Video - Smokeless Powder in 1858 Remington Revolver (Pietta)

[arcticap]

Just a controversial topic for discussion since I am not advocating loading with smokeless powder in any way.
This guy made a youtube video showing him firing smokeless loads of Clays powder.
Not sure how many weight grains that he's loading, but I did check the Hodgdon Reloading Data Center just to glance at pressures.
I also looked at whether Trailboss powder produced more or less pressure than Clays powder.
It seems that if loading smokeless, it would be "less dangerous" in a .36 Pietta 1858 since the chambers should be even stronger and the amount of powder and pressures would be even less.
Does anyone think that if loading smokeless became popular, that it could be a reason for C&B revolvers to some day be reclassified as firearms by the Feds?
I also think the guy is standing too close to the wood pile while shooting, and is lucky that he wasn't injured by a ricochet.

 

[Tommygunn]

What is the point of shooting modern powder in a BP gun? It could work three times....five....six, then KABOOM!
It seems a foolish thing to do ....

It probably won't cause black powder guns to be reclassified as modern guns.

It might get them to be reclassified as HAND GRENADES.

 

[arcticap]

Supposedly NAA was warned by the Feds about reclassifying their mini .22 C&B if they advocated the use of smokeless in that gun's owner's manual.
NAA stopped publishing it the manual as a result but many people realize that it needs to be loaded with Bullseye smokeless powder to be effective.

Never say never if enough anti-gunners control both Congress and the POTUS.

Shouldn't people be made more aware if loading smokeless is safe or not in the event that their powder selection is limited in the event of a shortage or an emergency?

I would like to know more facts about the pressures involved with the amount of Clays powder that he's loading, as to whether it's a safe & viable alternative or not.
How relatively safe or dangerous is it to load smokeless in the manner that he prescribes?

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

Any mention of smokeless powder in a BP gun causes panic, fear and loathing for lots of folks.
A lot of other folks have been doing the same thing as the guy in the video for a long time.
I have no need for anything but Pyrodex in my pistol but the notion that using smokeless always results in a catastrophe simply is not true.
In a gun like the 1858 it is not possible to load enough black powder or pyrodex to cause a failure. You could with smokeless powder which is why no manufacturer will ever recommend it.

 

[arcticap]

Loading only a few grains of smokeless powder per shot would result in 2,333 shots per pound of powder.
That would be less than a penny of powder per shot.

 

[darkcloud]

He has NO idea what the pressure curve is or even what the pressure is. Takes more than a few shots to figure that out. Should get a Bill Engvall sign to hang around his neck "I'm STUPID"

 

[Jackrabbit1957]

Couldn't the pressure be figured out by lots of complex math? Knowing the weight of the bullet and chamber size and such? I get out my mental blocks when it comes to such things but I'm sure someone could figure it out.

 

[arcticap]

Yes, "nitro conversions" are quite popular in the UK.
The cylinders have a rotating back plate for safety reasons. and all conversions are proof tested for use with smokeless powder by the government.
The guns resemble Richards – Mason cartridge conversions except they're not.
They even make a nitro powder dispenser for metering out the powder charges.

Here's just one UK company of many that make them for use with Herco smokeless powder & shotgun primers:--->>> http://www.anvilconversions.co.uk/index_files/Page564.htm

 

[Slamfire]

He has NO idea what the pressure curve is or even what the pressure is. Takes more than a few shots to figure that out. Should get a Bill Engvall sign to hang around his neck "I'm STUPID"

Unless the shooter knows the alloy, and its heat treatment, and then is able to calculate stress levels on the cylinder walls, he has no idea of the strength of the cylinder. I was on an email distribution from a musket barrel maker, the guy was making custom cut musket barrels, and he told what alloy he was using. I would hardly call what he used as steel, sewer pipe is a closer description. And yet, it was appropriate to the pressure curve of a black powder load. I have seen documentation on original period muskets, and gunsmith made black powder rifles, and the barrels are wrought iron. There would be no reason for a modern manufacturer to use a high grade steel, or even heat treat the stuff, for a black powder weapon.

Shooting smokeless in a black powder only weapon is beyond risky, it is suicidal.

 

[tbob38]

This guy is a fool. He doesn't know how uniform his loads are, how much pressure he is getting and using a spoon is a very poor method of measuring smokeless powder. With care, there is no reason smokeless powders can't be used in guns, but you would REALLY have to know what you are doing.

 

[Mizar]

I'm with Slamfire on this - the alloy used, at least in Pietta, is some very, very low grade steel. Anyone who reamed his cylinder chambers can confirm that the shavings left from the process pretty much resemble those from a cast iron detail...

 

[CraigC]

Couldn't the pressure be figured out by lots of complex math? Knowing the weight of the bullet and chamber size and such? I get out my mental blocks when it comes to such things but I'm sure someone could figure it out.

There are too many unknowns. You'd have to test a few to destruction to determine the burst strength. Then you'd have to pressure test loads to determine what could be used with an appropriate margin of safety. IMHO, if you want to use smokeless, buy a cartridge conversion cylinder. Or better yet, buy a factory cartridge conversion. I agree with the above that the factory cartridge guns are made from better steels.

 

[bc38]

Hay it's your gun and fingers. If i absolutely had no other choice, and a real need, then maybe vary reluctantly. Otherwise whats the point?

 

[whughett]

Some will think he's a fool, albeit an intelligent one. He is well aware of the difference between volume and grain weight and pressures, although using a spoon eyeballed to 2/3rds full isn't going to give you much shot to shot consistency, and 2.5 grains of powder by weight isn't a lot. Personally I question whether that generates enough pressure to blow a modern c&b cylinder. Having said that I'll personally keep the two separate except in my conversion cylinders and even there no full power loads is a given. Many of todays high power rifle and pistol loads are 'wildcats" loads developed by home experimenters pushing the envelope. The 44Magnum being the most well known.

 

[LRDGCO]

This will be good footage for his Darwin Award nomination.

Using light smokeless loads in a cap and ball isn't actually that dangerous. Until it is.

I cannot agree that this fellow is an intelligent fool. Indeed, it's the gross intellectual negligence and irresponsibility demonstrated by this fellow that offers concern. "I'm too tired to do the math but about a quarter teaspoon of Clays is about right because there is load data on the jug for 44 Special and the Remington pistol is 44 cal."

It's very unlikely that he will blow up a cylinder this way, but his lackadaisical attitude to pyrotechnics suggests he will find some other way to do himself damage.

 

[arcticap]

There's been quite a few comments posted directly under the video on the actual Youtube page which can't be seen on this website.
They can only be read by visiting the youtube video page directly.

The shooter mentioned that he weighed the powder on a scale as he worked the powder load up to the current level.
He's been answering questions which are mostly constructive, and a lot of people are very interested in his experiment.
He intends to keep people posted about new developments and wants to make more videos in the future using another powder.
He's only fired 15 shots to work up to the load.

Qualified people must have already done much more scientific study, but the info. isn't readily available for the novice.
It's too bad that he's only a hobbyist using crude methodology and on a shoestring budget instead of it being done by engineers using a well funded laboratory.

If the UK style smokeless conversions were more readily available in the US, then perhaps not as many people would be so enamored to learn more about such a risky way to shoot smokeless in a C&B revolver.
If a US outfit were to pick up on that interest and develop and market it like they do in the UK, then it would become a respected alternative form of C&B shooting based on the original black powder loading
methods with a modern twist.
That's similar to the modern cartridge conversions yet slightly more traditional.

Not everyone wants to reload brass cartridges in order to enjoy the benefits of shooting smokeless powder.
That seems to be part of what is driving the interest in this video as well as his reason for experimenting.

 

[CraigC]

Some will think he's a fool, albeit an intelligent one. He is well aware of the difference between volume and grain weight and pressures, although using a spoon eyeballed to 2/3rds full isn't going to give you much shot to shot consistency, and 2.5 grains of powder by weight isn't a lot. Personally I question whether that generates enough pressure to blow a modern c&b cylinder. Having said that I'll personally keep the two separate except in my conversion cylinders and even there no full power loads is a given. Many of todays high power rifle and pistol loads are 'wildcats" loads developed by home experimenters pushing the envelope. The 44Magnum being the most well known.

It's not whether the load he's using is dangerous. It's t hat he has absolutely no idea. He's flying completely blind. Loading 2.5gr of powder in a brass case with empty space is not the same thing as loading it in a percussion gun with none. It's not just the peak pressure level that's the issue but the curve.

Let us also not forget that an increase in chamber pressure also exerts more pressure against the fragile percussion cap.

Elmer Keith developed heavy .44Spl loads and blew a .45 in the process. He also had his loads pressure tested by H.P. White labs. The .44Magnum was developed under laboratory conditions by Remington and S&W. Big difference. This guy is far from being an informed wildcatter.

 

[MCgunner]

I have the same 5.5" Pietta. I shoot more smokeless in it than BP, but of course I use my Howell conversion cylinder in .45ACP and my 200 grain SWC handloads. Loose powder in a percussion cylinder is why they make black....or Pyrodex if you can't find black.

 

[arcticap]

There's no doubt that he's operating blindly.
He posted that [youtube video] research led him to believe that there's enough air trapped within the corn meal filler to allow for powder expansion.
However, that's also why he wants to try a rifle powder that produces lower pressure and has a different curve.
The video comments explains how he made his decisions.

 

[grter]

Using smokeless powder in a antique replica firearm that is sold with specific warnings to use black powder and black powder substitutes ONLY and was designed in an era when smokeless powder did not exist should be taken seriously.

Although the modern mild steel used today to make replica cap and ball revolvers today is better than wrought iron or even the British steel used in the mid to late 1800s for barrels and cylinders, it is still unsuitable to handle the pressures of modern smokeless. This is a known fact.

The steel used in these cap and ball replicas are for the most part, at least to people like me, unknown and of unknown hardness. They are most likely mild steels not suitable for smokeless even if heat treated and if it could be they would not because hardened steels that can handle smokeless powder pressures require more time and labor to make. It is also much harder on the tooling used to mill and cut these into shape. A lot of this has to be done after heat treatment to correct minor deformities that are unavoidable byproducts of the heat treatment process.

I don't know why people don't get this no manufacturer is going to do this if they don't have to. The labor and expense is too much to put into a design that is not meant for smokeless powders in the first place.

If people were willing to pay prices in the $800 to thousands of dollars price range then maybe. The Ruger Old Army for instance is made from smokeless powder rated steel. Both the newly rereleased one and the original ones are expensive and were expensive (for the time I would say equal to or almost as expensive relative the the economy at the time.) Even today people complain that 600 to 700 dollars is too much for a mint condition old Ruger Old Army. Despite that the Ruger Old Army still uses nipples a design that does not work very well with smokeless powders regardless of the high quality steel cylinder, frame, and barrel. Although it may not blow up it can still blow out the back.

The point is the market is NOT full of people willing to pay premium prices for stuff like that (premium heat treated smokeless powder rated steel) at least no where near as full of people who would jump on a lower priced import that works just fine despite being made of mild steel and having easily correctable quality control issues in the fit and finish department, but lo and behold with the advent of CNC machining technology fit and finish on these can be quite good especially for the price so most people gravitate towards them over the more expensive ones.

The different smokeless powders out there as far as I know come in quite a variety burn characteristics not all of them lend well to being packed. Some I have read require a certain amount of space behind the projectile which in a cartridge shell is already preset to prevent a kaboom. These powders start burning slowly and gradually burn more violently as more pressure is encountered. When they reach their peak the pressures can be quite high I have read.

I have read something written by someone who uses smokeless in cap and ball revolvers and he said one of his problems was seating the projectile at just the right depth to allow proper space in the chamber for the powder he was using. He also mentioned that he carefully weighed his charges and that a tiny amount off could result in a kaboom. He also noted that recoil sometimes changed the depth of the seated projectiles and that careful attention had to be practiced to ensure the projectiles in the other chambers did not shift during recoil. He recommended that people not do it due to the amount of trouble he had to go through to ensure his safety and that a small mistake could result in an explosion.


There is also the matter of getting a spark shower from the nipple or the nipple being blown out the back toward the shooter as well as the hammer being blown back into cocked position. These guns were not designed for the characteristics and pressures of smokeless powders which was pretty much unknown at the time they were invented.

This man should be using a Ruger Old Army at the very least with a vice and pull cord on the trigger to give himself a safe distance in a secluded area with no bystanders. He could continue using his navy with the above precautions. I am curious as to how long it would last. Even if his does not blow up I don't consider this safe.

 

[CraigC]

Amen!

The Old Army is built using the same steels and processes as the Blackhawk with one important exception. The cylinders are cast. Every other cylinder from virtually any other manufacturer is cut from barstock.

 

[maint1517]

I've got to agree on this. I would never consider shooting smokeless powder in any of my BP pistols or revolvers. It's just not worth taking that risk.

 

[TTv2]

Any mention of smokeless powder in a BP gun causes panic, fear and loathing for lots of folks.

Something like this?

 

[TTv2]

Supposedly NAA was warned by the Feds about reclassifying their mini .22 C&B if they advocated the use of smokeless in that gun's owner's manual.
NAA stopped publishing it the manual as a result but many people realize that it needs to be loaded with Bullseye smokeless powder to be effective.

Never say never if enough anti-gunners control both Congress and the POTUS.

Shouldn't people be made more aware if loading smokeless is safe or not in the event that their powder selection is limited in the event of a shortage or an emergency?

I would like to know more facts about the pressures involved with the amount of Clays powder that he's loading, as to whether it's a safe & viable alternative or not.
How relatively safe or dangerous is it to load smokeless in the manner that he prescribes?

I honestly don't understand what difference the powder used changes a muzzleloader's classification. Whether it's black powder, a substitute, or smokeless, a bullet is coming out the barrel at a velocity fast enough to kill a person. Does smokeless make the velocity higher? Yes. Does smokeless make it easier to clean? Yes.

I guess the ATF doesn't want antiques/replicas capable of being kept in good condition without considerable cleaning involved, nor higher velocities because they'll cause crime to increase.

The NAA is the only percussion revolver I will say is safe to shoot A smokeless powder in as long as the correct powder and amount are used and the bullet seated in the cylinder properly. I say that because the same steel used in the rimfire models is used in the percussion models.

No other percussion revolver should be used with smokeless.

 

[Cowhide Cliff]

Couldn't the pressure be figured out by lots of complex math? Knowing the weight of the bullet and chamber size and such? I get out my mental blocks when it comes to such things but I'm sure someone could figure it out.

Problem is just a slight difference in seating depth of the bullet effects pressures greatly.