BP In Modern Firearms

[SmeeAgain]

Curiosity got the best of me so I loaded up some common cartridges with black powder to test.
The first was a .357 Magnum. 158 grain lead bullet. As expected, it didn't perform like the normal .357 mag but it did work... respectively well.
My chronograph fluctuating between 700-900 fps.
38 Special from the same weapon dropped significantly about 150-200 fps lower than the .357.
Next was the .45 acp. The 230 grain bullet crawled out of the barrel. It was pathetic. I'll try again with a much lighter projectile.
The last two were both rimfire. .22lr and .22 Magnum. Both performed extremely well... Closely competing with factory smokeless powder! I didn't expect that!
Cleanup was a pain in the rear but I knew that going in.
So... if the day ever comes when ammo is extremely scarce or completely unavailable, we still have a viable option.

 

[CoalCrackerAl]

I'll stay with smokeless in my smokeless cartridges. Sounds like you had some fun. What did you use for a powder?

 

[Jim Watson]

Well, .38 Special 1899 was factory black and there were some long .35s and .38s not too far from .357. I have seen .357 Maximum used with heavy bullets, pretty close to .35 Maynard.

.22 Stevens Long, Rifle was black and .22 WRM is a stretched .22 WRF also loaded with black.

 

[SmeeAgain]

I'll stay with smokeless in my smokeless cartridges. Sounds like you had some fun. What did you use for a powder?

I used homemade black powder.

 

[hawg]

I've used it in a 30-30 Winchester, .38 special, and a 1911. For those that say bp wont run a semi auto, it will for at least five mags.

 

[Big Bore 44]

Try again with Swiss 4F, you'll probably be quite surprised.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Well, .38 Special 1899 was factory black and there were some long .35s and .38s not too far from .357. I have seen .357 Maximum used with heavy bullets, pretty close to .35 Maynard.

.22 Stevens Long, Rifle was black and .22 WRM is a stretched .22 WRF also loaded with black.

Howdy

These statements are all true. Ever wonder why a standard load of Smokeless powder leaves so much empty space in a 38 Special? It is because the cartridge was originally loaded with Black Powder,which requires more volume than most Smokeless powders.

This is a page from a reproduction of the 1900 Smith and Wesson catalog, showing how much Black Powder was loaded into 38 Special at the time.

 

[LaneP]

Back in the 70's my friend's grandfather gave me a few .38 Spl LRN he had no use for. I believe they were Remington, and were in nickel plated cases. I loaded a couple in my 6" model 10 and when I pulled the trigger I knew immediately they were old original BP loads. I saved one and pulled the bullet and the case was full to the base, heavily covered in white lead oxidation. But as old as they were they went off with 100% reliability.

 

[SmeeAgain]

Back in the 70's my friend's grandfather gave me a few .38 Spl LRN he had no use for. I believe they were Remington, and were in nickel plated cases. I loaded a couple in my 6" model 10 and when I pulled the trigger I knew immediately they were old original BP loads. I saved one and pulled the bullet and the case was full to the base, heavily covered in white lead oxidation. But as old as they were they went off with 100% reliability.

That was incredibly interesting! I knew the .22 rimfire started out as BP but had no idea about the .38.
Now I'm curious about all the rest.
It would make sense to test & document all popular handgun cartridges then make some rifle powder & move onto testing those.

 

[Ethan Verity]

I'm guessing in order to match the smokeless performance of 45ACP with black powder, you would need the case volume of a 45 Colt... since wasn't the 45ACP designed to have similar performance to that beloved black powder round?

 

[gtrgy888]

Compare the .45 acp bp velocities to Schofield velocities. I’d be curious to see.

 

[Seedy Character]

I'm guessing in order to match the smokeless performance of 45ACP with black powder, you would need the case volume of a 45 Colt... since wasn't the 45ACP designed to have similar performance to that beloved black powder round?

EXACTLY!

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Compare the .45 acp bp velocities to Schofield velocities. I’d be curious to see.

I load 45 Schofield with Black Powder all the time. I have never loaded 45 ACP with Black Powder, but I can tell you the Schofield case has more interior powder capacity than 45 ACP. Since cartridges loaded with Black Powder require the case to be filled with powder (unless a filler is used) I would expect that firing them both from the same length barrel the Schofield round would have a higher velocity than 45 ACP loaded with Black Powder.

This photo shows, left to right, 45 Colt, 45 Schofield, 45 ACP, and 45 Auto Rim. The difference in powder capacities for Black Powder should be obvious.

 

[Jim Watson]

Making powder gets you a 200 fps spread.
A 20 fps spread is only fairly uniform with Swiss in my .38-55.

I read an article by a guy who tested the concept of the .32 Winchester Special as a round factory loaded with smokeless, but suitable to reload with black. That was because the case was the same as .30-30 but the barrel bore was the same as the well understood .32-40.
Results were not so hot with fresh GOEX but he found a can of very old DuPont powder. Velocity was higher, accuracy was better, gun was less fouled.

 

[SmeeAgain]

I'm guessing in order to match the smokeless performance of 45ACP with black powder, you would need the case volume of a 45 Colt... since wasn't the 45ACP designed to have similar performance to that beloved black powder round?

Shooting the same weight bullet from my 1858 Remington New Army revolver, the readings on the chronograph are nearly identical to that of my 1911 using smokeless powder.
Why ATF somehow believes "that's not a firearm" eludes me.

 

[SmeeAgain]

I have a 30-40 Krag carbine (in pristine condition btw) that my grandfather carried in WW1.
Would this be a good candidate for black powder? I have smokeless powder cartridges for it but bp sounds like more fun.
Has anyone tried it before?
Was the 30-40 cartridge originally BP?

 

[hawg]

Was the 30-40 cartridge originally BP?

No, it was designed for smokeless.

 

[Sacramento Johnson]

My understanding of the designation "Special" on cartridges from the turn of the century (38 Special, 44 Special, 32 Winchester Special), was meant to indicate that after shooting them as factory loaded smokeless rounds, they could then be hand reloaded as black powder rounds.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Was the 30-40 cartridge originally BP?

No, the 30-40 Krag was the first American military cartridge loaded with Smokeless powder.

And the 30WCF or 30-30 was the first American sporting cartridge loaded with Smokeless powder.

 

[noelf2]

Why ATF somehow believes "that's not a firearm" eludes me.

If you are shooting cartridges in your 1858, then ATF would consider it a firearm.

 

[Dark Skies]

Curiosity got the best of me so I loaded up some common cartridges with black powder to test.
The first was a .357 Magnum. 158 grain lead bullet. As expected, it didn't perform like the normal .357 mag but it did work... respectively well.
My chronograph fluctuating between 700-900 fps.
38 Special from the same weapon dropped significantly about 150-200 fps lower than the .357.
Next was the .45 acp. The 230 grain bullet crawled out of the barrel. It was pathetic. I'll try again with a much lighter projectile.
The last two were both rimfire. .22lr and .22 Magnum. Both performed extremely well... Closely competing with factory smokeless powder! I didn't expect that!
Cleanup was a pain in the rear but I knew that going in.
So... if the day ever comes when ammo is extremely scarce or completely unavailable, we still have a viable option.

I was wondering how tightly packed the powder was? I've only BP experience in muzzle loaders but it was put into my noggin at an early stage not to leave an air gap when loading as the spike in pressure could be ... unfortunate.

 

[Dark Skies]

Shooting the same weight bullet from my 1858 Remington New Army revolver, the readings on the chronograph are nearly identical to that of my 1911 using smokeless powder.
Why ATF somehow believes "that's not a firearm" eludes me.

I believe it's excluded due to being of a design pre-dating 1898 and therefore an 'antique' rather than a firearm.
If you're shooting cartridges you may or may not be on a bit of a sticky wicket. Technically you could argue that shooting cartridges in a revolver of an antique design still came within the spirit of the law because cartridge conversions for the Remington New Model Army existed in between the time Rollin White's patent for cartridge cylinders expired (1870) and 1898.

 

[hawg]

it was put into my noggin at an early stage not to leave an air gap when loading as the spike in pressure could be ... unfortunate.

I suppose if you had several inches of air gap you could ring a barrel. A little air gap isn't going to hurt anything. A paper cutter Sharps is a good example. The design has a built in air gap. There's no way to load it without one. My repro Sharps held 110 grains of loose powder with a bullet seated. The recommended charge was 80 grains. That's 30 grains worth of air gap not counting the extra gap you had from the breech block. The manual stated to have powder against the base of the bullet but I've seen videos of people shooting paper cutters and bumping the butt of the rifle on the ground to get the powder packed against the breech. They had no issues shooting them that way.

 

[SmeeAgain]

If you are shooting cartridges in your 1858, then ATF would consider it a firearm.

I'm not shooting cartridges! It's a percussion revolver. My point is that in the hands of the wrong person, it's just as deadly as a .45acp. Stupid people should be outlawed, not guns.

 

[SmeeAgain]

I suppose if you had several inches of air gap you could ring a barrel. A little air gap isn't going to hurt anything. A paper cutter Sharps is a good example. The design has a built in air gap. There's no way to load it without one. My repro Sharps held 110 grains of loose powder with a bullet seated. The recommended charge was 80 grains. That's 30 grains worth of air gap not counting the extra gap you had from the breech block. The manual stated to have powder against the base of the bullet but I've seen videos of people shooting paper cutters and bumping the butt of the rifle on the ground to get the powder packed against the breech. They had no issues shooting them that way.

It has never crossed my mind to intentionally leave an air gap. Could easily take all the fun out of an otherwise great day at the range.
When testing with the chronograph, I usually fite several shots of the same configuration to make sure my readings are as accurate as possible. So even if one somehow "wiggled loose" I'd see the spike.