Conical bullets in a cap and ball revolver

[hawkeye2]

At pistol distances there is no material difference in accuracy with the conicals out there. There is however a huge difference in ballistics. You are talking about 150 gr ball vs a 240gr conical. If you load the conicals up to snot they are very impressive as a handgun round.

We shoot our matches at 25 and 50 yards and yes there is a difference. I have seen some fantastic targets shot with conicals but they weren't reproductions of originals or the Lee C&B revolver bullets. They were done with bevel base wadcutters from a long obsolete Lyman mold and the person shooting had spent a lot of time getting to that point.

 

[Throwdown58]

At 50 yards a 140 grain ball out of a BP revolver will most likely bounce off of a piece of plywood, or a heavy wool shirt. As you probably know, the best target loads are usually at the low end of the velocity/pressure spectrum. I have specified pistol distances, which is generally thought to be ten yards in a defensive situation. Most casual shooters can't hit a 12" plate at 25 yards, let alone 50, and a BP revolver was never designed for this kind of shooting, not that it isn't fun and challenging. This question wasn't about competition loads.

 

[Wolfman0125]

You know I've seen people say that they have to replace the plunger so that the bullet isn't defaced, but the advice is being given by people who have not been in the shooting sports for any length of time. Historically the most popular bullet in revolvers for target shooting has been the wadcutter, so named because it has a flat face and punches a nice hole in the target. There are even semi-wadcutters designed for semi-autos, for the same effect. When the Pietta plunger smushes the bullet, it looks like a semi-wadcutter, and will be no less or more accurate than a perfect cone at pistol distances. The base of a bullet effects accuracy far more than the nose.

A ball, in a 58 Remington especially, is extremely accurate at pistol distances, but at 140-150gr, is ballistically challenged. For steel plates ten feet away, they are awesome. But I have carried a BP revolver in states where my carry permit does not work for decades, and the ballistics of a 240gr conical is far superior. With the JD bullet, that unlike the original Lee bullets shaves perfectly and flies straight, there isn't a case for a roundball as a defensive round in comparison. Likewise the Walker bullet in the larger cylinder Dragoon and Walker guns.

So the other issue here I see above is lube. In a BP revolver, usually we use lube, or a lube impregnated wad, over the seated ball. This both lubricates the bore, and prevents sparks from the cylinder gap from igniting a neighboring cylinder. The Johnson and Dow bullet has no lube grooves, like a ball, so it also needs similar treatment, or to be dipped in lube as the originals were in their paper cartridges. I am doing a lengthy article and video on this and will post it when it is done. My wife just had our 7th child and I have been delayed in getting it out.

Some good info. I’d be greatly interested in seeing your results. The Pietta models do deface the conicals as they were intended, however this is new information as to how this affects the stability of the round. I would like to see what kind of grouping you get when you post the results. May be on to something there.

 

[Throwdown58]

The nose of a bullet effects the ballistic coefficient, which is only relevant at long distance, and generally effects lighter bullets much more than heavy bullets. The base is where most of the "accuracy," or more correctly, precision, is effected shot to shot, because the wind going past tilts the bullet if the base is uneven. That is why in BPCR bullets, you see nose pour molds from Hoch and many others. Because the sprue plate is only held on one side, it is always a little cockeyed, and makes for an uneven base in a traditional mold. At pistol ranges a perfectly flat nose is just as accurate as a perfect cone. And it isn't new information. Nobody who told you to buy an uberti plunger had ever shot or reloaded revolver rounds to any degree before. Be careful of youtuber advice. They are generally people who did not have the wherewithal to do anything genuinely productive or valuable, and they most likely still live with their parents.

 

[oldhunter1954]

I have a Pietta 1858 Remington Steel Army .44 8 inch barrel. I purchased .450" diameter, 200 grain, conical revolver bullet for .44 Army Revolvers, cast from LEE 90382 from Track of the Wolf, Inc. Fun to play with but did not see any increase in accuracy with them.

 

[Barry Strickland]

Can conical rounds be used in a Navy or a Colt Walker? If so, are they more accurate?
Thanks for any info,

M

The answer is no they are not as accurate. In my fifty years of shooting at NMLRA Championship matches I have not seen any EXPERIENCED competitors using conical projectiles. In a properly tuned C'nB revolver round balls are amazingly accurate.

 

[nkbj]

There's a #452389 in the fun box to try out.
#45266 has worked well in Dragoon and Walker revolvers.
The RCBS #45-225-CAV mold is like a squatty maxiball (like a wadcutter with big lube grooves) that I used in the Walker fifteen years ago.
I'd like to have a .454 round ball mold modified to be adjustable length like this one was done for .36 caliber.
Maybe some day.

 

[Throwdown58]

That's a sweet mold.

 

[Billy Boy]

Can conical rounds be used in a Navy or a Colt Walker? If so, are they more accurate?
Thanks for any info,

M

The bullets must be designed for C&B revolvers so they can be seated concentrically in the chambers. Some old time molds for outside lubricated cartridge bullets (which have a heel to fit into the case mouth) might work if diameters and weights are appropriate.

 

[Jay Templin]

You know I've seen people say that they have to replace the plunger so that the bullet isn't defaced, but the advice is being given by people who have not been in the shooting sports for any length of time. Historically the most popular bullet in revolvers for target shooting has been the wadcutter, so named because it has a flat face and punches a nice hole in the target. There are even semi-wadcutters designed for semi-autos, for the same effect. When the Pietta plunger smushes the bullet, it looks like a semi-wadcutter, and will be no less or more accurate than a perfect cone at pistol distances. The base of a bullet effects accuracy far more than the nose.

What colour is the sky in your world?
I have been shooting revolvers for 40 years, for fun, hunting, and competition. I shot a perfect score on the old Virginia State Police course of fire when that was still required for a Virginia CHP. I typically put all six roundballs from my Pietta into a 3” group at 20 yards. I am telling you that with the smushed conicals, I was only able to hit a piece of 8.5x11” paper with one of six rounds, and practice didn’t help; they were all over the backstop. Then, when I swapped plungers, I *immediately* returned to my usual accuracy.
Jay

 

[Throwdown58]

Most likely they were the Lee conicals, which got cockeyed in the cylinder. The dished plunger may have kept them straight. As I said, I have yet to test the JDs, but smushing the point will not effect accuracy, as they shave perfectly and visually symmetrical.

 

[Jay Templin]

I misspoke- they’re Kerr bullets, not J&D. The issue is still the smashed noses. As shown in the photos I sent a friend when I loaded the first batch, the points are destroyed. The bullets fit right into the chambers and sit up straight. And since they sat into the chamber mouths the same way with both plungers, the only difference is in the shape of the noses. If the noses don’t matter, I shouldn’t have seen the dramatic changes I got when switching from round ball to smushed Kerrs to unsmushed Kerrs.
Jay

 

[mkpatrick]

OK, so out of a CVA Colt Walker, how much powder is max? I think I was told 60 grains in each chamber. But like I found out with modern firearms, not always the hottest load provides the most accuracy.
But what about in these types of revolvers? Is the hotter the better for accuracy?

Thanks again for the info,

Mike

 

[nkbj]

Shmooshed noses...
Not that it matters one way or the other but here's my story.
In the early seventies I bought my first percussion revolver, a Navy Arms 1861. It has 0.373" diameter chambers. When loking around for something besides round ball I modified a Lee mold for 9mm round noses using a 3/8" drill. Then I used the backside of sample rectangles of formica (has a grainy finish to stick to glue) to roll a bevel on the base of the bullets.
They slipped into the chambers, sheared a little bit up front and then swaged outwards to the chamber walls. The noses assumed the shape of the ram.
Those bullets from that goofy mangled mold are very accurate. And they dramatically up the projectile momentum compared to round ball. Great for ringing steel and knocking bricks off of fence posts.
As always, it's just a matter of what works in your piece.
I got lucky with that .36 pretty much the first try and was hooked for life.

 

[nkbj]

OK, so out of a CVA Colt Walker, how much powder is max? I think I was told 60 grains in each chamber. But like I found out with modern firearms, not always the hottest load provides the most accuracy.
But what about in these types of revolvers? Is the hotter the better for accuracy?

Thanks again for the info,

Mike

Getting the bullet as far forward as can towards the front of the cylinder is usually a good place to start. Using a filler while searching for the most accurate powder charge lets you do that.
Lots of people use either cornmeal or cream of what.

On many revolvers the chambers are not cylindrical but rather slightly tapered, so that the deeper the bullet is seated the smaller it becomes. That reminds me, my Walker has .454-.455 chambers but I don't recommember ever checking them for taper. I'll mark a note in the note book to do that.

 

[Throwdown58]

Yeah, remember that we started with the question, are conicals more accurate. Because one would think they are. The answer is no, not generally. The side point that there are youtube mavens out there telling people to buy uberti plungers came up, because ruining the front of the bullet somehow reduces accuracy, is a completely different thing. The **advantage** of conicals is ballistics, knock down power, penetration, etc. There is no accuracy advantage to conicals, but they hit much harder. Now, are there things you can do to make them more accurate? Yes. Competition shooters use cream of wheat to bring the ball or bullet up close to the cylinder gap, and a powder charge that fires the projectile just over the velocity requirement for the competition. That will usually bring the best results. The flatness or sharpness of the nose has no effect whatsoever.

 

[Whitworth]

At 50 yards a 140 grain ball out of a BP revolver will most likely bounce off of a piece of plywood, or a heavy wool shirt. As you probably know, the best target loads are usually at the low end of the velocity/pressure spectrum. I have specified pistol distances, which is generally thought to be ten yards in a defensive situation. Most casual shooters can't hit a 12" plate at 25 yards, let alone 50, and a BP revolver was never designed for this kind of shooting, not that it isn't fun and challenging. This question wasn't about competition loads.

Tell you what, I'll shoot a .44 and you can catch them at 50 yards in that heavy wool shirt

 

[B P Arn]

Slap forehead icon goes here.

 

[Darto]

Blackie Thomas on Youtube has some videos on cap and ball with conicals, loading and shooting, paper bullets, etc. Of course he's not the only one who does...

 

[mkpatrick]

Can I get some opinions on how much is considered max charge in grains for a Colt Walker made by CVA?
(I haven't bought Cream of Wheat in years. But guess I'm heading to the store now! LOL)

And I don't know whether I should start a new thread for this but here goes....
When I put the cylinder back in the revolver, when I tap in the barrel wedge I've always been paranoid as to how tight I should have it.
The tighter it is the harder to **** the hammer and rotate the cylinder.
I'd like it to be easily cocked and rotated for shoot ability but I never have known what the limits are on how loose it can be.
When I take it apart, the wedge and the accompanying spring don't separate like on my Uberti Navy.

So I need opinions and guidance here on how tight or loose for that wedge.

Are there any other adjustments I can make easily to tweak to my preference?