28 gauge said

Big Larry said

28 gauge said

Big Larry said

Jeese, I cannot even give this one away.   Big Larry

 

  

 So have you been able to give away that piece of New Haven scrap iron yet?

  

No. I was considering selling it, but it is a fairly expensive rifle, and most folks don’t want to pay the big bucks for it. I bought it to shoot, but my handicap got worse, so it sits with its brother, a 32-20, in the safe. My BIL had one, and it was extremely accurate with his handloads. Big Larry

  

 I have a Model 53 in .25-20.The rifle shoots really well with the hand loads I use in it.Have never fired factory ammunition in the rifle.Been using 60 grain Hornady bullets.

  

I have this same rifle – a .25-20 takedown version.  These are wonderful rifles.  

Let me jump in solidly with old wive’s tales, or such, that I can’t prove nor disprove.  First, a change in the jacketed bullet can make a big change in pressure, and factors such as the make up of the jacket material and the overall diameter would no doubt contribute to differences.  I’ve always been warned to use data for the exact bullet I am trying, or to work up carefully.  Now to the old wive’s tales as I long ago asked questions of why the big changes (often) from maximum loads in earlier loading manuals compared to today’s manuals.  I’ve been told it is due to a) today’s powder is slightly different than older versions even when the number or name is the same, and b) use of piezo electric transducers showed earlier loads to be over charged and over pressure.  Those who know me know I don’t recall names well, having problems at times with my own!  Seems the old wive’s tales above were courtesy of one of the reloading gurus in “Handloader”, but if so I can’t recall either when or who.  But I do recall admonitions to use current manuals.  Tim  PS.  I still have MY 45th Edition of the Lyman manual, too!  Some of its loads are now considered “very adventurous!”

I believe the powder may have changed but I know that testing equipment and methods improved and it’s quite possible some feedback from the field may have resulted in less potent loads. On top of that, these guns are getting older and we may not know their history. I can’t do what I used to, I’m going to cut my old rifles a little slack. 

Mike

Steve,  I am not sure just how viable and potent a powder dating from the time of the Lyman 45th Edition manual may or may not be.  Much would depend on the environment it had been stored in.  I have had at least one can of powder go bad where it had a “rusty” dust on it.  Fertilizes flowers nicely.  I suspect lawyers had some input but also suspect the better pressure measurements play a big part in newer guides.  Now, ANYMORE I rarely load to the maximums, either.  I entered active duty in 1973 with a bolt action rifle in .243 Win.  It was capable of frequent 3/4 inch 3 shot groups at 100 yards with Federal factory loads with 100 grain bullets.  My initial reloads didn’t come near that.  Then I noted the factory ammo had tooling marks on the primer, and the brass would not accept a bullet after being fired and prior to reforming.  The mouth was not expanding off the bullet enough.  A local gunsmith touched the chamber out as it was “too tight”.  Accuracy went south, until I reached the Lyman 45th Edition maximum load with DuPont (now IMR) 4350 and Sierra 100 grain spitzers.  Back to near 3/4 inch 3 shot groups.  Going a tad ABOVE maximum tightened the groups a slight bit more!!  That lasted a few years and I was happy in my ignorance.  Then one hot day in summer, I shot at the Tombstone rifle range at the first metallic silhouettes, and started perforating primers.  Backing off my load still perforated primers, and a smith checked and my headspace was at maximum.  Eventually I needed a new bolt and barrel, and the manufacturer agreed I did, but refused to fit them or return the rifle as it was considered no longer safe.  Instead they shipped a new rifle at their cost.  I have loaded for some decades now at the accuracy node below maximum.  Even my elk rifle is loaded to its accuracy node versus the maximum “hunting” load.  Elk, deer, antelope, etc don’t seem to feel the difference.  My take.  Tim  PS I load all my .44 WCF for handgun/model 1873 levels just in case.  Were I to load a box of hotter loads for the 1892s, I am confident I would screw up and ruin a model 1873 or my handgun!  

Chuck said
I have been using a chronograph since the late 1980’s and I can guarantee you that when using old loading manuals you have to start low and work up.  Our modern powders will produce more pressure. In my opinion anyone that is planning to shoot antique guns should have a chronograph.  Even with guns designed for smokeless powder I would still feel uncomfortable not knowing the exact speed.  Speed is somewhat an indicator of pressure but it does not give you the exact pressure.  Black powder does not peak as fast or sharply   It sort of rolls over the peak.  Modern powder spikes at the peak.

Be safe.

  

 Well said Chuck!

 The other factors to be considered are age, condition, and design when shooting collector guns. You go back to the 1870’s and 80’s all proofing was done with black powder in primitive steel NEW chambers. As steel alloys and design improved smokeless powder came along and worked in the newer guns. So it stands to resin If you shoot smokeless in guns made for black powder you are in uncharted territory. Every time you up the powder charge you are proofing an old barrel. If you shoot smokeless in a gun designed for it you have to know your load only generates the same or less pressure as the original cartridge. Loading data must include bullet type, size, and weight. Powder has to be the same type, brand, and weight.

 This said, I shoot my old guns with smokeless. I have my old loads that have worked in the past and I stick with them. I know the risk and I choose to take it.

                                                                                        Like Chuck said, “Be safe”. T/R     

Larry I reached out to you about that 44-40. You never got back to me, still interested.

Here is some data Tim Tomlinson sent me.

Let me move on to a passage from MG Hatcher in his chapter titled “A Brief History of the .30-’06, the .30 M1 and the .30 M2 Cartridges.” In 1906 a 150 gr bullet of spitzer point and velocity of 2700 fps was adopted, with a cupro-nickel jacket and a published max range of 4700 yards. In the 1911 to 1913 time he did a lot of experimental shooting in FL and determined the max range was wrong (later found to be overstated significantly by 38%) In WWI, US machine gunners complained as they didn’t have the max range for barrage fires that other nations had (Brits with the heavier bullets in the .303, the Swiss with a heavier bullet, etc). After WWI, the US experimented with the Swiss .308 dia bullet of 174 grs and with a boat tail design. He was looking into machine gun ammo at the time but also used the Swiss bullet plus a 180 gr Match bullet. Col. Whelen experimented with a new design bullet with differing boat tail tapers, and in the midst Col Hatcher replaced Whelen. Best bullet had a 9 degree taper to the boat tail and a more pointed nose and was adopted for both rifle and machine gun as the .30 caliber M1. He states it had a slightly better form factor than the very similar looking ogive of the 1906 bullet and a muzzle velocity of 2700 fps. The extreme range was then 5900 yards as opposed to the proven 3400 yards for the 1906 bullet. Now the kicker and the real point of this background. He goes on to say “To get 2700 feet per second muzzle velocity with this heavy bullet and still keep within a desirable pressure range was found to be so difficult that many lots of powder were eliminated: as a result, Col Clay, Chief of the Small Arms Division, pushed through a reduction of the velocity to 2640 f.s. at the muzzle or 2595 at 78 feet. This reduced the extreme range to about 5500 yards.” Now let me summarize about what he says of the M2. The US had old WWI ammo to the tune of about 2 billion rounds, and that had to be shot up first. Finally in 1936 they began use of the new M1 ammo and found it carried beyond the safety fans of many ranges of the day. The National Guard Bureau asked for more of the old ammo so a new order for 10 million rounds was made as much like the 1906 ammo as possible, with a 150 gr flat base bullet and gilding metal jacket stained with stannic acid to look goldish and different from the M1. This ammo reached the Service Boards who had lost all the old machine gunners of WWI who wanted the longer range. Soldiers liked the lesser recoil, ability to carry more rounds for the same weight, etc, and suggestion was made to substitute it for the M1. In 1940 with some slight further changes, it was standardized as the Cartridge, Ball, Caliber .30 M2. He goes further to say tin and antimony were getting scarce so they made the core of reclaimed lead which had some hardening material in it, and the weight was thus boosted to 152 grains. Velocity was also boosted to 2805 f.s. Hope this helps you. Tim

Bryan Austin said
The 44-40 is one cartridge we can not use velocity to create a safe load. It is a myth in regards to estimating pressures. When shooting the 44-40 in any arm, knowing the bore diameter, bullet diameter, bullet weight, seating depth…and even bullet design, one can only use the exact load published in manuals to maintain safe pressures. Primers do not even begin to flatten until well above SAAMI max loads. This is seen from the 1,000’s of shots I have tested and some 1,000 odd loads documented. Flattening primers are really not that evident until about 20,000cup, 2,000cup above the 1917 published 18,000cup servicer pressure for the .44-40 W.H.V. cartridge.Another myth is smokeless powders not to be used in black powder arms of the day in regards to the pressures. The problems with pressures, or pressure Spikes is when the shooter tries to maintain 1,325fps using fast burning pistol powders and some rifle powders. This was done with shotgun pressure curve tests in maintaining a specific velocity. A lot of people have seen the pressure chart at the below link. What most have not seen is the story behind the chart.rnhttps://www.google.com/books/edition/Du_Pont_Magazine/ivz9eEomX90C?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=RA21-PA5&printsec=frontcoverrnFacts, in regards to the old original bulk smokeless powders;rnrn”Bulk” smokeless powders created less pressures than black powder…this is honest bulk for bulk smokeless powders the directly replaced black powder for black powder arms.rnThe real concern folks had was wearing out the bore rather than blowing the chamber or barrelrnSmokeless (nitroglycerin) powder and jacketed bullets did wear the bore, they burned hot and heat hurts! Most 38-55 shooters claimed over 1,000 rounds in soft steel barrels before accuracy declined. Certainly not a target load but great for hunting year after year as most did.rnLow-Pressure smokeless powders were used by Winchester for the 44-40 between 1895 and 1960 (two different powders). Yes, the .44-40 W.H.V. was a low-pressure load, but a higher pressure (18,000cup) load than 44-40 normal pressure (13,000cup) loads….but a lower pressure when compared to high-pressure (30,000cup-40,000cup) .30 cal. loads.rnrnI could go on and on and on and on but I just don’t have the time to copy and paste all the data. Most smokeless powders of the time were corrosive of some sort eroding even smokeless barrels but nowhere near as fast as the soft steel.rnThe problem today with soft steel barrels is not the fact that they are soft, but because they are old and we have no idea as to how they may have been abused. Peak pressure is peak pressure and most published loads in modern manuals do not have pressures spiked pressures nor corrosive powders.rnSo back in the day it was corrosive bores concern, today it is old and abused concerns.Heat is always your worse enemy when it comes to wear.rnrn rnSame for the 44-40, the numbers will scare you, and these numbers were around for many years up though WWII.So, for the Model 92’s and Marlin 89’s and 94’s…22,000lbs for soft steel. .44-40 W.H.V. factory loads were 18,000cup.rn rnrn rnI am not advocating to shoot your old Winchester or not to shoot it, just stating the facts before the cancel culture continues.rnRecreation Magazine, 1899, page 298rnWill the rifling of a Winchester 38-55 (common barrel) be injured by the use of a smokeless powder cartridge with soft point jacketed bullet? The Winchester people claim the gun is capable of handling this cartridge but whether it is harmful or not they do not mention. I have heard men say the jacketed bullet was ruinous to the rifling and to the accuracy unless used with the nickel steel barrel. No doubt many of RECREATION’s readers would like to use this more powerful cartridge in their now accurate rifle but for the liability of their being ruined. Please let me hear the experience of some of the friends of RECREATION. ~R.C.G. Merriam Park Minn.rnI referred this inquiry to the Winchester Repeating Arms Co and they reply:rnOur 38-55 rifle will not be injured when 38-55 smokeless cartridges of our make are used. The bullet will not harm the rifling. Smokeless powder is more difficult to clean than black. Where smokeless powder cartridges are made to take the place of black powder cartridges in guns which were intended for black powder, such smokeless powder is used as will give the same pressures and same velocities as were obtained with black powder in the black powder cartridges intended for the gun originally. We do the best we can to have the combination give the same velocity as before, which it would be difficult to get same accuracy.

  

Austin – very interesting, educational and thought-provoking information that you have posted.  I appreciate your contributions.  I have been loading and shooting various .44-40’s (and .44 magnums) for nearly 40 yeas and I don’t feel my experience and knowledge is a drop in the bucket compared to what you have gained.  I mean that very sincerely.

I have been pondering barrel steel.  We know that Winchester (and Marlin and others) made some rifles that bridged the black powder/smokeless powder transition.  The progression from soft steel barrels to nickel steel barrels was a significant advancement and has implications for those handloading those rifles today.  Let me ask this – where did stainless steel barrels fit in?  Let’s take for an example, a M1873 originally manufactured with a stainless steel barrel (I have seen at least one for sale).  Back in the day, would the Winchester factory .44-40 high velocity load have been considered safe for this rifle – or would the action strength be the limiting factor?

While I’m thinking about it, add in a M92 or M53 with a stainless barrel into the equation.

Bert H. said
Steve,

I question your assertion that Winchester originally manufactured any Model 1873 with a Stainless Steel barrel. Per the factory records, Winchester had all but wrapped up production of the Model 1873 in the year 1919… several years before they introduced Stainless Steel barrels. Per the factory records, serial numbers reached 720502 on March 6th, 1919. For the next several years thereafter, Winchester manufactured a mere handful of Model 1873s with S/N 720507 listed as being serialized on January 23rd, 1925, and this was all before the September 1926 introduction of Stainless Steel barrels.

Bert

  

Bert – what you are saying makes sense.  I wish I had the details from when I saw it.  Is it possible the rifle was sent back for the stainless steel barrel to be installed?