Modern ammunition in .32 S&W

[first-model]

So now those who commonly use smokeless powder in old S&W revolvers are called lazy, and inferred to be stupid and reckless??

No, my implication was that we don't have empirical evidence to objectively say that this is OK. The "evidence" I've seen that it's OK is subjective at best, and in most cases largely anecdotal. All that proves is that someone, somewhere did something that didn't result in their gun blowing up.

I'm a historian, not a metallurgist. My interest in antique firearms lay primarily with preserving the past as best we can, such that future generations have unspoiled examples of the material culture to study. Subjecting a 100+ year old firearm to questionably high ballistic pressures is inconsistent with those tenets of historical preservation, and that's why I generally oppose it. But that's me, and everyone else's mileage will vary.

Improvements in strength and ductility of steel from the 1880s into the early 1900s was minimal.

By 1880, yield strength of steel exceeded 30 ksi and in the late 1800s, steel was available with 47 ksi yield strength. Not until 1950s was this high strength considered standard. What we will probably never know is the exact steel strength used by S&W. We do know that the company always found ways of keeping costs of production down, but always provided a quality product, so my bet is high strength steel was used to make quality revolvers for a very long time.

This is some of the first quantitative data I've read about this, and I'm appreciative of the opportunity to learn more about this.

As I mentioned before, I'm a historian and my interest is largely in the rise of Smith & Wesson as a business entity, at a time when the concept of a large vertically-integrated business was still novel. I make no claims to being an expert in metallurgy and the development of steel technologies, so I exercise an abundance of caution and encourage others to do the same. I believe there are experts out there (perhaps you're one of them?) that has access to the kind of testing equipment that would help us understand the metallurgic composition of these old guns, the quality of the forgings and casting, etc. And to that end, I would happily volunteer a few guns to advance our scientific understanding of this.

Mike

 

[glowe]

Mike, I have posted some pressure curve data a few times in the past, but I did not stop there. I have collected data on chamber pressures for many of the late 1800s BP cartridges. I have also been able to document SAAMI pressures for many of the calibers we discuss here on the Antique Forum. Differences are small. I also have a database of chronographed loads, from original BP to factory smokeless, to my hand loads. I have loaded lighter and heavier bullets, I keep velocities under original BP loads, and I register felt recoil where it can be determined.

All this data has led me to the conclusion that most currently manufactured ammunition in antique calibers run slower than original BP, felt recoil is lower, and performance on paper is just fine. Running these calibers from 500 to 700 fps with lighter bullets completely satisfies me on the safety of smokeless. What I do not have is a test barrel to generate pressure curves and that is something that there is little data on, but what is out there demonstrates that proper loading of smokeless powder cartridges can mirror that of BP.

As an example, below is my data-set for 38 S&W. All rounds were fired through a 38 DA with a 6" barrel. You can pick your own favorites, but even the slowest bullets hit the paper at 15 yards and who really needs more?? I have settled on a 3 grain Unique load with an original 145 grain RN bullet for most of my shooting. These numbers are only presented to show the comparisons of my testing, but no one should should rely on them to come up with loads for their guns. Do your own research and find something that makes you happy, or stick with the very mild factory ammunition that is loaded today.

 

[first-model]

Thank you Gary. This is the first empirical data I've read that compares original BP loads to modern smokeless loads.

I'm going to save your post, and I may reach out to you in the future with questions if you don't mind.

Mike

 

[glowe]

No problem. I know that some would argue that velocity comparisons cannot be reconciled with chamber pressures, but it has to have some correlation. It takes pressure to accelerate a projectile to a given speed and when you get the same velocities with the same weight projectile using different powders, you have to provide a similar back-pressure. My safety factor is keeping reloads and/or factory ammo below that of original BP loads. Can a gun break, absolutely, but that is a chance we all take when firing any type of ammunition. Do not, however, be deterred as it is worth the effort when we share the same experiences our ancestors had when shooting these fine old S&Ws.

 

[Jim Watson]

Where's the curve? Show me the curve.
glowe says he has posted pressure curve data. Where?
I frequently hear and read about pressure curves but have not seen anything for a revolver. I used to have a little book that showed .30-06 pressure curves for every powder then on the market, no matter how unsuitable, I think including black. A guy here used an old NRA graph to justify smokeless in a Damascus shotgun. There was a report in the Double Gun Journal defending Damascus.

Nothing for revolvers. I guess I could buy a Contender and a Pressure Trace and do the work, but it would be a couple thousand dollars and a lot of time for something that seldom comes up for me, other than discussion. I dealt with the matter by selling my old revolvers to collectors.

 

[deadin]

I've always understood that BP "explodes" and smokeless "burns".

The difference is that with BP there is a maximum "spike" at the beginning and then the bullet is pretty much on its own the rest of the way down the barrel. Smokeless builds pressure all the way down the barrel thereby accelerating the bullet all the way. The balancing act for smokeless is to get the burn rate and barrel length co-ordinated so all of the powder is consumed just as the bullet exits. (Otherwise you're just wasting powder as it will burn outside the gun and have no effect on the bullet.

Now, take that same smokeless load and run it past the cylinder/barrel gap and into a short barrel of a handgun and it doesn't have much time to build any pressure. (That's why pistol powders are usually much faster than rifle powders. It's also why it is so easy to get an overload as fast powders don't take up much space in the case.)

On the other hand, BP spikes right at the start and a decently designed gun can be built to handle this maximum pressure peak. After that it's all downhill. Folklore says that you can't get enough BP in cartridge case to overload it. (I know all of the manuals I've read says to fill the case to where it takes a slight compression to seat the bullet. Wonder why that is??)
I agree that a steady diet of smokeless in a gun designed for BP will probably sooner or later cause problems as the gun wasn't designed for the smokeless pressure curve. This should be more prevalent in rifles where the curve has more time to build. Not so much in a revolver.

There's also the possible problem of loading too little smokeless in a case and experiencing what is called "detonation". (But this is a whole different subject.....)

 

[Wiregrassguy]

It seems that this BP versus smokeless issue rears it head every six months or so. I think that S&W's own answer in 1909 to this question should resolve this.

 

[glowe]

It seems that this BP versus smokeless issue rears it head every six months or so. I think that S&W's own answer in 1909 to this question should resolve this.

If it were only that easy Guy.

Jim, I am not trying to convert those dead set against using smokeless powder in vintage S&Ws. I have done the research and am satisfied that what I am doing with regards to reloading the grand old calibers of S&W is sound and safe. You are correct that most pressure curve data out there is for shotguns and I have lots of pressure curves for shotgun plus an old one from Dupont that shows pressures at 2", 3", 4", 5", and 6". It is so old that I do not even know where it came from anymore. The only observation one can make is that Dupont smokeless powder seems to be the average of several types of black powder. No details, no caliber, no ID of type of gun, but should not matter much if the numbers are accurate.

The Sherman Bell experiments and subsequent detailed study of BP versus smokeless in Doublegun Journal is another body of work that shows the proper selection of smokeless powders can duplicate the pressures of BP along a shotgun barrel. Let's assume that any large barrel firing a bullet of cup of shot at a given velocity will generate the same curve using the same powder. After all, you have a 70 grain BP load moving a 400 grain projectile in a shotgun barrel and why should that act differently with smokeless? If you don't like the fact that it is fired in a long barrel, just use the first 6" data set for comparisons. Can you just throw any smokeless powder into a case and call it good, absolutely not, but you can generate test data that will lead you to loads that will mimic the properties of BP and reduce them even further for paper targets holes will look the same. I have even done this for 32 Long rimfire before shooting my Model 2 revolvers. I had an old 2 Rimfire Rolling block and was able to get hold of some original BP loads for testing. I found average velocities, bullet weight, etc. and compared them to the Navy Arms 32 Rimfire ammo of the time to find that BP loads were faster than Navy arms ammo. Bullet weights were lower in Navy Arms ammo indicating that the company was providing slower lighter ammunition that I would guess provided lower pressures as well. Back in the 1990s I shot over a case of 32 Long and 32 Short ammo in Model 1 1/2 and Model 2 revolvers with no problems and a huge amount of satisfaction I might add.

I truly believe there was a lot of experimentation and safety considerations applied when Remington, Winchester, etc. came up with their smokeless loads for these vintage calibers and they would certainly be aware of the intended use of the ammunition. The last thing these companies would want is to market a cartridge capable of blowing up an old revolver and they have been at it for over a century already apparently without major issues. Where else would you fire the majority of 32 S&W or 38 S&W ammo than in an old top-break?? Sure maybe a British 38-200, but by far the majority was safely fed through old top-break revolvers.

 

[Wiregrassguy]

Simple logic would tell you that the ammo manufacturers at the turn of the 20th century would not bring out a product that couldn't be used in the vast majority of firearms then available. Their market would have been very small if they didn't load the old BP cartridges to pressure levels that the BP guns could withstand. S&W was primarily concerned about hand loads using smokeless as a 1:1 substitute for black powder which was a recipe for disaster. As indicated by their catalog, they did not have a problem with commercial smokeless cartridges.

 

[Skeetr57]

Black powder does not "Explode". It burns just like all low explosives. BP burning rate depends on surface area, and that is controlled by grain size. FFFFg granulation is much like dust and burns the fastest, while Fg is the largest granulation used in small arms. Larger granulations, with individual grains the size of corn kernels were used in cannon, and even larger grains with one or more perforations was used in larger cannon.
The burning rate of smokeless powder is controlled both by grain size and by chemical composition. They may be coated to slow the burn rate or perforated to even out the burn rate. As a general rule, shotgun powders and pistol powder have about the same burn rate, and the peak pressure will be achieved in the first couple of inches from the ignition point. Or in other words, the peak pressure will occur within the cylinder of a revolver, or within the casing of the shotgun shell.
The chart shown above by Gary is showing pressure curves for some early DuPont smokeless shotgun powders compared to an equivalent charge of black powder, and shows that a smokeless load can be selected that does not exceed BP pressures.

 

[deadin]

Tom,
Thanks! For 60+ years I've always thought that BP exploded. (After all it is listed as an explosive where smokeless isn't considered to be in the same class)
Also, from empirical observation, dropping a match on a pile of BP shows that it sure burns a whole lot faster than dropping a match on a pile of Bullseye.

As an aside, what's the difference between "explosion" and "detonation"??

 

[merl67]

Does anyone have experience or documentation of any topbreak S&W blowing up or becoming unshootable from using modern loaded vintage calibers. I would imagine the ammunition companies have ran their own test and probably have pushed the limits to know where the safety margin is for all the calibers they load for. Take the 8mm Mauser I have quite a bit of experience with both factory, surplus, and my own hand loads all the American brands are loaded with the German 88 Commision rifle in mind. I would imagine the ammunition companies have done the same thing and found the weakest type of topbreak or even tip up they thought would be used and loaded said ammo that would be safe in that gun. Just my uneducated two cents worth.

 

[SkipD1]

As an aside, what's the difference between "explosion" and "detonation"??

There are many types of "explosions". The rate at which the material burns (subsonic vs supersonic) determines whether an explosion is termed "deflagration" (subsonic such as all firearm ammunition igniting normally) or "detonation" (such as all high explosives such as TNT, dynamite, etc.).

Thus, a "detonation" IS an "explosion" but not all explosions are detonations.

A quick Google search brought up several web sites on the subject, one being Explosions: Deflagration Versus Detonation

 

[Jim Watson]

"Does anyone have experience or documentation of any topbreak S&W blowing up or becoming unshootable from using modern loaded vintage calibers."

David Chicoine said that he was getting a lot more top breaks in to repair as CAS got popular. He interpreted that to mean that people were taking the easy way out and shooting the old guns with smokeless.
But I wonder if maybe the problem was that people were SHOOTING old guns more than their Grandpas did.

I wonder what the service life of a top break was for Walter Winans or the Bennett Brothers, who competed and practiced.

 

[merl67]

Jim thanks I wonder what kind of repairs he was getting. Those of us that have these know that the weak link in these are the springs mainly the smaller ones and that wear would come no matter what powder was used. I would imagine most are like me and do not shoot their antiques as much as their modern guns. I don't imagine people back in the day shot nearly as much for fun as we do today.

 

[Jim Watson]

I think he mentioned top strap stretching and latch loosening.
But I no longer have the book.

 

[glowe]

I am quite sure that CAS shooters shoot more rounds with their antique revolvers than were ever shot by our ancestors. Ammunition was expensive in the late 1800s. I have a 1881 US Cartridge Catalog showing that 45 Colt was $24/1000, 44 Russian was $22/1000, down to 32 S&W for $12/1000.

Wages in 1880 were pennies per hour. Here are some average hourly wages:

Occupation . . . 1860 . . . 1870 . . . 1880 . . . 1890
blacksmith . . .0.178 . . .0.304 . . .0.259 . . . 0.271
carpenter . . . . 0.182 . . .0.410 . . .0.276 . . . 0.322
machinist . . . . 0.158 . . .0.260 . . .0.227 . . . 0.243
laborers . . . . . 0.098 . . .0.156 . . .0.135 . . .0.151

Laborers got 13 cents per hour. I would have taken a days pay to buy a box of 45 Colt ammo. I know my grandfather would not have "wasted" a single shot and when I received his one and only revolver, made in 1904, there was still a quarter box of early 1900s ammo that came with it. When someone says they received many guns for repair, I would not include something that was blown up as a repair candidate, so most likely springs, worn parts, etc. These guns were not new when the most recent owners came into possession, so who knows what indignities were bestowed from previous owners or wear from honest use over the last 100+ years before a CAS shooter got hold of it.

 

[haggis]

If someone is looking for a "modern" revolver with which to shoot .32 S&W, I suggest S&W hand ejectors model 30 and 31, which have been around in some form since 1903 (BTW, these revolvers are chambered for .32 Long, a "magnum" compared to .32 Short ). Mine shoots well.

Buck

 

[TIMETRIPPER]

If someone is looking for a "modern" revolver with which to shoot .32 S&W, I suggest S&W hand ejectors model 30 and 31, which have been around in some form since 1903 (BTW, these revolvers are chambered for .32 Long, a "magnum" compared to .32 Short ). Mine shoots well.

Haggis,
i think the desire is to shoot the old S&W revolvers chambered for the 32 S&W, an older top break model, not simply to shoot the 32 S&W. TBH I find the shorter round harder to find and usually a little pricier.

But, lately I've been shooting any factory 32 S&W I find in my 32 hand ejectors, then reload them mild with Trailboss for the top breaks in my collection.

John

 

[DWalt]

I just had to comment on the fallacy of the following statement:

"I'm not sure that any manufacturer is obligated to charge their ammunition to the oldest gun that will chamber it. SAAMI specifications take a lot of things into consideration, but I've never read anything empirical to suggest that this is a consideration"

There is most certainly an obligation, and a very strong one. And it is enforced by an army of trial lawyers who love to sue on even the weakest of product liability grounds if anyone is injured.

Many may not be aware that smokeless powder handgun ammunition has been factory loaded in the USA since 1896, and at that time there were no handguns made other than those for black powder cartridges.