.44-40 primer choice

[Savvy_Jack]

I performed some pressure tests for the 44-40 cartridges a few years ago. I discovered a few things I was not expecting....

First, the 44-40 (44 W.C.F.) has always been a "solid-head" case since first advertised in 1874. (see attached photo).

Second, the size of the solid-head's, "semi-balloon pocket" varied over the years, meaning...starting out large and tapering off over time until becoming a full solid head.

Third, Black Powder was loaded by weight (40gr) and compressed as needed in order to fit 40gr and a lead bullet. Typical compression of the powder varied between .17" and .21", pending the weight per volume density as well as the size of the "pocket". It is 100% possible to compress 40gr of Swiss FFg into a starline case...and has been done by me many many times. An early unheadstamped case handloaded with black powder yielded no compressed powder of which was 37gr. This can be seen here, look at item #8:

Forth, velocity seams to be effected by the "pocket" design. Note the velocities from the tests using period cases, as per velocity advertised.

Fifth, smokeless powder loads used the same semi-balloon pocket brass thus the reason the 44 W.H.V. loads were not to be reloaded.

On to the test results...enjoy!

44-40 Solid-Head, Semi-Balloon pocket velocities and pressures.
.
.
.
.
.

 

[Savvy_Jack]

I also ran into a split pocket while shooting black powder test loads. I highly discourage the continued use of balloon pocket brass with black powder. I greatly discourage ever using the same with any smokeless powder.

 

[44 AMP]

I heard that "somebody" was making new balloon head cases for the cowboy action shooter crowd, though since its not my thing, I don't recall who was doing it, or what calibers were being done.

 

[Unclenick]

Interesting to see the terminology shift from what we call either semi-balloon head or solid balloon head was being called a solid head when the cartridge first came out. It probably seemed pretty solid to them coming right after balloon heads. I assume balloon heads existed both as a carryover from rimfire and to save brass. Life could never have been very good.


Jack,

Interesting work and collection overall. I notice the rolled cannelure in the case doesn't appear until 1903, and all the older cases are straight. That surprised me, as I'd been told at one time that those deep rolled cannelures were used to limit bullet seating depth. Clearly nonsense. The black powder alone would have stopped it. Thanks for the interesting information.

BTW, you appear to have a typo of the sort a spell checker won't mark. It's in the first column, row 15 of the history Excel file you shared.

 

[Savvy_Jack]

I am still learning as I go, the best teacher is actual artifacts and original data. The terminology took/takes a bit of getting use to but I learned a lot from actual period publications and how the words were used by different people. I takes a lot of getting use to for it to start sinking in.

I am teachable and always willing to learn.

The rolled cannelure should have been introduced in 1895 with the introduction/use of smokeless powder. However, I do not have an example to share.

The interesting part, as you mentioned, is that it was not needed for black powder loads because the bullet rested on top of the black powder. The early 1895 smokeless powder used by Winchester (Dupont No.2 Rifle) also filled the case just like black powder (volume for volume)...the bullet sitting on top of the powder. The difference being that the black powder was compressed (loaded by weight and compressed into volume), mouth crimped into the soft lead and the smokeless was not compressed (loaded by volume, however, typically 17gr)...thus the cannelure to insure the new JSP bullet did not telescope down into the case from the pressures of the rifle mag tube spring. Winchester did not use lead bullets with a crimp groove and the JSP bullet's "U" shaped groove was not full proof. Earlier JSP bullet grooves were a bit more like a crimp groove than the later and current design, but the cannelure was the safeguard.



Black Powder - loaded by weight and compressed to fit the volume.
Smokeless (Dupont No. 2 Rifle)- loaded by volume but weighed 17gr
Dense Smokeless Powders (Sharpshooter/SR-80, etc)- loaded by weight

I am still learning about early smokeless powders, what I know so far can be seen here Most of what I right is for my own use, more so published notes...always subject to editing without notice.

Thanks for pointing out the mis-spelling.....it's a full time job...LOL I think I fixed it but I am sure there are others. I jab away as I go!!



My apologies again for getting off topic but it happens when certain information begins to get a bit off actual data.

Just a refresh of the primers, the rifle primers stick out past the base of the cartridge base, best to use large pistol of which were called Winchester #111 primers before the name calling was implemented. The early small primer pocket black powder and smokeless powder cases used the smaller #1 primers, and are basically the same size as modern small pistol primers...of which I use to replace those #1 primers when testing with those cases.

 

[44 AMP]

Before "the Great War", my grandfather loaded 12ga shells with what he called "DuPont Bulk Powder". I have no idea what DuPont called it. It was loaded dram for dram with black powder, using a scoop.

It was SmokeLESS powder, not the modern low smoke stuff of today. It did smoke LESS than black powder, but not by a lot. And, it wasn't black. It looked like ground oatmeal.

Papa bought his ("newest" shotgun and the last one he bought) in 1909, a fine Ithaca double. I have it, today. Someday, if he be worth, my grandson will get it.

Always knew the case cannelure was to keep the bullet from being pushed in, didn't realize that it wasn't really a thing before smokeless powder loads.

 

[Unclenick]

IIRC, the Winchester Lesmok powder used in 22 RF was black powder with a coating of nitrocellulose fibers to come out looking grayish. Sounds like a variant of that—certainly the right era.



Jack,

You fixed it. Now your horse is no longer "fixed."

 

[ballardw]

I have a partial can of Laflin&Rand early smokeless powder that shows loads for a number of rifle only cartridges, .38-55, .45-70 and .45-90 are somewhat legible and shows charge weights and volume measure (drams). A bit difficult to read as the paper wrapping the can has 100+ years of abrasion and there are more cartridges but harder to read.

I also have a mostly full can of Kings Semi-smokeless powder but the can only has claims to "extreme cleanliness" and no load data.
(Not that I'm likely to use either of these powders)

 

[Savvy_Jack]

Before "the Great War", my grandfather loaded 12ga shells with what he called "DuPont Bulk Powder". I have no idea what DuPont called it. It was loaded dram for dram with black powder, using a scoop.

It was SmokeLESS powder, not the modern low smoke stuff of today. It did smoke LESS than black powder, but not by a lot. And, it wasn't black. It looked like ground oatmeal.

Papa bought his ("newest" shotgun and the last one he bought) in 1909, a fine Ithaca double. I have it, today. Someday, if he be worth, my grandson will get it.

Always knew the case cannelure was to keep the bullet from being pushed in, didn't realize that it wasn't really a thing before smokeless powder loads.

Dupont Shotgun Powder in the green can

 

[Savvy_Jack]

IIRC, the Winchester Lesmok powder used in 22 RF was black powder with a coating of nitrocellulose fibers to come out looking grayish. Sounds like a variant of that—certainly the right era.



Jack,

You fixed it. Now your horse is no longer "fixed."

LOL, thanks...go find more, they are there!!!

 

[Savvy_Jack]

I have a partial can of Laflin&Rand early smokeless powder that shows loads for a number of rifle only cartridges, .38-55, .45-70 and .45-90 are somewhat legible and shows charge weights and volume measure (drams). A bit difficult to read as the paper wrapping the can has 100+ years of abrasion and there are more cartridges but harder to read.

I also have a mostly full can of Kings Semi-smokeless powder but the can only has claims to "extreme cleanliness" and no load data.
(Not that I'm likely to use either of these powders)

The paper wrapping the can, please do share a photo!!

The Laflin & Rand powders were eventually taken over by Dupont by 1902. Then the Laflin & Rand line of powders were handed over to Hercules....then Alliant, whom still manufactures Unique (1900) and Bullseye (1899), from the Laflin & Rand line.

If the powder you have for the 38-55 is also used/listed for the 45-70, then it would be of the cooler burning powders such as Sharpshooter, which can be seen here

32-40, 38-55, 38-56, 40-82, 45-70 and the 45-90

Dupont's "Bulk for Bulk" powders literally had the load data "wrapper" wrapped around the can....can be seen here

 

[Jim Watson]

DuPont Bulk Smokeless Shotgun powder came out in 1893 and was still in production in 1948. I doubt it is a hybrid like Lesmok or King's Semi-Smokeless.
The precautions Phil Sharpe gives for loading this and other bulk powders would curl the hair of We Internet Loaders.

The English of the period listed smokeless powders by how much it took to produce a 3 dram equivalent shot shell, things like "a 32 grain powder."

 

[Savvy_Jack]

DuPont Bulk Smokeless Shotgun powder came out in 1893 and was still in production in 1948. I doubt it is a hybrid like Lesmok or King's Semi-Smokeless.
The precautions Phil Sharpe gives for loading this and other bulk powders would curl the hair of We Internet Loaders.

The English of the period listed smokeless powders by how much it took to produce a 3 dram equivalent shot shell, things like "a 32 grain powder."

Dupont No. 2 is certainly not a hybrid...pure bulk smokeless powder.
Sharp does give precautions and it makes it a bit nerviousome if I were loading back in 1895. I probably would have stuck with black powder..LOL. One of the things, however, I never saw was the "dust" settling in the primer as he mentioned. Nor did I ever see any "crushed or broken" grains of those I dissected. The book I have of Sharpe's is the 1937 edition. My tests with Dupont No. 2 came up slightly short of the advertised, but I expected worse with such an old powder example.

John Kort dried his powder out in the oven and got slightly better results.

 

[ballardw]

John Kort dried his powder out in the oven and got slightly better results.

That isn't nervous making at all...

 

[Unclenick]

That isn't nervous making at all...

And it's worse than just the danger of the oven lighting it up. For smokeless powder, if you dry it out (I would use a desiccant rather than heat), the relative burn rate goes up. Norma has tables showing some of their powder can increase in relative burn rate by 12%, going from the same lot stored in 80% RH to near 0% RH. So it gets hotter as it gets dryer, for sure.

 

[Jim Watson]

Right. I once bought some old stock H240 in the fiber board can. General recommendations were 2400 minus 10%. Which turned out to be an overload.
I figure it had been on that shelf in an air conditioned shop long enough to dry out through the permeable container.

The next question is, did the loss of moisture (and residual solvents) just increase the relative density of NC-NG or was there a chemical effect that made the NC NG "burn" faster?

 

[Unclenick]

The only one I know of is something Slamfire once put up that he'd got from a Naval Ordnance test, which was a powder that has consumed its stabilizer can start eating away at its deterrents before doing much to the NC/NG itself and, again the result is faster relative burn rate. In the Navy test, IIRC, it took a 7.62 M80 ball and aged it artificially in a 140°F oven for something like a year and a half. In the end, the peak pressure went from 48,000 CUP when it was new to just over 70,000 CUP.

Edit: I note, however, that Norma's 2013 print manual has a plot on page 100 that indicates this applies to spherical propellants but not to stick powders.

 

[Savvy_Jack]

So are you saying that drying out Bulk powders is the same as drying the dense straight nitrocelluse and the double-based and nitroglycerine powders?

 

[Unclenick]

See the edit to my last post.

I don't have familiarity with Bulk powder, specifically. But in any combustible material, water tends to interfere with burning speed by absorbing heat energy as it changes phase from liquid to gas, retarding the surface vaporization of the combustible at its flame front. So, absent some special reason to think this would not apply to Bulk powder, I would assume it does.

The only mitigating factor might be if the Bulk powder is less hygroscopic than the modern single and double-base powders and just can't pick as much water up. This is easy to test if you have some Bulk powder. Put a quantity into a wide-mouth Mason jar (or another sealable container) in a small cup (I use the 1-ounce plastic dosing cups) that you have weighed carefully (the cup, that is, for taring later). Separately, have another cup containing a saturated solution of table salt in water. At room temperature, the solution will regulate RH in the closed jar to about 75%. Periodically remove the powder cup and weigh it. When it stops gaining weight, record the maximum, then remove the salt solution and put a strong desiccant in with the powder. The Drierite (granulated gypsum) at the end of that link will reduce the RH humidity in the jar to zero (well, OK, about 0.0002% at 25°C). After waiting the same time it took for the powder to stop gaining weight, pull it out of the jar and weigh it again. If it has lost about 1.7% of its weight, its water absorbency is about the same as a porous single-base powder. If it loses about 0.7%, it is about the same as a 12% nitroglycerine double-base powder (see table on page 113 of the 2013 edition of the Norma Reloading Manual). If it is anything outside those ranges, it is different from modern single and double-base powders as to how hygroscopic it is, but you can likely rely on more water to mean more effect of humidity on relative burn rate.