Elite Armory
Member
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2011
- Messages
- 47
- Reaction score
- 4
Are there any Pre-1899 revolvers that were developed for smokeless powder?
Smokeless Powder Antique Revolvers
- Thread starter Elite Armory
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
rhmc24
Absent Comrade
Not "developed FOR smokless", at least in the sense of an entirely new smokeless design. Early Colt SAAs are considered 'black powder only' but by mid 1890s are considered smokeless capable, probably due to improvement in the steel used. Smith & Wesson in 1909 first stated that their revolvers were approved for factory loaded smokeless ammo. That covered their DAs back into the 1880s. Just how far back into history that was intended is not known.
Ballarat
Member
As above, if you own one and are going to shoot it, then, unless you are 100% sure I would stick to the BP loadings. Caution beats a blown gun.
Thuer
Member
Yes, Blackpowder ONLY if you want that your gun will survive till the next century and beyond.
I wish that the powder coumpanies would some research on how to load smokeless powder cartridges that match the pressure curves of BP.
I have Model 1 1/2s, and 2s that have all been shot with Navy Arms 32rf and all function very well with that ammo. As I understand it, these smokeless loads were developed to safely shoot in BP pistols.
I have an article in the Double Gun Journal, Summer, 2002, titled "Finding Out for Myself Part VI", by Sherman Bell. Bell extensively tested BP shotguns with smokeless loads. His test gun had strain gauges attached all along the length of the barrel. Long story short - he found that Hodgdon's Clays powder could be loaded that exhibited the identical pressure surve as BP. This leads me to believe there are smokeless loads that could be developed.
I would love that someday a more knowledgeable person than myself would conduct these same experiments with pistols.
I have Model 1 1/2s, and 2s that have all been shot with Navy Arms 32rf and all function very well with that ammo. As I understand it, these smokeless loads were developed to safely shoot in BP pistols.
I have an article in the Double Gun Journal, Summer, 2002, titled "Finding Out for Myself Part VI", by Sherman Bell. Bell extensively tested BP shotguns with smokeless loads. His test gun had strain gauges attached all along the length of the barrel. Long story short - he found that Hodgdon's Clays powder could be loaded that exhibited the identical pressure surve as BP. This leads me to believe there are smokeless loads that could be developed.
I would love that someday a more knowledgeable person than myself would conduct these same experiments with pistols.
deadin
US Veteran
Question: Why would anyone want to shoot an antique gun?
Answer?: To duplicate feeling of what shooters of the period experienced.
Kind of like hunting with a muzzle loader. To see what our forefathers went through. (We won't consider the fact that muzzle-loading season is also special...
)
Anyway, if shooting antiques is for the ambiance, wouldn't black powder be more authentic? It's easy to load and safer to shoot, plus you get the full experience of cleaning up after.
Answer?: To duplicate feeling of what shooters of the period experienced.
Kind of like hunting with a muzzle loader. To see what our forefathers went through. (We won't consider the fact that muzzle-loading season is also special...
)Anyway, if shooting antiques is for the ambiance, wouldn't black powder be more authentic? It's easy to load and safer to shoot, plus you get the full experience of cleaning up after.
I have shot may pounds of black powder, but the clean-up is a mess. BP residue gets into the mechanism, all internal parts, and residue is very corrosive, if not totally cleaned, dried and lubricated after every outing to the range. You can only effectively clean BP using soap and water, which can cause more corrosion problems.
Pyrodex and Triple Seven are advertised as non-corrosive alternatives, but leave large amounts of residue that is quite hydroscopic, collecting moisture and corrosion if not cleaned the same way as BP.
So many of the antique Smiths I've seen have been damaged by years of BP and I thought that it would actually be better for the gun to shoot a non-corrosive powder.
Unfortunately, there are no tried and proven non-BP solutions in most of the antique calibers available today.
Pyrodex and Triple Seven are advertised as non-corrosive alternatives, but leave large amounts of residue that is quite hydroscopic, collecting moisture and corrosion if not cleaned the same way as BP.
So many of the antique Smiths I've seen have been damaged by years of BP and I thought that it would actually be better for the gun to shoot a non-corrosive powder.
Unfortunately, there are no tried and proven non-BP solutions in most of the antique calibers available today.
deadin
US Veteran
Agreed, BP can be corrosive if not properly cleaned. However smokeless can stress parts not designed for it.
BP corrosion can be controlled by prompt cleaning. I don't know of any way to control smokeless stress other than not using it.
Besides, the cleaning of BP residue is part of the experience....
(Or are you just lazy??)
BP corrosion can be controlled by prompt cleaning. I don't know of any way to control smokeless stress other than not using it.
Besides, the cleaning of BP residue is part of the experience....
(Or are you just lazy??)
OP
Elite Armory
Member
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2011
- Messages
- 47
- Reaction score
- 4
This is pretty interesting. So they stated that their previous revolvers were approved for factory loads even though they weren't developed for them?
Since it's not known how far back into the 1880's this goes, would it be safe to assume anything from 1890-1898 would be inclusive in their statement?
Last edited:
deadin
US Veteran
Just playing Devil's Advocate here.......
I could imagine what they may have meant is "Go ahead and shoot your old top-break with smokeless. It's not going to blow up in your face, but we will be able to sell you a new gun sooner rather than later."
I could imagine what they may have meant is "Go ahead and shoot your old top-break with smokeless. It's not going to blow up in your face, but we will be able to sell you a new gun sooner rather than later."
Thuer
Member
Using smokless stretschess the notches of the frame and wided them.
My English isnt that good that I can explain it better. But even with a so called nitro load that compares the blackpowder pressure it can harm your revolver. I do have several old blackpowder revolvers. I dont use anything else in them but black powder. For cleaning I use also Borebutter. This works great.
My English isnt that good that I can explain it better. But even with a so called nitro load that compares the blackpowder pressure it can harm your revolver. I do have several old blackpowder revolvers. I dont use anything else in them but black powder. For cleaning I use also Borebutter. This works great.
In the latter 1890s and early 1900s, various Powder Companys offered 'Smokeless' Powders for use in erstwhile Black Powder Arms.
Many people did this, using various proprietary kinds of Smokeless Powder, in their old Cap & Ball Rifles and Revolvers as well as in re-Loading for Metallic Cartridge.
There is no reason why one could not use 'Bullseye' or 'Unique' Powder in a period Colt Navy or other Cap & Ball Revolver, which many people did do with perfect impunity, to duplicate Black Powder Velocities, so long as one manages an appropriate Loading Density - which is the ratio of how much net Volume there is under the Bullet, to the amount of Powder used...which is then also to be considered with respect to the weight and type of Bullet.
Same with any Muzzle Loader, Shotgun or whatever, same as any Metallic Cartridge situation.
Since there are no Tables for these decisions to be guided for Muzzle Loading Arms, one would have to extrapolate or work out one's own Tables...and decide proportions of what Powder to how much 'Air' which is to be beneath the Bullet...for acheiving an approximate peak pressure and or acceleration for the Bullet, which the Arm in question will be comfortable with.
Obviously this would be important to manage correctly, and would require a very deliberate technique, both in prior calculating, and in very precise practice when Loading a Muzzle Loading Arm with Bullseye or Unique or other.
Consider the average mid range .38 Special Wadcutter, using Bullseye -
These are considered 'safe' to use in the S&W Model of 1899 'M&P', or any other .38 Special or .38 Colt Revolver of the Black Power era.
A few grains of Powder, and a large amount of Air under the Bullet, and, a mild, easy low to midling Velocity Round capable of supurb accuracy up to about 50 yards or so.
Pressure generated by a Propellent is a function of burn rate, time it has to burn, and, the volume it's gasses occupy - or have to occupy - as it is burning.
Soon as the Bullet starts to move, that volume starts to increase.
Loading Density is one way for these factors to be harmonized for acheiving an optimum balance for the Arm and the purpose.
Far as all that goes.
In summary - Smokeless Loads for erstwhile Black Powder Arms, would have to be calculated to have a correct Loading Density for the Arm in question, which means amount of Powder, amount of Air beneath the Bullet, and, appropriate Bullet kind and weight.
Just as Smokeless Loads do when for Modern Arms.
But, is there any reason really to make the effort and exercise worth the troubles?
Not for me, but for someone else, maybe there are reasons which would justify the effort for them.
Personally, I like Black Powder Metallic Cartridge very much for any Revolvers, old or modern.
So for me, other than studying the matter academically, I have no motive or interest to use Smokeless in what are otherwise Black Powder Era Guns.
Particularly in the Black Powder era Top Breaks, Black Powder Cartridges will give a much better performance than the off the shelf 'SAAMI' compliant Smokeless ones of today.
So in my opnion, really, for all practical purposes and satisfactions, in any Black Powder era Arm, one really is best in many ways to just use Black Powder.
The Velocities will be better, the report and recoil will be more satisfying, and no worries!
Many people did this, using various proprietary kinds of Smokeless Powder, in their old Cap & Ball Rifles and Revolvers as well as in re-Loading for Metallic Cartridge.
There is no reason why one could not use 'Bullseye' or 'Unique' Powder in a period Colt Navy or other Cap & Ball Revolver, which many people did do with perfect impunity, to duplicate Black Powder Velocities, so long as one manages an appropriate Loading Density - which is the ratio of how much net Volume there is under the Bullet, to the amount of Powder used...which is then also to be considered with respect to the weight and type of Bullet.
Same with any Muzzle Loader, Shotgun or whatever, same as any Metallic Cartridge situation.
Since there are no Tables for these decisions to be guided for Muzzle Loading Arms, one would have to extrapolate or work out one's own Tables...and decide proportions of what Powder to how much 'Air' which is to be beneath the Bullet...for acheiving an approximate peak pressure and or acceleration for the Bullet, which the Arm in question will be comfortable with.
Obviously this would be important to manage correctly, and would require a very deliberate technique, both in prior calculating, and in very precise practice when Loading a Muzzle Loading Arm with Bullseye or Unique or other.
Consider the average mid range .38 Special Wadcutter, using Bullseye -
These are considered 'safe' to use in the S&W Model of 1899 'M&P', or any other .38 Special or .38 Colt Revolver of the Black Power era.
A few grains of Powder, and a large amount of Air under the Bullet, and, a mild, easy low to midling Velocity Round capable of supurb accuracy up to about 50 yards or so.
Pressure generated by a Propellent is a function of burn rate, time it has to burn, and, the volume it's gasses occupy - or have to occupy - as it is burning.
Soon as the Bullet starts to move, that volume starts to increase.
Loading Density is one way for these factors to be harmonized for acheiving an optimum balance for the Arm and the purpose.
Far as all that goes.
In summary - Smokeless Loads for erstwhile Black Powder Arms, would have to be calculated to have a correct Loading Density for the Arm in question, which means amount of Powder, amount of Air beneath the Bullet, and, appropriate Bullet kind and weight.
Just as Smokeless Loads do when for Modern Arms.
But, is there any reason really to make the effort and exercise worth the troubles?
Not for me, but for someone else, maybe there are reasons which would justify the effort for them.
Personally, I like Black Powder Metallic Cartridge very much for any Revolvers, old or modern.
So for me, other than studying the matter academically, I have no motive or interest to use Smokeless in what are otherwise Black Powder Era Guns.
Particularly in the Black Powder era Top Breaks, Black Powder Cartridges will give a much better performance than the off the shelf 'SAAMI' compliant Smokeless ones of today.
So in my opnion, really, for all practical purposes and satisfactions, in any Black Powder era Arm, one really is best in many ways to just use Black Powder.
The Velocities will be better, the report and recoil will be more satisfying, and no worries!
Last edited:
DWalt
Member
Smokeless powder can be used even in C&B revolvers, of course only with very light loads. The best reason for not doing that is because of the significant possibility of using an undetected overly heavy charge or a double load. With black powder or Pyrodex, etc. a normal load will pretty well fill the chamber. A light smokeless load won't come anywhere close to filling the chamber, so you have no visual indication of an overload. Unless you take extreme precautions, you could have a bomb in your hand.
I have fired Bullseye in a .36 Colt Navy replica, but only using 2 to 3 grains, and with extreme caution to avoid loading of a double charge. Not a practice I would recommend however. To demonstrate, I have been known on occasion to load lead balls into uncharged chambers because of inattention to loading procedures. If I can do that, I can also inadvertently load a double charge of smokeless powder.
I have often wondered how the old-time soldiers and gunfighters kept their cool under fire to avoid an uncharged chamber when they reloaded? Believe me, it's not easy to pull out a ball from an empty chamber even at the range. About the only way is to drill a hole in the ball and screw in a wood or sheet metal screw and then pull on the screw head with a pair of pliers. Try doing that on the battlefield under hostile fire.
I have fired Bullseye in a .36 Colt Navy replica, but only using 2 to 3 grains, and with extreme caution to avoid loading of a double charge. Not a practice I would recommend however. To demonstrate, I have been known on occasion to load lead balls into uncharged chambers because of inattention to loading procedures. If I can do that, I can also inadvertently load a double charge of smokeless powder.
I have often wondered how the old-time soldiers and gunfighters kept their cool under fire to avoid an uncharged chamber when they reloaded? Believe me, it's not easy to pull out a ball from an empty chamber even at the range. About the only way is to drill a hole in the ball and screw in a wood or sheet metal screw and then pull on the screw head with a pair of pliers. Try doing that on the battlefield under hostile fire.
Last edited:
rhmc24
Absent Comrade
Elite Armory - Your:
This is pretty interesting. So they stated that their previous revolvers were approved for factory loads even though they weren't developed for them?
Since it's not known how far back into the 1880's this goes, would it be safe to assume anything from 1890-1898 would be inclusive in their statement?
I will post S&Ws reply info below. You can judge for yourself its scope & meaning. I had asked about use of smokeless in .44 DA top breaks. I had reamed one of my .44 Russians and shoot .44 Specials. Every time I mentioned it I got a chorus of warnings I was about to blow up my gun, etc. This is the reply package from S&W.
[/IMG]
This is pretty interesting. So they stated that their previous revolvers were approved for factory loads even though they weren't developed for them?
Since it's not known how far back into the 1880's this goes, would it be safe to assume anything from 1890-1898 would be inclusive in their statement?
I will post S&Ws reply info below. You can judge for yourself its scope & meaning. I had asked about use of smokeless in .44 DA top breaks. I had reamed one of my .44 Russians and shoot .44 Specials. Every time I mentioned it I got a chorus of warnings I was about to blow up my gun, etc. This is the reply package from S&W.
Last edited:
deadin
US Veteran
Would shooting your old BP gun with smokeless be comparable to running your old car on unleaded gas?
Sure, it will work.........for a while..
Sure, it will work.........for a while..
rhmc24
Absent Comrade
deadin -- Since you offer advice, what can I expect to happen to my old S&W DA? Advice-wise, lead free is better for an engine than leaded gas - but that is a debate for some automotive forum.
The question resolves in practice on the actual Loading Density one acheives, with the particular Powder and Bullet one is using.
This seems to be what is always overlooked in occasions of the question of using Smokeless Powders on erstwhile Back Powder Arms comes up.
Assignment of powder quantity and the ratio of a particular Powder quantity to Air space in the Cartridge, beneath the Bullet, is not an arbitrary matter in any Loadings with 'Smokeless'.
Hence, the necessity for critical understanding, and correct assignment of the actual ingredients - amount of Powder, amout of Air, weight and kind of Bullet.
With Black Powder, one fills the Case, compresses the Charge well, and, may use a wide range of Bullet weights ( even if not using a wide range of Bullet types, such as FMJ etc ).
With Smokleless, the particular characteristics of the individual Powder itself, and a correct Loading Density for that Powder and Bullet combination, have to be taken into consideration when designing the Charge for the Arm in question.
Since people generally will merely glaze over with all this, or not understand what is meant, or not have the technical acumen to arrive at correct calculations in theory or practice, and since there are no Loading Table Data sheets for determining Smokeless Charges for Muzzle Loading or older erstwhile Metallic Cartridge Black Powder Arms, it is and has been wisest to simply admonish NOT to do it ( not to use 'Smokeless' in any erstwhile Black Powder Arm ) at all.
This seems to be what is always overlooked in occasions of the question of using Smokeless Powders on erstwhile Back Powder Arms comes up.
Assignment of powder quantity and the ratio of a particular Powder quantity to Air space in the Cartridge, beneath the Bullet, is not an arbitrary matter in any Loadings with 'Smokeless'.
Hence, the necessity for critical understanding, and correct assignment of the actual ingredients - amount of Powder, amout of Air, weight and kind of Bullet.
With Black Powder, one fills the Case, compresses the Charge well, and, may use a wide range of Bullet weights ( even if not using a wide range of Bullet types, such as FMJ etc ).
With Smokleless, the particular characteristics of the individual Powder itself, and a correct Loading Density for that Powder and Bullet combination, have to be taken into consideration when designing the Charge for the Arm in question.
Since people generally will merely glaze over with all this, or not understand what is meant, or not have the technical acumen to arrive at correct calculations in theory or practice, and since there are no Loading Table Data sheets for determining Smokeless Charges for Muzzle Loading or older erstwhile Metallic Cartridge Black Powder Arms, it is and has been wisest to simply admonish NOT to do it ( not to use 'Smokeless' in any erstwhile Black Powder Arm ) at all.
Last edited:
No...this is not a good comparison.
Lead used to supply Lubrication for the Valve Stems and for insulaating the Valve Seats from erosion.
Unleaded Gasolene in an old-enough Stock engine will cause Valve Seat erosion/regression and possibly other problems.
One can use old Leaded 100 Octaine Aviation Gasolene in an 'Old' Engine and the Engine WILL run MUCH peppier! I used to do that with my 1946 Chevrolet One Ton Truck, and it was fun and interesting.
Possibly it would make more heat than the 80 Octaine, I don't know.
Does it hurt anything?
I think this would depend on how one drives, what one is asking of the Engine - Stump Pulling? Fast accelerating? Towing heavy Trailers up long grades uphill? Or just out for a Sunday Drive? and how one stays within a safe RPM range and reasonable usual rate of vehicle acceleration, for the Engine in question.
But regardless, it is not a good comparison to the question of 'Snokeless' Powders to 'Black Powder'.
I am not sure if I am remembering this coreclty, but...I t-h-i-n-k the 'SAMMI" PSI for .45 Colt is about 12,000 PSI for off the shelf Smokeless Cartridges.
Full House BP using a good grade of Black Powder, can get up to 16 or 17,000 PSI...maybe more.
Possibly someone could look this up...I have to be out on some errands for the rest of the day now.
Last edited:
deadin
US Veteran
OK. Bad comparison......
I was thinking that unleaded in old engine will burn out the valves. Smokeless in a BP gun will loosen it up sooner than with BP.
BTW, be careful with really minimum powder in a large case. Or at least do some research before trying it. I was taught years ago there is something called "detonation" (somewhat controversial) that may happen with super light loads of some powders. It supposedly can take a gun apart. (I'm not saying it will, just that there are stories reporting it happening.)
I was thinking that unleaded in old engine will burn out the valves. Smokeless in a BP gun will loosen it up sooner than with BP.
BTW, be careful with really minimum powder in a large case. Or at least do some research before trying it. I was taught years ago there is something called "detonation" (somewhat controversial) that may happen with super light loads of some powders. It supposedly can take a gun apart. (I'm not saying it will, just that there are stories reporting it happening.)
OP
Elite Armory
Member
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2011
- Messages
- 47
- Reaction score
- 4
Okay, all this sounds like no smokeless in black powder guns to my ears.
Are there any Pre-1899 revolvers made by S&W OR any other manufactures that were made for smokeless?
Are there any Pre-1899 revolvers made by S&W OR any other manufactures that were made for smokeless?
Similar threads
- Locked
