Elric
Well-Known Member
Smokeless Loads For Target Rifles
American Rifleman, vol 38, no 9, June 8, 1905, pages 170-171
https://books.google.com/books?id=Z5cwAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA171&dq=A+Shell+Cleaning+Implement&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiNiJ_M2LrYAhUOHGMKHbduBqAQ6AEILDAB#v=snippet&q=Smokeless Loads&f=false
At the great shooting festival held about 1 year ago at Union Hill, N. J., several riflemen asked Ed Taylor, of the Laflin & Rand Powder Co., whether they could ever expect a smokeless powder load for target shooting which would be capable of the fine work obtainable from their present outfits and black powder. Before that time Mr. Taylor and I had been gathering data for formulating such a load, and since then we have worked it out with such a degree of success as to warrant reporting the matter in these columns. The task of writing of it falls upon me, because Mr. Taylor cannot be induced to write for publication, owing to natural or acquired modesty.
The principles followed in the design of the bullets—one for .38 caliber and one for .32-—have been the same as those discussed in my paper, Further Studies on .30 Caliber Ammunition, published in Shooting And Fishing of Aug. 25, 1904, and reprinted May 18, 1905. They have seemed to apply with such uniformity that we have adopted them for the .32 and .38 caliber target bullets, except that as we were not dealing with military ammunition, we introduced grooves for lubricant (and plenty of it) at every point where there is the least bit of friction between the bullet and barrel, even on the front part where the bullet merely rides on top of the lands.
The new bullets, which are illustrated in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, are very similar in design, as will be noticed. The two rear bands, which are intended to take the rifling, are sufficiently large to make a gas-tight fit, without upset, in any rifle that is not unreasonably over-sized; while the front part of the bullet is intended to ride on top of the lands, or at any rate not to take the rifling deeply. I firmly believe that the chief reason why smokeless powders have not given satisfaction hereto fore in target rifles is because riflemen have not taken into consideration the almost total absence of upset when using smokeless powder, and the consequent necessity for a gas-tight fit without depending on upset. Apparently it docs no harm if the bullet is two or three-thousandths of an inch larger than the diameter of the barrel across the grooves; but if it is the least bit smaller, the leak of hot gases will speedily enlarge the opening, and the fusion and gas cutting that result are fatal to accuracy. This, I know, is contrary to what we have been used to with black powder, but its truth can easily be demonstrated.
Another point we endeavored to cover fully was to make the bullet cut as large and clean a hole as possible in the target. Only those who have stood in the target pit and watched a series of shots marked can appreciate how many points are lost by the bullet failing to cut the line by the merest hairbreadth. These bullets were, there fore, designed with a sharp shoulder just back of the point, which greatly favors the making of a clean hole the full size of the bullet. On some kinds of paper and cardboard the hole looks as though it were cut with a wad cutter.
30 consecutive shots. 200 yards, machine rest, 10-shot strings, 2 strings with 15 ¼ grains Sharpshooter, 1 string, shell filled with Dupont No. 1. Rifle Smokeless, Hudson-Ideal 319273 bullet, seated 3-32 of an inch ahead of shell. Barrels, .32-40 Schoyen, throated at breech; powder measured in Ideal machine; same elevation for both loads. Shot by W. J. Coons.
Desiring to get the greatest accuracy possible, it was determined to seat the bullets ahead of the shell, as is commonly done by all target shooters. Pushing the bullet down from the muzzle, how ever, was found to be out of the question owing to the tightness of fit required; and for the same reason it was found necessary to throat or free the barrel at the breech, for otherwise the bullets pushed in too hard for comfort. The Winchester Repeating Arms Co. has throated two barrels for me in a very satisfactory manner, and A. O. Zischang, of Syracuse, N. Y., and Geo. Schoyen, of Denver, Colo., are both prepared to do the work. It will also, as a rule, be found necessary to use a harder bullet than would ordinarily be used with black powder. Just why this is so it is hard to say, for the bullet is not started as suddenly as with black powder. Some rifles require a harder bullet than others. I have found some to do good work with bullets as soft as 1 to 18, while others require a harder alloy. It does not pay to use a larger percentage of tin than 1 to 14; if it is desired to make the bullets harder than this, it is better to use antimony for further hardening.
10 consecutive shots. 200 yards, machine rest, shell full of Dupont No. 1 Rifle smokeless, Hudson-Ideal 319273 bullet in mouth of shell, Ballard .32-40 barrel. Shot by W. H. French.
We have tried a good many different powders, but the two which have given the best results are Du Pont No. 1 and Laflin & Rand Sharpshooter. In using Du Pont No. 1, use a shell filled with it, and hold it in place by means of a blotting paper wad. With the Sharpshooter, use 18 grains in the .38-55 and 15 1/2 to 16 grains in the .32-40. This will only fill these shells about one-half full, and the empty space should not be filled in. In the .38-55 it is easy to seat a .40 caliber wad down on the powder. In the .32-40, the powder can be held in the shells by small corks, which are removed just before inserting the shell in the gun. It might also be possible to cut off the .32-40 shells to a length where the powder would just fill them, making it easy to put a wad over the powder. I have not tried shells so cut off.
10 consecutive shots, 200 yards machine rest. 17 grains Sharpshooter, blotting paper wad, Peters shells, U. M. C. 7 ½ primers, 330-grain Winchester bullet, patched, seated 1/8 of an inch ahead of shell. Winchester .38-55 barrel. Shot by Dr. W. G. Hudson.
Between the two powders mentioned it is hard to choose. The best shooting has been obtained from the Sharpshooter, which is also a more stable powder. The Du Pont, on the other hand, does nearly as well, and as its charge is about twice as bulky, filling the shell, there is less liability to variation in measuring out the loads. But the matter of cost is all in favor of the Sharpshooter, which sells for $1.25 a can containing a full pound, while the Du Pont sells for $1 a can containing a pound bulk—-by actual weight in the vicinity of half a pound. For this reason it is probable that the Sharpshooter will become the favorite. In all cases nitro primers should be used; I prefer the 7 ½ U. M. C.
Turning now to the question of what it is possible to do with such loads, I may say that most of the work done so far has been with ordinary factory made barrels. These barrels did not give nearly as good groups when black powder was tried. Mr. Coons’ (Schoyen) barrel is the only hand-made barrel that has been tested. I am having a special .38 caliber barrel made by Zischang, in order to determine just what advantage the special cut will have over the regular factory cut. But it will be noticed from the groups that are published herewith that the work even from factory barrels, when using these smokeless loads, is good enough to satisfy most men. That was what we were most anxious to reach; a load that, when used in a common factory barrel, would give the shooter of limited means some chance in a competition open to the fine hand-made barrels. It may be that we will never quite reach the accuracy shown by the muzzleloaders, for here the conditions are as near ideal as it is possible to get them. Not only is the barrel cleaned by pushing down the bullet, but the upset swages the bullet into shape in the barrel it is to be shot from; no better means of securing a perfect fit could be imagined than this.
Two groups at 10 consecutive shots. 200 yards, machine rest, 18 grains Sharpshooter. Hudson-Ideal No. 375272 bullet seated ahead of shell, Winchester .38-55 barrel, throated.
But there are certain compensating advantages secured from the use of these smokeless loads that are not found in the muzzleloaders. In the first place, there are still some who believe it is easier to put a bullet in from the breech than to ram it down from the muzzle. The recoil from smokeless powder, too, is much less than with black, making it possible to use a .38 caliber, with a 308 grain bullet and a charge of powder equivalent to 68 grains of black, with as much comfort as when shooting the regular load of black powder in a .32-40. In addition to the extra points gained by cutting a bigger hole, just imagine what an advantage such a load would have on a windy day!
The smokeless load for the .32-40 feels like a .25-20. Very nearly as good results can be obtained from the smokeless load by shooting the bullet from the shell as when seating it in the barrel, as witness Mr. French’s group. Another point that will be considered an advantage by a great many is that there is no necessity of washing the shells after a day's shooting. The shells I use in my .38 caliber have now been fired about twenty times each during the past six or seven months without washing, and show no signs of corrosion. They are ordinary Peters factory shells.
The first experiments with the smokeless load were with patched bullets, and some very fine groups were obtained. We used the 330-grain .38 caliber factory bullet, repatched with thicker paper; also some furnished by Dr. Skinner, of Hoosick Falls, N. Y., and some others cast in the Ideal cylindrical mold. It was found that, while occasionally the patched bullets would do remarkable shooting, they did not, on an average, work any better than the lubricated bullets, and, as the patching was found to be more of a nuisance than lubricating, we finally discontinued the use of patched bullets. There is no particular difficulty in shooting patched bullets, however, for the gun does not have to be cleaned after each shot as is the case when using black powder. The inside of the barrel after firing a charge of Sharpshooter is so clean that one could hardly believe it had been fired; and all that is necessary in order to shoot the patched bullets from such a barrel is to smear a little grease over the patch just before inserting the bullet into the chamber. The patch should be of such a thickness as to make the bullet, when patched, of the same diameter as the rifle to the bottom of the grooves, and should entirely cover the base. This is easily done by having the patch project far enough to permit of its being twisted.
Desiring to present both sides of the matter, I will say in conclusion that there are still many intelligent riflemen who decry the use of smokeless powders, saying that they pit and wear out the barrel, cause leading, etc. This may have been true of the earlier forms of smokeless powders, but it certainly has not seemed to apply to the improved product of today. The time will surely come, if it has not already, when smokeless powder will displace black powder; for black powder has changed but little in the last thirty years, while the smokeless is steadily improving. I venture to predict that in less than ten years we will all be using it by preference.
W. G. Hudson, M.D.
All groups illustrated were shot at Armbruster's range, Greenville, N. J., from a machine rest, through the courtesy of the owner and designer, William Hayes.
American Rifleman, vol 38, no 9, June 8, 1905, pages 170-171
https://books.google.com/books?id=Z5cwAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA171&dq=A+Shell+Cleaning+Implement&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiNiJ_M2LrYAhUOHGMKHbduBqAQ6AEILDAB#v=snippet&q=Smokeless Loads&f=false
At the great shooting festival held about 1 year ago at Union Hill, N. J., several riflemen asked Ed Taylor, of the Laflin & Rand Powder Co., whether they could ever expect a smokeless powder load for target shooting which would be capable of the fine work obtainable from their present outfits and black powder. Before that time Mr. Taylor and I had been gathering data for formulating such a load, and since then we have worked it out with such a degree of success as to warrant reporting the matter in these columns. The task of writing of it falls upon me, because Mr. Taylor cannot be induced to write for publication, owing to natural or acquired modesty.
The principles followed in the design of the bullets—one for .38 caliber and one for .32-—have been the same as those discussed in my paper, Further Studies on .30 Caliber Ammunition, published in Shooting And Fishing of Aug. 25, 1904, and reprinted May 18, 1905. They have seemed to apply with such uniformity that we have adopted them for the .32 and .38 caliber target bullets, except that as we were not dealing with military ammunition, we introduced grooves for lubricant (and plenty of it) at every point where there is the least bit of friction between the bullet and barrel, even on the front part where the bullet merely rides on top of the lands.
The new bullets, which are illustrated in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, are very similar in design, as will be noticed. The two rear bands, which are intended to take the rifling, are sufficiently large to make a gas-tight fit, without upset, in any rifle that is not unreasonably over-sized; while the front part of the bullet is intended to ride on top of the lands, or at any rate not to take the rifling deeply. I firmly believe that the chief reason why smokeless powders have not given satisfaction hereto fore in target rifles is because riflemen have not taken into consideration the almost total absence of upset when using smokeless powder, and the consequent necessity for a gas-tight fit without depending on upset. Apparently it docs no harm if the bullet is two or three-thousandths of an inch larger than the diameter of the barrel across the grooves; but if it is the least bit smaller, the leak of hot gases will speedily enlarge the opening, and the fusion and gas cutting that result are fatal to accuracy. This, I know, is contrary to what we have been used to with black powder, but its truth can easily be demonstrated.
Another point we endeavored to cover fully was to make the bullet cut as large and clean a hole as possible in the target. Only those who have stood in the target pit and watched a series of shots marked can appreciate how many points are lost by the bullet failing to cut the line by the merest hairbreadth. These bullets were, there fore, designed with a sharp shoulder just back of the point, which greatly favors the making of a clean hole the full size of the bullet. On some kinds of paper and cardboard the hole looks as though it were cut with a wad cutter.
30 consecutive shots. 200 yards, machine rest, 10-shot strings, 2 strings with 15 ¼ grains Sharpshooter, 1 string, shell filled with Dupont No. 1. Rifle Smokeless, Hudson-Ideal 319273 bullet, seated 3-32 of an inch ahead of shell. Barrels, .32-40 Schoyen, throated at breech; powder measured in Ideal machine; same elevation for both loads. Shot by W. J. Coons.
Desiring to get the greatest accuracy possible, it was determined to seat the bullets ahead of the shell, as is commonly done by all target shooters. Pushing the bullet down from the muzzle, how ever, was found to be out of the question owing to the tightness of fit required; and for the same reason it was found necessary to throat or free the barrel at the breech, for otherwise the bullets pushed in too hard for comfort. The Winchester Repeating Arms Co. has throated two barrels for me in a very satisfactory manner, and A. O. Zischang, of Syracuse, N. Y., and Geo. Schoyen, of Denver, Colo., are both prepared to do the work. It will also, as a rule, be found necessary to use a harder bullet than would ordinarily be used with black powder. Just why this is so it is hard to say, for the bullet is not started as suddenly as with black powder. Some rifles require a harder bullet than others. I have found some to do good work with bullets as soft as 1 to 18, while others require a harder alloy. It does not pay to use a larger percentage of tin than 1 to 14; if it is desired to make the bullets harder than this, it is better to use antimony for further hardening.
10 consecutive shots. 200 yards, machine rest, shell full of Dupont No. 1 Rifle smokeless, Hudson-Ideal 319273 bullet in mouth of shell, Ballard .32-40 barrel. Shot by W. H. French.
We have tried a good many different powders, but the two which have given the best results are Du Pont No. 1 and Laflin & Rand Sharpshooter. In using Du Pont No. 1, use a shell filled with it, and hold it in place by means of a blotting paper wad. With the Sharpshooter, use 18 grains in the .38-55 and 15 1/2 to 16 grains in the .32-40. This will only fill these shells about one-half full, and the empty space should not be filled in. In the .38-55 it is easy to seat a .40 caliber wad down on the powder. In the .32-40, the powder can be held in the shells by small corks, which are removed just before inserting the shell in the gun. It might also be possible to cut off the .32-40 shells to a length where the powder would just fill them, making it easy to put a wad over the powder. I have not tried shells so cut off.
10 consecutive shots, 200 yards machine rest. 17 grains Sharpshooter, blotting paper wad, Peters shells, U. M. C. 7 ½ primers, 330-grain Winchester bullet, patched, seated 1/8 of an inch ahead of shell. Winchester .38-55 barrel. Shot by Dr. W. G. Hudson.
Between the two powders mentioned it is hard to choose. The best shooting has been obtained from the Sharpshooter, which is also a more stable powder. The Du Pont, on the other hand, does nearly as well, and as its charge is about twice as bulky, filling the shell, there is less liability to variation in measuring out the loads. But the matter of cost is all in favor of the Sharpshooter, which sells for $1.25 a can containing a full pound, while the Du Pont sells for $1 a can containing a pound bulk—-by actual weight in the vicinity of half a pound. For this reason it is probable that the Sharpshooter will become the favorite. In all cases nitro primers should be used; I prefer the 7 ½ U. M. C.
Turning now to the question of what it is possible to do with such loads, I may say that most of the work done so far has been with ordinary factory made barrels. These barrels did not give nearly as good groups when black powder was tried. Mr. Coons’ (Schoyen) barrel is the only hand-made barrel that has been tested. I am having a special .38 caliber barrel made by Zischang, in order to determine just what advantage the special cut will have over the regular factory cut. But it will be noticed from the groups that are published herewith that the work even from factory barrels, when using these smokeless loads, is good enough to satisfy most men. That was what we were most anxious to reach; a load that, when used in a common factory barrel, would give the shooter of limited means some chance in a competition open to the fine hand-made barrels. It may be that we will never quite reach the accuracy shown by the muzzleloaders, for here the conditions are as near ideal as it is possible to get them. Not only is the barrel cleaned by pushing down the bullet, but the upset swages the bullet into shape in the barrel it is to be shot from; no better means of securing a perfect fit could be imagined than this.
Two groups at 10 consecutive shots. 200 yards, machine rest, 18 grains Sharpshooter. Hudson-Ideal No. 375272 bullet seated ahead of shell, Winchester .38-55 barrel, throated.
But there are certain compensating advantages secured from the use of these smokeless loads that are not found in the muzzleloaders. In the first place, there are still some who believe it is easier to put a bullet in from the breech than to ram it down from the muzzle. The recoil from smokeless powder, too, is much less than with black, making it possible to use a .38 caliber, with a 308 grain bullet and a charge of powder equivalent to 68 grains of black, with as much comfort as when shooting the regular load of black powder in a .32-40. In addition to the extra points gained by cutting a bigger hole, just imagine what an advantage such a load would have on a windy day!
The smokeless load for the .32-40 feels like a .25-20. Very nearly as good results can be obtained from the smokeless load by shooting the bullet from the shell as when seating it in the barrel, as witness Mr. French’s group. Another point that will be considered an advantage by a great many is that there is no necessity of washing the shells after a day's shooting. The shells I use in my .38 caliber have now been fired about twenty times each during the past six or seven months without washing, and show no signs of corrosion. They are ordinary Peters factory shells.
The first experiments with the smokeless load were with patched bullets, and some very fine groups were obtained. We used the 330-grain .38 caliber factory bullet, repatched with thicker paper; also some furnished by Dr. Skinner, of Hoosick Falls, N. Y., and some others cast in the Ideal cylindrical mold. It was found that, while occasionally the patched bullets would do remarkable shooting, they did not, on an average, work any better than the lubricated bullets, and, as the patching was found to be more of a nuisance than lubricating, we finally discontinued the use of patched bullets. There is no particular difficulty in shooting patched bullets, however, for the gun does not have to be cleaned after each shot as is the case when using black powder. The inside of the barrel after firing a charge of Sharpshooter is so clean that one could hardly believe it had been fired; and all that is necessary in order to shoot the patched bullets from such a barrel is to smear a little grease over the patch just before inserting the bullet into the chamber. The patch should be of such a thickness as to make the bullet, when patched, of the same diameter as the rifle to the bottom of the grooves, and should entirely cover the base. This is easily done by having the patch project far enough to permit of its being twisted.
Desiring to present both sides of the matter, I will say in conclusion that there are still many intelligent riflemen who decry the use of smokeless powders, saying that they pit and wear out the barrel, cause leading, etc. This may have been true of the earlier forms of smokeless powders, but it certainly has not seemed to apply to the improved product of today. The time will surely come, if it has not already, when smokeless powder will displace black powder; for black powder has changed but little in the last thirty years, while the smokeless is steadily improving. I venture to predict that in less than ten years we will all be using it by preference.
W. G. Hudson, M.D.
All groups illustrated were shot at Armbruster's range, Greenville, N. J., from a machine rest, through the courtesy of the owner and designer, William Hayes.
Last edited: