Using .451 185gr bullets in 1858 Rem

[Eterry]

Been raining here, so was fondling my Pietta Remington clone.
Has anyone used cast bullets for the 45 acp, such as the .451 185gr or 200gr bullets in their 44's?
If so, what powder charge, which bullets?
Thinking about heavier bullets than round ball.
Thanks.

 

[No second place]

What would be the point? The end of this experiment will only end in your gun shoots 6in. or more higher than ball at 25yds with poor accuracy. But some non-match shooters and plinkers of large targets at closer ranges will claim they work just fine. If higher recoil, poorer accuracy and the need to get a taller front sight OK go for it....c

 

[Woody Morgan]

I'd think to start at 20 grains and go from there.
You may be able to use .45LC bullets too. The common weight is 250 grains.

wm

 

[azmntman]

Each gun is different. ogtta try. May turn into a pattern and just a time or two in life a guy comes up with a clover leaf load at 35 yds by trying new stuff. Please let us know.

 

[Eterry]

The point is I've seen firsthand LRB from a pistol fail to bring down a 40lb feral dog when shot right behind the shoulder several times. I'm not looking for a match quality load, a hunting load will do.
I'm looking for something with more umph, maybe 180 or 200 gain lead conical may do it. Or maybe not, that's why I asked. Was hoping for real world experience, but I know that's hard to come by.
I've shot 1000's of 230gr ball ammo in matches, and 250gr at silhouette, so recoil isn't an issue.

 

[Eterry]

I'd think to start at 20 grains and go from there.
You may be able to use .45LC bullets too. The common weight is 250 grains.

wm

I'm thinking the 250 may take up more room, leaving less for powder for a hunting load. I should've mentioned hunting medium large critters is my aim.
The Remington clone has adjustable rear sights, maybe it'll go down enough to get on target.

 

[No second place]

The point is I've seen firsthand LRB from a pistol fail to bring down a 40lb feral dog when shot right behind the shoulder several times. I'm not looking for a match quality load, a hunting load will do.
I'm looking for something with more umph, maybe 180 or 200 gain lead conical may do it. Or maybe not, that's why I asked. Was hoping for real world experience, but I know that's hard to come by.
I've shot 1000's of 230gr ball ammo in matches, and 250gr at silhouette, so recoil isn't an issue.

Howell makes good conversion cylinders for the Rem. Army. Accuracy on par with my custom Rem. Navy .36 percussion and it`s own percussion cylinders. Problem with using bullets is fit and alignment while seating. Chamfer tool to top of chambers so as not to shave lead. Let us know if the bullets work better for hunting...c

 

[Kansas Jake]

I thought I’d try to use some .452 soft lead cast bullets in my Remington. I gave up. I couldn’t load them with the cylinder on the gun and getting them to start straight was a pain with the cylinder out of the gun. Can’t remember the bullet #

 

[TreeMan]

Conicals of any sort are difficult to load straight. That’s if your particular revolver will even let you seat them without having to use a freestanding loader. I’d be more comfortable shooting an ACCURATE round ball load with a Ruger old army or a Colt walker replica loaded with full powder charges. An old army loaded with 40 grains of 3F or even better Triple seven are no joke. I’ve never had anything but terrible luck hitting the broad side of a barn with my conical pistol experiments over the years. Round balls rule for accuracy and you can squeeze more powder behind them.

 

[Eterry]

Well it sounds like its an exercise in futility. I wasn't sure if it was feasible, but I was pretty sure someone had tried it before.

I'll dig around and see if I have any 185gr TC bullets left, may give them a whirl, but not expecting much.

 

[nkbj]

Using the things I had on hand to work with I started taking soft lead castings from pistol molds, sizing the hind ends to slip into the chambers so that alignment was achieved and the front part of the bullets sheared off the same as round ball. That was in the late 70's shooting a Navy Arms 1861. Later on I applied the technique to .44's and eventually to a reproduction 1858 that was reworked specifically to use .41 caliber revolver molds. Tailoring the bullets to suit a particular piece is one way to skin the cat but I'm working on the "better mouse trap".

If there's anything that's been hinky about Pietta .44's it's having .446" chambers. Lots of people modify the cylinders to increase the diameter on the chambers to be something closer to their barrels. So, OK, what if the reaming didn't extend all the way to the bottom and I could just stick castings into the chambers instead of oh so carefully crafting each bullet. Not saying there's anything sacred about the numbers included in the sketch above. Maybe the front of the chambers should be around .450", just so as the bullets were in between that and the "A" diameter. I'm thinking the bullets would seat against the powder charge and the taper. And, that the displaced lead would squish out to the larger diameter back there immediately ahead of the taper.
So I was patting myself on the back and hit a snag right away. Pietta changed the style of their rifling. Instead of having traditional percussion revolver rifling they went to modern style with narrow lands which turns their barrels into mostly .45 instead of mostly .44. Now I don't know about how much metal I'm comfortable with removing from their cylinder walls to make their chambers match their barrels.

Once upon a time it looked as though just replacing their barrels made more sense. Now that they monkeyed with the rifling geometry I've come full circle.
Any how, if you have old style rifling instead of new, making the hind ends of the bullets slip into the chambers still oughta solve the problem of obtaining good alignment during loading.

 

[Bad Karma]

Using the things I had on hand to work with I started taking soft lead castings from pistol molds, sizing the hind ends to slip into the chambers so that alignment was achieved and the front part of the bullets sheared off the same as round ball. That was in the late 70's shooting a Navy Arms 1861. Later on I applied the technique to .44's and eventually to a reproduction 1858 that was reworked specifically to use .41 caliber revolver molds. Tailoring the bullets to suit a particular piece is one way to skin the cat but I'm working on the "better mouse trap".

View attachment 132429
If there's anything that's been hinky about Pietta .44's it's having .446" chambers. Lots of people modify the cylinders to increase the diameter on the chambers to be something closer to their barrels. So, OK, what if the reaming didn't extend all the way to the bottom and I could just stick castings into the chambers instead of oh so carefully crafting each bullet. Not saying there's anything sacred about the numbers included in the sketch above. Maybe the front of the chambers should be around .450", just so as the bullets were in between that and the "A" diameter. I'm thinking the bullets would seat against the powder charge and the taper. And, that the displaced lead would squish out to the larger diameter back there immediately ahead of the taper.
So I was patting myself on the back and hit a snag right away. Pietta changed the style of their rifling. Instead of having traditional percussion revolver rifling they went to modern style with narrow lands which turns their barrels into mostly .45 instead of mostly .44. Now I don't know about how much metal I'm comfortable with removing from their cylinder walls to make their chambers match their barrels.

Once upon a time it looked as though just replacing their barrels made more sense. Now that they monkeyed with the rifling geometry I've come full circle.
Any how, if you have old style rifling instead of new, making the hind ends of the bullets slip into the chambers still oughta solve the problem of obtaining good alignment during loading.
View attachment 132430

If it’s any consolation, the “shooters model has .456 chambers in a cylinder the same size as the standard Pietta…

 

[Dude]

Duelist1954 did a series of 3 videos testing and documenting the difference of balls vs conicals in the Ruger Old Army. I think it's got all the data you're looking for. Here's the first one:

 

[nkbj]

If it’s any consolation, the “shooters model has .456 chambers in a cylinder the same size as the standard Pietta…

That is new and encouraging news to me. Thanks for the info.

 

[Bad Karma]

That is new and encouraging news to me. Thanks for the info.

You’re welcome. First time I saw that I thought it couldn’t be right… but yep. They hold up just fine.

 

[jdw276]

I thought I’d try to use some .452 soft lead cast bullets in my Remington. I gave up. I couldn’t load them with the cylinder on the gun and getting them to start straight was a pain with the cylinder out of the gun. Can’t remember the bullet #

Thought i read somewhere that when the walkers were issued they had conicals as std load. They loaded them upside down for easier loading as there were no instructions.