Original loadings???

[Texas77]

I have a 60 Army Colt, Uberti, and the manual says the maximum load is 30 grains. Does anyone here know the actual loadings they used in the Civil war? I would think for combat, it would be a heavy powder charge of blackpowder. Also, considering today's replicas use modern steel that are stronger than yesterday's revolvers, wouldn't the Uberti Max. loading be somewhat conservative? What do you guys think?

 

[CoyoteJoe]

Not certain but I seem to recall that the standard issue paper cartridge used by the feds contained 28 gr. of powder and a rather sharp pointed conical bullet. Combat veterans and battlefield surgons felt that the .36 round ball did more damage than the pointed .44 bullet.
Confederates seldom had the luxury of pre-fab cartridges and probably made more use of balls.
Modern replicas are safe with all the powder you can squeeze in but that won't be more than 35 gr. in the 1860.

 

[Toomuch_36]

I have a 60 Army Colt, Uberti, and the manual says the maximum load is 30 grains. Does anyone here know the actual loadings they used in the Civil war? I would think for combat, it would be a heavy powder charge of blackpowder. Also, considering today's replicas use modern steel that are stronger than yesterday's revolvers, wouldn't the Uberti Max. loading be somewhat conservative? What do you guys think?

Thirty grains is a prety stout load for a revolver. You mentioned that todays steels are better than in the 1860s, todays powder is also more potent.
The fact still remains that if you can't hit your target all that powder is just a waste. A lighter charge will usually produce greater accuracy and smaller groups. Experiment with different loads to determine what your pistol likes and that is your best load.

Toomuch
...........
Shoot Flint

 

[mec]

Here are some 19th Century revolver loads. Some of them seem suspect because it would be difficult to fit one or two of the charges/balls into the chambers. Likely those loads were meant for dragoons. - Sources early American Rifleman articles .

Appendix II Percussion Pistols and Revolvers
Colt’s Recommended Loads
19th Century-Expressed in Grains

.31 Pocket Revolver 13.5 Grains Unspecified Powder 76 Grain Conical Bullet or 50 grain Ball.
36 1851/61 Navy 20 Grains Unspecified Black Powder 140 Grain Conical Bullet or 81 Grain Round Ball
.36 Pocket Models 15 Grains Unspecified Black Powder Period Conical Bullet-weight unspecified

.44 Dragoon 41 Grains Unspecified Powder and 146 Grain Ball or 219 Grain Bullet
.44 1860 27 Grains Unspecified Powder 212 Grain Conical Bullet or 146-Grain Ball.
.44 Walker 40 to 50 Grains Unspecified Powder 212 Grain Conical Bullet.
19th Century references often do not specify powder types but those that do recommend FFG for all except the small pocket models.
Granulation is achieved by grating the powder through screens of specified sizes. Manufacturer’s standards regarding proper granulation are highly variable.
Screen sizes:
Fg 12 ”“16 squares per inch. FFg 30- 50 squares per inch. FFFg 50+ squares/inch












III
19th Century Combustible Cartridges

Powder (grains) Bullet Weight
.36 Cartridges

Hazard Powder (Colt) 21 Grains Hazard Powder 141 Conical

Johnson &Dow 17 Grains Unspec. 150 Conical

Bartholow’s 14 155

Unknown 13 149



.44 Cartridges

Hazard Powder (Colt )36 Hazard Powder 211 Conical

Johnson & Dow 35 Unknown 242

Bartholow’s 19 260

Hotchkiss 22 207

Unknown 17 257

Unknown 22 207

 

[Charley Hart]

My 1858 rem shoots 30 fine, my colt likes a little less say 28. These are both with round balls. The heavier bullets need less for me to have reasonable recoil. Look for a load that works in your gun/bullet. I usually start at 25 grains and work up in a 44.

As someone mentioned if you can't conistently hit your target all you are doing is wasting powder and possibly putting extra wear and tear on your gun.

 

A revolver is self limiting as you can only get so much in the cylinder and still have room to seat the projectile. I don't know of any reputable replica that won't take a cylinder full of Fffg.

As far as todays powders being stronger than the powders in the late 1800's I believe I'd have to take exception to that. At least until the recent introduction of some hotter powders. If you doubt that try to regulate a double rifle with GOEX, Elephant or anything that was available before Swiss came on our market. When a double rifle won't regulate put some rounds across a chronograph and see why. Without duplexing you simply will not achieve the velocity necessary for the rifle to regulate. Curtiss & Harvey, Laughlin & Rand, Hazard's and DuPont were stronger, wetter and probably cleaner burning than today's powders.

Vic

 

[bibletotingunslinger]

QUOTE:Curtiss & Harvey, Laughlin & Rand, Hazard's and DuPont were stronger, wetter and probably cleaner burning than today's powders.


That's very interesting.

 

[mec]

The thing about having to use Swiss to regulate double rifles is the best window into 19th century powder performance I've run across. It is known that powders did vary. The recommended screen sizes for the various F grades varied quite a bit as did the available chemicals. A while back there was A History Channel examination of one of the Mexican War battles in which they explored the impression that the Mexican cannon were performing sub-par because they were using bronze balls instead of steel. They determined that there was little difference in the ranging qualities of the two metals but added that the Mexican powder was inferior and the major factor in the artillery performance.

 

Swiss will often come closest to regulating doubles. As much as I hate to use the stuff, 777 has them all beat for velocity, which is almost always the reason you can't get a double to regulate with black. Duplexing is often better yet and tho I can't say for certain, I believe duplexing operates at lower pressure than 777. That oughta get a rise....

Vic