Lead vs jacketed bullets in pre war revolvers

[Muley Gil]

Many posters here, including myself, have stated that the use of jacketed bullets in old (pre WW II) S&W revolvers tend to be hard on the barrels, as these were built from milder steel.

In another thread, the image of the instructions, found inside of the box lid, for the early revolvers was posted. The last line of those instructions read thusly:

"Experience shows that metal patched bullets are frequently responsible for barrel troubles." Click on the link below and look at post #5.

http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-ha...20-hand-ejector-4th-change.html#post140366636


The box has this printed inside of it "This Container Patented Dec. 28, 1920"

 

[delcrossv]

Makes sense, Copper is harder than lead and a jacket restricts deformation.

Truth be told, except for a defensive carry pieces, I shoot lead in all of 'em, prewar and postwar.

 

[DWalt]

S&W apparently had a fetish for using lead bullets. The early S&W .35 semiautomatic pistols used a metal capped bullet, but the bearing surface was lead. The same type bullet was used for the .38-44 cartridge. During early WWII, the barrel steel alloy used was changed to provide more wear resistance, as military bullets were FMJ. Even with the original barrel steel alloy, it would probably require considerable use of FMJ bullets to produce any appreciable wear.

 

[JP@AK]

Many posters here, including myself, have stated that the use of jacketed bullets in old (pre WW II) S&W revolvers tend to be hard on the barrels, as these were built from milder steel.

What always has struck me as a bit odd about those statements is that they are often connected with the advent of heat treating. But, the heat treatment that was first applied in September, 1919, was to the cylinder. There is no mention in the factory notes that I can find regarding heat treatment of barrels starting around the same time. It seems like people are getting apples mixed up with kumquats.

Certainly the statement that bullets with a bearing surface that is lead, rather than copper, will act against the barrel bore differently, with technically less wear, is a truism. But that does not mean the barrel is more likely to "wear out" from the normal amount of shooting that most revolvers endure in their lifetime.

I do shoot more lead than jacketed bullets in most of my revolvers, but the issue seems to me to be lots of ado about not much.

 

[Muley Gil]

Well, considering that S&W had just gone through WW I, producing 150K plus 1917s that used full jacketed bullets, may have influenced putting that line in the box lid's instructions. Many of the 1917s, that already have shallow rifling, that I have examined, have pretty worn rifling.

Since the '17s tended to wear out the rifling and if the company had run any tests with jacketed bullets in other calibers which can shed jackets if the velocity is too low, I would also be cautious & put that warning in the box lid.

 

[Borderboss]

I don't think that pre-WW2 is the time frame to concentrate on. In my thread about the forcing cone that cracked in my 1953 pre-M10 M&P .38, a poster there posted the same instructions the OP noted, from his 1950s M&P. After speaking with S&W, Clark Custom, and a couple of others with a lot of experience, the general response was to not shoot much, if any jacketed bullets in guns made even in the 1950s, the pre-model number years.

In the end, none of us knows what the older guns were subjected to before we owned them. Mine could have easily had the "beep" beaten out of it with a ton of hot loads, and my factory non-plus-P loads just put it over the top. Better to be super careful.

 

[reddog81]

Certainly the statement that bullets with a bearing surface that is lead, rather than copper, will act against the barrel bore differently, with technically less wear, is a truism. But that does not mean the barrel is more likely to "wear out" from the normal amount of shooting that most revolvers endure in their lifetime.

I do shoot more lead than jacketed bullets in most of my revolvers, but the issue seems to me to be lots of ado about not much.

I'd have to agree with this. How many people out there are putting thousands of rounds through their 100 year old S&W's? Scaring people who might otherwise put a box or 2 down range once a year or once a decade doesn't help anyone.

What was the patched bullet material used 100 years ago and how does this compared to materials used today? What were the power levels of the loads and could the "barrel troubles" be a result of stuck bullets? Was the powder and or primers more corrosive with the newer rounds? Without knowing specifically what the "barrel troubles" refers to I'd have a problem time tell people that today's jacketed rounds are a bad idea.

I have a Colt 1903 that's in serviceable condition with a terrible barrel. You can drop a .309 bullet half way down the barrel before it meets any resistance and a .312 bullet makes it about half an inch before it comes to a stop. The funny thing is that the gun shoots almost as good as my example that's in 90% condition. I'm guessing it would take many hundreds of rounds through an older S&W to even reach a level of wear that is measurable and many thousands of rounds to reach a level of wear that would be noticeable to someone looking for the wear.

 

[reddog81]

Well, considering that S&W had just gone through WW I, producing 150K plus 1917s that used full jacketed bullets, may have influenced putting that line in the box lid's instructions. Many of the 1917s, that already have shallow rifling, that I have examined, have pretty worn rifling.

Since the '17s tended to wear out the rifling and if the company had run any tests with jacketed bullets in other calibers which can shed jackets if the velocity is too low, I would also be cautious & put that warning in the box lid.

I'd bet the worn rifling was more so due to corrosive ammo along with a lack of immediate cleaning in the field and the shed jackets would no longer be a problem with modern ammo.

 

[fiasconva]

I'd probably add to reddog81's post that a lot of the worn rifling was also due to improper cleaning techniques also. A lot of ignorance went around with people carrying those firearms as well as indifference about care. "Hey, it ain't my gun and I just don't care."

 

[ABPOS]

I think the military in general advocated over cleaning guns and probably induced more wear on them then necessary.

But it's probably a hard balance. If you're out in the field and get a blued gun wet, it'll rust right quick. So... cleaning is good.

I was never in the military, so I may be blowing smoke. But this is just my uneducated observation from hearing people talk over the years.

It's real easy to bung up a muzzle with cleaning rods though. And if people aren't careful and in a hurry.....

 

[MG34/bar]

I bought my first S&W 1917 revolver exactly sixty (60) years ago, and I've owned countless others over the years (down to five now in my old age). I at first used only lead bullets in the guns (either .45 Auto Rim, or 230 gr. ACP reloads). I never got very good accuracy doing that, but when I began just using standard .45 FMJ ball, my accuracy improved greatly. I've never come close to wearing out a well-cared for original barrel.

 

[stansdds]

I'd bet the worn rifling was more so due to corrosive ammo along with a lack of immediate cleaning in the field and the shed jackets would no longer be a problem with modern ammo.

I expect you are correct. Yes, copper and brass are harder than lead, but still much softer than the steel used to make firearms.

 

[spad124]

I bought my first S&W 1917 revolver exactly sixty (60) years ago, and I've owned countless others over the years (down to five now in my old age). I at first used only lead bullets in the guns (either .45 Auto Rim, or 230 gr. ACP reloads). I never got very good accuracy doing that, but when I began just using standard .45 FMJ ball, my accuracy improved greatly. I've never come close to wearing out a well-cared for original barrel.

I bought my one, only and current M1917 about 10 years ago so I don’t have as much history with them, but my experience is similar to MG34/bar’s. My M1917 doesn’t have great accuracy with lead bullets loaded to standard hardball specs. However if I load 230 gr plated bullets in .45AR cases I get the best accuracy.

Also, the barrel of my M1917 was heavily leaded when I bought it, so a prior post government owner had shot a lot of lead bullets through it. That took quite a while to remove. Once the lead was removed the accuracy increased dramatically.

 

[spad124]

Many posters here, including myself, have stated that the use of jacketed bullets in old (pre WW II) S&W revolvers tend to be hard on the barrels, as these were built from milder steel.

In another thread, the image of the instructions, found inside of the box lid, for the early revolvers was posted. The last line of those instructions read thusly:

"Experience shows that metal patched bullets are frequently responsible for barrel troubles." Click on the link below and look at post #5.

http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-ha...20-hand-ejector-4th-change.html#post140366636


The box has this printed inside of it "This Container Patented Dec. 28, 1920"

A question because I’m not familiar with the nomenclature of the 1910s-1920s: Does “metal patched” mean what we would today call a gas check? Or does it mean jacketed?

 

[Muley Gil]

A question because I’m not familiar with the nomenclature of the 1910s-1920s: Does “metal patched” mean what we would today call a gas check? Or does it mean jacketed?

It means jacketed.

 

[alwslate]

Elmer Keith wrote somewhere as I recall that 5,000 rds of hardball would
wash out the rifling in a 1911 barrel. This a pic of the inside of the box
top of my 1956 38/44 HD.

 

[StrawHat]

My books are all packed in anticipation of a move, so someone please help me with a reference. I recall that EK specified a 1/20 alloy for most of his cast bullets BUT for the 45 ACP/AR specified a harder, 1/16 alloy. I believec this was to accommodate the shallow rifling of the 1917 revolvers.

Personnaly, I use a hard alloy but also load 230 grain jacketed builds to 45 ACP. ball specifications. I have 3, 1917s, a couple of 22-4s, and loaded for many 25-2s.

Kevin

Kevin

 

[El Biblioitecario]

My books are all packed in anticipation of a move, so someone please help me with a reference. I recall that EK specified a 1/20 alloy for most of his cast bullets BUT for the 45 ACP/AR specified a harder, 1/16 alloy. I believec this was to accommodate the shallow rifling of the 1917 revolvers.

Personnaly, I use a hard alloy but also load 230 grain jacketed builds to 45 ACP. ball specifications. I have 3, 1917s, a couple of 22-4s, and loaded for many 25-2s.

Kevin

Kevin

From SIXGUNS BY KEITH p.232:

"For most revolver cartridges there is no use having the bullets harder than one part tin to sixteen parts of lead, and for really heavy loads a one to fifteen mixture is hard enough....For automatic pistols, the bullets should be relatively hard, consisting of about one part tine to ten parts lead..."

 

[StrawHat]

From SIXGUNS BY KEITH p.232:

"For most revolver cartridges there is no use having the bullets harder than one part tin to sixteen parts of lead, and for really heavy loads a one to fifteen mixture is hard enough....For automatic pistols, the bullets should be relatively hard, consisting of about one part tine to ten parts lead..."

Thank you, I was in the right church just sitting in the wrong pew.

Kevin

 

[PJGP]

From SIXGUNS BY KEITH p.232:

"For most revolver cartridges there is no use having the bullets harder than one part tin to sixteen parts of lead, and for really heavy loads a one to fifteen mixture is hard enough....For automatic pistols, the bullets should be relatively hard, consisting of about one part tine to ten parts lead..."

The standard mixture for all the Webley .455 lead military cartridges was 1 of tin to 12 of lead. My understanding is that barrels designed for lead have deeper rifling than those for jackets.

Peter