443 ft-lbs for a brass rem58 8" barrel. Am I crazy?

Smokeless has about 4-5X the power of black powder so if you
use the same amount of smokeless as you normally would for BP you
will hurt yourself!!

However if you pick a load consistent with the design of the gun,
which looks to be around 4.5 grains of smokeless for a 44 cal cap & ball gun
I don't see why it would not work. The light weigh-for-its-caliber ball
and big mostly empty chamber keep the pressure down. I tried it and
it worked for me, no damage to the gun or me.

Of course you could easily double or triple load a chamber and not notice it.
This could result in injury!!

if you pick a load consistent with the design of the gun...I don't see why it would not work.

Click to expand...

Well, for one thing, the guns weren't designed for use with smokeless powder, so there is no such load. The pressure time history generated by smokeless powder is entirely different from that produced by black powder (that's why they're classified differently by BATFE); you may be able to match the peak pressure or the total energy produced (essentially the area under the curve) but you can't match both. And if you can't match both you can't create a smokeless powder load that's equivalent to a black powder load.

Go ahead and play if you want, but please do so alone; don't endanger other innocent folks on the range with your games.

It was my mistake for bringing smokeless into it...

Back to the original topic:

I would think that the manufacturer (Colt Remington, Umberti etc)
would have designed the guns to handle "common worst case conditions"
which to me would mean filling the chamber completely, possibly with the
wrong type of powder and than forcing the ball on top. (Of course this
does not include smokeless). So its unlikely to blow up no matter what you
do. After all, in the heat of battle a soldier may not measure that carefully
or they may run out of gun-powder and use blasting powder or ??.
The army had to approve the design and it seems like this would be one
of the first things to try.

On the other hand they may not have fired thousands of shots through
them either so longevity may not have been that important.

Assuming your gun does not blow up, it would also be interesting to
measure key dimensions like the gap at the forcing cone then fire
away with the maximum load and see it the gap opens up any.

There is a new approved smokeless black powder substitute named BlackHorn 209 which is now a part of modern muzzle loading.
Some folks also load their NAA revolvers using Bullseye smokeless powder which some have said was even recommended at one time by the manufacturer NAA.
Since there is at least one smokeless black powder substitute that closely duplicates black powder, it goes to show that some smokeless powder can be safe and that they're not all the same.
Smokeless is not a bad word and it can be safe, especially if its use is recognized and approved by knowledgeable experts for the intended purpose.

I'm outta this. You guys scare me....Good luck and R.I.P.

I was shooting 230 Grain flat face Wadcutters in my New Model Remington Cap & Ball, over all the Goex I would compress under the Bullets...Swiss of course, would be better.

The 230 Grain DEWC over heavily compressed Swiss would be a dandy SD round I think.


I would not expect a 'Brass Frame' version to stand up as well as a Steel Frame, though.

You could also take 3F black powder and grind it finer with a mortar and pistil.

I'd also be curious about how much effect compressing the powder during loading has. You could try a fixed weight of powder and load with and
without compressing it and see if the velocity changed any.

Rockwell testing the metal gun parts could give an idea of the strength.
Unfortunately to perform the Rockwell test they usually grind off some
of the metal to get beneath any case hardened layers which would ruin
the appearance of the gun.

I've tried to stay out of this; because there are quite a few posters on here with greater (orders of magnitude greater) knowledge and experience than I posess on the subject matter. However, there are those whose comments make me feel positively brilliant!

grxy said:

Rockwell testing the metal gun parts could give an idea of the strength.
Unfortunately to perform the Rockwell test they usually grind off some
of the metal to get beneath any case hardened layers which would ruin
the appearance of the gun.

Click to expand...

To say nothing of weakening the part being tested - Proof tests are designed to test the entire part or assembly (in this case the cylinder/barrel/frame); not just the part left-over after "preparation" for Rockwell testing.

For the OP: I have the Pietta steel-framed version of your Remington, and I have over-charged it with a blackpowder substitute, but never behind a lead ball. This was only when convinced to work with a "re-enactment" group; and the only thing that kept powder in the chambers was a thin little overpowder wad, which would be long gone down the barrel before any significant pressure could build in the chambers. Smoke and noise only.
If I want "Magnum" loads in a revolver, I have a functioning Smith & Wesson Model 629 and Magnum rounds. Reading the posts on this thread and studying the links covered in the posts; with that 629 I would be reluctant to load up cartridges with the BP charges you have mentioned.
I'll admit that my greatest concern would be the front sight -out on the end of it's 4" barrel- contacting my forehead and the copious blood-letting that painful personal experience (with commercially produced cartridges from a well-respected manufacturer) has shown me would ensue.

And purely non-scientific empirical data (no chronographs or strain guages) have proven to me that, at 10-15 yards, the steel "spinners" on my targets spin just as much and react just as violently to 35 grains of Hogdon Pyrodex behind a .454" roundball in my 7.5" -barrelled Pietta. And that is in fact 5 grains GREATER than the charge that seems to be the most precise for my Remington.

I have to add my advice to others who have stated that you're headed for a sorrowful end result; and I hope you think of your family before continuing on this track.

But your country, like mine, is semi-"free"... for a little while longer, anyway.

R.I.P.

darkerx,
Snap a picture of this set up you've been talking about. Without pictures we have no idea what you're talking about.
SM

darkerx said:

Ok...I tested a full load of the finest black powder I know: swiss 0b, in a rem 58/8", with a .457 round ball. The purpose is to verify that those proofed replicas are safe, provided you use only black powder.

The result is: 392,7m/s... 709joules... 1288ft/s...524ft-lbs. No issue at all.
Those old weapons were much more powerful than most people think. With pure black powder only...

Next/last test would be to send a gun to a proofhouse to have the pressures measured for these kind of loads.

Click to expand...

Pictures please.
SM

Darkerx,
I think we would all like to see your set up that you have been writing about. It seems you have a lot of nice guns and things to measure things with. I don't think any of us has ever seen a brass frame rem58 in any barrel length that does what yours does.
Humor us, we all commonly show pictures of our prize possessions.
SM

I discovered a post written in 2006 by respected THR member Gatofeo describing an article published in 1978 by John Lachuk entitled, "Caplock Revolvers and Jacketed Bullets."

Lachuk tested several revolvers that he had reamed out to accept jacketed bullets weighing 185 grains & 200 grains and loaded with both fffg and ffffg powder along with a booster charge of bullseye, and then reported the chrony results. He also tested a 200 grain lead wadcutter.
It's just another example of how some experts think outside of the box and have challenged conventional thought for the purpose of testing the limits of revolver performance and to advance C&B knowledge.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=2670526&postcount=14

Articap,
There are many, many experiments, concepts and even wild ideas that have been relegated to the scrap heap of history when men finally realized the futility of their endeavors and chose the path of better judgment. In this field there is very little "new," for instance the duplex loads you wrote about are definitely not a new concept. Why do we always think we are the first to consider a “new” idea when it comes to technology that is hundreds of years old? I’m not talking about something novel I’m talking about something as mindlessly simple as adding extra powder to a revolver chamber. The revolver as we know it today is 175 years old, do you honestly think this hasn’t played out many thousands of times before?

Do you know anything of the history of modern artillery? The 1860s were the demarcation point for “modern” artillery and with it the exponential growth in development of explosive projectiles and delivery systems. Black powder did not have the shattering value needed to destroy armored ships or heavy fortifications. TNT had been invented, but the effective use of it was decades away. Beginning in the late 1870s and demonstrated in 1883 were “Dynamite” guns. Many attempts were made to create chemically powered delivery systems (cannons) with limited success until they went to hybrid propelling systems generating pneumatic pressure with a propellant charge driving the generator and then being metered out from an accumulation tank.. The attempts turned to steam and pneumatic guns and the US Navy even had a cruiser with 15 inch pneumatic guns as the primary armament.

They continued to play around with dynamite guns from the 1880s until about 1910 when they finally ended all experiments, came their senses and turned all of their energy to TNT and other stable fillers. They had coastal artillery, field guns, naval rifles and smooth bores that used Dynamite projectiles. Even as they were being scrapped there were proponents of the unsuccessful weapons that argued even directly to Congress of their value and that if they just had more time it could be perfected. In one hearing one member of the board overseeing Army’s Department of Ordnance asked the group petitioning for extending the trials “how many more men must die until you see the folly of this invention?” The answer was as could have been predicted, “As many as it takes until we realize the potential of this guardian of America.”

Those were engineers, scientists and the army artillery officers who refused to believe the path they had been pursuing was a blind alley. The Navy had realized the folly of the dynamite guns and had abandoned them prior to the 20th century, even refitting a re-purposing the cruiser they had in service. Even very educated men and skilled in the field of their pursuit are often blind to the dangers of their pursuits. Are we as blind?

Articap, you need to ask yourself this basic question. Is encouraging amateur experimentation that flies in the face years cumulative experience a wise or even ethical thing to do? Will it take an accident causing injury or death before you discontinue this encouragement?

Regards,
Mako