My "New" Webley RIC No.1 New Model .476

[PJ Hardtack]

Grant

I've had no trouble ordering anything from BA, including .43 Spanish brass; but that was a year or so back. I get things from them faster than I can get items from Canadian suppliers! Especially "No Sale Sports" who continue to be a disappointment - back ordered, "not at this store", etc.
They recently sold my wife a .452 Lee sizing kit when what I wanted was a Lyman die for my sizer/lubricaror. The sales clerk was not a handloader and asked her no questions. Fortunately, I found a buyer.

I just realized that I have a friend with both a milling machine and a lathe that isn't an incompetent regarding guns and such. He cuts dovetails in custom ML barrels, so I think he'll be able to trim some .45 LC brass for me. What length should I opt for - .820, .850, .870?
The Tranter is bored straight thru' and will chamber .45 Colt full length, so it isn't fussy. I'll also be feeding a MK VI and a Colt NS.

My Webley-Pryse #4 should arrive tomorrow  ..... ;>)

[Captain John Jarrett]

Grant,

 Thanks very much for accepting my apologie, and yes its a good thing.
I will echo PJ's question from above, only I will be using the Schofield brass instead of the Colt. Which of the lengths would be optimal?

John.

[RattlesnakeJack]

My tongue-in-cheek answer would actually be ... "none of the above" ..... 

The acceptable range of OAL for both the .476 Enfield and .455 MkI cases was from .850" to .870" - in other words .860" +/- .010" - so I'd say that the optimum length (assuming that you want to duplicate the original length) would be .860" .....

Although these original WD "List of Changes" entries don't actually contain that case-length specification, perhaps they would be of some interest if you wish to try to come as close as possible to the "period" loads.  Note that, although the .455 MkI Webley revolver was adopted in 1887, the Enfield cartridge continued in use with it until 1891.....

[Advertising]

[RattlesnakeJack]

On the other hand, if you want to try for maximum accuracy with your loads, you may want to experiment with different lengths, starting with the full length .45 Colt case and working down from that.  It occurs to me that, if the chambers are deep enough to accommodate the full-length .45 Colt case, better accuracy might be achieved with the longest case, thus minimizing the "bullet jump" to the forcing cone of the bore ....

 

[PJ Hardtack]

I've just miked a couple of new unprimed Dominion .455 cases and they average .885 - .886.

Rim thickness : .038

Head diameter: .528 - .529

Case mouth: .470 - .472

Diameter above rim: .475 - .476

Colt .45 *_* (Starline) brass mikes - head diameter .508 - .509, rim thickness .056, diameter above rim .476

Using longer cases might reduce bullet jump to the forcing cone, but then you have the issue of increased case volume and the problems associated with that -light charges and erratic ignition.

Has anyone experience using Trail Boss in .455s?

[RattlesnakeJack]

Y'know .... something was sticking in my mind to the effect that the case specs which I labeled ".455 MkI" in the first diagram I posted in this thread, might actually be the "maximums" for the .455 Colt cartridge which, as I recall, in fact differed slightly from the British .455 Mk I service revolver cartridge of which it was supposed to be a North American commercial version.   That would explain the slight variance in specs - particularly OAL - from the .455 MkI specifications given in the diagram I posted rom "The Webley Story".  At any rate, I now note that a stand-alone version of that first diagram which I came across in my computer files is actually labeled ".455 Colt/Webley Mk I" .....

Your OAL measurements  from the Dominion cases would certainly seem to bear that out .... 

[PJ Hardtack]

One has to standardize at some point .... I've opted for commercial Dominion .455.

If you were to measure a whack of cartridges of ANY calibre, (particularly 'antique' ammo) you'd find no end of dimensional variation.

I often wondered why Dominion ammo boxes were labelled ".455 Colt". Perhaps the intention was to appeal to the greater market - US owners of Colt NS and other revolvers.

I have one Remington ammo box marked - ".455 Webley, MK II" On the bottom is stamped "July 1942 Lot 3". It also has the following:

"These cartridges are adapted to Webley-Fosbery Automatics, and to Webley MK VI, Colt New Service and Smith & Wesson Arms".

The box is in pretty good shape, the printing in Remington green on a buff coloured cardboard.

[PJ Hardtack]

When did the Brits transition from "18 grs rifle pistol powder'' to using cordite?

I presume that pressures with the cordite load were not deemed to be excessive for BP proved revolvers ..... ?

[RattlesnakeJack]

1894 ....



Note that this was the initial transition to the Mark I Cordite  cartridge .... i.e. substituting cordite for the R.F.G. black powder propellant in the original MkI-length case.  It appears that, by then,  R.F.G. was only being loaded in revolver cartridges and the few Snider cartridges that might still be required., since LoC 7684 (24 Nov 1894) provides that the general manufacture of R.F.G. powder was to be discontinued "except when required for filling Snider cartridges."

The substitution of the shorter Mark II cartridge case - it having been discovered that the smokeless propellant performed better in a smaller space - did not follow until 1897.  (For some reason, Ian Skennerton missed including the specific entry for the Mark II .455 cartridge in his List of Changes compilations, so I cannot reproduce it here. (Does anyone have a copy of that particular entry, from any other source?)

As you surmise, it appears that there were no immediate concerns with any pressure issues arising from the switch to cordite propellant.  The official adoption of the Mark II Webley revolver followed almost immediately (LoC 7816, 1 October 1894) and the Mark III revolver was approved a few years later (LoC 9039, 5 October 1897) .... both without any modifications relating specifically to the potential pressure differences arising from the use of cordite.

It was not until the Mark IV revolver (LoC 9787, 21 July 1899) that some consideration seems to have been given to such issues.  The primary differences from the Mark IIi revolver clearly intended to augment strength and durability were detailed as follows:

The steel used in the manufacture of the barrel, body, cylinder, and cylinder axis is of different quality; .... the ratchet teeth of the extractor are case hardened, and the lifting point pf the pawl water-hardened, to increase their durability.

[PJ Hardtack]

Thanks, Grant! I should be able to fix that date in what I choose to refer to as my mind.

To answer my own question re: using Trail Boss in .455 ..... I have on my 'bragging wall' a couple of targets shot with my Tranter using hard cast .450 bullets. One load was 5 grs Unique and t'other was 4.5 Trail Boss. Recoil seemed a trifle heavier with TB, so I'll reduce it to an even 4 grs.
The latest Speer manual lists 4.6 TB as max in .44 Spl. For .44 Russian they drop it to 2.9! That sounds rather anemic. They must think every .44 Russian revolver out there is an 'antique'.

Just received word that my 'new' commercial Colt NS .455 has been shipped. I may see it by next Friday. Then I'll post some pics and have an orgy of .455 shooting .... ;>)

[RattlesnakeJack]

Todd, et al ....

Just discovered a typo in my previous post.  The date of LoC 6784 announcing the discontinuance of general manufacture of RFG powder was 24 Nov. 1894 (not 1897, as previously stated) .... i.e. only about two months after the new cordite propellant for the .455 Mark I cartridge was announced.  (I have amended the post above, but thought I should mention it in separate posting.)

Will look forward to seeing photos of your .455 Colt New Service.  Must admit, though, that my N.S. is the least favorite of my various .455 revolvers ... but that is mainly because it doesn't seem to fit my hand well ... so that is a purely personal thing .....

[PJ Hardtack]

Grant

The poor ergonomics of the Colt NS grip seem to be the chief reason people dislike them. That's why I have a Pachmayr grip adapter on the way. The company that makes the Tyler T-Grip is also coming back on line but currently having problems meeting demand.

The grip issue notwithstanding, the Colt NS has a cachet lacking in many other guns, having a lenthy service career in the military and NWMP/RCMP. Other than that, it's hard not to like a revolver built like a tank. I concede that I prefer the silky double action of S&Ws from the same era compared to the 'stacking up' pressure of the Colt DA.

I recently ran across a picture of Patton's M27 .357 S&W fitted with a grip adapter, so the problem exists with the S&W 'N' frames as well. My own S&W M29 wears Miculek grips for that very reason.