Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Is there any documentation about what lead alloy Winchester was using for their early 44 WCF bullets? I’ve seen people claim it to be anywhere from pure lead to 40/1.
I’m most interested in the factory swaged bullets that could be bought as reloading components in the mid-1870s, but I’d be happy to hear any verifiable bullet info from the 1870s.
CWC said
Is there any documentation about what lead alloy Winchester was using for their early 44 WCF bullets? I’ve seen people claim it to be anywhere from pure lead to 40/1.I’m most interested in the factory swaged bullets that could be bought as reloading components in the mid-1870s, but I’d be happy to hear any verifiable bullet info from the 1870s.
If you go off what is stated in the WRACo catalogs, I believe it may have changed throughout the years of production. I would have to take the time to go through them all to determine when such changes took place. That said, on page 47 of the 1879 Catalog it uses the words “Composed of pure lead” for the 44 WCF. Where right above it for the 44S&W Russian is Composed of 1 part tin and 14 parts lead. The May 1878 and 1875 do not list the content/composition of the lead in the various cartridges for sale (that I can find).
So 1879 maybe about as early as you can get with a statement of pure lead.
Next question being if anyone has actually tested the lead content of an early packaged 44WCF swaged bullet. I doubt anyone truly has and I’m not sure how you would do so absolutely. Without access to some expensive equipment like an XRF machine or hardness tester. At least being actually scientific about it that is. I’ve heard of people using their fingernail, to banging lead against another metal and listening to the sound it makes. Which doesn’t seem like a very scientific process to me. I believe you can calculate its purity by weighing it along with measuring water displacement. Most of the modern stuff sold out there is not pure lead.
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
Maverick–I would mention that the “rifle” cartridges often had reloading instructions on the box with a label. I don’t have enough to be worth checking and comparing. But they list the lead to tin amount, like 1 part pure tin to 16 parts pure lead, as found on an early .50-95 EXPRESS box. I would imagine they would be equivalent to the alloy used in the factory but likely to change by caliber and years printed or used. This could open a box of confusion quickly. Tim
tim tomlinson said
Maverick–I would mention that the “rifle” cartridges often had reloading instructions on the box with a label. I don’t have enough to be worth checking and comparing. But they list the lead to tin amount, like 1 part pure tin to 16 parts pure lead, as found on an early .50-95 EXPRESS box. I would imagine they would be equivalent to the alloy used in the factory but likely to change by caliber and years printed or used. This could open a box of confusion quickly. Tim
While true, he’s specifically asking about the lead content of the 44WCF bullet and that of factory swaged bullets. Also specific to the “mid-1870s” is mentioned. Which for the 44WCF the mid-1870s would be only one year after introduction in 1874.
The early boxes in the 1874-1880 timeframe for 44WCF cartridges do not mention any lead content that I’m aware of. Later boxes on the inside top lid have a label with primer and powder recommendations also with a statement to “In casting bullets use PURE LEAD,”.
The bound set of factory catalogs has the 1875 catalog then jumps to the 1879 catalog. Reprints are out there of the May 1878 catalog which I have. Which is why I stated what is listed in the 1879 catalog as mentioned previously.
I don’t have any of the early factory cast/swaged 44WCF bullets.
Sincerely,
Maverick
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
November 7, 2015
Offline
I’d be inclined to think swaged bullets, then as now, would be pure lead or nearly so. Pure lead requires less pressure to swage and is also soft enough to obturate to fill the sometimes generous bores of the 44WCF. In the black powder era 20:1 lead to tin was considered hard, 16:1 is an alloy I see mentioned from time to time but have used very little of.
Mike
I cast and load my own .45-70 for my trapdoors and sharps. I use an inexpensive hardness tester to get a ballpark hardness, I never use pure lead of course. I could see pure lead in a SAA, I would assume out of a rifle the 44-40 would cause some leading issues.
November 7, 2015
Offline
Steven Gabrielli said
I cast and load my own .45-70 for my trapdoors and sharps. I use an inexpensive hardness tester to get a ballpark hardness, I never use pure lead of course. I could see pure lead in a SAA, I would assume out of a rifle the 44-40 would cause some leading issues.
I find pure lead useful for a number of things, not counting the many thousands of swaged hollow base wadcutters that shoot so well in a good S&W revolver. Pure lead makes great little round balls for muzzle loaders and cap & ball revolvers. Those same balls are also quite useful for slugging bores if the bore is too big to slug with a pure lead OO Buck pellet. Bore leading is most often a sign of poor bullet to bore fit or more commonly an undersize bullet cast too hard to obturate and fill the bore. If what I hear about the variations in the 44WCF’s bore sizes is true a properly lubed soft bullet would actually be less likely to lead the bore than a harder bullet when cast to the nominal bore diameter.
Mike
1 Guest(s)
