Black Powder 22 Short Cartridge and S&W No. 1

[Johnm1]

I posted about this revolver in this thread

S&W Model 1 - Latch Configuration/Cylinder Stop | The High Road

but this question isn't really related to repairs and is a bit more specific about the development of the '22 Rimfire' cartridge intended for the S&W Model 1. .

It was my intent to load some more black powder 22 shorts and fire the above revolver. I have read that many, including @Driftwood Johnson would not fire these old revolvers with anything but CB or BB Caps due to their age. And that might well be the 'Prudent' thing to do (and I may follow that rule) but that isn't the question. My question has more to do with the development of the first 22 rimfire cartridge developed for the first S&W Model No. 1. I had always assumed that the cartridge designed by S&W for the No. 1 was the same specification as the modern 22 short only using a full case of black powder. ie. a 29 grain bullet on top of 3 or 4 grains of black powder.


While researching the revolver I stumbled across this quote from the book 'Smith & Wesson 1857-1945' by Neal and Jinks:

http://www.antiquearmsinc.com/smith-and-wesson-model-1-first-issue-revolver-type-4-ivory-grips-volcanic-rollin-white-patent-pre-1898.htm

IMPORTANT: THE AMMUNITION DESIGNED FOR THIS REVOLVER DEVELOPED CONSIDERABLY LESS POWER THAN THE .22 RF SHORT (CARTRIDGE) AS WE KNOW IT TODAY. AS ORIGINALLY ISSUED THE CARTRIDGE WAS CALLED THE "NO. 1 PISTOL CARTRIDGE". MODERN AMMUNITION MAY NOT BE USED IN ANY OF THE THREE MODEL NO. 1'S AS THE PRESSURES DEVELOPED ARE MUCH TOO HIGH. page 22, Smith & Wesson 1857-1945 by Robert J. Neal and Roy G. Jinks. Copyright 1966 and 1975.

I also came across this video.

History of the Handguns of Smith & Wesson: ep01: The Model 1 - YouTube
(don't blame me for the presentation - at around 12 minutes it discusses the cartridge)

In that video the author indicates that the original cartridge designed for the No. 1 was a 15 grain round ball on top of 3 grains of black powder. I don't know if the video is based in fact but I can't find anything to contradict what was presented. The video references patent 11496 for an improvement and seems to be for a cleaning cartridge. US11496A - Improvement in cartridges - Google Patents

Even if you consider 3 grains of black power for both cartridges, there would be a difference in pressures between a 15 grain projectile and a 29 grain projectile. So it is relevant in the decision making process to fire these old revolvers.

The real question is if the S&W No. 1 was designed to fire a 15 grain projectile or a 29 grain projectile?

 

[Johnm1]

Gun Digest has this to say about the development of the 22 rimfire. Still nothing concrete. What I need are books and not stuff I find on the internet. Again there is a reference to S&W receiving a patent. But I cannot find a patent for the rimfire cartridge. Only the improvement above that was to basically add a wad and put tallow in the space below the ball but above the wad.

https://gundigest.com/gear-ammo/development-rimfire-ammunition

A short. self-contained .22-caliber cartridge called the Number One Cartridge (essentially identical to the .22 Short of today except for primer and propellant) was introduced in 1854 by Smith & Wesson for use in a small revolver. The revolver was designated as the Smith & Wesson Model 1 First Issue, which was produced from 1857 to 1860.

The cartridge employed a 29-grain bullet that was propelled by 3-4 grains of black powder contained in a case that was slightly longer than that of the BB cap. A patent was granted on August 8, 1854, for the rimfire cartridge, and it became the precursor of the .22 Short.

 

[Johnm1]

Reading patent number 11496 the conclusion states the following. So maybe it is some sort of patent on a rimfire.

What we do claim as our invention is- The employment,in the cartridge, of' the me.- tallie or indurated disk or seat-plate, so that it shall rest directly on the powder, in combination with arranging the priming or percussion powder in rear of said disk, or on that side of' it opposite to that which rests against the powder, our said arrangement ofl the disk and priming affording an excellent opportunity for applying the force ot' the blow b v which the priming is infiamed, such force being applied in the line ofthe axis of lhe cartridge.

In testimony whereof' we have hereto set our signatures this 10th day ofI May, A. D. 1853.
Home E SMITH. Q n.. sa DANIEL B. WESSON. lL. s] Witnesses:

 

[Johnm1]

I think I’ll head to the library and see if I can find a book about S&W and the development of the original No. 1 Pistol Cartridge. I have to believe it was the dimensions we have today for the 22 short using a conical ball over around 3-4 grains of fine black powder. But I just can’t confirm that with the internet.

Now that I’m able to load 22 short black powder again I’ve got to consider if I want to fire the S&W No. 1 with a full case of black powder or not. Putting a wad in that tiny case would be a chore.

I’ve got to believe that the author of the above video saw the round ball in the patent diagram and assumed that the original 22 short was designed with a 15 grain ball. But again I can’t verify that just using the internet.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

See if you can find a copy of this book, History of Smith and Wesson by Roy Jinks. You can probably find a copy on Amazon.






Jinks goes through the development of the cartridge used in the little No. 1 revolvers. It is quite a lengthy story, starting on page 16 and going on through page 38 with the development of the Tip Revolvers.

Here is the 1848 Patent Drawing for the Rocket Ball ammunition that Walter Hunt designed for his repeating rifle.






This is the 1849 Patent Drawing for Hunt's rifle. It eventually proved to be too impractical to manufacture.






The story gets more complicated, but eventually Lewis Jennings continued the work of Hunt and came up with a new design for a repeating rifle. This is Jenning's patent drawing.






The work to produce the Jennings rifle was eventually contracted to the Robbins and Lawrence Armory in Windsor Vermont*. The Robbins and Lawrence Armory was a pioneering factory that came up with many of the mass production techniques that the American firearms industry would later employ. One of the men working at Robbins and Lawrence was Horace Smith. Another was Benjamin Tyler Henry, but that is another story. Anyway, in 1851 a patent issued to Horace Smith for an improvement of the finger lever for the Jennings rifle. At about this time, Smith and Daniel Wesson probably began talking about forming a partnership.




Smith and Wesson formed a partnership that developed what became known as the Volcanic magazine fed Handguns and Rifles. The Volcanics were the predecessors of the Henry and Winchester repeating lever action rifles, but again, that is a separate story.






Here is the patent drawing for the ammunition S&W patented for the Volcanic Handguns and Rifles.






Oliver Winchester eventually bought out Smith and Wesson. Smith went back to Worcester Mass, and worked for a stable for a while, but Wesson had an idea about a revolver with chambers bored through to accept metallic cartridges. He did a patent search and found that Rollin White had already patented this idea. That is still another story.

During his research, Wesson learned about a rimfire cartridge that had been developed by a Frenchman named Louis-Nicolas Flobert. Flobert had developed a 6mm and 9mm cartridge and patented them in France in 1846 and 1849. The Flobert ammunition was not much more than a percussion cap with a ball stuck in the end. Flobert developed revolvers and rifles that were meant for 'parlor shooting'; low powered firearms for indoor shooting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis-Nicolas_Flobert#6mm_Flobert

Wesson had actually become interested in Flobert's ammunition when working on the Volcanic firearms, and had designed a 'Flobert-style' cartridge for them, but had eventually settled on the cartridge shown above.




Finally, we come to Patent # 11496, the rimfire cartridge than Daniel Wesson designed for his new 22 rimfire Tip Up revolver.

If you turn to page 21 in the Jinks book, you will find this illustration of the cartridge. After all of this, I am sorry but I too have found no information regarding exactly how much powder was in them, but clearly the bullet is a 22 caliber ball.

I watched the video you linked to, and it is mostly correct, except for the fact that he states Smith and Wesson bought the Rollin White patent, a common mistake. White refused to sell the patent, but worked out a deal with S&W where he granted them exclusive license to use the idea of the bored through chamber set out in his patent, for a royalty of $.25 per revolver sold. White never sold the rights to his patent, and he attempted to get his patent renewed, the congress even passed a bill authorizing White's patent to be renewed, but White had ticked off the government so much during the Civil War that President Grant refused to sign the bill. The White Patent expired in 1869.

Anyway, I can come up with no information on exactly how much the ball in the Wesson's 22 rimfire cartridge weighed, nor can I come up with the powder charge, but looking at the patent drawing for the cartridge, 15 grains for the 22 caliber lead ball and 3 grains of powder sounds about right.

Here is the patent drawing for S&W's 22 rimfire cartridge. You will find it on page 21 in the Jinks book.






* The Robbins and Lawrence Armory in Windsor Vermont still exists. Today it is called the American Precision Museum and it was here that many of the great minds of the American Industrial Revolution, such as Smith, Wesson, and Henry, first worked together. If you are ever in Vermont I highly recommend a trip to the American Precision Museum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Precision_Museum

 

[Johnm1]

Howdy

See if you can find a copy of this book

I am always amazed at how much information you provide in your posts/replies. You must be very adept at technical writing or spend a lot of time on your posts. I suspect both. I, and I bet others, appreciate your knowledge and effort.

I’ll reread your post a couple of times. And in the meantime I’ll also look for the referenced book.

Thank you

 

[Johnm1]

I have not yet acquired the book reference above but I have completed some additional research after reading @Driftwood Johnson 's post above. What I gleaned out of Mr. Johnson's post was that the original cartridge developed for the S&W No. 1 was in fact a shorter case with a round ball projectile. That may or may not be the conclusion that Mr. Johnson came to, only what I gleaned from his post. I've been known to read more into words then is actually there. So if I've misrepresented somethings, please say so. My further research has not uncovered anything 'Concrete' to contradict that conclusion. But it did uncover several things that are worth discussing.

Here is a timeline of events:

- 1845 - Louis Flobert creates modern firearm cartridge - Basically a 22 caliber ball (and 9mm by the way) on top of what was basically a modified percussion cap.
- 1851 - Flobert exhibited his parlor rifle in Paris – Smith and Wesson attended that exhibit.
- 1854 - S&W received patent 11496 for improvement to cartridges – included 22 caliber ball, lubrication below the ball, and a hard surface inside the case below the powder but above the priming compound
- 1857 - S&W Model 1 introduced/sold
- 1860 - S&W received patent 27933 for the rimfire cartridge

I have read and reread patent 11496 and still come to a conclusion that it is for an improvement to an existing cartridge. (11496 is actually titled 'Improvement in Cartridges'.) Though I'll be the first to back down from that if someone with more knowledge about patents comes along. Patent 27933 is actually titled 'Improvement in Filling Metallic Cartridges'. I find that reading these patents is very difficult. I suspect that a person applying for a patent provides only enough detailed information to secure the patent and information not necessary to secure the patent is left out.


Patent 11496 https://patents.google.com/patent/US11496A/en dated 1854 includes these diagrams indicating that a round ball was used

This is the patent that existed in 1857 when the No. 1 First Issue was introduced into the market and is the driving document to conclude that the original cartridge for the No. 1 contained a round ball.

In 1860 Smith & Wesson was granted Patent 27933 US27933A - wesson - Google Patents and this appears to be a patent for the rimfire cartridge as we know it today though it is titled 'Improvement in Filling Metallic Cartridges' . The interesting part about the 1860 patent is that the illustrations for that patent includes a picture of the First Issue of the No. 1 pistol in the document. That inclusion, though not an absolute, leads me to believe that the No. 1 was at least at some point intended to be shot with the 1860 patent conical ball cartridge. Here is the patent drawing showing what most would recognize as the modern 22 rimfire cartridge.



Most agree that the original cartridge was not called a 22 rimfire and certainly not 22 rimfire short but was actually named the No. 1 Cartridge. Now what the following picture proves is circumstantial at best but here is a picture of a box of UMC No. 1 Pistol Cartridges showing a conical ball projectile. The picture on the box shows what looks to be a No.1 second issue and the text on the box indicates that it was made under S&W Patent of 17 Ap. '60 or patent 27933. When was it made, who knows but after 1860 and presumably before 1868 when the 3rd Issue No. 1 was introduced. This picture was pulled from the following website Introduction To .22 Box Collecting - International Ammunition Association (cartridgecollectors.org)



Here is a picture of a cartridge box manufactured by Smith & Wesson also referencing the 1860 patent also from the same site.


And another from NY Metallic Cartridge Company showing a conical ball but not referencing the 1860 patent



None of what is covered here is an absolute. It is entirely possible that the original No. 1 was designed to fire the 11496 patented 15 grain round ball and S&W could have reasonably either kept to 11496 cartridge for the entire run of First through Third Issue No. 1's (sounds least likely to me), kept with the 11496 cartridge while the conical ball load was developed (less likely) or could have switched to the 29 grain conical ball load in 1860 (possible). Or they could have marketed the No. 1 in 1857 with the full intent that it used the 1860 patent that could have been pending for the 3 years the gun was produced but before the 1860 patent was granted. This seems the most likely outcome to me.

The original question was what did the cartridge that was originally designed for the No. 1 pistol look like and what size projectile and powder charge did it carry. Neither of the patents discuss either the weight of the projectile or the powder charge. I can tell you that an RWS 6mm Flobert/BB Cap ball weighs in at 15 or 16 grains.

So the only patent that existed when the No. 1 first issue was first marketed in 1857 was for a short case, an unknown powder charge below a round ball that we could assume weighed 15 grains. It wasn't until 1860 that the patent for what we know now as the 22 short was granted. So did S&W sell cartridges with a 15 grain round ball for the first 3 years until they received the patent. Or did they market the 29 grain conical ball version in patent 27933 in 1857 with the No. 1 First Issue while the patent was pending. Not sure we'll ever get to the bottom of that question. But I'd like to hear your opinions have changed on what was the original cartridge. A round ball or a conical ball and why.

There are numerous articles online that indicate that the first cartridge for the No. 1 was the 29 grain version of 1860. But because it is on the internet doesn't make it true. The book above, and probably other, could help set the record straight. Again, I'd like to hear if your opinions on what was the original cartridge is modified by what is in the post. A round ball or a conical ball and why.

 

[Monac]

Do any known examples of a Patent 11496-type 22 cartridge, or a box for them, made prior to the " conical ball" Patent 27933, survive? I realize they would be very rare, but it's also hard to believe that none at all would exist today. Did anyone in America make Flobert-type cartridges in the 1850's?

 

[Johnm1]

Do any known examples of a Patent 11496-type 22 cartridge, or a box for them, made prior to the " conical ball" Patent 27933, survive?

Not on the internet.

The real answer resides with Smith & Wesson. Either in a book or in somebody's head. I wonder if Mr. Jinks would answer a question.

 

[Johnm1]

Here is a thread from the S&W forum discussing the patents S&W had regarding the rimfire cartridge.

http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-antiques/346534-s-ws-patent.html#post137567207

I'm leaning towards the thought that there wasn't a US patent strictly for the concept of a rimfire cartridge. Flobert had a patent for his cartridge in Europe. Would US patent law prevent a US patent for a concept patented in Europe I wonder?

 

[Johnm1]

Sometimes I just have to read and reread things so a written concept makes it through my dense skull. This is directly from the 1860 patent 27933

 

[Johnm1]

And the 1860 patent 27933 is clear that is an improvement and not a patent on a rimfire cartridge.

 

[Johnm1]

This is from another article on the internet but addresses the timeline for the 1860 patent and its cartridge.

From https://www.fieldandstream.com/guns/gun-history-how-rimfire-ammo-works/

At the London Exposition of 1851, Flobert exhibited his small .22-caliber rifle. Attending were two Americans, Horace Smith and Daniel Wesson. They were impressed and, by 1857, they had developed a new cartridge of similar design—the .22 Short for the new Smith & Wesson Model 1 revolver. They patented the cartridge on April 17, 1860, as the S&W .22 Rim Fire.

Of course we have no idea how well Michael Shea of Field and Stream researched his article. But this is the first time I have read that the 22 rimfire, known as the No. 1 Cartridge, was based on patent 27933 using a conical bullet and was ready along with the new No. 1 revolver in 1857.

 

[Johnm1]

So here's what I think can be deduced from the 1860 patent. Tell me if yo think I'm reading too much into it:

1 - The Model No. 1 2nd Issue was designed to shoot a conical bullet.
2 - the weight of the conical bullet isn't described in the 1860 patent
3 - The charge for the conical bullet wasn't described in the 1860 patent.

What I'd like to read into the 1860 patent is:

4 - The No. 1 1st Issue was also designed to shoot a conical bullet
5 - The conical bullet weight was 29 grains. Although it isn't stated in anything I can find on the internet, most of the internet knowledge indicates that the original No. 1 Cartridge was similar to todays modern 22 short except for the use of black powder and the composition of the priming mixture.
6 - The No. 1 charge weight was approximately 3 grains of black powder (full case) on top of the 29 grain bullet. Today's cases can hold approximately 2.2 (CORRECTION FROM 2.8 GRAINS) grains of 4F black powder and that can be explained by the use of the original Balloon Head cases compared to modern cases.

So opinions are welcome. Is there a flaw in assumption 1? How about 4-6?

 

[Jim Watson]

5-6. CotW says a 29 grain bullet but thinks they somehow got 4 grains of FFFFg in the Short case. But my 1901 Sears catalog list .22 Short as 3 gr of black and a 30 gr bullet.
All rimfire cases are of Folded Head construction, the balloon head - solid head distinction does not apply. You might be seeing brass (copper in the old ammo) thickness or bullet seating depth differences to amount to 0.2 gr.

 

[Johnm1]

All rimfire cases are of Folded Head construction, the balloon head

Well, there I go assuming something incorrectly. I assumed that all balloon head cases were replaced with modern cases. Apparently only centerfire cases were replaced and modern 22 rimfire cases are still balloon head. We don't know what we don't know. Thanks for that information.

As far as actual charge, I'm not as concerned with the black powder amount. I'm thinking that the original black powder was more akin to our Null B powder and filled what space remained in the case. But whatever black powder is used a full case wouldn't be an overcharge for the cartridge. I suspect it could be an overcharge for the firearm though. I've shot the RWS cases filled with 1.8 grains of 4F below a 15 grain 22 caliber round ball and the recoil was minimal. More than some expected but still pretty minimal.

I haven't decided if I'm going to settle on a single black powder load for all of my 22 short pistols or not. If I do settle on a single load it would be something less than a full case of black powder and some type of card/grease cookie in deference to the design of the S&W No. 1. I'm not concerned with the solid frame H&A versions I have. None of these firearms needs to be a 'High Performer'. They just need to go bang with what is similar to what they were designed to shoot. No matter how hard I try, black powder handloads are a time consuming ordeal and fiddling with a wad/card/grease cookie wouldn't be much more of an inconvenience than the whole idea of handloading a 22 short.

 

[Jim Watson]

Apparently only centerfire cases were replaced and modern 22 rimfire cases are still balloon head.

No. Modern rimfire cases are still FOLDED HEAD. That is not the same thing as balloon head. I think Driftwood Johnson has pictures of the different types, although of centerfire cartridges.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

The term Balloon Head refers strictly to centerfire ammunition, not rimifire.

This photo shows a sectioned 45 Colt Balloon Head case on the left, and a sectioned modern 45 Colt solid head case on the right. Notice how there is more metal surrounding the primer pocket on the solid head case than with the balloon head case.






This photo shows two rounds of copper cased, folded rim, Benet primed ammunition in the center, with modern solid head ammunition alongside them. The two rounds on the left are 45 Colt, the two rounds on the right are 45 Schofield.






Because there was no exterior primer, the Benet primed ammunition looked like rimfire, but it was not. It was an early form of centerfire ammunition. The crimp near the bottom secured an Anvil Plate inside the cartridge. The priming compound was deposited directly onto the bottom of the copper case, then the anvil plate was pressed into the case and held in place by the exterior crimps.






This photo shows the construction of the case, with the anvil plate pressed in place. The pair of flash hole allowed the flame from the priming compound through the anvil plate to ignite the gunpowder in the case.






Here is a photo I found somewhere on the web, showing the construction of modern 22 rimfire ammunition. I suppose one could call them folded rim. There are several videos online showing how the brass is formed. It is punched out of strips of brass, then deep drawn into a cup shape, then the rim is formed.

 

[Johnm1]

The term Balloon Head refers strictly to centerfire ammunition, not rimifire.

Thank you Mr. Johnson I learn every day. In this case I think I'm relearning stuff I forgot.

 

[Jim Watson]

When CCI brought out Blazers, they used Berdan primers to discourage reloading of the aluminum cases.

I have wondered if there might not be a place for inside primed economy ammo.
Maybe just in lower pressure rounds like .38 Special and .45 ACP.