Quantcast

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

Discussion in 'Blackpowder' started by darkerx, Aug 2, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. grxy

    grxy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Messages:
    18
    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!!
     
  2. darkerx

    darkerx Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2011
    Messages:
    151
    @grxy: thank you for your input about pressures. But I would like to speak only about REAL BLACK POWDER here (I apologize for not having had the room to specify it in the title of the thread). I think that if someone wants to have 44 magnum performance, he should buy one... but never use a C&B gun with smokeless powder. All the guns/riffles I have seen having blown up, did so because of wrong loads of smokeless powders...

    I'm willing to know if those weapons were able to reach higher performance that the "38special equivalent" we all have in mind... I reached .45 ACP+ performance with black powder (not even the finest), and I'm convinced it's SAFE (but I admit having no definite proof, only estimates).

    Then I will try to have my loads officialy proof-tested (pressure measured) with my Brass-rem58 (when they will answer the phone...), and obtain a confirmation that they reach 1400 bars (and how) when they perform standard CIP proofs for black powder.
    If they can't do it for me.... well, I'll try to destroy this rem58 with 0b powder... if I can't destroy it, I'll select only the finest particles of the 0b (or PNF4) and try to destroy it again (always while measuring velocities)... If I fail to destroy it, I'll decide those loads are SAFE (even if shortening in a way or another the life of the weapon).
    I just bought a Stainless Target Rem58 to replace brass-rem58... just in case... :)
     
  3. mykeal

    mykeal Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    5,147
    Location:
    Michigan
    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.
     
  4. darkerx

    darkerx Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2011
    Messages:
    151
    I'm really sorry folks, I re-read my first post... I forgot to mention that I was intending loads made with REAL black powder (no substitutes)... this had an historical interest (at least for me)...

    Smokeless powders have no historical interest for me...it's like using jetfuel in a steam-engine... it might work in very tight conditions set-up by experts, but most people would only obtain a nice BOOM. So there is no point for me to deal about this subject.

    I apologize again, as my first post really was not clear enough.
     
  5. grxy

    grxy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Messages:
    18
    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2011
  6. darkerx

    darkerx Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2011
    Messages:
    151
    I posted a link in this thread to the french official proofhouse and they explain that they are actually proofing exactly as you just described (with over pressured cartridges, in a video (in english)).
     
  7. arcticap

    arcticap Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2005
    Messages:
    7,190
    Location:
    Central Connecticut
    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2011
  8. 45-70 Ranger

    45-70 Ranger Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    337
    I'm outta this. You guys scare me....Good luck and R.I.P.
     
  9. darkerx

    darkerx Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2011
    Messages:
    151
    Black powder and smokeless are different kinds of powder and there are specific proofmarks for each. I'm definitely against the use of smokeless in weapons that have not been proofed for it.

    Now there can be 'black powder substitutes' that won't produce any smoke...it's the full respondability of the powder manufacturer to provide enough information to avoid any risk of misunderstanding. For instance trail boss is using more volume than other smokeless powders...but it gives warnings "smokeless" on the can and it can destroy BP proofed guns easily... It is not a 'black powder substitute'.
     
  10. darkerx

    darkerx Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2011
    Messages:
    151
    A little update, I just found some 0b (the actual Swiss priming powder) to buy: 25€ for 80 grams... (I don't intend to shoot too many times with it...)

    Now I have to wait for my brass-rem58 to come back from the Gunsmith (my wife played with it and broke a spring without even having shot it...). As soon as it will come back, I'll make a full charge and will 'chrono' it (with a remote trigger)... and check if the gun blows up or not... (I'm 99% sure it will be allright, but won't take the 1% chance anyway... :) )
     
  11. Oyeboten

    Oyeboten Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2008
    Messages:
    3,696
    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.
     
  12. grxy

    grxy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Messages:
    18
    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.
     
  13. YumaKid

    YumaKid Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2011
    Messages:
    264
    Location:
    Yuma, AZ
    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!

    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.
     
  14. darkerx

    darkerx Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2011
    Messages:
    151
    ...hum... Ok... I don't have my brass rem 58, then I'll use the stainless one. Full of 0b + .457... See you later. :)
     
  15. junkman_01

    junkman_01 member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,728
    Location:
    Florida
  16. darkerx

    darkerx Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2011
    Messages:
    151
    Well... almost disappointing...except the recoil (which made the chair bound with the gun fall on the ground...) nothing special...

    Remarks:
    -0b is more Black Dust than Black powder... it goes through the niples, you have to put the caps fast...
    -I compressed it as much as I could, and used a .457 Round Ball (to maximize pressure and quantity of powder/dust)
    -I tried to measure velocity, but failed (remote triggering+night made it tough...).
    -I used my Rem58/8"/Stainless/Target(Pietta), but will do it again with my other Rem58 (brass).

    So far, I'm convinced Swiss 1 is safe with this gun, as full compressed chambers of 0b made nothing wrong (not even cocking the hammer...).
     
  17. SwampMouse

    SwampMouse Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2011
    Messages:
    47
    Location:
    The Bayous of Louisiana
    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
     
  18. darkerx

    darkerx Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2011
    Messages:
    151
    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.
     
  19. SwampMouse

    SwampMouse Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2011
    Messages:
    47
    Location:
    The Bayous of Louisiana
    Pictures please.
    SM
     
  20. darkerx

    darkerx Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2011
    Messages:
    151
    Pictures? ... You don't know what a rem58 with a 8 inch barrel looks like?
     
  21. SwampMouse

    SwampMouse Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2011
    Messages:
    47
    Location:
    The Bayous of Louisiana
    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
     
  22. darkerx

    darkerx Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2011
    Messages:
    151
    Well... I'm in UK right now for some vacations... I'll post a picture next week:
    -blue walker
    -rem58 8" brass
    -rem58 8" stainless target
    -rem58 18" target
    -chrony
    -can of swiss1
    -tube of 0b
    All in the same picture, OK?... Do you want something more?
     
  23. arcticap

    arcticap Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2005
    Messages:
    7,190
    Location:
    Central Connecticut
    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
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2011
  24. makos_goods

    makos_goods Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2010
    Messages:
    327
    Location:
    A state of wonderment
    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
     
  25. darkerx

    darkerx Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2011
    Messages:
    151
    Hun... Lachuk experiments were very interesting... Especially the round balls shootings. As a matter of fact, I have better performance with swiss 1 (black powder) than he did with his duplex loads... ;)

    I'm not really interested by using modern items (jacketed bullets... Smokeless powders...etc.) with those guns. But I'm willing to demonstrate that those weapons were much more powerfull than most people think, 150 years ago... And only with actual lead and OLD fashioned black powder.

    By the way, I reached a french proofhouse technician, and they use full loads of swiss to proof black powder revolvers... An other point is that they would have to drill some holes in my gun to insert pressure sensors, to give me readings of pressures during a shot.(it annoys me a little...). Next week his manager will be back to study how it should be possible to create 'overpressure' while using only black powder.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice