Hodgdon's response to: Smokeless in Winchester '73?

[FromTheWoods]

In a recent thread, I asked forum members about powders for use in a Winchester 1873 .38-40 made in 1885.

I appreciate the responses and advice that was offered. As part of my education, I emailed Hodgdon to ask about the use of Titegroup or other smokeless powders in our rifle--Asked about the pressure curve and a couple other questions.

Mike Daly, Customer Service Manager, kindly responded:
"There should never be smokeless powder used in a firearm which was not proofed for smokeless. Your firearm was proofed for black powder and should only have black powder used in it. The steels used in black powder guns are not sufficient for use with smokeless powder."

Not nearly what I wanted to hear, but understandable.

(I know I could have added this to the original thread, but I thought that perhaps a new thread would make it more visible to folks who might want to read it.)

[gandydancer]

call accurate powder co on XMP 5744 Powder.

[Four Fingers of Death]

I got one made in 1881, I just ain't interested in putting anything other than real black powder in it. Good luck.

The 38-30 should seal the chamber off well and a squirt with Moose Milk (10-1 water and Ballistol oil) and a swipe or two with a bore snake will do it for you. Thats all I ever do in my BP loadings with my 44-40s.

No real biggie if you use enough lube has been my experience.

[w30wcf]

FromTheWoods,

The reply from Hodgdon follows the same mantra that has been preached for years.....

I would call that inaccurate since Winchester, UMC and others offered smokeless ammunition for all the b.p. cartridges beginning in 1895. Winchester even noted on their boxes that they were intended for the '73 Winchester!

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o25/w30wcf/Vintage%20cartridge%20boxes/1873Smokeless38WCF.jpg

Smokeless powders used by the factories had the burning rates of todays Blue Dot, 2400, 4227 & 4198 depending on the cartridge.

I have a '73 Winchester made in 1882 that has seen over 2,000 rounds of smokeless loaded using recipies of the first 3 powders with no issues whatsoever......

w30wcf

[Junior1942]

w30wcf, I positively respect your opinion, but if I owned an original Win '73 it would never see smokeless.

[mashaffer]

If I had a brand new one it probably would never see smokeless either. :D Don't see the point in it with proper BP cartridges like the .32-20, .28-40 and .40-40. JMHO.

mike

[Four Fingers of Death]

Winchester, UMC and others offered smokeless ammunition for all the b.p. cartridges beginning in 1895.

Trouble is, no one sued anyone back then, but they sure do now, so the companies are forced to err on the safe side. Sad but true.

Seems a shame to shoot the old guns without that great flash, smoke and boom, especially when clean up is so easy if done properly.

[Mk42gunner]

I can understand the answer from Hodgdon, especially given the way people litigate today.

I think everyone has to make their own decision, and it could be different for two guns of the same model. In my case, if it were a family heirloom, I wouldn't do anything that might harm it; if it were a "play toy" that all I had in it was money, I would try just about any sane load.

I wonder how many 73 Winchesters never saw a blackpowder round? They made them until 1927 IIRC, surely there are a few. As far as I know, Winchester only restricted the HV loadings from the 73, not the standard loading.

Robert

[Four Fingers of Death]

Litigate, that was the word I was looking for!

[w30wcf]

w30wcf, I positively respect your opinion, but if I owned an original Win '73 it would never see smokeless.

Junior,
I certainly agree with you ..... if I owned a '73 with a pristine bore, black would be my powder of choice. Fortunately I do have a Marlin Cowboy 44-40 that I shoot quite a bit of black powder in.

But, the '73 I have (made in 1882) has a rough bore (as many do) and thus fouls out very quickly with black powder. It does aok with Pyrodex, but that is not real b.p. which I prefer. So, for most of my shooting with this rifle I am sort of stuck with smokeless........

w30wcf

[cajun shooter]

Just to let those who don't know W30wcf, he has shot many black powder rounds down range. Probably more than those who advised him on it's use.
Do a search and read all the postings he has written on the test that he has performed with BP while testing bullets in the 44-40. He also uses the handle W44wcf but I think we have a new member that is using that handle. I don't know how that happened but it did.
John is well known in the BP forums on several other forums and I 'm happy to be a friend of his. He took the time to test a new bullet design that I had made by Tom at Accurate moulds when I was too ill to leave my home. The bullet is for the 44-40 and shooting black powder.
Tom even designed his own bullet for BP and the 44-40 and it was also made by Accurate Moulds.
I am quite sure that he checked out the rifle before using anything in it. Later David

[KirkD]

Mike Daly, Customer Service Manager, kindly responded:"There should never be smokeless powder used in a firearm which was not proofed for smokeless. Your firearm was proofed for black powder and should only have black powder used in it. The steels used in black powder guns are not sufficient for use with smokeless powder."
Unfortunately, Mr. Daly's answer appears to have erred drastically on the side of caution to the point where it is not very helpful.

First of all, the peak pressure for a black powder load is often higher than many smokeless loads, to the point where a black powder load will 'bump up' (obturate) a soft cast lead bullet where the smokeless load will not. Secondly, as w30wcf has pointed out, Winchester produced smokeless loads for the original '73's, '86's, '92's, '94's and '95's, a fact that seems to be unknown to many today. The only levergun that, so far as I know, did not have smokeless offerings, was the 1876 and I imagine that was mainly due to the fact that its chamberings were rendered obsolete in 1886 when the '86 came out, well before the smokeless era. As for me, I have used nothing but smokeless in my original Winchester 1876's.

It is of major importance for a reloader that he/she understand concepts like burn rates, relative quickness (RQ) and the Du Pont Index (DPI). For an education, study http://www.chuckhawks.com/powder_burning_speed.htm . One can readily see that not all smokeless powders are created equal. Unique, for example, has a DPI of 431, whereas 2400 has a DPI of 189 and IMR 4198 has a DPI of 160.

One also needs to understand the effect of increased bullet weight on pressure (will increase), jacketed vs. lead bullets on pressure (lead will give lower pressures), hard cast vs. soft cast on pressure (soft cast gives lower pressures), filler on pressure (filler will give more complete burning, raising pressure due to that fact, as well as a small increase due to the filler itself), and what the pressure/velocity difference is for a load with powder forward and powder backward if one does not use filler.

All other things being equal (same bullet, same case, same velocity), Unique will give a higher peak pressure than 2400 or IMR 4198. Once a fellow has an idea of what sort of peak pressure black powder will give, he can actually develop smokeless loads that will give black powder velocities but with the same or lower peak pressures. On the other hand, use a smokeless powder with too high a DPI, and your rifle may be converted into shrapnel.

The beauty and the danger of smokeless is that it has a wide variety of burn rates, some extremely fast, others extremely slow, others just right. Many reloaders have little idea of burn rates and how that affects peak pressures.

Sherman Bell, who writes for The Double Gun Journal, has done a great deal of testing and published numerous articles on this sort of thing in the series 'Finding Out for Myself'. Others have also done this sort of testing. Here are two examples of pressures curves from another fellow's tests ...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v497/3855Win/45_70_pressures.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v497/3855Win/45_70_pressure3.jpg

You can observe that Trail Boss, which is a very fast powder, has a peak pressure much higher than FFg. You can also see a 45-70 load using 23 grains of IMR 4759 under a 410 grain bullet that has a much lower peak pressure than black powder.

Sherman Bell has an excellent article showing that IMR 4198 with the right kind of filler will give you a lower peak pressure for the same bullet and a higher velocity than FFg.

In general, if you took the following rules of thumb, you should stay on the safe side.



For the same bullet, case and velocity as FFFg for smaller cartridges, powders with a burn rate slower than Blue Dot will give you a peak pressure the same or lower than FFFg.




For the same bullet, case and velocity as FFg for larger cartridges, 2400 will give you a peak pressure the same or lower than FFg.


Titegroup, by the way, is way too fast to achieve original BP ballistics safely in an original BP gun. Your peak pressure will be radically higher than BP. So in fairness to Mr. Daley, if I had someone write in to me wondering about using Titegroup instead of black powder, after I recovered from near cardiac arrest I would probably steer him safely away from any kind of smokeless powder at all just to be on the safe side. One can use Titegroup, but only if one reduces the velocity (hence pressure) to make sure that original BP pressures were not exceeded. I don't know any way of doing that without requiring strain gauges and actual tests, so I stay away from smokeless powders faster than 2400 in my old BP guns.

There are other things to concern yourself with, however, than merely RQ or DPI. All smokeless powder loads that are less than near case capacity will be position sensitive more or less. To get around this, Sherman Bell recommends IMR 4198 with dacron or kapok filler which, for the same bullet, case and velocity as black powder will give you a lower peak pressure than black powder. He has another magnificent article testing pressure curves for a wide variety of fillers.

You may be tempted to go for a really slow powder to keep the peak pressure really low for the same bullet, case and velocity as BP. This can be problematic, however, as you may get a great deal of unburnt powder for lighter bullets. You will also get sooty cases because the pressure is not sufficient to seal the case against the chamber walls during combustion. Another problem with a powder that is too slow is that it will not obturate the bullet and, thus, one will get leading as well as poor accuracy. For ideal smokeless loads, there is actually a narrow band of pressure that you should attempt to achieve that ranges at or slightly below BP peak pressures. When I develop a smokeless load, I always try to find a good load that operates within that band. There is a procedure to use when developing a smokeless load for a BP gun, but I do not have the time to write it up here just now.

Most of my modest collection of old Winchesters are well over 100 years old and were manufactured during the black powder era, yet I use nothing but smokeless in all of them, and I've done so for many years. I also do a lot of shooting with them. I've also used my own smokeless loads in original S&W Schofields and other original top break S&W's, as well as a first generation Colt that I currently shoot.

Those who shoot only black powder may wonder why anyone would go to all the trouble of using smokeless if there are so many factors to consider. Well, I can assure you that once one understands the factors, one can very quickly develop safe smokeless loads. I will often take less than an hour to do it. For those who know what they are doing and can develop safe smokeless loads, or have access to safe smokeless published loads, smokeless has the advantage of reducing risk of corrosion from improper clean up on old bores that may have thousands of tiny pits, the interior of which which may not always get 100% clean. Of course, the advantage of black powder is, first of all, it is a lot more fun to shoot with the smoke, flame and boom. Secondly, one does not have to have the knowledge and care necessary to use smokeless safely, so there is less chance of blowing up ones antique.

[JayinAZ]

Great post, Kirk. :)

[FromTheWoods]

Thank you much KirkD and others.

I did leave the door open for Hodgdon to suggest other powders, but perhaps the TG question did raise too many flags.

With TG such a dangerous powder for '73's, I'm wondering why there are no warnings. It is listed on Cowboy Action tables, and--I'd suppose--many folks are out there shooting '73's.

With KirkD's expertise and opinions, looks as if I will be switching powders for our two '73's.

[Fishman]

Well I for one think that KirkD's treatise on this subject merits a sticky. Great information!

[KirkD]

With TG such a dangerous powder for '73's, I'm wondering why there are no warnings. It is listed on Cowboy Action tables, and--I'd suppose--many folks are out there shooting '73's.
I don't know what sort of loads are published for the Cowboy Action tables, but one can use fast powders provided one reduces the velocity, but this is best left to those who use strain gauges in their experimentation. Also, many load tables specify their loads are for modern firearms only. For any published load, always see if there are any disclaimers.

[KirkD]

Speaking of Sherman Bell, Damascus barrels and smokeless powders, Mr. Bell recently emailed me with a list of his articles that describe his testing and findings in this area. The Double Gun Journal informs me that individual articles are not available, but back issues are. Here is a list of the issues that cover Sherman Bell's testing re. Damascus barrels, smokeless powders, etc.

Summer 1999
Winter 1999
Winter 2001
Summer 2002
Summer 2005
Autumn 2006
Winter 2006
Summer 2007
Summer 2008

[MT Chambers]

Maybe I didn't read it well but I can't relate to those pressure figures, I'm used to cup and psi.

[w30wcf]

Maybe I didn't read it well but I can't relate to those pressure figures, I'm used to cup and psi.

MT Chambers,
The pressure readout is in 100's. For example, the 334 figure for Trailboss is 33,400. The rise is in milliseconds.

The pressure table in Kurt's excellent post was first appeared on the ASSRA forum (American Single Shot Rifle Association) a couple of years ago.

Another thought regarding Hodgdon's response.......
Why then, does Hodgdon have no disclaimer on their data for the 38-40 and 44-40? I was friends with a fellow who worked in the ballistic lab at Hodgdons for many years up until he retired several years ago.

From my discussions with him, I interpreted that AS LONG AS THE LOADS DO NOT EXCEED SAMMI MAP (max avg pressure) for a given cartridge, it did not matter what the burning rate of the powder was.

I have used Tite Group in my original Winchester '73 44-40 using Hodgdon's data (6.2 grs) and find that it gives very good accuracy BUT ONE CANNOT EQUAL THE VELOCITY OF THE ORIGINAL CARTRIDGE (1,300 fps) WITHOUT EXCEEDING THE SAMMI MAP PRESSURE because it is too fast burning. As Kirk indicated, slower powders would be required to accomplish that.

Hodgdon's recommendation for Tite Group in the 38-40 with a 180 gr bullet (6.4 grs - 13,400 psi) is slightly below SAMMI MAP for the 38-40. Due to differences in rifles, powder lots, primers, I'd back it down 5% and shoot happily thereafter.........
Just be sure to not double charge a case!

w30wcf

[KirkD]

... AS LONG AS THE LOADS DO NOT EXCEED SAMMI MAP (max avg pressure) for a given cartridge, it did not matter what the burning rate of the powder was.
......... Just be sure to not double charge a case!
John is certainly right here. One can use very fast powders in original antique black powder guns, provided that the max peak pressure does not exceed what original black powder peak pressures would give. The sharp peak pressure of a fast powder will help bump up the bullet nicely, giving excellent accuracy. I personally do not like to use published fast-burning loads simply because I have a paranoia about double charges. There is no forgiveness in double charging an antique rifle or pistol; it will almost certainly be destroyed. That is one reason I prefer medium speed smokeless powders that fill the case well enough such that a double charge will overflow the case, but that is just an extra personal precaution I take. For a careful, meticulous reloader, double charges will not happen so using published, fast-burning powders in an antique will be perfectly safe. I just do not trust myself to never, ever make a mistake.

The other reason I don't use fast burning powders in my own load development is that I don't have any idea what the pressures would be. Chronographed velocities of fast powders should be lower than original black powder velocities to keep peak pressure at or below BP peak pressures, but how much lower? I do know that if I use powders with a burn rate equal to, or slower than 2400, then for the same bullet, case and muzzle velocity as black powder, I will get the same or lower peak pressures (provided no fillers are used or the bullet is not seated deeper in the case). Thus, with a chronograph I can work my way up to original black powder velocities and know that I am not going to exceed black powder peak pressures provided I am using powders with a burn rate equal to or slower than 2400 and I am sticking to original black powder ballistics, bullets and cases.

So I would summarize as follows:


When developing a load using a smokeless powder with a fast burn rate (faster than Blue Dot or 2400), use strain gauges to plot the pressure curves; muzzle velocity does not tell you if you are in the safe zone or not.
Given the above, if you do not have access to strain gauge plots and you wish to use smokeless powders with a fast burn rate in an antique gun, stick to loads that have been published as safe for antique guns. Presumably, those have been tested.
When developing a load using a smokeless powder with a burn rate equal to or slower than 2400, use a soft cast bullet with a hardness, diameter and weight similar to original black powder bullets and stick to original black powder ballistics. You can go faster with a slow enough powder, but then you are venturing into strain gauge territory again. Besides, I like original black powder ballistics.
Factors like variations in groove diameter, throat diameter, bullet alloy, temperature, barrel length, etc. can raise pressures as well, so one may want to stay slightly below BP velocities (all other things being equal) to be safe. Alternatively, fire five rounds of BP loads across a chronograph to see what the actual BP velocities are for your particular rifle and bullet, then use that as your benchmark.

Warning: Rule of thumb 3# above cannot be used to develop safe smokeless loads for antique revolvers if the cylinder to forcing cone gap exceeds original factory specs or the barrel length is different. In my own personal testing with various antique sixguns with various degrees of end play and cylinder gap (for the same barrel length), I have observed that the exact same load will give significantly different velocities depending upon the gap. A sixgun with a large gap will give lower velocities due to gas leakage across the gap, yet the chamber pressure is exactly the same. Thus, if a fellow with a large cylinder gap tries to develop a load using rule #3, he will get excessive chamber pressures before he is able to reach original black powder ballistics. The solution is to fire five black powder rounds across a chronograph, and then take the chronograph velocity as your upper limit provided you are using smokeless powders with a burn rate equal to or slower than Blue Dot, and the same bullet, case and primer.


One other thing about using hard cast bullets in antique pistols ... probably not a good idea. Antique Colts and S&W top breaks used very soft, pure lead bullets (at least according to my copy of an 1895 Winchester catalogue). A hard cast bullet creates a good deal more pressure when entering the forcing cone, and an increased impact upon hitting the forcing cone. In personal correspondence with David Chicoine, he stated that he has seen a lot of antique sixguns with stretched frames. In his opinion, it is due to using smokeless powder. As we have seen in this thread, that may be correct with the wrong kind of smokeless powder, but I think it is more due to using hard cast or jacketed bullets and the higher impact and pressure they produce when hitting the forcing cone. For that reason, I use only soft cast bullets in my antique pistols. In fact, I use soft cast bullets in all my black powder chamberings. By 'soft cast' I mean not harder than what pure wheel weights with a bit of tin thrown in will give, and a lot of times just pure wheel weights (clip on for rifles, stick on for antique pistols).

[w30wcf]

Kirk,
Excellent synopsis. I have dissected factory 44-40 cartridges from various time periods and find that after about 1970 the factories had switched to faster burning powders* with no warning about using the cartridges in vintage rifles.

*post 1970 R-P cartridges with 200 gr. jacketed bullets were loaded with 7.0 grs of a disc type powder.

w30wcf