.45 Colt and 3fg powder

In Spencer Wolfs book on loading the .45-70 for the Trapdoor Springfield, compress meant compress.

If I put 70 grains in my case, it almost fills the case. I use a compression die to push the powder down almost a half an inch, thus making it into a solid pellet, in order to seat the big old Govt 500 grain bullet over a card. The thing you get into with the original loads of compressed black powder are the primer flashhole sizes were larger than today, and the primers used then were roughly equivalent to magnum primers used today. If you mess with one factor, you create a chain of factors that need to be addressed.
 
I said horseback wasn't as steady, not that it's impossible to fire from a horse's back.

Remember, too, that the cavalry also got carbine Trapdoors. Shorter, lighter, and harder kicking with full service loads.


As for smokeless powder, the first smokeless propellants suitable for cartridge firearms were nitrated wood pulps, initially introduce in the late 1870s, IIRC. They were generally only suitable for use in shotshells. Loading them in metallic cartridges with solid lead bullets that had to be pushed through rifling quickly jumped pressures well past the early copper and brass cartridge cases.

The first viable smokless powder was Poudre B, developed by French chemist Michele Vielle around 1886. Other nations were working on the same project, and in rather rapid order Germany, Great Britain and the United States all developed viable smokeless powders suitable for use in handguns and rifles.

1895 marked the commercial introduction of the first two cartridges designed specifically for smokeless powder -- the .30-30 and .25-35 Winchester rounds.

It's very possible, though, that some ammo manufacturers started offering smokless loads for existing (originally blackpowder) cartridges a year or so before that, but it's tough to sort out.

Even with the introduction and rapid military adoption of smokeless powder, many people were still leery of it commercially and for a number of years new cartridges were developed for BOTH smokless and black powders and offered for sale in both loadings.

The three odd birds in the batch were the Specials... the .32 Winchester Special, the .38 Special, and the .44 Special.

The .32 Winchester was brought out to give shooters a .30-30-type cartridge that could be loaded with either smokeless or black powder.

The .38 Special was originally developed, in the late 1890s, with 18.5 grains of black powder and was offered in both loadings for at least a decade, possibly as late as World War I.

The real odd bird, though, was the .44 Special. It was introduced in 1907, making it the last commercial cartridge introduced as either a blackpowder only or hybrid cartridge. It was also available in black powder up until around WW I.

It would appear that the military switched to smokeless powder in .38 Long Colt and .45 Long Colt cartridges around the same time, 1896-97 or thereabouts.
 
sundance44s, Thanks for the link.

W. C. Quantrill, Thanks for the history.

Mike Irwin, I see I mis read, but the intent is you guys can work out loads, and figure all you like to find answers. The one thing you can't do easily is become 130 to 145 pounds. I can't become 190.

I have been this 145 since 1979, with very little change other than ageing which no one can stop.

As a country dweller i tend to be active in what might be somewhat similar chores as men did commonly in the 19th century, and most men don't do so much of these days, unless they do it with power tools which were not around then.

So it makes me wonder just what smaller men could take? I do agree the articals of clothing in museums seems to prove that most men were indeed smaller than we are, back then.

Once I made the error, or what I thought was an error, in that the 30-30 was a black powder round, and lost that arugment. My thinking at that time was the first 30 was the calibur, and the last was grains of FFFg Black Powder.

So now this has turned around again and just maybe the 30-30 was used with commercial black powder loads after all?
 
I think the 30-30 name was a carry over from the earlier designation system of including the powder charge in the cartridge's name, even though, in the 30-30's case, the powder wasn't black powder.
 
Mac:
I was only havin a bit of fun, sorry friend..

As far as I know & have been already mentioned, the .30-30 Winchester & ofcorse the .30-40 Krag "or U.S." was not developed for Black Powder as both rounds were developed around 1892-93 when the first U.S. made smokeless powders were made available.

Copied from Wikkipedia:
The rimmed 30-40 round was also known as .30 Army. The .30-40 Krag was the first smokeless powder round adopted by the U.S. military, but it retained the "caliber-charge" naming system of earlier black powder cartridges, i.e., the .30-40 Krag employs a .30 caliber (7.62 mm) bullet propelled by 40 grains (2.59 g) of smokeless powder. As with the .30-30 Winchester, it is the use of black powder nomenclature that often leads to the incorrect assumption that the .30-40 Krag was once a black powder cartridge.

The .45 colt pistol Cartridge was loaded with 40gr. of FFG Black Powder till about 1894-96 Which many know is about when Colt changed the single screw that held the cylinder pin in place to the more common spring loaded cross bolt design.
 
"As with the .30-30 Winchester, it is the use of black powder nomenclature that often leads to the incorrect assumption that the .30-40 Krag was once a black powder cartridge."


Here's a bit of trivia for everyone...

Britain's first smokeless powder rifle cartridge, the .303, started out life as a black powder cartridge.

Cordite wasn't ready when the round was adopted for military service in 1888.
 
The loads worked alright. They seem to be comparable to my 8 gr Unique load....only more smoke! ;) I only loaded 12 as the only bullets were lubed for smokeless powder and I didn't want a mess.

As mentioned in another thread, I did have a minor bind up around the third shot. I don't know what it was as no bullets came unseated and no primers proturded, but the gun just seized up! :confused: I fiddled with it....nothing in particular, it unstuck and I continued on.

After that, I switched to my standard load (Unique) and had further problems (also dealt with in My Black Powder Baptism) in that I had frequent lite primer strikes...I'd say 8-10 out of 38 rounds. After getting them to fire (all with healthy firing pin dents) and playing with the firing pin (EAA Bounty Hunter with transfer bar safety) I think I've zeroed it down to either a sticking firing pin, or the transfer bar. I say this because I think I caught myself putting pressure on the trigger as I was cocking for the next shot. Maybe this was enough pressure to partially raise the transfer bar and partially block the hammer as it fell. To that end, I am going to leave it out when I reassemble the piece.
 
Ok, that didn't work.......

You can't take the transfer bar safety out.................it won't fire without it as it is an interface that closes the gap between the hammer and the firing pin. The hammer is machined so it can't hit the pin by itself.....ergo......slipped hammer and no trigger movement means no bang!

I also figured out that my misfires were caused by the sheet metal transfer bar occasionally "wandering" under the firing pin (its an intentionally loose fit inside the frame) and when the trigger is pulled, which normally moves the bar up into firing position, it jams it under the pin instead. No interface = no bang. :(

I need a hammer not made for a transfer bar safety. This gun has been made by two or three different manufacturers during the last decade or two so I wonder if it was ever made without that feature?
 
Transfer bar

I can't be sure about your gun but it sounds like the cylinder pin isn't seated all the way in. I have a Ruger Vaquero and it's cylinder pin, [I think it's commonly called a base pin], has a small plunger on the end that serves to contact and thus float the transfer bar away from the firing pin so that the transfer bar doesn't jam against the firing pin while the revolver is being cocked. I hope this helps.
 
I also figured out that my misfires were caused by the sheet metal transfer bar occasionally "wandering" under the firing pin (its an intentionally loose fit inside the frame) and when the trigger is pulled, which normally moves the bar up into firing position, it jams it under the pin instead. No interface = no bang.
Click to expand...

What kind of gun is it? This exact thing was one of the problems with my new Taurus Gaucho. I called Taurus customer service and they just put me on hold and never came back.

So I got a local gunsmith to fit the firing pin. Now it works just fine. Cost me $35, but it would have cost that much to send it back to Taurus for warranty work and who knows how long that would take and if they would have actually fixed it.
 
I have a question related to the original topic:

I have a Taurus Gaucho. Several times I have loaded .45 colt with Pyrodex P, about 32 grs (by volume) and this is a pretty snappy load. More recoil than any smokeless load I'd trust in it. I got my hands on some semi-balloon head brass and I think I could get 35 grs of P or FFFg Goex behind a 255gr bullet. Any possibility this would be too much pressure for my Taurus Gaucho?

I like the idea of a hotter load for carrying in the woods, but the Gaucho is a reproduction so I wouldn't try anything hot with a smokeless load. Conventional wisdom says that a BP load should be safe in it, at least up to the 40 gr original load, right?

zxcvbob: For the sake of comparing notes, my Gaucho had a transfer bar problem, too. It only fired consistently if I really yanked the trigger back. With a gentle squeeze the transfer bar didn't come up quite enough to get the firing pin deep enough into the primer. My dealer sent it back to Taurus at no cost to me, and I got it back in 3 weeks, they fixed it up fine. It's been a great piece since!
 
Don't really know what the problem was. Its not evident now! The base pin was seated and it does have a plunger........maybe it just needed a cleaning........I'll have to wait and see......thanks......
 
Ifishsum said:
I have a question related to the original topic:

I have a Taurus Gaucho. Several times I have loaded .45 colt with Pyrodex P, about 32 grs (by volume) and this is a pretty snappy load. More recoil than any smokeless load I'd trust in it. I got my hands on some semi-balloon head brass and I think I could get 35 grs of P or FFFg Goex behind a 255gr bullet. Any possibility this would be too much pressure for my Taurus Gaucho?

I like the idea of a hotter load for carrying in the woods, but the Gaucho is a reproduction so I wouldn't try anything hot with a smokeless load. Conventional wisdom says that a BP load should be safe in it, at least up to the 40 gr original load, right?
Click to expand...

Being that your revolver is of modern manufacture then yes it would be safe to use with the hottest Black Powder loads that you can muster in a .45 Colt round but you are right about not using any hot Smokless Powder loads through your gun because most of the really hot loads are for those with Ruger designed & built pieces in which yours is deffinitly not.

Have fun & shoot em up.
 
Your bullet diameter has a distinct bearing on your accuracy. Also the bullet alloy. For most black powder guns, your bullet alloy should be 1:20 or 1:40 alloy. Wheel weights are ok for cartridge pistols, but not for Black powder guns.

Another thing, on your revolvers, if the .452 normal bullets dont give you accuracy, try the .454's. It could be that your cylinder mouths are not consistent with your barrel. Venturino mentioned in his article that the pistol he was testing wasnt accurate, and he went up to the .454 bullets and cured the problem because of the leaking at the cylinder mouth. If your bullets are too hard to obiturate into the rifling, you will get excessive leading in your barrels also. Black powder is a whole different game than smokeless.

In my .45 Colt, I use 275 gr Keith SWC's. I normally run them with 10.5 gr of Unique for about 1150fps out of the 7-1/2" Ruger. It is not bad to shoot, and I use it to hunt deer, it has proven effective out to 50-75 yards, and they still fall out of the cylinder after being shot.

40 gr of FFFg is just brutal. 40 gr of FFg is still too much by my way of thinking. 35 gr of FFg with the 275 g bullet is still a performer. 30 gr of FFFg seems to be similar to the 35g FFg load. These loads are serious loads. They will still provide accurate, high energy loads at 50 yards.

Shoot Magazine had an article a year or so back and they mentioned that the average size of a cavalry fellow about the Civil War and shortly afterwards was about 5'7" and about 130 pounds. Yes the Trapdoor Carbine was a rough shoot with the rifle cartridges. Those guys were tougher by far than we are these days, but, there were still some things they didnt do. 5'10 and 145 would be a big man in those days!!

I still die laughing about the fellows that slipped the black powder loaded .45 ACP into the fellows 1911 magazine. I guess smoke and fire went everywhere when he shot it and he totally freaked out. So did all the other guys on the line that were waiting for it to happen.
 
While we're on the subject, what's everyone's opinions on loads for Uberti Schofield replicas?

I presume they're OK for standard .45 Colt loads, since that's what they're chambered for. My Schofields seem well made. I know the Uberti version is beefed up compared to the original. On the other hand, they're still break-top revolvers, I presume not as strong as solid-frame designs. And the original version was chambered in its own .45 Schofield cartridge, which I think was limited to 30 grains black powder, not the Colt's nominal 40 grains.

Any opinions?

Since I bust targets with them, and since I've never ever had a paper target get up and charge me after being shot, I've been reloading with mild charges of Unique. I don't have my data here, but I think 8 grains, please don't hold me to that or assume it's OK. For so-called BP loads I've been thinking of going to full cases of American Pioneer, since I can get it locally without special ordering. It seems mild in my cap and ball revolvers, so I'm pretty sure it would be OK in the Ubertis too.

However, I just went into hock for another toy; one of the S&W Model 25 Classics they just reintroduced, nickeled, lawyer-lock and all. (I know, I know, a lot of people will say I shouldn't touch a lock-equipped gun. I guess I'm just a degenerate, but it's my money.) That's got me more interested in loading .45s to standard pressure and velocity again. I'll continue to use mild loads in everything rather than have two different loads sitting around the house, if the Ubertis aren't up to a steady diet of standard stuff. But I suspect the S&W might be more fun, might even shoot better, with something above minimum.
 
I was looking at a Schofield replica this weekend.

The counter donkey told me that ".45 Russian" was one of the available chamberings.

Became adamant when I told him there was no such thing as a .45 Russian.

Sigh...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top