Antique Colt SAA on the way - questions

[vanfunk]

Hello All:

I'm expecting delivery of a nice Colt Single Action Army .45c in a coupla days. The revolver was made in 1896, and was refinished in nickel (no idea yet what the original finish was), tho it appears to be an old renickel job and it was done well, IMO. In any event, I'm definitely going to shoot it, but I have ammo questions. I have heard that Colt transitioned from iron frames to steel frames in '96, making it safe to fire with smokeless ammo. Nonetheless, they didn't proof them for smokeless reliably until '03 or so, sooo...

Should I shoot this nice old Colt with black powder only (got some Black Dawge stuff coming my way soon), or shoot it occasionally with cowboy-strength modern ammo like Black Hills?

Thanks!!!

vanfunk

 

[Hondo 60]

Sorry, don't know the answer to your question, but just had to say - them's purdy pichers!

 

[rcmodel]

I would venture a guess that the full power 40 grain/255 black powder loads when that gun was new put out way more pressure & velocity then todays wimpy smokeless "cowboy" loads.

I would not be afraid to shoot cowboy loads in it occasionally.

However, Colt did not warrant their Single Actions for Smokeless Powder until about serial number 180,000, so the rest is up to you.

rc

 

[Lucky Derby]

Beautiful old Colt.
I would GUESS that modern cowboy loads would be OK. The original 40gr of BP was pretty stout. It was the magnum of its day. My friends recent manufacture 1860 copy recomends 15-18 grains for most shooting and no more than 20 grains ever.
You might contact Colt with the serial number and see what they say. You might need to spring for a factory letter though. They also might just say "BP only" or "don't shoot it at all" out of fear of liability.

That said, I would most likely shoot mostly modern cowboy loads through it.
Take this advise for what it is worth. Exactly what you paid for it.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

With much of the .45 Colt brass on the market - which has been strengthened because of the handloaders who like to "hot rod" it - you may not be able to get 40 grains of black powder in it. It should be fine to shoot occasionally with a reduced BP (or substitute) load, or the "cowboy" loads.

 

[LightningMan]

A added note; NO! you won't be able to get 40 grains of black powder into a modern .45 colt case, as original old cases are of the balloon type case head design. That would give you more room in that .45 case, but it gives up strength, though it wasn't needed for old black powder. If you were to look inside the bottom of a balloon case, you would see the area around the primer/flash hole is void of material unlike that of a modern solid case head. For a modern case you will likely only get about 35 grains in there. LM

 

[Publius1688]

I don't know the answer to your question--looks like the knowledgeable fellows here have done that, but I will say: Well done! that's an awesome pistol. Don't forget a range report.

 

[Jim Watson]

The 40 grain powder charge did not last long, they had cylinders failing proof test. The load was very soon reduced to 30 grains and later built back to 35. After 1875 and purchase of S&W Schofields, they settled on a .45 Government load with about 28 grains to serve both guns.

 

[Old Fuff]

Relative to shooting smokeless powder cartridges in older Colt Single Action revolvers, the greater issue is the material in the cylinder (and to a lesser degree, the barrel) then the frame. Cylinders were made from low-carbon steel that was little better then iron, and not heat treated. Black powder has a relatively slow burning rate, which better distributes the pressure, while faster burning smokeless tends to stress the cylinder more.

The answer is to set aside the original cylinder when shooting, and replace it with a modern one. Be aware that the cylinder must be a late 1st issue, or better yet, a post-war 2nd. issue. 3rd and later issues have a different ratchet. Also cylinders need to be fitted by a gunsmith who is experienced in working on these kinds of revolvers.

In any case play it safe and shoot only standard pressure loads in older guns.

 

[Lucky Derby]

Old Fuff, that is a fantastic idea.

 

[Old Fuff]

Back in the 1950's Colt rebuilt a lot of SAA revolvers into .38 Special's and .45 Colt. The problem today is finding the right cylinders because when production ended on the 2nd. Issue (or generation, take you're pick) they changed the ratchet to eliminate some hand fitting. You can still make the conversion with a later cylinder, but you have to change the hand too, and after that the original cylinder won't work... :banghead:

Pre-War .45 Colt barrels often had .454"-.456" groove diameters, where today they run .452", which isn't serious, but some knowledgeable users have the chamber throats on new cylinders opened up to match the barrel.

 

[owlhoot]

I have a few old Colts and shoot them regularly. Here are my suggestions.

If you reload I suggest American Pioneer Powder which is a black powder substitute. It gives plenty of smoke but is not nearly as corrosive as black powder and it is very easy to clean. Best of all, you don't have to use a grease cookie or wide lub. bullet. A standard lubed bullet will work just fine.

I suggest you get some .45 S&W (Scofield) brass which holds just the right amount of powder for a pleasant load, about 30 grains of black. Or try the .45 Special brass which you can load with your .45acp dies and a .45 Colt shell plate. It will take 26 grains of black.

If you load smokeless I suggest Trail Boss powder. This powder is formulated to take up a lot more space than other smokeless powders, so you don't have that great big .45 case with just a little powder in it. This can cause ignition problems with light loads.

Your barrel is almost certainly .454". For best accuracy you will want to use a .454 bullet.

 

[vanfunk]

Thank you all for your sage advice! I think I will start out with black powder, and then eventually work in some mild smokeless loads. I don't reload yet (I know, I know...), so I'm at the mercy of the factories. The commercial black powder stuff isn't really more expensive than smokeless, so I'm going to try a few hundred of those and see how things go. I might also get some Goex .45S&W loads as well (235 gr. bullet at 685 fps, I believe, nice 'n' mild). I will also keep an eye out for a 1st or 2nd gen cylinder to have fitted to the piece. Right now, all I have is a blued spare 3rd gen cylinder, which I understand is not optimal.

More pics will follow when the revolver arrives on Friday or Saturday.

Thanks again, all!

vanfunk

 

[CraigC]

John Taffin, who has forgotten more about sixguns than I will ever know, says blackpowder only in antique guns. Colt first proofed the SAA with smokeless powder at 192,000 but the safe and prudent cut-off is at serial number 196,000.

I have to disagree about how well-done the renickel is. Lots of roll-over edges and the screw holes are dished out. The grip frame and receiver were obviously polished separately. Typical of poorly refinished old Colt's but nevertheless a nice old sixgun.

 

[Old Fuff]

John Taffin, who has forgotten more about sixguns than I will ever know, says blackpowder only in antique guns. Colt first proofed the SAA with smokeless powder at 192,000 but the safe and prudent cut-off is at serial number 196,000.

John is absolutely right so far as he goes. Smokeless cartridges should not be fired in black powder era cylinders. He didn't address the issue of revolvers retrofitted with new cylinders - something that Colt did to literally thousands of black powder Single Actions themselves. They also proofed the gun when they were done. It should be obvious that they wouldn't have converted older revolvers if the practice wasn't safe.

 

[CraigC]

It should be obvious that they wouldn't have converted older revolvers if the practice wasn't safe.

I wouldn't necessarily base my decision on 100yr old practices, rather preferring what we know 'now'. They also didn't heat treat their early .357's. Folks also did not shoot as much then as they do now.

 

[vanfunk]

Hi Craig:

I'm afraid I have to disagree a littlewith your disagreement on the quality of the renickel - this one is actually finished better than just about any SAA renickel I've seen in ages. The patent dates, serial numbers and rampant Colt are clear and distinct, as is the caliber marking and barrel address. There might be a bit of over-run on the curves, but it's no big deal IMO. The dishing of the screw holes always appears more pronounced in nickel guns. The dishing on this example is actually better than on my new production (2009) nickel Colt SAA. Examples abound of the exaggerated dishing on nickeled Colts, see one NIB SAA below. I also really like the soft, antique look of this finish. To each their own, anyway. I paid as much for this piece as I would have for another new SAA, so I'm very happy.

Thanks all!

vanfunk

 

[Old Fuff]

They also didn't heat treat their early .357's. Folks also did not shoot as much then as they do now.

Smith & Wesson introduced the original .357 Magnum (model) in 1935, and Colt soon followed with .357 versions of their New Service, Shooting Master and Single Action Army revolvers. The only changes that were made was to eliminate the fouling cup machined into the bottom of the topstrap at the front above the cylinder/barrel gap; And to use a special double-heat treated high carbon steel alloy in the cylinder. They did not however recess the cartridge heads. Following World War Two when they reintroduced the Single Action Army in .357 Magnum they again followed the previous procedure of using special steel and heat treating in Magnum cylinders. They still do the same today.

The conversions I have described were started shortly after World War Two, in calibers .38 Special and .45 Colt. At first they used left over pre-war parts, but the demand forced them to go back into production and make barrels and cylinders in the above sizes. They recommended conversion to .38 Special in 19th century guns, and in any case proof fired the finished conversion regardless of the frame's age. Not withstanding what your opinion to this might be, Colt did not come to grief for doing it.

I know because I lived through those times, and had one of my own .45 SAA revolvers converted at the factory

 

[CraigC]

I'm afraid I have to disagree a littlewith your disagreement on the quality of the renickel

I'm not trying to pee in your cornflakes but your sixgun is severely over polished. Disagree all you like. It is not too bad and it doesn't make the sixgun junk but the pictures don't lie. The trough along the grip frame/receiver seam is painfully obvious. As is the dishing around the lettering, though as you state, the lettering is at least still clear. Yes, most 3rd generation SAA's are overpolished but at least the grip frame halves and receiver are polished as a unit.

No, they did not heat treat the early SAA .357's and the guns suffered under the abuses from the new high pressure cartridge. My point is that just because they converted certain guns to smokeless with new cylinders all those years ago does not necessarily indicate that it was a good idea.

The cylinder contains the pressure but it is not the only part affected. The bolt, the hole in the frame for the bolt, the hand, the barrel and the frame must all withstand increased battering from increased pressures and recoil. The frame must resist stretching. So while your factory converted gun 'may' be safe for 14,000psi smokeless loads, a new cylinder does not necessarily make an iron frame blackpowder gun safe for them. The sixgun in question was made well before the advent of smokeless powder. The peak pressure is not the only concern, the pressure curve is very relevant.

 

[owlhoot]

I love the grips and you sure can't get them like that anymore. But I have a question. Are the grips jigged bone or are they stag grips that have been jigged, or something else altogether? They don't look like imitation material.

 

[vanfunk]

Hi again:

I still think the over-polishing is not bad - see the close up photo below.

The sixgun in question was made well before the advent of smokeless powder.

I think I have another disagreement here, too. Smokeless powder was available in 1896, and in fact Colt standardized the headspace on the SAA that year for the new smokeless rounds. What I am curious about is what the change in the metallurgy is, if any, between an 1896 Colt and a "VP" proofed 1903 Colt?

Are the grips jigged bone or are they stag grips

Hi Owlhoot: The grips are jigged bone and, to my eye, seem well made and fit the frame nicely.

Thanks!

vanfunk

 

[Old Fuff]

The cylinder contains the pressure but it is not the only part affected. The bolt, the hole in the frame for the bolt, the hand, the barrel and the frame must all withstand increased battering from increased pressures and recoil. The frame must resist stretching. So while your factory converted gun 'may' be safe for 14,000psi smokeless loads, a new cylinder does not necessarily make an iron frame blackpowder gun safe for them.

A half-century or so has passed since Colt and others converted older single actions's by installing new cylinders (and sometimes barrrels as well) and none of the concerns you list have been reported. Even when it's made of iron, it will take a lot more then a 14,000 - 16,000 PSI load to streatch a frame, distort the hand or bolt slots in the frame, or affect the barrel. There is no way that the hand or cylinder bolt are going to be battered unless the cylinder has extreem end-shake.

I would submit that the Colt company, and their engineering department, were the most qualified to evalulate any problems that might occur relative to the conversions they were making, and to the degree there were any they addressed them in advance. Since they went forward I'm not worried. If anyone else is that's their business.

 

[CraigC]

Smokeless powder was available in 1896

You haven't provided a serial number but your sixgun was made well before the cutoff of 192,000. Seriously, how bad do you want to risk fragmenting your shiny new 114yr old Colt SAA? If you already have your mind made up, why even ask???

A half-century or so has passed since Colt and others converted older single actions

Is the gun in question one of these converted models? If not, what's the point of this tangent discussion???

 

[Old Fuff]

What I am curious about is what the change in the metallurgy is, if any, between an 1896 Colt and a "VP" proofed 1903 Colt?

Colt apparently did not consistantly smokeless powder proof (or at least stamp them as such) SAA revolvers until 1905 at approximately serial number 269,000, but earlier examples are known. No specific metallurgy changes are known, but as late as 1904 they were making civilian revolvers that were fitted with left-over black powder era, Army inspected cylinders. It should be noted that revolvers that were made during prior years and returned to the factory for refinishing or other work were often proof fired and marked before they were returned.

 

[vanfunk]

You haven't provided a serial number but your sixgun was made well before the cutoff of 192,000

Hi Craig: The serial number is 167745, made in 1896.

Seriously, how bad do you want to risk fragmenting your shiny new 114yr old Colt SAA?

I don't, that's why I'm imploring the collective for an informed answer. As I've said, I have black powder loads for it, but I would enjoy the added benefit of shooting smokeless through it.

If you already have your mind made up, why even ask???

I haven't made my mind up, which is why I'm asking if anyone knows what the changes were, if any, between 1896 Colts and "VP" proofed, smokeless revolvers of only a few years later. Is the "VP" proof simply academic, or does it signal an actual change in heat treat or carbon content? If there is no actual difference, then I would feel more confident firing occasional smokeless loads.

Old Fuff: I think I've found a 2nd gen cylinder (blued) that I might pick up for future fitting. Then I'll need to find someone doing "antique" nickel finishes...

Thanks!

vanfunk