New Model No.3 .44Rus smokeless or no?

[BMur]

SMOKELESS SQUAD

The ultimate accomplishment of the "SMOKELESS SQUAD"???

This is exactly what happened here in California a few years ago we actually had "open carry". It was legal here but some total boneheads decided they needed to parade around coffee shops with their Glocks open carry and frightened the ignorant people so much that they were able to raise such a fuss they actually got rid of that law in this state. "Great plan"!!!! I was one of of those who screamed "boneheads" so loud that they actually left the state after doing permanent damage to our gun rights here!
Be careful what you wish for!!!!

Now we have the "smokeless squad" who insist it's ok to use smokeless in antique firearms. It won't be long before they actually get a large enough following that the ATF will buy into the concept and "REQUIRE ALL ANTIQUES TO BE REGISTERED AS MODERN GUNS"!!!

SO JUST REMEMBER WHO TO THANK WHEN IT HAPPENS AND I HAVE TO CONVINCE IN COURT THAT THEY ARE WRONG!

LONG LIVE THE SMOKELESS SQUAD!!! Pretty soon we will have to register BB guns in California thanks' to them!

SOME ISSUES NEED TO BE LEFT ALONE.

MURPH

 

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,


I am dismayed by the number of people who think that the "pressure
curve" is definite proof that smokeless is safe to shoot in old black
powder firearms. I would like to point out that it wasn't too long
ago (at least from my perspective) that we measured pressure using
lead and copper crushers disks to determine maximum pressure of
a load.

Then piezo transducers were developed to measure strain
exerted on the barrel and chamber (which is translated into psi
via the software used). Now some of the "pet" loads from the earlier
determined pressure measurements using the crusher system were
now determined to be unsafe (even though there was 50 years of
common usage with no apparent signs of harm to the firearms).
And reloading manuals were updated to reflect the new information
gained from the more accurate pressure readings.

So, I tend to think that there will come a time when a better, more
accurate system of determining pressures over the time of the
pressure curve and determining the function of barrel mass to
the delay in pressure reading due to inertia of the metal in the barrel.
And the information we currently deem as "accurate" will be
found to be in error.


Cheers!
Webb

 

[rct269]

You are correct, Gary---I've never done the research. I at least suspect Dave hasn't either---that his position arises from seeing, trying to figure out how, and then attempting to repair the damage done by smokeless loads in guns that weren't built to take them. I say "weren't built to take them", it's more like they were built with material that couldn't take them without eventually incurring damage------key word there: "eventually".

On the one hand, I understand the desire to shoot these old guns---and to shoot them conveniently---which is to say go to the store and buy some ammo. That's what I did---once, and not for long. My caution arose from paying big bucks for essentially unrepairable/irreplaceable guns. Then, after getting educated on the matter, I decided my caution was well founded!

Ralph Tremaine

 

[glowe]

Where to start. BMur - where are your research documents to prove otherwise?? Where are the documents that show lower pressures are more dangerous than higher pressures in gun barrels??? Pressure test results do not lie today and gun powder companies certainly go to great lengths to determine those pressures as they will be held liable if they do not. They also go to great lengths to offer safe smokeless loads that will obviously be used in old top break revolver calibers or they could be held liable for that issue as well. I object to the reference to the Smokeless Squad and that the BATF will make antique guns modern with the use of smokeless powder.

At pressure levels below 20,000 psi, CUP is almost an identical number. I have no fears that the numbers generated today by the use of strain gauges will ever be found inaccurate. First, steel can be tested for tensile strength using the same strain gauges as those used on barrels, so apples and apples. 50,000 psi tensile strength steel will yield in both a steel billet and a gun barrel at that pressure reading. Not true in the days of CUP. Cannot test steel tensile strength using the CUP methods for gun barrels. Apples and oranges.

No problem if people want to shoot BP or not shoot their guns at all, but it is time to recognize the fact that smokeless loads can be built that are safer than BP!!! That means lower pressures than BP, but still doesn't guarantee the gun you are using cannot break!!

 

[BMur]

Research

There are no modern cartridge companies that will guarantee their ammunition is safe to be discharged in antique firearms. That is a clear invitation to liability.

My first book clearly defines the black powder era as a NON STANDARDIZED ERA. Lots of research backs that up.
The United States Government also clearly defines antiques as non firearms because they are from that non standardized era and can not be adapted to "safe" smokeless use in general. You have to include all antiques not a select few!

So By that I specifically mean "ALL" antiques. Not Smith & Wesson firearms only.

There are no smokeless pressure curves or smokeless Time/Pressure curves that exist that I am aware of that are specifically designed or tested for use in antique firearms. You are plugging modern smokeless curves into antique use which is not responsible. It's also not applicable unless that specific time/ pressure curve was in fact tested using an antique firearm. Which it was not.

No cartridge company in their right mind would guarantee the use of their modern smokeless ammunition in antique firearms. In fact disclaimers state very clearly (example) this ammunition is designed for use in MODERN FIREARMS in good condition and in good working order. Never any mention of antique firearms use. I have never seen or documented any smokeless ammunition with anything in writing that claims it's ok to use this ammo in an antique firearm. In fact the opposite is true. There is no liability if you follow the Government definition of "Non-Firearm". Clear and simple? Don't use this in an antique! No brainer.

Present one singular official statement from any modern cartridge manufacturer that clearly defines smokeless powder use in antique firearms. It doesn't exist. Only folks who support smokeless use fabricate such beliefs by irresponsibly plugging smokeless curves into antique use.

Murph

 

[glowe]

I said nothing about what is printed on the box, of course they are going to print every type of disclaimer they can get away with. What I said they would not load old top-break calibers higher than BP pressures and almost certainly below that point. These companies are not dumb and know full well that antique revolvers will be shot with their ammunition. Look at what is made today, 32 S&W, 38 S&W, 44 Russian, 44 Winchester, 45 Colt, even 45 Schofield ammunition can be found. I will not hesitate to stand by my opinion that they are all loaded with vintage revolvers in the minds of the ammo makers. The old statement that printed warnings are not worth the paper they are printed on.

How many research articles and studies do you want to see as I have many, but I believe if I posted yet another set of data it would be of little interest to someone who has a closed mind.

Oh and sorry I missed your book on the "non-standardized era"??????????

 

[gwpercle]

I'm going to pass on what my Mom would have told me ...

..." Better Safe Than Sorry " ...

This is what my Dad would have said ...
... " Boy , Don't be acting the Fool ...Listen to your Momma ! " ...

I can also tell you I would want to shoot it also , guns you can't shoot are no fun ... I reload so I would maybe check out black powder substitutes for cartridge loading ... and low pressure loadings .

Gary

 

[Club Gun Fan]

Both Remington and Winchester loaded smokeless 44 Russian, Remington in their kleanbore line, which they began offering in 1927. It says in regular English on both boxes from the manufacturer designed for s&w revolvers.

Make sure you send us a range report! By the way, I have 14 blown up Smith & Wessons. I don't have a New Model Number 3 yet. Fingers crossed. Stay safe!

 

[WR Moore]

Both Remington and Winchester loaded smokeless 44 Russian, Remington in their kleanbore line, which they began offering in 1927. It says in regular English on both boxes from the manufacturer designed for s&w revolvers.

While antiques aren't my area of expertise, I'll answer the question posed by the quote above.

1. The powders available back in 1927 aren't available today.

2. Load data "assumed" to be safe in 1927 is very suspect.

3. Back in them thar days, firearm failure wasn't an uncommon experience. Firearms do, even today, wear out. It happened faster back then. No one was suing gun & ammo companies back then.

4. I've no clue when the Japanese bought S&Ws, but the production run (per Wiki) ran 1870-1915. There were design improvements and steel quality improved significantly over that time. SAAMI was formed in 1926. Who knows what the safety standards were back then or what firearms they used for testing.

OP, get some loading dies and a can of Pyrodex pistol if you want to shoot your oldie but goodie.

 

[Model19man]

While antiques aren't my area of expertise, I'll answer the question posed by the quote above.

1. The powders available back in 1927 aren't available today.

I guess you do not know what you are talking about. Many gunpowders including Bullseye and Unique for example were being made then and continue to be made now and the loadings have not changed.

 

[BMur]

Liability

Again and very clearly. The U.S. Government clearly states that antiques are non firearms so there is no liability for cartridge companies "unless" they clearly state in writing that it's ok to use their smokeless ammunition in antique firearms. Which they do not and will not ever state unless they except liability.
The smokeless folks constantly State and fabricate assumptions about modern ammunition loaded down for antique use but have absolutely nothing to support that.
There are so many knock offs out there now(modern reproductions) that look exactly like original antiques and chamber modern smokeless ammunition that adds more confusion but the fact still remains. Antique firearms are NON FIREARMS BY GOVERNMENT DEFINITION and I totally agree and support that position.

You decide to use smokeless it's on you. There is no one you can blame but yourself if you and or your antique are damaged in any way.

Murph

 

[BMur]

Bullseye powder

I guess you do not know what you are talking about. Many gunpowders including Bullseye and Unique for example were being made then and continue to be made now and the loadings have not changed.

I personally love Bullseye powder. I have loaded it more than any other powder for many years. Even hunted pig with it with great success.
However, I would never even consider using it in antique firearms for obvious reasons.

Just a little history from research?

Laflin & Rand introduced bullseye powder in 1898 for small caliber pistol use and after almost 100 years in business they went out of business less than 3 years later!

The bullseye powder was then sold and used by Du Pont from about 1902 until about 1912 when they also sold the powder to Hercules.

So it has changed hands a few times and I have personally seen early bullseye powder as compared to later bullseye powder and it's most definitely different.

Unfortunately, an unopened can of Laflin & Rand original bullseye powder has not been found so it's only based on small amounts of powder found in surviving tins. Which by the way sell for over $400 empty! So there was a change that occurred with bullseye powder but there just isn't enough information/surviving powder to confirm exactly what that change was.

I personally do not like to speculate without fact backing me up but there is enough information out there to suggest early bullseye was not a good thing with antique gun use.

It might also have something to do with a 100 year old company going out of business less than 3 years after introduction.


Murph

 

[WR Moore]

I guess you do not know what you are talking about. Many gunpowders including Bullseye and Unique for example were being made then and continue to be made now and the loadings have not changed.

OK, as noted above, while the Bullseye and Unique names still exist, the chemical formulations of today's versions almost certainly aren't those of waaaay back then. We'd need to find ammo produced then and do piezo-electric pressure testing to see what the pressure curves are like.

I'm not certain what load data you mention, but I've loaded bushels of Unique over 50+ years and I've seen changes in load data in the cartridges I use it in.

 

[iby]

Make sure you send us a range report! By the way, I have 14 blown up Smith & Wessons. I don't have a New Model Number 3 yet. Fingers crossed. Stay safe!

Which part typically fails?
The cylinder?

 

[wlw-19958]

Ih There,

Which part typically fails?
The cylinder?

I personally have not blown up a gun yet (but give me time) but
I have seen many revolvers that have blown-up. Yes, it usually
is the cylinder that gives way first.

The sequence appears to be:

(1) The cartridge is fired. For whatever reason, the pressure is
too great for the walls of the chamber of the cylinder to contain
and the cylinder begins to break.

(2) The cylinder breaks at its weakest points which are usually
the walls of the cylinder between the adjacent chambers. This
lets high pressure and temperature gases into those chambers
and frequently will set off any rounds in those chambers.

(3) Now there are two or three chambers involved. The combined
pressure from these rounds force the top of the cylinder to break
off by continuing to force the top portion of the three chambers
up and the two adjacent chambers will break through to the
outside walls of the cylinder.

(4) The top now free will continue upward and will force the top
strap over the cylinder to break and bend up (and often will break
off completely and fly away).

This all happens in a tiny fraction of a second.


Cheers!
Webb

 

[BMur]

Old powder

OK, as noted above, while the Bullseye and Unique names still exist, the chemical formulations of today's versions almost certainly aren't those of waaaay back then. We'd need to find ammo produced then and do piezo-electric pressure testing to see what the pressure curves are like.

I'm not certain what load data you mention, but I've loaded bushels of Unique over 50+ years and I've seen changes in load data in the cartridges I use it in.

Unfortunately, I think the information is lost to history. Even if we were to locate old smokeless powder I would definitely challenge any test conducted as inaccurate due to the powders age. With Laflin & Rand Bullseye we'd be talking 120 year old powder at least!
Even old smokeless powder from the early 1900's carried a warning from powder companies. I've read them during research warning of some powders that would break down over time and develop a reddish color which meant they were no longer safe to use. The nitro in the powder was becoming unstable! How's That for spooky! Don't drop old powder tins!! That's just one example.

Makes you wonder about really old smokeless ammo?

Murph

 

[Jim Watson]

Phil Sharpe wrote that "Bullseye #1" was the fines and perforated disk punchings screened out of Infallable by Laflin & Rand and then DuPont. But that by ca 1904 the demand was so great that DuPont tooled up to make "Bullseye #2" as a separate product.

I am kind of surprised that nobody has volunteered to replicate Sherman Bell's damascus shotgun type of testing with these delicate top break revolvers. A couple of mechanically sound but cosmetically ugly .38s would not cost so much that wearing them out would be a financial or historical loss. Load for one with 10 grains of black or however much a drawn case will hold, the other with Sharpe's 2.5 gr Bullseye, less if it will equal the velocity of black.

 

[Model19man]

Unfortunately, I think the information is lost to history.

Murph

Actually no, it isn't. Bryan Austin, AKA "Savvy Jack" on this and many other forums, has purchased and tested many old rounds and many new ones. He owns a lot of pressure testing equipment and is trained to use it. Many of the myths you spout are debunked by him.

Chasing the 44-40

 

[Club Gun Fan]

Which part typically fails?
The cylinder?

Yes, but a few have burst barrels. Most of them I bought from Smith & Wesson. Those have had the serial numbers removed.

 

[BMur]

Myths I spout?

Actually no, it isn't. Bryan Austin, AKA "Savvy Jack" on this and many other forums, has purchased and tested many old rounds and many new ones. He owns a lot of pressure testing equipment and is trained to use it. Many of the myths you spout are debunked by him.

Chasing the 44-40

This is A'typical response from the smokeless club. Belching insults with accusations without anything backing it up but hot wind. Testing old ammo? How exactly do you determine if the old ammo tested has not been reloaded? What facts do you have that old smokeless powder has not in fact broken down and become less potent or in fact more potent. The quote I posted was from the manufacturer You know, the folks that make the powder? But I keep forgetting the smokeless club knows more than they do.

De-bunked what exactly? I'm reading from research not my opinion directly from manufacturers and the U.S. Government. Are you saying you know more than manufacturers and the U.S. Government? I have absolutely no doubt that you are.

But what I really admire most from the vindictive smokeless folks? Don't dare call them names or question their references but they have no problem insulting anyone they don't agree with with child like regularity.

Murph

 

[glowe]

Over at least the last 40 years, I have tested many boxes of original factory BP loads. Unless stored in poor conditions, BP does not deteriorate. It is important to note that almost all the ammunition functioned perfectly. I did comparisons of 32 Long & Short RF when Navy Arms first came out with smokeless loads for this caliber. Velocity and felt recoil were easy to compare. I even came up with a spring loaded support for quantitively test recoil. One can measure the amount of muzzle jump when the gun was fired. Navy arms came out with a notably safer load than factory BP. Velocities were lower, 650fps for UMC BP vs 550fps Navy Arms Smokeless. Felt recoil for Navy Arms ammo was easily less. Muzzle jump for Navy Arms ammo was half that of UMC and Winchester BP loads. I have done similar comparisons to just about every BP era caliber I have owned with the same results. Factory smokeless offers lower pressures than every BP round I have tested.

If you do a search of the Forum, I have posted several studies and research papers on this subject in the past, all resulting in the same two things. Authors proved that smokeless can and is loaded to offer exact performance and same or lower pressures than original BP. That fact cannot be debated if one takes the time to pull up and study these published results. In 1909, Smith & Wesson printed a statement in their catalog related to this subject. Over 100 years ago, the company accepted the fact that factory smokeless ammunition can and was loaded to be absolutely safe in their top-break guns. In the infancy of reloading, back when people knew little about the proper use of smokeless powder, they ended up destroying lots of guns by filling the case with that powder as they did with BP. The results were catastrophic. Powder companies did not help the issue much since they produced bulky smokeless (loaded by volume as BP) and nitrocellulose powders (loaded by weight) at the same time. 14 broken antique guns in Don's collection could have been destroyed by the improper use of these powders, plugged barrels, barrels with stuck bullets, half loads of BP, etc. I have also seen dozens of modern revolvers that have been blown up, but all are of no value unless each and every instance of destruction was known.

I am not a member of the "smokeless club", but see you constantly come up with terms meant to demean a group of members who have undoubtedly done more research on the subject than you. I am amazed that the guy who seems to own the Antique Section gives no factual information to support his position. Maybe because there is none? I hesitate to continue to add objective studies on the topic, since I am certain it will make no difference in your position, but will leave you with just a fraction of available information. First, the recent article on this subject is quick and to the point. I have another dozen of these that offer the same results including some gun powder companies graphs and charts from the very early days of smokeless. This test compared BP to smokeless loads using various powders in rifle barrels. These results can be compared in revolver barrels, but pressures will be lower due to the amount of time the bullet remains in the barrel. Full article should be available through the Sixguns Firearms Fraternity.

Second, Sherman Bell did exhaustive testing on Damascus/twist shotgun barrels and found it is possible to mirror original BP burn rates and pressures with smokeless powder. Double Gun Journal article can be boiled down to fes graphs that debunk any differences in pressure spike duration in the barrel. Bottom line of Sherman's study is that you can mirror BP load characteristics with smokeless powder!

Lastly, steel was invented in 1850 and by 1879, ultimate tensile strengths were 64,000psi. Safe working strengths at that time were considered 25% of ultimate strengths, or 16,000psi. We are normally talking about needed working strengths in the neighborhood of 10,000psi to 14,000psi. Plenty adequate strength for building guns of the era.

 

[BMur]

Black powder ERA

The constant effort to bridge the gap between the "black powder era" and the "smokeless era" is always in vain. Why? Because the black powder era was a "NON STANDARDIZED ERA".

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? In my book on the 41 rimfire I go into depth about what occurred in the pre-smokeless era. It was very clearly an era where literally every manufacturer produced a different variation of the same caliber and no two actually matched.

In the 1920's SAAMI standards was a pivotal attempt to standardize all calibers because using smokeless powder "requires" that you meet specific standards in order to maintain a "SAFETY MARGIN" when discharging smokeless powder in all firearms.

One of those requirements is a "matching" chamber and bore dynamic.

There was absolutely nothing matching in the black powder era. I mean nothing.

So when Navy Arms introduced a .41 rimfire smokeless round in .400 bullet diameter and blue dot smokeless powder? They were specifically targeting modern Remington over/under derringers manufactured post 1911 having a .399 grove diameter.

What they missed and it was a "huge" miss, was that there were over 350,000 .41 CALIBER derringers manufactured during the black powder era that would chamber their smokeless round. Clearly defined in my book.

Many of those derringers have groove diameters of .383 with a variance of over .028 thousandths……. SAAMI standards allow only .003 "max" variance.

So what would happen if you discharge a smokeless .41 rimfire with .400 bullet diameter in an antique derringer with a groove diameter having .383? That's a variance of .017. You would get a significant pressure spike that is way beyond what that 150 year old derringer was designed to handle.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what happened. Next thing you know? They discontinued the rounds!

This includes the .32 rimfire they manufactured as well. Many gun makers during the black powder era manufactured their perception of the .32 rimfire. MOST don't even have a caliber stamped on the gun!!!! None of those matched either.

Smokeless powder does not conform to the black powder era. It is generally NOT SAFE because that era was not in any way standardized. Pressure spikes as I have mentioned countless times on this forum "ARE UNAVOIDABLE"!

Testing antique Smith & Wesson revolvers only does not mean it's safe to use those exact same rounds in other gun makers products. It's a very complex and detailed subject that can not be resolved with basic tests. Those tests must be conducted on all antiques and what you will find is a
HUGE MESS OF NON CONFORMITY. I've posted this information before but Some refuse to actually read it and attempt to comprehend the information.

THE ANTIQUE BLACK POWDER ERA WAS A HUGE MESS OF GUNS MANUFACTURED BY OVER 26 GUN MAKERS THAT DO NOT CONFORM TO SMOKELESS STANDARDS.

THE ONLY REASON THEY GOT AWAY WITH IT DURING THAT TIME WAS SOLEY DUE TO USING BLACK POWDER AS A PROPELLANT. BLACK POWDER DOES NOT SPIKE IN PRESSURE. IT BURNS AT THE SAME BURN RATE EVEN WITH AN OVERSIZED BULLET. YES, THE PERFORMANCE WOULD INCREASE BUT NOT LIKE SMOKELESS POWDER WHERE A SIGNIFICANT "SPIKE" WOULD TAKE PLACE.

THE ONLY REASON NAVY ARMS DIDN'T GET SUED IS BECAUSE "ANTIQUES" ARE CONSIDERED "NON FIREARMS" BY GOVERNMENT DEFINITION.

YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER!

Murph

 

[glowe]

I do not care about 41 rimfire guns!!!!!! I stated earlier that my interest is S&W tip-ups and top-breaks, since they offered some of the best made revolvers in the world. I know enough to study bullet diameters, performance, design to safely conduct my testing. God knows that there were many brands of guns made before 1899 that were not safe to shoot with any powder, including BP, but I do not care about them either. Let people who own them figure it out.

I place no value on your made up term NON STANDARDIZED ERA. It means nothing. If you are trying to say that every gun made after 1898 was standardized, think again. All qualities of revolvers were out there that prove that there were no standards on quality, design, or even regulations that aim at standardization. I am glad you had a chance to get in your usual dozen replies to this and every thread you are involved in here to help raise your numbers, but you have not shared any information that helps the OP decide other than telling everyone they are idiots to shoot smokeless in these S&W guns.

BTW, I posted graphs that show several powders showing pressure curves that match BP. That is yet another disproved old-wives-tale. I am done here!

 

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,


I'm sorry to see this degrade into animosity and mean spiritedness.
The argument becomes nothing more than accusations and repetitive
statements that lessen the positions both sides.

I would like to have confidence to use a smokeless load in say, my
NM#3. But the arguments presented here, although somewhat
compelling, lack proper scientific procedural foundation and some
of the comparisons are frankly "apples to oranges."

Comparing a Damascus barreled shotgun to other firearms is not
a proper argument for a host of reasons. Not the least of which
is the fact that for each centimeter the shot-wad column moves
inside the barrel, the volume increases dramatically. Go back to
your trig and remember that when one doubles the diameter, the
volume increases by four times! (remember area of a circle is pi r²).
So, using data from a large bore firearm and overlaying the results
onto a smaller bore firearm isn't going to be accurate.

Also your assumption that the black powder rounds you tested are
representative of the power and pressures of the same rounds
when they were new. Unless you took, say 15 out of the 50 rounds
in the box your were testing and sent them to a Lab to determine
if there was any degradation of the powder and the primers in those
rounds, you are just supposing they were representative of rounds
used in the 19th Century. A supposition isn't proof and is dangerous
in that the supposition itself is considered bias because it is a "belief"
with no foundation or empirical evidence to substantiate it.

I could go on but this is getting tedious and I want my dinner.


Cheers!
Webb

 

[Jaxenro]

If you put 1,000 rounds of smokeless thru a 120 year old top break you are asking for trouble. Something will fail or break. I don't care about pressure curves or anything else you simply don't know what that revolver has gone thru in the past 120 years

Could you get away with 2 or 3 cylinder fulls? Probably but to assume because you had no issues with 12 shots you can fire 1,200 is a mistake

I only have 32 top breaks and if the gun checks out would probably be ok firing one cylinder with smokeless but I wouldn't do more. My preference would be black powder and lighter loads at that

Modern firearms are relatively inexpensive and made with modern steels and far more capable of handling this than 120 year old firearms are

PS. Even with black powder putting large amounts of ammo thru an old gun is iffy. If you want something to shoot a lot a 100 year old gun isn't a wise choice

 

[rct269]

As previously noted, the typical "failure" of a top break S&W (Pick one!) is not a blown-up cylinder---it's the somewhat ambiguous "frame stretch"-----defined as the increased length of the cylinder window. That in turn increases barrel to cylinder gap, headspace, and messes up the latch fit---all bad, some worse than others!!

Ralph Tremaine

 

[Club Gun Fan]

My offer still stands to buy your blown up antiques.

 

[Double Nickle]

With a N.M 3 single action 44 Russian manufactured 1880 with magnum pistol primers ,3.5 grains of titegroup and 428 cast bullet seated way out 1.355" with heavy roll crimp the brass cases don't even really expand and you can see the powder residue leaking back around the case in the chambers.
If it was going to blow up it should have by now.
I just don't see the point of owning a gun that you can't shoot.
If it blows up it wasn't much of a gun to begin with.
On earlier posts some of you were talking about smokeless powder deterioration.
I have quite a few pounds of rusty looking 3031 from 1980s. Its doesn't smell but when you pour it you get rust dust. You also get rust dust on funnel and on powder measure At the gun club I have people warning me to throw it out. They all said I would blow up the gun. I've burned 2 pounds of it so far in 30wcf and 444 marlin. 5 shot 2" groups at 100yards .

 

[CactusCal]

# 3 target, .38 target cartridge chamber

been shooting FACTORY modern .38 wadcutters in this one since
1975. big cylinder, low pressure. bore is slightly larger than .357, near.38, but wadcutters expand from the base and hold rifling perfectly.

 

[Wyatt Burp]

Remington UMC was loading Smokeless 44 Russian back as early as 1905.
The 44 triple lock didn't come out until 1908.

If they weren't loading Smokeless 44 Russian for the S&W Model 3, then what other gun were they loading smokeless for?

Colt New Services, both standard and target models, and the SAA/Bisleys post 1900 and before the .44 Special arrived in 1908 (I think) were factory guns of the era the smokeless Russian loads were tailored to. My rechambered 1900 Bisley .44 Special is right when smokeless was OK according to Colt so I load 6.4 Unique with 215-240 lead bullets. I would not shoot them in a top break #3.