Smokeless for Black

[Ball Caster]

How many time has this question been asked, but here goes.
I have a Forehand Model 1901 break top .32 cal. S&W Long. To the best of my knowledge this is a BP era gun. I shoot a lot of BP but I would like to try a low pressure smokeless.
So, I need a smokeless load that is at or below the black powder pressure. I have a number of 90 grain semi-wad cutters that I would like to use.
Unfortunately I cannot find any information on BP pressure and the 15,000 psi for S&W Long I assume is for guns of modern construction.
I have had good luck with low pressure shotgun loads but low pressure smokeless pistol loads evade me.

Any suggestions?

[Snow ninja]

I ALWAYS live by the rule: no smokeless in BP era guns... Not worth it IMO. Good luck on your quest though.

[Lead pot]

You will have better results for your question here http://castboolits.gunloads.com/forumdisplay.php?14-Wheelguns-Pistols-and-Handcannons

[John Boy]

This should get you started on your 32 S&W Long smokeless reload
Black powder - 98gr bullet - 13gr FFFg - 780fps

[rfd]

what snow ninja said. going smokeless in that particular firearm is like playing russian roulette at best. feeling that lucky?

[Ballistics in Scotland]

It isn't a strong revolver. It isn't even a Webley, in which the rear of the topstrap slot makes contact (albeit oblique contact) with the upstanding tenon in the top of the frame, and the metal mightn't be as good as Smith and Wesson's. Just the same, I am sure you could work up a smokeless load if you really wanted to. You would have to start with really low loads of a medium revolver powder, and be very careful to check whether the bullet encounters a restriction in either chamber throat or barrel.

The trouble is, how do you know what is safe? You don't have a .32 S&W pressure gauge, and we are talking about pressures at which the usual excessive pressure indications are unlikely to be reliable. You can't, for example, keep loading more heavily until you get expansion of the solid head which black powder doesn't give. Primer deformation might be of some benefit, but we are talking very slight differences, on which I would want to use a very powerful lens.


But that is a long way from saying there is any real reason to do so, unless it is difficulty in getting black powder locally. Revolvers with a reasonable chamber length for caliber perform very well with black powder, which as late as the 1930s fuelled the most powerful commercial .45LC Colt load available. Fouling has nothing like the great significance it has in a rifle, and the increase in recoil with black powder, although important in shotguns, is of almost no significance in a .32 revolver.

If 1901 is a year, smokeless powder would have been in regular use in shotguns and rifles, and a reputable manufacturer would have been unwise to market such a firearm unsuitable for its use. No such evaluation is likely to have been required for pocket revolvers, for which black powder was an excellent propellant, and whose owners were likely to have shot (and cleaned) it very infrequently. One of the commercial black powder substitutes, with which you can simply fill the case as you would with black powder, is likely to be a far better alternative. Pyrodex has the reputation of giving occasional but erratic corrosion. I don't believe this would apply to some of the others, though.

[quickdraw66]

Even at similar pressures, the pressure curves will be different between Holy Black and Smokeless. That can cause problems, and those problems might include shrapnel. It may not happen the 1st time, or the 100th time, but it can still happen. For safety's sake, stick to Black.

Do a google images search for "smokeless in black powder gun", and it will cure you of wanting to do that. WARNING, those are some GRAPHIC images...

[acmech]

If you use pyrodex, be as diligent cleaning it as you would blackpowder, it is equally as corrosive. The difference is the residue is a base, not an acid like black powder. Hodgden has special warnings on their website about its use including using vinegar and water to clean the cases and neutralize the corrosive residue.

[Deadpool]

BoS and acmech are right about pyrodex. It is a low-pressure alternative to BP but still contains sulfur. You could try some Triple-Seven, as it is also a BP alternative but burns cleaner and without corrosion. If you want a true smokeless, the safest to try would be Trail Boss.

[quickdraw66]

Keep in mind, Triple Seven is hotter than normal BP. Load accordingly.

[John Boy]

Go to the Hodgdon website and read using Trail Boss reloading data to emulate a black powder load.
Triple Seven? Using this powder is a candidate for a ride in an ambulance!

[oldred]

as it is also a BP alternative but burns cleaner and without corrosion.


Noncorrosive????? Triple 7?????? :shock:

[rfd]

i dunno of any sub that's kind to metal. i'd never use any of that krap unless i absolutely couldn't get real black (which is extremely hard to imagine thanx to the internet and mail order).

[Deadpool]

Much less corrosive because there isn't any sulfur.



It would be a bit negligent not to mention Hodgdon's Triple Seven powder and pellets on a muzzleloading section, as it is now regarded as the finest commonly available propellant for blackpowder arms. And I cannot disagree.
...
Whether the gun is an A&H flinter, a Thompson Hawken, a Knight Elite, or a Savage 10ML-II, Triple Seven FFg is the one powder that has given superb results in all of them. It is the flexibility, availability, peppiness, and consistency that make Triple Seven FFg loose powder the very first choice for the majority of muzzleloading rifles made today, with the less aggressive corrosive qualities and the lack of sulfur as additional bonuses. For the majority of today's muzzleloading rifles, it is the best that there is. If you've not tried a pound of it yet, do so. Once you have I think you'll feel the same way.

[waksupi]

Much less corrosive because there isn't any sulfur.

Sulfur isn't the corrosive element in BP.

[Deadpool]

Sulfur isn't the corrosive element in BP.

Right, it is water, because BP fouling is hygroscopic. However, water isn't an element. Sulfur is. And it does have an effect on intergranular corrosion of steel, but only after burning. Which brings us back to the water.

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?224055-Black-Powder-Corrosion

[oldred]

Much less corrosive because there isn't any sulfur.


As pointed out Sulfur is not the major culprit but you said "cleaner and WITHOUT corrosion", WITHOUT corrosion is a heck of a lot different than "much less corrosive"! Also that Chuck Hawks article sure reads suspiciously like a sales ad!


I have seen the "non-corrosive" results of T7 in muzzleloaders!

[dtknowles]

In 1903 the factory .32 S&W long ammo was being loaded with Smokeless powder to similar ballistics and pressures as the original Black Powder ammo so unless your gun's design or construction is deficient it should be ok to use with Factory Smokeless ammo or equivilent reloads. If you have concerns with the gun (and I might be if it was mine as I have a few top break revolvers and keep the loads mild) stick to .32 S&W (short) starting loads and be careful of squibs until you get confidence that the bullet will always get out of the barrel. It is easy to load smokeless to lower pressures than full BP loads but the challenge is to not go too low and get a bullet stuck in the barrel.

Tim

[NoAngel]

Somewhat cleaner.....somewhat meaning, you still need good cleaning practices.

140106

[oldred]

Somewhat cleaner.....somewhat meaning, you still need good cleaning practices.

140106


If there is a "sub" that even comes close to being non-corrosive that's the one! I went through a couple bottles of that stuff back when I first started loading for my 45-90 and was in the middle of trying different powders and working up smokeless loads. I really liked it a lot but, to me anyway, BH209 is more of a low pressure smokeless powder than a true BP substitute since it seems to have far more in common with the Nitro powders than any of the subs even down to the cleaning procedure/products. I have mentioned before that when I was trying this powder I intentionally left two different "Two dollar guns" as I call them left uncleaned for weeks to see what would happen. What happened was not much of anything, a kind of greyish residue formed in the bores and on some metal parts that easily wiped off without a sign of rust underneath but the two 45-90 cases I left uncleaned turned really dark so there definitely is some reaction with brass. Even the one's I cleaned immediately stained fairly heavily but otherwise showed no signs of damage. If a person does not want to use real BP or a low pressure smokeless load then BH209 seems like a really good compromise except for the PRICE! While it's often argued that the 10 oz container has about as much bulk as a 1 lb container of regular bp the fact is it takes a lot of BH 209 (per volume) so the cost per shot can get substantial for someone who shoots a lot but other than that it is great stuff!

I "Think" it produces a good bit more pressure per volume than real BP but how much more, if any, I don't know but there's quite a bit of published cartridge loading data on the web site that lists the expected pressures for any given load, if they would just get the price a bit more in line I think BH 209 will just about make most of the other subs all but obsolete.

[rfd]

if it must be smokeless, maybe trail boss or aa5744, but those are probably gonna be pioneering efforts, proceed with caution.

[oldred]

proceed with caution.


By far the best advice yet! Regardless of what propellant is chosen that recommendation needs to be the first order of the day!

[dtknowles]

if it must be smokeless, maybe trail boss or aa5744, but those are probably gonna be pioneering efforts, proceed with caution.

I do not recommend using Trail Boss or at least not in the manner of using the 80% rule. I don't have the latest Lyman manual but in the ones I have they have a note for Top Break Revolvers in good condition. I have had good luck following their recommendations.

Tim

[rfd]

heck, i still wouldn't recommend anything but real black powder. why take chances with life and limb (which may not only be the shooters!)?

[bedbugbilly]

I had a friend who tried that once . . . we call him "stubby" now . . . . .

It's your hand gun and your choice . . . but why? BP is easy enough to load and easy enough to clean up afterwards . . . but then some folks drive faster than they should as well.

[dtknowles]

I forgot this was the blackpowder forum. My mistake. You would not understand.

Tim

[John Boy]

Right, it is water, because BP fouling is hygroscopic.
If the potassium nitrate is not pure when it is mixed with the sulfur & charcoal, it will contain potassium chloride. Therefore, the foul in the bore will contain a small amount of the potassium chloride with the potassium bicarbonate. BP foul being hygroscopic, the moisture combined with the potassium chloride ... is what creates rusting in the bores

[RPRNY]

Trail Boss will be absolutely fine. Fill case loosely to just below bullet base, No Compression. Weigh. Back off 15% You won't even get BP velocity.

[rfd]

trail boss is fine, with its 70% startup rule, but only for modern firearms in good condition. imho, anything else is playing russian roulette. all nitro white powder is a b!tch compared to the holy black and tb has a high nitro content, same as aa5744. all that'll matter with black is to avoid the airspace, for the very most part.

[oldred]

If the potassium nitrate is not pure when it is mixed with the sulfur & charcoal, it will contain potassium chloride. Therefore, the foul in the bore will contain a small amount of the potassium chloride with the potassium bicarbonate. BP foul being hygroscopic, the moisture combined with the potassium chloride ... is what creates rusting in the bores

That plus when Sulfur combines with moisture Sulfuric acid can result.

[Deadpool]

That plus when Sulfur combines with moisture Sulfuric acid can result.

Thank you, yes absolutely. Not just H2SO4 as you mentioned but Sulfurous as well.

[dtknowles]

Trail Boss will be absolutely fine. Fill case loosely to just below bullet base, No Compression. Weigh. Back off 15% You won't even get BP velocity.

But you might exceed black powder pressures. It seems to me from the data I have reviewed that Trail Boss produces higher pressures for a given velocity.

Tim

[Lumpy grits]

Much less corrosive because there isn't any sulfur.

But the sugar base in the mix is as hydroscopic as as real BP fouling is.
LG

[Deadpool]

But the sugar base in the mix is as hydroscopic as as real BP fouling is.
LG

Not sure what you're saying. At least there is no sulfur to make any acids.



hydroscope
/ˈhaɪdrəˌskəʊp/

noun
1.any instrument for making observations of underwater objects



Derived Forms
hydroscopic (ˌhaɪdrəˈskɒpɪk), hydroscopical, adjective

[Lumpy grits]

Not sure what you're saying. At least there is no sulfur to make any acids.

Here ya go-
http://www.chuckhawks.com/triple_seven.htm

GOGGLE is your friend-
Oh-I can play the word game also. :groner:
Love what spell ck can do at times:razz:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hygroscopic

LG

[Deadpool]

Here ya go-
http://www.chuckhawks.com/triple_seven.htm

GOGGLE is your friend-
Oh-I can play the word game also. :groner:
Love what spell ck can do at times:razz:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hygroscopic

LG

All of that seems vaguely familiar. Hmm, I wonder from where. (#14 (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?277259-Smokeless-for-Black&p=3256731&viewfull=1#post3256731) and #16 (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?277259-Smokeless-for-Black&p=3256803&viewfull=1#post3256803)) Is there no intellectual honesty anymore?



:groner:

[Lumpy grits]

All of that seems vaguely familiar. Hmm, I wonder from where. (#14 (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?277259-Smokeless-for-Black&p=3256731&viewfull=1#post3256731) and #16 (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?277259-Smokeless-for-Black&p=3256803&viewfull=1#post3256803)) Is there no intellectual honesty anymore?

A copy of the MSDS will tell all.
Me-I'll stick to the real BP-Never seen any need/use/reason for the wannabe stuff.
LG

[Deadpool]

A copy of the MSDS will tell all.
Me-I'll stick to the real BP-Never seen any need/use/reason for the wannabe stuff.
LG

Perhaps you could do us all a favor and point it out. These old eyes can't find anything about what point you're trying to make with the MSDS.
https://www.hodgdon.com/PDF/MSDS%20Files/Muzzleloading/Triple%20Seven%20SDS%20Sheet-2013.pdf

[Lumpy grits]

Perhaps you could do us all a favor and point it out. These old eyes can't find anything about what point you're trying to make with the MSDS.
https://www.hodgdon.com/PDF/MSDS%20Files/Muzzleloading/Triple%20Seven%20SDS%20Sheet-2013.pdf

What ain't listed-are the trade secrets.
Plenty of info on it if your will'n to hunt it-
LG

[oldred]

Just because T7 doesn't have Sulfur in it does not make it non-corrosive, it matters not what components are the cause the fact is the stuff is corrosive. We can banter back and forth about what chemical causes what effect or which powder is better or worse than another but in the end they all (real BP and the subs) are corrosive to whatever extent and this must be dealt with on pretty much the same level.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Sulfur isn't the corrosive element in BP.

This ought to be true, if everything performs as it should. The products of black powder combustion ought to be potassium sulphate and potassium carbonate (solids), nitrogen and carbon dioxide (gases).

Opinion varies over whether the potassium sulphate is immediately produced, or consists of potassium sulphide acted upon by atmospheric moisture. My own feeling is that if it was 100% one or the other, someone would have proved it by now. Certainly humid air makes a very great difference to the speed of black powder corrosion in firearms.

But neither carbon dioxide nor nitrogen have any smell, and black powder has a smell which I think can only be due to sulphur-containing gas. It sounds like totally accurate quantities and efficient incorporation in the powdermaking may be, but a little sulphur fails to get tied up in the sulphate and carbonate. When I made sulphur cases of firearm chambers, it was extremely difficult to prevent a ladle of molten sulphur from igniting with a small and rather harmless-looking blue flame. But nearby steel objects, on which some of the resulting gases condensed, acquired a thin but colourful rust coating by the next day. The gases, probably sulphur dioxide or trioxide, absorbed atomospheric moisture to form sulphurous or sulphuric acid.

I have always wondered whether you could achieve rust bluing this way. It seems easier to do evenly than unevenly, which is an improvement on brush and solution.

[oldred]

I have always wondered whether you could achieve rust bluing this way. It seems easier to do evenly than unevenly, which is an improvement on brush and solution.

Maybe straying from the main topic a bit but what you are suggesting there seems to be a form of fume initiated rust bluing that has been done for years. Usually an amount of an acid solution is placed at the bottom of a sweat box and the parts are suspended above where they will be exposed to fumes from the solution allowing the rust coating to form more evenly than if it was brushed/rubbed on.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming. :-)

[Ballistics in Scotland]

That sort of fume-assisted I know about, but it seems far more likely to result in unevenness and runs than the combustion gases.

[oldred]

Runs???? How so? There is no liquid involved except for the solution and even that is absorbed by whatever media is used to contain it with some methods. Even when liquid solution is simply placed in a container there is no solution touching the parts except in vapor form, if condensation forms on the parts then something is seriously wrong!

Actually coverage is very evenly distributed and the method seems to work quite well, the couple of times I tried it was on an experimental basis using scrap steel but it worked very well. The only reason I abandoned the method before doing real gun parts is that I acquired some "Express Blue" solution that worked extremely well and was waaaay faster!

[Deadpool]

Thanks for helping to explain BoP, but some skulls are just too thick and arrogant to listen.

[Lead pot]

:lol: :D And the saga goes on :lol:

Hey I found the subs do have a good use :-) for browning barrels and locks for building muzzle loaders. Just put a little in the sweat box in a snuff can, light it keeping the smoke in the box and run the dryer vent into the sweat box. Just one load of wet clothe through the dryer does a fine job browning ML parts.

[w30wcf]

How many time has this question been asked, but here goes.
I have a Forehand Model 1901 break top .32 cal. S&W Long. To the best of my knowledge this is a BP era gun. I shoot a lot of BP but I would like to try a low pressure smokeless.
So, I need a smokeless load that is at or below the black powder pressure. I have a number of 90 grain semi-wad cutters that I would like to use.
Unfortunately I cannot find any information on BP pressure and the 15,000 psi for S&W Long I assume is for guns of modern construction.
I have had good luck with low pressure shotgun loads but low pressure smokeless pistol loads evade me.

Any suggestions?

I did a bit of research amongst the information that I have. The factories began offering smokeless powder cartridge options for black powder cartridges beginning in 1894. If your gun was made in 1901, then it is in the smokeless era.

The current SAMMI MAP for the .32 S&W Long is 12,000. To be on the safe side, I would go with the starting loads shown in the hodgdon reloading data center.......
90 gr bullet
2.0 / Titegroup / 8,200 CUP
2.0 / Trail Boss / 8,100 CUP
2.3 / HP38 or 231 / 8,400 CUP
2.6 / Universal / 7,500 CUP

In searching for pressure data for the original b.p. loading I found a reference for the .32 Short Colt which developed 8,000 with FFFG powder under an 80 gr. bullet. Based on that the original .32 S&W Long B.P. ctg would have developed a bit more pressure than that.

w30wcf

[cajun shooter]

Any BP load will be safer than the smokeless loads because of the pressure that is reached by each. The data offered by John Kort is in that low range needed for your type of gun.
I would be very careful about loading Trail Boss in a turn of the century revolver as I had some very fast pressure spikes while loading rounds with it. I was trying it out in my 44wcf guns when it first came out and after a few days of testing, I took it off my list and kept the BP loading going.
I load nothing but BP powders to shoot, you can't go wrong.
I see we still have members who have very little if any BP time, coming to the forum with the old witch hunt stories. They don't know squat about the true facts, but seem to have joy spreading manure with their boots.
To the OP, you stated that you shot BP all the time, if this is true then you should know the real story and have no problem with loading the loads that are listed for your revolver. You don't have to run home and throw it into a pot of boiling water to clean either.
Deadpool, That info you posted by Chuck Hawks was a paid for ad by the manufacturer. I have shot real BP since 1970 and have never had one problem with any gun showing rust. I never clean my guns for at least three days after firing, I can't say the same for any sub. Later David

[rfd]

imho, those white powders that are meant to "replicate" black powder - i.e. trail boss, aa5744, and others - are still nitro based and as such have a narrow range of safe pressures IF used/loaded wisely. they're still smokeless expanding gas powders and nothing like explosive black powders.

as to the subs - geez, why bother? i guess if yer desperate and that krap is the only accessible and/or dollar-wi$e alternative. but still, i'll preach to go real black, don't look back.

however, most folks who've never experienced either muzzleloader or bpcr black are at least to some degree intimidated by its use and maintenance. but once initiated they are almost always most likely to stay with black and not even look back (at the white). so the thing becomes for them to empower their transition, which is almost always best accomplished by a mentor.

[oldred]

as to the subs - geez, why bother? i guess if yer desperate and that krap is the only accessible and/or dollar-wi$e alternative. but still, i'll preach to go real black, don't look back..

I have asked that question a bunch of times and seems more often that not someone will be offended??????? :???:

My take on it is that if BP is not going to be used for whatever the reasons then using a low pressure smokeless as a "sub" rather than any of the much dirtier and corrosive phony BP concoctions would seem to make a lot more sense, of course shooting smokeless is nothing like shooting BP but then neither is shooting any of the "subs" so what's the point?

If a gun is an original BP era firearm that's the least bit questionable as to strength then neither the subs nor the smokeless low pressure loads may be safe. The subs because most of them are somewhat hotter than real BP and smokeless because it's too easy to make even a small error which could be risky in a firearm that's borderline safe. BP is always going to be a known factor from one round to the next unless gross negligence occurs in loading (such as lots of air space?) or the bore is obstructed.

Once again, If a person wants to use one of the subs for whatever their reasons I would not tell they shouldn't (as long as it's a safe load) or attempt to belittle them for their choice. It's just that shooting a sub is not at all the same as shooting real bp so, to me at least, it just makes more sense to use a low pressure smokeless as the "sub", but again that's just me so as the old saying goes "Different Strokes for Different Folks". The bottom line is have fun and enjoy the sport but do so safely whatever is chosen to load with!

[rfd]

i can perfectly understand the reasoning to go with special smokeless powders in replica 19th century s/s rifles. been there, done that - have long since seen the pure light of why real black is better ... at least for me. for those who prefer smokeless for bpcr, that's great for them, no problemo.

i've heard reasonable reasons for going with with bp subs instead of real bp, such as availability and price. makes sense to some degree. but for those with disposable dollars, bp can be mail ordered from lotsa places online - just gotta deal with shipping and hazmat fees (er, hazmat ransom).

with true antiques, gotta be black, that's been hashed over ad nauseam. no, still wanna light up that old tube with smokeless or even a sub? fine, just lemme know when so i can be sure to be at least a mile away. [smilie=2: :grin:

[oldred]

i've heard reasonable reasons for going with with bp subs instead of real bp, such as availability and price.shipping

But in that case I still ask why not just use a clean burning suitable smokeless for a "sub"? I mean really is it much different than any of the phony BP powders? Not a single one of them is like real BP, everything is different from the pressures to way they are loaded and even when it's pointed out that they make smoke even that's not nearly the same, the smoke they make is nowhere near the same and it certainly does not smell the same! Real BP is by far the best choice for many reasons but sometimes there are logical reasons for using something else, after all it's not as simple as just running down to WallyWorld and picking up a pound or two but since the subs are as different from real BP as smokeless why even bother with them when suitable low pressure smokeless loads can be used.

[rfd]

to the far larger degree, this is all subjective fodder. i agree, oldred - i'd rather use aa5744 than any bp-sub. but thankfully i don't need to compromise when i have 17# of swiss 1-1/2f left in my powder locker. ;-)

imo, since smokeless like 5744, 4759, and even tb, are all high nitro powders, and though the data sheets on them tell that loading to trap door speeds yields acceptable pressures at or near what a full case of bp renders, those smokeless powders aren't full case and they all have a narrow load range that can be compromised to yield dangerous pressures if used improperly.

[dtknowles]

I thought the discussion was about .32 S&W Long.

Tim

[oldred]

I thought the discussion was about .32 S&W Long.Tim


The title is "Smokeless for Black" and is about using alternative powders in the .32 S&W BP cartridge, is it not?

[dtknowles]

The title is "Smokeless for Black" and is about using alternative powders in the .32 S&W BP cartridge, is it not?

I thought we were off track when the discussion went to trapdoor speeds.

Tim

[Springfield]

FWIW, before I was really into loading blackpower, I bought some Fiocchi cartridges that were the proper caliber for my Webley pocket pistol/Bulldog. It now has half the cylinder missing and a cracked/bent top strap.