Cap and Ball Revolvers vs Ballistic Gel

[nkbj]

A small hollow base can be beneficial sometimes.
These are .388 caliber.



These are .36 caliber.

 

[Don]

Goodcheer, the bullets in the bottom pic look like some I bought several years ago from a fella who's moniker was Bigiron. He had some issues with not providing product after folks paid him and I haven't seen hide nor hair of him since. Is that a custom mold of your making or did you purchase it?

Don

 

[nkbj]

It's a modification I had done to a round ball mold. The adjustable length is to help tune loads to suit different revolvers.
With .36 caliber you can't size down the commonly available pistol molds like you can for .44's so modifying a .375 ball mold was the way to go.
The work was done by Erik at hollow point mold. It wasn't cheap but it provides bullets for all my .36's.

 

[Artificer]

I enjoyed watching the video.

I also think Loyalist Dave brought up some excellent suggestions.

I do believe it important that the .31 caliber was never considered for a military handgun with the exception that some individuals carried a .32 Cal. Rimfire Smith and Wesson during the War - but it was never a military approved revolver either.

The value of the .31 cal. revolver was as a concealed firearm for civilian use. IOW, something to be carried often or at least when possibly needed. Then far less often the sight of such a weapon caused thugs to rethink their evil intentions, without needing to actually use it. At close range, it could do the job well enough to ensure the civilian could at least get away.

Gus

 

[smoothshooter]

Interesting, but flawed and incomplete.

Should have used balls in all calibers first.
Then conicals, if available.
Test was fired too close to the gel block. Were they afraid they would miss? ( probably ). I know all about the ranges involved in people shooting people and animals, and most living tissue is shot at much longer ranges than was done in the test.

I know, everyone is a critic.

Maybe the video will encourage someone else to do a test that is more thorough, and at realistic ranges.

 

[rodwha]

There isn't a tremendous difference in performance between a foot and 75 feet with a conical.

According to Lee a similar bullet (9mm 125 grn RN has a BC of 0.166). Give it 1000 fps at the muzzle it still has 970 fps at 25 yds. This was at 900' elevation (home). That's a 3% loss of velocity.

At 50 yds it has a velocity of 944 fps, which is a 5.6% loss...

And a .31 cal would have been used at about that distance.

 

[nkbj]

Speaking of which, a few days ago I was going through the Lee box and looked at my first percussion revolver bullet experiment, in about '77 it was with a Lee 9mm mold recut with a 3/8" bit. The bevel on the base was created by rolling the bullet between a couple of pieces of formica samples. The backside of the material had a heavy grain to help adhesive stick to it. That surface pattern got imprinted upon the sides of the bullet as the bearing surface got tapered by the rolling action. The grain held lube. Worked nicely in my Navy Arms 1861 with great accuracy and very noticeable increase in striking power with shooting pendulum targets and silhouettes.
Also when dumping red bricks off of fence posts, an informal target shooting we once engaged in. Round ball wouldn't dump a brick but my bullets did.

 

[nkbj]

Here's results on a little test run a couple of years ago.
The trade off of volume of lead versus volume of powder is what I've always found to be true for penetration, that being heavier bullets tend to make up for the loss of powder space. And by the way, that bullet second from the right really is supposed to say 35 grains (I see I screwed up and wrote "30").



But, and it's a big one, the nose shape of the bullet counts for a lot towards what kind of penetration you're gonna get.

In the demonstration below with a .41 caliber percussion revolver, the same powder charge and same approximate weight of bullets had less than half as much penetration if it started out with a flat (#41026 wadcutter) nose.



The point of all that being this, short bullets (round ball) will give you penetration approximately equal to long bullets. But the shape of the nose is what governs no matter the weight of the bullet. More lead gives you more ability to overcome resistance to change in whatever structures the bullet encounters.

 

[rodwha]

I'd certainly like to compare a .457" ball to my .460" length 195 grn WFN as both have the same preferred powder charge of 30 grns of 3F Olde E/T7 from my NMA, and 35 grns from my ROA. I've sent some out to various people who said they'd test them through a chronograph but no one has followed through.

Prior to moving I was given special permission to test penetration if I rented a private stall. I never had the opportunity before moving.

 

[bearbullets]

I found using balls in the comparison to be a waste of time. We probably would compare balls in a future test as is. I used balls in the 31 because finding proper conicals that aren't undersized are not practical or economical. The lead ball offers as much power as possible in the small confines of a 31 caliber cylinder. I would have liked to use a round nosed 44 caliber bullet in the test, but seating them required a shaving off the tip, resulting in what is essentially a Kaido round. Not a perfect test, but I doubt anyone would take the time to try it. Even if someone else tried this, they have even less education on the subject than either I or my esteemed associate would have.

 

[bearbullets]

To answer your previous query. We are going to do more gel tests, probably from further out. On what? We don't know. My first video concepts are rarely perfect, but I think each subsequent one will feature more improvements. Anything in particular you all would like to see is worthy of suggestion? You know? For science and stuff.

 

[nkbj]

I found using balls in the comparison to be a waste of time. We probably would compare balls in a future test as is. I used balls in the 31 because finding proper conicals that aren't undersized are not practical or economical. The lead ball offers as much power as possible in the small confines of a 31 caliber cylinder. I would have liked to use a round nosed 44 caliber bullet in the test, but seating them required a shaving off the tip, resulting in what is essentially a Kaido round. Not a perfect test, but I doubt anyone would take the time to try it. Even if someone else tried this, they have even less education on the subject than either I or my esteemed associate would have.

Forty years ago I used Remington swaged lead graphite waxed bullets in my .31. They were pretty cheap by the box, intended for reloading .32 S&W. There was a lot of neat stuff available back then just off the shelf.
Now you pretty much end up having to cobble together what you need.

 

[nkbj]

Better view of the .36 revolver bullet adjustable length mold.
The hollow based tail behind the ball is sized to slip into the chamber. The ball still has the interference fit on the chamber mouth, same as before the tail was added.

 

[Blizzard of '93]

a bit 'off topic' but some years back a shooting buddy and I were out in the woods plinking, he had a 4" S&W .357 with 125 gr soft point h.p. slugs and I was shooting my .44 ROA loaded with Lee mold cast slug over 30 gr FFF. mine blew completely through a jack pine sapling tearing a sizeable chunk out the back. the .357 was sticking out a bulge in the bark.

 

[Don]

The ROA is a powerful revolver. Goes to show how some underestimate black powder guns thinking their modern .357 mag is the bee's knee's.

Don

 

[Artificer]

a bit 'off topic' but some years back a shooting buddy and I were out in the woods plinking, he had a 4" S&W .357 with 125 gr soft point h.p. slugs and I was shooting my .44 ROA loaded with Lee mold cast slug over 30 gr FFF. mine blew completely through a jack pine sapling tearing a sizeable chunk out the back. the .357 was sticking out a bulge in the bark.

Both bullets did exactly what they were designed for, but one needs to be careful of comparing bullets designed for two different things.

The .44 was designed for penetration and leaving a large hole, though any energy after going through the target is wasted. Also, what can be a problem is when it goes through a bad guy and hits an innocent bystander. (Normally no problem on a battlefield, but can be a serious problem at other times.)

The H.P. 125 grain .357 dumped ALL of it's energy inside the tree, that is why it is one of the best man stopping bullets around. Don't get me wrong the .357 can go through a body if it doesn't hit something fairly hard, but it still dumps more energy in the body and a larger wound cavity.

Sorry for going OT, but since we are talking about the potential of BP handguns, I thought we should not inadvertently mix the info up with modern revolvers.

Gus

 

[rodwha]

Very good point.

 

[wb78963]

Ask Dave Tutt about the .36 Navy. Oh yes that is right Dave is on the other side with no cell phone service.
Bill Hickok 1 Davis Tutt 0

 

[Stantheman86]

I watch a lot of that "Natural Man" 's videos , he did an awesome one showing Smoothbore .69's out to 100 vs a Rifled 1842 .69

 

[Eras Gone]

I remember when that first came out. Good Video! The lack of authentic conical bullets is one of the reasons I started my bullet mold company.