Smokeless Powder ammo in Black Powder antique revolver?

T he only gun I have that might be considered a black Powder gun is a Colt SAA 5.5" that is lettered to 1908. IIRC, colt started guaranteeing the SAA starting 19 1906. Nut sure why that date sticks in my mind but I did make up a few round for it using Unique.
Now that Colt revolver is I believe quite a bit stronger that that top break S&W so I'd be a bit skeptical about what I'd use to load for that gun. I may be known for using loads that are on the warm to very hot side but when it comes to those older guns that are tight in the middle of the transition from black powder to smokeless I admit to being an abject coward. Again I'll base thise on tha 1908 Colt. The gun is of course a first generation Colt. I don't have any second generation guns but do have a few third generation gun. (current manufacture)When comparing a first gen with a third gen cylinders, the walls of the later guns are noticeably thicker. Not by much but I do see a difference. While the first smokeless powder guns came out around 1906 it was a few years after that that Colt switched to using steel for the frame rather than the previously used iron frames.
It seems to me that there is an outfit making .44 Russian ammo for the cowboy matches and understand the the loads used for those shoots in .45 Colt are extremely light more because of lesser recoil then I think it would be safe to presume that cowboy loads for the .44 Russian would be equally light. I believe I would contact the maker of such ammo and ask to what pressure level they were using and then determine if that would work for you.
Paul B.
 
T he only gun I have that might be considered a black Powder gun is a Colt SAA 5.5" that is lettered to 1908. IIRC, colt started guaranteeing the SAA starting 19 1906. Nut sure why that date sticks in my mind but I did make up a few round for it using Unique.
Now that Colt revolver is I believe quite a bit stronger that that top break S&W so I'd be a bit skeptical about what I'd use to load for that gun. I may be known for using loads that are on the warm to very hot side but when it comes to those older guns that are tight in the middle of the transition from black powder to smokeless I admit to being an abject coward. Again I'll base thise on tha 1908 Colt. The gun is of course a first generation Colt. I don't have any second generation guns but do have a few third generation gun. (current manufacture)When comparing a first gen with a third gen cylinders, the walls of the later guns are noticeably thicker. Not by much but I do see a difference. While the first smokeless powder guns came out around 1906 it was a few years after that that Colt switched to using steel for the frame rather than the previously used iron frames.
It seems to me that there is an outfit making .44 Russian ammo for the cowboy matches and understand the the loads used for those shoots in .45 Colt are extremely light more because of lesser recoil then I think it would be safe to presume that cowboy loads for the .44 Russian would be equally light. I believe I would contact the maker of such ammo and ask to what pressure level they were using and then determine if that would work for you.
Paul B.
I got some 44 Russian "cowboy" ammo produced by HSM, and briefly considered using it in the break-top S&W. Even on their box, they caution against using it in revolvers intended for black powder. I shot some of it from my 629, and of course the recoil was very mild, almost none.

I've had this old S&W revolver around for my entire life. As far as I know it hasn't been shot in my time on earth, I think I'll just keep it that way. Maybe get a modern reproduction proofed for smokeless if it interests me enough.

Guy
 
I got some 44 Russian "cowboy" ammo produced by HSM, and briefly considered using it in the break-top S&W. Even on their box, they caution against using it in revolvers intended for black powder. I shot some of it from my 629, and of course the recoil was very mild, almost none.

I've had this old S&W revolver around for my entire life. As far as I know it hasn't been shot in my time on earth, I think I'll just keep it that way. Maybe get a modern reproduction proofed for smokeless if it interests me enough.

Guy
Maybe but I have a sneaking suspicion that you are going to be thinking about this and it's going to get to you until you figure out a combo that you are confident it will be safe for the weapon.

Perhaps I am wrong but I find some of our thinking being similar and I know it would eat at me...


That all said for the first go around just run the easiest of all the components. Lightest primer, powder charge, and of course the bullet. Something light with low resistance.

I have a friend that shoots these old revolvers like yours. I will get his .02 on the topic.
 
Guy, the following data is from Ken Waters Pet Loads. I tried to pick on the most common bullet and powders. The bullet is the Lyman #429421/240 gr. Factory load velocity 760 FPS.
*Bullseye 4.5 gr. Near Maximum, very accurate vel 792 FPS
700X 4.2 gr. 774 FPS no comments
HP38 (W231) .4.5 720 FPS no comment 4.8 gr. 750 maximum
Unique 6.3 gr. Maximum, poor accuracy 823 FPS Reduce charge to 6.0 gr. and call it maximum.
*When I first read your post I thought Bullseye might work and was going to suggest something around 3.5 gr. with a 240 gr. bullet. looking at Mr. Waters data, looks like I wasn't too far off. Might be a good staring point. Anyway, that's my take on it FWIW.
Paul B.
 
Back
Top