BP 45 Schofield Loads in 1851 w/conversion

[webrx]

HI, I am aware that "you should not use a conversion cylinder with smokeless powder in a brass frame BP revolver".

By asking my question below, I am not advocating that anyone use a conversion cylinder in a brass frame revolver. I am just asking to be educated on what I may be missing or not understanding.

Assumptions:
Only use 45 Schofield brass
load a max of 25 grains of BP in the brass
only use BP or BP subs (slightly compressed - wads, etc to take up space)
Only use 200 gr bullets (big lube JP 45/200) .452 diameter

I do have a steel frame 1851 (in army 44 caliber) so, I intend to build the bullets to shoot using that frame.

I have two questions though for discussion

1. Is there anything wrong with turning down 45 colt brass (1.285) to 45 Schofield length (1.100) for use in a conversion cylinder? I have read that it may not work in an actual Schofield (difference in rim size I believe I remember)

2. Is there something significantly different (pressure build up curve or more recoil shield impact due to BP being in a cartridge) in loading 25 grains of BP or BP sub in a cartridge, vs doing the same directly in the cylinder?

I ask this, as the conversion cylinder (as stated above) says not to be used in a brass frame revolver (again not advocating doing this). I believe this warning is because smokeless powder burns faster than BP and can cause damage due to recoil (Recoil shield?). However, if you only use BP or BP subs, and stick to my assumptions above - and you did not confuse those BP loads with Smokeless loads, is there some other factor I am not aware of that makes BP loads in a cartridge unsafe in a brass frame when the same load is fine to be loaded directly in the BP cylinder? My gut feel is no, and that this is just CYA for the manufacturer to prevent being sued if someone gets bp and smokeless rounds confused and tries to sue them.

d

 

[1KPerDay]

IMO 25 grains of black and a 200 grain bullet is too hot for a brass framed gun regardless of whether it’s in a conversion cylinder or not.

 

[DocRock]

1) a conversion cylinder in a brasser is like putting an LS into a 1990 Ford Taurus. It can be done, but why?

2) No need to turn brass down to load 45 Colt brass down. Fibre wads as filler, or COW, to fill the space between powder and bullet will be fine.

3) I tend to agree with 1K that 25 grs and a 200 grs bullet is pushing the limits of a brasser. Just load ball over 20 grs with fiber wads or COW filler.

 

[webrx]

Thanks for your responses.

I can agree that 25 may be too hot a load, (per the manual I have for a .44 1851 revolver says 35 max 25 was an arbitrary number), 10 grains less than max per the manual since it was brass, not necessarily the recommended load.

The thought on shortening the brass was to reduce the need for fillers.

As stated I don't intend to put the conversion cylinder in a brass frame, The question was, is there some factor I am not aware of that makes BP loads in a cartridge unsafe in a brass frame when the same load is fine to be loaded directly in the BP cylinder? (if 20 is easier to talk about then that is fine) wasn't really a discussion on max load.

 

[AntiqueSledMan]

Hello webrx,

I've been loading 20gr (by weight, not volume) of Black MZ in the 45 Colt,
I put a piece of Biodegradable Packaging Peanuts on top of the charge.
Some say it's not necessary, but I just do it to keep the powder against the primer.
You don't want any air space with Black Powder, measure your charge & determine
how much space is between your powder & bullet. Insert a filler to take up the space.
Also, there is no reason not to use smokeless powder in a conversion cylinder,
you just need to keep the pressure at Cowboy levels.
I believe the manufactures are just covering their butts when they say no brass
framed revolvers, that way they're not liable for frame stretch.

AntiqueSledMan.

 

[webrx]

Thanks all, i guess I will try loading up some 45 colt BP cartridges first (for use in my steel frames) before I start modifying cases to be smaller.

I actually have a few lbs of Black MZ, so I can give 20 grains a try .

Thanks for commenting.

d

 

[Shortgrub]

I use 25 grains of FFG and a 180 Grain bullet compressing the powder a bit. I have shot 250 grain 45 LC with a compressed load ,no fillers, in my 1851 Sheriff's and my 1860 Avenging Angels. Hold on... Schofield round is what I shoot the most.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Should be mentioned, it's not a safety issue, it's a "hard on the gun" issue with brass frames.

Seems like stacking wads would be preferable to making cases shorter, as a shorter case moves the bullet further from the forcing cone/barrel.

For black to burn cleanly, you want some compression of the powder. Not just "no air space".

 

[Onty]

1. Is there anything wrong with turning down 45 colt brass (1.285) to 45 Schofield length (1.100) for use in a conversion cylinder? I have read that it may not work in an actual Schofield (difference in rim size I believe I remember)

If you are somewhere outside USA, and have just 45 Colt brass, I could see your point making 45 Schofield brass from 45 Colt. However, since you are in Reno, Starline brass is just few clicks away:

https://www.starlinebrass.com/45-sw-schofield-brass
https://www.grafs.com/retail/catalog/category/categoryId/537
https://www.trackofthewolf.com/list/Item.aspx/1184/1

 

[Ugly Sauce]

But again, if it's chambered for .45 Colt, then that case will put the bullet closest to the forcing cone. ? Just stack some wads under the bullet.

 

[webrx]

But again, if it's chambered for .45 Colt, then that case will put the bullet closest to the forcing cone. ? Just stack some wads under the bullet.

and
Should be mentioned, it's not a safety issue, it's a "hard on the gun" issue with brass frames

I assume best accuracy being the reason to keep the bullet closer to the forcing cone, and I also assume, the hard on the gun issue (re brass frames) is based on using smokeless loads or more than 20 grains of BP/Sub in the conversion cylinder.

I say this, because I just can't see how the small (if any) case volume difference in a cartridge (vs directly in a bp cylinder) changes the chamber pressure or cylinder recoil on a revolver.

But happy to learn if it actually does - please I am honestly open to being more informed.

d

 

[Ugly Sauce]

They say keeping the bullet close to the forcing cone improves or gives best accuracy. But my M95 Nagant shoots best with the .32ACP cylinder, which puts the bullet like three miles from the cone. ?? That's some serious free-bore, or distance from bullet to forcing cone.

I too do not see, or know, how the smaller case volume difference would increase or decrease pressure. It does with smokeless powder, so one has to load accordingly. With black powder, I would assume 20 grains is 20 grains, as long as it's not loose in the chamber or case. ? Some brief chronograph work could sort that out.

 

[webrx]

Just so there is no confusion, Let's take the brass frame variable out of the conversation, and "restate" that for whatever reason (safety, hard on the gun, etc) , you should not, nope, don't do it, never ever use a conversion cylinder in a brass frame revolver. The manufacturer says don't do it, so, if you decide to be a rebel, and go against this recommendation it is not because you were not warned, and you do so at your own risk. (insert big smiley face here)

I'll rephrase the original question this way:

Assuming Black powder or subs only, no smokeless loads (steel frame 1858 .44 BP Pietta revolver)

Is there a difference in chamber pressure or some other parameter, between loading (pick a number) 20 grains of BP in a cartridge vs directly into a BP cylinder? Is there a difference in internal pressure, volume of cartridge vs volume of Cylinder, the manner in which the pressure builds or recoils, etc. that could cause a difference or a problem?

I have plans to do a little testing on this since it intrigues me, I am waiting for bullets (which are on the way) to get here, and have been reading up on how to load round balls in a cartridge. I do understand that .454 round ball is around 140 grains, vs a 200 grain Big Lube, and it is not an apples to apples comparison if you shoot round ball in a cylinder and a bullet in a cartridge and try to make any assumptions based on that. Maybe some math major could do it, but not me.

The only way I have to test this, since I don't have any fancy gauges and such, and I am not a doctor of mathematics, is to load it and shoot same weight, same load, same profile (round ball or bullet) over a chrono and see if velocity changes, along with felt recoil comparison, which is purely subjective. I could then, possibly, assume if velocity goes up or down, that, all other things being equal, it is due to a difference in pressure build up (possibly a difference in volume between cartridge vs cylinder, friction of brass cartridge vs steel cylinder, crimp on the brass vs no crimp on the cylinder, way the primer or cap ignites the powder, strength of cap vs spp, etc) - yeah maybe too many variables, but heck it may not change a all so why not try it?

Random thought - Is it feasible, or even possible to load a big lube directly in a cylinder for testing?

Should I even consider trying to do this? maybe that should be a question also - anyone tried this? Is there something inherently risky or dangerous / or some I would never do that because of this or that about trying this?

d

 

[webrx]

Sorry for that ramble, I saw something shiny and just had to chase it

d

 

[webrx]

If you are somewhere outside USA, and have just 45 Colt brass, I could see your point making 45 Schofield brass from 45 Colt. However, since you are in Reno, Starline brass is just few clicks away:

https://www.starlinebrass.com/45-sw-schofield-brass
https://www.grafs.com/retail/catalog/category/categoryId/537
https://www.trackofthewolf.com/list/Item.aspx/1184/1

Yes, I could do that, but I only have 2 conversion cylinders and one 45 colt SAA, so, 500 cases seems a bit too much. Now, if somebody has 20-25 Schofield or cowboy special pieces of brass they want to sell or trade (pm me a price or we can discuss what I have to reciprocate) for this little experiment, I am open to that conversation.

I need to try out my new ProChrono DLX and this is just as good an excuse as any.

D

 

[AntiqueSledMan]

Hello webrx,

I'm no math expert but I'd say pressure should remain close considering the powder charge & projectile weight & diameter are the same.
Some things which would change the pressure would be angle of a bottle-neck case,
and diameter if there is a large difference between the two cartridges.
I think some will say projectile shape can cause differences, as could crimp on the bullet.
But I think what your trying to compare, it would be minimal.

AntiqueSledMan.

 

[CraigC]

Yes, there is a difference in pressure between blackpowder and smokeless. Blackpowder pressure is typically going to hover around 8000-10,000psi. If your handloads did not exceed 10,000psi, it would probably not be a problem. However, since the .45Colt is rated at 14,000psi and most factory loads are going to tickle that, they take the safe route and say never.

If using blackpowder and assuming the same projectile, the same powder charge between the percussion cylinder and a cartridge should pressure up about the same. Because there is no space in either instance.

The issue with these guns is not the chamber pressure itself but the backthrust, which is a product of pressure. Backthrust is the force that is trying to pry the gun apart every time it's fired. It presses back against the breechface and forward against the barrel. Since these guns have no top strap, this places a lot of strain on the arbor. Brass is relatively soft and that is why they don't want you shooting cartridges in a brass framed gun. This is why the brass guns don't blow up, they shake themselves loose. An increase of 5000psi is 50% greater than it was designed for and a huge increase in those forces trying to rip the gun apart.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Is it true...that the original Colts were made of more of a bronze alloy, called "gun metal", which was/is stronger than brass, and that the replicas are more...wait for it..."brass"? Or, did Colt even ever make a non-iron framed revolver? Or was it just the Rebs?

 

[Ugly Sauce]

A bronze framed Colt sure would be a pretty thing.

 

[expat_alaska]

Is it true...that the original Colts were made of more of a bronze alloy, called "gun metal", which was/is stronger than brass, and that the replicas are more...wait for it..."brass"? Or, did Colt even ever make a non-iron framed revolver? Or was it just the Rebs?

A bronze framed Colt sure would be a pretty thing.

Colt never made a brass/bronze/gunmetal open top revolver. Schneider & Glassick (less than 50 pieces) and Griswold & Gunnison (3600+ pieces) were the only ones in the ACW era. Spiller & Burr used it for their copy of the Whitney revolver. The frames contained a high percentage of copper, thus the reddish tone. Color would vary depending upon the percentages of various metals used, as well as the hardness of the alloy.

Yes, modern repros are brass.

Regards,

Jim

 

[1KPerDay]

Is it true...that the original Colts were made of more of a bronze alloy, called "gun metal"

uh, no

 

[webrx]

To be clear, been down this road before, not looking to run smokeless loads in a brasser

yes I am aware of the significant pressure differences between BP and smokeless. I have also shot smokeless in the steel 1858 with conversion cyl.

all testing I plan to do is with BP loads in steel framed 1851 and 1858 and an 1873 snub.

thanks for the informative posts above though and I appreciate you all taking the time to educate me and anyone else who reads this.
D

 

[Tommygunn]

Is it true...that the original Colts were made of more of a bronze alloy, called "gun metal", which was/is stronger than brass, and that the replicas are more...wait for it..."brass"? Or, did Colt even ever make a non-iron framed revolver? Or was it just the Rebs?

Winchester made their Henry rifles and the subsequent 1866 ("Improved Henry") out of what they called gunmetal; an alloy of bronze and brass. Colt never made brass framed revolvers to my knowledge.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Okay, no did not really think they did. But if I said they didn't, there'd be someone telling me they did, or of a small run or them or something, or some presentation piece.

Anyhow, a "gunmetal" frame with some reddish or plum tint would sure look nice. Not to the experts of course, or the historically correct police, but I think that would be a pretty "Colt Type" revolver. Bronze would look too cool for school. Engraved of course. I want one. With a steel-lined brass barrel.

 

[webrx]

Just for fun, here are some "bronze" or "brass" guns at RIA
https://www.rockislandauction.com/riac-blog/brass-framed-beauties