Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) smokless powder (Read 13203 times)
Hank45
Oldtimer
*****
Offline


Beer is living proof that
GOD loves you

Posts: 506
Location: MA
Joined: Jan 21st, 2010
smokless powder
Jun 5th, 2015 at 6:44am
Print Post  
When did Winchester start using smokeless powder in their 1885 rifles?  The reason I ask is that I own a low wall manufactured in 1898 and I was curious about using some light smokeless loads Thanks for your answer, Hank45
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
bpjack
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 3771
Location: East Olympia, WA
Joined: May 18th, 2008
Re: smokless powder
Reply #1 - Jun 5th, 2015 at 11:51am
Print Post  
What caliber?   

Jack
  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BP
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 8039
Location: Westside
Joined: Aug 27th, 2006
Re: smokless powder
Reply #2 - Jun 5th, 2015 at 3:40pm
Print Post  
Hank45 wrote on Jun 5th, 2015 at 6:44am:
When did Winchester start using smokeless powder in their 1885 rifles? The reason I ask is that I own a low wall manufactured in 1898 and I was curious about using some light smokeless loads Thanks for your answer, Hank45


Jack's question is a good one.

In the Apr 1894 catalog, for the hiwall rifle, WRA introduced the .30 U.S. ARMY cartridge using Smokelss Powder 40grs, Steel Jacketed Bullet 220grs.
In the Aug 1895 catalog, WRA introduced the smokeless 22 Short loading, the smokelss 32 WCF (32-20) loading, the smokeless 38 WCF (38-40) loading, and a sprinkling of other smokeless loadings.
Additional smokeless loadings for other cartridges showed up at various times in later catalogs.
In 1898, WRA issued two different catalogs (Mar and Oct), both of which show the lowwall carbine chambered in 44 WCF (44-40). Both catalogs show a smokeless 44 WCF loading as well.

Both catalogs also contain the statement by WRA which says:
"Reloading Smokelss Powder Cartridges Impracticable."

Don't do it Hank, just don't do it!    Grin

  

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading, the few who learn by observation, and the rest who have to pee on the electric fence and find out for themselves.
Proud Noodlehead
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
westerner
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline


deleted posts and threads
record holder.

Posts: 12324
Location: Why, out West of course
Joined: May 29th, 2006
Re: smokless powder
Reply #3 - Jun 5th, 2015 at 4:55pm
Print Post  
Hank, your rifle could have been used with smokeless or black powder. If you can't narrow it down any closer, best to use duplex loads and half jacket bullets.
That way, you're covered. 

         Joe.
  

A blind squirrel runs into a tree every once in a while.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Rebel
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 4292
Location: Rockets and Race Cars
Joined: Mar 9th, 2015
Re: smokless powder
Reply #4 - Jun 5th, 2015 at 5:38pm
Print Post  
Sage advice Joe.
  

WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. Let's Go Sonny!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
frnkeore
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 7640
Location: Central Point, OR 97502
Joined: Jun 16th, 2010
Re: smokless powder
Reply #5 - Jun 5th, 2015 at 5:42pm
Print Post  
Didn't Winchester mark their barrel "Smokeless Steel" if the barrel was made to shoot smokeless?

Frank
  

ASSRA Member #696, ISSA Member #339
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
calledflyer
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Online



Posts: 3957
Joined: Mar 9th, 2015
Re: smokless powder
Reply #6 - Jun 5th, 2015 at 7:22pm
Print Post  
Some Winchester barrels are marked with the (varied) maker's nickel steel codes. MNS stood for Midvale Nickel Steel, for instance. These start to show up in the calibers that were initially loaded with smokeless at their introduction. I never saw "smokeless steel" marked on one. That said, I'd shoot them with either powder without fear, using suitable loads. I would not shoot many jacketed slugs down one that didn't have the nickel steel stamp. Or, go with Joe's plan. Pat
P.S. Maybe it was Marlin that had the smokeless steel mark?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
JLouis
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 10625
Joined: Apr 8th, 2009
Re: smokless powder
Reply #7 - Jun 5th, 2015 at 8:17pm
Print Post  
I am not sure of what the real concern is, eveyone one lately seems to be extremely skittish about using an appropriate smokeless load in one of the strongest small shank actions built at the time. Hank didn't even mention what its chambered for so how are you all coming up with your conclusions / recommendations I don't see any real factual basis for them.
  

" It Is Better To Now Have Been A Has Been Than A Never Was Or A Wanna Be "
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
westerner
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline


deleted posts and threads
record holder.

Posts: 12324
Location: Why, out West of course
Joined: May 29th, 2006
Re: smokless powder
Reply #8 - Jun 5th, 2015 at 8:25pm
Print Post  
Maybe Hank is trying to be historically correctamoondo.

      Joe.
  

A blind squirrel runs into a tree every once in a while.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
JLouis
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 10625
Joined: Apr 8th, 2009
Re: smokless powder
Reply #9 - Jun 5th, 2015 at 9:40pm
Print Post  
Sounds to me like he just wants to try some smokless based on his question and everyone that has given their opinion so far has skirted around it and to date no has actually answered it. No one has even taken the time to ask him what its chambered for so they can at least try to provide him with an educated answer so he has a place to start or to consider. 

A simple question requiring a simple answer.

Hank what is your Low Wall chambered for and what are you intending to due with it, breach seating, fixed, competition, plinking or possibly hunting. 

JLouis
« Last Edit: Jun 5th, 2015 at 9:46pm by JLouis »  

" It Is Better To Now Have Been A Has Been Than A Never Was Or A Wanna Be "
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Litl Red
Ex Member


Re: smokless powder
Reply #10 - Jun 5th, 2015 at 10:17pm
Print Post  
Actually he asked when did Winchester start building for smokeless.    And got a pretty fair answer the same day.


He also provided extra info about what he wanted to do.   



  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
JLouis
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 10625
Joined: Apr 8th, 2009
Re: smokless powder
Reply #11 - Jun 5th, 2015 at 10:30pm
Print Post  
Go back and re-read it, he states clearly that he is curious about being able to use smokless in light loads in his Low Wall and that question has yet to be answered.
Hank did not come back and add any additional information so I am not sure how you came up with the comment that he did?

JLouis
« Last Edit: Jun 5th, 2015 at 10:35pm by JLouis »  

" It Is Better To Now Have Been A Has Been Than A Never Was Or A Wanna Be "
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BP
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 8039
Location: Westside
Joined: Aug 27th, 2006
Re: smokless powder
Reply #12 - Jun 5th, 2015 at 11:11pm
Print Post  
JLouis,

Given the info Hank provided, what is your answer to Hank's question, and what particular load do you recommend Hank should use?

  

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading, the few who learn by observation, and the rest who have to pee on the electric fence and find out for themselves.
Proud Noodlehead
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
JLouis
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 10625
Joined: Apr 8th, 2009
Re: smokless powder
Reply #13 - Jun 5th, 2015 at 11:29pm
Print Post  
BP I can't even begin to try and provide any load data, Hank did not mention what its chambered for? In regards to using smokless powder for light loads it is very doable if he has a known place to safely start at and that comment I believe is the answer to his original question.
  

" It Is Better To Now Have Been A Has Been Than A Never Was Or A Wanna Be "
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
JLouis
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 10625
Joined: Apr 8th, 2009
Re: smokless powder
Reply #14 - Jun 5th, 2015 at 11:40pm
Print Post  
I don't have the knowledge to answer the first part of his question, a search on the internet could possibly be the best way to find the correct answer?

JLouis
  

" It Is Better To Now Have Been A Has Been Than A Never Was Or A Wanna Be "
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Send TopicPrint