Smokeless in an original 73 !

[tj3006]

A guy on another sight urged me not to try it.
    My load is 13 grains of 2400 under a 205 grain cast, velocity is not going to be much maybe 1000.
Pressure is around 9000 cup. 
   My hope is to push it up to 15 grains and about 1200 fps.  Source is Lyman's 50th manual..  Any opinions
              ...tj3006

   

[Jubal Starbuck]

    I don't shoot any smokeless in mine;  I never have and I don't plan on it in the future.  I just don't think its worth the risk.  Get a '92 if you want to shoot smokeless loads.

[Pettifogger]

There are 73s and then there are 73s.  The early ones had iron frames and the later ones had steel frames.  They were made up into the smokeless era.  I have a 73 made in 1876.  I would not shoot that one with smokeless and don't even shoot it with BP anymore.  Later guns are a little stronger with the emphasis being on "little".  A lot depends on the rifle's condition.  Without doubt many were shot with smokeless after the turn of the 20th Century.  A lot of early smokeless powders were made to be volume loaded with the same volume as BP.  Later smokeless powers have a lot more punch and drastically different pressure curves than BP.  10,000 cup with BP is not necessarily the same as 10,000 cup with a smokeless load,  When the pressure peaks and the duration of the peak can be quite different.  Winchester use to make standard and high velocity .44-40 and .38-40 ammunition and the box stated it was only for use in Model 92s.  People apparently didn't read instructions any better than they do now as the HV loads had to be discontinued so people didn't fire them in 73s and other old .44-40 guns.  Now to an opinion.  I would look at the date of manufacture to see what the frame material is.  I would look at the overall condition of the riflle and how tight the links are and whether the head space is within tolerance.  I would be loading extremely low powered loads with a high volume powder like Trail Boss.  If the goal is to shoot 1200 fps ammo it would be better to buy a reproduction 73 that is made out of modern steel.

[Fox Creek Kid]

Well, let's look at the bright side:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140222-artificial-limbs-feeling-prosthetics-medicine-science/

[w44wcf]

A guy on another sight urged me not to try it.
   My load is 13 grains of 2400 under a 205 grain cast, velocity is not going to be much maybe 1000.
Pressure is around 9000 cup.  
  My hope is to push it up to 15 grains and about 1200 fps.  Source is Lyman's 50th manual..  Any opinions
             ...tj3006

tj3006,
Welcome to the forum!
I purchased my original '73 back in 1999.  It was made in 1882. Since that time the hammer has fallen on about 3,500 reloads, of which about 2,000 were loaded with smokeless.

Factory smokeless ammunition for the '73 was first introduced in 1895 by Winchester. If Winchester felt it was not safe in their 1873 rifles, they would not have introduced it!



These original .44 W.C.F. / .44-40 cartridges were factory loaded with 17 grs. of DuPont No. 2 Bulk smokeless powder. It had a burning rate similar to today's 4227.  The difference being that the DuPont powder filled the case capacity while 17/4227 does not.

In time, dense type smokeless powders like Sharpshooter and SR80 were used in factory smokeless ammunition. Both have burning rates similar to todays 2400.

In the 1990's, Hercules Powder Co. tested 2400 in the 44-40 and published a load of 14.5 / 2400 under  a 200 gr. jacketd bullet.
Velocity in a 24" barrel was shown at 1,230 fps / 12,500 CUP.  I have shot that load in my '73 many times with no issues whatsoever.
I also have used 17/4227 with equally good results.

Today's factory smokeless 44-40 cartridges are loaded with faster burning smokeless powders and are plenty safe in original 1873's since they meet SAAMI specifications which were established with the strength of the 1873 Winchester in mind.

Handloading the 44-40 with faster burning smokeless like Unique is fine within SAMMI established pressure limits but the DANGER in doing so, is that a double charge will fit into the case whereas the 2400 & 4227 loads will not.

Have fun!
w44wcf

 

[Cholla Hill Tirador]

  Count me and my original '73's in with Mr. Kort although I have not (yet) fired as many rounds of smokeless as he. Too many rifles, too little time...

CHT

[tj3006]

W 44 thank you and the rest of you guys too !
    I put 13 grains of 2400 into my star line brass , and will try it tomorrow.
    I think there is a certain amount of risk , but life is to be lived.
    I will post my results with however many fingers i have left !
                          ...tj3006

[Coffinmaker]

I can well identify with those who feel life is to be lived.  A am still and adrenaline junkie.  With a caveat.
When a gun lets go, the barrel is next to MY hand.  I only have two.
When a gun lets go, the action is next to MY face.  I only have two eyes.

The possibility of an iron receiver, an iron cylinder or bad Damascus barrels just gives me the willies.  I'm
aware there are those who load those guns with smokeless.  I don't.  I don't even think about it.  It's just
not worth the risks.  The gun only have to fail once to maim or cripple for life.  YMMV

Coffinmaker

[tj3006]

I will have a smith take a look at in my way to the forest.
               ...

[tj3006]

             The bad news is after shooting smokeless loads in my vintage 1873   44/40  I will be typing with 2 fingers for awhile.
The good news is that's all I ever used anyway.  The shoot went great. The thing shoots very well, on par with my newer lever guns.
             My load was whimpy, but a good place to start.  The factory loads were stouter.  there is one less pop bottle to rape and pillage the Oregon coast range as that one has about 10 44 caliber holes in it ...tj3006

[Cholla Hill Tirador]

  I'm glad it went well and appreciate your range report.

  I don't begrudge folks being cautious but for all the dire warnings of shooting these old Winchesters I've never known of anyone submiitng first-hand knowledge of one being destroyed by shooting proper smokeless loads.
So enjoy your rifle! As soon as temps have begun dropping below 95° by the time I get off work in the evenings I'll start shooting mine again. I've yet to stretch my 38-40's beyond 200 yards so that's next on the agenda.

  CHT

[w44wcf]

Regarding smokeless in original 73's.......
We all have choices in life. "To each his own" as the saying goes.  

As was mentioned, Winchester developed smokeless cartridges intended for the 1873. After I learned that, I did some investigating on what the original smokeless loadings were. As a result, I believe is perfectly safe to shoot smokeless in my '73 made in 1882, PROVIDING that the cartridges do not exceed the SAAMI pressure limit for the .44 W.C.F. / .44-40. I also enjoy shooting b.p. as well.

1873 strength
The barrels are made of steel and contain the pressure of the cartridge. There is little bolt thrust since the cartridge case partially locks itself against the chamber walls upon ignition.

In the latest issue of the Winchester Collector, a fellow wrote an article entitled "THE TOGGLE LINK ACTION". He stated that he had been collecting Winchesters for 50 years and had never seen nor heard of an 1873 or 1876 with a blown up action.

Prior to writing the article he had reached out via the internet, questioned fellow associates and did find one instance of a '73 SRC where the barrel had blown out just forward of the rear sight due to a bore  obstruction. Interestingly, the action was intact and still working even though the pressure was, no doubt, well in excess of SAAMI specs.

1876 Strength
Shortly after the 1876 Winchester was introduced, there was some concern from some of the shooting public about the rifle being able to contain a cartridge with a 350 gr bullet pushed by 75 grs of b.p. which was considerably more than the 1873 Winchester cartridge.

Winchester responded by testing an 1876  to the point of failure and as you will see, the links and small pins were still intact (!).

The first thing they did was to remove  the one set of links, then fired the rifle 20 times. That "Worked  Well." They then replaced the missing links and increased the powder charge to 105 grs of Gov't powder under  two bullets  totaling 700 grs. That "Worked Well".  Then the charge weight was increased to  165 grs. and 3 bullets were used.  That also "Worked well".  

The powder charge was then increased to 203 grs. and 4 bullets  (1,400 grs.) were stacked on top of the powder charge.    That also "Worked well". (Wow!)

They kept adding more bullets until finally, the shell burst, blowing out the side plates, leaving the links and small pins intact and in perfect order.

Who would have thought that was possible.

w44wcf

[w44wcf]

tj3006,
Thank you for the range report. Sounds like you need to up the charge to 14.5, which was the only charge weight of 2400 that Hercules recommended and later, Alliant.

I'm curious to what factory load you were using (?). All of the factory cartridges develop less velocity than 2400.....well at least at 14.5 grs.

http://www.cascity.com/forumhall/index.php/topic,46913.0.html

w44wcf

[tj3006]

The factory ammo is from ultra max.
      A 200 grain load. I did not chrony , but the 2400 load felt like a 22lr. The factory had a little felt recoil. I would let my 8 year old grand son shoot it.
     I think I will up the charge to 14. From there i will go up a half grain at a time...tj3006

[bear tooth billy]

I have an original 73 also made in 1882, it was pitted pretty bad and the chamber was very worn. I had
it relined a few years ago and now it shoots very well, and is MUCH easier to clean. Would the liner make
the barrel weaker?  I've only shot black, 2ff Scheutzen, mainly because it's so cool.

                                               BTB

[Cholla Hill Tirador]

 Ever since I had my 1886 model '73 barrel lined, about all I've shot is smokeless. No problems whatsoever.

CHT

[w44wcf]

tj3006,
In my testing in the link I posted, I found that Ultramax ammo produced the highest velocity.
For best results with 2400, raise the muzzle momentarily before completely closing the action to place the powder to the back of the case.
The 14.5/2400 Hercules/Alliant data was taken using 200 gr. jacketed bullets and the pressure was a bit over 10% less than the SAAMI pressure.

Ken Waters who wrote many articles for the Handloader, used 16 grs. of 2400 in his original 1873's BUT with cast bullets.

BTB,
Certainly with loads not exceeding the SAAMI 14,000 pressure limit, your reclined 1873 will work just fine.

CHT,
Thank you for your experience. That is mine as well.

w44wcf

[Trailrider]

Concerning the strength of togglelink actions, I ran some tests for an article published in either "Handloader" or "Rifle" magazine, years ago, using smokeless powders, primarily Unique.  At one point, I removed one link. I couldn't tell that it had been removed! I removed both links! The action opened about half-way (I did NOT attempt to hold the lever closed). When I first obtained the rifle, before doing these tests, I examined the original links and discovered that one was cracked at the "elbow" joint. Navy Arms had just introduced their Italian-made '73, and I contacted Val Forgett, who was kind enough to send me a pair of the replica togglelinks, which I installed in my rifle. Aside from a little fitting, they fit perfectly.  Aside from the accuracy problems due to the .434" groove diameter barrel (not worn, just oversized...very common to Winchester '73's), the rifle was good to go. The thing about radial pressures on the inside of the chamber/barrel is that even with the different pressure-time curves that smokeless powders generate compared to BP, it is the backthrust on the bolt that is the main issue. With the loads listed in the Lyman handbook, the backthrust, with modern brass, isn't that great.  I'm not advocating the use of smokeless powder, especially for those rifles made prior to the mid-1880's, but if  carefully followed, it shouldn't be a problem.  [NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE USE OF THE ABOVE INFORMATION IN GUNS OTHER THAN MY OWN, AND MAYBE NOT THEN!  Usual disclaimer.]

[Cholla Hill Tirador]

Concerning the strength of togglelink actions, I ran some tests for an article published in either "Handloader" or "Rifle" magazine, years ago, using smokeless powders, primarily Unique.  At one point, I removed one link. I couldn't tell that it had been removed! I removed both links! The action opened about half-way (I did NOT attempt to hold the lever closed). When I first obtained the rifle, before doing these tests, I examined the original links and discovered that one was cracked at the "elbow" joint. Navy Arms had just introduced their Italian-made '73, and I contacted Val Forgett, who was kind enough to send me a pair of the replica togglelinks, which I installed in my rifle. Aside from a little fitting, they fit perfectly.  Aside from the accuracy problems due to the .434" groove diameter barrel (not worn, just oversized...very common to Winchester '73's), the rifle was good to go. The thing about radial pressures on the inside of the chamber/barrel is that even with the different pressure-time curves that smokeless powders generate compared to BP, it is the backthrust on the bolt that is the main issue. With the loads listed in the Lyman handbook, the backthrust, with modern brass, isn't that great.  I'm not advocating the use of smokeless powder, especially for those rifles made prior to the mid-1880's, but if  carefully followed, it shouldn't be a problem.  [NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE USE OF THE ABOVE INFORMATION IN GUNS OTHER THAN MY OWN, AND MAYBE NOT THEN!  Usual disclaimer.]

  That is really interesting information. Thanks so much for posting it!

    CHT

[Pettifogger]

Concerning the strength of togglelink actions, I ran some tests for an article published in either "Handloader" or "Rifle" magazine, years ago, using smokeless powders, primarily Unique.  At one point, I removed one link. I couldn't tell that it had been removed! I removed both links! The action opened about half-way (I did NOT attempt to hold the lever closed). When I first obtained the rifle, before doing these tests, I examined the original links and discovered that one was cracked at the "elbow" joint. Navy Arms had just introduced their Italian-made '73, and I contacted Val Forgett, who was kind enough to send me a pair of the replica togglelinks, which I installed in my rifle. Aside from a little fitting, they fit perfectly.  Aside from the accuracy problems due to the .434" groove diameter barrel (not worn, just oversized...very common to Winchester '73's), the rifle was good to go. The thing about radial pressures on the inside of the chamber/barrel is that even with the different pressure-time curves that smokeless powders generate compared to BP, it is the backthrust on the bolt that is the main issue. With the loads listed in the Lyman handbook, the backthrust, with modern brass, isn't that great.  I'm not advocating the use of smokeless powder, especially for those rifles made prior to the mid-1880's, but if  carefully followed, it shouldn't be a problem.  [NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE USE OF THE ABOVE INFORMATION IN GUNS OTHER THAN MY OWN, AND MAYBE NOT THEN!  Usual disclaimer.]

With both links removed there is NOTHING holding the action closed.  It would not matter if you were attempting to hold the lever closed as with both links removed the lever isn't connected to anything.  This is rubbish.