Stopping power of the 1860 Army

[PastorB]

Actually, getting near 500 ft.lbs. of energy is quite doable in either a Remington 1858 or Colt 1860. Using a Kerr Bullet (225 grains) and 30 grains of 3f 777, I get right at 1000 fps. That is 499 ft.lbs of energy. Swiss 3f and Pyro P are not lagging far behind, they get around 950 fps. With .454 round balls, I get 1100 fps with 35 grains of Swiss or Pyro P, and almost 1200 fps with 777. I could go as high as 32 grains with the Kerr, which would easily exceed the 1000 fps mark. I've done it. Mostly though, I'm just a sissy boy who likes low recoil, and am quite happy shooting round balls at 850-900 fps, and conicals from about 700 to 800 fps. That guy in the video made figuring muzzle energy a chore, here is a MUCH better method that I learned over 40 years ago.

ME= MV×MVxbullet weight grains ÷ 450240

900*900*225/450240= 404 ft.lbs. ME

Simple.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

View attachment 286591View attachment 286593

Ed Sanow's article in Feb 1998 Handguns is the best analysis of C&B revolver stopping efficiency that I am aware of. He shot into ballistic gelatin and compared stretch cavity and penetration with the Fuller Index of stopping power. The Fuller Index correlates to actual live shooting results. As the above table illustrates the round ball was more effective against humans than the conicals. Penetration was less with the round balls but stretch cavity was much greater.

Ed said, "In terms of bullet design, the .454 141gr round ball was more effective during gunfights than .45ACP hardball, .45Colt roundnose, and .44 Special round nose, even those loads generate up to 50% more energy. " He was talking about the 1860 Army.

This article correlates to reports of combatants at Gettysburg, that the round ball from a rifle or handgun was more effective than the conical Minié Ball, as well as reports by James Forsyth in The Sporting Rifle and Its Projectiles (1865) also showing similar results.

LD

​

 

[TFoley]

By "stopping power" are you guys talking muzzle energy, energy upon arrival, energy dump when passing through some part of the body, the effects of light weight round noses versus heavier flat noses or what?

Yes.

 

[Smokerr]

Its an oft argued subject but knock down power does not exist.

One guy who got into a shooting fight with the State Troopers had something lke 5 .357 mag hits and another 6 or 7 9mm hits. He was still standing when the Inspector with the 9mm got his last shot off that nicked the bad buy Aorta and he bled out quickly. The Uniformed officer with the 357 never returned to duty, he was the focus of the bad guy shooting. Too long ago to remember what he got his with. The shooter was a nut job with a duffel bag of guns.

Ok, 2nd hand account from someone I would stake my life on, guy gets hit with 5 rounds of a 44 magnum, he is still standing and he wins the gun fight as he had a 45 ACP with 8 rounds in it (all hits I belive).

I believe the guy with the most hits over time ever was a mid 1800s law enforcement type, my memory could be wrong but he had been shot over 20 times in a number of shootouts.

Today 9mm is as good as anything if you have a self defense load out in it. A 45 ACP FMJ did not do a lot more than 9mm at the time. Now they are on par.

I surely would not want to get shot by any of them, even a 22 let alone 32-44 cal BP.

 

[oldschoolhunter55]

This is a bit math heavy, but will confirm what you probably already know. Heavier conical bullets hit harder than lighter round balls at BP velocities.

thanks for information. well done

 

[Edm]

This article correlates to reports of combatants at Gettysburg, that the round ball from a rifle or handgun was more effective than the conical Minié Ball, as well as reports by James Forsyth in The Sporting Rifle and Its Projectiles (1865) also showing similar results.

LD

​

Elmer Keith agreed in his book Sixguns.

 

[wganz]

Kinetic Energy has been rejected today due more studies on the subject in recent years. As pointed out above, the temporary cavity plus penetration are used. The FBI’s standard is now a minimum of 12”.
Also, no need to convert from Imperial to Metric then back. Just do one & be done with it.
Sorry, not impressed with that video.

 

[CaptainVane]

I believe the guy with the most hits over time ever was a mid 1800s law enforcement type, my memory could be wrong but he had been shot over 20 times in a number of shootouts.

This guy?
Matt Dillon was shot at least 56 times, knocked unconscious 29 times, stabbed three times, and poisoned once.

 

[Mike in FL]

Well in the referenced video, the guy was taking fps and bullet weight into account so I imagine it's more a function of muzzle energy. So, I would assume that's what the discussion is about. That's what my response was anyway.
The "muzzle energy" of an 1860 Army can be anywhere between 200ish ft.lbs to 500ish ft.lbs. depending upon the "fuel delivery" system. The 1860 Army can be quite the beast!!!

Mike

There is absolutely no way an 1860 can achieve 500 ft. lbs. If you are shooting smokeless in one, even an extremely light smokeless round, you will destroy the gun in short order.You have made an error.

 

[45D]

There is absolutely no way an 1860 can achieve 500 ft. lbs. If you are shooting smokeless in one, even an extremely light smokeless round, you will destroy the gun in short order.You have made an error.

WAY !!!!

Maybe you missed the "conversion" part in my post. I've been shooting +p ammo in mine for about a year and a half. Just showing what the open-top platform can handle.
To your point though, Hornady Critical Duty ammo ( 23K psi) delivers a 220gr jacketed hp from a 5" bbl at 1000 fps. My '60 has an 8" bbl . . . a good little bit over 500 ft.lbs.
Normal load, right at 21K psi, delivers a 230gr around 900 fps gives you a little over 400 ft.lbs

No error.

Mike

 

[nkbj]

I came to understand a few things by testing .36, .41 and .44 percussion revolvers for velocities, expansion and penetration with different types of bullets. Like why pointy bullets were wanted for fighting. And why round ball was good enough. And why semi-wadcutters are better than anything used in the 1860's war.
But don't let me get in the way of another good argument. Yall get at it and I'm gonna go grind some coffee.

 

[Travler]

Hey, Yes! The coffe is hot! Bring it on!!! LOL

 

[Chief Snorkel]

No 1860 Army ever made could survive a load that generates 500 lb/ft energy.

 

[45D]

I came to understand a few things by testing .36, .41 and .44 percussion revolvers for velocities, expansion and penetration with different types of bullets. Like why pointy bullets were wanted for fighting. And why round ball was good enough. And why semi-wadcutters are better than anything used in the 1860's war.
But don't let me get in the way of another good argument. Yall get at it and I'm gonna go grind some coffee.

No argument from here. I know what I do and what can be done with these revolvers.
As for bullets, lots of education since 1850's!! Soft lead bullets that splat and stay inside ( dumping energy) are definitely better than pointy "pass through" bullets. I agree with your modern assessment but I don't think they had time to do a lot of bullet shape testing in the middle of a war.
I wonder about the guys taking multiple hits . . . I would think at least one to the dome would have resulted in DRT.

Mike

 

[45D]

No 1860 Army ever made could survive a load that generates 500 lb/ft energy.

That's funny right there!! I've got several of them and a pair of Dragoons that do well above that ! There's many out there that can do the same.

Mike

 

[Chief Snorkel]

Words are cheap. Show us the proof.

 

[45D]

Words are cheap. Show us the proof.

Don't have to. ( already have, there's a search function)
Just go to Kirst Konversions and see the 45acp conversion cylinder for yourself. I actually have the first one to be fired with the "then new" (pre- market) for the 1860 Army. It's not like it's any big secret. Also, as said above, just "run of the mill" ammo will get you 400 ft.lbs.

Mike

 

[Zapadach]

Well in the referenced video, the guy was taking fps and bullet weight into account so I imagine it's more a function of muzzle energy. So, I would assume that's what the discussion is about. That's what my response was anyway.
The "muzzle energy" of an 1860 Army can be anywhere between 200ish ft.lbs to 500ish ft.lbs. depending upon the "fuel delivery" system. The 1860 Army can be quite the beast!!!

Mike

There is still some discussion as to whether Mr. Hickok used a Colt Dragoon or a thirty-six Colt Navy in his shoot out with Mr. Tutt. I am sure, as he was falling to the street, after being hit from seventy-five yards away, he did not really care.

 

[Eras Gone]

Here is another similar study using the 259 grain Colt Dragoon bullet.

 

[45man]

There is a simpler formula, velocity times velocity times bullet weight divided by 450,240.
My old army gives me 1102 fps with a rb, 41 gr of Swiss FFFG so I get 385 foot #. Does a good job on deer I can say.