Shooting Smokeless in old Revolvers?

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

Hope this is the correct forum for this one.

When asked about shooting Smokeless loads in 19th Century revolvers, I always like to play it safe and recommend only shooting Black Powder in pre-1900 revolvers, just like Colt recommended.

My purpose here is not to argue about whether or not shooting Smokeless in 19th Century revolvers is safe. Let's leave that discussion for another time.

What I would like to know is, can anybody verify blowing up a pre-1900 revolver with light Smokeless loads? If so, please be as specific as possible and list as many details as are known.

I'll start. I do know one shooter who blew up a Merwin Hulbert cylinder with smokeless loads, but I will have to see if he can supply me with any details.

Thanks

[Dick Dastardly]

Problem with heathen fad smokeyless powder is that there's smokeless and then there's smokeless.  It ain't all the same.  Genuine Powder, black powder, is pretty much the same pressure wise.  I know of very few modern guns that can handle a stout charge of Bullseye.

In direct answer to your question, I've not seen any pre 1900 guns that have been blown up by shooting smokeless powder.  I have seen a good number of modern ones that have been blown up with smokeless tho.  Usually it was due to an overcharge of fast powder or an obstruction in the barrel.

I can't say that I've seen any pre 1900 guns blown up by bp.  But, I do know of it happening, including cannons.

I'd not shoot smokeless loads in Damascus barrel scatterguns.  I'd even be leery of strong bp loads in many of them I've seen.  Wouldn't want to hold 'em next to my ugly face and pull the trigger, but I've seen pards do it routinely at SASS matches.  Sooner or later one of 'em's goin' to blow.

DD-DLoS

[Qball]

Some revolvers here, bout old and new ones.
http://www.leverguns.com/articles/taylor/blowups.htm
not shure it was mild smokless loads though.

[Advertising]

[St. George]

If it helps - there's always talk in the 'Frontier Iron' forum about this.

My own experience has been that so long as the smokeless load duplicates the factory loading available pre-WWII, these older weapons stayed tight and shootable.

The problems arose with inexperienced/overly-enthusiastic reloaders.

Pre-1914 - S&W frames were essentially iron, and only were hardened after that, because of the popularity of smokeless, and likely earlier problems with frame stretching or cylinder cracking on older weapons.

Factory smokeless was loaded 'light', afterwards.

Vaya,

Scouts Out!

[Wolfgang]

I've no desire to shoot any smokeless in any old ( or replica of old ) gun.  I played with non standard loads ( back in my foolish youth ) in an old miltary Webly revolver. I'm real greatful that the Webley held together. I've seen over on the "British Gun Pub" a number of stories and pictures of ones that did not hold together.      

Just because an old gun holds together with a non standard load, . . for one round . . or a dozen . . or a couple of hundred . . doesn't mean that it will hold together for the next one that is fired in it.

[Driftwood Johnson]

Well, I guess this got put where it is supposed to be.

Pre-1914 - S&W frames were essentially iron, and only were hardened after that, because of the popularity of smokeless, and likely earlier problems with frame stretching or cylinder cracking on older weapons.

St George: Do you have any documentation to back up that statement? Not meaning to disparage you, but this is a topic of great interest to me. According to Kuhnhausen, Colt was using materials that we would call malleable iron today for frames and cylinders up until approx SN 96,000 (1883). SN 96,000-approx 180,000 (1898) used transitional low/medium carbon steels. About mid 1898 Colt began using medium carbon steels, but would still not factory warranty the SAA for Smokeless Powder. By 1900 Colt was able to better and more uniformly heat treat this same material and so in 1900 they factory warrantied the SAA for Smokeless Powder. I find it a little bit difficult to understand why S&W would still be using iron up until 1914 if Colt had been using steel since the mid 1880s. Not meaning to pick a fight, just want to pick your brain.

[St. George]

I believe I saw that in Supica's 'Standard Catalog of Smith & Wesson'.

At the time I'd found it - I was looking deeper into early pocket revolvers, and it stuck in my memory.

I'm away from my copy (and library) at the moment - but I'll look deeper when I can.

Vaya,

Scouts Out!

[Kent Shootwell]

Mike Venturino has told me that a prime reason to avoid smokeless in the old guns made when black powder was the only gun powder is because of the erosive  quality of smokeless. As said by others the metal alloy of the old guns weren't the exotic mixes that is common use today. The 1894 Winchester is a good example, when it came out the 30/30 wasn't offered till nickel steel could be made into good barrels.

[Grapeshot]

One other thing about Smokeless compared to Black Powder is the pressure curve is longer in the Nitro-Cellulose Nitroglycerin mixed stuff than in the Charcoal/Sulfer/Salt Peter mix.  That longer pressure curve, even with light loads those old iron frames will begin to stretch and shoot loose.  To much of this abuse and they have a tendency to come apart dramatically.

I've only seen the result of someone using smokeless in a black powder gun once.  Individual tried using a pistol powder in an 1851 Navy and had the cylinder turn into a fragmentation grenade.  He left pieces of cylinder imbeded in the stall walls of the shooting position in the indoor range I was working at.  Needless to say he made a hasty exit.

[w44wcf]

If one looks at smokeless cartridge boxes for b.p. calibers in the late 1800's early 1900's there is no warning not to use them in b.p. firearms. That is because the "low pressure" smokeless powder(s) used by the factories did not produce pressures any higher than b.p.

Historically speaking, DuPont No. 2 bulk smokeless was patented in 1893 and was loaded in many factory produced b.p. pistol cartridges. It filled the case capacity just like b.p.   L&R Sharpshooter (1897) was a dense powder originally developed for the 45-70 b.p. cartridge and was also used in factory loaded b.p. pistol cartridges.

w44wcf

[Driftwood Johnson]

Thanks for all the comments so far.

Allow me to repeat myself please.

I am not looking for a discussion of whether or not it is a good idea to shoot Smokeless loads in old guns.

I am looking for any specific examples anybody is aware of of an old Black Powder framed revolver blowing up because it was shot with a modern, light Smokeless load.

Thanks

[Fox Creek Kid]

Thanks for all the comments so far.

Allow me to repeat myself please.

I am not looking for a discussion of whether or not it is a good idea to shoot Smokeless loads in old guns.

I am looking for any specific examples anybody is aware of of an old Black Powder framed revolver blowing up because it was shot with a modern, light Smokeless load.

Thanks

Driftwood, what are you driving at? Either you believe it or you don't. Mike Venturino believes it and says as much in writing & that's good enough for me just as if he told me that that jumping out a four story window onto concrete is bad for the bones. I don't need to see it or replicate it. The metallurgy of the time in question was alchemy at best. The military only spot hardened 1911's through WWII. S&W implemented some hardening in 1915 on the Triple Lock, but it was iffy as best as metallurgy really only came of age after WWII as we now know it.

One has to be careful with threads like this as there are many who are not as well versed as we are and read what they want and may try smokeless in an old gun in a reduced charge with catastrophic results.

[Driftwood Johnson]

Fox Creek Kid

I guess my purpose is two fold.

I frequent several different forums. One is the S&W forum. In the Antique section of the forum the question frequently gets raised as to whether or not it is safe to fire the old guns (pre-1900) with modern off the shelf smokeless ammo. The same question gets raised on other forums too. I am talking about calibers like 38 S&W and stuff like that. Stuff that is presently commercially available. Usually there will be several answers by shooters who testify how they have shot the old guns for years with presently available commercial ammo and they have not blown one up yet. Usually they answer with the statement that the ammo is purposely loaded down in pressure so as not to blow up the old guns. Very few of these guys have any experience at all with Black Powder. Most are stuck in the old way of thinking that it is messy, a pain to clean, and will rust the guns over night. So they go with the old assumption that shooting pre-1900 guns with modern ammo is OK.

I usually try to give the response we would expect from Venturino (yes I have read lots of his stuff and respect him highly). The standard information that Colt did not warranty the SAA for Smokeless Powder until 1900. Kunhausen makes the same statement, going further in depth about the metalurgy of the day. I do disagree that the metallurgy of the time in question was alchemy at best. There was a lot of good science starting to be practiced, and artisans had been making steel for centuries. It just was not available on a mass production basis until the Bessemer process was perfected in the 1850s. But I digress. I assume you were simply exaggerating with the remark about alchemy. Michael Chicoine makes some very convincing arguments for not shooting any Smokeless in the old guns too.

So I will usually make the standard remarks about pressure curves, and pressure spikes, and all that stuff. I usually get shouted down. So that's why I am looking for some specific examples to give of old revolvers that have been blown up by light smokeless loads.

Along these lines, I bought a S&W 38 Single Action 2nd Model not too long ago. I did fire a half box of modern Winchester ammo through it, and it was fine. I will probably not shoot it again until I have some 38 S&W dies and can make up my own BP loads. And more recently, I bought a S&W New Model #3, a truly beautiful revolver, and I have no intention of shooting it with Smokeless, although I am sure it has been shot with Smokeless at some time. This one is just too valuable for me to risk blowing up. But when I contacted Happy Trails, whom I respect greatly, and who owns oodles of old Smiths, he said to go right ahead and shoot it with modern made 44 Russian.

So it's not that I don't know who to believe, I strongly believe in keeping Smokeless away from these old revolvers, I just want to find some specific examples so I can post with a little bit more authority.

Or I suppose I could just shut up and let them blow up their nice old guns.

[Fox Creek Kid]

Driftwood, many people on the Internet will "canvass" countless websites seraching for someone to endorse their viewpoint despite reams of data to the contrary as many are just too lazy to load real BP. That's a fact. I know you're not as you're a hardcore Darksider like me. 

[Books OToole]

Thanks for all the comments so far.

II am looking for any specific examples anybody is aware of of an old Black Powder framed revolver blowing up because it was shot with a modern, light Smokeless load.

Thanks

In a well made pre-1900 handgun, such as a Smith & Wesson, modern ammo is not likely to "blow it up."  However, repeated firing of modern ammo will stretch it out.  That is why so many of the old break-tops are loose and do not lock up properly.  So you are not likely to get hurt with an exploding weapon, but you will eventually ruin a great old gun.

Books

[PJ Hardtack]

As someone said earlier in this thread, the best reason to avoid using smokelsss in old BP guns is the sharp pressure curve which apparentrly does bad things to the metallurgy.
I had the cylinder of a beautiful Tranter 450 Army Model magnafluxed as  a previous owner used to shoot Dominion .455 factory ammo in it. It passed with flying colours. The art of hardening/heat treated cylinders was unknown at the time. If they wanted more strength, they increased the thickness of the cylinder walls.
Venturino has written up a few cases of revolvers coming apart for various reasons, including the use of smokeless charges/over charges in guns from the BP era.

I shoot 5.2 Unique/230RN in my Tranter with good results and it doesn't seem to stress gun or brass.

[Fox Creek Kid]

As someone said earlier in this thread, the best reason to avoid using smokelsss in old BP guns is the sharp pressure curve which apparentrly does bad things to the metallurgy.
I had the cylinder of a beautiful Tranter 450 Army Model magnafluxed as  a previous owner used to shoot Dominion .455 factory ammo in it. It passed with flying colours. The art of hardening/heat treated cylinders was unknown at the time. If they wanted more strength, they increased the thickness of the cylinder walls.
Venturino has written up a few cases of revolvers coming apart for various reasons, including the use of smokeless charges/over charges in guns from the BP era.

I shoot 5.2 Unique/230RN in my Tranter with good results and it doesn't seem to stress gun or brass.

I beg to differ, respectfully. I had a buddy with a Webley RIC and he had severe breech face peening within 100 rds. of BLACKPOWDER loads. He had to have a recoil plate machined into the breech face. IMO anyone shooting smokeless in a 19th century gun is like the little boy whistling as he walks past the graveyard. When they blow they blow without symptons. If a person doesn't want to shoot blackpowder then they need a modern made gun.

[PJ Hardtack]

Fox Creek Kid

I agree. I recently loaded up a batch of BP .450 loads for my Tranter. Since I want that gun to last, when I shoot it. it will be with the ammo it was designed for. Same for my Colt .38 Lightning revolver.
BP will mess up the guns a little, but sure beats stressing metal from the 1800s.

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy Again

There has been an interesting discussion going on related to this subject over at the S&W forum. I was making all the usual statements. But finally, Roy Jinks (the S&W historian) came up with some information regarding S&W and Black Powder. He found evidence that S&W did not warranty their revolvers for Smokeless Powder in their 1906 catalog, but they did in their 1909 catalog. This is the first time I have seen any statements regarding S&W and turn of the century revolvers with Smokeless powder.

http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-antiques/175782-blackpowder-smokeless.html

[PJ Hardtack]

Driftwood

Does that mean that S&W started heat treating cylinders by 1909 or had done some lab work to prove their guns safe with the 'new fangled' powder?
When I had the Cylinder of my Tranter magnafluxed, the testing company asked what loads I was intending to shoot. When I said that I had fired it with low-powered smokeless loads, he told me that he didn't think it was going to be a problem. Mind you, he does aero-space and automotive work, not firearms.
Chicoine still recommends NOT using modern smokeless in antique S&Ws based on his knowledge and experience.