Cas City Forum Hall & CAS-L
CAS TOPICS => The Darksider's Den => The Dark Arts => Topic started by: J.D. Yellowhammer on August 08, 2009, 04:40:06 PM
-
I recently switched from 45 LC to .44-40. Today I loaded some shells with bp for the 1st time, then went to the range. Every shot caused the primer to back out and by the time I got to the last round I could barely turn the cylinder (the tolerances are pretty tight on my USFA). This may be a stupid question, but is it that my charges were too hot?
I was using Starline brass, LPPs, and soft cast 200g bullets. I used the 1.9cc Lee dipper, which filled the case pretty well (actually, it looked just a hair low and since I wanted to get a little compression I added a touch, so it may have been 2cc's.) I used Schuetzen 3F. I always filled the case with a touch of compression with the 45's but never had this problem.
On the bright side, it was a hoot seeing all the black semi-auto shooters jump when the flame and smoke roared out of the pistol! ;D
-
In general, and I do mean general here, primers ALL back out. When the gun goes off, the primers are blown out of their sockets. Then, as pressure climbs the brass is forced backwards re-seating the primers. In "general", when pressure is too low the primers stay out to some degree.
Now, that's worth all you paid for it. But, that is also what I've learned over the years.
DD-DLoS
-
Didn't I read somewhere that excess lube on the cases would cause such a thing?
-
Primers only back out in this scenario because:
A. your loads are "cream puff".
B. your firing pin is a little long which is pulling the primer out a little when you cock after firing.
-
Thanks, folks.
Loads too light? I guess I can try putting more powder in, though the case is already pretty full. I'll have to compress it a lot more.
This only happens with the bp loads. I've put a lot of smokeless through the pistol and never had this happen, so I don't think it's the gun.
Anyone have a load they recommend for .44-40?
-
Didn't I read somewhere that excess lube on the cases would cause such a thing?
Nope, that will tie up the gun cause they back out too far, but that also would reseat the primer.
-
Howdy
I agree, primers backing out is usually a sign of not enough pressure. Actually, it is a sign of not enough recoil, so the case does not reseat itself over the primer. If you are using the 200 grain Mav-Dutchman bullet, bump up your charge to 2.2CC. There is plenty of room in the 44-40 case with the Mav-Dutchman bullet for 2.2CC, that's what I use, and my compression is relatively light. With 1.9CC and the Mav-Dutchman bullet you are probably not getting any compression at all.
-
Thanks, Driftwood. I'll up the powder a couple of tenths. I ain't using the Mavs, but I'll get some and try. I don't think my bullets seat much deeper, so for now I can probably squeeze some more powder in. I have a couple of pounds of Swiss, too, so I can try the hotter powder. And maybe if primers ever show up again, I'll get some magnum LPP's for a more thorough burn.
This board is a great resource! :)
-
Thanks, Driftwood. I'll up the powder a couple of tenths. I ain't using the Mavs, but I'll get some and try. I don't think my bullets seat much deeper, so for now I can probably squeeze some more powder in. I have a couple of pounds of Swiss, too, so I can try the hotter powder. And maybe if primers ever show up again, I'll get some magnum LPP's for a more thorough burn.
This board is a great resource! :)
JD,44-40 should use large rifle primers. I use the as 44-40 was designed by winchester as a rifle cartridge. I use winchester lrp's in my 44BP loads and have not had that problem. Hpe this helps, Jed
-
JD,
I load the 44-40 with enough Goex 2F and the 200 grain Mav Dutchman to get about 1/8" compression on the powder. I use the Lee 141 scoop, which gives me about 33 grains by weight powder. I load with Winchester LP primers, and have had no problems. I shoot them in a pair of USFA SAA's.
While it's not a maximum load, I find it greatly amusing to observe folks at our matches. Many of the light load, small caliber crowd accuse me of knocking down targets with the concussion, and not the bullet! ;D
-
JD,44-40 should use large rifle primers. I use the as 44-40 was designed by winchester as a rifle cartridge. I use winchester lrp's in my 44BP loads and have not had that problem. Hpe this helps, Jed
Jed, I had a question about whether the 44-40 should use rifle primers because Richard Lee's book say they should. I called Starline and asked how the primer pockets were cut. They told me that they cut the primer pockets with the intent of the shooter using Large Pistol primers. Some of the OLD brass was indeed cut for rifle primers.
-
Jed, I had a question about whether the 44-40 should use rifle primers because Richard Lee's book say they should. I called Starline and asked how the primer pockets were cut. They told me that they cut the primer pockets with the intent of the shooter using Large Pistol primers. Some of the OLD brass was indeed cut for rifle primers.
Noz,
I agree with you, the .44WCF is now a pistol cartridge. I never use anything but Large Pistol primers. The cup in the Rifle primers is thicker to resisit high pressure modern rifle loads. The .44WCF is a a very low pressure cartridge. "High" pressure loads for CAS are around 13 kpsi, that's nothing.
In addition, according to SAAMI, the depth for large pistol primer pockets are .118" to .122" (it so happens this is also the depth for small pistol and small rifle), while large rifle primer pocket depths are .128" to .132". Large rifle and large pistol primers are nominally the same diameter Ø.210". Large Pistol Primers run from .109-113” tall, Large Rifle Primers run from .117-125” tall. Using Large rifle primers could leave the primers high. The recommended seating depth from all manuals is usually .003 -.005" below the surface. Any residue in the pocket could lead to a high primer if a Large Rifle Primer is used in a Large Pistol pocket.
Like Noz said, modern brass has the pockets cut to pistol dimensions not the deeper rifle pockets. I have both Winchester and Starline Brass, both have pockets that are not deep enough to meet the SAAMI specification for a Large Rifle primer pocket.
Regards,
Mako
-
I wish they would make 44-40 with rifle primer pockets again. N-SSA has had a lot of trouble with 44-40 Henrys and high primers. All it takes is a slightly high pistol primer and someone throwing cartridges down the tube on the clock, and off she goes. A few have blown magazines on the line. The current regulation is no reloading the magazine once the clock starts, which takes a lot of the fun out of repeater. (Although honestly, if you have to reload, you aren't competitive anyway.) I'll never forget having this exact conversation with Val Forgett at an N-SSA shoot. He said that he had never heard of one of his Henrys bowing a magazine, and at that very moment, one went off about 15 positions down!
Besides, black powder likes hot primers, so rifle primers should be a good thing.
-
Arizona Trooper, you should be able to recut them with a large rifle primer uniforming tool. Might want to firgure out some power for it. That's what is nice about the small primers, they are the same depth and one can use the primer suitable for what you are doing. (And don't if you are not sure what you are doing.) ;)
-
Besides, black powder likes hot primers, so rifle primers should be a good thing.
Trooper,
Please take this as it is intended, I’m just trying to determine how certain ideas get started.
I have never intentionally used anything other than regular pistol primers in many different BP cartridges from .25-20 to .45 Colt (I'm not counting cartridges longer than a .44WCF)and I have never had a problem with ignition. I normally use Federal, Winchester and Remington primers. I have used CCI regulars and Magnums when I couldn't get anything else. You don't need a "hot" primer, BP is easy to set off.
I have heard people say that so it must have made the rounds on the internet or someplace, but it's not supported by empirical testing. BP doesn’t need the brisance of “hotter” or more powerful primers to ignite the charge. Smokeless Powder is more difficult to ignite than BP. I believe John Boy is one of the many who have conducted experiments with different primers to determine consistency and standard deviation in MV using different primers. Many Long Range and Precision Shooters have moved to lower brisance Pistol Primers with cartridges such as the .45-70 I order to get consistency. If there was any problem with ignition they would be the first to squawk about it.
This is just curiosity on my part, where did you hear that you needed hotter primers to set of BP?
Best Regards,
Mako
-
JD,
I load the 44-40 with enough Goex 2F and the 200 grain Mav Dutchman to get about 1/8" compression on the powder. I use the Lee 141 scoop, which gives me about 33 grains by weight powder. I load with Winchester LP primers, and have had no problems. I shoot them in a pair of USFA SAA's.
While it's not a maximum load, I find it greatly amusing to observe folks at our matches. Many of the light load, small caliber crowd accuse me of knocking down targets with the concussion, and not the bullet! ;D
Aggie,
I'll try the load and compression, thanks. Which scoop is that? I have Lee dippers and they're marked in cc's. I used the 1.9 on the bullets I posted about here.
I know what you mean about the reactions--when I shot these at the range, the whole line went quiet for a minute. hehe ;D
-
Another thing to try, Brother Yellowhammer, if the higher charge doesn't work for you is to drill out the primer flash holes a tiny bit. A couple three decades ago when I wore a revolver to work every day I practiced getting it out of the holster and making loud noises, fast. Wax bullets were the thing and primers were the power. Unless we drilled the flash holes out to .125 inch the primers would back out and tie up the gun. Perhaps if you drill those out, less than that .125 you would solve the problem.
Note, please, if you try this, make sure you don't use these cases for smokeless loads.
-
JD,
I have a very old set of Lee dippers, which are not marked in cc's. The dipper I use holds about 33 grains by weight of black powder. I'd try various dippers and weigh the charges until you find the correct one. The bottom line is to put enough powder in the case to obtain a slight compression on the powder.
When you and your clothes come home covered in soot, you know you've had a good day. ;D
-
Thanks, Pete and Aggie! Duly noted, good advice! I'm about to head to the shed out back to load up summa those little smoke 'n fire bombs! :D
-
The correct Lee dipper for the 44-40, IMHO, is the 2.2 cc.
Mine really likes FFg KIK
-
Mako,
I'm not talking ignition problems with hotter primers, just consistency. Actually, the reason I would like to load 44-40 with rifle primers is because of the greatly reduced sensitivity, not any performance advantage. In tube magazine rifles, rifle primers are a lot safer because they are so much less sensitive. A slightly high primer is less likely to go off in the magazine.
As far as consistency, the tests I've run have been with Spencer 56-56, 56-50, 50-70 Govt. and 45-80 Long Range Springfield. The Spencer rounds have about the same capacity as 44-40. When shooting black powder, a switch from regular LR primers to magnums almost always results in lower Std. Dev. in my limited experience. I haven't tested a 44-40 with large pistol and LP mag. The only one I own at the moment is a Whitney Kennedy, and it's a tack driver with pretty much whatever you put in it, so I haven't done a lot of load development on it, but I am very careful to check proper primer seating.
That's just my experience, for what it's worth.
-
Mako,
I'm not talking ignition problems with hotter primers, just consistency. The tests I've run myself have been with Spencer 56-56, 56-50, 50-70 Govt. and 45-80 Long Range Springfield. The Spencer rounds have about the same capacity as 44-40. When shooting black powder, a switch from regular LR primers to magnums almost always results in lower Std. Dev. in my limited experience. I haven't tested a 44-40. The only one I own at the moment is a Whitney Kennedy, and it's a tack driver with whatever you put in it.
That's just my experience, for what it's worth.
Testing and experimentation will show what one gun likes, might not be what another one likes. My 45-70 Pedersoli Sharps likes Federal 215M's, it also likes a tight taper crimp. Will yours like that best? Don't know, you have to experiment. Same goes for any rifle, shotgun or handgun, I've always found they work best when you feed them what they like. Others mileage may vary. ;)
-
I had this problem after adjusting my dies such that I was setting the shoulder back excessively.
Properly setting the dies (for me) is to use the tightest chambered firearm to determine the die setting to allow easy chambering without setting the shoulder too far. This may not be your problem, but it had an effect on my primers backing out slightly.
Regards,
Slim
-
JD,
I load the 44-40 with enough Goex 2F and the 200 grain Mav Dutchman to get about 1/8" compression on the powder. I use the Lee 141 scoop, which gives me about 33 grains by weight powder. I load with Winchester LP primers, and have had no problems. I shoot them in a pair of USFA SAA's.
While it's not a maximum load, I find it greatly amusing to observe folks at our matches. Many of the light load, small caliber crowd accuse me of knocking down targets with the concussion, and not the bullet! ;D
Well it could be worse. I was using 777 and some HARD Cast .44 RCBS cowboy boolits and was accused of using depleted uranium after leaving 10 craters on the Buffalo target we were supposed to dump into. It had been my fault and I made it right. I had loaded the 777 like I loaded the Goex. Fill the case and compress, then seat the boolit. I have on occassion knocked targets over with that load as well.
I no longer use 777.
-
I recently switched from 45 LC to .44-40. Today I loaded some shells with bp for the 1st time, then went to the range. Every shot caused the primer to back out and by the time I got to the last round I could barely turn the cylinder (the tolerances are pretty tight on my USFA). This may be a stupid question, but is it that my charges were too hot?
I was using Starline brass, LPPs, and soft cast 200g bullets. I used the 1.9cc Lee dipper, which filled the case pretty well (actually, it looked just a hair low and since I wanted to get a little compression I added a touch, so it may have been 2cc's.) I used Schuetzen 3F. I always filled the case with a touch of compression with the 45's but never had this problem.
On the bright side, it was a hoot seeing all the black semi-auto shooters jump when the flame and smoke roared out of the pistol! ;D
I read about that problem years ago in an article in one of the gun mags about a shoot out between a Texas Ranger and some desperado. He was able to free up his Colt and win the fight, but he then got rid of the .44-40 and bought a Colt .45.
-
Wish I'd been there to buy that 44-40 from the Ranger. I'd have gotten a good gun for probably a very attractive price! I love the caliber - I have 2 revolvers and 3 rifles chambered for it.
-
I had loaded the 777 like I loaded the Goex.
Grapeshot ... guess you missed the emphasis in the H777 data that says ... reduce H777 powder charge 10% from an original gunpowder charge! ;D
And there is one aspect related to the initial post that should be mentioned ... burrs on the the flash holes of the cases . They will cause multiple issues for erratic ignition and consequences, regardless of the primer type your rifle likes ... as Del mentioned. Spend the 12 bucks and buy the Lyman flash hole uniformer tool. Plus, enlarging the primer hole shooting BP ... school is not out on this subject. But if one is shooting nitro powder ... it's a No No!
-
Thanks John Boy, always worry when folks say "this is what guns like." My self, I always found it better to feed them what they like, (with in reason of course.) ;)
-
My self, I always found it better to feed them what they like, (with in reason of course.)
Yes Sir, Del. Folks don't always realize this to be the case. Every rifle is different, just like a lady ;) And the same loading data for a given bullet will not always shoot the same in every rifle. Plus, Range Time is the key to success at multiple distances if one plans to shoot past 100yds! Then when the given recipe is found that one's rifle likes ... don't change and go experimenting again! Just shoot it more to perfect ones shooting technique ;D
Wish I have had learned this when I got into the BPCR sport. But I'm down now to about 6 bullet recipes that my rifles like for the various calibers. May have to have a mold sale or buy more rifles!
-
Your problem may be similar to one I had. When I first switched to 44-40 I bought new Starline Brass. I was loading 2.2cc of 2f Goex. A number of the primers backed out in pistols and rifle. I called Starline and sent them a few pieces of new and once fired brass for evaluation. They advised me that all brass checked was within factory specs. I switched to Winchester brass and experienced no problems. I kept playing with the Starline Brass and after two loadings the primer pockets had apparently formed to the primers and the problem went away. Can't explain the wherefores and whys but this was my experience. Try a different brand of brass. Can't hurt anything. :)
-
Royal, I don't shoot 44-40's but loading black in Starline ... 38-55 (2.080 and 2.125), 45 Colt, 45-70, 45-90 and 50-70 brass I've not noticed any excess backout. I've loaded each caliber with both LP and LR primers (CCI and Federal). Except for the 45 Colt's, I do ream the primer pocket on all new cases. And have noticed with Starline's, 1st primer seating with CCI's is on the hard side but after they are shot at least once - easy primer seating
I looked back through the whole thread and unless I missed it, excess head space was not mentioned. The 2 primary causes for excessive back out is high pressure and excess head space. Both conditions will show the primer partially out of the pocket and the face of the primer will be flat. Head space greater that 0.002 - 0.004 is excess head space
Would be helpful if JD would take a couple of pictures and post them. We could get a better idea of the cause.
JD - also measure your cylinder gap back to the frame
Now, here's another possible case ... full length resizing of the case. The dies are cut to SAAMI specs and many of the firearms today are not exactly SAAMI specs. So I shoot a case that has been full length re-sized and the chamber is slightly smaller than SAAMI - the case moves back with a primer face flattened and partially out of the case
JD, might want to just neck size your next batch of brass and see what the primers look like after you shoot them
-
Royal--that's darned interesting. I wonder if it's the starlines? I can't remember if I used 1 x shot brass or new, but they were fairly fresh. I'll have to dig up some different brass and try it. I think I have some different cases from store-bought ammo kicking around. And the next black powder rounds I load will be in used brass.
John Boy--great suggestions as always! :) I'll try to get some pictures taken of the cases tomorrow, and I'll try the neck sizing.
Can't remember if I mentioned it in my first post, but these were shot in USFA Rodeos, and the tolerances are pretty tight.
Thanks everyone! :D
-
Just a though, measure the rim thickness on the Starline brass and a couple other brands if you can. 44-40 headspaces on the rim, a thin rim could cause this. Seen it in some 30-30 cases years ago.
-
Thanks, Del. I'll mic ithe rims.
Man, I'm getting a long list to try out! Makes ya wonder how they did it in the 19th century without mics and calipers and the number one tool for these problems: the internet! ;D
Edit RE: the post above--how do ya neck size a .44-40? Seems like you need a special die, since it's a psuedo-bottleneck.
-
Thanks, Del. I'll mic ithe rims.
Man, I'm getting a long list to try out! Makes ya wonder how they did it in the 19th century without mics and calipers and the number one tool for these problems: the internet! ;D
Edit RE: the post above--how do ya neck size a .44-40? Seems like you need a special die, since it's a psuedo-bottleneck.
You don't want to do a true neck size, set the die to fully size the neck and partly size the body, and just bump the shoulder, but not push it back. Common way to do a lot of high power bottle neck rifle rounds. If you don't bump the shoulder it can creep forward a bit and cause chambering problems.
If you need more info on how, just let me know.
-
To carry my post further I have bought some once fired .44-40 Starline Brass from a fellow shooter since that first purchase and experienced no problems at all. That first batch of Starline may have been my problem. Now that I think back I had ordered 1000 pieces and all the problems came from the first bag of 500. I have to repeat though that I loaded and shot Winchester, Remington and some Hornady brass around the same time and had no difficulties whatsoever. ???
-
You don't want to do a true neck size, set the die to fully size the neck and partly size the body, and just bump the shoulder, but not push it back. Common way to do a lot of high power bottle neck rifle rounds. If you don't bump the shoulder it can creep forward a bit and cause chambering problems.
If you need more info on how, just let me know.
Gracias, mi amigo!
-
Starline is my 44-40 brass of choice. Never a brass related problem.
-
Any companay can have a problem now and then. Back in the 80's I quit buying Remingtton brass for a while because of a problem.
-
Okay, here are a few shots of the shells. The first is just an average sample to show how they look when they come out of my Dillon progressive. The second and third shots show how the primers have flattened and backed out. Afraid this is the best I can do without going into a big production (I don't have a tripod here--they're at the studio):
(http://www.dorseyfoto.com/73/shellprob0.jpg)
(http://www.dorseyfoto.com/73/shellprob1.jpg)
(http://www.dorseyfoto.com/73/shellprob3.jpg)
-
Another
(http://www.dorseyfoto.com/73/shell1.jpg)
-
Try a hotter load and see what happens.
-
I'd rule out excessive pressure and IMHO ... it's the gap between the cylinder face and the frame. Shoot some in a rifle and compare the cases
-
Okay, here are a few shots of the shells. The first is just an average sample to show how they look when they come out of my Dillon progressive. The second and third shots show how the primers have flattened and backed out. Afraid this is the best I can do without going into a big production (I don't have a tripod here--they're at the studio):
http://www.dorseyfoto.com/73/shellprob0.jpg
http://www.dorseyfoto.com/73/shellprob1.jpg
http://www.dorseyfoto.com/73/shellprob3.jpg
J.D.,
That's not even close to being "flattened." Those primers haven’t seen much pressure at all. In fact I’ve seen primers popped without powder that almost look like that.
This thread has been up here so long I decided to back track it a little. You said you had been using 1.9cc of Schutzen FFFg so I decided to see how many grains it actually is. Lee says it’s only 30.3 grains, I just measured some FFFg Schutzen, some Goex and some Skirmish. They all measure from under 30 (Schutzen FFFg) to less than 31 grains (Skirmish) by volume. The reason you see a difference is that the more uniform powders like Schutzen settle a bit more every time you pour them into a different measure, the same is true when you dump into your case.
Your problem is that you don’t have enough powder as a lot of people have told you. I dumped 1.9ccs of Schutzen into a case and then compared it to a Mav Dutchman, it would barely touch the powder as dumped. You told us you weren’t using Mav Dutchmans, if you still aren’t then you have even more space, the Mav Dutchman has more bullet back in the case than any other 200 grain I have ever seen because of the large grease groove which makes the bullet longer. If you rattle it around a bit you get NO compression. You need to put that 1.9cc scoop away and get out your 2.2cc scoop and put at least 35 grains in there.
You have said you were going to add more powder, have you, and how much are you throwing now?
Regards,
Mako
-
Royal--that's darned interesting. I wonder if it's the starlines? I can't remember if I used 1 x shot brass or new, but they were fairly fresh. I'll have to dig up some different brass and try it. I think I have some different cases from store-bought ammo kicking around. And the next black powder rounds I load will be in used brass.
John Boy--great suggestions as always! :) I'll try to get some pictures taken of the cases tomorrow, and I'll try the neck sizing.
Can't remember if I mentioned it in my first post, but these were shot in USFA Rodeos, and the tolerances are pretty tight.
Thanks everyone! :D
J.D.,
Where did you get Rodeos in .44-40? I have talked with Doug at the SHOT show several times trying to get him to make the Rodeo available in .44-40 and every time he tells me there isn’t enough of a market. I even asked if they would just pull 2 pairs (4 ¾ and 5 ½) of SAAs going through the line and send them through the Rodeo finishing line instead of the Case hardening and “Dome Blue” finish. He laughed and said the “custom” work would make them as expensive as a regular pair of SAAs.
I of course challenged him on that since I have set up a line just like his, he agreed it wouldn’t be as much but the special routing would make it a problem and they had too much on their plate.
I’ll buy those rodeos from you, I don't even care what length they are. Name your price.
Regards,
Mako
-
J.D.,
Where did you get Rodeos in .44-40? I have talked with Doug at the SHOT show several times trying to get him to make the Rodeo available in .44-40 and every time he tells me there isn’t enough of a market. I even asked if they would just pull 2 pairs (4 ¾ and 5 ½) of SAAs going through the line and send them through the Rodeo finishing line instead of the Case hardening and “Dome Blue” finish. He laughed and said the “custom” work would make them as expensive as a regular pair of SAAs.
Mako,
I probably shouldn't tell you this after you've gone through a lot of time and trouble trying to get rodeos custom-made.... I asked Gary Granger in Aug., 2007, about getting rodeos in .44-40 and he said, "no problem." They didn't cost near as much as the premiums (I'd have to look at the rcp't for exact, but it was substantially less). In a couple of months I had them in hand.
Not sure I'd be willin' to part with 'em.... Sorry. :(
-
Mako, John Boy and the rest, many thanks for the great suggestions! :D
Mako, I used the smaller dipper but I didn't level off the top, in fact I left a heap on top. When I measured the volume against the bullet it looked right, with a little comp. I'm definitely going to the 2.2cc dipper. And I wish I had some feedback about the new loads, but the SOB that I ordered LP primers from, at a price I'd rather not divulge lest you think me an idiot, ::) and who told me he sent them out about 5 days ago, actually sent them yesterday so they won't be here for a few days....
-
Mako,
I probably shouldn't tell you this after you've gone through a lot of time and trouble trying to get rodeos custom-made.... I asked Gary Granger in Aug., 2007, about getting rodeos in .44-40 and he said, "no problem." They didn't cost near as much as the premiums (I'd have to look at the rcp't for exact, but it was substantially less). In a couple of months I had them in hand.
Not sure I'd be willin' to part with 'em.... Sorry. :(
J.D.,
JUST GREAT...I think Gary is no longer with USFA (that's been the rumor). I should have known talking with Doug was a mistake.
What barrel length are they? And if you do find that receipt, send me a PM if you don't mind. I may try talking with someone else there if he is in fact gone. Don't worry I won't "rat you out." I'll just say I saw a pair and wanted to get my own.
My daughters both shoot Rodeos in .38 spl., I’d probably have to change my claim from shooting exclusively C&B at CAS matches if I had a pair in .44 WCF. One last thing, how did they mark the barrel? .44-40 or .44 WCF?
Thanks,
Mako
-
PM sent.
Also, they're 4 3/4" barrels, barrel marked: "Frontier Six Shooter 44-40" And the frame is stamped with patent marks. I sorta wish I'd got the 5 1/2" barrels, but I still like these pistols a lot.
I've installed lighter main springs and I'm probably gonna partially buff the finish off sometime.
-
Somehow I doubt it's too low a pressure. My old ASM 44-40 has ran 10 gr of 3F with cornmeal filler & 200 grain pill for my son to try. He's not too interested in handguns yet, but the loads worked fine.
Regards,
Slim
-
Somehow I doubt it's too low a pressure. My old ASM 44-40 has ran 10 gr of 3F with cornmeal filler & 200 grain pill for my son to try. He's not too interested in handguns yet, but the loads worked fine.
Regards,
Slim
Slim,
Then we will just have to disagree, it has all the signs of a classic under pressure, low recoiling revolver cartridge. Did you look at the cases after they came out? They don’t always seize things up, sometimes they are just proud. You can demonstrate it for yourself by just snapping a primer in a case and look at what the primer does without recoil.
I think if you polled the camp, you would find the majority concurs.
Best regards,
Mako
-
I agree that it's too light. In some guns you MIGHT get by if it's a particularly smooth chamber, hence less chamber wall adhesion and more rearward "bolt thrust" reseating the primer.
-
Mako,
I was told by Gary Granger and Long Hunter that USFA would make up Rodeo's in any caliber you want for an extra $100 per gun. I'm thinking of a pair of Rodeo II's in 32-20. I've also seen Gary on the forum recently, so don't think the rumor was true.
-
I only made up 100 or so of those light loads. My son does not particularly like shooting revolvers at this time, so I fired them myself to be shed of them. Never tried it again, I have no reason to. My standard load is similar to J.D.s except I use 2F powder, a card wad and MAV 44.
My gun is likely a fluke...it's one of the early ASMs.....quality is pretty good and has details nearly as good as an old Colt.
The headspace is fairly tight. Only twice has this revolver had rotation issues: (1) when my cartridge case resizing settings got fouled and turned out to be setting the shoulder waay back, and (2) when the firing pin bushing loosened and started unscrewing itself (yes, it has a hardened, threaded bushing). Applied loctite, turned it back in and away we go. This was not as easy to spot as it sounds. The bushing only moved a slight amount to cause this perplexing problem.
I have a pard in Illinois who uses a 15 grain load of 3F and filler (cardboard) in all his 44-40 loads. No problems with primers backing out for him either. He used those loads in his Uberti SAAs for years before swithing pistols to OTs / .44 Russian. BTW, 15 grains is roughly half of J.D.s load of 1.9cc.
Remember too, that filler material adds mass to the effective projectile weight...actually the mass of the BP charge has the same effect. Could increase pressure just enough to compensate.
IMO, The powder charge and bullet are two items I'd move down my checklist. Gun and case criteria move up. Other cartridge criteria including flash hole diameter / sizing, and gun criteria such as the FP busing would be bumped up higher.
Regards,
Slim
-
Only twice has this revolver had rotation issues: (1) when my cartridge case resizing settings got fouled and turned out to be setting the shoulder waay back, and (2)....
IMO, The powder charge and bullet are two items I'd move down my checklist. Gun and case criteria move up. Other cartridge criteria including flash hole diameter / sizing, and gun criteria such as the FP busing would be bumped up higher.
Regards,
Slim
Slim, this may be a dumb question (but I'm not vain ;) ) If the .44-40 headspaces on the rim, what effect does the shoulder have on the problem? I know true bottlenecks headspace on the shoulder, but I thought the problem here could be in back, at the rim? Seems like the deep shoulder would just lead to stretched cases, right? EDIT--BTW: I just checked several cases. My Wilson case gauge is showing my .44-40 cases almost perfect length after firing.
Edited as a public service, after research, to add this neat little illustration showing ignition, primer movement, case separation from excess shoulder space:
(http://telecom.hartford.edu/images/headspacestretch.gif)
-
Shhh, that's why I said to measure the rims, cause that's what it headspaces on. ;D See I'm no engineer so I never mentioned it before cause, well what I learned about this stuff long ago I figgered might have changed with new math or something. ;)
The partial sizing the brass has to do with not pushing the shoulder back and forth to much which with the differances between dies and chambers can cause head separations.
We'll wait for the long answer on this one with the $10 words. ;)
-
Thanks for sharing that illustration JD. It helps pards visualize what happens to the brass when a gun goes bang.
I've never had objectionable case stretching in the web as illustrated on any of my SASS brass, but I've seen it in some of my high intensity rifles. My .257 Durham Jet and 25 Gibbs are two that can really stretch brass if care isn't taken.
DD-DLoS
-
Thanks for sharing that illustration JD. It helps pards visualize what happens to the brass when a gun goes bang.
I've never had objectionable case stretching in the web as illustrated on any of my SASS brass, but I've seen it in some of my high intensity rifles. My .257 Durham Jet and 25 Gibbs are two that can really stretch brass if care isn't taken.
DD-DLoS
Yer welcome, DD! :) And it's good to know that your experience shows lack-of-stretch. It seems like pistol loads just wouldn't generate all that much pressure, as to stretch 'em. Del, I rely heavily on your experience and wisdom, too. I can understand what you say (and don't have to ponder it for a while). ;D
I just switched my Dillon back to .44-40 (been loadin' .38's for the little lady). I'm waitin' to hear from Slim about an order of the Mav .44's, but until then, I'm gonna load some aloxed bullets with the black and try again at 2.2 cc's and partial sizing, per the suggestions here.
BTW--I just weighed the 1.9cc and 2.2 cc dippers with my batch of Scheutzen, and the difference was roughly 5 grains, which is significant volume, I think.
-
BTW I like that little clip, makes it even easier. A lot of folks who have never really read a good loading manual from cover to cover don't realize most have pictures that explain these things also, but not as cool. ;)
-
BTW I like that little clip, makes it even easier. A lot of folks who have never really read a good loading manual from cover to cover don't realize most have pictures that explain these things also, but not as cool. ;)
The later it gets in life for me, the less it matters what I've read. I suffer from CRS and subscribe to KISS as a philosophy (not the band!). ;D
Heck, if I wait a little while before I watch a dvd fer the 2nd time, it's like a brand new movie! ;D
-
What can be explained in two sentances that someone takes 7 or 8 parragraphes to explain just wastes server space.
Hope their house don't catch on fire. ;D
-
Shhh, that's why I said to measure the rims, cause that's what it headspaces on. ;D See I'm no engineer so I never mentioned it before cause, well what I learned about this stuff long ago I figgered might have changed with new math or something. ;)
The partial sizing the brass has to do with not pushing the shoulder back and forth to much which with the differances between dies and chambers can cause head separations.
We'll wait for the long answer on this one with the $10 words. ;)
Delmonico,
There really wasn't any need to tell us that you're not an engineer.
If you have problems with some of the words other people use, I’ll happily give you links to any number of online dictionaries.
The rim isn't the problem (when you read to the end of this paragraph you’ll understand why I can unequivocally say that); there will always be clearance between the back of the shell and the breech face. If you can explain why you think it is a problem I will do my best to understand. I’m at a loss, what do you hope to divine from those dimensions? Perhaps you can educate us a bit as to why in this case, “rims” are the problem. If you read JDs replies you would see he uses a Wilson age. Are you familiar with Wilson case gages and what they measure?
JD's illustration almost shows what happens during a normal set back during any correctly head spaced cartridge firing. The only thing that it shows that normally doesn’t happen is the shoulder being blown out as his simulation shows. JD reports his cartridges fit the Wilson gage after firing, this wouldn’t be the case if the shoulder was being pressure formed as shown. What JD’s actual pictures have shown us is a primer that may not have been fully reseated from the recoiling case hitting the back of the breech. This is what most of the experienced people here have said more than once.
Since he is shooting USFAs, firing pin issues can almost be ruled out without much concern. If he can chamber the cartridges fully then the chamber depth is at least not too short. They may be too long, but that remains to be seen. I’m sure he has looked in the chambers and hasn’t seen any evidence of chattering or score lines from the reamer. When JD finally tries his newly loaded cases with at least 2.2ccs of powder we’ll all know a little more.
Humbly yours,
Mako
-
Nope, I can 'spain things quite fine with a hell of a lot less words.
Years ago when I built things for a living, dealt with a lot of different engineers, some good, listened and asked things of the folks who accually built it for a living, some thought they were God. They ain't no different than other folks, some folks try to impress you with BS, some folks just cut to the quick, and don't waste words.
Funny how thinned skinned some folks can be when it goes their way.
-
Nope, I can 'spain things quite fine with a hell of a lot less words. And I also have known for well over 30 years that rimmed cases headspace on the rim, not the shoulder. you might want to research rim-less bottle necked cases. ;)
Years ago when I built things for a living, dealt with a lot of different engineers, some good, listened and asked things of the folks who accually built it for a living, some thought they were God. They ain't no different than other folks, some folks try to impress you with BS, some folks just cut to the quick, and don't waste words.
Del,
You're ignoring my question. I know full well the .44WCF headspaces on the rim. I have no need to research anything about bottle necked rimmed cases. You keep telling us to measure the rim. So quit just saying "aw shucks I aint no engineer but I am smartn' one," and digging your boot toe in the dirt and explain yourself. You may use few words, but I have yet to understand what you are trying to tell us.
Please explain yourself. I want to understand what you are talking about.
~Mako
-
I was mistaken who JD quoted, I fixed it, but still get tired of you writing a book when a simple explination will do, often do it off-line so folks will understand.
Yer books are a hoot at times, but they don't sell well, or at least from what I see. ::)
But keep it up, there are lots of us who enjoy the laughs. ;D
Jump in on some of the other discussions around here, lets see if your knowledge is broad minded or fits in a narrow spectrum,don't see you in any other fourms around here, a broad knowledge of things is good to have.
-
I'm gonna think about this fer a while. Meantime, it's locked.
..............................
.......................................
...............................................
Ok, I'm gonna unlock this one now.
Keep it nice
-
Thanks fer unlocking this. This has been a very informative thread fer me. I've learned a lot from everyone and I'm sorry if any feathers got ruffled along the way. Never my intention when starting a topic.
Preliminary results from the range:
I only loaded 25 cartridges. I used different brands of brass. The shells were loaded with 2.2cc's, leveled-off, Scheutzen 3f. Winchester WLP's. Bullets were 200 grain soft cast, 2 different makes but similar design, aloxed.
Backed sizing die out a little, so it wasn't full sized. Made a few shells quite hard to load into cylinder. Either cases bulged a bit, or perhaps the used shells were from my '73 levergun with larger chamber?
Problem was better but not fixed. Some primers backed out, at most, 0.012, 0.013. Was enough to almost lock 1 of the rodeos. (measured primer back-out by putting case on flat surface and gently pushing feeler gauges under shell rim until one tipped the shell). Other primers weren't as bad. One rodeo had problems, as stated. The other one ran pretty good. Accuracy with both was okay. (Shot distances, 10 or 15 yards).
Smokeless shells: zero back-out.
Next step: I gotta clean my pistols before I start measuring headspace, etc. I'm also wondering if the cylinder pin bushing on the rodeo that had the problems is out a little further than the good-running one? Just a hunch. Gonna measure to see. I had trouble even putting the cylinder back into the frame after wiping it down.
Tune in later for more developments on this fast-moving story! ;)
-
Rechecked everything and measured headspace. Not surprisingly, the headspace measured .011 for Hornady shells and .012 for Starlines. Since I probably pushed the primers back in from turning the cylinder, they could not be out further than the headspace.
Same in both pistols, though one was about .0005 tighter (which is probably the one that had more problems locking up).
When I compared the 1.9cc shells to the 2.2cc shells, there was no remarkable difference. Both had primers that measured out about the same, with possibly a hairs difference in the hotter loads.
All of which leads me to believe that headspace, as mentioned by John Boy and others, is the culprit. Which sucks, since the fix is beyond my capabilities. When the Mav .44's get here I'll probably try some of them and use hotter powder--I have a little Swiss 3f remaining from single shot rifle loads...
dammit, there's an NCOWS-rules match in Bowling Green next Sat. and I wanted to shoot black!!! :'(
-
Thanks fer unlocking this. This has been a very informative thread fer me. I've learned a lot from everyone and I'm sorry if any feathers got ruffled along the way. Never my intention when starting a topic.
Smokeless shells: zero back-out.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but if headspace was the problem, the smokeless rounds should also show primer prioblems.
-
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but if headspace was the problem, the smokeless rounds should also show primer prioblems.
I don't know, but it seems that the higher pressures of nitro would be enough ta knock that sucker back in.
Just a thought. And JD, if ya gotta shoot the match smokeless, at least yer still shootin the match. I know it aint the same but it's like the old saying "a bad day fishin is better than a good day workin".
-
I don't know, but it seems that the higher pressures of nitro would be enough ta knock that sucker back in.
Just a thought. And JD, if ya gotta shoot the match smokeless, at least yer still shootin the match. I know it aint the same but it's like the old saying "a bad day fishin is better than a good day workin".
Thanks, I agree with you on both counts, Leo. But it's still disappointin'. One of the main reasons I got these .44-40s was to shoot the real powder. :-\
-
Well here's a suggestion I haven't heard mentiond here as of yet. Take a handfull of your loads and both guns to a reputable shop/smith. Mark the gun that you don't have problem with the higher loads and see what he has ta say. It may be one of those problems that no amount of innernet bantering is gonna fix. Someone knowedgable needs ta put their hands on what you have, ammo and hardware. A decent guy will just tell you what is wrong at no charge an offer a fix if it's the pistol.
That's what I would do at this point. Heck, there might even be another customer at the store that over hears you an has a few good words, that's happened ta me more than once.
-
Even more, at this point I think USAF needs contacted since they built it, see what they have to say.
-
Howdy Again boys, my this thread has certainly grown since the last time I checked it.
J.D. Yellowhammer, your problem is obvious, I'm surprised nobody else noticed. Your brass is WAY TOO SHINY.
My 44-40 or 45 Colt brass never gets that shiny, after being fired with Black Powder. Here's what I suggest you do. Next time you go to a match, dump your spent brass into a jug of water with a little bit of dishsoap in it as usual. You don't have to do it immidiately on emptying the brass from the guns, the end of the match is soon enough. Then drive home with the brass sloshing around in the jug on the floor of the car, to keep the soot in suspension. Now here is the secret. Place your jug of brass in your loading room, and completely forget about it for a month or so. After a month, your brass will be so black in the jug you will think it is a lost cause. But never fear, rinse and dry your black brass, fill the tumbler up with lizzard litter, dump in that dirty brass and fire up the tumbler. Let it run 6 or 8 hours. Your brass will never get so new and embarrasingly shiny again, it will be a dull, mottled 'dirty brass' color.
Here's a photo of some old and new ammo. The 44-40 on the far right is one of mine. That's one of the shinier ones, you ought to see the ugly ones. Ignore that 44 Special third from the right, it is a Smokeless round and does not count.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v495/Driftwood_Johnson/44RF44AM44Rus44Colt44Sp44Mag44_40.jpg)
By the way, here is what Kuhnhausen has to say about head space in a SAA. First off, SAAMI rim thickness for the 44-40 is .055 to .065. Most of the Winchester 44-40 I have runs right around .055. I have a few Starline in my miscellaneous 44-40 drawer and it is running around .055 to .057. Still on the low end of the tolerance. Anyway, Kuhnahausen says that optimum headspace for a SAA in ANY CALIBER is .006. So obviously the thickness of the brass will have an influence. Also, note that headspace is ideally measured in a gun with zero endshake. Any endshake (front to back play of the cylinder) complicates matters. One can measure headspacing with the cylinder shoved all the way back, but optimum measurement will be with endshake reduced to zero.
P.S. They most certainly did have calipers and micrometers in the 19th Century. How the heck do you think they measured the parts? The firearms manufacturing industry was probably one of the premier 19th Century High Tech industries that drove mechanical inovations, like precision measuring tools. Measuring devices using a screw like a micrometer go back to the 17th Century. In 1848 a Frenchman named Palmer made a handheld precision measuring device using a screw. In 1867 Brown and Sharp began mass producing micrometers that were inexpensive enough that any machine shop would have one. Brown and Sharp also made the first mass produced affordable vernier calipers in 1851. Dial and digital calipers came a bit later.
-
Slim, this may be a dumb question (but I'm not vain ;) ) If the .44-40 headspaces on the rim, what effect does the shoulder have on the problem? I know true bottlenecks headspace on the shoulder, but I thought the problem here could be in back, at the rim? Seems like the deep shoulder would just lead to stretched cases, right? EDIT--BTW: I just checked several cases. My Wilson case gauge is showing my .44-40 cases almost perfect length after firing.
Well, I happen to be an engineer, but I'm off the clock at the moment & I didn' stay at a Holiday Inn lately. ;D
I hate to put too much thought after-hours, but on the shoulder set-back, my theory is that (the overly sized 44-40 cartridge) case moves rearward at a higher-than-design velocity, bounces off of the breech, then reaches highest pressure, causing the cartridge body & neck to expand - gripping the sidewalls. At this time pressure causes movement of the primer to fill the slight, but excess headspace (backout). Kinda thin, I admit, but I'm not trying to blame space Monkeys or the anemic load you're runnin'. I've worked a lot of theories on modern weapon problems and & I'll have to admit I'm lucky enough that testing has proved me correct more often than not.
Optimal sizing for me is just at the point the cartridge will chamber in my tightest chamber. This is on my ASM Frontier Six-Shooter.
BTW, ran 35 rounds through the ol' ASM at Sunday's match. Hardest hitting pistol loads on our posse. Someone said they were knocking the teeth out of the steel cowboy poppers.
Regards,
Slim
-
Slim, that makes sense and nice and to the point. The things that firearms and cartridges can drive us crazy, a tech from Hornaday told me once it drives them even crazier because it has to work right all the time in not just two or three firearms but all of them
-
Slim, this may be a dumb question (but I'm not vain ;) ) If the .44-40 headspaces on the rim, what effect does the shoulder have on the problem? I know true bottlenecks headspace on the shoulder, but I thought the problem here could be in back, at the rim? Seems like the deep shoulder would just lead to stretched cases, right? EDIT--BTW: I just checked several cases. My Wilson case gauge is showing my .44-40 cases almost perfect length after firing.
Well, I happen to be an engineer, but I'm off the clock at the moment & I didn' stay at a Holiday Inn lately. ;D
I hate to put too much thought after-hours, but on the shoulder set-back, my theory is that (the overly sized 44-40 cartridge) case moves rearward at a higher-than-design velocity, bounces off of the breech, then reaches highest pressure, causing the cartridge body & neck to expand - gripping the sidewalls. At this time pressure causes movement of the primer to fill the slight, but excess headspace (backout). Kinda thin, I admit, but I'm not trying to blame space Monkeys or the anemic load you're runnin'. I've worked a lot of theories on modern weapon problems and & I'll have to admit I'm lucky enough that testing has proved me correct more often than not.
Optimal sizing for me is just at the point the cartridge will chamber in my tightest chamber. This is on my ASM Frontier Six-Shooter.
BTW, ran 35 rounds through the ol' ASM at Sunday's match. Hardest hitting pistol loads on our posse. Someone said they were knocking the teeth out of the steel cowboy poppers.
Regards,
Slim
Slim,
Not a bad theory but it seems to fly in the face of what JD has told us. I’m sure you’ve used Wilson gages or the government equivalent thereof. How would the cartridge fit the gage correctly and show “perfect” length after firing if the dynamics were as you postulate? If this were a problem then factory formed cases would have the same problem wouldn’t they?
You really can’t push the shoulder back too far with the dies I have used. I have RCBS and Redding (Dillon). You’d bottom out on the bottom of the die before you can go further than a factory formed case. I load factory cases without forming and just load and crimp. The shell looks very different after fire forming to my chambers.
JD has used both fully sized cases and most recently only partially sized cases to the point it was hard to chamber the cartridges. As he says below:
…Backed sizing die out a little, so it wasn't full sized. Made a few shells quite hard to load into cylinder. Either cases bulged a bit, or perhaps the used shells were from my '73 levergun with larger chamber?
Problem was better but not fixed. Some primers backed out, at most, 0.012, 0.013. Was enough to almost lock 1 of the rodeos. (measured primer back-out by putting case on flat surface and gently pushing feeler gauges under shell rim until one tipped the shell). Other primers weren't as bad. One rodeo had problems, as stated. The other one ran pretty good. …
Smokeless shells: zero back-out.
Next step: I gotta clean my pistols before I start measuring headspace, etc. I'm also wondering if the cylinder pin bushing on the rodeo that had the problems is out a little further than the good-running one? Just a hunch. Gonna measure to see. I had trouble even putting the cylinder back into the frame after wiping it down.
Tune in later for more developments on this fast-moving story! ;)
There is one more clue that several have mentioned. “JD: Smokeless shells: zero back-out.” People keep telling him to contact USFA and so forth. If it is a chamber problem he would have it with smokeless as well. I mean really, would you argue otherwise?
Slim you and I have a lot of experience with modern weapons, tell me what your FMEA matrix would look like if it kept coming down to one propellant? That’s what he keeps telling us isn’t it? Smokeless works fine, BP with his loads don’t. So what would you look at, the weapon or the cartridge? It’s not simply the propellant, it’s the cartridge. The bullet, case, propellant and primer. Everyone keeps dancing around it but the facts are: Smokeless, Zero Problems; Schutzen FFFg from 1.9 to 2.2 ccs, the primers back out. So if you were on the clock would you make a presentation and tell everyone to look at the weapon, or the cartridge with the propellant that causes the problem. (Again we are not dealing with gas operated weapons or anything that requires an impulse to function, we are talking revolvers here.) So tell me whatt you would tell your team to look at tomorrow morning?
Let’s get smart about it and figure it out…
~Mako
-
That's why I suggested that he take not only the guns but a hand full of his loads to a professional.
Well here's a suggestion I haven't heard mentiond here as of yet. Take a handfull of your loads and both guns to a reputable shop/smith. Mark the gun that you don't have problem with the higher loads and see what he has ta say. It may be one of those problems that no amount of innernet bantering is gonna fix. Someone knowedgable needs ta put their hands on what you have, ammo and hardware. A decent guy will just tell you what is wrong at no charge an offer a fix if it's the pistol.
That's what I would do at this point. Heck, there might even be another customer at the store that over hears you an has a few good words, that's happened ta me more than once.
-
That's why I suggested that he take not only the guns but a hand full of his loads to a professional.
And why I said to contact the maker. ;)
-
Alright, I'm back in the ring. This could be also caused by a combo of too light a load and varying case rims thicknesses working in unison. Next time ISOLATE the cases that do this and measure the rim thicknesses.
I will also add this, recently I had this same problem on a brand new Colt FSS. The primers were being pulled back out a little upon cocking after a round fired as the FP is a little too long for Wolf primers as they are a little thin. Well, since Wolf is all I could get this Summer I uniformed the primer pockets on my 44-40 pistol brass which eliminated the primers being pulled out a tad by the firing pin as the primers sat a frog hair deeper. Worked great.....................until I used THAT ammo in my other Colt FSS. Many light hits. I had to segregate the brass.
-
Whew, ya'll makin' my poor, ignerrant head spin! :o
I'm gonna call USFA and see if I can find someone to talk to, as Del suggested. I've been avoiding that because I don't want to go through the PITA of boxing, shipping, and especially waiting for the return, if the rodeos need to be sent back. But, ya gotta do what ya gotta do.
Mako touched on something I mentioned doing a while back--switching powders. I have some SWISS 3f, and I may try it out. But I also suspect that if it was a pressure problem, I woulda seen an improvement from 1.9cc's to 2.2cc's (about 5 grain-by-weight difference in load). There wasn't really an improvement. I've tried different cases, different sizing, different loads, and it ain't workin'. The field's gettin' narrow.
I measured the headspace in my USFA Premium .45 LC. It was .005. That's less than half the distance of the rodeos. Personally, I believe the soft "push" of black powder (vs. the sharp recoil of smokeless. thanks, Del) combined with the extra long distance of the headspace (thanks, John Boy), is the culprit.
Once again, thanks to all of ya'll. I've learned a lot from this discussion!
-
I'm remiss! I forgot to thank the author with the best suggestion!
Thanks, Driftwood, I would believe that you were the one beacon of light in this cunundrum, with your suggestion about avoiding shiny brass! :D But I tried that, already. If you look at the first picture on about page 5 or so (chronologically, the last one I posted), you'll see that I attempted to use grundgy brass, too. There were other examples, but vanity and an undue fear of being seen as a "case abuser" caused me to only pick the shiniest, happiest examples for my photographs. ;)
-
Update for the curious:
I talked to Gary Granger at USFA, and he talked to their engineer. Spec on headspace is about .006. They're sending me a fed ex label to ship my pistolas in fer a fix. Here's the pisser, though. They're closed for 2 weeks after this week! So I haveta wait.
-
I'm sure you'll be happy in the end.
If ya think about it, back in the old days not many cowboys tinkered on their own guns. There were experts at hardware stores an plain old gun shops that did most of that tweaking an tuning fer an average cowboy or pistolero. I think ya made the right call.
-
If'n the tranny went out on a pcik-up under warrenty myself I wouldn't say ah-oh and call AAMCO, think I'd let the folks who made it do the fixin' but that's just me and some folks don't think I have many smarts.
Good call, JD you did all you should have to, nows the time for them to make good. ;)
-
Update for the curious:
I talked to Gary Granger at USFA, and he talked to their engineer. Spec on headspace is about .006. They're sending me a fed ex label to ship my pistolas in fer a fix. Here's the pisser, though. They're closed for 2 weeks after this week! So I haveta wait.
JD,
I hope you find relief, but I predict they will tell you the pistols are to spec. If they weren't you would have had problems with smokeless loads.
I'm pretty sure they didn't ask for your handloads because they won't use them at the facility. Unless the are very different than other firearms companies I have worked with because of liability they will use only the ammunition they use in test firing the pistols at the plant.
Best of luck pard,
Mako
-
And there in lies the rub. So mebbe while the guns are off getting attention, JD can take some of his handloads to a gunsmith and have him look them over. It would be better to have the guns as well, but if can get a free fix out of it I guess it's worth a shot.
-
And there in lies the rub. So mebbe while the guns are off getting attention, JD can take some of his handloads to a gunsmith and have him look them over. It would be better to have the guns as well, but if can get a free fix out of it I guess it's worth a shot.
Leo,
I hate to be contentious, but what gunsmith would make any determination without seeing the firearm the ammunition is being used in?
~Mako
-
JD,
I hope you find relief, but I predict they will tell you the pistols are to spec. If they weren't you would have had problems with smokeless loads.
No, the engineer at USFA already said the guns are out of spec (assuming, of course, that I measured right. And I'd bet the pistols themselves that I did). So even if the primers aren't a headspace problem, I have twice the amount of headspace the manufacturer tolerates. So off they go.
But I'll still be trying different batches of powder when I get them back.
-
And there in lies the rub. So mebbe while the guns are off getting attention, JD can take some of his handloads to a gunsmith and have him look them over. It would be better to have the guns as well, but if can get a free fix out of it I guess it's worth a shot.
That was my reccomendation. Go back through though the posts, I said it a couple times. I can however see the logic in letting USFA get the spacing correct for free. It may not work and then it's time for a good smith ta look at both the guns and the hand loads.
-
High-speed-photography would give a pretty good idea of what is happening.
Regards,
Slim
P.S. I still suspect the "load" is not the problem.
-
Well, it's been about 3 weeks now. Has there been any news.
Regards
-
USFA was supposed to send me a fedex label to ship the guns in a couple of weeks ago. They forgot, and they've been on vacation the last 2 weeks, so there hasn't been any progress.
If you look in this forum under the chamber pressure thread, there's a good chart someone posted showing the pressure spike in a smokeless round and a bp round of equivalent velocity, etc. The sharp, fast, and higher pressure peak of the smokeless would explain why my primers stayed in when shooting the heathen stuff, but popped out with the lower pressure bp.
I'll post an update as soon as I get the headspaced guns back.
-
J.D.,
Did you take sufficient measurements that you will be able to report back what they actually have done to your two pistols?
Also, if you get the chance, write them and ask them to send you an explanation of what they did or attempted to do. Several of us would like to understand what was happening and how they either fixed it, or attempted to fix it.
Regards,
Mako
-
I measured the headspace on both pistols and most of the shell casings (which matched the guns' headspace, naturally, as the primers couldn't be further out than the headspace). I also compared the measurements to the headspace on my USFA Premium, which had the correct, in-spec spacing, about .006 as I recall, which is 1/2 of what I found on the rodeos.
I have a lot of confidence in USFA--I've owned many of their their revolvers. And I'm really eager to get the rodeos fixed and back onto the range--I have a few different recipes of bp .44-40 loads just waitin'....
-
I measured the headspace on both pistols and most of the shell casings (which matched the guns' headspace, naturally, as the primers couldn't be further out than the headspace). I also compared the measurements to the headspace on my USFA Premium, which had the correct, in-spec spacing, about .006 as I recall, which is 1/2 of what I found on the rodeos...
No offense, but did you mean 0.060"?
-
No offense, but did you mean 0.060"?
Oops! You're right--I let a zero get away from me! :P
EDIT: I shouldn't be postin' before I've had my coffee. I was right the 1st time--the headspace was .005 or .006, depending on the shell (rim width effecting headspace)
-
FCK, I see you had a similar problem this summer:
http://www.cascity.com/forumhall/index.php/topic,26549.0.html
Did you get it worked out?
-
Yes, I explained it in this very same thread. ;)
-
I saw that you thought it was soft primers, but I didn't see that you found out fer sure (for instance, by trying different primers).
-
JD,
Any update for us?
~Mako
-
JD,
Just wanted to make sure you hadn't forgotten us. What was the verdict? What did USFA finally say and what did you measure once they were returned?
Regards,
Mako
-
They're still at USFA.....
-
JD,
Sorry to hear that, I hope you get them back soon.
Regards,
Mako
-
JD,
Any news for us yet? I'm hoping you got your pistols back by now.
Regards,
Mako
-
On Nov. 2, USFA sent me this in response to an email:
The head space is to be decreased by taking a few thousandths off the rachet. This will of course increase the barrel/cylinder gap. New barrels will be fitted.
Tomorrow it will be two months and still waiting....
-
Glad to see they're right on top of things out there. ::)
-
And I have a dollar that says when they are back and have been tested my good friend JD will tell us all about it. ;)
-
Time to update this thread:
I actually got a phone call from USFA a couple of days ago(!). The smith who's working on my guns apologized for taking so long, said he was in a head-on collision 4 months ago and is only now getting back to work. Which would explain a lot about the time taken to repair our guns. But as my wife pointed out: "why didn't they tell you that 3 or 4 months ago?"
I reckon most of you .44WCF owners/shooters know about the issues concerning bore/cylinder/chamber/throat diameter differences and problems. (the dimensions vary wildly depending upon who made it and when).
Unfortunately, it seems that .44-40 brass has a pretty wide range of rim thicknesses, too, according to the smith at USFA. My starline shells are on the thin side, and the guns headspace at .011 or .012, which is out of spec. But WW brass with a couple of thousandths thicker rims headspaces correctly.... :o ??? :P
The smith called an expert on black powder (a gun writer with decades of experience) and he suggested that I should open the primer flash hole. Which was an early suggestion in this thread. And which would cause some headaches 'cause I load both smokeless (sorry :-[) and black powder, and the altered brass would only be good fer b.p.
The USFA smith is going to play around with a magnum recoil shield and firing pin. Hopefully I'll get the guns back before 2010. Then I'll update this thread with a range report.
-
No one at USAF told you why yer guns weren't bein worked on? You could have sent the guy some flowers in the hospital er somethin.
-
No one at USAF told you why yer guns weren't bein worked on? You could have sent the guy some flowers in the hospital er somethin.
Nope, they never told me. They had a lot of opportunities--I talked to them a couple of times on the phone, sent emails, and left messages on voicemail.
It's also kinda strange that they didn't have anyone else who could work on the guns. Specially since somebody in the USFA CSS forum had his gun worked on and returned a couple of weeks ago....
-
So did you clean yer boots after wadin through that pile? This has been a learning experience for us all. They claim to only have one smith who was injured. You have proof otherwise. They tell you that you have to choose batween BP and nitro. Aint buyin it. I have no intention of ever doing busines with that company. I hope things work out for you but damn!
-
...The smith called an expert on black powder (a gun writer with decades of experience) and he suggested that I should open the primer flash hole. Which was an early suggestion in this thread. And which would cause some headaches 'cause I load both smokeless (sorry :-[) and black powder, and the altered brass would only be good fer b.p...
(http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo129/Boge_1960/BSMeter.gif)
J.D., the ´smith knows little if nothing about shooting BP IMO. Yes, case thicknesses vary but that can be remedied by sticking to one brand of brass. As for opening the primer flash hole that is total abject BS. If the guns don´t work right when you get them back then send them to a REAL gunsmith familiar with CAS BP shooting as in the long run you will be dollars ahead as well as stress free. ;)
-
J.D.,
I'm sorry to hear about all of the problems you have been having. I hope your luck takes a turn for the better.
USFA normally makes fine revolvers and to get two with exactly the same problem gives one pause when considering the probability and how far out you reported them to be. Did USFA ever tell you how much they measured them out or are they just parroting what you told them when you returned them? The whole affair including the story about the only gunsmith they had available and the fact he didn't have the expertise himself and had to resort to consulting a writer instead of a skilled gunsmith also gives one pause.
Then the recommendation about opening the flash holes by the “experienced gun writer” and then passed along by the gunsmith at USFA has me totally perplexed. It is true people mentioned opening flash holes, they did so to use wax bullets (we also do it for blank loads). John Boy mentioned it but then added “that school is not out on the subject.” Montana Slim thinks the holes should be examined, but I don’t think he was advocating opening them up as he didn’t indicate he does it with the pistols and .44WCF loads he shoots.
I’ll have to agree with you FCK, but I’ll go even further. This almost seems silly when you think about it…Imagine someone being “foolish enough” to think you could shoot BP in a .44WCF.
Best of luck to you J.D. Have a Merry Christmas and hopefully a better new year.
~Mako
P.S. Keeps us apprised of your progress.
-
JD,
I have 2 USFA's in 44 WCF. I shot smokeless intially and then changed over to shooting exclusively black powder. I also use Starline brass. I have absolutely no problem with primers backing out with either powder. I've also done the same thing with 2 USFA's in 45LC. I have a bunch of mixed brass in 45LC - every maker under the sun. Again, no problems at all.
I'd suggest you call Jim Finch (Long Hunter) and talk to him about it (see his ad on this website). He sells tons of USFA's (mine were all purchased through him) and I'd bet he could tell you immediately where the problem lies. He's a super guy and might be able to pull a string or two at USFA to help. Maybe they'd even ship the guns to him to look at and repair?
-
Aggie, that's a good suggestion, thanks.
Well, today, January 8, 2010, my Rodeos arrived! Same as another fellow (on the CSS USFA message board), the box was left on the porch. I wasn't notified or called to let me know of their return. No signature needed and not even a knock on the door to let me know. Glad I was at home and found them.
I haven't put any brass in them to measure the headspace, and obviously I haven't tried them out yet. (got wrapped up in an ordeal when our truck wouldn't start--took an hour to git goin', then went to the grocery, another ordeal...). I've got a few different recipes of cartridges to try out, soon as the weather mellows a touch. Then I'll report back on whether or not they're running right.
I really appreciate everyone's advice and suggestions here. This whole thing has been very disappointing, since I've always sworn by USFA.
-
JD,
I'm extremely happy for you! I'm hoping for the best when you try them out.
Did they send any information on what they did?
Regards,
Mako
-
Mako, the only thing they sent was a SAAMI spec sheet for .44-40 rifles. I've posted a link to a printable pdf, and a jpg image, below. I can tell that they replaced the hammers. The smith at USFA told me when he called last month that he was gonna try magnum hammers and recoil plates.
I still haven't tried them out. The weather was really cold until recently (and I'm recovering from spinal surgery a few weeks ago). It's warm right now and if the weather can just hold out a little longer, I'll drive down to the range and try out a few different batches of bp ammo.
http://www.dorseyfoto.com/arms/4440SAAMIspec.pdf
-
A friends antique1894 Marline produces backed out primers like the ones pictured earlier by J.D. Yellowhammer.
The same loads fired in my Uberti Henry did not back out.
The cartridge was .44-40 Starline brass, Federal Magnum pistol primers, 200 grain Lee 429-200-RF, over 33 grains of compressed GOEX FFg, and crimped with a Lee Factory Crimp Dies.
Hope this helps