remington or colt?

L & R
shop deals on amazon
Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I to use conicals out of my 1858 over 35 grains of powder. Puts similar holes in wood to my 45ACP. But it should its the same bullet I reload in my ACP with almost the same muzzle velocity. I also get stuck caps but mine seems to chew them up and spit them out. I have been told that is bad for the action, but if it is the difference between getting gored or not ill risk it. I like the Remmie, but I do not have a Colt. On the other hand the colts look sooo Texas. :grin:
 
Norinco said:
The Colt Army can generate mid to high 900's of FPS muzzle velocity with a round ball. The Dragoon doesn't have too much power over it.
Click to expand...

On this one I have to respectfully disagree. At a Pistol practice Match I held for the Garden State Black Powder Association on April 10th, lots of different pistolas showed-up! Remmys & 1860 Armys had about the same knock-down power as measured via a piece of self re-setting knock-down STEEL. ROA's and Colt Dragoons filled with powder & ball had noticeably more "ooomph" when striking the exact same piece of steel at the same spot from the same distance! All of us could see the difference in how fast & far the steel traveled before it re-set! My mighty Walker was the ONLY revolver to completely cycle the steel plate to the full horizontal position! Adding Kirk's conicals to the mix proved even more interesting as the re-setting steel plate was pushed with such authority that it made a CLANG against it's holder that the entire line of shooters could hear! The .454 ball with 52 grains of heavily compressed powder in the same Walker couldn't provide the same entertainment :shocked2: !

So although no scientific tests were conducted on any measuring equipment, the re-setting steel plate doesn't lie. If you ever get a chance to come up from Maryland this summer, I'd love for you to experience the same results that I did. Consider this an open invitation to have some fun; no insult intended.

Have a great Easter!

Dave
 
I was basing it off of some chronograph readings someone did. I think the Army got 950 FPS or so with a round ball behind a full cylinder of powder. The Dragoon averaged just under 100 FPS more, also loaded full of powder.

Hmm, now that I did the math, the Dragoon would have about 60-70 ft-lb more energy.
 
My '58 will hold 35 grains of powder, a wonder-wad and a ball. The '60 Army about the same. The 3rd Model Dragoon will hold 45 grains of powder, the wonder-wad and the ball and have some room left over that you could fill with additional powder (2-5 grains). The Walker loading of 52 grains and a wad & ball still leaves a lot of room if you compress the load really good like I do. Probably could get about 5 or more grains into the top of the chamber if I compressed the load prior to loading the ball in each chamber mouth.

I'd be interested in knowing exactly how many grains of powder were in each gun and then looking at how compressed the loads in each revolver were. To have only a 100 FPS difference between the '60 Army (or the '58 Remmy) and a Dragoon just doesn't seem right to me. My 3rd Model Dragoon has already been clocked at 1100 FPS with a Chrono :wink: .

In any case the swinging knock-down steel target's travel distance is a better judge of the force of the round's impact than any theory, calculator, math problem or Chrono.

Even so, you've already figured-out an additional 60-70 foot-pounds of energy with the Dragoon. That might be enough to make the steel swing enough to go almost full cycle.

Have a good one tomorrow!

Dave
 
I read somewhere that Elmer Keith would fill his chambers up to the top then compress his powder with just a ball. Mr Keith knew more about handguns than most, so I tried it. A little more kick but I do not have a Chronograph. I only loaded one chamber at a time with this load and it came to 40 grns. I only loaded one chamber so I would not have a chain fire, but if it were the first chamber only the others would be protected by wads. That way in a "fight or flight" situation the first (and maybe only) round would have more hitting power.
 
I wouldn't put a whole lot of faith in everything that was written, even in 1937 (a good 50 years after most of the buffalo were thinned down by the professional hunters).

I will admit that I've never heard of a professional buffalo hunter going after buffalo with a Dragoon but then, the professional buffalo hunters I'm thinking of used the big Sharps and similar large caliber cartridge guns.

The same article says two shots into a grizzly (along with a bunch of .36 caliber bullets that only penetrated about 1") with a Dragoon were enough to do in a grizzly but it would be a cold day in Phoenix before I would think of using a Dragoon for grizzly hunting.
 
Old Elmer was a piece of work! Once killed a deer with his .44 Mag (4" barrel) from more than 4 football fields away :shocked2: with his heavy Keith-style bullet of hard cast lead!

If you want to load-up the entire smoke-wagon to the top, just use a little stiffened bore butter with bees wax over the top of the balls and make sure that the caps stay on the nipples! It's that simple---NO chain fires :wink:

Happy Easter!

Dave
 
Going after a buffalo with a Dragoon is a last-ditch attempt at harvesting an animal for survival, and probably was only done as a last resort, if at all! Don't believe everything you read is the right quote for this all right!

A COLD day in Phoenix? :rotf: :haha: By Tuesday it's supposed to be over 90 degrees already :shocked2: so I guess they don't happen too often!

Happy Easter Jim!

Dave
 
They were shooting them point blank while circling them on horseback.

Many of you guys hunt with your .44 revolvers, be it Army or Dragoon. I think that's proof enough that either would work fine as a last ditch for wild hogs.
 
I like both pistol brands named. But all things being equal, I would go with the Remington. I like the 5 second time of a full reload out in the field, as compared to the 3-5 minute one hand fumbling of the colt. Flask, transfer measure, Powder, wad(or not) ball. If out in the field I would rather swap a cylinder than all the fumbling.
 
Interesting thread. I shoot CAS and have a whole gaggle of C&B Colts. I wouldn't shoot anything else. I wouldn't own a Remington again.

I consider myself a warthog CAS shooter. Which means we use max loads in all guns. In my 60 Colts I just fill the chamber with powder and leave enough room to squeeze in the ball. As for keeping the caps out of the action? No C&B will do that without modifying it. Little shields need to soldered it to keep them from falling in. It's a Rowdy Yates mod. The targets are not hard to hit in CAS. What makes it hard is you're timed. Shooting fast puts a C&B revolver to the test.

Even though I shoot max loads. I wouldn't be comfortable hunting hogs with it. Especially with one that could jam the caps.

Any reason you're hung up on using a revolver? A .54 Hawken will do a much better job. You'll only have one shot, but that should be plenty.
 
What about the European method of a boarsword or lance? I'm not saying it's a good idea, just that it was common at a time in history.
 
point taken but the reason i need a revolver is 6 shots i shot a rooter in the trap last year wit a 45/70 buffalo classic right in the head it sure was mad! had 4 hogs in the trap had 3 bullets had to call son in law down with his 45 to finfih 2 of them off sometimes they dont know their dead , and they run in little herds out here what i would really like to have with me is a couple grenades! :rotf:
 
very very good point sometimes 6 may still not be enough my huntin buddy was stuck on the cab of his truck for three hours after he had emtied the clip on his 1911 good thing he was close enough to get to his truck! i think a lot of the good folks on here havent hunted in the pineys here and dont really understand how mean and agressive these ferals are out here must be somethin in the water :idunno:
 
In that case. I'd get a Walker and load max loads.(60gr) You sound like you can handle a 4 1/2 lb gun with some recoil. :wink:
 
oh yea big hands big wrist big belly you get the idea 6 2 240 no prob on the recoil or carrying a 5 pound pistola around i had never considered the walker but i might have to save up just a little longer! it takes forever when you stick a dollae or two in a jug as you can!
 

Similar threads

E
51/2 remmie or not?
Replies
5
Views
846
Poor Private
P

Latest posts

Back
Top