Jim Watson
New member
The NIH was strong, the catalog cut does not even show .30 Army (.30-40 Krag.)
.41 Long Colt
- Thread starter ligonierbill
- Start date
Mike Irwin
Staff
"The NIH was strong, the catalog cut does not even show .30 Army (.30-40 Krag.)"
You mean the 1896 UMC catalog that I attached?
Sure it does. Second page. Shows several versions of the .30 Government cartridge, which was he official name for the .30-40 Krag.
You mean the 1896 UMC catalog that I attached?
Sure it does. Second page. Shows several versions of the .30 Government cartridge, which was he official name for the .30-40 Krag.
Jim Watson
New member
Page 2 does not show here.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I can see 21 pages.Jim Watson said:
Jim Watson
New member
How strange, my iMac only gives me that one illustration.
Talking about the rifle ad, not the ammo catalog.
It used to be one of those Widely Published Warnings that a Remington Rolling Block in 7mm caliber was not the same as a Spanish Mauser bolt action, that the headspace would show excessive. Or was it just slop in the barrel-breechblock-hammer engagements?
Talking about the rifle ad, not the ammo catalog.
It used to be one of those Widely Published Warnings that a Remington Rolling Block in 7mm caliber was not the same as a Spanish Mauser bolt action, that the headspace would show excessive. Or was it just slop in the barrel-breechblock-hammer engagements?
Last edited:
Mike Irwin
Staff
Driftwood Johnson
New member
Colt Single Action Army cylinders and frames were made of malleable iron starting in 1873. Although Colt had been making frames and cylinders from various types of steel as early as mid 1883, they did not factory warranty the Single Action Army for Smokeless powder until 1900 because of improvements in the heat treating of cylinders.
I'm pretty sure it was 1901 that Colt began putting a V/P in an upside down triangle on the trigger guard that stood for Verified Proof, signifying at a glance the revolver was factory warrantied for Smokeless Powder.
Smith and Wesson is harder to pin down.
I have searched high and low but I can fine no authoritative source on when S&W felt it was safe to fire Smokeless powder in their revolvers.
I have a reprint of a 1900 S&W catalog, and S&W is warning against shooting Smokeless powder in their revolvers in that catalog.
Smith and Wesson developed the 38 Special cartridge in 1899, and at the time it was loaded with Black Powder.
Here is a page from the 1900 S&W catalog regarding the new 38 Special cartridge.
This is the 38 Military and Police (Model of 1899) cataloged in 1900. S&W would not be factory warrantying this revolver for Smokeless Powder at this time. This revolver eventually became known as the Model 10 in 1957.
The 1905/1906 catalog is ambiguous. regarding the use of cartridges loaded with Smokeless powder. In it S&W cautions against the use of reloaded ammunition made with Smokeless powder, citing their view that the quality of the powder ammunition loaded with Smokeless powder may be questionable.
Quote:"Cartridges in which Smokeless powder is used are made by leading manufacturers, and they possess valuable qualities not found in Black Powder ammunition. They do excellent work in our revolvers, and while we do not guarantee our arms when Smokeless powder is used, and strongly advise against reloaded Smokeless ammunition, we have no desire to detract from its merits or discourage its use when properly handled"
Note: the Italics are mine.
So S&W was hedging their bets, not wanting to take responsibility if somebody blew up one of their revolvers with ammunition loaded with Smokeless powder.
Practically speaking, I don't believe Colt had access to better steel than S&W did about 25 miles up the Connecticut River, but S&W seemed to be hesitant to guarantee their revolvers for Smokeless powder.
The 44 Special cartridge was developed by S&W in 1907, originally loaded with Black Powder. When the Triple Lock was introduced in 1908, it was the first revolver chambered for the 44 Special cartridge, and by that time I have found no mention that the Triple Lock should not be fired with Smokeless ammunition, and the same for the 38 Military and Police.
highpower3006
New member
That's interesting. I knew about older Colts made begore 1900 not being rated for smokeless, but I didn't realize that S&W waited so long after 1900 to stipulate that it was okay to use it.
I have a rather rare Model 1899 First Model Target that was made in 1901. I have shot it a little bit using standard 148 grain wadcutter target loads as I thought that by '01 S&W would have rated their guns for smokeless powder.
I have a rather rare Model 1899 First Model Target that was made in 1901. I have shot it a little bit using standard 148 grain wadcutter target loads as I thought that by '01 S&W would have rated their guns for smokeless powder.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"The 44 Special cartridge was developed by S&W in 1907, originally loaded with Black Powder. When the Triple Lock was introduced in 1908, it was the first revolver chambered for the 44 Special cartridge, and by that time I have found no mention that the Triple Lock should not be fired with Smokeless ammunition, and the same for the 38 Military and Police."
UMC, which developed the .44 Special in conjunction with Smith & Wesson, offered both blackpowder AND smokeless loads for the .44 Special from initial introduction in their 1908 catalog.
https://cartridgecollectors.org/content/catalogs/U.M.C/1908 UMC.pdf
Smith & Wesson was covering all of its bases by doing so.
UMC, which developed the .44 Special in conjunction with Smith & Wesson, offered both blackpowder AND smokeless loads for the .44 Special from initial introduction in their 1908 catalog.
https://cartridgecollectors.org/content/catalogs/U.M.C/1908 UMC.pdf
Smith & Wesson was covering all of its bases by doing so.
Jim Watson
New member
Most calibers are shown with smokeless powder in my 1901 Sears catalog.
I wonder how much attention the customers were paying to that "rated" stuff.
When they could afford it.
I wonder how much attention the customers were paying to that "rated" stuff.
When they could afford it.
Mike Irwin
Staff
The only cartridges that didn't make a quick jump to the new smokeless powders, if they ever did, were very likely the least popular cartridges, especially the rimfires, rounds like the .30 Short and .30 Long or the .32 Extra Short.
My guess is that it didn't pay to put money into the research and testing needed to develop smokeless loads for those rounds.
Those rounds were also the most likely casualties of the first of the two great "line cleansings" of the 20th century.
Rounds like those were dropped during production changes for World War I and after the war they never came back.
The second great line cleansing was the Great Depression/World War II. Most of the rest of the old rimfires -- .38 Long, the .32s, the .41 Short, the Spencer rounds -- were dropped then.
Those two events also caught a lot of the older back powder (and even some of the early smokeless) cartridges, as well, rounds like the .38-72 and the .32 and .35 WSL cartridges.
My guess is that it didn't pay to put money into the research and testing needed to develop smokeless loads for those rounds.
Those rounds were also the most likely casualties of the first of the two great "line cleansings" of the 20th century.
Rounds like those were dropped during production changes for World War I and after the war they never came back.
The second great line cleansing was the Great Depression/World War II. Most of the rest of the old rimfires -- .38 Long, the .32s, the .41 Short, the Spencer rounds -- were dropped then.
Those two events also caught a lot of the older back powder (and even some of the early smokeless) cartridges, as well, rounds like the .38-72 and the .32 and .35 WSL cartridges.