The deer I saw shot with a round ball and a charge of GOEX powder didn't say a word about dying from underpowered gun powder. Just kind of died on the spot and we didn't hear a word about it.
loading question
- Thread starter bekuhl37
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
rodwha
58 Cal.
From a revolver that handles no more than 40 grns of powder with a ball? And if so a shot to the vitals?
rodwha
58 Cal.
When I first received my ROA I began looking into using it to hunt with. Nearly everyone told me, including many from this forum, that it would be inhumane as it was no more powerful than a .38 Spl. And knowing that using that today would be highly frowned upon, though maybe it's mostly due to the design of modern projectiles meant to expand quickly though.
In my searching I found many people who did use these percussion revolvers (1858, 1860, and ROA) to hunt, and the common theme was a more energetic powder, one of the three I mentioned, and when chronograph results were looked over the common theme was nearly twice as much energy with figures closer to the modern .45 Colt, if not more such as with Mike Beliveau's findings despite his reduced loads.
I would not feel comfortable using a ball with a mere 217 ft/lbs at the muzzle until I saw it used a few times. Something like the .45 Colt has a well known track record.
In my searching I found many people who did use these percussion revolvers (1858, 1860, and ROA) to hunt, and the common theme was a more energetic powder, one of the three I mentioned, and when chronograph results were looked over the common theme was nearly twice as much energy with figures closer to the modern .45 Colt, if not more such as with Mike Beliveau's findings despite his reduced loads.
I would not feel comfortable using a ball with a mere 217 ft/lbs at the muzzle until I saw it used a few times. Something like the .45 Colt has a well known track record.
There's a lot of MBBW floating around about percussion handguns and their power. One of the most exhaustive and extensive tests ever done was by the staff and other ballistic and forensic experts for "Handguns" magazine for their February 1998 issue. Their intent was to compare the actual power of these revolvers to see how they compared with modern handguns to determine the actual "one shot stop" ability as it relates to modern combat revolvers using round ball, conical and hollow point conical lead bullets. They meticulously researched actual shootouts from police, military and armed citizens to accurately duplicate the actual stopping powder of percussion revolvers. They threw most of the RSP stuff from the earlier 20th century out the window and dove in with modern research to compare known rounds with the Fuller index (a much more accurate way of determining true ballistic efficiency). All loads were tested in ballistic gelatin of the newest type to compare the permanent crush cavity and temporary stretch cavity for hydrostatic shock wounds. They gave fluid physics a real work out. Try to find a copy, it's fascinating reading.
The quick results came out like this...figured in it's ability to make "one shot stops" on humans with round ball fullloads.
'36 Navy....59%
.380 ACP (HP)....58%
.44 Colt Army....75%
.44 Special (HP)....73%
ROA (40 grs.)....79%
.44 Dragoon (50 grs.)....85%
.44 Walker (60 grs.)....87%
.41 Mag. (175grn. JHP)....89%
The Remington figured out to even with the M.1860 Army even with a minor velocity increase, which only added a percentage point or two. The two biggest surprises coming out of the whole test were that the "Sheriff's Model" 1860 with 5" barrel only equaled the .36 Navy's numbers & the Navy's numbers only equaled a .380 ACP, though this is a highspeed, 88 grn. JHP load! That's right boys and girls...ole Wild Bill was packing a pair of .380's! :wink: :haha: His skill proves that aim is more important than power sometimes!
The big surprise was that the round ball was always roughly 16% more efficient than either round nose or hollow point conicals in every .44 gun tested! Had'em scratching their heads and doing reruns. Sure enough...
.44 Army w/ RB...75%
.44 Army w/ conical...64%
.44 Walker w/ RB...87%
.44 Walker w/ conical...71%
Even more perplexing was the failure of the conicals to penetrate much beyond the round balls. Testing kicked theory's butt! :wink: If you think .357 LSW, .44 Special LHP, .45 Colt JHP's & LHP's are OK for your hunting needs, your Colt or Remington percussion revolver will do the same...actually, a little better! If you don't mind schlepping a Dragoon or Walker around, you're getting right alongside .41 Maggie capabilities! :thumbsup:
The quick results came out like this...figured in it's ability to make "one shot stops" on humans with round ball fullloads.
'36 Navy....59%
.380 ACP (HP)....58%
.44 Colt Army....75%
.44 Special (HP)....73%
ROA (40 grs.)....79%
.44 Dragoon (50 grs.)....85%
.44 Walker (60 grs.)....87%
.41 Mag. (175grn. JHP)....89%
The Remington figured out to even with the M.1860 Army even with a minor velocity increase, which only added a percentage point or two. The two biggest surprises coming out of the whole test were that the "Sheriff's Model" 1860 with 5" barrel only equaled the .36 Navy's numbers & the Navy's numbers only equaled a .380 ACP, though this is a highspeed, 88 grn. JHP load! That's right boys and girls...ole Wild Bill was packing a pair of .380's! :wink: :haha: His skill proves that aim is more important than power sometimes!
The big surprise was that the round ball was always roughly 16% more efficient than either round nose or hollow point conicals in every .44 gun tested! Had'em scratching their heads and doing reruns. Sure enough...
.44 Army w/ RB...75%
.44 Army w/ conical...64%
.44 Walker w/ RB...87%
.44 Walker w/ conical...71%
Even more perplexing was the failure of the conicals to penetrate much beyond the round balls. Testing kicked theory's butt! :wink: If you think .357 LSW, .44 Special LHP, .45 Colt JHP's & LHP's are OK for your hunting needs, your Colt or Remington percussion revolver will do the same...actually, a little better! If you don't mind schlepping a Dragoon or Walker around, you're getting right alongside .41 Maggie capabilities! :thumbsup:
rodwha
58 Cal.
I'm curious what powder was used for the testing of the percussion guns. Do you happen to know? There's such a big difference in velocity when comparing a standard powder to a more energetic powder.
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Messages
- 13,381
- Reaction score
- 7,764
Wes/Tex said:
Well, I search engined MBBW to try to figure it out and got some choices... but aint figgering they's what you meant.
Myrtle Beach Bike Week?
Messy Bun with a Braided Wrap?
Macatawa Bay Boat Works?
Massachusetts Bay Bottom Water?
Say, on that article you read did they discuss why the military wanted conicals?
Well, if it's deer hunting... You might want to rethink things. There are a lot of posts on this a while back so do a search. There is a group in Florida that came up with a 220 or 240 grain Caddo lead conical and they use that in a 44 percussion for hog hunting.
If you use a round ball you'll want maximum powder so if I was loading. I'd use fffg black powder, the ball, and Crisco over the ends of the cylinder. A wad will take up space that could have been used for more powder. Have the ball just low enough into the chamber so the cylinder can rotate in the frame.
If you use a round ball you'll want maximum powder so if I was loading. I'd use fffg black powder, the ball, and Crisco over the ends of the cylinder. A wad will take up space that could have been used for more powder. Have the ball just low enough into the chamber so the cylinder can rotate in the frame.
Well What a great place to ask a question. I was looking for info and I got it. I really like all the answers and hope to digest the responses and make some sense out of all of it. I had no idea that I would get much of a response. I am a novice and was looking for advice. I am still going to use the pellets to do my first shoot as it is easier and a bit more controlled. I am sure that the piece of plywood will not be offended by the type of powder used. I will continue to post my results.I also have some FFFg superfine black rifle powder that I hope to use. How much should I use? Thanks again to all. :surrender:
GoodCheer said:
Oops...and I don't mean the Openly Oppressed People's State....sometimes I forget myself. In this case, it's Male Bovine Bowel Waste, the new acceptable version of BS! :wink: :haha:
The only real logical reason I've ever heard to the military use of conicals being used for pre-make cartridges is that they were simpler to make, the adhesive paper stuck better to the conical's base that to the circumference of a round ball. The best comparison of bullet and ball is in Elmer Keith's "Sixguns by Keith" where he quotes two cavalry veterans he knew as a young man. One Confederate, one Federal...basically, they both said the ball with chambers of full of FFg "dropped enemy cavalrymen much better and took all the fight out of them, whereas the pointed bullet would only wound and leave them fighting." He got the consensus from these two old battle vets that the bullet was only better for "foraging and shooting cattle for meat." This from two guys who bet their lives on their revolvers.
Dixie Gun Works used to sell copies of the original conicals. Why they stopped selling them I don't know. IAE- at least some of the originals had a rebated band around the base that the case fit into. It was probably more difficult to accomplish the same thing with a round ball.
Billnpatti
Cannon
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2008
- Messages
- 7,340
- Reaction score
- 44
I don't like the pellets. They give you no latitude in load adjustment. So far as I know, they were designed not for pistols but for inline rifles. They are hard to ignite and require a magnum cap to light them. The inline rifles use the 409 shotgun primers to light the pellets. Give them a try as long as you have them. If they don't work, you can always find a guy who shoots an inline rifle and trade them to him. Until then, make sure that you are using magnum primers and if you are using #11 caps, be sure that your revolver actually has #11 nipples. Most revolvers have #10 nipples. If your #11 caps fall off the nipples, you likely have #10 nipples.
