Maximum Powder Charge

[crockett]

You're right, I just looked at the 2009 catalog and I don't see them- I saw the bullets on top of p 248 and didn't realize the old ones are missing. The BA0203 looks sort of like the originals and as you can see only the base area was bore diameter. It looks like on p287 they still sell the mold for both the Colt and Remington patterns. If you buy a mold get the good ones ($55) the brass are often not that great.
On the powder charge issue, I was thinking that over a bit and as far as the round ball goes, we can probably all agree that the lock up on a Colt Walker and a Colt 1860 Army is pretty much the same. We can also agree that you cannot possibly load as much powder into the 1860 as the Walker and yet the Walker works okay even if the lock up is the same so cramming as much powder as possible (using a round ball) into the 1860 Army by logic ought to be okay since more powder is used in the Walker without ill effect. Colt, on his revolving rifles used a top strap- Remington didn't think up the idea but Colt left it off his pistols so he must have figured the lock up was strong enough.
On the 180 grain buffalo bullet, the issue is how much added pressure is created by the conical. The round ball weighs around 138-140 grains. To be honest- I don't know, I just know I haven't had trouble. If we think in terms of modern 44-45 caliber handguns the 45ACP uses a 230 grain on the standard load. 185 grain is a "short" bullet. The 44 Magnum uses 240grain SWC on most loads, again a 180 grain bullet is short.
I really think that Scalper has the best point on this, the issue is whether your gun is sound, indexes, is in alignment, doesn't have over sized chambers, etc. If the gun checks out I think you ought to be good to go.
Since you are doing this for amusement and not working up a hunting load, why not back off the top loads and you can still compare the two projectiles. In getting back to Elmer Keith, when he worked out maximum loads on the 44 Special (which grew into the 44 Magnum) or the 45 Colt, he did the same thing, he took what he figured was a load the gun could withstand on a continual basis and then he backed off a couple of grains to add a margin of safety- that's why I put a fair amount of faith into what he said on the percussion revolvers. Hope I haven't been living a charmed life.
Regarding the frame on the Remington, some of those guns were conversions that were fitted with cartridges, in fact today I think there are a few manufacturers offering spare cylinders that shoot cartridges. It may be interesting to find what type of pressures some of those cartidges develop,as well as the weight of their bullets and the powder charges.

 

[jordanka16]

Yes, there are several conversion cylinders made for the Uberti 1858, in .45 LC

Regarding the frame on the Remington, some of those guns were conversions that were fitted with cartridges, in fact today I think there are a few manufacturers offering spare cylinders that shoot cartridges. It may be interesting to find what type of pressures some of those cartidges develop,as well as the weight of their bullets and the powder charges.

Original BP loads for a .45 LC called for 28 to 40 grains of BP behind a 225 grain lead bullet, I can imagine that would generate a lot of pressure, but I can't unfortunately find pressure data on original loads, only for modern +P loads

 

[erzengel]

We have in Germany the requirement of proof shooting every firearm, including muzzle loaders.

For a .44 caliber with rifled barrel, the proof load is: 146.6 grain (9,5 gramm) black powder and 293.2 grain (19 gramm) lead conical at 1400 bar chamber pressure.

In case of a revolver where the powder charge migth be more than can be filled, you put as much powder in that the projectil can be seated in such a way that it is flat with the cylinder.

As long as you have a revolver from Itlay, Spain, germany, they are all proof fired to CIP regulations. Two shots of the above load.

The maximum working load is 92.6 grain of black powder and 231.5 grain lead bullet.

:grin:
That verifies the statement of Elmar Keith.

There is a description of preparing the black powder, no substitue powders!!

The regulations are found in the socalled Beschussgesetz.

I regret that only a few can read the quote, but I include it here fpr others who may be able to read German and can summarize in English better than me.

Als Beschusspulver ist Schwarzpulver in folgender Zusammensetzung und mit
folgender Kontrolle und Vorbehandlung zu verwenden:
”“ Feuchtegehalt max. 1,3 %,
”“ Dichte 1,70 g/cm3 bis 1,80 g/cm3,
”“ Körnung: 0,63 mm Rückstand max. 5 %
0,20 mm Durchsatz max. 5 %,
”“ Chemische Zusammensetzung:
”“ Gehalt an Kaliumnitrat(75 ± 1,5) %,
”“ Gehalt an Schwefel (10 ± 1) %,
”“ Gehalt an Holzkohle (15 ± 1) %,
”“ Aschegehalt max. 0,8 %,
”“ Wasseraufnahme (12 Stunden) max. 1,8 %,
”“ Schüttdichte mind. 0,85 g/cm3.
2.1.2 Zum Vergleich und zur Kontrolle des Gasdruckes wird eine Schrotpatrone im
Kaliber 16 unter Verwendung folgender Bestandteile geladen:
”“ Hülse: Papphülse mit einer Länge von 67,5 bis 70 mm, einer
Bodenkappe aus Metall von 8 bis 20 mm Höhe sowie einer
in den Boden der Hülse eingearbeiteten Einlage aus
Pappe oder Plastik mit einer Stärke von ca. 0,6 mm
und einer Höhe, die das Volumen des zu benutzenden
Schwarzpulvers berücksichtigt,
”“ Zündung: Schrotpatronenzündung, dreiteilig, Durchmesser 6,15
bis 6,20 mm,
”“ Schwarzpulver nach 2.1.1: 3 g,
”“ Pfropfen: Fettfilzpfropfen mit einer Höhe von 10 bis 12 mm,
”“ Schrote: 33 g Schrote mit einem Durchmesser von 2,5 mm,
”“ Bördelung: rund mit Verschlussscheibe aus Pappe, Dicke 1,5 mm,
”“ Länge der geladenen
Patrone:
etwa 64 mm.
Vor der Ermittlung des Gasdruckes sind die Patronen mindestens 24 Stunden bei
einer Temperatur von (21 ± 1) °C mit einer relativen Luftfeuchte von (60 ±
5) % zu lagern. Der Mittelwert des Gasdruckes von 10 dieser Patronen muss in
einem entsprechenden Messlauf nach den Nummern 5.1.1 und 5.1.2 der Anlage III
an der Messstelle I, gemessen mit einem Druckaufnehmer nach den Nummern 5.4.2
und 5.4.3 der Anlage III, #10 = (275 ± 25) bar betragen. Andernfalls ist das
Pulver für den Beschuss zu verwerfen.

For those interested in the complete regulations look here: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/beschussv/gesamt.pdf

 

[jordanka16]

For a .44 caliber with rifled barrel, the proof load is: 146.6 grain (9,5 gramm) black powder and 293.2 grain (19 gramm) lead conical at 1400 bar chamber pressure.

WOW! 1400 bar is 20,000 psi, that's nearly the maximum pressure of a .45 ACP, which is 21,000 psi.

That sure makes me feel better.

 

[crockett]

Jordanka16- I think that's with a 44 caliber rifle- not the revolver, but the point is, most percussion guns are proofed. On the proofing information, it's good to have details. I knew the long arms were proofed, in England the "Tower" stamp I believe gets put on the gun after it is proofed with I think double charges. How one would proof a revolver other than the filling of the chamber with powder- I don't know and whether that alone is a good proof- again I don't know. I also did some quick checking on the Walker Colt because it's a 44 caliber gun and the frame- being a Colt- is not as strong as the Remington, and if I recall I think the notches were wrong and Colt changed them later on. With a ball the Walker took up to 60 grains of fffg, the thing I could not get was what level of powder the Walker used with the conical or "picket" bullet which was supposed to have a flat base and a very tapered point- meaning a lightweight bullet that likely weighed less than the 180 grain buffalo bullet but more than the 138 grain round ball. If anyone has one of the PC Walker molds that casts the HC picket bullet- knowing the weight of that bullet would be a big help. There was some mention of 40 grains of fffg and as I said before that is probably more than will fit into the Remington.
Finally about safety.
I started out with the 36 Colt Navy. I was 15 at the time- legal where I lived, and the guy that sold me the revolver put a 10 grain spout on the flask and told me that was the charge. Well one day I accidentally put a ball into the frame of the target and the ball only went about half way into the wood- not much power.
so.....
The problem as I see it is that in at least a few instances the safety advocates really over do it. I understand their motives but by overdoing too much the issue then becomes "what is actually a safe load?" I think it would be better to say something like a Colt Navy ought to be able to take 25 grains of fffg as a steady diet without harm and the old army cartridge used 17 grains with a conical so- with a round ball a fffg powder charge of 20-22 grains would be a safe load in a gun that functions properly, and there is probably no such thing as a safe load in a gun that does not function properly. There are accounts of conicals being loaded backwards in poorly operating guns that did tear up the gun so problems can exist.
One other issue on the buffalo bullets- I'm sure they are made to tight tolerances but if you think they are a bit over
sized Lee Reloading has some inexpensive sizing dies that might be suitable to squeezing down the bullet a bit more. Sizing the bullets would also insure to you personally all conicals are the same size. Once again- this may be overkill in the safety department. Although I'm suggesting it I've never heard of any black powder percussion shooters doing such although I do size bullets that I cast for the 1873 Colt Peacemaker (45 Colt).
Finally- one last issue. What is the actual correct bullet size for a 44 caliber "Army"? I think there may be some variation between manufacturers and the less expensive models may have poor tolerances. Given that, I suppose you really cannot blame the manufacturers from erring on the side of safety. In the end, you really have to check out your own revolver as already stated.

 

[erzengel]

On page 27 http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/beschussv/gesamt.pdf of that document you find the table for working pressure, working load and prof load according to caliber.

By the way, 1400 bar is working pressure, not proof pressure.

Very short barreld psitol like the Derringer in .44 are limited to 700 bar working pressure.

The a part is for smooth bore, b part for rifled muzzle loaders.

There is genrally first no diffenrece between rifle, pistol or revolver. Same table for all.

2.1.5 regulates if a pistol can not be loaded according to table 2.1.3. Than the load is matched to the maximum working pressure. If the working pressure is as given in the table, than you need the load to the table.

2.1.6 regulates the revolver. That is simple. Fill up every chanmber in the cylinder (one after the other) in such a way that the projectil fits the cylinder without looking above the cylinder because you never get the proof load into the chamber.

2.1.7 says two shots for every barrel or at least one shot for every chamber of a revolver.

And for sure, the guns are loaded with the proof loads or in case of the revolver, the chambers are filled to the maximum. They have to pass otherwise they are certified not be fired again.

Nevertheless, I would not load the proof load and shoot it off hand.

 

[jordanka16]

If I understand both erzengel and the chart correctly, it seems like they load as much powder as possible into the chamber, and then fire a 15 gram projectile, which is roughly 230 grains, is this correct?

Thanks for that chart btw, I don't speak enough german to completely understand it, but I can get the gist.

 

[erzengel]

:hatsoff:

Yes you get that right.

For a revolever I have not seen it, only for my .45 rifle which once got e new breech plug.

I would not fire such load off hand neither do they when proof shooting.

They have a machine that pulls the trigger and and the engineer takes cover just in case.

Hope that is helpful to your needs.

 

[jordanka16]

It's very helpful, it gives me some idea of what kind of load would work best for me, thank you.

 

[Dave Rosenthal]

You must have a good job if you're just 19 and playing with ballistic gelatin! Good for you!

Although I only shoot round balls, I do load my '58 with 25 grains. On the other hand, I have a Buffalo model with a 12" barrel that is 4" longer than the standard 8" tube, and I find that 35 grains does a real good job, followed by a pre-lubed wonder-wad, then the .454 ball. If you can get your hands on one I think that you may be surprised to see how much more velocity the longer tube will net, as the amount of powder that actually burns IN THE TUBE is less than the maximum charge, especially in the 8" version. The 12" revolver is used by several people that I know (some are members of this forum) for both hog and deer hunting!

Good luck with the experiment and please let us know what your results are, as I find this to be worthy of my attention.

Dave
BP Pistol Expert (NRA Qualification Matches)
Competitive BP shooter that uses full-strength loads and wins competitions, e.g. 50 grains in my Walker
(the proceeding is for info purposes only, not bragging, as you wanted to know more about my background )

 

[jordanka16]

You must have a good job if you're just 19 and playing with ballistic gelatin! Good for you!

Thank you, but ballistic gelatin isn't really that expensive, it only costs a lot if you buy really high grade stuff and mix it to FBI specs, that's only necessary if you always need it to be exactly the same, I'm only comparing the RELATIVE results between several calibers and so consistency from batch to batch is not so important, as i'll just be using one batch.

I'm not the only one paying for the gelatin, there's several of us who are interested in the effects, and we are splitting the costs. A 20 lb kit, which is enough to make three blocks 6x6x16 inches is 90 dollars, and that includes molds.

It's fun stuff, I used to mix up gelatin with the stuff you buy in the stores and shoot it with my pellet gun.

 

[R.M.]

Jordan, something else to consider is when you load a conical, the bullet takes up more room in the chamber, so you'll have less room for powder. It's a trade-off that didn't seem worth it for me.
Also, depending on the conical and the revolver, some of the loading gates if you want to call it that, make it difficult to get the bullet to sit over the chamber because of the length. I have used a dremil to remove material so it would make more room. After it was all said and done, I just went back to round balls, but then I just shoot paper mostly.

 

[Dave Rosenthal]

KOOL :thumbsup: Too bad we're 3K miles away...I'd love to come over to your house to play with that stuff!

R. Lee Ermey got to work with some ballistic gelatin on his new show (Lock& Load) that was on a couple of weeks ago. He test-fired a .38 spl, a 9mm, a .45, and a .44 magnum...all in SLOW-MO! It was lit from behind so that the viewer could see the pathway that the rounds took...very impressive!

Again, let me know what your results are.

If you want any further knowledge of my background or shooting credentials, send me a PT and I'll forward you some articles that I wrote for some newsletters of shooting clubs, etc.

OH to be 19 again!

Dave

 

[jordanka16]

I'd love to have a high speed camera, but don't have the budget sadly, bottom end ones go for about $10,000. To get the kind of quality the Discovery Channel uses for Lock & Load, and Mythbusters, the cameras go for about $100,000.

 

[crockett]

jordanka16: I hope you are also checking the Walker thread but in case you aren't I think I have an answer for you. The Walker picket bullet weighed 170 grains,pretty close to the weight of the bullet you want to use, and also 44 caliber. The posted powder charges were 40 grains and 45 grains of fffg black powder. I don't think it is physically possible to get 40 or 45 grains of fffg into the Remington with a conical and since the Remington is stronger than the Colt it would, from all appearances, seem that you can fill up the Remington to as much powder as you can use with the buffalo bullet. I doubt you'll be able to get much more than 35 "ish" grains. Once again, this is assuming, as you have stated, that you have checked out the gun and all is well.

 

[peterbh]

I find the subject interesting but wonder about the accuracy of heavy loads. Years ago I used BP in an original 51 Navy and a 457 Ruger. They didn't shoot fer manure with heavy or even average loads. I followed some advise and used 5-10 gr with round ball and ground corn covering the powder. I got better accuracy that way. I am a superb pistol shot so that doesn't enter into the equation.

 

[erzengel]

Yep, accuracy as in target shooting for competiton needs not the max load but depending on caliber is on the lower end. That is for most revolvers somewhere between the 10 to 20 grain range of Swiss Nr.2 or Wano PPP.

But accuracy I understood was not the question here, here is the question what maximum load is safe.

And that is the after passing the the proof shooting the max working load according to table.

 

[crockett]

I would say that the accuracy depends on a lot of different things.Each bullet has its own profile or ogive with different lengths or driving bands that engage the rifling. The twist of the bore plays a role. According to the theory, the powder charge ought to be adjusted to that point where the bullet is spinning at that speed that stabilizes it best in flight, somethings the charge needs to be light to accomplish this and sometimes the charge needs to be heavier. On my Model 29 S & W 44 Magnum I get the best accuracy (4-6" groups at 100 yards- open sights off a bench) with maximum loads BUT the round was developed by Elmer Keith- who liked maximum charges so maybe the twist of the bore, etc was set up that way. On a Colt 45 (1873 Peacemaker)- pretty much the same thing, I reload and cast bullets on that one and use a pretty heavy bullet and again seem to get best accuracy with near but not quite maximum loads. It seems to me that the large bore guns like heavier loads whereas the 357 Magnum, 36 Navy, etc aren't so particular.
On the percussion revolvers you have another issue and that is trying to ram a conical into the chamber without the conical twisting out of alignment. The conicals of the time were poorly shaped, short driving bands, long pointed tips- not much to keep them in line under the pressure of the ram. I think all or nearly all percussion revolver shooting contests today are won using round balls. Round balls in a percussion handgun don't have the big disadvantage a round ball has in a rifle. In a rifle you might be shooting at something 100 yards off and the round ball loses a lot of velocity but in a handgun duel- I think I read that the typical distance was or is around 21 feet, at that distance the round ball hasn't lost much velocity. The handgun was also designed as a defense weapon against thin skinned humans, you don't need the deep penetration of a hunting bullet that is supposed to go through an animal's shoulders, etc. That's why I thought the test shooting in the ballistic gel would be interesting, the conical will likely give better penetration- let's say the wound channel is 21" deep and long without much expansion due to the pointed tip of the conical while the ball wound channel might be 8" deep and wider due to the ball flattening out. As I see matters, the conical- in a human- will have passed through the body and had wasted energy whereas the ball will have spend all its energy in the target. In any event it ought to be an interesting test. If round balls with sprues could still be obtained that would give us a better idea of what was what at the time as balls back then had the sprue and the flat sprue should have helped bullet expansion provided the sprue was forward.
So why did anyone use a conical bullet if they were inaccurate and no better than round balls? Hard to say, my only guess is the round ball was not conducive to being used in a combustible cartridge. The original conical had a rebated rim around the base over which the paper or case fit. The conical may have been a concession to being able to have ammunition that could be more quickly reloaded- even if inaccurate. The powder charge, if I recall correctly was around 17 gr. for both the Army and Navy, or 44 and 36 so the effectiveness could not have been as great as the round balls. I read that the western lawmen would load from a flask and use round balls and carried the packets of combustible cartridges (with the conicals) only for emergency, back up ammunition.
I suppose on the gel tests, a few conical loads ought to be fired using the 17 grain charge to get some idea of how effective some of the old combustible cartridges were.
Why weren't larger charges used with combustible cartridges? One reason may be the resultant cartridge would be too long to fit into the loading port in the frame. Even with 17 grains the fit is pretty tight, especially on the 1851 Colt Navy.

 

[poordevil]

In my Uberti 1860 Army, I have used a conicle and about 20 gr powder. I found that it shot to point of aim better than the round ball(not high). I have also used 40 gr of powder which is a full cyndler. Stout but not dangerous at all. Though it is more than one needs for paper.

P

 

[erzengel]

:hmm: Can't say that I shot conicals with the revolver.

Seems a question what is your target.

For Competition and paper targets at 25 m I can't remember to have seen in more than 20 years of competition shooting anyone using conicals.

All used round balls and the highest load anybody mentioned was 25 grain of Swiss Nr 2 or Wano PPP.

In my corner of the world mostly Remington New Army and the Rogers & Spencer are used. Some Colt but than normally in .44.

The loads used are 10 grain by few, most range from 15 to 18 grain, some use 20 grain. Some use semolina, others felt cork before seating the rb. On top grease of whatever the shooter believes to be the best there is.

One used black grease many years ago and the doctor stood at his side in his white cloth; only white until the revolver was fired five times. It was training session and the doctor wanted to do one quick pass of 13 shots and return to work.:rotf: