Early Smokeless Powders and Revolvers...looking for answers

[bryanaustin]

I have been reading up on early smokeless powders again and I have run into a few places that claim even Colt advised against using the new powder in Colt revolvers, or at least the 45 Colt revolvers. Can anyone offer any more reliable information?

As we all know by now, Winchester did not "offer" smokeless powder for Colt's 44-40 revolvers. Between 1895 and 1899, five years, there was no information advising against it on Winchester's new cartridge boxes with red labels. By 1900 "Not For Pistols" was added to the label but dropped from the label in 1909. I don't know about other ammunition manufacture offering smokeless powder for the 45 Colt. I have yet to check into it.

With the dates 1900-1909 I did find some other information that is certainly very interesting. Winchester's issues with the revolvers is unknown to me but looking at the powder dates could shed some light between smokeless powders and revolvers.


44-40 pre-1900 Smokeless Powders

All Bulk "blonde in color" powder

It is rather difficult to follow the dates of these 44-40 powders with the exception of when they were introduced. Dupont and Laflin & Rand appear to have manufactured the three earliest powders I can find;

1894 - Dupont's No.2 Smokeless Rifle Powder
1896 - Laflin & Rand's "Sporting Rifle Powder"
1897 - Laflin & Rand's "Sharpshooter"

The "Sharpshooter" powder (1897), probably being the more forgiving of the three, was also approved specifically for "Black Powder Rifles". Laflin & Rand "Sporting Rifle Powder" shows use specifically for "Rifle and Revolver" on the can but we also find Winchester factory ammunition loads were not approved for use in revolvers until at least 1909. I wonder if this has anything to do with Sharpshooter#2 being introduced in this time frame? [Sharpshooer introduced in 1897 by L&R, then to Dupont after L&R destroyed by fire, then to Hercules by 1909 due to a law suit] The Laflin & Rand "Sporting Rifle Powder" shows a load for 17gr for the 44-40 which is the same as Dupont's "No.2" 44-40 load data of 17gr, both being of the blonde in color and "rocky texture"



Ironically it seems even before the smokeless powder was "proven" for revolvers, Winchester had already developed the High Velocity "Low Pressure" loads by 1903(Yellow labels). Hercules (1903-1914) "Sharpshooter" shows a High Velocity load in the load data on the back of the can. It also is amusing to me that by the time Winchester removed the "Not for Revolvers" from the smokeless powder (Red label) boxes by 1909, the 1910 High Velocity "High Pressure" (Yellow label) loads jumped from "low pressure" to 22,000cup high pressures...showing that the smokeless powder rifle loads were way in advance of the smokeless powder revolver loads.

As we all know Bullseye and Unique came out about 1898/1900 respectively.


L&R Bullseye...

...was introduced in 1898 to replace L&R's "Smokeless Revolver Powder. This is one of those powders that had several types. There were two versions of Bullseye, the first of which was known as Bullseye #1 or “dust” Bullseye. L&R Bullseye #2 was supposed to have been brought out in 1904 as small round black discs .038” dia. X .003”, ostensibly because there were insufficient quantities of #1 to meet demand. It contained 40% NG. This Bullseye #2 is what we identify today as Bullseye, and is believed that it has not changed formula since its introduction in 1898. It went to DuPont in 1907 and to Hercules in 1912. Bullseye, Unique, and Infallible were all made from the same formula, the only difference being granulation. It is still manufactured by Alliant in 2007. ~Klaus Neuschaefer


With that said, those dates begin to intertwine in that 1900-1909 time frame. However, another thing I have yet to do is understand what powders Winchester used for the 44-40 over time. We certainly know that they used Dupont No.2 and Sharpshooter for rifles but at what point did Winchester start loading the 44-40 with pistol powders. Sharpshooter was available up to WWII.

Again, "Not for Pistols" was dropped from Winchester's 44-40 smokeless powder ammunition (normal loads) by 1909...I wonder why

It appears that Winchester's 44-40 factory loads maintained at least 1,310fps up until 1978, of which then it dropped to 1,190fps and is still that way today although mine chronographed at 1,025fps.

It was also in the early 1970's that SAMMI seemed to standardize 12,000cup MAP (rather than many years of reputable handloading manuals showing 15,000cup) with the advent of the piezoelectric transducer showing that their 12,000cup was equal to 11,000psi with those test loads.


To ramble on a bit further, during the 1930's, popular powders used in the (200gr JSP) 44-40 REVOLVERS were ONLY Bullseye and Unique both showing max loads of 15,000cup, recommended by Hercules.

Okay, my brain hurts!

sites.google.com/view/44winchester/powders/smokeless-powders-transition-years

sites.google.com/view/44winchester/cartridge-boxes/winchester-cartridge-box-timeline-1960-2020

saami.org/about-saami/history/

[bula]

A deep dive ! Neat stuff. Welcome to the forum.

[bobwright]

Wow! You've certainly done your research! From what little I know about the subject, most revolvers then in use (at the time period we are talking about) were made for black powder. And black powder was adequate for revolvers while the then new auto pistols were designed around smokeless powders.

The tolerances for black powder fouling gave revolvers the tendency to lock up when fired with smokeless ammunition. This due to the increased pressure forcing the fired case hard back against the recoil shield. The bottle necked .44-40 was especially plagued with this. During the pistol trials of 1906 held by the Army to select a new handgun, an intermediate revolver was issued, the M1909 Colt .45, the New Service revolver. The Army asked the DuPont Company to develop a special powder, as the Bullseye powder lacked sufficient bull to prevent double charging. The result was DuPont's Revolver, Special Quality, or RSQ as it was known. This led to many variations of semi-smokeless powder, Les Smoke being one. These powders continued until enough smokeless powder proofed revolvers were in the mainstream.

'Bout as much help as I can be.


Bob Wright

[Frank V]

Mike Venturino, has written Colt didnt warranty the SAA for smokekess powder till 1900 & serial # 192,000.
Maybe John Taffin can shed further light on the subject?

[bryanaustin]

Mar 26, 2020 10:03:05 GMT -5 bobwright said:

Wow! You've certainly done your research! From what little I know about the subject, most revolvers then in use (at the time period we are talking about) were made for black powder. And black powder was adequate for revolvers while the then new auto pistols were designed around smokeless powders.

The tolerances for black powder fouling gave revolvers the tendency to lock up when fired with smokeless ammunition. This due to the increased pressure forcing the fired case hard back against the recoil shield. The bottle necked .44-40 was especially plagued with this. During the pistol trials of 1906 held by the Army to select a new handgun, an intermediate revolver was issued, the M1909 Colt .45, the New Service revolver. The Army asked the DuPont Company to develop a special powder, as the Bullseye powder lacked sufficient bull to prevent double charging. The result was DuPont's Revolver, Special Quality, or RSQ as it was known. This led to many variations of semi-smokeless powder, Les Smoke being one. These powders continued until enough smokeless powder proofed revolvers were in the mainstream.

'Bout as much help as I can be.


Bob Wright

Good lord, I actually knew that but it fades away in the back of my brain!!! Let me check what little info I have on RSQ. 
Awesome work, thanks!~!!

[bryanaustin]

Mar 26, 2020 10:06:50 GMT -5 Frank V said:

Mike Venturino, has written Colt didnt warranty the SAA for smokekess powder till 1900 & serial # 192,000.
Maybe John Taffin can shed further light on the subject?

Ah yes, great info!! Was that sn# for the SAA?

[bryanaustin]

Yeap, there is the RSQ info right in front of me, Sharpe's 1937 manual!




I will add it to my list...and powder's earlier than 1909.

[bryanaustin]

I also found this chart I made to try and help but forgot about it. It needs editing

[bryanaustin]

Here is an updated chart. Please feel free to comment omitted data regarding the 44-40, 45 Colt or Winchester's rifle/revolver transition factory loads of 1909.

Here is a link to the chart, you will have to request permission to view it...I think. I forget how it works.

docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1K8wIEu2mfbHmZwWkIT4wgWqSQHrLtwmlxh0CQGRf9i0/edit?usp=sharing

[ddixie884]

Some old timers have spoken of Infallible being a better powder than Unique. I personally know of it only from the Internet........

[bryanaustin]

Mar 27, 2020 1:11:22 GMT -5 ddixie884 said:

Some old timers have spoken of Infallible being a better powder than Unique. I personally know of it only from the Internet........

Interesting!!!

According to Neuschaefer, Infallible replaced "Shotgun Smokeless" in 1898, Bulleseye was Infallible "floor sweepings" which was actually flakes cut at an angle that basically look like half-moons...thick on the outside wedge and thin on the inside edge. Hercules improved the cutting method, more consistent cuts, but eventually discontinued Infallible and was directly replaced by Red Dot.

In 1900, Unique was introduced as a smokeless rifle powder for reduced training loads for the military...again according to Neuschaefer...it was used for the .38 long colt and the 30-40 krag for reduced/gallery loads. Hercules reduced the NG in half in 1960 (less smoke) and again by Alliant in 2001.

Could be why maybe those old-timers preferred Infallible...and maybe why guys now days prefer Red Dot over Unique.

Interesting indeed!!

[jt]

I think the firearms manufacturers reluctance to promote smokeless powders in their guns during the 90's when smokeless was first being developed is due to that time frame being the same when metallurgy's were being improved too, and the understanding around how much difference there was for pressures between blackpowder & smokeless was only-then becoming apparent. The era was a learning curve on both fronts.

1900 didn't bring incredibly different metals, it evolved the combinations of heat treatments that were being applied to those same 90's & later steels which in turn gave confidence in them standing the increased pressure curves of smokeless.

That's where the key lays in my own opinion. And why we read now that Manufactures at that time began approving & promoting use of smokeless to black, and also why others lagged and continued support of ammo companies in producing the blackpowder ammo's of old so late into the 1900's ... some companies didn't improve heat treats until much much later than colt or winchester. They were leaders in that era and in position to advance earlier than others. The best indicators for these points can be figured out of history between Colt & Winchester because of it; including the rifle only loads that came from it, AND then verified proof smokeless safe data they started approving guns for. The rest of smokeless' own history snowballed and built from there.

[ddixie884]

Until the advent of solid head cases, the old 45Colt black powder loads of a case filled to the bullet base were still the most powerful factory loads. I don't know about the .44WCF. I don't mean to hi-jack the thread and am very thankful for the info in the OP. I am interested in all arms and ammo info from 1900s and early 20th century as it is the foundation our arms and ammo came from........

[bryanaustin]

Mar 27, 2020 16:37:22 GMT -5 ddixie884 said:

Until the advent of solid head cases, the old 45Colt black powder loads of a case filled to the bullet base were still the most powerful factory loads. I don't know about the .44WCF. I don't mean to hi-jack the thread and am very thankful for the info in the OP. I am interested in all arms and ammo info from 1900s and early 20th century as it is the foundation our arms and ammo came from........

Ask away my friend, we need all of the information we can get. 

The 45 Colt issue certainly started early with black powder. Frankford Arsenal lightened the 45 Colt load in less than a year of it's introduction. Ammo dated Oct 1873 shows 30gr of BP for the 45 Colt loads but maintained the 250gr bullet for quite a while.

[bradshaw]

bryanaustin.... thank you for the history. Have you any dope on Semi-Smokeless? I had a can years ago, guessing from early 1900’s. Don’t remember the brand, thinking DuPont. Do remember label did not say Lesmoke. I used Semi-Smokeless in a mortar, with a good pinch of Black Powder as a booster. Lit by safety fuse----underwater dynamite fuse----the Semi-Smokeless probably didn’t need a booster. And the mortar didn’t need Semi-Smokeless, either, as it blew the 4-inch seamless steel tube to pieces, crushing grill, radiator, and windshield on a nearby Ford station wagon. Intuition told me to order people nearby to hit the dirt, and no one was hurt. Without doubt, the Semi-Smokeless had much more energy than black powder.

The Semi-Smokeless was in a 1-pound can with a small screw cap, same as other reloading p[ropellants of the time.
David Bradshaw