[J Miller]

In a thread started by Two-Bits, the question was, which calibers was the Mdl 92 Winchester originally chambered in.
The question was answered. Then the fact that Winchester never chambered any of their lever guns for the .45 Colt was brought up. I posted a link to an article by Paco Kelly who stated that Colt had proprietary rights to the round and would not let anyone else chamber their guns for it.

Gatofeo made the following comment about the .45 Colt in Winchesters.
“In my cartridge collection I have some black powder .45 Colt rounds. They also have very slight rims.
Such rounds work in the Colt Single Action revolver, because they are knocked out and not extracted en masse, via a star.
If the Winchester were introduced in .45 Colt way back when, it would have been a disaster, I believe.
Remember, these were the days of black powder and corrosive primers. People didn't clean their firearms as often or as thorough as we do today. Chambers would soon rust and the .45 cases would soon begin to stick.
The meager extractor on the Winchester would have easily popped over the slight rim of the .45 Colt case.
And who would be blamed?
Why, Winchester of course!
Winchester exhibited remarkable foresight in NOT chambering their rifles to .45 Colt. If they had wanted to do so, I'm sure they could have struck a deal with Colt.”

So I decided to try an experiment. I put an add in numerous forums to buy some balloon head cases. Nobody responded. I dug through all my loaded ammo and found 64 loaded balloon head .45 Colts. I decided to divide them between my Winchester 94 Trapper, and my new Rossi Puma.
Today I went to the range and started my test.

As for the balloon heads extracting from double action revolvers, it varies. My 25-5 has tight enough chambers that it will reliably extract them. But I have read that some older Colts and S&W’s, primarily turn of the century Colts wouldn’t.

I had fired my 94 Trapper with some CAS type reloads to get it dirty, and then fired the 32 balloon head cased rounds through it as fast as I could safely do so.
Not one failure to feed, or extract, or eject. And considering the generous chamber that this rifle has, I was surprised I only had one split case. None of these balloon heads were loaded with black powder, (although I thought some might have been), so the gun wasn’t as dirty as one fired with b.p. would have been.

I couldn’t try the balloon heads in my new Rossi 92 because the darn thing won’t even feed modern factory ammo. Something is out of adjustment on the feeding I guess. So the balloon head test will have to wait till it gets fixed.

I believe that Winchester, or any other rifles would have worked acceptably with balloon head .45 Colt ammo. But it will take some additional testing to confirm my theory. As soon as I acquire more balloon head cases I will load up some b.p. and continue the test.

 

[Gatofeo]

Interesting post. I'm pleased you decided to test my theory.
That's what it is, after all.
But I do know that years ago those old .45 Colt balloon head cases had very slight rims. I believe they were stamped R-P for Remington Peters.
Trying to extract those old .45 Colt cases from the RCBS sizing die (pre-carbide) often resulted in the RCBS shellholder popping over the rim.
So I bought a Lyman shellholder. Same story.
I had to revert to a Lee Loader, because the sized cases in this device are knocked out with a rod and the rim is not involved.
I spent much of the summer of 1973 reloading 40 grs. of DuPont FFFG black powder under the Lyman 454424 semi-wadcutter (of Elmer Keith's design).
They were fired in my Ruger Old Model Blackhawk, which I still have.
I was trying for a long-range, black powder load. Accuracy never measured up to my smokeless powder loads. In retrospect, I believe this was because I used a hard-cast bullet (1 part tin to 10 parts lead) and Alox-based lubricant.
Today, we have (re)learned that with black powder you must use comparatively soft bullets of pure lead or no harder than about 1 part tin to 20 parts lead, with non-petroleum lubricant.
Back to the original post:
Winchester may not have chambered its rifles for .45 Colt because of the prevalence of the pointed bullet in such ammunition.
It was learned very early, in the Henry rifle or perhaps the Volcanic, that pointed bullets in tubular magazines brought danger.
Upon firing, the recoil tapped that pointed bullet against the primer of the cartridge ahead of it in the tubular magazine. The degree of that "tap" varies with the caliber (certainly, the .32-20 by virture of its lighter recoil may be more forgiving than the .44-40 in this regard, but I wouldn't want to risk life, limb and rifle in an experiment).
The .45 Colt bullet in factory cartridges of the 19th century didn't come to a complete point, there was a slight meplat on it, but I still suspect it was enough of a point to tap a primer into firing.
Perhaps Winchester's (and Marlin, Kennedy, Colt and other manufacturers of repeating rifles) decision to avoid the .45 Colt boiled down to marketing. It may have been believed that the .45 caliber would have been redundant given the popuarity of the .44-40 throughout the world.
The Winchester 1873 was immensely popular throughout the world well into the 20th Century.
I recall reading of an American soldier encountering Philippine guerillas in World War II, and one of them carried a well-worn but still serviceable Winchester 73 in .44 WCF.
God knows where that Philippino found cartridges during the Japanese occupation!
For jungle fighting, where ranges don't usually exceed 100 yards, the Winchester carbine wouldn't be bad. Many explorers through the mid 20th century carried Winchester lever-action rifles into the Amazon, Africa and other remote regions of the world.
I'll be interested to hear of your findings.
Your test is faulted, however, but I don't hold it against you.
To be truly valid, you'd have to use an original Winchester from the 19th century. Then, don't clean it and let the chamber get a little rusty. Also, use mercuric primers.
Of course, this would be sacrilege to a fine, old Winchester in this day and age.
I believe your test will get as close to the truth as one can get today without investing thousands of dollars and ruining a fine old rifle.
Bueno suerte!

 

[J Miller]

Gatofeo,

Your post poses a lot of points.
I'll try to respond to some of them.

Guns to use in the test; this was never ment to be a scientific test. I just used what I have. Unfortunatly I can't use original 1880's rifles because they wernt' chambered for the .45 Colt. However if I had one of the new Uberti 1873's in I wouldn't hesitate to use black powder in it. I have read where many CAS shooters do just that.
I wouldn't leave them sit deliberatly to rust though, but rust is always a probability.
My Rossi 92, well that's almost a real Winchester, just wouldn't feed anything. I'ts going back to the factory service center soon. Then when it gets back to me, I'll fire off the other 32 rounds I have left.

Ammo used was all I had. I have put adds in the classified section of several fourms to buy some more ballon head cases. But have recieved no responces.
The ammo I have loaded was loaded with the Lyman 454190 bullet. This is the closest thing to the original factory conical flat point bullet that exists. They were cast from wheel weights. Powder charges were unknown, but of factory equivelent level.
I have cast, loaded, and fired thousands of this bullet. And many hundred were fired from the 94 Trapper. I have never had a problem with this bullet resting against the primer of the round ahead of it. I consider this a non problem with this bullet.

It was learned very early, in the Henry rifle or perhaps the Volcanic, that pointed bullets in tubular magazines brought danger.

Interesting comment, these two used rimfire ammo.

When and if I can acquire a couple hundred ballon head cases I will buy some black powder and load them. Midway has original Remington .45 Colt bullets that would make the ammo even closer to original. Then I will redo the test. That should be interesting.

You wouldn't have some you would be willing to donate to the experiment would you???

I know what you mean about the tiny rims on the old cases. My method of sizing them is a bit involved, but it eleminates the rim problem.

As for using b.p. in Rugers, I have also tried this. My load was in modern cases with the Lyman 454190 and FFg. I got mediocre accuracy at best. I believe the rifling in the barrels is to shallow for good accruacy with this filthy powder. I could be wrong though.

Well till I finish this experiment........................
J

 

[John Kort]

Gentlemen, interesting discussion. Awhile back, a friend had given me some Rem-Umc .45 Colt loaded ammunition that had the primers indented, but did not fire. I pulled them apart and found they were loaded with about 6 grs. of what appears to be Bullseye powder. The cases were the balloon head style.

As you mentioned, the rims are very small with no extractor groove. I did find that one of my .44-40 shell holders fit like a glove and have been using it to reload them with no problems. I also found that they worked fine in my 1894 Marlin .45 Colt Cowboy rifle with smokeless powder with no extraction problems. I now have 10 of them loaded with 40 grs. of black powder to see how they will work. I will test them in the spring and let you know what happens.

With regards as to why Winchester never chambered them in their 1873 or the early 1892's, I believe the biggest reason is that they would only chamber cartridges that they developed in their rifles. The smaller rims could have given some problems in extended use, though.

John

 

[Alk8944]

Let's get back to the original question, which was specifically about the Model '92 Winchester.

The points made above may be valid to some degree, especially Paco's answer about the cartridge being proprietary. Even that one I doubt, since the protection afforded by proprietary status extends to manufacture and sale of ammunition, not chambering. The current best example of this, at least until fairly recently, were the Weatherby cartridges which were only manufactured by Norma for Weatherby which resulted in the exorbitant prices.

The true reason for Winchester not chambering this cartridge may never be known since those responsible for the decision aren't around anymore. The idea may have never come up! All the dual purpose cartridges used in the M-92 were developed as rifle cartridges and later adopted for handgun use. To my knowledge there were never any handgun cartridges adopted for rifle use, at least not in the time frame we are discussing.

I can tell you, assuming Winchester had ever entertained use of the .45 Colt cartridge in the '92, the reason which is most likely. A little background first. In the early '60's when I was in gunsmithing school, it was popular to convert the M-92 to .357 Magnum and .44 Magnum. The cartridge depended on frame size, of course. Since we are concerned with the .45 Colt, let's only discuss the most similar cartridge, the .44 Mag.

In a Model '92 Winchester it is nearly impossible to get the .44 Mag. to feed!!! The reason is found in the length and shape of the cartridge. Before you come back and say that there were a lot converted, that is true. But, the man doing the conversion had some real headaches modifying the action to get it to feed, and some were never successful. It entailed significant modification to the carrier and rails.

All of the cartridges for the '92 are tapered significantly, even the .44-40. As the cartridge starts into the chamber, the front portion of the case enters the chamber before the rim begins to be carried up the feed ramps of the rails. With a tapered cartridge, the portion entering the chamber in much smaller than that portion of the chamber and the angularity at that point isn't a problem. A .44 Magnum (or .45 Colt) is straight, and jams between the top of the chamber, bottom edge of the chamber, and the bottom of the rails, tying up the gun. As above, it takes a lot of modification to the action to allow a straight cartridge to feed. Again, assuming Winchester ever entertained a notion of chambering the '92 to the Colt cartridge, the difficulty, and lack of dependability of the feed mechanism with straight cartridges, probably would have been enough to cause them to avoid this cartridge. This is a "Been there, done that" situation for me.

By the time the '92 was introduced the reasons for the interchangeability of ammunition being a desireable trait had largely disappeared. There are probably more buyers for this type of gun now than there would have been during the entire production period of the '92.

 

[J Miller]

Alk8944,

All of the cartridges for the '92 are tapered significantly, even the .44-40. As the cartridge starts into the chamber, the front portion of the case enters the chamber before the rim begins to be carried up the feed ramps of the rails. With a tapered cartridge, the portion entering the chamber in much smaller than that portion of the chamber and the angularity at that point isn't a problem. A .44 Magnum (or .45 Colt) is straight, and jams between the top of the chamber, bottom edge of the chamber, and the bottom of the rails, tying up the gun. As above, it takes a lot of modification to the action to allow a straight cartridge to feed. Again, assuming Winchester ever entertained a notion of chambering the '92 to the Colt cartridge, the difficulty, and lack of dependability of the feed mechanism with straight cartridges, probably would have been enough to cause them to avoid this cartridge.

What you said is exactly what was happening with my brand new in the box Rossi 92 in .45 Colt.
Factory ammo would not feed!!! Some of my reloads that were sized with a carbide die, therefore slightly smaller did feed, but not reliably. The first time I had it to the range I was able to fire 15 rounds.
I sent it to M&M gunsmithing for repair. I am supposed to get it back anytime. I am hopeing he was able to get the right modifications done to fix this problem.
I want to finish my baloon head experiment.

 

[ribbonstone2]

Measuring a few rounds for various makers from the time period (1880-1905) gives wide variations for factory ammo...standardization isn't a bad thing. While I haven't had a '92 in 44/40, have used a 38/40 for years. The tapered design does make feeding, even if fouled with BP, more of a sure thing.

BTW: as still a fan of the 38/40 over the 44/40...not for better balistics, but becasue it's hard to get a miss-feed.

--------
Was given 47 never fired .38specail balloon head cases (the stuff older than this are folded head cases...in these, the whole head is formed by two sheets of thin brass, including the rim...not as strong as the later baloon head cases). Just for grinns, decided to load some with all the FFFg they would hold. Tested against standard smokeless 158gr. RNL bullets, the BP rounds were a bit faster (and I used pulled 158gr. RNL bullets from the same box as the tested smokeless rounds).

Odd thing...these were large pistol primed "Peters" 38specials.

 

[Alk8944]

For J Miller,

One thing I didn't mention was that even though the .44 Magnum won't feed in a Win. '92, a .44 Special will! The difference in length allows the rails to carry the rim up in time to allow the cramping problem to not occur.

Unless you are trying to get 1800 fps area velocity, an easy solution to the problem would be to trim your .45 Colts by 1/8" or maybe slightly more and that will probably allow the gun to feed. The only difficulty this would create is not being able to crimp in standard dies. A Lee Carbide Factory Crimp die would solve that problem.

Again, don't use the short cases unless you would be using Cowboy level loads or a little heavier. If you have a chronograph you could use it to work up to loads about 10% slower than shown for heavy loads with the same powder and pressure wpuld be in the same range.

 

[J Miller]

Alk8944,

I have four guns in .45 colt now. Two revolvers, and two rifles. I have enough trouble loading for these things without cutting my cases to a shorter length. However I do understand what you are saying.
I got some pics from another owner of a Rossi (?) 92 in .45 colt. He had taken and throated the bottom of the chamber a bit. He told me that it really didn't need it, but he did it anyway. My Win 94 Trapper is that way and it will feed anything.
I should get my Rossi back today I hope. Mike at M&M emailed me last week, about Thursday and told me he had sent it out. By what he charged me I figure UPS ground.
When it gets here, I'll be heading for the range to see what it shoots like.
Others have reported their 92's in .45 colt work great, so I'm hoping mine will too.
I'll report on it when I get it back.

 

[J Miller]

Alk8944,

I have my Rossi back now. And although I haven't been to the range yet I did cycle every type of bullet I have loaded in my .45 Colt ammo through it. Everything from factory ammo to the long nosed Keith bullets cycled just fine. Mike at M&M did a good job fixing the feeding problem.

I was perusing the AWA site the other day and noticed they are selling a replica of Colts Lightning Pump action rifle. Then I realized that what you said about the 44-40 being a rifle round adapted to revolvers, and that no handgun round had been adapted to rifles was probably the actual reason that there were no long guns chambered for the .45 Colt.
If I am correct even Colt didn't chamber their own Lightning in the .45 colt round. If the only reason had been the proprieitary reason it would stand to reason they would have done so.
So as far as I am concerned, the subject of why the .45 colt was never chambered in long guns is shelved for now.

But balloon head .45 colts in lever guns isn't.

 

[Gatofeo]

Craaaappp ... can't believe that I said that the .44 Henry cartridge didn't use a pointed bullet because of the danger involved ... sheesh .. what was I thinking? ... The .44 Henry is, indeed, a rimfire!
Some .44 Henry cartridges had a pointed bullet, others had a flat tip, according to "U.S. Cartridges and Their Handguns" by Charles R. Suydam.
I don't believe that the pointed bullet of a Henry round, resting against the RIMFIRE case ahead of it, would pose any danger during recoil, as is the case with CENTERFIRE rounds.
Sheesh ... Imma skulk away now and find a nice brick wall to beat my head against ...

 

[John Kort]

Gatofeo, not to worry. I've also had a memory lapse or a brain miscommunication at times. It just proves that you're human like the rest of us. Actually, your original statement is partially correct because at some point in time, Winchester did make some Henry centerfire cartridges and some Henry rifles to shoot them. I once had an opportunity to add one of these center fire Henry cartridges to my collection, but at $90.00(!), I had to pass.

Well, I took the opportunity these past few days to put together some black powder .45 Colts in Rem-Umc balloon head cases, also known as the solid head button pocket type.

I loaded 5 rounds each with 40 grs. by weight, of Goex, Swiss, and Elephant powders to see the differences between them.

I used Lyman's 454190 bullet which closely simulates the original .45 Colt b.p. bullet. I made them from wheelweight + 2% tin alloy and lubed them with Lyman B.P. Gold and sized them to .457". At 12 b.h.n. they are tough enough to compress the powder charge without distorting them.

I seated them to an o.a.l. of 1.59". This amounted to a powder compression of .16" with Goex and .09" with Swiss and Elephant which are denser powders. These measurements were taken ater settling the powder charge by dumping it through the funnel slowly ( about 5-7 seconds). If the charge is dumped quickly, add .10 to the above compression data.

Now all I need is a nice day some weekend for testing.

John

 

[Gatofeo]

Hey John:
You sized those bullets to .457 inch? Isn't that kinda large in today's modern barrels of .451 or .452 inch?
Of course, at black powder pressures, it won't be as dangerous as if you had used smokeless powder.
Still, don't know if I'd size them that large. A bullet that big might bulge the case to the point where the round won't chamber.
What inspired you to size the bullets to .457 inch? Most of the .45 Colt black powder loads of yore used bullets of .454 or .455 inch.

 

[J Miller]

Actually Winchester .45 Colt bullets are .456" and Remington are .455".
Once seated in a tight case and then pulled and measured they usually are a bit smaller.
Also if you think about it, most older revolvers will have throats that are around .455-.457. This is about right for the old .454 grove diameter specification.

 

[John Kort]

Gatofeo,
My fired cases will allow a .459" bullet to slip inside them and since my circa 1970's set of RCBS dies sizes the case necks a minimal amount, the .457" diameter works aok and I have come to prefer it. I use that diameter on bullets weighing up to 350 grs. and they have worked fine even with maximum doses of 296.

The groove diameter of my rifle checks out at .4525 and the bullet being .0045" larger doesn't seem to hurt anything. It does not take much effort at all to size these bullets to .452" so about the same small amount of additional pressure in the chamber gets the job done I reckon.

I size the case necks to about .03-.06" below where the base of the bullet will rest with the rest of the case being unsized. It seals the chamber better and gives the bullet better alignment into the barrel which can't help but to improve accuracy a little.

Winchester .45 Colt Cowboy ammunition that I have dissected carried .456" bullets as J Miller mentioned.

P.O Ackley once wrote of rechambering a .30-06 to 8MM-06 with the barrel left at .30 caliber. He noted no pressure problems at all firing 8MM bullets down the .30 caliber barrel at .30-06 chamber pressures. He reasoned that once the 8MM bullet was reduced to .30 caliber with the slight additional pressure required, the bullet would give the same pressure results as a .30 caliber bullet of the same weight .

So if its good enough for P.O. Ackley with a tougher jacketed bullet with more bearing caliber surface, well ......................

John

 

[John Kort]

I finally had the opportunity yesterday to try out those black powder loads assembled in old balloon head cases in my Marlin .45 Colt Cowboy.

I fired 29 cartridges in a row and I am happy to report that the thin rimmed cases functioned flawlessly, with no problems whatsoever with extraction.

Factory U.M.C. cartridges averaged 1,241 f.p.s. (I put fresh 2 1/2 remington primers in these)

40 grs. of Elephant 3F averaged 1,085 f.p.s.

40 grs. of Goex 3F averaged 1,247 f.p.s.

40 grs. of Swiss 3F averaged 1,311 f.p.s.

I used Lyman's 454190 bullet made from w.w + 2% tin alloy, at .457" diameter. Bullet weight was 255 grs. This bullet closely simulates the original .45 Colt Black Powder projectile.

Later this summer I plan on loading up 50 rounds and see how things go. Based on these results, I would bet that they will all function fine.

John

 

[J Miller]

John,

Glad you stepped in and continued with my experiment. I couldn't find any stinking balloon head cases to use! And I'm still not set up to reload. So I'm glad you were able to do what I wanted to do. I'm going to shoot up the loaded balloon heads I have and continue with my experiment too.

Questions.
When you opened up the old UMC rounds did you compare the powder in them to the new powder you used?

How much compression did you have using the 454190 and the 40 grs of BP?

What type of lube did you use?

How much fowling blew back into the action?

What kind of accuracy did you have?

Well keep up the good work and let us know what happens.

J

 

[John Kort]

J Miller,

I would be interested in hearing your results with .45 Colt B.P. loads in balloon head cases when you have the opportunity to conduct your tests. More data is good!

To answer your questions:

1.) The powder in the old UMC rounds looked very similar to modern day Goex. In fact the velocities were almost identical with 40 grains of b.p.

2.) Compression of Goex = .16"
Compression of Elephant and Swiss = .09"
Elephant and Swiss are denser - when the powder
measure is set to throw 40 grains by weight of these
powders, the same setting will dispense 36 grs. of Goex.

3.) I used Lyman B.P. Gold because it was handy at the time.
Normally I use SPG.

4.) There was a noticeable amount of powder residue that
found its way back into the action. Not a lot, but it was
there. I decided to pull it apart and give it a good
cleaning. A friend of mine shoots cowboy action with a ‘73
Winchester clone in .45 Colt with b.p. He gets a fair
amount of fouling back into the action after firing about
50 rounds and always spends at least an hour or two
cleaning his rifle thoroughly after a match.

Probably another reason the .45 Colt was not
one of the original cartridges chambered in lever
actions. By comparison, there is no b.p. fouling that gets
back into the action of my circa 1882 .44 W,C,F,
model ‘73 Winchester. The thinner neck of this cartridge
seals the chamber well, just as it was designed to do.

5.) I fired these test round at 25 yards and the best accuracy
came with Swiss & Elephant which produced 5 shot groups
of about 1". Goex groups ran about 1 1/2" for 5 rounds.
Swiss and Elephant produce less fouling than Goex and
since I did not clean my rifle at any time during the test,
that might explain the reason for the better groups with
these powders.

Later this summer I'll shoot more test rounds at 50 yards and compare the results. I'll let you know what happens.

John

 

[John Kort]

Well, two summers have now passed and I have fired about 100 .45 Colt b.p. balloon head cartridges to date without one failure to feed or extract from my .45 Colt Marlin Cowboy Rifle.

Heres a couple of things I've learned.
1.) Since I eventually annealed the case necks of these old U.M.C. and Rem-Umc cases to help keep them from splitting as did some of the original ones I fired, the blowback has all but been eliminated. The necks are more elastic (not dead soft) and seal the chamber better. What has also helped is only neck sizing the cases.

2.) I was unable to attain the velocity of the UMC factory black powder 40 grs. by weight load (1,241 f.p.s.) with any brand of 2F powder including Swiss, which mustered 1,218 f.p.s. (40 grs. by weight of Goex FFG crossed the screens at 1,131 f.p.s. / 40 grs. by weight of Goex FFFG did 1,247 f.p.s. which did equal the UMC cartridge velocity but with less accuracy and was a finer grain size.)

I had recently read an article by William Knight who is an authority on Black Powder, that Sporting Type black powders made in the 1800's were actually a 50-50 blend of 2F and 3F grain sizes. I then took a closer look at the Black Powder that was loaded in the U.M.C. black powder cartridges and, under examination, discovered that there was a definite variance in the grain sizes, so it was possible that this was a blended powder.

Being a traditionalist of sorts, I loaded the .45 Colt balloon head cases first with 20 grs. of Swiss 3f and then 20 grs. of Swiss 2F. I then mixed the powder in each case and seated the Lyman 457190 bullets (w.w. + 2% tin alloy, SPG lube) over the settled powder charge. Primers were Remington 2 1/2's.

Viola, velocity was 1,251 f.p.s. and 6 rounds grouped into 1.54” @ at 50 yards. I then tried some of the New Goex Cowboy powder which also appears to be a blended 2F/3F powder. Accuracy was ok @ 2” for 5 rounds @ 50 yards, but velocity was 1,155 f.p.s. The group then size increased to 3 ¼” for 10 rounds with Goex but the accuracy with the softer fouling Swiss remained fairly constant.

For those of you that would like to try b.p. in the .45 Colt in modern brass, the best load I have found to date is 35 grs. by weight of Swiss 3F. Velocity was right there at 1,243 f.p.s. , nicely duplicating the original U.M.C. black powder cartridge and a full 10 round group @ 50 yards went into 1 ¾”. 36grs. by weight of Swiss 3F performed the same in the original U.M.C. .45 Colt cases.

The .45 Colt + b.p. = lots of fun!

John

 

[J Miller]

John,

I have never had such trouble getting a shooting project finished as I have this one. From the start I've had mechanical problems with my Rossi. And since it's the only 1800's design lever gun I have that can make this test, I've been unable to do it. Add to this the fact that I've been too broke to join a club with an outdoor range, the crappy Illinois weather preventing me from getting to and using the only outdoor range I can afford, health problems, and other things, I hope you can understand my situation.

Now, all whining aside, the mechanical problems of the Rossi seem to be dealt with ~AND~ a local indoor range just finished a 50 yard well ventilated indoor range that I can use the black powder in.
So......my torture test should be completed by this weekend. I've talked my wife into being my photographer and assistant. By this time next week I should have the results in.

I'm still betting that this Rossi has no problems with the balloon head cases loaded with black powder. However, I sincerely doubt it will make it through all 201 rounds without having to be cleaned out a bit.
We'll see.

Joe