance in powder, bullet selection, seating depth, lubricant, etc.

When reloading you will read warnings from the publisher that suggests "caution" with many standard loads.Typically stating to watch out for signs of excessive pressure with higher powder loads. You don't need a P+ load to achieve excessive pressure with smokeless powder. You only need the right combination of powder, bullet weight, seating depth, primer selection, and likely the lack of correct lubricant backed up with some leading at the forcing cone to achieve "excessive pressure".

So simply stating " Standard smokeless loads" actually doesn't cover it. They can still introduce excessive pressure and cause damage.

A Target load or Standard load for 38 Special might be 2.5 grains of Bullseye powder behind a 147 grain pure lead Wadcutter lubricated with beeswax and touched off with a small Remington primer. That load is the only smokeless load I use for my early M&P 38. Dates to 1901.

My later 1956 38 special with beefy frame and cylinder I often use 3.2 grains of bullseye powder behind a 158 grain SWC soft lubed and touched off with a CCI primer. I would never use this load in my 1901 M&P but that is one of many standard 38 Specail loads and could actually be the cause of the damage seen in the photo.
A standard load that's Too hot for the early M&P.


Murph

 

[Boulder350]

The letter arrived a few days ago for this revolver. The letter says it shipped November 11, 1898. Since the box is numbered to the gun, probably originally, its pretty safe to say this is the time the factory was stamping their boxes with the warning.

The letter also states it was one of the first 2" barreled guns shipped. I looked at my records and I have found 32, 32 safety hammerless guns so far that currently wear a 2" barrel. The lowest is serial number found so far is 86031, the gun that started this thread, and up to serial number 242709. Does anyone have an 1st model gun with a 2" barrel and a lower serial number?

 

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,


In post #21, BMur shows pics of several forms of damage done
by using smokeless ammo in early S&W's. My vision isn't the
best but I don't see what is wrong with the last pic in the series
of four. Please educate me.


Cheer,
Webb

 

[ralph7]

Hi There,


In post #21, BMur shows pics of several forms of damage done
by using smokeless ammo in early S&W's. My vision isn't the
best but I don't see what is wrong with the last pic in the series
of four. Please educate me.


Cheer,
Webb

Gladly, sir.
This sentence is in the text above the photos...

The last photo is a beefed up forcing cone to correct the problem.

 

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,

Gladly, sir.
This sentence is in the text above the photos...

Thank you. I find reading computer screens difficult and I tend
to speed-read them (especially when they are lengthy). I just
missed it.


Cheers,
Webb