have a few question regarding an early smith & wesson 44 double action first model re

[Bryan Austin]

The best method to research is to always begin and build based on fact. Patent reference is documented fact it's not opinion.

Antique cartridge boxes are pure guess as to when a specific label was produced and in what specific year. Early boxes lack lot numbers so we can only speculate year of production. I'm not saying the dates aren't close but I am saying that they are not exact.

I can reference factually antique firearms that were manufactured for only 1 year and discontinued due to a significant flaw found in the design. Usually accompanied by an improvement to eliminate the flaw. So a cartridge design flaw is very possible and an improvement introduced is extremely likely to eliminate that flaw in a very short period of time.

I have a cartridge patent reference book that is full of cartridge design improvements from 1869-1882. I mean a huge number attempting to perfect the centerfire design and primer pocket. This early time of cartridge manufacture was filled with issues that needed improvement.


Murph

No need to debate any further here on the 44 Double Action topic, it is what it is and as soon as an example is found, I will edit my material, until then....there is no 44-40 folded head case other than the very short lived Milbank Primed case. I was told there was no Dupont powder keg data "wrappers" and I found one. Doesn't mean they didn't exist, just want more evidence....and again, for now more evidence debunks rather than supports.

44-40 Folded Head Cases - #5 by SavvyJack - General Ammunition Discussion - International Ammunition Association Web Forum

If you want to talk about this more, chime in over at the link I provided.

Feel free to leave the last word ;-)

 

[superdave269]

I love the way this thread has developed. Thanks for adding all the information regarding LBH & the development of the 44-40. I have a long time interest in these areas.

[/IMG]

 

[BMur]

Original "Factory" loads

I forgot that I had this "Factory" recommended loading data from a Smith & Wesson Catalog circa 1892.

Notice that basically all calibers higher than 32 cal were loaded with FFG powder. Not FFFG!

The only exception is the reduced Gallery/ball load and the 38-44 Target load.

Murph

 

[handejector]

I can't believe you guys don't recognize those Jay Scott plastic pearl grips! They made black and white pearl, stag, and ivory out of PLASTIC with the wood backers.
Google em!
jay scott grips - Google Search

The 44 Frontiers I have owned usually lack a caliber mark.
The Op's gun is refinished, possibly by the Factory.
I can't tell from his pic if the extractor is blue or white.


Here is a neat old original 4", not cut. The grips are original and numbered to the gun. It had no caliber mark even though it is #7252. I do not remember if I checked the extractor for a serial number, but it is white.

 

[Bryan Austin]

BMur

After further correspondence with Guy Hildebrand, I have updated the UMC portion of the website to reflect the probability of the folded head cases used by UMC. With the design of the Orcutt primer, I feel confident (not that my opinion counts...lol) that in order to use the Orcutt primer, the primer pocket in solid head cases would probably be too deep. Thus, the correct folded head, Orcutt primer design sketch by Randy should give enough evidence.


However, since Winchester patented their own primer by 1874, I am keeping that data as is.

Like I said, I am Teachable!!

I had completely forgotten that I had started updating that page a while back when Guy first contacted me about the 44 Remington (44-40) cartridges.

44-40, Chasing UMC's Folded Head cases.

 

[BMur]

Patents vs Cartridge ID?

Bryan,

The point I was trying to make is that it's literally impossible to identify cartridges by patent holder prior to head stamping. So many were approved from 1869-1882. Many inventors are listed during that period.

When we apply an open mind here? How exactly can you verify who's patent was being used and who manufactured the case in question when the head is "NOT MARKED"?

Look at the 5 patent drawings from 1869-1872. These are my random picks from my cartridge patent book. Can you identify the patent holder? They are extremely similar to me. How do we confirm a Milbank primer exactly?

Each one of these photo'd patents are not Milbanks patent. They are other inventors.

Do you see my point?

Now let's plug in UMC, Winchester, US Cartridge Co, Peters, American, etc etc. I can't see how you can positively identify any cartridges Pre-1884 except for marked military cases etc. or obvious singular style primers. Even the Bennett primer has look alike designs.

Some of the patent drawings appear to me as exact duplicates of the Milbank patent drawing photo of 1870 That I posted.

These are all folded head cases as well. So how many folded head cases were manufactured before the solid head? An open mind?
Unknown!!

Murph

 

[Bryan Austin]

Bryan,

The point I was trying to make is that it's literally impossible to identify cartridges by patent holder prior to head stamping. So many were approved from 1869-1882. Many inventors are listed during that period.

Not for the 44-40 (44WCF) in those very early 1873-1880 years. You have a small handful of patented primers. One 44-40 cartridge I have been looking at may have been manufactured by USCCo using a Farrington primer. When I purchased it, I was told it was a WRACo. cartridge made out of Gelding metal....nope, not WRACo., and more than likely not UMC. USCCo was known for using such metal at the time, as well as the Farrington primer....but I have not looked into it any further.

When we apply an open mind here? How exactly can you verify who's patent was being used and who manufactured the case in question when the head is "NOT MARKED"?

I said I was teachable, I didn't say how easy! Again, we are talking 44-40 here....I could care less about any other's except for maybe the 45 Colt cartridges of those unheadstamped early years. (see image below).

Look at the 5 patent drawings from 1869-1872. These are my random picks from my cartridge patent book. Can you identify the patent holder? They are extremely similar to me. How do we confirm a Milbank primer exactly?

Each one of these photo'd patents are not Milbanks patent. They are other inventors.

Do you see my point?

Which of those were NOT used with the 44-40 cartridges? Do you see my point?

Primers used in Winchester's 44-40 cartridges
44-40 Cartridge History - Google Sheets
.
.
.
The First Winchester 73's sn1 thru 37
I doubt seriously Oliver Winchester waited until after his primer patent of July 1874', before using them in his Winchester 44 cartridges.
.
.
.

 

[Bryan Austin]

Another item I have been slowly working on are the primer dates between Winchester and UMC, which can be seen here: 44-40 Cartridge History - Google Sheets

If you would like to contribute your primer patent knowledge, it would be greatly appreciated.

 

[BMur]

Work cut out for you

Well Bryan,
You have a lot of work to do. I looked more deeply into my patent research and found the following:

1869:
Over 30 approved patents for centerfire primer/case design improvements by 30 different inventors. All folded head cases.

1870:
13 approved patents for centerfire primer/case design improvements by 13 different inventors. All folded head cases.

1871: Start seeing the same inventors applying for improvements to their existing patents. 24 total patents approved in that year. All folded head cases.

Also: I found I. Milbank actually had 6 approved patents for his primer/cartridge design. The following:

August 1869
May 1871
January 1872
February 1872
April 1872
September 1872

So, from now on if we refer to the Milbank cartridge/Primer we will need to know which patent you are referring to.

Also, focused research on the 44-40 is not possible since all of these patents that I listed. (By the way, this is not a complete listing. Only until 1872) All of these patents "DO NOT" refer to a specific caliber. Therefore, they are relevant to all centerfires.

So, you could actually find any one of these patent designs in early "non head stamped" cases. The problem like I have been trying to get across is "identifying" the cases. Who made them and which of the 84 patents from 1869-1872 are we talking about?

Milbank alone had 6 patent improvements.


Murph

 

[Bryan Austin]

All depends on which patent 44-40 ammunition manufactures decided to use and since I am focused on just two and maybe three, it is pretty easy, actually, to determine which primers were used. It is much harder to find examples than it is to identify them.

Not really giving a rats rear-end what manor changes were made to each patent, especially to a primer that was basically not even used, if ever, in production.

So here ,once again, what I am trying to get you to understand is I am only interested in Winchester and UMC ammunition manufactures ONLY, I could care less of any others.....which is why I replied to this topic in the first place.....on a Smith & Wesson forum.

Winchester used the Milbank primer for a very, extremely short time during 1873. There were only about 16 rifles delivered before then end of 1873. The first being ordered and delivered on Sept 26th. How much ammo was needed for 16 Winchester Model 1873' rifles manufactured and delivered between Sept and Dec 1873? Seriously?

Luckily for me, Oliver Winchester was approved his own primer seven months later, patented July 14th, 1874...(1878 Gardner patent, an employee)..so it is relatively easy to identify unheadstamped WRACo. cases with Winchester's patented primers. But of course, one must dissect the cartridge. Winchester also used 200gr bullets while UMC used 217gr bullets, and USCCo. maybe 210gr bullets, so again it is not that difficult to identify the manufacturer of 44-40 unheadstamped cartridges.

UMC's primer used for the earliest 44-40's would be the Orcutt primer with "Octagonal" disk as early as 1873 or 1874, which was not "Patented" until March 10th, 1874. see attached photo

Interestingly enough, nearly four times the seating depth as the Wesson primer, the Orcutt primers in the Tin in the attached photo....while the tin label only lists the Hobbs/Orcutt October 24th, 1871 patent, the primers have the improved octagonal disks that were covered by the Hobbs March 10, 1874 patent...which were the same primers found in cases used in the UMC 1873/74 cartridges.


All of this has been educational and you have certainly made me dive deep into my brain, however bit shallow the water really is in there, but it is not that difficult to identify the timeframe of a 44-40 cartridge by the primers used in the cases I have an interest in. Also to note that these manufactures also used different weight lead bullets. Again, Winchester-200gr, UMC-217gr and USCCo.-maybe 210gr. These manufactures/patent holders were tuff on their patents and sued in a heartbeat if trespassed. I have a handful of unheadstamped cases that I will never be able to date because they came to me with no primers and no bullets.

As always, the data will be updated as new reliable data dictates.

I can not post all of my information here, so here is a link to the data I have collected so far. I don't think you will be disappointed.
.
.
.
.
.

 

[superdave269]

Since you fine gentlemen are far more knowledgeable than me on the old ammo subject I hope someone can tell me when the 45long Colt was first loaded with smokeless powder. I have a box of Colt model 1909 ammo that states smokeless but they are not truly 45LC.
Anyone know when Frankford Arsenal first loaded 45 with smokeless powder? I didn't realize that this question would be so hard to pin down. Even looked at some old early 1900's catalogs.
I would appreciate any help on this.

 

[Bryan Austin]

Since you fine gentlemen are far more knowledgeable than me on the old ammo subject I hope someone can tell me when the 45long Colt was first loaded with smokeless powder. I have a box of Colt model 1909 ammo that states smokeless but they are not truly 45LC.
Anyone know when Frankford Arsenal first loaded 45 with smokeless powder? I didn't realize that this question would be so hard to pin down. Even looked at some old early 1900's catalogs.
I would appreciate any help on this.

UMC catalog lists the new 45 Colt smokeless load from 1 sept 1896, through the 1900 to 1909 time when Colt said not to use smokeless loads in their revolvers.

There never was a 45 Long Colt, only the 45 Colt (full length cartridge) and 45 Colt Government (short length[not 45 ACP]) cartridges used in the 45 Colt revolvers. The short length never used smokeless powder, even through the early 1920's.

The 1892 (1893 fiscal report) Report To The Chief's Of Ordinance shows that they were still experimenting with the new smokeless powder. A small 7.5gr charge of S.V. (name unknown to me) smokeless powder had the same ballistic result as 28gr of black powder. This leads me to believe that Colt and the Military was focused on fast burning "Bullseye" type (1898) pistol powder rather than the slower burning "bulk" rifle powders typically used by Winchester. Both Winchester and UMC would use a red label or red seal (UMC) to confirm smokeless powder.
If what you have is indeed 1909, that would come in on the tail end of the Colt revolver smokeless powder SAGA! I was just refreshing my brain over on the Colt forum...as well as embarrassing myself as usual!!

 

[superdave269]

Yup Cosmo's question over there had me pondering it for a couple of days now. I figured someone here would be able to shed some light on it.
Thanks!!

 

[Bryan Austin]

Yup Cosmo's question over there had me pondering it for a couple of days now. I figured someone here would be able to shed some light on it.
Thanks!!

I sure hope so, I have been at a stand still with these dates for quite a while, maybe it will get going!!!

 

[Bryan Austin]

If ya got a good photo f the box, I can add it here: 45 Colt Data - Google Sheets

 

[superdave269]

I would be happy to take a pic and post it.

 

[Jim Watson]

My 1901 Sears catalog reprint shows smokeless ammo.
The .45 Colt was loaded with 10 grains of something, they tabulated the charge but not the type.

Phil Sharpe had an interesting yarn about the .45 1909.
Seems the FA loading line had a bad habit of occasionally double charging a round with Bullseye, which would demolish the New Service.
When asked to help, DuPont produced a bulkier powder. The case would still hold a double load, but it would not wreck the gun... the first time.
They designated it RSQ, pronounced "Rescue" because it rescued them from their faulty equipment.

 

[Bryan Austin]

My 1901 Sears catalog reprint shows smokeless ammo.
The .45 Colt was loaded with 10 grains of something, they tabulated the charge but not the type.

Phil Sharpe had an interesting yarn about the .45 1909.
Seems the FA loading line had a bad habit of occasionally double charging a round with Bullseye, which would demolish the New Service.
When asked to help, DuPont produced a bulkier powder. The case would still hold a double load, but it would not wreck the gun... the first time.
They designated it RSQ, pronounced "Rescue" because it rescued them from their faulty equipment.

This is the 1901 Sears catalog
Note 17gr for the 44-40. This could be 17gr of Dupont No.2 rifle powder. However, 1903 Laflin & Rand data shows 16gr of Dupont No.2 or 17gr of Laflin & Rand Sporting Powder.

The 1906 Ideal Handbook No. 17 shows the Colt 45 load using 10gr of Dupont No. 2 rifle powder. Again, this is a slower burning rifle powder that directly replaced black powder and created less pressures than black powder.

1903 Data shows no load data for the 45 Colt
Also look at the 1902 Dupont smokeless powder data sheet.

The last photo is of my Beloved Dupont No. 1 Rifle Powder Data.

Last but not least, insert from that data sheet that shows that this powder creates less pressures than black powder.

I have detailed powder data on the 44-40 website here:Chasing the 44-40 - Smokeless Powders Transition Years

 

[Bryan Austin]

Okay, I finally dove back into the 1900 to 1909 45 Colt smokeless powder SAGA. I have gathered enough information/data to conclude that it is 100% probable that between those years, folks still used 45 Colt smokeless loads in the 45 Colt SAA even though Colt warned against it. Although the 45 Colt was used in other manufactured revolvers other than Colt, the smokeless powder loads for factory cartridges used a higher charge of powder (10 to 12gr) signifying the use of the slower burning rifle powder rather than 4gr of the faster burning pistol powder of Bullseye.



L&R's Sporting smokeless rifle powder as well as Dupont's No.2 smokeless rifle created less pressures than even black powder loads. Only the faster burning Bullseye would have created problems. Although Unique was available, no data from that timeframe shows it was used in the 45 Colt by handloaders...that I have seen.

First and foremost UMC manufactured the smokeless 45 Colt cartridges and advertised them in their catalogs each year between 1896 through the 1909 timeframe.
1896 Laflin & Rand shows load data for the 45 Colt cartridge using 10gr of L&R's Smokeless Sporting Rifle Powder
1898 Laflin & Rand shows load data for the 45 Colt cartridge using 4gr of Bullseye (#1) Smokeless Powder
1898 Sears catalog #107 listed 45 Colt cartridges charged with 12gr of Smokeless Powder
1902 Lafln & Rand shows data for the 45 Colt cartridge using 4gr of Bullseye (#1) Smokeless Powder
1903 Dupont No. 2, L&R Bullseye and L&R Sporting counter cards omit the 45 Colt cartridge
1904 Laflin & Rand Bullseye (#2) reported introduced this year
1906 Dupont powder charge data shows a 10gr charge using Dupont's No.2 Smokeless Rifle Powder
1907 Dupont No. 2, L&R Bullseye and L&R Sporting counter cards omit the 45 Colt cartridge
1909 Frankford Arsenal switches from Bullseye to RSQ smokeless powder
1911 The 45 Colt is replaced by the 45 Auto, Model 1911...which still used RSQ smokeless powder.
Obtaining such cartridges for dissection and confirmation research is beyond my capabilities now. The 44-40 research drained me too much.



Chasing The 45 Colt Cartridge Google Docs has been updated to reflect the current research.

 

[superdave269]

As promised this is my 1909 box. It's interesting to me that the box is marked No.2 of 1910 but the cartridges are head stamped 2 11

 

[Bryan Austin]

As promised this is my 1909 box. It's interesting to me that the box is marked No.2 of 1910 but the cartridges are head stamped 2 11

Ah yes, that is Frankford's RSQ smokeless powder loads from 1910. I have no idea as to the month when the 2nd Lot would have been released. Those should be full length, large rim 45 Colt cartridges. They should be headstamped with the month.

750fps is mouse farts compared to the original BP loads!!

Might can get better information from some of those Frankford collector gurus!

 

[BMur]

Royal Army Test

Historically Accurate test by Major McClintock of the Royal Army. Circa 1884. Comparing British Army rounds to the powerful Colts 45. Using the Standard issue SAA as the test gun firing all 3 cartridges at that time.

Murph

 

[Bryan Austin]

Historically Accurate test by Major McClintock of the Royal Army. Circa 1884. Comparing British Army rounds to the powerful Colts 45. Using the Standard issue SAA as the test gun firing all 3 cartridges at that time.

Murph

That is a very interesting comparison. The problem is that the military didn't use 40gr and a 250gr lead bullet. Certainly does not take away from the fact that when used with 40gr and the 250gr bullet, it was very powerful!!!

 

[raljr1]

As promised this is my 1909 box. It's interesting to me that the box is marked No.2 of 1910 but the cartridges are head stamped 2 11

Did you buy it new?