Belgium Bulldog

Jim, it's possible that we're being overly cautious. I've read that a German company named Rickert continued manufacturing "bulldog-type" revolvers into the 1930's, and I wouldn't be surprised if Belgian manufacturers had done the same.

My Belgian .32 has a proof (crown over R) on the frame which was introduced in 1894, according to this website -

http://damascus-barrels.com/Belgian_All_Proofmarks.html

Unfortunately, I don't really know when it was manufactured or whether the engineers designed it for smokeless powder. It does not bear a "lion" nitro proof. Would you recommend shooting factory smokeless loads in it?
 
Don't forget the BULLET!

True, the Colt series of ammo including .32 and .38 Colt New Police/Police Positive, and .38 Colt Special, shared case dimensions with the Smith & Wesson cartridges.
But they had the Colt flatpointed bullet.
So deadly that it was assigned a full 10% extra effectiveness in the Hatcher Stopping Power formula.
 
"I don't know where folks got the idea that the old BP cartridges were loaded with BP after smokeless came into common use."

Because some still were right up through the last of the great cartridge purges in the 1930s.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think that the .44 Henry Flat was one of the last cartridges available in black powder, possibly along with the .56-56 Spencer, both of which were finally dropped in the early 1930s.

The .38 and .44 Specials, both of which had been developed with black powder (yes, the .44 Special, in 1907, the very last black powder cartridge ever developed commercially) and were available loaded with black at least until World War I.

The older cartridges that stuck around after the great purges, like the .32 Short Colt, were loaded with bulk replacement smokeless powders for many years.
 
I admit I don't know about the .44 Henry Flat, and I have heard that the .41 RF (the "Derringer" round) was loaded with BP quite late, perhaps until it was discontinued, but I fired .32 and .38 S&W cartridges loaded in the 1930's and since I didn't have coughing fits, assume they were loaded with smokeless.

I also repaired dozens of those old revolvers and test fired them with smokeless powder loads; none blew up in a mushroom cloud. I don't recommend firing the old guns (including Belgian guns) extensively with smokeless loads, but then I don't recommend firing them extensively with ANY loads. Will they blow up? Very unlikely unless they are obviously dangerous. Should you buy a case of modern ammo for practice and use an antique as your EDC? No.

Jim
 
You have to remember, too, that companies had different protocols for loading old rounds. Some may have switched to smokeless powders early on for some rounds, or stuck with black for a long, long time.

Some companies might not have wanted to go to the expense of updating their manufacturing processes to load smokeless in cartridges that were rapidly approaching obsolescence.

There's no definitive listing that I know of that has ever compiled this data on who was doing what when with any particular round.


"I also repaired dozens of those old revolvers and test fired them with smokeless powder loads; none blew up in a mushroom cloud."

No, I don't know of any that blew up, either. But I do know of quite a few black powder era breaktops with ductile iron frames that got looser and looser as they were shot more and more with smokeless powder.
 
FWIW, many of the old BP era breaktops shot loose with BP as well; they were not made or intended for long life. The bigger guns, like the S&W New Model #3, stood up pretty well, but the small guns just were not made for extensive use. Further, both IJ and H&R went through several variations of latching mechanism to keep them from shooting loose even before smokeless powder was introduced.

Actual blowups are very rare with factory loads, though I have seen a few split chambers on guns with paper-thin cylinder walls.

But the usual warning is not that the the old guns will eventually shoot loose, but that they will almost always "blow up" if fired with a factory load or equivalent smokeless powder load. That is just not the case.

Jim
 
HTML: 
<a href="http://s927.photobucket.com/user/rumbleguppy001/media/image.jpg2.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i927.photobucket.com/albums/ad117/rumbleguppy001/image.jpg2.jpg" border="0" alt=" photo image.jpg2.jpg"/></a>
 
Last edited:
Proof marks

Here are some photos of the proof marks which may help someone who's researching down the road.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg1.jpg
    image.jpg1.jpg
    143.5 KB · Views: 66
  • image.jpg2_1.jpg
    image.jpg2_1.jpg
    192.5 KB · Views: 53
  • image.jpg1_1.jpg
    image.jpg1_1.jpg
    207.3 KB · Views: 57
One more photo of the proof marks. It's interesting to see how many proof marks were on each firearm. I wonder if quality control was as involved as the many marks make it seem. Here's a question though, since black powder was slowly being replaced by smokeless at the time this pistol was made wouldn't the proof house in Leige have proofed the gun using smokeless cartridges? I mean they would have known smokeless blends would be being used in the guns and a proof house is more than just some guy with a hammer and a stamp. These were being exported to all around the world. Isn't there a point in history where firearms were made with both types of powder in mind?
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg4.jpg
    image.jpg4.jpg
    209.6 KB · Views: 49
New production black powder .32 S&W cartridges were available into the late 60s. (At least in Miami.) They were produced by Gevelot, a French arms company. I always bought them to shoot in an old Iver Johnson revolver that had been bequeathed to me, in spite of the salesman's insistence that factory smokeless rounds wouldn't hurt the gun.
 
Here's a question though, since black powder was slowly being replaced by smokeless at the time this pistol was made wouldn't the proof house in Leige have proofed the gun using smokeless cartridges?
Click to expand...

If it had been proved for smokeless, it would have a smokeless proof mark.
In Belgium that would be a (Lion) P.V. or a (Crown) P.V.

The little gun has already been messed with. Looks like the hammer spur was sawn off before Bubba's Bumper Shop plated it and the manual safety has been removed.
 
It hasn't been re-plated. It's simply not very old. Judging from the star over the T it was made sometime around 1952. The safety has been removed as it was inconvenient for a previous owner and the hammer was ground down. Don't much care about the safety but I would like to return the hammer to stock.
 
The NRA museum has a different explanation for Belgian proof marks according to the NRA website a crown over R means a rifled barrel to be used on a smokeless pistol. Who should I believe? The NRA or somebody who wrote a book? Ok, that sounded sarcastic but it is meant to be a serious question. As a former machinist I can tell that the cylinder was machined, not cast. Also the cylinder thickness is much thicker than my .32 RF black powder revolver. Here's the link. http://i927.photobucket.com/albums/ad117/rumbleguppy001/image.jpg1_2.jpg

And here's the link to the NRA museum.
http://www.nramuseum.com/media/940944/proofmarks.pdf
 
The problem with proof mark references is that everybody copied Wirnsberger. And Wirnsberger didn't provide quotations on where he got his data from.
 
The problem is not that "everybody copies Wirnsberger" but that they do not. "They" sometimes take his work as a source, then try to compress and summarize it, often without even making sense.

The "NRA" list, which seems to have been extracted from another source, says that the crown/R means "Rifled arms defense for smokeless powder proof parabellum pistols". That is gibberish.

Here is what Wirnsberger, translating from the proof house regulations, says:

This mark (crown/R) is applied to rifled barrels of:
a) Flobert rifles after proof with black powder
b) revolvers after black powder proof and 30 percent excess pressure
c) Flobert top-break pistols after semi-smokeless proof
d) revolvers after semi-smokeless proof and 50 percent excess pressure
e) muzzle loading handguns after black powder proof
f) long guns

Nothing is said specifically about "parabellum pistols", though it seems that "revolvers" includes autoloading pistols, a common practice in European law and regulations.

Jim
 
Rumblefrost, one of your photos shows a "Crown over ELG" proof on the rear of the cylinder. There doesn't seem to be any inconsistency with its meaning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top