Pietta Rem .44 & Uberti Walker .44 loads

[Scott Glover]

I have been shooting bp rifles for many years but just getting into the bp pistols. I have both of these pistols and have not fired them yet. Going Saturday to shoot and have a question. I have seen talk of fillers on here and dont know how to figure the powder/filler/wad amount to get the ball to the top of the cylinder. Dont want to leave a void as this might cause me some pain. I will be using a powder measure. What do I do, pour the amount of powder I want to start with, put in the filler and wad and see if there is enough room for the ball and go from there? Maybe someone knows how many grns these cylinders will hold with the wad and ball and I can go from there. I'd be beholdin to anyone that can help me. :bow:

 

[user 922]

I don't know that it's necessary for the ball to be at the top of the cylinder as long as the ball is seated firmly on the powder.

I used 40g ffg plus a felt wad in the Walker and the ball sat nicely near the top of the cylinder. You can actually use about 50g but it's overkill and will eventually cause the wedge to loosen.

 

[curator]

Simply remove the cylinders from the revolvers, fill a chamber to within 3/8 to 1/2 inch of the cylinder face then dump the contents into a powder sacle pan and weigh it. That will be your base-line. With the .44 Rem it should be somewhere around 30-35 grains. With the Walker it will probably be in the neighborhood of 55-60 grains.

A good filler to powder ration is 2/3 powder, 1/3 filler. On my 1858 .44, I use a powder charge of 20 grains and 12 grains (measure) of cream-o-wheat filler. This brings the ball almost flush with the cylinder face when seated. Surprisingly, this load produces 850fps, only slightly less than a full chamber (35 grains) of FFFg. Accuracy is much better too!

 

[Scott Glover]

Is it safe to shoot FFF in both of these or do I need to stay with the FF? :bow:

 

[curator]

I use FFFg in all my cap & ball revolvers. It burns cleaner and gives a bit more velocity.

 

[Scott Glover]

Thanks for that info. OK one more question. The Remmie takes #10 caps. Can I change those out to a nipple that will take #11 caps? Where can I find them if any. Cant find #10 around here, but there are plenty of #11 caps. The #10s are on the web but have to buy 10 tins of them. I would like to get them local and save some money. Not trying to be a pain, but as I said, I am new to the pistols. :bow:

 

[junkman_01]

Just saying that this or that #10 or #11 doesn't fit, doesn't mean a thing. The sizes are not standardized among makers. A CCI #10 may not fir, but a Remington #10 will. All my Pietta revolvers use Rem.#10 (even the ones with Treso nipples).

 

[RADeO]

Can I change those out to a nipple that will take #11 caps?

Flintrock, contact The Possible Shop Link or Track of the Wolf Link for Treso replacement nipples for your revolvers. Both Remington #10 and CCI #11 caps will fit just fine.

The Rem. #10 and CCI #11 are about the same inside diameter, but the Rem. #10 is a bit shorter than the CCI.

Good luck.

 

[aeatwood]

All but one of my C&B guns shoot better w/ 2F than 3F. While perfectly safe in a modern Walker, I like the fact that 2F is considerably lower in pressure than 3F loads. I like to baby the cylinder wedges. :grin:

With 3F, you just want to feel the powder "crunch" when you seat the ball. 2F wants a good bit more pressure than that to shoot consistently. You will have to experiment a bit.

The guns will shoot better over time, both from "breaking in", and from the fact that loading one consistently is a bit of an art, and you will simply get better at it the more you do it.

Alan

 

[nilo52]

Fillers is good fellers, cause if'n ya get hungry you can eat the filler and still shoot with out it ! :rotf: :rotf: an maybe could use coffe grinds too! none of my historical reasearch has mentioned using fillers before the 1950's, I'm thinking a fella had some breakfest left over an Put it in his gun for giggles,OR was horribly hung over or took the "quaker puff wheat thats shot from guns" advertizing a little too literaly :blah:
nilo52

 

[Gatofeo]

I use extra wads or corn meal for fillers, to take up space in the chamber with lighter loads.
Cream of Wheat is often suggested, but it's almost imcompressible. Corn meal is fairly compressible, so if you add a little more than needed, it's not a problem.
Add too much Cream of Wheat and you have to scoop it out with a Popsicle stick or the scraping spoon on a pipe tool (handy tools in the shooting box, by the way).
The use of fillers has been debated for years. Frankly, I feel it's overemphasized, especially on the Colt design with its primitive sights.
I've not been able to find a difference -- on real targets, from a benchrest, at a measured 25 yards -- between using a filler with lighter loads and not using one.
But, I tend to use fillers on my Remington .36s and .44s because the Remington rammer is so much shorter than the Colt's, and with reduced loads it won't push the ball down firmly on the powder.
In my box I also have some short plugs of hardwood dowel -- 5/16 for the .36 and 7/16 for the .44s -- for use with light target loads.
I ram the ball down with the revolver's rammer as far as it will go, then pull the rammer up and insert the plug in the chamber. The rammer comes down again and the plug transfers its energy against the ball, ensuring the ball is down firmly on the powder.
Then I remove the plug. Removing the plug is very important, as it may create an obstruction if left in front of the ball and raise pressures catastrophically.
Using this system, I've not found any difference between a deeply seated ball and one brought near the chamber mouth by the use of fillers.
But, using the wooden plugs is a clumsy system.
It's far easier just to use extra wads, or corn meal on top of a single wad, to ensure there are no gaps between the components.

Using filler to supposedly promote greater accuracy is, I believe, a moot point when you consider the primitive sights on the Colt design. Even the fixed-sight Remingtons are far from ideal for super-fine target work. Modern, adjustable Patridge sights on a Remington might be able to indicate a difference between a deep-seated ball and one with filler that puts the ball nearer the chamber mouth.
Even then, it may not be noticeable.
I'd like to put a pistol scope on a Remington and Colt someday, and see if it makes a noticeable difference. I think it might, but perhaps of 1/4" or less in total group size.
There's far more variance than that in my 57-year-old eyeballs trying to align original-design Remington or Colt sights.

 

[Flash Pan Dan]

I respectfully disagree with Gatofeo, I have found that the use of filler on top of the powder charge to be a great aid in reducing group sizes in my cap & ball revolvers. As I was instructed here on this forum, I keep one flask with powder and one with filler. The spouts on the flasks are different so I can use the 2/3 to 1/3 ratio of powder to filler. I dab a bit of lube on top of the filler before seating the ball/bullet. As an added benefit the filler helps in keeping the barrel clean, though not the fouling around the cylinder pin, the dab of lube on top of the filler keeps that part functioning for the entire day.