.320 REVOLVING RIFLE “RANGE TEST”

[BMur]

I have wanted to test out my .320 Revolving rifle but did not want to mold bullets from a very expensive original Revolving Rifle Mold. Photo 1
Been waiting for a 32 IDEAL MOLD to show up. One finally did. Photo’s 2&3,4.
So I plan on using the same case that I used for shooting a target 32-44. The 32/20 WCF using a mouth expander to size up to .323.
Photo 5.
The case won’t be able to handle the original 17 grains of black powder but I’m pretty sure I can get 15 grains into the case with the longer bullet. I expect to see some excellent accuracy from the longer 115 grain Ideal rifle bullet. The design specs match the Revolving Rifle perfectly.

We shall see. I still have to mold bullets and run one down the barrel to prove the bore specs so not quite there yet. I also need to do a little more research on the cartridge specs. I want to get as close as possible to original design.

Murph

 

[S&W ucla]

Now that's pretty cool! Looking forward to the range test. I always wondered how they would shoot. Be interesting to chrono the loads. Good luck!

 

[mrcvs]

Now this is NEAT! I can’t wait for the range report. In the meantime, how about some photographs of your .320 Revolving Rifle?

 

[BMur]

Hurtles

I have a few hurtles to get past that requires some research.

Tomorrow I’m doing a lot of bullet molding so I will include the 32 Ideal bullet. I’ll cast about 50 and if I have time I’ll run one down the tube and post the results.

The hurtles I have to get past involves mainly the modern case.

The 32/20 WCF cases I am using are modern Smokeless solid head type with a .082 flash hole. That won’t work with a black powder load. It least it won’t work “as originally designed.”

All of the early black powder pistol and rifle cases have much bigger flash holes. As an example an 1884 45 Schofield balloon head black powder case has a flash hole that is huge measuring .126.

Where as a Standard Size Modern 45 smokeless case has a standard flash hole that measures about .082. Significant difference that would impact performance greatly down range.

I’m probably going to have to guess at what size to increase the .082 32/20 cases to over .100… no idea what the original .320 Revolving Rifle case flash hole was but I need to get close so the performance is correct and therefore accuracy performance will be as originally designed.

Probably have to open up an original black powder small caliber rifle case and mic it. That’s gonna hurt.

This test will also include “ THE DREADED” forearm “Flash” from being in proximity of the cylinder face when gripping the fore stock. Rumored to be an issue when shooting the Revolving Rifle. I plan on wearing a healthy leather glove and wrap a “WHITE CLOTH” around my left forearm to see if in fact there is impact from discharge at the forearm area. If it turns black we’ll know. I always lube my bullets so lead spit shouldn’t be part of the equation.

Murph

 

[BMur]

Photos

Now this is NEAT! I can’t wait for the range report. In the meantime, how about some photographs of your .320 Revolving Rifle?

I have 2 Ian. My much better example is staying in the safe. When I get a chance I’ll post photos.


Murph

 

[BMur]

Photo

I forgot I have this photo on my phone from the original auction. I’ve worked on it since then and I’ll post more later in the week.

Murph

 

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,

"All of the early black powder pistol and rifle cases have much bigger flash holes. As an example an 1884 45 Schofield balloon head black powder case has a flash hole that is huge measuring .126."


I took apart a couple .44 American cartridges (Winchester) and
they have a flash hole of .081" (to the best of my ability to measure).
These are black powder balloon head cartridges but I cannot tell
you exactly when they were made. Probably after 1900 but before
WW I.

I read something the other day and it made me sit up and take
notice. In Smith & Wesson American Model In U.S. and Foreign
Service by Charles Pate, pg. 319:

"Mercury Fulminate, usually with ground glass added, was commonly
used as the priming compound for black powder cartridges. Potassium
chlorate compounds were adopted initially for smokeless powder
since the earlier mixture wasn't hot enough to provide good ignition ..."

(Emphasis added)

That seems back arse-ward to the current thinking about igniting
black powder cartridges.


Cheers!
Webb

 

[BMur]

Flash hole specs

Thanks much Webb for looking at those balloon head cases.


Balloon head cases were actually used well into the smokeless era so a reloaded smokeless case to black powder load is very probable.

The early Black powder cases do have huge flash holes on those that date to the late 1800’s. I have Frankford Arsenal dated dug up Schofield cases from 1884 that are huge. They may have been reloaded by the military but those flash holes are original.

Errors in reloading are very common and mixing smokeless cases with black powder loads is also very common. There are no charts that I am aware of that list proper flash hole diameter for obsolete black powder caliber pistol cases from the 1800’s.

I’m sure a modern primer would likely do a better job at ignition than an older centerfire primer but the improvements made in the 1880’s with primer designs were pretty reliable. It was the corrosive black powder that was the problem in the early copper cases. US Military records and their extensive tests proved the early copper cased black powder rounds would start to fail after only two years in dry storage.

My motivation is to make sure I obtain the best performance I can get from this black powder load. The cylinder chambers are very thick along with the barrel/ forcing cone. I’m confident this well built antique revolving rifle can handle it without issue. So I’m not in the least worried about pressure. What I’m concerned with is the lack there of.


Murph

 

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,


One thing more about the Winchester cases is the black powder
in them looks to be FFg (instead of FFFg). I haven't measured the
amount yet but I'm not sure I can get an accurate figure because
there is a fair amount of powder that has become attached to the
area inside the case in the balloon recess. I don't know if this is caused
by contamination from the primers or some other factor I cannot
identify. All I can say is the base of the bullet shows some oxidation
(white lead corrosion). I don't know if this is from being in contact
with the black powder or something else.

These are over 100 years old and prolong contact with the chemicals
in there is certainly enough to cause some reactions; I would think.
This is the reason I questioned people that say they have compared
"smokeless" loads to "original" black powder loads without proper
testing of the components.

And BTW, Potassium Chlorate was replaced with other priming mixtures
(like Lead azide or lead styphnate) because the Chlorate compound
when burnt produces chloride salts that cause rusting of the bore
and this chloride salt would get into the microscopic pores of the barrel
and was difficult to remove completely in normal cleaning.

At that time, the U.S. Military, adopted a two step cleaning regiment
to deal with the problem (that is, clean the bore in the normal way
and then again 24 hours later). It took a chemist (whose name
escapes me right now) to finally determine the cause and the
ammunition industry changed the priming formulas accordingly
(sometime in the mid to late Twenties). The Lead based primers
are the ones Remington used and marketed as "Kleanbore."


Cheers!
Webb

 

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,

The early Black powder cases do have huge flash holes on those that date to the late 1800’s. I have Frankford Arsenal dated dug up Schofield cases from 1884 that are huge. They may have been reloaded by the military but those flash holes are original.

One thought comes to mind. Seeing that the Potassium Chlorate
primers were considered "hotter" than the old Mercury Fulminate
primers, they may have reasoned that the smaller flash hole was
adequate when using these "hotter" primers.

Of course the current theory is black powder requires a larger flash
hole for proper ignition. I've been opening the flash hole in my .44
Russian cases to .090" and using Federal Magnum large pistol primers
for the black powder cartridges I make for my NM#3 Target gun.



Cheers!
Webb

 

[BMur]

Case comparison

I found a few balloon head 44WCF cases and compared them to the 1884 Schofield black powder case.(Photos)

The 44 WCF is actually an early smokeless balloon head case. Significant difference so I plan on increasing the flash hole of the 32/20 modern cases 20% for the Revolving Rifle black powder loads.

It’s a guess on my part. I’ll look through some old manuals that I have later tonight but I don’t recall ever reading information about flash hole sizes for antique cases based on caliber, powder type, load, etc.

Murph

 

[BMur]

Lead casting

Finished casting. I was able to save 60 of the 75 bullets cast.
See photos

The tool actually cast really well. These Ideal tools get pretty hot but I wear double layer leather gloves so it wasn’t bad at all. Pretty fast too.

They came out overall excellent. Weigh in at 120 grains which is a little heavier than I thought they’d be but it will work.

I’ll slug the Revolving Rifle later tonight.

Murph

 

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,


I found a UMC .44 American BP cartridge and I pulled the bullet
and de-primed the case. The interesting part is the flash hole is
even smaller than the WRA case. This case's flash hole measured
.063" and uses a smaller primer. See pics.

I agree you should increase the flash hole but I suggest you should
be conservative and increase the hole only by 10% at first.
You can always increase the hole if you find it is still too small.


Cheers,
Webb

 

[BMur]

10%

Ok Webb,
I’ll go along with that. 10% it is.

I’m waiting for the sun to get off my work shop. I’m ok up to about 93 but once it’s over 95 I’m done.

I’ll slug the bore when the sun quits!

That’s really odd about that American cartridge. Likely originated as a very light smokeless load.

Murph

 

[BMur]

Slugged and photo’d

First the RR overall condition;

It’s actually in Antique Fine condition.

All matching, about 60% original nickel, action is excellent with rebounding hammer. Which is odd.
The stocks, forearm, and extension are excellent. I will address the nickel finish after this shooting test. That’s right down my alley. When I get finished with this RR it will be in high grade condition and you won’t be able to tell it’s been restored.

Slugging:

The photo’d cast slug actually mics at .325 which is perfect for slugging a documented .323 bore.

Readings: The slug after slugging mics at .322 outside diameter and .311 land diameter which confirms the rifling is in excellent condition. You can also see from the slug a very smooth drive ban which signifies no pitting in the bore.

From my experience these kind of readings equal an extremely accurate combination. So the gun can easily shoot 1 min of accuracy at 50 yards. Likely further. The error or errors will be associated with the final cartridge load and of course the shooter.

You can see from the photo of the slug next to the cast bullet the importance of slugging a bore and sizing bullets to match. The oversized slug elongated a lot! If shot it would spit lead and result in poor accuracy down range. It’s also dangerous since chunks can be left within the bore leaving an obstruction for the next round fired.

So I have some more work to do with the cast bullets before I load them up. No biggie, this is the fun part.

Murph

 

[Muley Gil]

Thanks much Webb for looking at those balloon head cases.


Balloon head cases were actually used well into the smokeless era so a reloaded smokeless case to black powder load is very probable.

The early Black powder cases do have huge flash holes on those that date to the late 1800’s. I have Frankford Arsenal dated dug up Schofield cases from 1884 that are huge. They may have been reloaded by the military but those flash holes are original.

Errors in reloading are very common and mixing smokeless cases with black powder loads is also very common. There are no charts that I am aware of that list proper flash hole diameter for obsolete black powder caliber pistol cases from the 1800’s.

I’m sure a modern primer would likely do a better job at ignition than an older centerfire primer but the improvements made in the 1880’s with primer designs were pretty reliable. It was the corrosive black powder that was the problem in the early copper cases. US Military records and their extensive tests proved the early copper cased black powder rounds would start to fail after only two years in dry storage.

My motivation is to make sure I obtain the best performance I can get from this black powder load. The cylinder chambers are very thick along with the barrel/ forcing cone. I’m confident this well built antique revolving rifle can handle it without issue. So I’m not in the least worried about pressure. What I’m concerned with is the lack there of.


Murph

Black powder is not corrosive, if kept dry. I have been shooting BP for over 50 years and I have owned a number of older BP cans, made of steel, with no rust inside.

I'm guessing the old BP rounds failed for the Army due to the priming compound, the sealing of the rounds, storage or a combination of the above.

 

[BMur]

Corrosion

I haven’t researched the exact cause of early black powder cartridge failure. I do know that the problem was reduced greatly with the change from copper based cases to brass but it was not eliminated. The rounds just lasted longer.

It is some type of chemical reaction that takes place when mixing lead, black powder, primer, and copper or later brass casing.

I have a few antique copper cases that are literally rotting from the inside out right where the black powder resides. So black powder is a major player in the decay or chemical reaction taking place.

Webbs post of pulling a bullet on an old black powder case and witnessing the decay within the case is common only when associated with black powder loads. Smokeless powder does not normally show such decay.

My guess would be moisture getting by the lead bullet after long term storage that initiates the reaction. The U. S. Army did not have great dry storage in the 1800’s.


Murph

 

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,


It looks like you are progressing right along. I will offer a suggestion.
All that you say about accuracy is correct but I will add that the base
of the bullet plays a significant roll in accurate shooting.

A flat base bullet produces better accuracy. If the base isn't flat,
then one side of the bullet will clear the end of the barrel first and
the gases will exit at that point which will potentially cock the
bullet as it leaves the barrel. The bullets you've shown look slightly
deformed at the base. I don't know if this is a fault of the mold or
or the mold wasn't hot enough to let the lead alloy fully fill out
the mold. I use a 40 to 1 lead/tin mix so my bullets are soft but
being nearly all lead, requires a temp of 800°F to 830°F to fully
fill out the mold (depending on size and shape). Using Lyman #2
alloy will require less temp (about 50°F to 100°F less) but will be
less ductile (i.e. not as soft).

Getting back to flash hole size, I had an idea that might be of help.
Depending on how many cartridges you are going to make, you
could make, say 6 with a 10% oversized flash hole. and then
another 6 with a 20% oversized hole and another 6 with a 25%
oversized hole. You can continue this up to the maximum size you
wish to try. Then you judge which ones seem to work the best for
you. Six of each type isn't that much for testing but it may give
you an indication which combination create the least amount of
fowling (which will be an indication of complete burning of the charge).

Anyway, it was just a thought and worth every penny you payed
for it (i.e. nothing).


Cheers!
Webb

 

[BMur]

Cases

Thanks Webb,
Yes, I agree the base is important. I include that process after sizing to reduce weight to match each lead bullet I normally remove lead from the base which flattens it at the same time.

Unfortunately, I only have 12 cases ( ready) of 32/20 WCF left to work with. I’m going to a gun show Saturday so maybe I’ll find some more. Wish me luck. If I can find a bag of them I will definitely try different techniques. It really is all theory since I’m not using an original balloon head case to begin with but I’m confident at 50 yards my load should perform well.

The RR has a two stage rear sight or what we use to call a flip sight that is normally dialed in for 50 & 100 yards. This round in my opinion won’t produce enough velocity for 100 yard accuracy. I have to wait to see how much powder I can get into the case.

I’ve also been contemplating center drilling the base of the lead to add a few grains of powder but that’s just the marbles rolling around.

Murph

 

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,


"Yes, I agree the base is important. I include that process after sizing to reduce weight to match each lead bullet I normally remove lead from the base which flattens it at the same time."

Then you'll have this point covered.

"Unfortunately, I only have 12 cases ( ready) of 32/20 WCF left to work with. I’m going to a gun show Saturday so maybe I’ll find some more. Wish me luck. If I can find a bag of them I will definitely try different techniques. It really is all theory since I’m not using an original balloon head case to begin with but I’m confident at 50 yards my load should perform well. "

.32-20 brass seems to be "out-of-stock" at most places but Midway
list this size "in stock" at $28.99 per 100 (if this is of interest to you).

"I’ve also been contemplating center drilling the base of the lead to add a few grains of powder but that’s just the marbles rolling around."

Considering the bullets you plan to use are slightly oversized, the
hollow base will be of little help in sealing the bore but will add
a little to the volume of the charge and reduce the weight some.
But you could shorten the bullets a little more to reduce the weight
too. You just don't want to shorten the bullet and have the base
end up in one of the lubrication grooves (but you already knew this).

Keep it up and post your results. We're all interested in how this
comes out.


Cheers!
Webb