How is it that repro revolvers can't use smokeless powder, but can fire smokless rounds from.....

Status
Not open for further replies.

londez

Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
17
Hello,

My knowledge of blackpowder shooting is basic at best, so please forgive my ignorance. I know we're not supposed to fire smokeless powder out of our reproduction cap and ball revolvers, and yet we can fire smokeless cowboy cartridges from them if use conversion cylinders (as long as the round is not rated above 850fps in most cases). Is this because the cowboy loads are underpressured? If that's the case, why can't we use smaller amounts of smokeless in our percussion cylinders? Thanks in advance!
 
Would imagine it's the better quality metal of the conversion cylinder and as long as the pressure delivered meets requirements for bp. The projectile composition must meet the bp reproduction requirements as well.
 
I suspect it is because the cap and ball cylinders aren't proofed for smokeless loads.
There's a reason the conversion cylinders cost nearly as much as the entire cap and ball revolver.

I don't know that for a fact, just a guess. Someone please let me know if I'm wrong.
 
Yes, the conversion cylinders are rated to safely handle "cowboy" (low pressure) ammunition. They are sufficiently heat treated to do so. Going above standard black powder level pressure is not considered safe.

You can't load (or shouldn't) smokeless in percussion cylinders because they are far too soft to withstand such rapid pressure build up as smokeless produces.
 
Hello,

My knowledge of blackpowder shooting is basic at best, so please forgive my ignorance. I know we're not supposed to fire smokeless powder out of our reproduction cap and ball revolvers, and yet we can fire smokeless cowboy cartridges from them if use conversion cylinders (as long as the round is not rated above 850fps in most cases). Is this because the cowboy loads are underpressured? If that's the case, why can't we use smaller amounts of smokeless in our percussion cylinders? Thanks in advance!

The cylinder is the primary pressure vessel and black powder produces so low pressures, that the steels don't have to be heattreated, nor do they need any strength. A friend forwarded an email communition between himself and Whitacre, the BP barrel maker. He asked what material Whitacre used, and I looked it up, and metallurgically, the stuff was not better than the material used in plumbing pipes, it was very low grade. The material was barely a steel, it was a low, low, carbon steel, just above wrought iron. But, it cut easy and was perfectly adequate for blackpowder. I can't find that email anymore, but it was interesting!

There is absolutely no evidence that any blackpowder manufacturer uses a better grade of steel, in anticipation of a user using smokeless powders. Most Italian BP pistols have stamped on them, "Black Powder Only" There is a reason for that.

Incidentally that includes the frame. I have no idea why I have not read accounts of users of smokeless cylinders reporting damage to their black powder frames. I consider the entire practice of using smokeless rounds in black powder frames dangerous.
 
Hello,

My knowledge of blackpowder shooting is basic at best, so please forgive my ignorance. I know we're not supposed to fire smokeless powder out of our reproduction cap and ball revolvers, and yet we can fire smokeless cowboy cartridges from them if use conversion cylinders (as long as the round is not rated above 850fps in most cases). Is this because the cowboy loads are underpressured? If that's the case, why can't we use smaller amounts of smokeless in our percussion cylinders? Thanks in advance!

Now you have done it. I would expect black helicopters above your house soon...
 
Hello,

My knowledge of blackpowder shooting is basic at best, so please forgive my ignorance. I know we're not supposed to fire smokeless powder out of our reproduction cap and ball revolvers, and yet we can fire smokeless cowboy cartridges from them if use conversion cylinders (as long as the round is not rated above 850fps in most cases). Is this because the cowboy loads are underpressured? If that's the case, why can't we use smaller amounts of smokeless in our percussion cylinders? Thanks in advance!

If the revolver makers ever recommended loading smokeless powder in their C&B guns, the gov't. would classify them as modern weapons.
IIRC that almost did happen to North American Arms when they first came out with their .22 C&B revolvers and recommended to load them with Bullseye powder.
They threatened NAA to stop advertising it as such or else it would be reclassified.

If a company wanted to they could make nitro conversion cylinders just like the British do.
They've made different nitro models over the years.
But they're designed to be ultra safe and must pass UK proof-testing.
At least one model made by a UK company had a rotating back plate behind the cylinder for safety reasons.

Product page: --->>> http://www.westlakeengineering.com/products/

Homepage: --->>> http://www.westlakeengineering.com

Here's another UK company's nitro revolver: --->>> http://www.anvilconversions.co.uk/index_files/Page564.htm

Someone on youtube posted a video titled " Smokeless Powder in 1858 Remington Revolver (Pietta)" --->>> https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...der-in-1858-remington-revolver-pietta.841864/
 
Last edited:
BP needs to be compressed, smokeless not so much... so exactly how far down in the cylinder the ball is rammed could have implications.
 
I’m generally not into “destruction” videos but I remember this one from a few years ago I watched.

 
Because I said so and that's the only reason you need.




Never worked with my kids either. Slamfire gave the comprehensive response. I only use black powder cartridges with my conversion cyl anyway. Given that a 7.5" barrel firing 250 grs .452" bullets over 34grs OE 3F will give me 960 FPS, I feel performance is good. A full load of Trail Boss with the same bullet will do over 100 fps less.
 
Modern BP-conversion cartridges are able to manage pressures by having "not insignificant" airspace in the cartridge case.
If you jam a ball down onto/in contact w/ the same charge of smokeless as you'd have in a cartridge . . . you're in a whole new ballgame.

EX: 38 Special Cartridge
158gr LRN/HS-6/ 6.2gr/ 15,200psi
Bullet seated on powder: 60,000psi
 
Last edited:
@PapaG has the best answer so far... a cartridge has a well defined space behind the bullet, additionally it’s a closed system.
Modern BP-conversion cartridges are able to manage pressures by having "not insignificant" airspace in the cartridge case.
If you jam a ball down onto/in contact w/ the same charge of smokeless as you'd have in a cartridge . . . you're in a whole new ballgame.

EX: 38 Special Cartridge
158gr LRN/HS-6/ 6.2gr/ 15,200psi
Bullet seated on powder: 60,000psi
exactly this, if you could, say sleeve the cylinder of a revolver so that “cartridge capacity” could be defined, the ammunition makers could probably provide safe smokeless data. It would still be relatively low pressure though because the nipple/cap arrangement is a very weak link compared to a primer contained in a cartridge case and backed up by a recoil shield.

wrt the metals used in bp revolvers, Colt, Remington, and others used the same metals in the cap and ball guns as they did in the first successful cartridge guns.
 
In cartridge guns there are cartridges which translates into a relatively fixed volume of case capacity and therefore a relatively uniform amount of pressure. Seating a ball to compress a fast pistol powder in a cap and ball gun is going to lead to a detonation because there is the save reaction as there is in a case, only it’s crammed into 1/3 the space to start with and pressures jump up very quickly.... kaboom.
 
IMHO its simply because the average shooter could not safely load the small quantities of smokeless that would be required to do safe shooting.Also smokeless does not initiate as easily as black or substitutes. In short too many variables too many chances to screw things up with very bad results.
 
Apart from the cylinder bearing the brunt of the load, black powder is easy, you pour however much you can fit, make sure it’s compressed with no gaps, and fire away.

Smokeless on the other hand can vary in pressure drastically with only a a few grains difference.

There are smokeless muzzleloaders however, but they are very expensive and must be treated with great respect.
 
pressure is pressure. I don't know where in all material science there exists the mythic pressure curve that says a slow rise to 14KPSI is somehow safer for low grade steel than a rapid rise. Even if it were the case, I think black powder is at least as fast as most pistol powders. As far as gaping, the ram limits how far a ball can be pressed in, so unless using freakishly long bullets too heavy for the caliber, I don't see that being an issue. What keeps me far from it is the inconsistent power from a cap, a lack of obturation around the flash hole (not as much a problem if an "explosive" drops 99% of its pressure before the hammer loses momentum, and the squarish rear of the cylinder making the powder charge area very inconstant. A 10,000PSI load of smokeless would probably be safe, but velocity would range from 600-900 from one load to another because of the poor powder surface area. The consequences of mistakes would be enormous.
 
Apart from the cylinder bearing the brunt of the load, black powder is easy, you pour however much you can fit, make sure it’s compressed with no gaps, and fire away.

Smokeless on the other hand can vary in pressure drastically with only a a few grains difference.

There are smokeless muzzleloaders however, but they are very expensive and must be treated with great respect.

I remember reading about the number of lawsuits against Remington for their smokeless muzzle loader. Shooters claimed they were super careful reloaders blew the barrels and lost fingers from the support hand. Smokeless powder is not the type of propellant with which to make an honest mistake in the powder charge weight. Too dangerous in my accident prone world.
 
Howdy

Oh boy, one of my favorite subjects.

Here is part of the instructions that came with one of my R&D cylinders for my Remington 1858 Cap & Ball revolver.

Notice at the top right it states "45 Long Colt "Cowboy Ammunition.............loaded to 750 fps to 850 fps is what they recommend.

RDConversionCylinder01.jpg




OK, here is the first fallacy with that statement. Velocity is not the controlling factor that determines what is safe to fire in any firearm and what is not safe. PRESSURE is what determines what is safe and what is not safe. Using different weight bullets and powders with different burning rates it would be easy to construct ammunition that did not exceed 850 fps, but could vary widely in the pressure it generated. One person's 850 fps reload might be perfectly fine in a particular cylinder, somebody else's 850 fps reload might blow up the cylinder. So the velocity caution is meaningless.

Second fallacy: there is no nationally recognized standard for 'Cowboy Ammunition'. Cowboy ammo is what ever the manufacturer decides, and labels as such. Search SAAMI and you will find no reference to Cowboy Ammunition. You won't find any reference to 45 Long Colt either, but that is a discussion for another day.

As has already been stated several times, the cylinder of a revolver is the pressure vessel, not the frame and not the barrel. If a revolver lets go, most of the time it is the cylinder that bursts.

Like this.

blownmerwinhulbertcylinder02_zpsd6b45aad.jpg

blownmerwinhulbertcylinder01_zpse057ebd4.jpg




I have no proof of this but I strongly suspect most Cap & Ball revolvers are made of relatively soft steel that has not been heat treated to strengthen it. That only makes sense, seeing how cheap Cap & Ball revolvers are, compared to cartridge revolvers.

Now look at what type of steel was used in my cylinders. 4140 for the cylinder and 4150 for the cap.



RDConversionCylinder02.jpg





A quick google search of 4140 steel came up with this:"AISI 4140 steel grade is a versatile steel grade. It is a chromium-molybdenum alloy steel.
The chromium content provides good hardness penetration, and the molybdenum content ensures uniform hardness and high strength. ASTM 4140
chrome-molybdenum steel can be oil hardened to a relatively high level of hardness."

Revolver manufacturers have been routinely hardening their cylinder since the 1920s. I would be very surprised if my R&D cylinders were not hardened for Smokeless pressures.

He asked what material Whitacre used, and I looked it up, and metallurgically, the stuff was not better than the material used in plumbing pipes, it was very low grade. The material was barely a steel, it was a low, low, carbon steel, just above wrought iron. But, it cut easy and was perfectly adequate for blackpowder. I can't find that email anymore, but it was interesting!

You may find it interesting to note that early Colt Single Action Army revolvers had cylinders and frames made of iron, not steel.

Here are some notes I copied from Jerry Kuhnhausen's The Colt Single Action Revolvers a Shop Manual:

"1st Generation S.A.A. cylinder material changes began to occur at about the same time that S.A.A. frames were being metallurgically updated. Cylinders prior to approx. s/n 96,000 (mid 1883) were made from materials generally resembling high grade malleable iron. Original cylinders from approx. s/n 96,000 to about 180,000 (mid 1898) were made from transitional low/medium grade carbon type steels. These cylinders and their parent frames were not factory guaranteed for smokeless powder cartridges. Cylinders after frame s/n 180,000 (mid 1898) began to be made from medium carbon type steels. Later versions of these cylinders were better and more uniformly heat treated. S.A.A. revolvers with cylinders of this final type were factory guaranteed in 1900 for standard factory load smokeless powder cartridges."


Incidentally that includes the frame. I have no idea why I have not read accounts of users of smokeless cylinders reporting damage to their black powder frames. I consider the entire practice of using smokeless rounds in black powder frames dangerous.

The manufacturers of conversion cylinders for Cap & Ball revolvers specifically state their cylinders should only be used with steel framed C&B revolvers. Not brass frames. Perhaps you have not read of any cases of damage to Black Powder frames caused by shooting Smokeless rounds in conversion cylinders because there have not been any. Nobody is saying to shoot high velocity or Plus P type rounds in these revolvers. The pounding of recoil probably would cause stretching of the top straps if nothing else. Personally, I am not crazy about the idea of shooting Smokeless cartridges in open top Colt type replicas. I have a couple of original Colt and Merwin Hulbert open top type revolvers, and the barrel gaps have definitely opened up over the years because over time something has stretched. But my top strap style Remington 1858s with their cartridge conversion cylinders have not seen any damage.

Remmiewithtallsight.jpg
 
Last edited:
so what about trail boss in these cap and ball cylinders?

A very bad idea indeed. TB produces quite significant pressure spikes when compressed and is not particularly low pressure when not compressed. It's bulk means that it will not be double charged in a 45LC case, for example. But a full load of TB in a 45 lc case is getting in for SaAMI max pressure for 45 lc.

It isn't comolicated: no smokeless powder in a front stuffer. You can safely use TB in cartridges in a conversion cylinder, but again, avoid compression.
 
A lot of great points brought up here. If you've worked on any of the Italian reproductions you know how soft the steel of the cylinders and barrels are. They do not have to be hard to handle the pressure of BP loads and are perfectly safe with any charge of BP that will fit in their chambers.

I've seen the youtube videos of people shooting smokeless in a C/B cylinder and it is unnerving. I don't care what rationale you use, you are treading on thin ice and asking for trouble in doing so.

I have shot low pressure smokeless handloads in conversion cylinders in the past but as others have mentioned here I've given that up too and now use only dead soft lead bullets and black powder in the conversion revolvers. It's just the safe route to go and I don't have to second guess anything when I pull the trigger. Plus it's just a lot more fun.

iXfQrG3XfGJyetxfAXUH84P_DM7KVqIjB5P9QFleSfzZMqGi5NeaNfH3r2q4csZGsOE0lWJx5oRL7isO2Q=w1200-h800-no.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top