Conical bullets in C&B pistols

[CaptainKirk]

I can't imagine why you wouldn't want to cast outside today, given your location? :haha:

 

[Dphar]

I can't imagine why you wouldn't want to cast outside today, given your location? :haha:

Casting inside with reasonable ventilation is perfectly safe. I never cast outside. Too cold in winter and often its too windy winter or summer.

Shooting conicals in a Colt C&B may loose the wedge. BTDT.

Dan

 

[Dphar]

Civil War veterans had more combat handgun experience than anyone ever before or since. They generally seemed to agree that the roundball as commonly used by Confederates was a better man stopper than the conicals as issued in paper cartridges to the Union troops.
No doubt the heavier and more pointed conical will deliver deeper penetration but that comes at the expense of reduced shock. More penetration than needed is just wasted energy and C&B revolvers really have no energy to spare.
The best accuracy I have ever gotten from a revolver was with a very short 172 grain .45 caliber wadcutter bullet from a mold Lee no longer offers. I seated those backward since the nose was of very slightly smaller diameter and started easily into the chambers. The rammer sat square to the flat bullet base to keep them straight when rammed down. Wish I still had that mold but I didn't know it was about to be discontinued. Lacking that bullet I feel the ball is the next best choice for both accuracy and terminal performance and is certainly the easiest to load.

A blunt bullet is always better and the typical conical of the time was pointed and took up a lot of powder space. So its possible the RB did work better.
If I were worried about stopping power I would carry something that shoots smokeless powder or a flint or percussion pistol in 50-58 caliber and/or use head shots.
The Ruger OA with a Kieth style semi-wadcutter would be good. I shot a few through the Old Army I once had but it was so darned clunky compared to the Colt design I did not keep it long.

Dan

 

[nkbj]

Civil War veterans had more combat handgun experience than anyone ever before or since. They generally seemed to agree that the roundball as commonly used by Confederates was a better man stopper than the conicals as issued in paper cartridges to the Union troops.
No doubt the heavier and more pointed conical will deliver deeper penetration but that comes at the expense of reduced shock. More penetration than needed is just wasted energy and C&B revolvers really have no energy to spare.
The best accuracy I have ever gotten from a revolver was with a very short 172 grain .45 caliber wadcutter bullet from a mold Lee no longer offers. I seated those backward since the nose was of very slightly smaller diameter and started easily into the chambers. The rammer sat square to the flat bullet base to keep them straight when rammed down. Wish I still had that mold but I didn't know it was about to be discontinued. Lacking that bullet I feel the ball is the next best choice for both accuracy and terminal performance and is certainly the easiest to load.

A blunt bullet is always better and the typical conical of the time was pointed and took up a lot of powder space. So its possible the RB did work better.
If I were worried about stopping power I would carry something that shoots smokeless powder or a flint or percussion pistol in 50-58 caliber and/or use head shots.
The Ruger OA with a Kieth style semi-wadcutter would be good. I shot a few through the Old Army I once had but it was so darned clunky compared to the Colt design I did not keep it long.

Dan

The percussion 14" double 12ga would be nice (as was sold by Navy Arms for reenacting the Great Patriotic War against sled dog mercantilists and their federalist lackeys). Can't help but wonder how many pistol grips had smooth bores in front of them.

 

[DutchmanDick]

I can't imagine why you wouldn't want to cast outside today, given your location? :haha:

Casting inside with reasonable ventilation is perfectly safe. I never cast outside. Too cold in winter and often its too windy winter or summer.

Shooting conicals in a Colt C&B may loose the wedge. BTDT.

Dan

That's a problem in my house - no ventilation adequate for casting (unless I want to boost my heating bill by opening windows). I don't even have a range hood!

 

[Leatherbark]

I have yet to find any published information in terms of remaining energy and terminal ballistics. Maybe I'll have to make my own?



In about 2000 give or take, Ed Sanow (?) writing for Guns & Ammo or their Handguns did a series of tests in ballistic gel with C&B handguns.31 cal through Walker and Mike Venterino did some shooting of them into 1" boards. If I remember the C&B's all came out better than expected. Nothing to sneeze at.

p

Seems I remember that article. If I remember correctly the .454 round ball made a larger permanant cavity in the gelatin than a 45 Colt pointed round nose did. I remember the 36 Navy permanant wound cavity was larger than something more modern.................Bob

 

[CoyoteJoe]

Joe, I believe loading the conical "picket bullets" backwards is one of the theories as to why the early Walkers would blow up. I don't think I'd feel comfortable loading my flat-based Lee conicals in backwards, sounds like a recipe for trouble

Cap, those wadcutters were basically just a short cylinder, forward or backward hardly mattered. They had a narrow band up front, a single lube groove then a wider band at the rear. I found best accuracy was when loaded with the wide band foremost, they started into the chamber more easily that way and I think the wider band took the rifling better. That's just my speculation as to why but they definitely shot more accurately that way, like actual one inch 5 shot groups at 25 yards from a Euroarm '58 Remington.
As to why original Walkers blew up, that also can only be speculation but my understanding was that the metallurgy just wasn't up to the full 60 grain charge, which is why Colt shortened the cylinder in the Dragoons to hold only 50 grains. The Walker was cutting edge technology for its' day and no one really knew what sort of steel or heat treatment was needed to hold that charge.
But there could be something to the backward conical story too. By loading a pointed conical backward one could get a bit more powder under it.
But in any case it was a matter of too much powder for the steel of the cylinder. Has anyone heard of a modern replica Walker blowing up? I suspect most people who shoot the Walker at all enjoy shooting all the powder it can hold but with better steel they are safe with that charge.

 

[nkbj]

Pondered that off and on over the years. I've come to suspect that the problem was (a) metallurgy and (b)people filling the chambers with powder and then levering round ball on top.
Think about the process described; it's human nature. And, the one sure way to get the pressures to the highest achievable.

 

[CaptainKirk]

Joe, I have not heard of any modern Walkers exploding. In fact, everything I've read points to the early first-run batch of Walkers as having the problem, and in addition to the "picket bullet theory", the next usual suspect is, as you mentioned, inferior metallurgy. Your theory about holding more powder if inserted upside down makes sense as well. 60 grains of triple-eff is a hell of a charge for a six-gun cylinder. Not to mention the fact that powder uniformity probably wasn't "all that" back in the day.
One thing I've noticed; my guns seem to have a slightly greater felt recoil when using the conicals...not sure as to why?

 

[CaptainKirk]

Pondered that off and on over the years. I've come to suspect that the problem was (a) metallurgy and (b)people filling the chambers with powder and then levering round ball on top.
Think about the process described; it's human nature. And, the one sure way to get the pressures to the highest achievable.

As mentioned in my previous post, I think you're probably on to something... :thumbsup:

 

[Dave Rosenthal]

Joe, I have not heard of any modern Walkers exploding. In fact, everything I've read points to the early first-run batch of Walkers as having the problem, and in addition to the "picket bullet theory", the next usual suspect is, as you mentioned, inferior metallurgy. Your theory about holding more powder if inserted upside down makes sense as well. 60 grains of triple-eff is a hell of a charge for a six-gun cylinder. Not to mention the fact that powder uniformity probably wasn't "all that" back in the day.
One thing I've noticed; my guns seem to have a slightly greater felt recoil when using the conicals...not sure as to why?

The "Why" might be the differential in the weight of the round ball vs. the bullet. I suspect that these home-cast bullets weigh more than a round ball. If so, then it's just basic physics coming into the equation: every action has an equal & opposite reaction. Since more force is required to get the bullet out of the bore, you're going to "feel" more force come backwards into your hand. In modern firearm terms: a .357 Magnum with a 158 grain head recoils more than a .357 loaded with a 125 grain slug (provided both are traveling at approx. the same FPS).

Hope this helps & Merry Christmas!

Dave

 

[F.G. Ford]

With Cap & Ball hand guns, I have great difficulty in seeing the advantage of a BP type conical.
They are more difficult to load, little, if any energy advantage.
It' kind of like wearing a parashoot, while snorkleing. Why?
My most humble opinion!
Merry Christmas !
Old Ford

 

[CoyoteJoe]

The usual reason for heavier bullets, whether BP or smokeless, is for increased penetration. I don't hunt elk nor fight off bears with my capnball revolvers so I never had much interest in conicals. I would like to fine another of those little wadcutter molds though.

 

[CaptainKirk]

With Cap & Ball hand guns, I have great difficulty in seeing the advantage of a BP type conical.
They are more difficult to load, little, if any energy advantage.
It' kind of like wearing a parashoot, while snorkleing. Why?
My most humble opinion!
Merry Christmas !
Old Ford

Because I can! :grin:
Merry Christmas!

 

[CaptainKirk]

Makes sense to me. Have a Merry Christmas! :v

 

[richard123]

If ballistics is more important than accuracy, then the .45 conical weighing 40-80 grains more than the RB will boost the KE considerably (usually around 80 ft. lbs) using the same powder charge. My cap-n-ball revolvers shoot RB better than conicals, however after years of experimentation, I've found that my Euroarms Rogers & Spencer shoots the 190 grain conical (Buffalo Bullet designed for the Ruger Old Army) backed by a .45 wonder wad and a 30 grain pyrodex pellet with superb accuarcy out to 35 yards. According to Lyman's BP handbook this load generates approx. 775 fps and 250 ft./lbs. of KE.
In Layman's terms- I'm shooting a .38 special that makes a .45 caliber hole.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

While it is true that for the same powder charge a heavier bullet will have more energy, a ball occupies less space and thus leaves more room for powder in the chamber. There is very little difference in energy for conicals or balls if both are loaded with the maximum charge.