What is safe/proper .22 round for Manhattan/AST copy of S&W tip-up

[Marcus von W.]

I have one of the little Manhattan "American Standard Tool Co." copies of the Civil War era S&W "tip-up" Second Model .22 revolvers, and am wondering what would be a safe .22 round to fire in it.

Condition is good, everything works as it should and rotates and locks up properly for what it is.

I'm pretty sure the .22 ammo available back then was loaded with black powder, but don't know how that loading compares to what is out there and available today as far as pressure.

I wouldn't want to damage my little antique. It's not something that I would fire often or a lot - probably just take it out once and put a few rounds through it, then put it back in the safe where it has been the past 25 years, but I would like to have it as a functional firearm, not just an interesting looking paper weight.

 

[merl67]

22 CB is what I shoot in my S&W of similar vintage should be ok.

 

[Rambler42]

I shoot CCI .22 CB shorts in my Model 1 with good results. I get them from Midway.

 

[JohnK]

CB rounds

CB rounds, are loaded with a small amount of powder, and a .22 short bullet.

BB rounds, are primer fired only, with a round bullet.

 

[glowe]

These little revolvers take only short 22 ammo, so 22 CB Short is what you want, but is the most powerful round that I would use on these style revolvers, Manhatten or S&W. There is occasionally available a CB and BB Cap by CCI that are even less potent than the CB Shorts, but I would shy away from the primer only loads. Most of these old revolvers have a rough bore and there is a chance that a bullet traveling that slow could stick in the barrel and if additional shots are attempted, who knows what could happen.

Years ago, I did some extensive testing on BP and smokeless ammunition, and did testing for low pressure 22 loads. Using my Model 1, I shot various ammo over a chronograph and got the following information. I settled on 22 CB Shorts with a 29 grain bullet and have had good luck with my Model 1. I will say that you need to get very close to the target in order to get much accuracy. Just shoot paper and don't shoot into wood, since the bullet can bounce right back to the shooter.

22 BB Caps, CCI, Factory, 400fps
22 CB Caps, CCI, Factory, 475fps
22 CB long , CCI, Factory, 700fps
22 CB Sht. , CCI, Factory, 450fps
22 Short..., UMC BP ,.......600fps
22 Short...., CCI, Factory, 990fps

 

[cjwils]

The American Standard Tool Co has a longer cylinder than the similar S&W. The AST can handle Aguila Colibri, but the S&W cannot because of the length. The Colibri has significantly lower pressure than a CB short. I have fired many Colibri rounds in an AST. That is what I recommend, assuming your gun is safe.

 

[glowe]

There is no pressure with a round with no powder. As I mentioned, I have stuck these in barrels and will not use them anymore.

A CB short with velocities 25% slower than original BP will not offer anywhere near BP pressures, which was what the revolver was originally designed for.

 

[glowe]

It should go without saying that you SHOULD NOT shoot a gun in poor condtion or one with excessive corrosion, so I guess I am assuming that it is a given that the gun is in decent shape. If not, do not shoot any cartridge in it.

 

[first-model]

Guys, I can't in good conscience recommend shooting any of these old guns.

I respect OP's desire to keep "shooters" in his safe, and I make a point of shooting virtually every non-antique firearm that I own. But this is different ... we're talking a 160+ year old gun with 160+ year old metallurgy, not to mention untold abuses over the years that may have compromised it in other ways.

Even the most common of these guns is still a rare and precious artifact from another time, and I'd really recommend giving it a very light oiling and putting it somewhere safe. That will ensure that future generations will get to enjoy this as much as we did.

Mike, the stodgy old historian

PS - photographs of the gun and the bore won't even begin to reveal defects in the manufacturing, and/or abuses from stress. There's a whole science dedicated to this -- one that I'm only passingly familiar with.

 

[mmaher94087]

I agree, CB shorts are the hottest .22 to run through any antique revolver. However, I also agree with Mike; why take the chance? I will not shoot any of my antiques with modern powder regardless of the chronograph fps. I have shot my #2 Army using period ammo but I was young and dumb at that time and probably smoked $100 worth of collectible ammo. Others can disagree, but I won't take the risk just for the opportunity to say that I've shot a number 1.. unless it belongs to another.

 

[glowe]

. . . There is a real risk pulling the trigger on them with modern powder loads . . .

Absolutely Not True! Anyone who takes the time to do their research will find that smokeless loads can be and are constructed to mimic black powder pressure curves. With the right components, there is no pressure spike, no excessive pressure, and no danger if used as intended. I have a computer full of research and came to the conclusion long ago.

Many people think that black powder is the solution to everything. The fact is that black powder can and does generate pressures easily into the 30,000 psi range in M/L rifles and 15,000 psi plus in a full load heavy bullet 45 Colt. One can use Trail Boss loads for 45 Colt that run 9000 psi.

Here is the problem, people make claims about the use of the dreaded smokeless powder, but NEVER offer any evidence that their opinions are accurate and documented with research. Can any gun break by shooting it, absolutely. Can you break any gun by over-loading ammunition, absolutely! Can you blow up a Model 29 with a double load, absolutely! Can any part of any gun break by simply dry firing, absolutely! Do ammunition companies produce near obsolete ammunition calibers with the slightest chance they are stronger or more dangerous than their black powder ancestors? Absolutely not!

I do not own a gun that I have not shot, including all the rimfires in my post - No. 2 cleanup , post #10. I have to admit that I try not to buy guns that are in bad condition in the first place unless for parts. Those are my rules, but others can do what they feel is best for them. It is not for us to tell the OP what to do with his gun, but rather support his decision-making process by giving factual data and experiences for him to make an informed decision. I can tell you that I have seen a 22 primer only round shot through a plastic tube around a corner without rupture, so little to no danger. I have stuck bullets in a barrel of a modern 6” gun while testing velocities, so pressures have to be very-very low. I have noted that 22 CB Shorts are 20% slower than BP 22 Shorts, with obviously lower pressures than original.

Personally, part of the pleasures and ownership of any gun in my collection, is learning how it operates, what accuracy they were capable of producing, and experiencing what the original owners did when shooting whatever gun when it was new, whether 10 years ago or 160 years ago. Simply letting it set around in the safe for a few decades gives me little pleasure.

 

[first-model]

Where the forum wants to go from here? It doesn't matter to me. It's a historical fact that originated with the actual gun makers is all I am saying. Who are we to argue with documented history?

It's only a "historical fact" in the sense that gun makers and ammunition makers made this assertion. But that doesn't correlate to the statement actually being true or false.

(and as an aside: historians -- those with academic training and credentials -- don't generally talk about "historical facts." We interpret history through the rather dirty lens of the scraps and shards of evidence that remain, and different people looking at the same evidence will often arrive at very different conclusions. In that context, "documented history" is always open to reinterpretation.)

My assertion about not shooting these old gun has nothing to do with smoke vs smokeless powder. It has to do with exposing a 160+ year old gun with questionable metallurgy to any sort of ballistic pressures. It also questions the wisdom of exposing an artifact like this to the wear and tear of shooting, even if a modern round can be safely chambered and shot. I value the careful curation of these artifacts as the most paramount concern. Others feel differently.

As for the science behind smoke vs smokeless powder: I'm not in a position to comment there. My layman understanding is that these powders burn quite differently, and the acceleration of the pressure increase is very different between the two. How that translates into the stresses that a firearm experiences is beyond my pay grade.

Mike

 

[cjwils]

Some of the CB and Colibri rounds have no powder at all, only a primer. Where does that leave the black vs. smokeless discussion?

I have fired roughly 20 different antique .22s. If Aguila Colibri rounds will fit, I use them. If they don't fit, then I try CCI CB shorts. Based on noise and recoil, I am convinced that Colibri rounds have significantly less pressure than CB shorts.

In my opinion, if I cannot shoot it, then it is not really a gun; it is just an interesting metal piece to hang on the wall.

 

[glowe]

You are not ruffling feathers, but you are perpetuating rumors and historically incorrect information. The industry started these rumors well over 100 years ago, but that is not evidence it was lack of knowledge. If anyone studies the history of S&W, boxes were stamped for a short time during the transition and then accepted and stated smokeless loads were fine. It is amazing that people still use these ill-informed data points from over 100 years ago to support their positions. Fact is that old-time reloaders blew up a sizeable number of guns back in the day by loading rounds with the same volume of smokeless powder as they did BP. If that was done with early Unique powder, it would have been about a triple or quadruple load and more than enough to blow up a post 1898 Colt or any other revolver.

That would have scared most manufacturers who had not spent enough research time with the new-fangled powders to make valid observations. That was a very long time ago, but they eventually accepted the new powders and never looked back. I shoot several pounds of black powder a year and have no delusions that it is anything but another way to send a bullet downrange. Proper reloading and/or purchasing the proper manufactured ammunition will put no more stress on a sound antique gun than black powder and, in many cases, many published smokeless loads will put less pressure on them than standard BP loads.

BTW: Here is what improper use of BP can do to a modern BP rifle. Anything can happen to any gun with the mis-use of any type of powder, not just because of a gun's age.

 

[Marcus von W.]

These are the only photos I have right now, I have to find it to take more.

Overally, it's in excellent condition, cylinder and chambers are clean as I recall, it does have a little roughness in the bore...