Shooters Forum banner

warm loads for very early 1892 38/40

4K views 28 replies 14 participants last post by  rifter 
#1 ·
I have a good shootable condition model 1892 38 WCF made in 1894. I have safely shot it with BP and BP-equivalent cowboy loads. Are such early year production rifles safe with hotter, “rifle only” loads?

I am sure this has been covered so I apologize in advance if this is repetitive
 
#2 ·
I would think that if you used Unique powder with cast bullets, you will be fine. I have a Rossi Puma a clone of Winchester's model 1892, in .44-40, and the cast bullets, along with Unique powder, work fine for Cowboy loads, and is a lot cleaner than using Black Powder.
 
#3 ·
Welcome to Shooters Forum, eLK. :)

If I had a model 1892, manufactured in 1894, I would be very selective about not only the loads used in it, but how often I fired it; no matter the conditions, that is a highly collectible firearm and should be shot sparingly.

If you must shoot it, which I completely understand, then stick to the cowboy loads.

Do you handload?
 
#4 ·
I must 🙂

Luckily it’s not that fine a specimen so I don’t mind putting a few rounds through it. I do have a press... not that I get around to loading much.

Why warmer loads? Deer hunting. My dad already took two bucks this year on the property we hunt, so no need for more antlers... Just a little more population control and some meat. I was hoping to stalk around the woods where it’s close range and 95 lb. does. I’d want a load just warm enough to feel responsible hunting. 38-40 cowboy loads in a rifle are seemingly lighter than 40 S&W: adequate to take a deer if you had to, but not as a choice, IMHO. Closer to 700 ft-lbs would be ideal. Winchester Super-X loads were 538 ft-lbs. I’d read the weakest loads were meant to be safe in old revolvers, and the rifles can manage more, but also that 1894 might be weaker, BP-era steel.
 
#5 ·
I'm guessing this isn't the only woods rifle you have for hunting, although I do understand the interest in hunting with it.

My family inherited a Model '92 in 44-40 and we use stout loads to hunt deer with it. I'll likely have it out in the woods yet again this season. However, it was manufactured in the 60's and is made of steel I know I can trust.

Regardless of condition, you have a collectible rifle and I'd be cautious in hot-rodding it to hunt big game. It's not really well-suited to that purpose, anyway, since the 40-caliber bullets it shoots aren't meant for what you propose. Go bark a squirrel or put a rabbit in the pot, if you want to hunt with it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Davers
#8 ·
Poor analogy. Structural steel is mostly 1018 or the like; not something that you'd want to build a rifle receiver out of, at least not without substantial case-hardening.
 
#21 ·
Not So. The point being made is that steel doesn't weaken with age, unless corrosion happens.
Not comparing types of steel.

Whatever proof load pressure it was designed for will still be there...exceed that and you have a bomb waiting to happen.

Stay within the designed pressures. Simple. :)
 
#16 ·
It's not so much that they made "bad" steel in 1894, they just didn't know how to make the high tensile alloys we consider common. By 1894, they'd learned to make pretty good nickel steel alloy, but knew nothing about manganese steel or chromolly alloys and barely understood controlling the carbon content.

One of the things that killed the Titanic was that no one knew having a high sulphur content made the steel brittle at low temperatures. Some years ago a guy got a sample of the hull material from the Titanic. At room temperature, it it tested just fine. After cooling it to the freezing point of water, it shattered like glass.

When you're buying a repro, you're getting the appearance from 120 years ago, but you're also getting modern metallurgy.

The guns of the era were designed to work with the relatively low pressure loads of the day. Twelve years later, the 30-06 with peak pressures around 60,000psi was considered seriously exotic AND they ran into trouble with the heat treatment of the manganese steel receivers.

Take everyone's advice and keep your loads very moderate. You're not giving up that much, hunters with black powder cartridges harvested a lot of game.
 
#17 ·
It's not so much that they made "bad" steel in 1894, they just didn't know how to make the high tensile alloys we consider common. By 1894, they'd learned to make pretty good nickel steel alloy, but knew nothing about manganese steel or chromolly alloys and barely understood controlling the carbon content.

One of the things that killed the Titanic was that no one knew having a high sulphur content made the steel brittle at low temperatures. Some years ago a guy got a sample of the hull material from the Titanic. At room temperature, it it tested just fine. After cooling it to the freezing point of water, it shattered like glass.

When you're buying a repro, you're getting the appearance from 120 years ago, but you're also getting modern metallurgy.


The guns of the era were designed to work with the relatively low pressure loads of the day. Twelve years later, the 30-06 with peak pressures around 60,000psi was considered seriously exotic AND they ran into trouble with the heat treatment of the manganese steel receivers.

Take everyone's advice and keep your loads very moderate. You're not giving up that much, hunters with black powder cartridges harvested a lot of game.
Something in the neighborhood of 4 - 5 million Buffalo.

Jim O
 
#18 ·
Do some research on the original black powder loads in that caliber. You should be OK duplicating those loads with black powder. What I would NOT DO is use smokeless powder equivalent loads, nor any of the so-called Express loads that appeared in the late 1890s. Smokeless has a completely different burn profile compared to black, and may be too much for the older steel in those rifles even if the end velocity is the same. Stick with black powder or one of the substitutes.

If the rifle was made in 1894, chances are it was not made using the stronger "smokeless" steel that was starting to be used as smokeless powder made inroads into the arms manufacturing business. In fact, many of the catalogues of the day specifically warn against using the Express versions in the less strong rifles made for black powder ammo.
 
#22 · (Edited)
Actually when talking about firearms, they do get weaker with age. Firearms aren't art with elevators, they are pressure vessels; they weaken with age and cyclic expansion.

Cheers
 
#25 ·
Further thoughts.

Manufacturing processes are designed around the intended use. It is fairly straightforward to case-harden mild steel (per the Mauser and other designs of the era that will handle smokeless powder at least to the 40,000 - 50,000 psi range).

But it costs money to do so, adding an extra step (at least) in the manufacturing process. Hence, that step can be safely skipped if the gun will never use anything but black powder cartridges. Winchester was well known to change gun manufacture for rifle cartridges that were originally introduced as black powder, then 'upgraded' to smokeless. It is stamped on the barrel!

Whether or not the pistol-cartridge guns were made for eventual smokeless pressures in 1894 is something only known to Winchester, and doubtless long ago lost. There would be numerous tests that could be made on the gun to determine the exact metallurgy, but at least some of those tests would be destructive, and hardly worth the cost.

If one could determine with certainty the exact year that "high speed" (smokeless) cartridges were produced in that chambering, it might help determine whether the gun was probably manufactured for such. If the barrel is stamped 'nickel steel' or whatever Winchester marked later guns with, then no problem.

The safest thing to do is simply shoot cartridges that are known to be safe in the year of manufacture. And I would agree that the steel would more likely be too soft, than too brittle. But we really don't know for sure.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top