.41 Long Colt

[ligonierbill]

Since we highjacked oldbear 1950's thread, I started another to share more information and repent of my "cast iron" faux pas. That first. Cast iron usually means an iron-carbon alloy with >2% carbon, not iron that is cast into a shape. Everything below that on the phase diagram is technically steel. The term malleable iron refers to a very low carbon content steel. Some comparisons of yield strength, the point at which nonelastic, permanent deformation occurs:

malleable iron - 35,000 psi
"mild" steel (0.16% - 0.29% C) - 36,000 to 58,000 psi
4140 steel (modern gunmaking) - as mfg 60,200 psi/heat treated up to
131,000 psi
Carpenter Custom 465 (Ruger Super Redhawk 454 Casull and 480 Ruger cylinders) -
238,000 psi

So the old pistols aren't exactly weak, but they are not even close to modern revolvers. But why? By 1877, good quality steel was being made by "puddling" and had been for years (centuries if you include what the Chinese were doing) and the open hearth and Bessemer processes had been developed. Simply, they were designed for blackpowder and are totally adequate for that propellant. No need to complicate your material and manufacturing and raise your price. So I shoot my 1877 (mfg 1878) without concern or regret, but always with blackpowder.

The Army Special is a different beast. First sold in 1908, it was made through 1927, continuing with little change as the Official Police until 1969. I'm sure materials and heat treatment were improved over that time, but I didn't look it up. Also don't know when they dropped the 41, maybe 1939? I have several boxes of Winchester-Western "Luballoy" ammo that aren't that old. That stuff went 674/19.3 std out of one of my Army Specials (circa 1915 and 1920). The COL is 1.412, too long for the 1877 cylinder. Would they be otherwise safe in the old gun? Maybe. But I'll stay with holy black.

[Schutzenbob]

Well, I'm still at it. I was trying to make a two diameter 41LC heel bullet with what I had on hand, however it wasn't quite working. I've ordered a mold from Accurate Molds in Utah, so hopefully I'll have better luck. They cut their molds with a CNC machine, so they can tweak the dimensions. This is a pic of the basic bullet that they're starting from, so I'll keep you posted.

[Drm50]

I have a nice Army Special but it’s 32/20. I had a 4” 41LC a few years back, sold it before I got any ammo. You can’t cut 41mag down for 41LC but you can use Herters 401 Power Mag brass if you can find it.

[ligonierbill]

Schutzenbob: I have Montana Precision Swaging 0.401 200 gr heeled bullets. Got them from Midway, who still lists them, but "out of stock, no backorder". PM your address, and I'll send you 20. I can verify successful use in my 1877. My notes indicate I trimmed the cases to 1.01 for the heeled bullets. My "to do" list includes loading some over FFFg, trying to fit in a few more grains. No basis for this, other than "read it on the internet", but I did read that the 1877s like to be fired double action, less likely to break than single action. Accurate certainly makes good molds.

[Mike Irwin]

"But why? By 1877, good quality steel was being made by "puddling" and had been for years (centuries if you include what the Chinese were doing) and the open hearth and Bessemer processes had been developed. Simply, they were designed for blackpowder and are totally adequate for that propellant."

By 1877 the Bessemer process was expanding steel production dramatically in the United States...

But steel was still significantly more expensive than ductile iron, steel was in high demand to provide rails for the rapidly expanding railroads, and it was quickly finding favor as a bridge building material.

And, as you say, why significantly increase the cost of your handguns to the consumer when there's no real benefit at that time to converting to steel.

The first truly viable smokeless propellants for handguns didn't hit the commercial markets in the United States until, I think, the early 1890s, and that's when you started to see the conversion from ductile iron to steel.

According to Phil Spangenberg, Colt didn't warrant the use of smokeless powder in its Peacemaker revolver until around 1898.

As I noted in the other thread, it's very likely that the 1877 was NEVER warranted for smokeless powder because by the mid 1890s Colt's double action revolver technology had progressed to the point where sales of the 1877 had ground to a virtual halt. As I noted in the other thread, I've heard that Colt stopped production of the 1877 in the late 1880s or early 1890s but they cataloged them until 1909 just to sell the ones that remained in stock.

Smith & Wesson encountered a very similar situation with their large-frame breaktop single and double action revolvers. They stopped making them in the early 1890s but were still cataloging them into the 1900s to get rid of the last of the inventory.

[Mike Irwin]

"The Army Special is a different beast. First sold in 1908, it was made through 1927, continuing with little change as the Official Police until 1969. I'm sure materials and heat treatment were improved over that time, but I didn't look it up. Also don't know when they dropped the 41, maybe 1939? I have several boxes of Winchester-Western "Luballoy" ammo that aren't that old. That stuff went 674/19.3 std out of one of my Army Specials (circa 1915 and 1920). The COL is 1.412, too long for the 1877 cylinder. Would they be otherwise safe in the old gun? Maybe. But I'll stay with holy black.


It's very likely that Colt stopped chambering the .41 either due to the Great Depression or World War II, or a combination of both, as both had a huge impact on sales.

My guess is that the Peacemaker was the last gun that could be routinely gotten in .41, but only on special order.

The simple fact is that by the time of the Depression the .41 was quickly falling out of favor largely due to the ascendance of the .38 Special as a standard police and civilian all around cartridge.

Apparently Winchester Western didn't put .41 Long ammo on the "subject to available stock" list until sometime in the 1970s, by which time they were apparently the last manufacturer.

[tangolima]

I used to have a revolver in the caliber , and handloaded for it. Sold the gun back to the owner (another story) from whom I bought it. Still have the die set, some hollow base cast bullets, and brass I fire formed from .38 special. I could have given all that to the gun owner. Then I realized it would be safer not to let him have it.

Anyway, I plan to find a good home for those reloading supplies. Let me know if any of you is interested.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Schutzenbob]

Well, I've gone a step further, I've received my mold from Accurate molds in Utah, and it seems to be just what I ordered. It casts a 170 grain heel bullet, the body of the bullet mics .403 and the heel mics .387. So, in the near future I'll shoot some targets with it, and just to keep you boys happy, I'll even try it with with some of that stinky old black powder!

[Mike Irwin]

Very nice!

What are you lubing with?

[Schutzenbob]

I've been using Lee Liquid Alox Bullet Lube

[Schutzenbob]

I’ve continued to explore the peculiarities of 41 Colt (heel bullets) and I guess it’s what you’d call a learning situation. I have been having erratic changes in pressures and then it occurred to me….a heel bullet only extends into a case about 3/8” and so this leaves a large space for the powder to slosh around. Since I won’t use wads, I need to find a bulkier powder to fill the space, maybe 4227, or that wonderful FFG.

[Mike Irwin]

What about Trail Boss?

You won't get the highest velocities, but you will get excellent case fill.

I use TB to load my .44 Special. I was having the same issues that you were using WW 231. Way too much case, way too little powder.

[Jim Watson]

Mike is right, you are right there in Trail Boss country.
Light loads of a slow burning powder like 4227 are a mess. A friend had some strange experiences with underloaded 4227 in .38/.357.

[44 AMP]

By 1877 the Bessemer process was expanding steel production dramatically in the United States...

But steel was still significantly more expensive than ductile iron, steel was in high demand to provide rails for the rapidly expanding railroads, and it was quickly finding favor as a bridge building material.

as an additional historical tidbit it wasn't just railroad rails, but also railroad wheels, creating demand for steel Krupp created a process for making "seamless" wheels, which were, apparently superior to others, and for more than a few years, the majority of US rolling stock and locomotives rolled on Krupp wheels (according to "The Arms of Krupp", anyway...

I don't think anyone made or warrantied guns for smokeless much before 1900, and I have heard recommendations to not shoot smokeless in anything made before 1920, just to be certain the guns hold up. I think that is a bit extreme, I have some pre-1920 guns I would shoot with smokeless without worry. Just don't try to make them magnums!

[RoyceP]

I just received 200 swaged heel bullets from Western Bullet Co. I also received 200 of the 41 Colt bullets from Old West Bullet Molds : https://oldwestbulletmoulds.com/shop...w-base-bullets

I have about 150 rounds of factory ammo to shoot first before I try reloading. The factory ammo is from Remington, Western, and Winchester. Too darn hot outside or I would have done it already.

[Schutzenbob]

This morning, I got the first positive results from my 41 Colt Bisley, it actually felt and shot like a single action with no signs of excess pressure. My load is; 168 grain 20-1 cast heel bullet, 12 grains of H-4227 with a CCI small rifle primer in a starline case. I might try it with 11½ grains.

[Mike Irwin]

"I don't think anyone made or warrantied guns for smokeless much before 1900, and I have heard recommendations to not shoot smokeless in anything made before 1920, just to be certain the guns hold up. I think that is a bit extreme, I have some pre-1920 guns I would shoot with smokeless without worry. Just don't try to make them magnums!"

Uhm, you'd be wrong about that.

Remember, the first commercial smokeless cartridges were available in 1895 for the Winchester Model 1894.

Winchester held off introduction of the .25-35 and .30-30 in part because the new Nickel Steel required to stand up to jacketed bullets and smokeless temperatures and pressures weren't available in 1894.

Handgun metal compositions were also being altered at the same time to account for the increased pressures developed by smokless. Ductile iron frames, which had been standard on just about all handguns in the black powder era, had to transition to steel because the increased pressures caused frame stretching.

Handgun cartridges were available as smokeless around the same time.

The 1895 UMC catalog shows smokess .22 Short, what appears to be the .32 and .38 S&W rounds, and the .25-20 in smokless loadings.

By 1896 there were 7 handgun cartridges, including the .38 Long Colt and .44 Russian, and over a dozen rifle cartridges available in smokeless loadings from UMC.

http://cartridgecollectors.org/conte...d%20GRAHAM.pdf

The list of smokeless offerings grew exponentially from there over the next few years and pretty much by 1900 I'd say that pretty much every cartridge that had started out life as a black powder cartridge was being offered with smokeless loadings.

I'm not sure of the actual dates, but I'm pretty sure that Colt started warranting their Peacemaker revolver as being suitable for smokless loads starting around 1898 or 1899.

Smith & Wesson hand ejector revolvers were being designed right in the heart of the transition from black to smokeless. I'm not at all sure of the hows and whys of their design and suitability for use with smokeless, but I've never seen anything saying that even the earliest Hand Ejector, the Model of 1896, isn't suitable for use with smokeless.

[Mike Irwin]

Wow...

This is interesting, and sort of, mostly, maybe, off topic, but REALLY interesting.

That UMC cartridge list that I linked has some REAL surprises on it...

On the black powder page (first page) it shows the .303 Savage. It was my understanding that that cartridge was never offered commercially as anything other than a smokeless powder round...

It also shows the .25-36 Marlin as a blackpowder cartridge. Again, I thought that this was another cartridge that was smokeless from its initial release.

The real head scratcher, though, is on the second (smokeless) page...

There's a cartridge listed as the .30 Remington, and it's got a rim. I'd never heard of a rimmed .30 Remington before.

Then I found this Remington advertisement...




And it shows a .236 rimmed Remington... ANOTHER cartridge with which I'm not familiar...

So, I plug .236 Remington cartridge into the googletron and I find this incredible bit of information...

https://www.gunauction.com/buy/14492...military%20use.


Wow.... every time I open one of these old ammunition catalogs I learn something new and, in some cases, startling.

To circle this back to the subject of steel, given that Remington was developing their own line of smokeless rolling block cartridges it's pretty evident that they were also advancing their rifle manufacturing to keep pace with smokeless powder, otherwise the transitional rolling blocks very likely would have developed an extremely poor reputation due to damage caused by the increased pressures of the smokeless rounds they were chambering.

[ballardw]

Now I may have to find what cartridge, if any, is available that might allow for forming to .236 Remington to go along with my other "6mm" , actually .244 Remington obsolete cartridge.

[Mike Irwin]

I've not even been able to come up with dimensions for either the .236 Remington Rimmed or the .30 Remington Rimmed cartridges, and I've been digging like mad.

There's some hints, but nothing concrete, that the Remington-Lee Model of 1899 MIGHT have been chambered for the cartridges, but nothing concrete and, if they were, there certainly weren't many made.

[Jim Watson]

The NIH was strong, the catalog cut does not even show .30 Army (.30-40 Krag.)

[Mike Irwin]

"The NIH was strong, the catalog cut does not even show .30 Army (.30-40 Krag.)"

You mean the 1896 UMC catalog that I attached?

Sure it does. Second page. Shows several versions of the .30 Government cartridge, which was he official name for the .30-40 Krag.

[Jim Watson]

Page 2 does not show here.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Jim Watson

Page 2 does not show here.

I can see 21 pages.

[Jim Watson]

How strange, my iMac only gives me that one illustration.
Talking about the rifle ad, not the ammo catalog.

It used to be one of those Widely Published Warnings that a Remington Rolling Block in 7mm caliber was not the same as a Spanish Mauser bolt action, that the headspace would show excessive. Or was it just slop in the barrel-breechblock-hammer engagements?