Charges vs accuracy?

[Norton Commando]

Sure, you can Proof a firearm at such pressures once, twice, maybe a few more times. But each successive over-pressure will propagate microscopic cracks.

Proof loads probably produce stresses that exceed the endurance limit of the steel used to manufacture the barrel and or cylinder. And as Lunie pointed out, it's a one-time charge that is designed to validate the material's physical properties. If the endurance limit is exceeded a certain number of times, material fatigue sets in, resulting in catastrophic failure of the part. So the bottom line is that the proof load should not be repeated, lest you risk failure of the part and possibly bodily injury.

Jason

 

[Lunie]

Sure, you can Proof a firearm at such pressures once, twice, maybe a few more times. But each successive over-pressure will propagate microscopic cracks.

Proof loads probably produce stresses that exceed the endurance limit of the steel used to manufacture the barrel and or cylinder. And as Lunie pointed out, it's a one-time charge that is designed to validate the material's physical properties. If the endurance limit is exceeded a certain number of times, material fatigue sets in, resulting in catastrophic failure of the part. So the bottom line is that the proof load should not be repeated, lest you risk failure of the part and possibly bodily injury.

Jason

Yep yep...

The endurance limit for most steels is ~50% of the ultimate tensile strength. This is really talking about load/unload cycles. Stresses below the endurance level can be cycled "infinitely" without material failure. (*Infinite in this case just means more than 1,000,000 cycles) Stresses cycled above the endurance limit will typically cause failure at some finite level.

In the case of stress just greater than ultimate tensile, the material will fail in one cycle.

In the case of stresses just below or not far below ultimate tensile (read "close to proof loads"), failure will come from a *relatively* small number of cycles.

As such, proof loads are to be used sparingly, and proof testing is conducted under conditions that protect the workers from the kabooms. For example, even a firearm that successfully fires 3, even 5 proof loads may burst on the 10th round. Or maybe the 100th. But surviving once does not guarantee they can survive proof loads again. (Ideally, it just means that if it could survive once with a 30% over-pressure, it can *probably* survive for a long time firing at standard pressure.)

Kaboom.

Now, do I know that the loads mentioned exceed safe limits? No. (But I have a pretty good idea...)

Of course I wish everyone well. Just trying to share what little info I have here...

 

[darkerx]

For years people in Europe are using a chart telling that swiss 1 is to be used in revolvers up to .45 Cal. It gives also a match between swiss 1 and PNF2 (<=french 3Fg used in revolvers).
I posted a link to this chart somewhere in this thread.

 

[Pyro]

My .44 will never be a tack driver. What I load in it depends on how much fun I want to have.

 

[makos_goods]

For years people in Europe are using a chart telling that swiss 1 is to be used in revolvers up to .45 Cal. It gives also a match between swiss 1 and PNF2 (<=french 3Fg used in revolvers).
I posted a link to this chart somewhere in this thread.

Darkerx,

Thank you for reminding us...Well let's see what other people in Europe have to say about loads in cap and ball revolvers with Swiss No.1:




So it says "Armes de poing à chargement par la bouche de cal. < ou = à .45"

For our English speaking friends that basically means "Muzzle loading handguns less than or equal to .45 caliber" and it talks about the grain size, but no info about the charge.

Just for grins let's look at the table from Swiss again:




The Swiss table actually shows 10 to 12 grains of No.1 for a .36 caliber revolver, they don't list a .44 caliber load since they have decided that No.2 should be used in a .44 caliber revolver. The Maximum No.2 load for a .44 percussion revolver is 22 grains or 1.4cc of powder.

I can believe those numbers, they are very mild. Sounds like sane shooters shooting light target loads, just like someone shooting Bullseye or R-1 powders for light target loads. The problem is the loads you are talking about are along the lines of 2,8 to 3,0 cc of No.1. Do you realize that is a 200% to 214% overload from the chart that Swiss shows us for a .44 caliber revolver?

It's your chart, you explain it to us. How do you use that particular chart to justify a load of 3.0cc of 4Fg powder in a revolver? It would be like me saying that I found a load for Norma R-1 for a .38 spl and since it is a listed powder, I'm going to assume I can overload the maximum listed load by 200%. Does that make sense to anyone who is reading this?

This should be interesting...

~Mako

 

[darkerx]

These charts have been designed for accuracy shooting. And the less the recoil the more easy it is to be accurate.

Now I tested what those weapons were made for: send the biggest energy possible to an enemy. And I am sure that they were using these kinds of full loads. By the way, you can reach even higher energy with pyrodex...(I posted a link to the page: 462 ft -lbs) will you argue also against the use of pyrodex?

Anyway, this thread is about accuracy... I found a way to increase the probability of hitting a target despite using huge loads: put a full chamber of swiss 1 in a walker and 2 balls... . (it works fine in mine)

 

[makos_goods]

These charts have been designed for accuracy shooting. And the less the recoil the more easy it is to be accurate.

Now I tested what those weapons were made for: send the biggest energy possible to an enemy. And I am sure that they were using these kinds of full loads. By the way, you can reach even higher energy with pyrodex...(I posted a link to the page: 462 ft -lbs) will you argue also against the use of pyrodex?

Anyway, this thread is about accuracy... I found a way to increase the probability of hitting a target despite using huge loads: put a full chamber of swiss 1 in a walker and 2 balls... . (it works fine in mine)

Darkerx,

Then you need to spend some time educating yourself as to what martial loads were in the 19th century. The most common load for a .44 caliber revolver in the Civil War was a conical bullet in a paper cartridge with less than 30 grains of 2Fg powder. The listed load from the manufacturer and in the Ordnance manual was 1 Dram (27.3 grains) of 2Fg powder behind either a 146 gr ball or a 207-212 gr conical bullet. Note the powder they were originally designed for was 2Fg that is equivalent to Swiss No.3.

We know exactly what the loads were and from many of the manufacturers because many of the original cartridges still in the boxes have survived until today. There are collectors that have carefully determined exactly what the composition of those loads were.

Somehow you seem to have missed all of this in your quest and you have overlooked what has been known for over 180 years. You are not the first one to come along and overload a cap and ball revolver, and if you do it long enough you will find out why it is dangerous.

The Colt's U.S. Model 1847 Holster Pistol (called the Walker) had many mishaps because of cylinders being blown up with even the powder of the day. Less than one year after it was accepted by the military it was redesigned. The primary reason the U.S. Model 1848 Holster Pistol (the Dragoons) had a shorter cylinder was to limit the amount of powder that would fit in the cylinder. The factory recommended loading was 1 1/2 Drams (41 grains) of 2Fg and a 146 gr ball. You are putting more than that in a smaller cylinder with thinner walls. Not only that, but you are using powder that should rightly be called 4 1/2 Fg and not even 4Fg because of the grain size. No.1 is actually denser and finer grained than other manufacturer's 4Fg powders, it is an excellent priming powder for flintlocks.

As I said you are not doing anything that hasn't been done before.

A couple of comments, lighter recoil doesn't make something more accurate. You have to find the load that a revolver likes, it is often not the lightest load when you are talking about a .44 caliber revolver. And secondly, the link to the guy shooting the Pyrodex is pure lunacy as well. Yes, yes I do object to someone loading a revolver full of Pyrodex and calling it "good" research.

Before you do any more shooting perhaps you should be contacting Swiss or a competent gunsmith about the correct loads for your revolvers. I doubt seriously your gunsmith realizes you are loading over 3,0cc of No.1 in a Pietta brass frame '58.

I will tell you that you say things that betray your lack of experience with firearms, not just with BP. Your comments about the Brass frame and the misunderstanding of proofing show that.

One last thing then I'm pretty much finished. All of our Italian made revolvers have been proof tested just like yours. Your pistols and rifle aren't any different than ours. They all have have Italian proof marks on them, yours may have a second set from your government proof house, but there is no difference in the materials, manufacturing methods, or heat treatment of the pistols you have. So don't assume you have something stronger than ours.

You are very strong headed and I am afraid it will end in tears. Your inexperienced exuberance is something I have seen too often.

As I said before I hope it will end with you only making your prized pistols unusable instead of you or someone standing nearby being hurt.

Take care,
Mako

 

[darkerx]

You convinced me. I'll test a full load of pnf4 or 0b in my brass rem58... If it resists you will admit that swiss 1 was OK.

For information:
4f in the US: .42-.15mm
PNF4/4f: .25-.1mm
0b: .226-.190mm
Swiss 1: .508-.226

 

[darkerx]

I don't have PNF4 or 0b yet, but I found an old auction where the sellers was explaining how he was used to feed only PNF4/15-27 grains (up to 1,8 grams) in his Open TOP/BRASS 1851 .44...

Remember PNF4 is black powder: .25-.1mm, while Swiss 1 is black powder : .508-.226mm...

(BTW, he was 4/5 out of 6 in black at 25 meters... with those loads (to remain in line with this thread...))

Here is the link: http://www.naturabuy.fr/COLT-NAVY-1...CO-1998-nombreux-accessoires--item-25600.html

 

[45-70 Ranger]

This reminds me of a guy that my son knows, a year or so ago, loading the chambers full of Trail Boss smokless into a brass framed '51 navy in .44. He stuffed as much powder into it as he could and crushed a ball into each chamber atop the Trail Boss. Now this nut was provided with published loading data showing him to use 12 to 15 grains of 3f BP, but he liked the cowboys on the powder container and since he felt he was a cowboy, that was what he should use. When the weapon exploded, he lost a bunch of flesh from his hand and the remaining fragments of the pistol that blew back at him grazed his head where the metal plate, from another act of drunken foolishness, took the brunt of the impact. The pistol blew apart like a pipebomb, but he told my son that he was going to have me repair the weapon since I'm a retired gunsmith. I advised my son to tell this fool to stay far away from me, as I wanted no part in this clown's world.

All weapons have limits. I love the nonsense where folks say that you can put as much powder into a ML rifle as you want and the unburned powder will blow out the muzzle with no ill effect. My 45 years of gunsmithing taught me many things. One of which is that there are people out there that will defy the laws of physics and try to grossly overload a weapon out of ignorance, or simply that they think they can avoid disaster. There's a trainwreck waiting when one trys it.

Now I'm off my soapbox. Mako, you tried your best....

Wade

 

[darkerx]

Do you have any picture of a BP revolver having been destroyed by Real Black Powder? (I'm looking for recent replicas...).

 

[AJumbo]

Let's get back to the OP's statement; he dropped his powder charge and his groups opened up. My own Remington repro shoots the same groups with any charge between 20 and 30 grains, Pyrodex P or 3F black, as long as I use a .454 ball. The goups just hit higher or lower on the paper, accordingly.

There are other variables you might look into, ZVP. I had this same thing happen to me with a Colt repro that I generally fired with 28 gr. of 3F and a .451 ball. I reduced my charge to just enough powder to allow the rammer to seat the ball fully, and my accuracy went south. I found that going to a .454 ball closed up my groups with the lighter charge. My theory was that the hotter charge was upsetting the .451 ball enough to make it engage the rifling, but dropping the charge kept the ball from obdurating sufficiently. Going to a larger ball eliminated the trouble.

I experimented with 4F in my Old Army, using full charges, and guess what? I had fun, made smoke, gained no accuracy whatsoever, and found that the powder would trickle through the nipples and out onto the bench. The Old Army manual used to state that the OA was safe to fire with a full charge of "any sporting grade of black powder," but didn't come right out and sanction the use of 4F. I used to dream of finding a can of Curtis & Harvey 6F so I could carry the tests to the most ridiculous extreme I could while still burning black; probably just as well that I never found any.

 

[45-70 Ranger]

Thank you AJmumbo,

I too have noticed that with a mild load in some of my weapons the very same thing happens. Going back up in the charge caused a tighter group. I agree with you on the need to increase the diameter with a lower charge. It worked well in an old 2nd Mod Dragoon I have. .451's near full tilt shot great. Lower vel, the .454's got beter results.

This was very clear in cartridge BP loads v.s. smokless with the same bullet. The BP loads are getting the projectile into the bore fast and bumping it up to fit. Some of the lighter smokless loads won't push the slug as hard and it skips down the bore a few inches leaving lead in its path. Going up in size, but not charge, got tighter groups and no leading.

AJumbo, well done sir. (And the debate was getting a bit out of hand I admit)

Wade

 

[darkerx]

@Akimbo: you wrote that you reduced your loads without adding fillers... This should reduce a lot accuracy:
-the ball will accelerate within the chambers
-the chambers are not riffled, the ball will reach the barrel at high speed without angular momentum.
-the external layers of the ball will be destroyed before the ball will take the riffles. The accuracy and power will Suffer.

 

[robhof]

The use of fillers has been debated over and over, but in actual tests, I haven't found a difference, using a rest at 25yds gives me the same groups either way, only a slightly POI change. Now with my 357max, longer bullets made a serious impronement in group size, but we're talking b/p and in theory it makes sense, in practice, at least for me it's not necessary for accuracy.

 

[darkerx]

Interesting... What should have been different during your tests?... What kind of bullets? Powder? Have you tried at longer range?

 

[[email protected]]

I use well dried cow manure. Neighbor has a Jersey herd and I get all I want
If you crumble it just right, you get the same a Goex FFF. I've been shooting
the bull for years.

 

[darkerx]

Hum... How do you collect it?

 

[Lunie]

I use well dried cow manure. Neighbor has a Jersey herd and I get all I want
If you crumble it just right, you get the same a Goex FFF. I've been shooting
the bull for years.

Yes, granulation and consistency are KEY! Other than that, I always try to watch out for how deep it gets!