Didn't want to clutter the Ithaca Damascus thread. I think we've discussed this before, but couldn't find it.

Miller:
"What I believe it was referring to, & this is somewhat borne out in Lefever Arms Co catalogs via their recommendation of wads. Black Powder was quite often loaded into brass shells, hence bores were often oversize for the larger diameter wads.
Shells loaded with Smokeless were generally loaded in paper cases which used regular sized wads. I believe what Ithaca, Lefever & others were saying was they were now boring their barrels much closer to nominal size for use with the paper shells loaded with smokeless powders, but they were still suitable for use with Black."

What we know:
1. The American “E.C.” & “Schultze” Powder Company was established in Oakland, New Jersey in 1890. DuPont Bulk was introduced shortly thereafter; certainly by 1893.
2. Alfred Nobel's “Ballistite” Dense Smokeless was introduced in 1887, patented in 1888, then “Sporting Ballistite” (for shotgun shells) was patented in 1889, but not released to the trade by Nobel’s Explosive Co. until 1895. Laflin & Rand introduced “Infallible” Dense Smokeless powder in 1900.
3. Loaded Smokeless powder shotshells were first listed by Union Metallic Cartridge Co. in the 1891 catalog. Winchester began supplying them to “selected shooters” in 1893 and to the public in 1894.
4. By 1895, most U.S. Live Bird and Inanimate Target competitors had switched to DuPont, “E.C.”, or “Schultze” Bulk Smokeless.
5. This 1895 Chas. Godfrey, N.Y. ad (courtesy of Dave Noreen via Tom Archer) is interesting:
"All L.C. Smith guns are guaranteed to shoot any nitro powder made."
"All guns bored true to gauge to use wads same size of gauge of gun."



This would suggest that (at least for a time and before the marketing dept. got involved ) Miller is correct.
From the Hunter Arms move to Fulton in 1890, 12g guns were bored with the standard .729". Bro. David might comment on the Syracuse bores.

In the 1902 Sears catalog "Bored for Nitro Powder"





6. Ithaca started similar verbiage in 1897

Crass model in Recreation Magazine - "Bored For Black And Nitro Powders"



Still using it in the 1917 Janney, Semple, Hill & Co., Minneapolis catalog listing

Not sure when Lefever first used the phrase



1902 Logan-Gregg Hdw. catalog Union Fire Arms Co. "Bored For Nitro Powder"



Baker catalog listing in 1902



Sears catalog 1902 with "Bored for..."

Colt listing in the 1897 Chas. Godfrey, N.Y. catalog courtesy of Dave Noreen - "Barrels specially bored for nitro powder when so ordered."



Remington 1895 "Guaranteed For Nitro Powders"

A.J. Aubrey ad in Oct. 1907 Cosmopolitan
"taper choke bored for smokeless or black powder"



1908 Sears Catalog: "Shooting qualities- As before explained, the shooting qualities of these guns are unequaled for long distance killing, long range shooting, for penetration, pattern or target. Both barrels are full choke bore, so firmly constructed that unlike other guns, there is no recoil or kicking. That which in other guns goes into recoil in the A J Aubrey gun goes to give greater force to the shot."



Crescent Triumph in the 1898 Sears catalog. In early 1895 Crescent introduced its first hammerless double, the Triumph Hammerless, made in 12 gauge with either 30" or 32" Damascus or Twist barrels. The gun was based on patents issued to William Beesley and controlled by Charles Lancaster and was the only boxlock hammerless double ever made by Crescent.



1900 Sears Crescent hammer gun



and single barrel



1915 "specially bored for Smokeless or Black powder"



1918 "Bored for Nitro Powder"

Bottom line: Miller is likely correct in the transition period from black powder brass shells to nitro powder paper shells. The "guaranteed for" and "bored for" after that was likely just a marketing phrase.

Drew;
I actually see the "Guaranteed for" & "Bored For" as speaking of two different things. The Guaranteed For I see as they are saying their guns are amply strong to handle the increased pressure of the New Smokeless shells.

The Bored For I see best exemplified by this quote;
"All guns bored true to gauge to use wads same size of gauge of gun."
Also the Colt statement;
"Barrels specially bored for nitro powder when so ordered."

It just seems one has to read the Ads very carefully to fully understand what they are saying. It just seems to me that, assuming barrels of similar weight, thus like wall thicknesses that varying the bore size by some .020'-.030" would have little impact on the actual strength of the barrel or its ability to handle any given type of powder.
Those barrels with intentionally oversized bores for using the brass cases with over sized wads would likely not perform well with the smokeless loads in paper cases with wads "Same size as gauge of Gun".

In an 1892 LAC catalog slightly contradictory statements are made on different pages.
On one page in a discussion of guns for Nitro Powder they state, " These guns we are boring smaller or for the use of wads same size as bore.
On another page under instructions for loads the state when using brass cases to use wads 2 sizes larger than borte of gun & for paper cases to use wads 1 size larger than bore.
This raises another question. I measured some left over 12ga card & filler wads purchased the late 1950's. Actual measurement was about .750" or 11 ga. 11 gauge wads from the same era for all brass cases measured around .770" or just shy of 10 ga. I do not have any wads from the 1890's to measure. Were 12 ga wads then considered to be more like .730" or had they already taken on the larger .750" size? This could have a definite bearing on Lefever's recommended wad sizing.

they all said nitro powder was OK in their guns...until their guns started blowing up.....todays Lawyers would of had a hay-day.....

1905 Marlin Model 19 Pump "Made for black and smokeless powder"



Winchester 1897 with Damascus barrel in the 1917 E.C. Simmons catalog "Bored For Nitro Powder"



The latest I've found - Davis guns in the 1922 S,D & G catalog courtesy of Dave Noreen
"choke bored for close hard shooting with nitro or black powder"

Why they blew up was apparent as early as 1899

Sporting Life, Feb. 4, 1899
“Mistakes In Shell Loading Laid to The Powder – Gun Makers and Powder Manufacturers Suffer Through the Carelessness of Users – A Remarkable Case in Virginia – All Powders Not Alike”
Powder manufacturers surely have their own troubles and all because some men who handle the gun and profess to be sportsmen have never studied the action of smokeless powder. Every gunner knows that three drams of good old black powder is a perfectly safe load. Ignorant ones think the same amount of any smokeless powder should be likewise. They have never examined the relative merits or power of the different nitros now on the market, but just simply go along satisfied with anything that their gun dealer offers them. Some people still believe in the old saying: “A pint’s a pound the world around,” no matter whether lead or feathers are being weighed. All smokeless powder looks alike to them, and the printed directions on the can, giving instructions as to the amount to be safely used, is never read. They know all about it, or think they do. They load the shells carefully (?) and they fly away.
It’s surprising to find occasionally a man loading shells who knows as little about the real action of nitro powder as a school boy does about training a rattle snake. His customer calls for three and a half drams of powder and one and one eighth ounce of shot. He loads that amount of powder in any kind his customer orders. If his customer did not know this one powder is twice as dense as another he did not tell him. In the first place he never found it out for himself. It is experience that teaches wisdom and experiment that proves theory. Often when idiots overload a dangerous nitro powder which bursts the gun it becomes a question in their mind who to blackmail. The powder maker is liable to catch it, but the gun maker gets more or less of the blame. He should have made the barrels like those of a cannon instead of a firearm for sportsmen. If the gunner has an idea that the powder maker is to blame he proceeds to blackmail him. That is what it really amounts to. He will swear that he only used three drams of their stuff, but he forgets to send on any of the shells or powder for examination.
A case came up in Virginia recently which is interesting. A gentleman had two guns burst. They were made by one of the most prominent gun manufacturers in this country. He claimed that his load was but three drams of “E.C.” powder and one and one-eighth ounce of No. 8 shot. Some of the shells were sent to the gun makers, and upon investigation it was found that one shell contained sixty-one and one-half grains of Walsrode powder, (The Walsrode Smokeless & Waterproof Gun Powder Co. was established in 1894. Walsrode Gray 33 grain = 3 Dram Eq.; Green 30 grain = 3 Dr. Eq.) which is a nitro known as the dense compound. This powder has been used in this country for several years with much success, and is safe to use when properly loaded, the same as any other nitro. The load recognized by the manufacturers of Walsrode powder is thirty grains for a 12-bore gun. In this case the load was double. Now what would you think of a man who would load six or six and one-half drams of “E.C.”, “Schultze”, Hazard, Du Pont, King’s or Austin smokeless powder or a double charge of Laflin & Rand or “Gold Dust” powder? Such a load would be very liable to do some damage, even to the best-made gun. Yet it is settled that any of the above-named nitros are perfectly safe and reliable with the loads recommended by the makers and loaded by the Union Metallic Cartridge Company, the Winchester Arms Company, the Peters Company and the Chamberlain Company.
Shells examined in this remark showed a very queer combination of powder. Some of the shells contained three drams of “E.C.” powder lightly wadded and poorly crimped. A scientific test showed a pressure below the normal. Another shell examined showed a small amount of “E.C.” powder and the balance of the load being made up of fine black rifle powder. On inquiring into the case it was discovered that the dealer who received the order for the shells placed it in the hands of a boy who was perfectly ignorant of the power of nitro powders as well as the difference between them. The boy used up all of the “E.C.” powder given him for the loading and then put into the remaining shells an equal amount in bulk of Walsrode powder, which is a dense compound and twice as heavy as the “E.C.” When he ran short of Walsrode the fine black rifle powder came in handy. The boy thought that one was as good as the other if it filled the same space. This dangerous combination and double charge of a violent explosive was sold as a safe and reliable load. It is a wonder the shooter was not killed outright. This is only another knock at the hand-loaded shell, which in most cases is nothing more than a poorly and imperfectly machine-loaded shell.
To be sure, there are hundreds of careful shell loaders who never have any trouble with the loads they put out, but these loaders are themselves shooters who have spent years in shooting, experimenting with the various nitro powders and thoroughly understand them. But let one shell be overloaded by some oversight and the powder makers receive the blame. If the gun is injured it is returned as being no good. The one really to blame seldom acknowledges it. The different factories loading shells in this country have the most accurate kind of machinery, and so arranged that an imperfect load or an overcharge of powder is quite impossible. For a factory-loaded shell to burst a gun is something exceedingly rare, but with hand-loaded shells it is a frequent occurrence.
WILL K. PARK (Editor)

Sporting Life Sept. 10, 1904
“Burst Gun Barrels”
The number of burst gun-barrels which, comes to the attention of the shooting public is remarkably small, considering the thousands of guns in use throughout the country. The main reason for the comparatively small number of guns burst is the great use of factory-loaded shells, or the hand-loaded of reliable dealers. The day of loading one’s own shells is pretty well passed, therefore, the over-loaded or double-charged cartridge is very seldom found. Very often a burst barrel is blamed on the gunmaker or the shell-maker, but more often on the manufacturer of the powder. Cases are known where a party blowing out a gun-barrel, using an extra heavy charge of dense powder, blamed it on a bulk powder. A suit for damages was quickly withdrawn after an examination of the gun had been made.

Sporting Life 6-30-06
http://library.la84.org/SportsLibrary/SportingLife/1906/VOL_47_NO_16/SL4716030.pdf
Ed Rike, the well known trap shooter of Dayton, O., suffered a serious accident to his left arm recently in the explosion of his gun, due to a double load of dense powder.

1907 Sears, Roebuck & Co. Catalogue No. 116 courtesy of Gary Rennles

“Nitro powder should only be used by people familiar with it; and dense nitro powder should be weighed by an apothecary’s scale and not measured.”



A 3 Dr. Eq. (Dram Equivalent) load of “E.C.” No. 1 or “Schultze” was 42 grains by weight. 3 Dr. Eq. of Dense Smokeless Ballistite was 24 grains; Infallible 22 grains. The pressure of a 3 Dram (82 grains by volume) load of Black Powder propelling 1 1/8 oz. of shot at 1200 fps is about 5000 psi. The pressure of 1 1/8 oz. 3 Dr. Eq. of BULK Smokeless was 6500 - 7500 psi; 3 Dr. Eq. of DENSE Smokeless was 9000 - 10,000 psi.

Substituting a Dense Smokeless powder for Black or Bulk Smokeless powder would double the charge. It has been estimated that 50 grains of Infallible or Unique could reach 30,000 psi.

Drew, reading the above article leads me to the conclusion that some blame can be laid at the door of the powder manufacturers.
Knowing the entrenched mind set of the dram with no regard to the dram equivalent, it could therefore be argued that to make a powder of double the density of black, at that time, might be irresponsible.
These days we have ADI making Trail Boss powder in the shape of donuts to give bulk to the load & thereby make double charging (at least in a rifle case) near on impossible.
O.M

Personally I do not believe you could call the development of Dense powders as being irresponsible. Some of the loading of it was definitely irresponsible, but there were ample warnings issued about its use.
A former co-worker of mine over powered a small fishing boat. Several of his friends who were also into boating warned him about the dangers of this. He laughed them off saying he always opened it up slowly & he liked how fast it moved once underway. Well one day he opened it too fast, the bow went straight up in the air & the engine pulled the whole rig to the bottom of the lake. I would not call this irresponsible on the part of the Outboard maker for building too powerful an engine for they did not recommend it for this type of boat.
Neither did the makers of dense powders recommend loading a 3 dram "Bulk" measure of their powder. Old loading instructions I have for the dense powders all give load weight in grains while those for bulk powders give the dram measure, same as black without giving an actual weight.

Were we to stop tech development because of 'entrenched mindset' we would still be in the horse and buggy days.

Some people simply will not, ever, heed warnings and sound advice.

I know of a guy who thinks 'gunpowder is gunpowder' and uses completely inappropriate loads in spite of being told that what he is doing is foolhardy and dangerous.

You can't fix stupid.

There were abundant warnings

1902 Sears catalog No. 112
"Gun and rifle barrels can only burst by having some obstruction in the barrel or by overloading with Nitro powder."
FOLLOW THESE INSTRUCTIONS




Some were not paying attention

Hatcher's Notebook, 1966
https://books.google.com/books?id=yESNUKSg5aMC&pg=PA184&lpg
“E.C.” blank powder burns with extreme speed…to give a sharp report when it is not heavily confined. An enthusiast once got hold of some of this powder, being familiar with “E.C.” shotgun powder…and loaded a bunch of shells. To try out his new load he got out his fine Lefever gun, and put up a target in the shooting gallery to get the pattern. There was a terrific detonation, and a big piece was blown out the side of the barrel near the breech, flew across the room and buried itself in a wood bench.

Then and now

On the LCSCA Forum in Dec. 2014 regarding a 1906 No. 0 10g; barrel composition unknown:
I was at a farm where a guy I have known for a couple years came out with this L.C. smith. He first shot the gun with Federal Premium Vital-Shok 3 1/2 Inch Magnum copper-plated 1100 fps 27 pellets No. 1 buck (27 pellets of #1 buck is about 2 1/2 oz.). I still have the box and 1 live shell. He fired one shell out of each barrel with no problems. I asked if I could shoot the gun...and fired 1 shell out of each barrel.
I have never seen a gun this old nevertheless shoot one. I thought it would be cool to hunt with it. I'm guessing from your comment not such a good idea.

1903 Baltimore Arms Co. catalog courtesy of David Noreen
"Do not load any smokeless or nitro powder in brass shells. There are two kinds of smokeless powder (dense and bulk) and care should be taken..."





No doubt part of the problem was the many powders, with different Dram Equivalents, available. Ah capitalism

42 grain = 3 Dram Equivalent Bulk Powders

“E.C.” No. 1
“Schultze”
Curtis & Harvey “Amberite” (40 grains)
Sporting Smokeless Powder Syn., Ltd “Cannonite Shot-gun”
Smokeless Powder Co. “S.S.” (Smokeless Shot-gun) (43 grains)
Cooppal & Co. “Cooppal’s No. 1”
United States Smokeless Powder Co. “Gold Dust”
Dynamit Nobel’s Troisdorf Powder Co. “Troisdorf” (41.5 grains)
American Wood Powder
“J.B.” Powder

36 Grain = 3 Dram Equivalent Bulk Powders

DuPont Bulk (36.5 grains)
Laflin & Rand Bulk (37 grains)
Hazard Powder Co. “Blue Ribbon” (37 grains)
“E.C.” No. 2 (Improved)
“New Schultze”

33 Grain = 3 Dram Equivalent Bulk Powders

“New E.C. (Improved) No. 3” (introduced in U.S. in 1904)
Curtis & Harvey “Diamond Smokeless” (1903)
Walsrode Smokeless & Waterproof Gun Powder Co. “Walsrode Gray”
Louis Muller & Cie S.A. “Mullerite No. 2”
Nobel’s Explosive Co. “Empire”
“Cooppal’s No. 2” (30 grains = 3 Dr. Eq.)

England had the same problem
1896 UK Rules of Proof Service Charges for Nitro Powder
https://books.google.com/books?id=inQCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA7



After WWI, the standard for 2 1/2” shells became 1 1/16 oz. with 42 grains (Old) “Schultze” Bulk (3 Dram), 36 grains “E.C. No. 2 (Improved)” or 33 grains Imperial Chemical Industries (Eley & Kynoch Cartridges) “Smokeless Diamond” powder.

DuPont purchased Laflin & Rand in 1902, and American “E.C.” & “Schultze” Powder Company in 1903. “New E.C. Improved” and “New Schultze” were introduced in 1906 as DuPont products.
Hazard “Blue Ribbon” Bulk Smokeless was listed as a DuPont product in 1908.
In 1912 under the Sherman Antitrust Act, Laflin & Rand was dissolved and DuPont was split into DuPont Powder Co. (later DuPont American Industries), Hercules Powder Co. (which retained “Infallible”, “E.C.” and “Schultze”) and Atlas Powder Co. L&R “Orange Extra” black powder was still offered in the 1927 “Hercules Sporting Powders” booklet.


An attempt to bring order to U.S. smokeless powder chaos

Simplified Practice Recommendation, Loader Paper Shot Shells, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Standards, Jan. 1, 1922 - https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=oSwXAQAAIAAJ

Note though that whether a 42 grain, 36 grain, 33 grain or other all those powders listed as "Bulk" were intended to load a 3 dram equivalent load with a 3 dram Black Powder Dipper. When things went out the window though was when folks loaded Infallible, Ballistite or other dense powders with a bulk dipper.
A 3 dram dipper full of Infallible was not the equivalent of a 3 dram dipper full of either Schultz or New Shultz. The 3 dram dipper full of Schultz would weigh 42 grains while the same dipper full of New Shultz would only weigh 36 grains, but they were both 3 dram equivalent.
A 1913 LAC catalog list 24 grains of Infallible as a 3 dram equivalent load. Heaviest load listed ion 12 ga was 28 grains for a 3½ dram Equiv. A 3 dram bulk dipper full of Infallible would have weighed about 48 grains. (This derived from the settings from an old Lyman Handbook for setting the #5 powder measure) Note also that Black Powder burns at virtually the same speed regardless of conditions, not so with Smokeless. Double charging with Black is not near as Catastrophic as Double Charging Smokeless.

Now I know why my Parker 12ga Hammergun circa 1887 has bores of .752 which means it was intended for Black powder. !

A helpful comparison

.....................BULK.................................DENSE
.......E.C. No.1.....DuPont…...…Schultze........Walsrode Green.....Ballistite….....Infallible
3 Dram....42...........36.5..............42................30………..…...24..............22 grains
3 1/4…....45.5.........40................45................32……..….…..26..............24 grains
3 1/2…....49............43................48................34………..…...28..............26 grains

The original “Schultze” & “E.C.” No. 1 Bulk Smokeless were 14 grains/drachm.
“New Schultze”, New “E.C.(Improved) No. 2”, and DuPont Bulk Smokeless were 12 grains/drachm.
“E.C. No. 3” was 11 grains/drachm or 33 grains = 3 Dr. Eq.

Later advertisements and load listings showed “Ballistite” and “Infallible” as equivalent.

Thank you Gentlemen for taking my comment & shining light on it so that it could be expanded into this very useful information on page two.

Just one more thing.
Why is it always recommended to not load smokeless powder into brass shotgun hulls ?
O.M

Moses;
My very first experience with loading shotshells was back in the late 1950s. I loaded brass 20 ga shells I acquired from Alcan, Fiocchi brand. These were primed with Berdan primers which made for rather slow reloading but it worked for the amount of shooting I was doing at the time. I loaded with smokeless powder exclusively. Only the quick burning powders could be properly ignited such as Red Dot, Dupont bulk & an imported powder know as Nike.
Black powder was very easy to ignite & I think many of the primers available in the early days for the brass shells simply would not satisfactorily ignite the smokeless powders. A bit later Alcan brought out a line of brass shells using the old Remington 57 shotshell primers which could be satisfactorily used with any of the smokeless powders. As I recall these were only available in 12ga. They were made to fit a 2 3/4" chamber but would effectively hold the 3" magnum load.
I hope this answers your question just a bit, but I really feel it was the matter of ignition.

In the 1886-7 Chamberlin Cartridge Co. catalog they list specific loadings with over-gauge wads for Parker Bros. guns --

As a marketing person, I find this thread highly amusing

You're such a cynic Aleksei

No mention of ANY powder guarantee

Don't really see anything "Amusing" in trying to determine just what was meant by some "Marketing Phrase". What I find sometimes amusing & other times Highly Offensive is the phrases marketers will use to push their products.
A good example of this ;later was back when "Water Beds" were making a "Splash" on the market. Many folks were "Justifiably" concerned about the additional load on their floors. Water Bed Marketers began publishing the phrase that a 100 lb woman in spike heels placed mor PSI on the floor than did their water beds. That of course was absolutely irrelevant, driving a nail in to secure the sub floor put more PSI on the joist then either but it doesn't break the joist or cause it ti sag. total Weight does that, NOT PSI. Even a regular Full size water mattress contained more than 800 lbs of water, That puts a lot more stress on the floor joist than a 100 lb woman, matter not the PSI. The spike heel might dent or puncture the floor surface but it is not going to stress it structurally that all that excess weight.
Virtually all Marketing has to be taken with a BIG GRAIN of SALT, or you might get hooked into believing a lie.

We ought to know by now if that Woolwich gun lived up to its name.
I personally have never heard of them before, but I will take two.
O.M

This one might still be available Moses
http://www.victorianweb.org/technology/military/7.html

Re: nitro powder in brass shells I tried to find a specific historical reference, but could not, and was hoping someone with expertise in BP shotshell loading might comment.
The usual statement is that brass cases had a greater internal capacity and required very different loading components. Both Bulk and certainly Dense Smokeless would not be compressed by the over-powder wads and combustion was incomplete. There may also be a theoretical risk of detonation/'pressure excursions'.

Smokeless Powder DDT has been...uh...vigorously debated here
http://www.trapshooters.com/threads/smokeless-powder-ddt.245629/

From the May 1903 Baltimore Arms Co. catalog --



Note the first sentence.

From a late 1950's Lyman Ideal Handbook, "Quoted from Alcan Literature";

Our 645 Berdan primer for Alcan brass shells is a NM-NC shotshell primer. The Berdan primer of regular shotshell force is satisfactory for most types of smokeless shotgun powders.

When the maximum or magnum load is desired it is necessary to drill from the inside of the case with a 15/64"drill & then reverse the case using a counter-sink or 3/8" drill and just touch the primer pocket enough to allow the flange of a G209F primer to fit flush with the case.

Any powder charges recommended for the regular case is quite satisfactory with an all brass case.

The most simple & satisfactory method for keeping the overshot "B" wad in position is to place a few drops of Sodium Silicate (waterglass) over the wad. Waterglass is more satisfactory than wax as it forms a firm hold between the wad & brass case which takes the place of "Crimp Pressure" normally accomplished by turning over the paper tubes. This crimp pressure is very helpful in obtaining uniform ballistics.

The wads used in a brass case should be of a special type which are slightly larger than the regular wad used in a paper shell. This is necessary because the wall thickness of the brass shell is thinner than that of the regular paper tube. These oversize wads give better gas sealing and a better load results. The use of oversize wads in brass shells is quite safe. Alcan furnishes these at no extra cost in all gauges from 12 to .410.

This handbook has lost its cover over the years but I believe it is #40. I know I acquired it around 1956 or '57.

I am personally of the firm believe that an adequate primer & adequate sealing of the top wad is the real criteria for using smokeless in brass cases. I think that in the very early days adequate primers for smokeless were non existent for the brass cases thus these early warnings against its use.

Thank you for that info 2-piper.
A flat statement such as "no nitro in brass" with no explanation at all, is no answer at all, to an enquiring mind.
We need reasons.
Lyman & Alcan satisfactorily answered my question.
Now I can forge ahead with loads for old guns.
O.M

Moses;
One other reason has occurred to me & that is the effect of mercuric primers on brass. Mercury makes brass brittle. This was a problem with early rifle reloading with smokeless. It seems the black powder fouling somewhat absorbed the Mercury from the primers, plus cases loaded with black were normally washed after use. There was a problem with case separation when loading smokeless until non-Mercuric primers were developed. I don't recall now the date this occurred but it was much earlier than Non-Corrosive priming as I recall. This could well have been another reason, though it was truly more primer than powder related, but the one affected the other.