32 S&W testing

[barnetmill]

Quote Originally Posted by cuzinbruce View Post

S&W guns are better made than most of the rest but the steel is not much better. I have examined closely a break open S&W 32 that stretched. A safety hammerless.
Way too much end play at the cylinder, rotation and lock up were not reliable. Also the latch at the top was messed up. I would think black powder only.
Good Luck!

Steel is Steel... I can remember many folks Dissing and Cussing the Dan Wesson over being "cast"... then it was mentioned that Ruger did it too... no more Pissin and Moanin...and... Check the going price on old Dan Wessons!!! Poor Fragile darn things!!!!!

Steel is Steel

Not all steel alloys contain the same elements, crystal structure, or were heat treated the same.

Introducing the topic investment of cast parts using modern modern metallurgy vs smith and wesson forgings does not pertain to 19th century guns designed to handle black powder loads.

I will repeat from my earlier post. Many of the top break revolvers did not use metallurgy designed for smokeless power loads. An eye ball examination will not likely be able to tell exactly what grade of steel was used. Factory records may give the switch over date for when the steel was changed for a particular model of gun relative to serial number and other times one does not know. If in doubt use black powder.
This has also apparently been a problem with SAA colt revolvers with the dates varying from 1898 to 1900 or so for the switch over in metallurgy.

[dtknowles]

I think I'D be tempted use to Red Dot in the .32 S&W Short.......The added strength of the firearms would be reassuring, when doing load work-up with home-made propellant.
Have you tried reloading with any of the commercially manufactured black powder products for comparison (or are they even available to you)? I know how the manufacturers measure THEIR various granulations, but I do not know how YOU would, except with a magnifier and a "bigger than/less than" comparison. If your black powder had exactly the same formulation as the commercial stuff, and your granulation was larger, it would lead me to expect lower velocities from it, for it will tend to be slower-burning, and less of it may be put in the case...

I use Red Dot in the 32 S&W when I use smokeless powder. I stick to Lyman Handbook starting loads.

I did try GOEX 3f for comparison. I think I put the results over in the My Homemade Black Powder thread. It was a bit better than my homemade. It was not up to factory black powder ammo, but I think that is because it is 3f, probably needs to be 4F. I was thinking of maybe grinding some to see.

Tim

[rintinglen]

Steel is Steel... I can remember many folks Dissing and Cussing the Dan Wesson over being "cast"... then it was mentioned that Ruger did it too... no more Pissin and Moanin...and... Check the going price on old Dan Wessons!!! Poor Fragile darn things!!!!!

Steel ranges in tensile strength from about 40,000 PSI to over 150,000, depending on alloy type, heat treatment, carbon content and some other stuff. Especially in the area of heat treatment, there is a huge difference in metals produced since the end of WW I and those made before. Many revolvers produced in the 19th century should more accurately be described as "Iron" rather than steel.

I'd be looking at starting loads and black powder for my Iver Johnson unless I knew the date of production. Guns made after 1903 are usually considered to be safe for smokeless. Older guns are best suited to use with black powder only.

[cuzinbruce]

Do you know what caused it to stretch?

Tim

My assumption is firing with smokeless factory ammunition. I never fired the piece. The damage was already done when I saw it. Unfortunately I can't think of any way to repair this kind of problem. Make a new, longer cylinder???
Best info I have found on these type guns is "Gunsmithing Guns of the Old West" by David Chicoine.

[dtknowles]

Here is some data from the day. From an undated du Pont blackpowder pamphlet that also mentions the company makes smokeless and semi-smokeless powders. I think the cartridge cases with the old folded heads and probably thinner brass will hold more volume than you will get into modern brass.
32 S&W and S&W Long are at lower right hand corner.
Attachment 310737

I thanked you prematurely, I can read the picture.

Tim

[dtknowles]

A recap and one new data point.

I am making my own powder and decided to use my S&W 1 1/2 (3.5" barrel) for testing.

I was looking around for data on what was normal for this cartridge so I would know how my powder compares to historical norms.

New data point. I screened some GOEX 3f to get some finer powder and loaded 6.1 gr. of that finer powder with the same bullet I have been using. I clocked 571 fps. More than 100 fps improvement using the finer like maybe 4f powder.

The Lyman handbooks list a factory duplication load at 528 fps.

Other sources have factory ammo at more like 700 fps.

6 grains of GOEX 3f black powder produced 455 fps

My 6 gr. of homemade powder produced 395 fps.

One round of modern R-P head stamped ammo clocked 638 fps.

WRA round, 5 gr. of powder clocked 428 fps.

A Peters round, 5 gr. of powder clocked 508 fps.

A Rem UMC round, 6 gr. of powder clocked 590 fps.


Larry's testing data

WRA 7 gr of 4fg BP. Velocity with the 88 gr LRN bullets out of the 10" test barrel ran 725 fps.

One round of UMC 32 S&W with 6 gr pf BP under a 98 gr LRN bullet ran 14,200 psi.

Tim