Smokeless in '76 Clones

[w44wcf]

In bp,,would 2f be the preminum choice for the '76 calibres ?

In the 1882 WInchester catalog, they recommend both FG and FFG depending on the manufacturer.
All of the manufacturers referenced are no longer in business.  

A few years ago we tested a compressed load of 60 grs. by weight of Goex FFG under a 300 gr. cast bullet (457191) in my friends original .45-60 '76. It averaged right around 1,300 f.p.s.

w44wcf  

[w44wcf]

Posted by: Marshal Deadwood 
Insert Quote
I too would like to know the 'data' on these 'blown up' '76win rifles.
My guess is common sence was totally abandoned.

I would agree, common sense was totally abandonded.....too much fast burning smokeless powder .

Speaking of a '76 failure, here's a post dated 11/1/04 by colt 1849 (gunsmith) on the Leverguns forum   
 
Had the opportunity to look at a Winchester 1876 that had a serious over charge of smokeless shot through it, causing a complete separation of the case and head. Barrel right at the chamber area was blown out at the bottom, about 3 inches of the bottom half of the barrel was in pieces. This caused a secondary detonation of the cartridge in the mag tube. Mag tube had a “banana peel” split the first few inches, then split along the top seam for about 6 inches. Forend was completely shattered, what remained was toothpicks. Frame had split & expanded in the barrel threaded area to almost the lifter area.
What did surprise me as that the links held with no measurable distortion or damage.

Understand that the shooter walked away from this mishap.
Someone turned a $4000 gun into scrap very quickly 

w44wcf

[Delmonico]

The IMR series of powders are more friendly being a single base, but one must remember that 4198 is still fairly fast burning.  Fast burning powders give a faster pressure spike which increases case head thrust, which in turn puts more stress on the locking mechanism, exactly what a toggle link does not need.  Double base powders of which 5744 is one, get more hairy in a hurry than single base powders.  I believe the NG content of it is about 25%, don't have the figure handy, but I do remember it being one of the highest or highest NG content of any canister powders. 

Myself if I were going to venture this way on any BP round that loading data is not been lab tested for, I'd start with IMR 4831 and see if the velocity made the grade.  BTW the IMR pamphlet has loading data for rounds you'd never think of using that powder in and the other of the slower powders.  Study the pressures some of these loads develop, interesting and remember, this is lab tested data.  They even have 4831 data for 22 Hornet and 45-70. 

Powders that are really too slow for a case will really drop pressures, even better it's impossible to put in a double charge.  And of course the pressure spike is slower.  I'm doing some of this with a 22 Hornet made on a case hardened Low Wall, I'm running half normal pressures and only lost about 150 fps or less than 10%.  The Low-Wall is safe for a Hornet, but why not give it a break since the action is 107 years old.  (BTW it was rebarreled in 1947 so I didn't do it.)

[Hobie]

If your're staying at BP velocity...I'm wanting to see some specific data on what smokeless powder blew any of those rifles up.
My 1969 Cartridges of the World is showing a 1450fps loading for the 45-60 with smokeless...so what's the deal?

Was Mr. Barnes or Mr. Amber the editor of that one?

[Delmonico]

If your're staying at BP velocity...I'm wanting to see some specific data on what smokeless powder blew any of those rifles up.
My 1969 Cartridges of the World is showing a 1450fps loading for the 45-60 with smokeless...so what's the deal?

The same velocity as factory rounds does not always mean nearly equal pressures, You could duplicate factory loads in a 460 Weatherby with Bullseye, if you could get the danged brass and the rifle to hold together.

[Hobie]

Did somebody answer my question as to how a spike (the maximum) is more a spike one way or another?  I just read the entire topic and missed it.  As noted, in the .45-70, the maximum pressure (the spike) was actually less with 4198 than with BP.  

I'm very much in agreement with John vis-a-vis IMR or H 4198 and the 40% rule.  It has held true over a wide variety of arms and cartridges from that era.  I should note that nobody I've known shooting these or originals are trying to come up with Snooky Williams HV loads.  Everyone wants to do no more than duplicate factory BP velocities.  

[Delmonico]

That means max pressure is reached faster, this puts more velocity on the case moving moving back out of the chamber and puts more strain on the locking mechanism of the firearm.  This is called case head thrust.  Kinetic energy goes up on a mulitple of 4 for every time you double the velocity.  In other words the case head slams the bolt much harder.

[Hobie]

What is your source on that?

[Mike D.]

This is an interesting subject and the pros and cons of loading smokeless powder in toggle link action rifles can be discussed ad nauseum. For a number of years my standard go-to load for my original .45-60 was 32 grains of IMR 4198 behind a 300 grain bullet of  hard cast and jacketed design. There were NO incidents or pressure signs with this load. With all that I have read on this thread, the gun should have been severely damaged by this heavy load, but that was not the case at all.

[Delmonico]

What is your source on that?

Long study (Most of 30 years) on ballistics as a hobby, many sources, spent a few years of doing some comercial reloading for a friend who was licensed and insured.  Call any powder company and have them put one of their lab guys on the phone if you want, they will tell you the same thing. 

Case head thrust is also increased by the surface area of the case.  A good example of how that works is TC Chambers the Contender in 223, a full 55-60,000 psi load, they also chamber it in or did, in 45-70, guess what, trapdoor data only is recomended. 

Also check the max SAMMI pressures allowable for the different gauges of shotguns, the little 410 is allowed higher pressures that the 10 mag, each larger gauge has a lower pressure ceiling, except the 3 1/2 inch 12 gauge which is only chambered in very strong shotguns.

I have one my desk here at work a copy of the #7 Speer Manual, Copyright 1966, there is an article in it by none other than George Nonte on loading most of these rounds including data, which I will not post.  (If anyone wants it, either find a copy or sneak in here and copy it from mine when I'm with a customer, then I'm in no way responsible. Pen and paper will be laying on the counter)   

Even has a formula for "guessing" how much 2400, 4227 or 4198 to use when working up a load.  George did not have the information now avalible theough the use of computors and strain gauges.  One reason if you come on in with a copy of your latest Speer manual, I'm willing to bet most loads with the same caliber, bullet and powder have be lowered slightly.  This system shows many things about pressure spikes that were undectacable with the old copper crusher and lead crusser methods.

(Not to make fun of anyone's knowledge, but if none of this makes any sense, you need a good library of books on loading to do some serious study.)

Also I bet a call to Speer and asking them if you should use Mr. Nonte's data will get a flat out "NO."

Case head thrust is something few ever take in to consideration.  Also a case with a very straight body will have less thrust on the bolt face than one with a lot of taper.  BP rounds for these rifles have a fair amount of taper in the body, something to consider.

[Fox Creek Kid]

There were NO incidents or pressure signs with this load.

Which means nothing. Over pressure symptons rarely manifest themselves with signs such as blown primers, swelling, etc. The gun writer Rick Jamison had an article on this several years back whereas in a controlled situation he deliberately loaded rounds in modern high powered rifles that were "blue pill" & beyond. He had NO "symptoms" as aforementioned. In other words the bolt opened and the cases looked & measured normal. Moral of the story: visual comparison means absolutely NOTHING. You can only tell true pressure under laboratory conditions with strain gauges as well as other state of the art equipment.

Why don't we all reach an agreement? Some of us are "purists" and wish to use these weapons as they were originally designed as well as not wanting to "push the envelope" on a 19th century design. Others, for whatever their own personal reasons, have a disdain for real BP and will use any means possible to avoid using it. Period.

[Delmonico]

Any round that does not show pressure signs has to be a dud, even if the bullet stuck in the barrel there were signs of pressure.  Excess pressure that is a differnt story.  Just because a gun don't blow up or a case rupture or a primer blow out does not mean the pressures are not excessive in that firearm.  It is the design of the lock-up of a toggle link that is the weak point, not the metal monern replicas are made of.  Anyone who wants to shoot Nitro powders in these, would be better to wait till proper lab tested data is availble for them. 

Myself I could care less if one shoots Nitro loads in them, as long as they are safe, but unless you own a ballistic lab and know how to use it, how do you really know they are safe unless the data has been generated in a ballistic's lab? 

[Grizzly Adams]

Why don't we all reach an agreement? Some of us are "purists" and wish to use these weapons as they were originally designed as well as not wanting to "push the envelope" on a 19th century design. Others, for whatever their own personal reasons, have a disdain for real BP and will use any means possible to avoid using it. Period.

Now what would be the fun in that!?   Actually,  the real issue here is the difference between the BP purist and the non-BP traditionalist who love the old arms, but don't cotton to the Holy Black.  Personally, I shoot and enjoy both, as I believe they both have their place. 

That said, I don't hear anyone here suggesting that we "push the envelope" past what is sensible in terms of the design.  This is a 19th century design and that must be kept clearly in mind!  While one can, and do,  push the BP envelope with a design like the Winchester 1886 with nickel  steel barrel, doing so with the toggle link actions is just plain dangerous.

By the way, I shoot Frontier Cartridge Duelist, and my match guns have not seen any smokeless in 8 years!  My Sharps does not know the stuff exists!

[Fox Creek Kid]

Then we have a "truce". All have saved face and are still friends. 

P.S.  I'll admit I was skeptical of a forum for the '76 but it will be a an excellent resource to refer neophytes to just like the Spencer Forum. 

[Delmonico]

Griz, I will say this out loud rather than in a PM.  I would not allow any loading data for Nitro loads to be posted unless they were from a known lab tested source.

[Grizzly Adams]

Then we have a "truce". All have saved face and are still friends. 

P.S.  I'll admit I was skeptical of a forum for the '76 but it will be a an excellent resource to refer neophytes to just like the Spencer Forum. 

Of course!  This is a place where gentlemen discuss issues knowing that it is ok to disagree - as gentlemen!

[Hobie]

Delmonico,

I am well aware of the concepts mentioned regarding breach thrust (particularly in Contenders, some cartridges for which I've reloaded) and while my intention is not one of disrespect towards you, I would submit that I believe our level of experience is very similar.  So when I ask for a reference, I mean a printed reference as I'd like to read it.   

Fox Creek Kid,

I don't think anyone here has ever supported the idea of using the pressure signs commonly referred to by shooters of those new fangled bolt actions using cartridges working at pressures of 65K+ PSI. 

On the other hand some of us recognize that it is inevitable that BP (not being worshiped by most folks) might be in short supply, difficult to acquire or even forbidden and yet, contrarians that we must be to buy and  shoot these guns, we might still want to shoot and use what is still an expensive firearm.  That leaves us with precious few options, which we must explore.   Why would we not be friends?   

[Delmonico]

Well Hobie I guess your going to have to go digging for it like I have over the years, remember a lot of this is basic simple physics.  A good start would be Hatcher's Notebook, PO Akley's handloading guide, Get some of Dean Grenells books, I don't have the formula for figuring kienetic energy with me here at work, if I have time between customers I could Google it.  A lot of this information has been covered in recent years in Handloader magazine and most up to date loading manuals cover it in some depth.  The information is out there if you do a little looking.

[Fox Creek Kid]

Hobie, Mike D. said: 

For a number of years my standard go-to load for my original .45-60 was 32 grains of IMR 4198 behind a 300 grain bullet of  hard cast and jacketed design. There were NO incidents or pressure signs with this load. With all that I have read on this thread, the gun should have been severely damaged by this heavy load, but that was not the case at all.

Are you reading all the posts?

On the other hand some of us recognize that it is inevitable that BP (not being worshiped by most folks) might be in short supply, difficult to acquire or even forbidden and yet, contrarians that we must be to buy and shoot these guns, we might still want to shoot and use what is still an expensive firearm.

I guess I just can't fathom why anyone would want to shoot anything but real BP in 19th century style weapons. ANYONE can order BP from http://www.powderinc.com/ in as small an order as a mere five lbs. No excuse there. BP is far easier to clean then "smokeyless" powder. No need for mind altering chemicals. The biggest problem I see is ignorance. By ignorance I do not mean stupidity. Far from it. Simply that many people fear what they do not understand. "It stinks". "It fouls". Well, yeah. That's the point. To experience the ENTIRE concept of history and experience what our forefathers knew. Shooting smokeless in these type weapons is like making a horse eat rocket fuel.

I'll share a story with you. I saw a fella tell a guy at an NCOWS shoot once "well, if you hate BP then maybe you need to get back up there behind the line with the women and children."
 

[Crotchety Old Grouch]

I'm not an expert on internal ballistics but it seems to me that the same bullet pushed by the same powder contained in cases with the same capacity will generate the same pressure.  Based on this assumption here is how I work up my loads:

   The basic load data came from 45-70 data listed in the Lyman “Cast Bullet Handbook” minus 10%. I came up with the 10% figure by comparing the case capacities of 45-70 and 45-75 cases. According to info I found on the net the average case capacity for 45-70 seems to be 81.05 grns of water. My 348 45-75 cases average 71.5 grns, (88.2% of the 45-70) and my Jamison cases 76.1 ( 93.9%). I split the difference at 10%. Sixgun Shorty told me that the working pressure of the new 76's was 20,000 CUP so my goal was to stay below that.. So I find a load using the bullet and powder I want to use that generates around 17,000CUP of less and reduce it by 10%.  That is my MAX load.  My starter load is at least 10% below that.,

The above fire formed .348 case capacity came from cases that had been fired once or twice.  I recently measure the capacity of cases that have been fired more than 5 or 6 times and found the average capacity had increased to 76.66...  grains of water.  Just goes to show how tough these .348 cases are.

[Delmonico]

COG, you are dealing with bottle neck vs slighly tapered case.  The slowing down of partly burned and unburned powder as it goes through the bottle neck raises pressure, how much, your guess.

[Hobie]

I guess I just can't fathom why anyone would want to shoot anything but real BP in 19th century style weapons. ANYONE can order BP from http://www.powderinc.com/ in as small an order as a mere five lbs. No excuse there.

In that statement you assume much about other folks' circumstances. 

BP is far easier to clean then "smokeyless" powder. No need for mind altering chemicals. The biggest problem I see is ignorance. By ignorance I do not mean stupidity. Far from it. Simply that many people fear what they do not understand. "It stinks". "It fouls". Well, yeah. That's the point. To experience the ENTIRE concept of history and experience what our forefathers knew.

Have you heard anyone discussing the subject consider the this.  It is not the topic of discussion.  Ignorance?  You presume to know much about me.  Perhaps you are my daddy and know more about me than I myself might know.   

In fact BP is neither easier or more difficult to clean after, it is simply different.  Some folks think some smokeless powders are "dirty".  The consideration in either case is not germane to the discussion.

That your primary focus is on experiencing what your forefathers knew isn't a consideration for me.

Shooting smokeless in these type weapons is like making a horse eat rocket fuel.

This is indicative of a prejudice.  Not everyone in this group or in an even broader range of shooters using these guns are living history fanatics.  There is a broader appeal for these guns.  That broader appeal might just attract more folks to the living history experience. 

I'll share a story with you. I saw a fella tell a guy at an NCOWS shoot once "well, if you hate BP then maybe you need to get back up there behind the line with the women and children."
 

That is simply condescending and likely out of context.  It certainly doesn't apply to this conversation. 

I will say it again, we are trying to expand the knowledge base in order to avoid what you so desperately fear, that others will use inappropriate loadings of smokeless powders in these firearms.  We know that not all BP subs or smokeless powders are inappropriate for shooting these reproductions and we seek to provide empirical evidence that certain loads are safe.  I know that your desired lab data will be available as soon as it can be compiled.  Perhaps that will mollify you.

Perhaps you don't intend to do so but your constant belittling of content without contribution of actual knowledge other than that you have assumed several of us don't know is not a constructive use of time.  Let's move on from fighting the use of other than holy black to the safe and sane use of smokeless powders...

This is NOT about BP vs Smokeless....

[Grizzly Adams]

Ok, gentlemen.  Step away from the keyboards and take a deep breath!

The water's warm, and there is room in the pool for everyone!

[Hobie]

Well Hobie I guess your going to have to go digging for it like I have over the years, remember a lot of this is basic simple physics.  A good start would be Hatcher's Notebook, PO Akley's handloading guide, Get some of Dean Grenells books, I don't have the formula for figuring kienetic energy with me here at work, if I have time between customers I could Google it.  A lot of this information has been covered in recent years in Handloader magazine and most up to date loading manuals cover it in some depth.  The information is out there if you do a little looking.

So what you're saying is that I have derived a different opinion from the same sources of information.  Interesting indeed.

[w44wcf]

I guess I just can't fathom why anyone would want to shoot anything but real BP in 19th century style weapons.

Because some of us like a little variety. Otherwise, life might get a little boring .   I definitely like shooting b.p. and I definitely  like shooting smokeless.    Smokeless powder also has a history in many of the original b.p. cartridges.

Regarding the faster pressure spike of the correct for the application smokeless vs. black, I am not so convinced that is true.  Otherwise, how could it be possible that b.p. will bump up a soft, undersized bullet whereas smokeless won't?  I have experienced that in my '73 which has an oversized groove dia. (.433").  Using .428" 50/1 lead/tin bullets, b.p.  shot them accurately, bumping them up to groove diameter and with smokeless......the bullets keyhole.

Interestingly, I ran a test a few years back in the .44-40 using a rifle with a 21" barrel and another with a 24" barrel.
Note the higher velocity increase with both 4227 & RL7 powder as compared to b.p. which would indicate that they would have the flatter pressure curve.

40 grs. Swiss FFG -
21" -1,273 f.p.s.
24" -1,292 f.p.s.
velocity increase 19 f.p.s.

16 grs. H4227 
21"- 1,177 f.p.s.
24"- 1,235 f.p.s.
velocity increase  58 f.p.s.

25 grs. RL-7
21" - 1,258 f.p.s.
24" - 1,367 f.p.s.
velocity increase 109 f.p.s.

For a more indepth discussion and a variance of opinions on the subject, go to this thread:
http://www.cascity.com/forumhall/index.php/topic,16682.0.html

I'll be getting the pressure trace equipment come spring. Then we will find out for sure!

Happy Trails,
w44wcf