New mold for 41 Long Colt?

[JimfromTrafalgar]

The thing that actually brought me to this site was a quest to make a revolver I just picked up as accurate as possible. I made a somewhat poor trade for a mid-twenties vintage Smith and Wesson M&P in pretty good condition. What I got in return was a Colt New Navy, made in 1903, with what appears to have been a re-barrel ,done at the factory, sometime after 1926, in not as nice condition. The reason I believe the work was done at the factory is the series of patent dates rolled on the top of the barrel seem to match what would have been a Police Positive. If I remember correctly, that model was not made in 41 Long Colt, but was made in 38-40. The 38-40 bore dimensions were the same as those used in most Colt produced 41LC. The barrel does have the "COLT 41 DA" factory mark on the left side, however.
At any rate, these guns have a reputation for never having been terribly accurate. After reading up on some of the critical dimensions these guns left the factory with, that's probably not surprising. My gun has no defined chamber, the cylinder was just bored straight through at .410. After slugging the bore, I'm reading a .401 nominal for groove diameter. Harry O. has written some good stuff on loading for these guns. Hollow base .386 vs heeled bullet designs, different molds available, different powders and how well they worked, etc. At first, I was tossing back and forth between which mold design might work better, or at least better for me. At the time Harry wrote the article that I read, he stated that the NEI #214 mold worked, but not too well for him. But if I remember correctly, he stated that their mold was .386 at the heel, and 401? at the front end. I was doing some more looking around, and found the NEI #214 was listed as a .410 diameter up front. Thinking that I might be reading a misprint, I called them. I was told that the mold was indeed .386 at the heel, and .410-.413 at the big end, depending on how worn the cherry was when the mold was made.
This really got me thinking. Although Harry didn't have the best luck with his NEI 214 mold, it appears as though they may have changed it somewhat. Armed with what little I know about bullet size, this larger dimension should, in theory, work much better. However, I wonder how well it will work when trying to send that boollit through the .401 bore? I've never heard of using a boolit that much larger than groove diameter. It seems quite a quick transition. The barrel doesn't seem to have much in the way of forcing cone either. These loads weren't designed for much velocity, so thoughts of something fairly soft in lead came to mind. I also thought of perhaps cutting in a good forcing cone.
Any thoughts or experience on the subject would be much appreciated.
Thanks,
Jim

[runfiverun]

I have looked at this thread for a couple of day's and the answer that keeps on jumping out at me is to just fix the gun.
make it a 38-40 to match the barrel, or re-bore the barrel to work with something else like a 41 mag/special case.
or invent a 40 cal rimmed case that runs at 14-k psi.
a gun that don't shoot is a paper weight.

[JimfromTrafalgar]

I hear ya. What's bothering me is that this configuration is exactly as Colt put them out in all but the very early thunderers. They used the same barrel for guns chambered in 41 LC and 38-40. factory loads were mostly the .386 HB, buy they did have a heeled bullet out for the old guns. The measurements on those was something like a .413 chamber throat, with a .406 or.408 groove diameter. Not a whole lot better than what I have now. I've seen a lot of recommendations for using different molds and powders, etc., but this is the first I've seen mention of a mold throwing something that will fill the throat. I could sleeve and chamber for the 38-40, I think, but I'm curious as to whether this new design might have at least some potential. I don't mind loading for heeled, so that's really no problem to me. You may have subtly just told me that this just won't work, but pick up a big brick and get my attention. I won't get offended. Is that kind of difference between boolit and bore dangerous, or just not work well?
Also, I've tried some 30's or 40's vintage loads through this gun. They're not terribly accurate, but not tack drivers either. They do tend to throw a little lead out the side at times though. The timing on it is very good as far as with the hammer gently cocked fully, the cylinder is fully advanced. I need to check for exactly how well things are lined up at that point, as far as bore and throat, perhaps, but all production numbers match, so I don't think I'm dealing with the results of a tinkerer. However, the lead is showing a good bit of oxidation, and I wonder if the walls on the hollow base might not be breaking up. I'm really not sure but is there potential that the lead has become brittle in that area due to age and oxidation? I've never had a gun that wasn't out of time as described, but threw some lead to the side. I fully realize that I haven't seen it all though.
Any insight or experience with the results of swaging the lead down approximately .024" while firing, or with potential troubles in shooting oxidized lead would be appreciated. I've never experienced either problem, so am not sure what to expect.
Thanks
Oh, I thought I would mention that I'm no longer shooting those loads until I find the cause of that lead shaving or breaking free. It may have happened on every shot, but to a lesser degree. on one shot however, I was 6' or so to the side and back just a bit as a friend was shooting. I caught a piece that hit me in the ear and stung a bit. I also found that my ear was bleeding where I'd caught the piece of lead. We decided to hold off until further research was done on the problem.

[Harry O]

I waited until I got home to check this. I pulled out the NEI 213, 214, and 215. They do have the dimensions that I listed on my webpage.
http://harryo.sixshootercommunity.org/

None of them were as large as 0.410"OD. It is possible that they have changed it, but I don't think that 0.410" would be a good solution. Remember that the cylinder is bored straight through and is 0.410"ID. It would be very hard to push them into the chamber. I have experienced snug fits (that I had to push into place) with 0.406" to 0.408"OD bullets.

There are some questions about what you wrote. The 41frame Colt (which includes the Colt New Navy/Army and the Colt Officers Model) was never chambered in 38-40 and the barrel was never reduced to 0.401"ID size. I base this on guns of that size that I have measured. They range from being built in 1892 to 1938. All are the larger 0.406" to 0.408"ID groove diameters. The Colt New Service Model was bigger, was chambered in both .41LC and 38/40 and had the groove diameter reduced to 0.401"ID after about 1900-1902. The Colt Police Positive (and Police Positive Special) are smaller frame size and were never chambered in either .41LC or 38/40. I have a couple of them in 32/20 and .38 Special (they were also in .38 New Police). A .41LC would bore through the sides of the cylinder in those guns.

I have shot a number of 0.406"OD bullets through a 0.401"ID bore and have never had a problem. Remember that the bullet should be cast in a 40:1 lead/tin mixture. That is very soft and will neck down easily.

Unfortunately, there are no longer any hollow-base .41LC bullet moulds available, other than used, if you can find them. You might want to get in on this group buy, but I have absolutely no idea when it will ever happen. It has been a long time just getting to now.
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?155753-MiHec-2-cavity-Brass-Hollow-Base-41-Long-Colt-mold&highlight=41LC

I would suggest that you stay away from NEI. I have 4 of them (three for the .41LC and one for the 38/40) and none of them are very accurate. If you are interested in a heel-base bullet, I would suggest Old West Moulds and get their heavy heel-base one.
http://www.oldwestbulletmoulds.com/

If you would like some samples to try, decide what you want and PM me.

[runfiverun]

as usual Harry gives good advice.
especially about the molds.

the biggest issue with oxidized lead is that the oxides are super hard and abrasive.
it sounds like they were bumping up like they were supposed to, but parts were just being blown out of the gap
maybe the skirt?
maybe the old powder is breaking down some and is pushing the velocity a bit higher.
if the alloy is a lead/tin,, and 40-1 was used in everything from the factory's up to and including the 44 mag when it was new it will age soften over time, I'd imagine it's about pure lead soft by now and wouldn't take the pressure as it went through the cylinder into the rifling.


one more thing.
even though the cylinder and barrel may be lining up the cartridge is laying on the bottom of the chamber and very could be hitting the barrel off center.
you could take a piece of dowell the same diameter as the cylinders chamber cut it off a bit shorter than the cylinder length and tip it forward with the gun closed.
you'll see where it lines up in the gap to the barrel.

[JimfromTrafalgar]

Thanks Guys,
This is what I was more or less expecting, but not having experience with these kinds of things, thought I would ask. I apologize for the misinformation on the barrel. It's been long days lately, and I'd swear I read of the Police Positive chambered for 38-40. Looking again, I'm now guessing someone took a New Service barrel, made after 1926, and put it on this gun. Looking at copies of Colt's blueprints from 1924 however, they do show chambers for the 41 long and short having a throat diameter of .410 [actually .4103]. They also list the New Army and New Navy models on those prints, even though they were not made after 1907. So I'm assuming they at least specified those dimensions. They also show the bores as .401 in the Army Special, and New Service, all for the 41 LC and 38-40. That print was dated Jan. 1945, but does back up what I've read elsewhere. At some point they were using the same barrels for both rounds. They also do not list the chamber dimensions for a New Service in .41 at all. Harry, have you ever measured the chamber throats on a New Service in .41? I've seen a fair number, and own one sent to Britain for WWI, but all in 45C. I'm just curious as to how they actually made them, as opposed to the prints?
Not that a lot of this matters much. I still have a gun with measured chamber throats of .410 and measured groove diameter of .401. I was hoping to get it to shoot fairly well anyway, but it's not looking good. I more or less figured that a .009 squeeze might be a bit much. Cutting a forcing cone would probably help, but I'm guessing may take accuracy from the end result. Cutting chambers to fit the 38-40 would scare me a bit on these. A new cylinder seems a bit expensive and time consuming as well.
runfiverun,[sorry,sounds weird to call someone that, but I don't know your name], I appreciate the ideas on the old lead. I was kind of thinking along those lines, just didn't know the lead would soften with age. I also didn't even think about the cartridge actually tilting in the chamber. Another reason to be here.
Harry, one more thing I guess. I thought in reading your article on the subject, the reason for the too tight fit was largely because of lube. I was considering swaging down to something like .409 or .408, and trying to lube only in the grooves. Hoping I guess that I would get some expansion to fit the throat, but not get gasses bypassing. I appreciate the offer on some boolits to try out. I think I can find a quick way to seat and crimp for just a few rounds. Then decide if I want to invest more in this one. I may send you that PM. Also thanks for the advice on NEI. My first thought was to contact Old West, but when I found that NEI had changed the front diameter......... Since then I've heard a few other things on their molds, and they basically show a bit of odd attidude in statements made on their site. I'm sure they're tired of catching it for normal shrinkage, etc., but kind of reminds me of sellers on GunBroker or Ebay who list too many rules and caveats. You start wondering is all.
Jim
Oh, the dimensional info, years of production, etc., come from Wilson's 3rd edition book.

[texassako]

Just a thought. Accurate Molds has at least one mold listed for .41 Colt. He has also done nose pour through the block designs to make it for a hollow base pin, but you have to source the pin yourself. It might be another option for you.

[runfiverun]

buckshot could make you the pin, he has made several for other guy's here.

I know that accurate molds makes a 44 cal mold that could be changed to suit your guns diameters, it is nominal sized on the base and a little bulged on the portion outside the case.
it would help center the round better but I couldn't hazard a guess at it not spitting at the gap.
I have seen it used in a 44-40 levergun where the boolit was seated by hand in the sized [and if measured carefully unsized] cases

another idea would be to use something that has a truncated cone type nose to help center things a bit better when making the transition.
if lube is an issue you could always go the old cap and ball route and wipe the cylinder mouths with lube.
a simple one to make is b-wax, with about 40% [non salted] Crisco to soften it up, and about 5-6% lanolin to help everything work together.
just melt the wax and crisco down and stir in the lanolin.

[JimfromTrafalgar]

It seems as though we're leaning toward a hollow based design. Although Harry had better results with the guns he was shooting using the heeled boolit. With my rather unique dimensions to deal with, it's looking like the HB design is probably the way to go. The concern involving the "spitting" at the gap is real. I was standing a couple of yards to the side, and slightly to the rear, of a friend while he was shooting those factory loads. I took a bit of lead in the ear on one shot that wound up with me bleeding a bit and the lead still stuck in my ear. It wasn't deep, but stung a bit, and ended our trials with the factory rounds abruptly. I'm thinking that no matter what, I need to measure the breech end of that barrel, and most likely make a cutter to put in a forcing cone. That, along with checking to be sure everything is centered when in battery, will at least offer a bigger target for the rapidly expanding base. I'm still thinking that most of the problem with lead flying around may have been the old lead, but I don't want anything near a repeat of that incident. I've got some catching up to do on projects I put on hold over the last week or so,[ my father-in-law passed], then I will get back to checking alignments and dimensions before trying anything new on this gun. I'll probably get with Harry to see if I can beg a few examples to try at that point, then work on getting a mold that fits the prescription. Honestly, if I can come up with a combo that puts all of my shots in the same space that most of the factory rounds were landing in, without the flyers, this won't be a loss. I'm guessing that if I can make that happen the group will probably shrink as well, but who knows?
Thanks for the input. I'll check here and there for any additional thoughts, but I need to get busy for a bit now that things are settling back into "normal" at this end, before I can play with my own stuff again.
Jim

[Harry O]

No, I have never measured a New Service in 41LC. I have never actually seen one in that caliber. I am going by the books for that. I did measure a post 1900 Colt SAA that had the smaller 0.401"ID barrel. From that, I "assumed" that what has been published many places (that after about 1900, all the 41LC barrels were reduced in size to match the more popular 38/40) is true. I later found out that that was definitely NOT true.

One thing that I should point out is that there was one and only one heel-base bullet that was more accurate than the hollow-base bullets -- and that was not by much. That is the Old West mould. All other heel-base bullets were worse than that one and were equal to or worse (mostly worse) than the hollow-base bullets. The worst heel-base bullets (from an accuracy standpoint) that I have were three different ones from NEI. I recommend that everyone start with hollow-base bullets because it is easier to get pretty good results with them, but now that Rapine is out of business, that is a problem.

Actually, ALL of the 41Frame guns that I have (and have measured) have 0.410" throats. The chamber was bored straight through (there is conflicting information that there might have been a slight taper, with the rear being as large as 0.412" or 0.413"ID -- but I have not seen that). And, all of the 41Frame guns (including one built in 1938) had barrels that were 0.406" to 0.408"ID. This means that there was very little necking down of the bullet. It is possible that a rebarrel job could have a smaller bore, but it was not originally built that way.

I do have three guns from Uberti that are chambered in 41LC (two with custom cylinders and one straight from their factory) and have the 0.410" chamber and 0.401" barrel. I normally shoot hollow-base bullets so there is no problem of any kind with that. I have used two of them for many years in CAS with about 800-1000 shots through them per year. However, I have also shot a number of tests with heel-base bullets out of these same guns. They are 0.406" bullets through 0.401" barrels. Again, no problem. Accuracy does not seem to be any different when doing that and when shooting the same loads through a 41Frame gun with 0.406"-0.408" barrels. Note that any more, I size any bullets more than 0.406"OD with a 0.406" sizing die so I won't have any problems with chambering them.

In any case, good luck.

[JimfromTrafalgar]

Harry,
The same prints I mention above show a .413-.410 taper in the chambers. Using my pin gauges, I'm getting .411, not quite .412 at the breech end of mine.[ I've read somewhere that the 45 Colt was similar originally. I should check those prints as well.] Based on what you've just said, I guess I'm back at the heeled/ hollow base decision again......... Now I'm wanting to find someone with a New Service in 41 to see how those measured too. I do think the barrel on mine came from a New Service, but I wonder what they actually did on the chambers. A friend of mine has a real penchant for the New Service, and is also a smith of the highest quality. He may have had occasion to measure one at some point. I'll check.
On a side note, he has a 7 1/2" barreled, nickelled, New Service, that letters to the Battle of Britain. One of a group of 17 or so that was shipped over at the same time, late in the game. He's from London, so I don't know if he got it before coming here, or it came back across the pond and the two of them just happened to cross paths. As a child, he played in bombed out buildings during the war, so either is quite possible.
Jim

[JimfromTrafalgar]

After checking with my friend, it turns out that he has never even seen a New Service in 41LC. That chambering is listed in the blueprints, but not later in the same book as a caliber option for the New Service. He's thinking that it was perhaps something Colt had thought about doing, but never actually produced. That would bring me back to a stronger potential my revolver was sent back to the factory to have a new barrel installed, rather than something someone just did out in the field. I'm still in the same boat concerning loads, so I'll probably still try to come up with something that shoots relatively straight anyway. If anyone runs across a New Service that was chambered in 41LC, we would both be interested in hearing about that.
Thanks,
Jim