44 WCF Smokeless Loads

[PJ Hardtack]

If the laws of ballistics that apply to rifle cartridges also apply to pistol cartridges, fillers with small charges of smokeless may not be a good idea. The following quotes are from the Spring 2005 issue of Black Powder Cartridge News, an article on chamber ringing by Steve Garbe. His reference was "The Modern Schuetzen Rifle" by Wayne Schwartz.

"A tuft of Dacron fiber weighing about .03 grs was used to hold the powder near the case head with the intent of building pressure to fire form his cases. Using a new case for each shot, we proceeded and got torn necks, split cases and within a few shots a ring started to develop right where the base of the bullet had been. After destroying several cases, we had a significant ring in the barrel."
"We also tried kapok, felt in several thicknesses different quantities of Dacron, and target paper as well as wads made from newspaper. In all cases where the powder was held back against the inside of the case head we developed a ring; loads with Dacron producing the most prominent rings."

"The basic cause of ringing is that a coherent column of high velocity gas and burning grs of powder with considerable kinetic energy, when hitting the base of a stationary bullet, has to stop and in the process generates a thin ring of very high static pressure under the well known law regarding the conservation of energy."

"Experiences reported by other shooters indicated that a charge of loose powder did not ring chambers whereas the same load restrained by a wad against the powder face would sometimes ring and that old barrels were more prone to damage that barrels made of commonly used modern steel."
"The most commonly used filler is corn meal or similar cereal. I have never used this concept as over the years, I have seen several guns that have had half of the cartridge case pulled somewhere up the barrel from the chamber. The cases were pulled apart just about where the filler and powder interface had been."

The author conducted further tests using no filler, holding the rifle vertically. "This test confirmed our view that the ringing was not a result of the wad impacting on the bullet base causing it to enlarge, and so ring the barrel." He states:

"So much for the wads themselves being the culprit. Further test firing straight down produced no sign of a ring."

Reading this article was enough to convince me that I never wanted to experiment with loads using wads and small powder charges in ANY gun. Modern gun steels may well withstand the pressures generated, but I can live without knowing ......

[w44wcf]

PJ Hardtack,
Thank you for the reference. I remember reading that back then. One thing that I thought was peculiar was the use of Bullseye powder which, to me,  is much too fast burning for conclusive testing.  Early smokeless powders used in b.p. cartridges were DuPont No 1 (approx. 4198 burning rate), DuPont No 2 (approx. 4227 burning rate) and Sharpshooter (approx 2400 burning rate).  Too bad that they did not test these powders which would have been the correct thing to do . 

Here is a factory 45-70 Short Range Factory cartridge cut away. Note the slower burning DuPont No 2 Bulk smokeless used with the over powder wad. If there would have been a problem with this cartridge ringing chambers, Winchester would have never put it on the market. Then again, they didn't use Bullseye powder either.



Also, the bullet used is 1/2 the weight of the standard 45-70 bullet and is similar in weight to 44-40 bullets.  Less weight = less resistance.

All that being said, I see no problem using case fillers (preferably PSB) BUT ONLY WITH POWDERS like  2400 or slower in the 44-40. I have shot a number of 44-40 rounds so loaded with no ill effects.

I see no issue with using a disc (.005" - .010" thick paper ) or a small square of toilet paper over faster burning powders since they are pretty much consumed by the time they reach the base of the bullet.

w44wcf
 

   

[PJ Hardtack]

w44wcf

Like my posting said, the problem wasn't caused by the wads.

I don't knock success. If you're getting the results you want, have at 'er! I'm not a ballistician, just lazy. I'm happy with the results I get not using wads.

The other place I see no use for fillers is with cap & ball revolvers. None of them hold enough powder to hurt you. Messing with any kind of filler seems down right silly.

[Joe Lansing]

    Has anyone any experience with 44-40 pistol loads using Bullseye in their long guns?

                                                        JL

[w44wcf]

PJ Hardtack,
Yes, not in the article you referenced, but in another article I had read, hard card wads seated down on the powder did cause chamber ringing in the 45-70.

I don't use fillers much at all in most of my shooting but they can and do improve accuracy / standard deviations in some instances so I would not call them silly at all. 

One of the things they do very well is act as a flexible gas check.  A friend bought an original 1876 Winchester in .45-60. The barrel was pretty bad, very rough with lots of pitting.  25 yard groups with smokeless were 12"+ with bullets keyholing.
We then tried adding PSB (Poly Shot Buffer) and what a difference that made. 5 shots in 1 1/2" with all bullets going straight on!
The PSB kept the gas behind the bullet, allowing it to transverse the barrel undisturbed.

That was later repeated in two other vintage leverguns with rough barrels in 38-40 and 44-40. Obviously relining would have been required to shoot  standard cartridges (no filler) accurately, but the owners wanted to keep their rifles in the original condition.

Joe,
I have not, but I know someone who does. I'll check with him and report back.

w44wcf 

[PJ Hardtack]

w444wcf

If psb works in the app you mentioned, so be it. Like I said - I don't knock success.

As for SD, some of the most accurate loads have been those with the greatest SD shot for shot. I've read more than one article that discusses this as one of the great 'everyone knows' gun myths. One was regarding SD in .22 LR ammo using a Win M52 target rifle as the the test bed. Some of the best groups came from ammo with the widest variation shot for shot, brands you wouldn't think of buying.

A more recent one was using an accurate 1911 in a Ransom machine rest. The author fired hundreds of rds to get his findings. He used a 'control' batch of uniform brass of one make vs a mixed bag of several makes and OAL. The most accurate load was comprised of that batch and had the widest SD.
I feel there is as much if not more variation in how I am feeling that day, the atmospherics, light conditions, correolis effect, etc., than there is in precision reloading concerns like concentricity, case uniformity, etc. I'm simply not interested or that good of a shot for it to matter.

I once went to the nth degree with a tacticool .308 trying to beat the accuracy I got with 150 gr PSP hunting ammo I bought on sale at Wal*Mart. I did it, but it wasn't worth the effort.
Several years ago, I was gifted with a chronograph. It's been out of the box twice - once to prove it worked and the 2nd to learn that the factories and reloading manuals lied about their velocities.

Like I said - I'm just lazy and have to apply the KISS principle to my handloading.

[Rowdy Fulcher]

Howdy
I like the Unique it performs on paper for me . Dropped  a coyote with it today . the 8.6 load works GREAT .

[Jubal Wilson]

The only ringed chambers that I have seen in my 56 years of shooting sports occurred when a very fast powder like Bullseye was held to the base of the case by a card wad or compressed paper or similar. This configuration has a large air space that allows the wad or similar to get a running start at base of the bullet. With the Puff-Lon or PSB there is no air space, the case is filled to the mouth then the bullet compresses the filler by the depth of bullet seating. I find the Puff-Lon increases the velocity by about 10% so there is some increase in pressure. An article I read in Handloader magazine stated that the author of the article used 9.5 grains of Unique in the 44WCF to get a velocity in the 1300s so I think by using 8.5 grains of Unique and Puff-Lon to get 1260 fps should be safe for me and my rifle. It has been working for almost 30 years.
Jubal

[Joe Lansing]

    The use of fillers can be traced back to reloading at the time when smokeless was becoming available. When loading with BP, there was NO neck sizing. A case full of BP kept the bullet from falling in, and a crimp kept the bullet from falling out. With a lesser volume of smokeless powder, fillers were needed to keep the bullet from falling into the case (usually corn meal or a similar cereal) and were found to work. Of course, it was often discovered that using fillers required a reduced smokeless charge to keep the pressures at a safe level. There must have been some tough lessons learned.

    I did some 44-40 test fireing with Bullseye (no filler), and here are the results: all loads using 200gr hard cast .427 bullet.3 shots each. 24" barrel Uberti '73.

    6.0gr Bullseye, aver. vel.1135fps., 37fps dev.

    6.6gr Bullseye, aver. vel.1185fps., 22fps dev.


    Also tried was 18gr 4759 (no filler),3 shots. same bullet, aver. vel. 1350fps., 48fps dev.   


                                                              JL

   

[w44wcf]

PJ Hardtack,
Yes, I have seen examples where the some loadings with a larger SD sometimes produce the smallest groups. 

Joe,
Thank you for your data on Bullseye. I may give that a try sometime.
I found that my friend uses the 6.6  grs. which was the load shown in an earlier Hercules powder pamphlet.

w44wcf  

[Coal Creek Griff]

Just as a bit of an update, I finally settled on a Unique load that gives me just under 1200 fps.  As long as I hold the rifle level, it is consistent and accurate.

I also purchased an Accurate Molds 43-215C mold that casts great bullets.  It is designed for BP, but works great with smokeless too.  I chose it for that flexibility.  The crimp grove is perfect: a slight roll crimp into the groove holds the bullet in place and doesn't crumple the cases.  I am able to seat and crimp at the same time (I had had trouble with this with othe molds--if I roll-crimped hard enought to hold the bullet, it tended to crumple the cases.  I had to use a factory crimp die in a separate process).  The loaded rounds look virtually identical to those loaded with my antique Winchester mold.  I exchanged a couple of emails with Tom at Accurate Molds regarding my alloy and the bullets cast at exactly the size I wanted and fit my barrel and chamber well enough that I can shoot without sizing if I choose.

Anyway, thanks for all of the comments and advice, gents.    I really appreciate it!

CC Griff

[w44wcf]

CC Griff,
Thank you for the update. I'm happy to hear that the 43-215C is working very well for you.

w44wcf

[Rowdy Fulcher]

W44wcf
Have you ever used any H4227 in a 44wcf ?

[Rowdy Fulcher]

Howdy
I guess I've got Olde Timers syndrome . I used this powder some time ago and forgot . I found my own reply about it on the NCOWS site . Oh and I didn't care for it back then .

[Mike]

 "Also tried was 18gr 4759 (no filler),3 shots. same bullet, aver. vel. 1350fps., 48fps dev."

I tried 17.5 grn of 4759 in my 73 20 inch today and was pleased with the results not sure I would want to use 18grn and the 17.5 was a full case (to the base of my lead bullet). I did get some un burnt powder. I plan to try 15-16.5 and see what happens.

   

[w44wcf]

W44wcf
Have you ever used any H4227 in a 44wcf ?

Rowdy,
Yes I have. Probably burned up 5-6 lbs in my original '73. It gave excellent accuracy if I positioned the powder to the back of the case (raising the muzzle momentarily before closing the lever all the way).  I also used a small square of toilet paper to hold the powder in place with good results.

4227 has an equivalent burning rate to the early DuPont No. 2 in that 17 grs of either = 1,300 f.p.s. (if the 4227 is positioned to the back of the case)  DuPont No. 2 was used in the first 44-40 smokeless cartridges. Being a bulk smokeless powder it filled the case capacity under the bullet completely as this pic shows.


 

w44wcf

[KirkD]

The following quotes are from the Spring 2005 issue of Black Powder Cartridge News, an article on chamber ringing by Steve Garbe. His reference was "The Modern Schuetzen Rifle" by Wayne Schwartz.

The use of Bullseye for the above test is truly bizarre. Bullseye is a very fast powder with a very sharp pressure spike. I would never use filler with a powder that fast. I usually draw the line somewhere around 2400 or IMR 4227 or 5744. That test is useless for telling us anything about the proper use of fillers, which should NOT be with fast powders and should not be with corn meal or cream of wheat, which harden. I have used filler for years in many different calibers and all in old Winchesters at least 100 years old and never had the remotest sign of ringing, but then again, I didn't do something crazy like use Bullseye with filler. Currently, I use a tuft of cotton in my 44-40 loads using 5744 as my powder.

[w44wcf]

The use of Bullseye for the above test is truly bizarre. Bullseye is a very fast powder with a very sharp pressure spike. I would never use filler with a powder that fast. I usually draw the line somewhere around 2400 or IMR 4227 or 5744. That test is useless for telling us anything about the proper use of fillers, which should NOT be with fast powders and should not be with corn meal or cream of wheat, which harden. I have used filler for years in many different calibers and all in old Winchesters at least 100 years old and never had the remotest sign of ringing, but then again, I didn't do something crazy like use Bullseye with filler. Currently, I use a tuft of cotton in my 44-40 loads using 5744 as my powder.

Kirk,
I totally agree that the use of Bullseye in that test is not "real world". Bullseye was never used in any factory .45-70 cartridges including the reduced "Short Range" and "Armory" Loadings.  Sharpshooter was the fastest powder that was factory loaded in the .45-70 and its burning rate is close to 2400.

Your load of 5744 with a tuft of cotton is a very good one producing very good results and, in away, is similar to the early capacity loading of DuPont No 2 bulk smokeless.
w44wcf

[w44wcf]

Speaking of DuPont No. 2 bulk smokeless (see pic in a recent post), I found some cartridges loaded with that powder in a recent purchase of a number of vintage 44 WCF and 44-40 ammunition headstamped W.R.A. CO., U.M.C., U.S.C. Co., PETERS & REM-UMC.

I  Also found some that were factory loaded with Semi-Smokeless, Sharpshooter, and Hazard No. 2, another bulk smokeless similar in density and burning rate to DuPont No. 2. I was like a kid in a candy store.

After dissecting some of the cartridges, I removed and discarded the old mercuric primers, cleaned, annealed and resized the brass. I then reprimed, placed the powder back into the cases and seated the bullets.  

In testing, I found that these vintage cartridges that "those who have gone before us" would have used back in their day to be very accurate and consistant, better than what is available today.

w44wcf

[KirkD]

My pet load for my original Winchester Model 1873 (made in 1889) is, as mentioned above, 17.7 grains of 5744 under a tuft of cotton filler and a 205 grain gas checked bullet from the Accurate Mould company. Twelve shots over the chronograph gave an average velocity of 1,301 fps, an extreme spread in velocity of 28 fps, and a standard deviation of 8 fps. At 100 yards, that load gives me five shot groups of anywhere from 1 & 3/4" to 2 & 3/4. At 200 yards, I can get 5" groups on a calm day.