Smokeless in '76 Clones

[Fox Creek Kid]

I was talking to friend the other night who is a regular contributor to "Black Powder Cartridge News" and a more knowledgeable gunsmith for 19th century arms would be hard to find. We discussed smokeless powder in toggle link actions & he is wholeheartedly against it, having seen some blow & one where the shooter lost an eye. Personally, I think it's only a matter of time before someone blows up a '76 clone w/ a smokeless load. Remember, there is NO HARD DATA for smokeless loads in a '76. From what I see on the Internet most people are shooting smokeless in the '76 clones which to me is baffling why anyone would want to shoot anything but BP per originals. I'm not trying to start a flame war here as I'm sure some self styled ballistic "expert" whose uncle Willie knows a guy who works at Hogdon. Personally, I think it's insane to even permit anyone to post ANY smokeless data on this forum until there is hard laboratory tested data ( and even then I wouldn't should smokeless in a '76). Food for thought. 

[Hobie]

I think that's very interesting.  But, I do have some questions about this person and their point of view.  Not knowing their name could you share their bonafides?  Why do they think that there is no data?  Is it because there's been no demand?  Were early smokeless cartridge rifles destroyed as reloaders worked out recipes for cartridges with no data?  Does smokeless powder, working at BP pressures do something to toggle-link actions that BP won't do?

[Fox Creek Kid]

Sure, his name is Dan Phariss. He was a gunsmith at Shiloh Sharps for years and now does custom gunwork as well as writes a column in "Black Powder Cartridge News". Smokeless, no matter how light the load, has an initial pressure spike greater than BP. Added to that, you only have to screw up once with smokeless in a toggle link as opposed to say a Glock.

[Advertising]

[Grizzly Adams]

Hi, Fox Creek!  Welcome to the fire.   You propose an interesting discussion!

Well, your friend has an interesting point of view.   Many of the replicas we enjoy today are replicas of BP era arms that were designed for BP, back in the day.  With the exception of C&B and muzzle loading arms, most replicas are used with smokeless powder - the Uberti 1873,  1866 and 1860 Henry as examples. Now, given that the action of the 1876 is nothing more than a longer action 1873, does he also feel that shooting smokeless in the replica 1873 is also a danger? 

That said, one must be mindful of keeping smokeless loads for the 1876 and 1873 within the framework of BP loads - IMHO.  Hot rodding any of these designs with smokeless would be needless and foolish.

[Hobie]

Sure, his name is Dan Phariss. He was a gunsmith at Shiloh Sharps for years and now does custom gunwork as well as writes a column in "Black Powder Cartridge News". Smokeless, no matter how light the load, has an initial pressure spike greater than BP. Added to that, you only have to screw up once with smokeless in a toggle link as opposed to say a Glock.

I read his stuff and subscribe the BPCN.  Thanks for the info...

[Hobie]

My view is that keeping the pressures to the same or less as BP produces is fine in replica/reproduction arms.  Why?  Because of the steels used and the age of the guns.  Differences in the pressure spike (isn't that what pressure measuring systems measure) might be a problem with old metal of sometimes indeteriminate composition.  Less so with modern steels.  I wouldn't fire an original gun with smokeless powders.  But, I have to note that smokeless loads were created for some cartridges to be fired in these same guns and those loads were loaded by the manufacturers including Winchester.

Have you read Sherman Bell's work?

[sharps50/70]

Very interesting discussion.  I just got my copy of the Black Powder Cartridge News yesterday and read the article in it by the fellow who writes much about cowboy action guns.  His article was on the 1876 and he lists a couple of smokeless loads.

I don't own a '76 yet but I do shoot a Henry in 44/40.  Haven't tried black powder, I just got a mold and sizing dies to start casting up soft lead bullets. But light smokeless loads and commercial bullets work extremely well in the rifle.   Phariss' opinion certainly is not wrong but with reasonable loads, I can't see why smokeless cannot be used as is currently done in the Henrys, '66 and '73.  The problem comes when some uninformed land loader decides there can't be much difference between a 45-60, a 45-75 and a 45-70 so why not use the 45-70 loading data.  Problems then arise.  These rifles, unlike the '86 or the '74 Shiloh Sharps, cannot take magnum loads.  As long as people stay with reasonable loads, like the ones quoted in the BPCN article, there shouldn't be any problems.

[Fox Creek Kid]

I just don't trust smokeless in a 19th century design for the most part. Putting smokeless in these guns is like feeding a horse rocket fuel. Remember, powder companies are "off the hook" legally if your smokeless reload blows up as NO gun manufacturer recommends reloads and shooting such nullifies any warranty or inferred liability. I would be surprised if we ever see smokeless data from a major powder co. for 45-75, 45-60 and the two other rounds in the '76.

My view is that keeping the pressures to the same or less as BP produces is fine in replica/reproduction arms.

Hobie, you can't. Reread my previous post about "initial spikes".

[Grizzly Adams]

I just don't trust smokeless in a 19th century design for the most part. Putting smokeless in these guns is like feeding a horse rocket fuel. Remember, powder companies are "off the hook" legally if your smokeless reload blows up as NO gun manufacturer recommends reloads and shooting such nullifies any warranty or inferred liability. I would be surprised if we ever see smokeless data from a major powder co. for 45-75, 45-60 and the two other rounds in the '76.

Hobie, you can't. Reread my previous post about "initial spikes".

Don't know about the rocket fuel analogy, but many purist sure don't take to the idea!  Just seems wrong they say.  Kinda like shooting smokeless in a Shiloh Sharps!  If you want to see people get ill, suggest THAT to those folks!

I predict we will see smokeless data for all of the 76 calibers within a year.   As my old Granny used to say, I'll betcha my betcha wins your betcha, whatsha betcha?

In any case, interesting thread, and I think these are ideas that need to be kicked around!

[Hobie]

Hobie, you can't. Reread my previous post about "initial spikes".

Explain how an "initial spike" can differ from a spike.  "Spike" implies "maximum".  If spike is not maximum do you perhaps mean something else?  Does smokeless spike more than once?  Now, I can understand a spike occuring later or earlier in the ignition cycle.  If we accept that BP and smokeless (such as IMR 3031 or 4198) have different pressure curves and that those curves if different from BP might damage the action, then do we also think that BP subs like 777 or Pyrodex will produce damage? This is aside from the concern about mistakes in charge weights, supposedly impossible with BP.

[Hobie]

Don't know about the rocket fuel analogy, but many purist sure don't take to the idea!  Just seems wrong they say.  Kinda like shooting smokeless in a Shiloh Sharps!  If you want to see people get ill, suggest THAT to those folks!

I predict we will see smokeless data for all of the 76 calibers within a year.   As my old Granny used to say, I'll betcha my betcha wins your betcha, whatsha betcha?

In any case, interesting thread, and I think these are ideas that need to be kicked around!

I believe we'll see lab produced pressure test results of smokeless in the .45-75 in about a year.  I'm pretty sure somebody is working on this...

[w44wcf]

I had to take a few moments to gather my thoughts before posting.  First off, I am a student of black and smokeless powders (obsolete and current) and have a number of resources at hand…..some dating back to before 1900.

The information presented below has been taken from reputable sources….Winchester catalogs, early smokeless powder pamphlets, etc.  

The intended purpose is to inform the reader of the history of smokeless in b.p. cartridges and nothing more.    

I really enjoy shooting b.p. in the vintage cartridges, just like our forefathers did.
When it comes to smokeless in the old timers, I will say that if one wants to venture down that path,  I would strongly not recommend using smokeless powers with a burning rate faster than 2400 in any toggle link action. Using the proper burning rate if smokeless powder is important!! The factories knew what they were doing!

To much of the WRONG (fast burning) smokeless powder is the culprit of disintegrated toggle link rifles.    

Regarding smokeless in toggle link actions, let’s take a look at the Winchester 1873 first.  The truth is, that Winchester introduced smokeless ammunition for use in the 1873 Winchester rifle beginning way back in 1895.  I have yet to hear of a ’73 rifle that failed using factory smokeless ammunition.



The powder that Winchester initially used for their 1873 cartridges was DuPont No. 2 Bulk smokeless which is similar in burning rate to today’s 4227.  Shortly after 1900, they switched to “Sharpshooter” which was initially produced by Laflin & Rand, then DuPont and finally Hercules. Smokeless cartridges for the  ’73 used this powder up until the 1950’s.  It’s burning rate is similar to today’s 2400.

Note: Alliant has published smokeless data for the .44-40 with no disclaimer that it shouldn’t be used in a ’73 Winchester rifle.

I have a ’73 Winchester that was made in 1882. I shoot both smokeless and b.p. ammunition in it.  To date, it’s hammer has dropped on about 2,500 hand loaded smokeless and 1,000 b.p. cartridges.  Smokeless cartridges were loaded with slower burning 4227 which were pressure tested at a ballistics lab and produced pressures within the SAMMI MAP (max average pressure) specifications for the .44-40. It’s still working great.

Now on to the ’76.
Winchester began their development of smokeless ammunition for b.p. cartridges in the late 1893-1894 time period. They started introducing these types of smokeless cartridges in late 1894 and development continued over the next few years until all the smokeless b.p rounds were complete….all, that is, except for the ’76 cartridges.

Why?  Well, unfortunately, by that time, the ’76 had pretty much run it’s course, so there was no effort made to develop smokeless cartridges for it.  The one exception was the .50-95, which was offered in a smokeless version for a short period of time before 1900.

Until such time as there is empherical data for smokeless powder taken in a ballistic lab for the ’76 cartridges, users, unfortunately are on their own.

Some folks have interpolated data from the .45-70, of which there is data generated in ballistic laboratories for lower pressure smokeless loads. Stepping back to the late 1800’s…initially, DuPont No. 1 bulk smokeless was used in factory smokeless cartridges.   Under a 400 gr. bullet, the charge weight was 28 grs. and was indicated to  produce velocities and pressures similar to 70 grs. of black.   DuPont No. 1 was similar in burning rate to 4198.  Thus, the 40% rule was born (28 / 70). In other words, as a rule of thumb, with 4198, use a charge that is 40 % of the charge weight of b.p.

Let’s see how that works out.
The Lyman ballistic laboratory recorded the following .45-70 loads for velocity and pressure.  The similarity is remarkable!
From the Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook:
Bullet weight: 420 grs.
70.0 grs./   FFG / 1,268 f.p.s. / 16,400 C.U.P.
28.5 grs./ 4198 / 1,267 f.p.s. / 13,900 C.U.P.
Interesting that less pressure was produced with the smokeless load .

Stay safe!
Have fun!

w44wcf

[Marshal Deadwood]

A lot of the 'buffalo gun' shooters of the 'bigger capacity' cases are using smokeless Accurate Arms XMP5744 to duplicate BP velocities. Has anyone considered if this might be a good choice in the 45-60 or 45-75 in the '76 ? Some of the Sharps 45-110 and other large case shooters use it for smokeless loads.

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

MD

[Delmonico]

Very simply, I would not load Nitro powder in these or any round until prober Lab tested data was established. To try to "guess" on nitro powders is foolish, just because it burns like this in one round, don't mean it will in a different round.  And then I would only use it in modern replicas, not originals which did not have the metal quality of today and may have been strained in the past by someone else.  Just because a gun does not blow up, don't mean the metal has not been stressed and weakened slightly.  That's just basic metallury.

With Nitro powders, when they go over the top on pressures it is like a speeding coal train with bad brakes on a snot covered track. 

[Fox Creek Kid]

Wise words, Mr. Delmonico. 

[w44wcf]

With Nitro powders, when they go over the top on pressures it is like a speeding coal train with bad brakes on a snot covered track.

Not when they are used correctly (Important!).

w44wcf

[Grizzly Adams]

Here is an interesting article by Mike Venturino.  Note the section on loading.

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-17440629_ITM

[Fox Creek Kid]

Unable to read the article w/o giving personal info. Bad link.

[Grizzly Adams]

Unable to read the article w/o giving personal info. Bad link.

Sorry about that.   Odd, it worked fine straight off Google.  In any case, here are the high points re smokeless powder in the Uberti replica.

"Handloads Only--For Now

And speaking of handloads, I have been reloading the .45-60 WCF for over 15 years for use in an original Winchester of 1881 vintage. Since originals are so old, and most of their receivers likely forged of iron instead of steel, I recommend they only be fired with black powder ammunition. Certainly it's a minor pain to clean up afterwards, but certainly less of a pain than picking pieces of steel out of your noggin because you blew up a valuable old original. (A friend did exactly this to a $4,000 Model 1876 Winchester, but luckily managed to avoid the flying pieces when it let go.)

Two great attractions of the new Uberti/Cimarron collaboration are (1) they won't be costing $4,000, and (2) if you use some commonsense, there is no reason they can't be fired with proper smokeless powder handloads. Because of their toggle-link breech-locking system these new Model 1876s still are not strong rifles, but shooting smokeless powders in them with loads duplicating black powder velocities and pressures will be no problem.

Data

So how do you go about coming up with a smokeless powder load for a cartridge like the .45-60, for which no recognized reloading manual offers data? First, I looked up the ballistics of original black powder .45-60 factory loads. A reprint of an 1899 Winchester catalog said from a Model 1885 Winchester Single Shot rifle with 30" barrel the .45-60 s 300-grain bullet should be doing 1,271 fps. They also said such a load would penetrate 11 1/2 pine boards of 1" thickness at 15.

My pick of smokeless powder for reloading almost all antique and/or obsolete big-bore rifle cartridges with lead alloy bullets is Accurate's 5744. Therefore, I began working with it and the RCBS bullet. When a charge weight of 24 grains was reached, the 28" barrel of the new Model 1876 gave a velocity of 1,267 fps. I figured that was right on the money and started shooting on paper with that charge and both RCBS and Oregon Trail bullets."
 

[quigleysharps4570]

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?