Filler

[hawkeye2]

I’m not so sure. I’ve spoken with a fellow who cuts down these revolvers and he said that 35 grns is the max charge before powder is wasted from either 3 or 3.5” (I don’t recall which). But my thinking is when we see pics of the flash I have a hard time believing excess powder isn’t consumed in that fireball. But what I’ve also read from one who put out a white sheet is that what’s collected does not burn, that it’s the waste materials and not unburned powder.

35 grains is all that'll fit in a 60 Army or .44 Remington so that part's true. It might all be burned in an 8" barrel but I find it hard to believe it's all consumed in 3.5"s. That's more powder than I shoot in my Maynard carbine. More than is needed but if you like smoke & fire......

 

[wb78963]

BR,
Just go on and do it my favorite guns are a pair of Pietta "Marshal DLX" which are kind of fancy engraved polished steel with checkered walnut grips. A four and a half inch barrel In effect an1851 Navy but with half fluted cylinders like the 1862 Police and a short barrel. They have a small loading lever so they look right just short.
Look them up on the Early Modern Firearms web site because I have not learned how to post pictures yet
Bunk.

 

[B P Arn]

Is this what you are referencing? They call it a 5-1/2" barrel on the EMF web site. That is a nice looking gun.

 

[rodwha]

35 grains is all that'll fit in a 60 Army or .44 Remington so that part's true. It might all be burned in an 8" barrel but I find it hard to believe it's all consumed in 3.5"s. That's more powder than I shoot in my Maynard carbine. More than is needed but if you like smoke & fire......

I certainly can’t say if it’s consumed within a 3.5” barrel or not, but I don’t find it hard to believe, especially with a heavier projectile with more friction.

When looking for my NMAs more accurate hunting load (started at 25 grns and worked in 5 grn increments) I found mine will hold over 35 grns but maybe not 40. But then the 30 grn charge I found weighs 33 grns (3F Olde E).

As for needing the smoke and fire, well, I do. Mine is a hunting tool. And I’ve been working on a modified version of my bullets figuring out just how much excess space (minus 1/8”) I have to fill with lead (looks to be about 220-235 grns).

 

[wb78963]

That is it! A fun can rolling plinking gun.
I did not have it at hand and guessed wrong on the barrel length.
Mine have a dovetail front sight which did not interfere with the engraving.
Not a hunting gun a belly to 15 yard gun.
You got to admit is shore ain't ugly
Bunk

 

[Blitz]

It's easy to quit buying them. I have stopped many times.

 

[Blitz]

Kinda like, it`s easy to quite smooking i`ve done it a hundred times .

Buzz

 

[wb78963]

Laying on the bench in my securely locked shop loaded and capped are my two Pietta Marshal.44 revolvers.
One loaded with 15 grains of Graf FFg and the other with 15 grains of Du Pont FFFg both with a lube wad and ball.
In the morning we shall see how that goes.
Which ever one does the best will get loaded with the same load and a corn cob filler and see how that goes.
Holding center and hitting around center usually
Bunk

 

[wb78963]

Using my consecutively numbered pair of Pietta .44 caliber DLX Marshall just to see if there was a difference between the two loads and methods of loading.
One with 15 grains of Graf FFg and one with 15 grains of FFFg DuPont Gunpowder.
Both required a little over a 15 grain volume of corn cob tumbler media over a 1/8" felt lube wad. The filler loads took longer to do because of the added step in loading. The filler placed the ball about a 1/16" below the chamber mouth.
It was raining so a paper target was not possible but my hits on 10 yard steel targets seem to be where I was aiming.
The recoil with FFg was a lot softer than the FFFg, but neither was unpleasant to shoot. With both a small muzzle flash was noticed.
Another round with 20 grains of each this time with only a wad and ball. There was really no room to any significant amount of filler.
Again the FFg load was easiest to shoot but the muzzle flash might be called interesting. The FFFg load was not what I would like to shoot a lot. The muzzle flash was perhaps a little more than the FFg. It was cloudy so the flash was easily seen but is harder to judge from behind the gun.
There may have been room for another 5 grains or so of powder with a little compression, but that was outside the scope of this exercise.
My opinion is the filler option may not be worth the effort but shooting on a paper target will tell the difference if there is any.
Certainly FFg gives a little less recoil but not a significant amount.
Caveat!
Your results may differ. This was my observations with only two guns .
Respectfully submitted
Bunk