Conical bullets in a cap and ball revolver

[M. De Land]

There isn't much penetrating going on to get to human vitals.
Look at the human torso and think about it in terms of how the projectiles behave.
At revolver distances round ball is the lighter and faster projectile.
So let's say you have a relatively blunt projectile going faster* than a slower pointy one.
Which one is more likely to do the most grievous damage towards stopping someone more quickly?
It's a no brainer.

There's another factor in this that I became well acquainted with when hunting with revolvers. Not big game with big powerful pistols but pot meat with slow soft lead. It's the meat and bone of the animal that gets pushed aside that causes the greater damage and a blunt nose with a little extra velocity means noticeably greater damage. That means that before it slows down a faster moving round ball creates greater trauma than a slower streamlined bullet. And the ball just didn't have to penetrate very far to get to a man's vitals.

*Think rate of displacement, like cubic inches per second.

I agree with your assessment but the .44 ball was also noted for it's ability as a horse killer as well as man stopper. The .36 Pattersen used by the Texas rangers was a real game changer against the Apache and Comanche then when the rangers got a brace of Walkers it was over for the Indians which were .44 caliber. It was found that the .44 caliber ball did not need a 50 grain charge to be effective on horses so the mass and weight of the Walker and smaller Dragoons could be reduced even more to the size and weight of the 60 Colt and still get the job done.This was all still while the ball was the preeminent projectile from my understanding.
The Colt was the most numerous into the Civil War years but the Remington became the more sought after because of it's greater strength and accuracy later in the war.

 

[Mustakrakish]

They felt the round ball killed better than the pointy conicals used in the paper cartridges if I understand this correctly from what Elmer Kieth wrote after interviewing one or two actual participants in the Civil war.

Not only did Keith write about Civil War veterans preferring balls for their greater killing power, but he mentioned in "Sixguns" that he'd personally observed a similar effect on numerous animals that he'd shot with balls and conicals. His written opinion was that conicals indeed penetrated better, but balls killed all out of proportion with what the (at least by modern standards) anemic power levels would suggest.

 

[nkbj]

I agree with your assessment but the .44 ball was also noted for it's ability as a horse killer as well as man stopper. The .36 Pattersen used by the Texas rangers was a real game changer against the Apache and Comanche then when the rangers got a brace of Walkers it was over for the Indians which were .44 caliber. It was found that the .44 caliber ball did not need a 50 grain charge to be effective on horses so the mass and weight of the Walker and smaller Dragoons could be reduced even more to the size and weight of the 60 Colt and still get the job done.This was all still while the ball was the preeminent projectile from my understanding.
The Colt was the most numerous into the Civil War years but the Remington became the more sought after because of it's greater strength and accuracy later in the war.

A ball doesn't stop just because it's slowed a bit. Slowing down just means it's lost the rate of displacement that briefly gave it dramatically increased destructive effects. Slow it down and its effectiveness drops to that of an arrow making a hole.
People like to argue over short round bullets versus cylindrical bullets but really people just need to use what fulfills their purposes like people have always done, doing what works. Which reminds me I got a couple of .575 minie molds to lap larger.

 

[BillinOregon]

Be interesting to see some carefully controlled ballistic gelatin comparisons of penetration and cavitation using round vs. conical.
My instinct is that the conical would get the edge, but then nose profile comes into the picture, and we know that most of the revolver ammunition issued during the CW were pointed conicals, which should reduce effectiveness.

 

[M. De Land]

Be interesting to see some carefully controlled ballistic gelatin comparisons of penetration and cavitation using round vs. conical.
My instinct is that the conical would get the edge, but then nose profile comes into the picture, and we know that most of the revolver ammunition issued during the CW were pointed conicals, which should reduce effectiveness.

I shoot percussion revolvers with round balls quite a bit in competition so have good knowledge of how accurate they can be but no knowledge of their killing power other than what I read and have heard from those who have killed game and humans with them. Most have said, in their writings and testimony, that the ball is almost always more accurate and kills more effectively than what one would expect from them. Most all of the 19th century accounts I have read preferred the ball to the conical which were both in common use toward the end of that era.
In my opinion it wasn't until the advent of the 44-40 and 45 Colt cartridge in self contained ammo that the bullet completely surpassed the ball in revolver performance in penetration and killing power . It also could equal the ball in accuracy for the first time,.

 

[rodwha]

I shoot percussion revolvers with round balls quite a bit in competition so have good knowledge of how accurate they can be but no knowledge of their killing power other than what I read and have heard from those who have killed game and humans with them. Most have said, in their writings and testimony, that the ball is almost always more accurate and kills more effectively than what one would expect from them. Most all of the 19th century accounts I have read preferred the ball to the conical which were both in common use toward the end of that era.
In my opinion it wasn't until the advent of the 44-40 and 45 Colt cartridge in self contained ammo that the bullet completely surpassed the ball in revolver performance in penetration and killing power . It also could equal the ball in accuracy for the first time,.

We see that Mike Beliveau’s testing with the ROA and various projectiles and powders shows that a reduced load of 3F T7 with slight compression moved a 255 grn bullet to 920 FPS (7.5” barrel) just like the numbers we read of the original 40 grn load. My ROA holds maybe 5 grns more than my NMA so I’d venture to guess that one could get rather close with a max load.

My ROA and NMA do equally well with a ball as a bullet and their more accurate powder charges, 38 grns of 3F Olde E (or T7) in the ROA and 35 grns in the NMA with their weights being about 3 grns higher when using BP. My shooting has been at 15 yds offhand so I’m not allowing them their full potential. Both of these have 1:16” twist barrels too. Ultimately these are basically the same thing, just loaded differently. Of course one has to use an energetic powder to resemble them.

I don’t know exactly how mine might compare as both have larger charges of powder but pushing a shorter, lighter bullet. As is I estimate the universal bullet will weigh about 220 grn +/- 10 grns and sport a very wide meplat, likely 0.375” like the ones I sent you. I don’t see how they wouldn’t be in the same class.

 

[nkbj]

My testing was done with paper soaked in water until it became a standardized gooey mess.
When I used the available remaining chamber volume for powder space beneath round ball and beneath lead castings from .45 pistol molds the differences in penetration weren't very much.

When testing different nose shapes with the same powder charges, then penetration along with displacement varied greatly.

 

[mkpatrick]

How much powder is recommended to be used in each chamber of a Walker? I've been told 60 grains is max. What are the opinions here?

 

[Bad Karma]

I shoot percussion revolvers with round balls quite a bit in competition so have good knowledge of how accurate they can be but no knowledge of their killing power other than what I read and have heard from those who have killed game and humans with them. Most have said, in their writings and testimony, that the ball is almost always more accurate and kills more effectively than what one would expect from them. Most all of the 19th century accounts I have read preferred the ball to the conical which were both in common use toward the end of that era.
In my opinion it wasn't until the advent of the 44-40 and 45 Colt cartridge in self contained ammo that the bullet completely surpassed the ball in revolver performance in penetration and killing power . It also could equal the ball in accuracy for the first time,.

I was second on scene in a domestic violence related shooting. The woman fired one ball from a Remington NMA, her assailant-husband was hit just left of the sternum even with his nipple in elevation. DRT and didn’t move. The range was about 3 feet and the ball came to rest against his spine breaking a rib at the spine.

I expect similar performance from a bullet IF it has a wide flat point and not the typical pointed bullet as originally designed for the cap and ball revolvers. I’m of the opinion that the broad shape of the round ball’s “nose” is at least partly the cause of the effectiveness of the round ball.

 

[nkbj]

Shazzam. It did what it was designed to do.
Reckon the weapons procurement programs worked better a century and a half ago?

 

[Bad Karma]

Shazzam. It did what it was designed to do.
Reckon the weapons procurement programs worked better a century and a half ago?

The one we have now is pretty effective too.

 

[Whitworth]

I was second on scene in a domestic violence related shooting. The woman fired one ball from a Remington NMA, her assailant-husband was hit just left of the sternum even with his nipple in elevation. DRT and didn’t move. The range was about 3 feet and the ball came to rest against his spine breaking a rib at the spine.

I expect similar performance from a bullet IF it has a wide flat point and not the typical pointed bullet as originally designed for the cap and ball revolvers. I’m of the opinion that the broad shape of the round ball’s “nose” is at least partly the cause of the effectiveness of the round ball.

Over penetration just wastes the bullets energy.

 

[Bad Karma]

Over penetration just wastes the bullets energy.

Yes, no, and possibly. In a residential defensive scenario over penetration could be dangerous to the innocents. Hunting deer I could argue for two holes being better than one. But in any case damage to vitals are paramount with other considerations being secondary.

 

[M. De Land]

Over penetration just wastes the bullets energy.

That's one of those deals where to much is almost always better than not enough ! I would think it really important where body armor is involved as a .44 slug may not go through but it will still stove in your ribs and take the assailant out with blunt force trauma. I once heard and officer talk about taking a hit in his torso with a 9mm slug and commented he was black an blue from his navel to Adams apple but thankfully there was no hole in him.

 

[rodwha]

Over penetration just wastes the bullets energy.

I like the idea of my bullet being capable of nose to tail penetration on a hog. And two holes is always better than one.

 

[Whitworth]

I like the idea of my bullet being capable of nose to tail penetration on a hog. And two holes is always better than one.

Good points about hunting and holes for blood tracking, I was just thinking of keeping the energy and bullet all in the bad guy. Guess too much smokeless powder smoke and "Flying Ashtrays" from my .45 Auto affected my brain . That's some cap and ball load revolver load that goes clear thru nose to tail on a hog, What are you using a full 60 grain charge in a Walker with picket type bullets?

 

[Ian Straus]

How much powder is recommended to be used in each chamber of a Walker? I've been told 60 grains is max. What are the opinions here?

Don't use max unless you are hunting for bear. I have heard that the reason so few original Walkers survive is their cylinders blew out from that max charge. We say metallurgy is better now - but how much better?
I have only loaded my Walker with 55 grains once, just to find out what it was like. It had a real kick, and I don't have the wrist for the Walker anyway.
The Dixie Gun Works catalog says 25 grains FFF for the Uberti Walker. Which is lsightly more than for the Dragoon models. And my Walker seems to shoot OK with that load.

 

[mkpatrick]

Don't use max unless you are hunting for bear. I have heard that the reason so few original Walkers survive is their cylinders blew out from that max charge. We say metallurgy is better now - but how much better?
I have only loaded my Walker with 55 grains once, just to find out what it was like. It had a real kick, and I don't have the wrist for the Walker anyway.
The Dixie Gun Works catalog says 25 grains FFF for the Uberti Walker. Which is lsightly more than for the Dragoon models. And my Walker seems to shoot OK with that load.

Wow 25 grains?
How much in a Uberti open topped Colt Navy then?

 

[Mustakrakish]

I have heard that the reason so few original Walkers survive is their cylinders blew out from that max charge. We say metallurgy is better now - but how much better?

Original Walkers predated the Bessemer process. You can buy steel today from any reputable mill and know exactly how much carbon is in it. That luxury wasn't available in 1847 America. Add in the uncertainties of eyeballing the temperature of steel and things can go off the rails very easily.

How much better is the metallurgy now? With precisely known steel composition and temperatures? On the average, it's much better. When it's not, it's because a mistake was made, and not because the the knowledge of how to do so is lacking.

 

[M. De Land]

Don't use max unless you are hunting for bear. I have heard that the reason so few original Walkers survive is their cylinders blew out from that max charge. We say metallurgy is better now - but how much better?
I have only loaded my Walker with 55 grains once, just to find out what it was like. It had a real kick, and I don't have the wrist for the Walker anyway.
The Dixie Gun Works catalog says 25 grains FFF for the Uberti Walker. Which is lsightly more than for the Dragoon models. And my Walker seems to shoot OK with that load.

Original Walkers were made of rather weak cast iron which is why they were so big and still could not reliably contain black powder pressure in full charge loads.. Modern steel will have no trouble at all of taking full power Walker loads if your wrist will take it.
Same deal in Civil war Parrot rifle cannons that had to have a reinforcing band in the chamber area to keep them from bursting. Actually bronze made far stronger/better cannon barrels than did wrought or cast iron.