C&B revolver accuracy

[bigted]

Never been particularly impressed with accuracy from my cap revolvers. Tried every trick in the book except this that recently came to my attention.

In every other firearm i have slugged the barrel for the groove diameter and always loaded at least this diameter boolit or a thou or two over groove for accuracy.

Recently i have seen a blurp or two about the cylinder versus barrel diameters not matching on the modern cap revolvers ... so i set out to see where mine came in in this regard.

Both Uberti, one a 60 civilian and a 61 civilian revolvers.

The 44 cal 60 is a .455 inch groove barrel with a .448 cylinder diameter.

The 36 cal 61 is a .380 groove with a .374 inch cylinder.

Both having a .006 and .007 inch difference between grove needs and cylinder provisions.

Seems to me for total engagement and gas seal in the barrel i will need to have these cylinders reamed to provide the correct size boolit into the forcing cone.

Do this ring true to anyone or sound like I'm suckin hind tit?

[Good Cheer]

Yeah, it helps.

I've said before that if somebody created a barrel replacement service for modern reproduction 1858's that they could make big bucks.
That way the barrels would be just a little bit smaller bore and the cylinder walls wouldn't get thinned.

[curator]

BigTed,

You have discovered the principal reason why reproduction cap & ball revolvers do not shoot as accurately as do originals. Do a search on this site and you will find lots of information on correcting this and the increase in accuracy. The use of a lubed felt wad or a filler of corn meal or better yet, Cream of Wheat between ball and powder can help to minimise gas leakage around an undersize ball, but having the cylinder chambers being the correct diameter is the best "fix."

[Boogedy_Man]

Yep. I played with one of mine over the summer. Reaming the cylinder, fixing the timing, making the muzzle square, and smoothing the horrific forcing cone.

I reamed the cylinders with a 29/64s reamer, or .4531. That's about as thin as I dared go. I put a light chamfer on the cylinders and use .457s now.

When I started it couldn't keep 6 balls on a sheet of copy paper and after it would do 3-4" at the same distance.

[Tackleberry41]

Well its seems difficult for Ruger at times to make a modern revolver with properly sized throats at $600 for a gun. Really hard to expect it out of a company like Pietta since Spain was not known for their quality and half the cost of a Ruger. And there are no standards so can make them how ever they want.

I have been cutting up a 45 cal traditions Kentucky rifle barrel. It was free, I have a lathe so its material for whatever. Consistency must not be a word in Spanish. Cant imagine had the rifle been assembled it would be very accurate with the bore so out of concentric and varying in internal dimensions. Plus the soft metal its made out of. Not even marked as to caliber or twist.

[Good Cheer]

Just a passing thought on making lemonade...

Over the years the Lyman #450229 was made a little differently from time to time.
Sometimes the bore diameter on the hole for the hollow base plug was the same as the bands on the bullet and sometimes it was stepped down a little smaller.
On one set of blocks I just measured the bore and got .444-.445. That's about right for a tail to sit in a Pietta chamber to get alignment for seating the boolit.
Sooo, a shorter plug would make a Pietta boolit? But that wouldn't improve anything unless it had a skirt wall thin enough to seal off with relatively light powder charges and there being virtually no bullet inertia to help promote hollow base expansion. Or maybe a flat base would be worth trying. Any how, the plug is missing so maybe now there's a good excuse to design one!

[Harter66]

A Remington 58' I slugged had 4 different sized chambers . The barrel was .426×.440 . The chambers now match @.448 which with a conical is less than optimal it made that one shoot well with RB .
There is also an ASM Dragoon repro with a .445 groove and a .448 chambers . Didn't shoot it but I expect it would shoot the intended conical well .

Last is a 36 cal 58' with a .364 groove and .370 chambers . It shoots well also with RB but I didn't have conical to try .

Being as dumb as I am I figured that caseless BP ought to follow the same rules for accuracy as CF getting a little break for the flexibility of dead soft .

[bigted]

Herter, .364 groove or bore? My bore would work but the grooves go too sloppy for a good gas seal.

[RPRNY]

If using the proper BHN ball or conical, which in a cap and ball revolver should mean 6- 8 BHN, pure lead or near as, there should be sufficient obturation for the ball or conical to fill out to groove depth. Removing material from the cylinder walls is not to be advised. Pure lead or there abouts is remarkably malleable and, when used with black powder, undergoes substantial shape change during internal ballistics.

http://www.lasc.us/FryxellCBAlloyObturation.htm

[Harter66]

Grooves .

Now understand that a 6" Sec 6 in 357 and an old M10 will out shoot the 36 .
The 58's are pretty good for what they are .

[Harter66]

I did mention lapping to match vs cutting meat out of walls .

[bigted]

Have looked at the 44 m-60 and it is pretty slim in the cylinder walls so maybe leave it alone and try other fix's for accuracy with it.

However the '61' 36 cal has plenty of meat to ream out so as to begin a ball or boolit at .001 or .002 inch over groove so as to have the soft lead completely seal the barrel and grip the rifling for, im bettin, way better luck in the accuracy dept.

For small game, grouse rabbits and squirrels n such, the 36 cal is more then efficient in power and economy anyway. No chance i will hunt bigger game then a tin can with the 44 anyway.

Accurate molds will be a resource for a custom mold for the 36.

[Outpost75]

Years ago I had an original Colt 1860 Army reworked by the late Patrick W. Felker. He uniformed the cylinder throats to .453", reamed the barrel forcing cone to 11° and recrowned the barrel, as well as adjusting the timing. With .457" ball cast 1:40 tin-lead and 28 grains of Goex 3Fg, Ox Yoke Originals wad and Crisco over the ball, it shot ten-ring groups at 25 yards.

[scattershot]

In 1865,Bill Hickok shot Dave Tutt through the heart at 75 yards with a Colt Navy, so they must have been pretty accurate back in the day.

[bigted]

Update, went out and resluged everything on the 61 and dont know where i got those numbers but the correct numbers for the Uberti 36 cal model 1861 are as follows,

Bore -- .3665
Groove -- .375

Cylinder mouth -- .372

So with these corrected numbers it looks like my task is smaller than i thought.

Think my reaming to the cylinder should be .377 inch and then i will have a .002 crush into the barrel grooves for a great fit.

What say yee?

[Wayne Dobbs]

Years ago I had an original Colt 1860 Army reworked by the late Patrick W. Felker. He uniformed the cylinder throats to .453", reamed the barrel forcing cone to 11° and recrowned the barrel, as well as adjusting the timing. With .457" ball cast 1:40 tin-lead and 28 grains of Goex 3Fg, Ox Yoke Originals wad and Crisco over the ball, it shot ten-ring groups at 25 yards.

What kind of velocity did that load give? Ball weight was about 140 grains?

[shortlegs]

I would not modify a cylinder. I would take the guns back to the seller, if possible, and have them returned to Uberti explaining cylinder to barrel differences and let them fix the problem. If they wont fix it, there is always social media to tell the world how they feel about their customers. just saying.........

[Outpost75]

About 750-780 fps

[Gtek]

"I would not modify a cylinder" Please explain why not -

[Boogedy_Man]

I would not modify a cylinder. I would take the guns back to the seller, if possible, and have them returned to Uberti explaining cylinder to barrel differences and let them fix the problem. If they wont fix it, there is always social media to tell the world how they feel about their customers. just saying.........

All the ranting in the world on facebook and you still wont have a gun that shoots.

I bought my pair for $75 total. It was a good learning tool for me to learn a bit about revolver work...and I had little to lose.

My revolvers, as they were made, had less than 1/1000 of rifling engagement. There's simply no way to fix that without making the cylinder bigger, or a replacement barrel. A barrel, of course, would cost more than I paid for the pair.

I shoot cylinders full of 3f with the cylinders reamed to .4531.

[bigted]

Shortlegs, i also would like to know why you would not modify a cylinder. These revolvers are extremely inexpensive (kinda like buying an assembled KIT) also looking at Uberti for instance, have a historical short arbor and sending them back will do no good as they know about this problem and STILL will not simply modify their manufacturing process just a small bit to fix this small but effective problem.

Nope for me the tinkering with them gives me intense pleasure and satisfaction when i solve a problem with them.

Now reaming my 36 cal cylinder to provide an accurate shooter of previously unobtainable results. No reason i know of to not expect sub 1 inch groups at 15 to 20 yards.

[Good Cheer]

bigted,
For me, the thinner the walls get the more it bugs me.
After checking out my Pietta 1858 I decided against enlarging the chambers. I don't know if making them bigger would be OK or not. I just haven't had any justification for acceptance, no data.
My .40 cailber 1851 and the .41 caliber 1858 are based upon the walls being thicker than revolvers of larger bore which gives me warm fuzzies (the only criteria I've had to go by).
But I'd certainly much prefer to have larger chambers in the .44's.

[Gtek]

Let's see, we take a couple thousandths out of .357 and 44 cylinders to correct a makers poor math skills with cylinder pressures running >35K PSI. How many ruptured CORRECTLY LOADED black powder revolver cylinder stories are there or has there been on social media? I will admit the gray hair may keep me from completely grasping the new math and the latest, greatest communication tools. I do find myself taking .003" wall out to square cylinder to bore dimension an acceptable risk with 30 grains of BP , even without the NASA testing.

[country gent]

The manufacturers wouldn't need to modify the manufacturing process any. Just buy / make the correct dia reamers for the barrels they are using. The .003-.004 on a side difference wont affect cutting speeds or feeds. That small amount probably wouldn't even require a change in the chamfer depth.

[RPRNY]

Why is obturation and the elastic quality of pure lead so hard to grasp? Which part of it isn’t readily understandable? Why would removing material from the walls of cylinders made of unknown steel quality in which near explosions of black powder take place seem like a good idea? Enquiring minds want to know.

[Outpost75]

Original Colt cap & ball cylinders were plain carbon steel, perhaps 30 points of carbon, annealed for machining, then quenched and tempered, perhaps 80-90 Rockwell B scale at very best, exactly the same as blackpowder frame Colts and pre-1918 S&W Hand Ejectors, Webleys of the Boer War period and Colt Army Specials prior to 1929, which were fine with standard- pressure blackpowder and mild smokeless loads of tbe period, not to exceed about 13-14,000 psi.

I haven't tested any Pietta or Uberti cylinders, but from the way they machine, they act no differently than a black powder era Colt made prior to 1900. The few I worked on I did a carbon restore, quench and temper after alteration and was able to get 20Rc, which improves strength and durability, but I am no longer "in the business"...

[Jniedbalski]

All the Italian companies that make reproduction bp pistols all have undersized cylinders. Usually .005 to .007 thousand. Why I don’t know must be a reason. The only bp revolvers I have seen with cylinders the same size as grove diameter are the high dollar target compition ones. I seen them a few years ago in Dixie gun works catalogue. They where advertised as winning the bp world compition in Germany, Spain I thank and the USA and gave the years they won. I thank there were 1858 Remington’s and they where 800 to 900$ if I rember correctly. There the only bp guns made that have the correct cylinder size and a tight cylinder to barrel gap. Reaming a cylinder to correct this shouldn’t be a big deal. You are not taking out .030 or .040 thousands. Most guns only need .005 or .006 thousands taken out of each cylinder. That is only taking out .003 thousands on each side of the wall for a .006 over ream and .004 on each side of the cylinder for a .008 ream so not a lot .i do know that with these pistoles that the forcing cone shape was different than the standard Italian imports if I remember correctly . That also might have to be changed. For some reason I have found my 36 cal revolvers always shot tighter groups than my 44s. Also my 36’s have a closer cylinder to grove size than the 44’s I have. The 44’s I have all have a few thousands bigger differences between cylinder and groves. It seams all the bp revolvers from Italy are like this. Dixey gun catalogue has the cilinder size and the grove size in all there pistoles they sell and I can tell you that each company has sompthing differnt

[Good Cheer]

Why is obturation and the elastic quality of pure lead so hard to grasp? Which part of it isn’t readily understandable? Why would removing material from the walls of cylinders made of unknown steel quality in which near explosions of black powder take place seem like a good idea? Enquiring minds want to know.

Some of my boolits in .36 and .44 revolvers are made to slip into the chambers and then shear on the front end the same as a round ball.
217008
Getting the rear end to expand and fill the rifling grooves isn't always easy, doesn't just happen first time every time. You have to develop the tech to suit the individual revolver when the boolit comes out of the cylinder too small for the barrel. The low power of the powder charge and the relatively short bullet length work against obtaining that expansion. Plus there's the taper on the chambers that so many have.

If the engineering of the revolvers wasn't being done by lawyers I figger by now we'd a'seen some marketed to shoot .358 and .430 diameter molds.
If I'd been sitting in Middlefield, Connecticut about twenty or thirty years ago and wanted to sell more product that's darn sure what I woulda done.

[Good Cheer]

These are what's mostly used in the .41 caliber 1858.
217045
Got an old round nose made by NEI too.

[indian joe]

All the ranting in the world on facebook and you still wont have a gun that shoots.

I bought my pair for $75 total. It was a good learning tool for me to learn a bit about revolver work...and I had little to lose.

My revolvers, as they were made, had less than 1/1000 of rifling engagement. There's simply no way to fix that without making the cylinder bigger, or a replacement barrel. A barrel, of course, would cost more than I paid for the pair.

I shoot cylinders full of 3f with the cylinders reamed to .4531.

I reamed two before christmas - my sons guns - a walker and a 1860 army - both had groove of .462 and cylinder throat at .452 .... the walker was easy, plenty of meat in that cylinder, but I did will I wont I several times on the 1860 army and eventually went ahead reamed those chambers out to .462 - I measured carefully and only reamed deep enough to seat the new ball on a reasonably full powder charge .. I would strongly advise against reaming full depth on any of these guns - dont need to do it and taking ten thou out ..... yeah the army colt is thin up front. We changed to FF powder to quieten the loads down a bit - both those guns will shoot groups around two to two and a half inches at 25 yards now and I need a new pair of eyes before I can tell if they are any better than that. It was work worth doing - BUT - I did it myself - made the reamer - did the work - so the only cash cost we have in this is for the new .464 pedersoli round ball mold - boughten ball at thirty odd bucks per 100 wont take long to recoup that. How a factory could get specs so wrong on a gun is a mystery to me - it would be a minor thing to fix - and once fixed - manufacturing cost is no different than before and the product is vastly improved - sounds a no brainer - but guys say Ruger still doesnt have it sorted properly.

[Harter66]

If you want one brought up to apex action slick and closed up tolerances talk to the guy at Goons Gun Works . He roams through here occasionally as 45 Dragoon I believe . It's $180 I think and he sets them glass trigger under 4# , fanable timing , no drag bolts , and does mods like coil springs for just a little more . Cylinder gaps are closed to .004 and cylinders matched . He'll even set up a dovetail front sight for those that shoot too high and right .
He's also a pretty nice guy to talk to .

[bigted]

Why is obturation and the elastic quality of pure lead so hard to grasp? Which part of it isn’t readily understandable? Why would removing material from the walls of cylinders made of unknown steel quality in which near explosions of black powder take place seem like a good idea? Enquiring minds want to know.

Goodness!! Understand obturation very well and have plenty experience taking advantage of the science involved IN RIFLES where 50 grains is the least amount of black powder used and mostly from 70 to 135 grains of 2Fg and 3Fg. Obturation works very well when you have such a kick in the hiney to immediately swell the projectile of near pure lead to fill the grooves in the barrel.

Now for what i do not know is whether this works with the smaller charges such as 21 grains in 44 cal AND dealing with a cylinder gap that will bleed off much of the needed pressure that performs this obturation magic. Let alone the 17 grain charges in my 36, both shooting conicals that limit the room for a larger charge.

4 and 5 + inch groups at 25 yds are not going to cut it for me past simply shooting large steel targets as fast as you can. This kinda accuracy has no place when wanting to take a squirrel in the noggin which is around 1 inch if lucky, grouse heads even smaller but rabbits being a bit larger in the noodle.

Hard to grasp ... i think not!

[Texas by God]

I guess I've been lucky. I've only owned two C&B revolvers. A Colt reissue 3rd model dragoon and a no name brass frame "Confederate Navy" - both .44s.
Both were very accurate. The Colt was too nice (and big) for me so I traded it for a Luger.
The mutt- I dovetailed in fixed sights on the barrel to get poa/poi jiving and it COULD head shoot squirrels. I used .454 rb, FFFG, and Wonder Wads exclusively.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[KCSO]

The best answer is to reline the barrel then the gun will shoot better than you can.

[shortlegs]

Once you make any modifications you void any warranty/manufacture responsibility. Also, if you modify a product and then sell it, and the buyer misuses it, blows it up and gets hurt, then you are technically responsible for it since you modified it - even if the buyer overloaded it. It can still come back on you in this sue happy society we live in today.
Give the manufacturer a chance to make it right before doing the work yourself. Yes reaming the cylinder is what is needed, but you bought a product that should have been manufactured correctly. If manufacturer has to correct problems, they make changes in manufacturing process to maintain quality. If they don't, their reputation suffers and they loose sales. Doing work yourself is sometimes easier than sending a product back, but sends message to manufacturer that poor quality is acceptable.
Just my opinion. Shortlegs

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Original Colt cap & ball cylinders were plain carbon steel, perhaps 30 points of carbon, annealed for machining, then quenched and tempered, perhaps 80-90 Rockwell B scale at very best, exactly the same as blackpowder frame Colts and pre-1918 S&W Hand Ejectors, Webleys of the Boer War period and Colt Army Specials prior to 1929, which were fine with standard- pressure blackpowder and mild smokeless loads of tbe period, not to exceed about 13-14,000 psi.

I haven't tested any Pietta or Uberti cylinders, but from the way they machine, they act no differently than a black powder era Colt made prior to 1900. The few I worked on I did a carbon restore, quench and temper after alteration and was able to get 20Rc, which improves strength and durability, but I am no longer "in the business"...

It depends what you mean by original. The straight-cylinder Colts used iron frames and cylinders of a plain steel which was very likely less than 0.3% carbon. This wouldn't be hardenable unless perhaps if some other metals were present, which seems unlikely. In the 1860 Army Colt turned to imported silver steel, I believe from either of these two firms, which were already long-established and still make it:

https://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Peter_Stubs
http://huk1.wkfinetools.com/05-Steel/Jessop&Sons/history/jassop&Sons-hist-2.asp

That was what permitted putting a .44 calibre in the rebated-cylinder 1860 Army and .35 in the formerly .31 pocket revolvers. I've seen it said that he used Swedish steel, and he might have done so as well, but I believe the most likely origin of that belief is that Stubs imported Swedish steel for reprocessing. I bought a piece of Stubs 21/32in. round a couple of days ago.

It is a 0.95% carbon steel, with some chromium and manganese, but with no silver and not at all stainless, the name coming from its precision ground finish when most steel was supplied in black bar. It is about as good a steel as you can get, even nowadays, for straight razors, a very demanding experience except that they don't reach annealing temperature in use. It isn't difficult to work, and in a different heat treatment from the very brittle straight razor, can be extremely resilient. I don't know how the Italians heat-treat their cylinders, if at all, but it would be disappointing if the quality of the steel is any less. It isn't even much of a cash saving nowadays.

Long ago I was impressed by the Lee cap and ball mould which I used in an original Colt Navy. I wasn't so impressed by the revolver having two enlarged chambers. The principle was that the rear of the bullet entered the cylinder and the following bands were reduced by the rammer. This isn't mentioned in current Lee catalogues, and I can't make out from the illustration if it is still the case. But it seems good.

I think it is even more important than with round ball, that the elongated bullet is rammed straight and concentrically with the cylinder. It might be useful to do a bit of work with stamp-pad ink and the Dremel tool, to make the cavity in the rammer line up, or modify the rammer with epoxy, moulding the cavity to the inserted but not rammed bullet.

Much has been said about chamber and groove diameters. Fortunately I haven't heard of people finding the chambers spaced otherwise than at sity degrees (for a six-shooter), or of chambers and cylinders at a different radius from the axis of rotation. But rotational misalignment is a distinct possibility. I believe this is best corrected by reducing one side of the locking bolt and silver soldering a thin high speed steel shim to the other side. It would then have to be re=heat treated.

[rodwha]

Goodness!! Understand obturation very well and have plenty experience taking advantage of the science involved IN RIFLES where 50 grains is the least amount of black powder used and mostly from 70 to 135 grains of 2Fg and 3Fg. Obturation works very well when you have such a kick in the hiney to immediately swell the projectile of near pure lead to fill the grooves in the barrel.

Now for what i do not know is whether this works with the smaller charges such as 21 grains in 44 cal AND dealing with a cylinder gap that will bleed off much of the needed pressure that performs this obturation magic. Let alone the 17 grain charges in my 36, both shooting conicals that limit the room for a larger charge.

4 and 5 + inch groups at 25 yds are not going to cut it for me past simply shooting large steel targets as fast as you can. This kinda accuracy has no place when wanting to take a squirrel in the noggin which is around 1 inch if lucky, grouse heads even smaller but rabbits being a bit larger in the noodle.

Hard to grasp ... i think not!

In some cases it most certainly does not. The Pietta .31 pocket is so terribly undersized that the sheared ball doesn’t have enough to seal the bore and gives dismal velocities and accuracy. Use a well oversized ball, which stresses the puny loading lever assembly and has been known to break, and a much greater velocity is noted. Can’t say for sure if the bore is completely filled as there is more lead to work with where it contacts the rifling but it certainly improves it enough to notice.

I find it funny that with modern guns where the dimensions are correct we still see the lead bullets sized .001” over groove diameter not working with obturation (non hard cast) if obturation is such a great thing. I assume the act of obturation steals some of the performance from the load, but have nothing to base that off of. However we do see far too many people who have fixed the under sized chamber issues reporting much better accuracy, and those using a larger ball improving it as well as the velocity, but again adding additional stress to the loading assembly.

My 2013 Pietta NMA had 0.446” chambers with a .452” groove diameter. Fly reamed them to 0.449” and chamfered them. Still considering going further to .452-3” but the thin looking walls gives me pause, especially as I use energetic powders and bullets with strong charges of about 33 grns of 3F (weighed) Olde E which my pistol loves despite the projectile being a ball or bullet.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

In some cases it most certainly does not. The Pietta .31 pocket is so terribly undersized that the sheared ball doesn’t have enough to seal the bore and gives dismal velocities and accuracy. Use a well oversized ball, which stresses the puny loading lever assembly and has been known to break, and a much greater velocity is noted. Can’t say for sure if the bore is completely filled as there is more lead to work with where it contacts the rifling but it certainly improves it enough to notice.

I find it funny that with modern guns where the dimensions are correct we still see the lead bullets sized .001” over groove diameter not working with obturation (non hard cast) if obturation is such a great thing. I assume the act of obturation steals some of the performance from the load, but have nothing to base that off of. However we do see far too many people who have fixed the under sized chamber issues reporting much better accuracy, and those using a larger ball improving it as well as the velocity, but again adding additional stress to the loading assembly.

My 2013 Pietta NMA had 0.446” chambers with a .452” groove diameter. Fly reamed them to 0.449” and chamfered them. Still considering going further to .452-3” but the thin looking walls gives me pause, especially as I use energetic powders and bullets with strong charges of about 33 grns of 3F (weighed) Olde E which my pistol loves despite the projectile being a ball or bullet.

Before doing that fly-reamer job I would be inclined to check the alignment of chambers and bore carefully. If it isn't perfect, that gives you a chance to improve it. I would fit a solid plug, or one with a very small central hole, and drill it with an extra long drill guided by bore bushings. It should be small enough to avoid straining the locking bolt (or you could temporariy hold everything in place with a hard wax or car body filler), and large enough not to follow that central hole if you have one. Then use those holes to guide a piloted counterbore.

I suppose if a cartridge bullet .001in. over groove diameter needs and doesn't get obturation, it is because it is sized down by the chamber throat. Besides the lower charge than a rifle, the reduced inertia of the front end of the lighter bullet is against it. So, I think, is the use of a felt wad. In any case I don't like the sound of these with a round ball, because if they go cup-shaped, they may go narrower, and the gas will pass them by. They would be better with a flat-based bullet, but not as good, I think, as an incompressible wax cookie between discs of card.

[Harter66]

I can't get a picture to post . Probably my location .
What we need is a ball of nominal dia . .375 , 451 , 454 , 458 etc .
It needs to have a generous lube groove .
It needs to have a flat or hollow base of nominal or a tapered base . IE a .375 might have a .365-.370 or a .368 square base and about 20% of ball dia thick . I suspect that plain base would be enough but a hollow base of 60% dia about 25% of dia deep tapering to 40-50% if we think that would help the slug up .

The ball remains a round ball gaining maybe 10% , a .454 would go from 141 gr to 154 as a PB or 145ish HB .

The radius of the ball would still seal the chamber and have plenty of room for lube and the weakened base should more readily fill the grooves and increase the drive length and add just a little to the contact area . If you shoot a wad there won't be any charge volume loss and maybe a gr without .
The trouble is that I can't seem to herd enough buyers up to make it happen for a 44 @ .451 or .454 .

[Good Cheer]

For .44's you can generally size down .45 revolver molds to slightly over chamber diameter (a .450 sizer usually works for me) and then size the rear 2/3's or even 3/4's of the bearing surface to just below chamber diameter. The boolit selection and the charge selection have to be figgered out because you're trying to get it to expand into the rifling but if you are willing to do load development for caseless ammo then yep, it works.

Wanta try Lyman #450229 with a replacement plug, the hind side having a slight step on the tail to slip into the chambers on my Pietta 1858. Can just shoot them as cast without sizing.
217065

[Ballistics in Scotland]

For .44's you can generally size down .45 revolver molds to slightly over chamber diameter (a .450 sizer usually works for me) and then size the rear 2/3's or even 3/4's of the bearing surface to just below chamber diameter. The boolit selection and the charge selection have to be figgered out because you're trying to get it to expand into the rifling but if you are willing to do load development for caseless ammo then yep, it works.

Wanta try Lyman #450229 with a replacement plug, the hind side having a slight step on the tail to slip into the chambers on my Pietta 1858. Can just shoot them as cast without sizing.
217065

Unaltered cartridge revolver bullets are a bad idea, because it is so likely that the revolver rammer would drive them off-line into the cylinder. It might work better with a device for simultaneously charging six chambers in a separate cylinder, and almost certainly if you made a device like the false muzzle which was used with Scheutzen and benchrest muzzle-loaders. In fact if you had a spare cylinder with the same spacing of chambers, that would be a good way of making one.

The tubular-ended pin for the Lyman mould should be easier and work very well. I have seen something like this used successfully to cast for heel-bullet cartridge revolvers. Assuming the right relationship of chamber to groove diameter, I would take it forward to eliminate the last lube groove, leaving two bands to be reduced by ramming into the chamber. With that sort of alignment the revolver rammer should be fine, and the inertia should produce more upsetting, if you need it, than a round ball.

[indian joe]

Before doing that fly-reamer job I would be inclined to check the alignment of chambers and bore carefully. If it isn't perfect, that gives you a chance to improve it. I would fit a solid plug, or one with a very small central hole, and drill it with an extra long drill guided by bore bushings. It should be small enough to avoid straining the locking bolt (or you could temporariy hold everything in place with a hard wax or car body filler), and large enough not to follow that central hole if you have one. Then use those holes to guide a piloted counterbore.

I suppose if a cartridge bullet .001in. over groove diameter needs and doesn't get obturation, it is because it is sized down by the chamber throat. Besides the lower charge than a rifle, the reduced inertia of the front end of the lighter bullet is against it. So, I think, is the use of a felt wad. In any case I don't like the sound of these with a round ball, because if they go cup-shaped, they may go narrower, and the gas will pass them by. They would be better with a flat-based bullet, but not as good, I think, as an incompressible wax cookie between discs of card.

Instead of all this foolin round - why not fix the core problem??
I reamed an army cylinder out to .462 to make it all fit - but I only went .340 deep - thats about all you need to load a ball - so most of the length of the cylinder is left intact - heres a picture of my practice cylinder -(had a spare a bloke gave me) the two chambers at the top of the picture have been reamed from 449 out to .4585 (used that reamer to also make a boolit size die for my 45/75) - look close you can see the step in the chamber wall to the left of the loaded ball - that ball is a 454 just lightly sitting on the step in that chamber - this was just a practice run - we ended up taking the real cylinder out to .462 (same as the rifling groove depth) and use a .464 ball. There must be more than a few pistols out there like this as Pedersoli makes stock roundball molds in .462 and .464 as well as the normal smaller pistol ones (.457,.454,.451)

217123

[hylander]

My cap and ball revolvers are very accurate.
Every Pietta 1858 I have had (six so far) shoots like this:
Firts pic is round ball.
Second pic 200gr. 45 colt conversion @25yds,

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Instead of all this foolin round - why not fix the core problem??
I reamed an army cylinder out to .464 to make it all fit - but I only went .340 deep - thats about all you need to load a ball - so most of the length of the cylinder is left intact

Yes, reaming the cylinder to groove diameter (or a fraction over), and using something large enough for a convenient force fit, is the perfect situation.

I have never heard convincingly that round ball is much inferior in power or accuracy. But if you want that something to have elongated bearing surfaces, the problem is getting a bullet that will enter the chamber in a straight line, and still give that tight fit. Some reaming jobs, though not yours, will be happy with the Lee 456-220-1R , made for the Ruger Old Army. But if you want to take a modern flat-based revolver bullet as cast, you need some sort of straight-line inserting device.

I got good results with a Bohemian double rifle and the bullet made for the .50-70 Government, by making a simple loading block with a bore for the bullet, inserted by pressure on the base, and a pin just the right distance away to fit into the other barrel. That could be done with a revolver, but it means removing the cylinder to load.

[rodwha]

Yes, reaming the cylinder to groove diameter (or a fraction over), and using something large enough for a convenient force fit, is the perfect situation.

I have never heard convincingly that round ball is much inferior in power or accuracy. But if you want that something to have elongated bearing surfaces, the problem is getting a bullet that will enter the chamber in a straight line, and still give that tight fit. Some reaming jobs, though not yours, will be happy with the Lee 456-220-1R , made for the Ruger Old Army. But if you want to take a modern flat-based revolver bullet as cast, you need some sort of straight-line inserting device.

I got good results with a Bohemian double rifle and the bullet made for the .50-70 Government, by making a simple loading block with a bore for the bullet, inserted by pressure on the base, and a pin just the right distance away to fit into the other barrel. That could be done with a revolver, but it means removing the cylinder to load.

I know a few people like to use modern bullets and will resize the base so as to fit into the chambers.

[indian joe]

My cap and ball revolvers are very accurate.
Every Pietta 1858 I have had (six so far) shoots like this:
Firts pic is round ball.
Second pic 200gr. 45 colt conversion @25yds,

I have an ASM shoots like that and didnt need to be messed with - all ours are old - bought second hand - the two needed help were a navy arms (I think) 1860 Army and a CVA Walker belong to my son - I swear the rifling on those two barrels was identical - both of em now shoot as good as yours. I am not advocating fixing things that aint broke - if it works good and shoots nice go burn some powder! But dont put up with second rate accuracy just because it is a hundred and fifty year old design - these things can shoot.

[indian joe]

[QUOTE=Ballistics in Scotland;4330503]Yes, reaming the cylinder to groove diameter (or a fraction over), and using something large enough for a convenient force fit, is the perfect situation.

I have never heard convincingly that round ball is much inferior in power or accuracy. But if you want that something to have elongated bearing surfaces, the problem is getting a bullet that will enter the chamber in a straight line, and still give that tight fit. Some reaming jobs, though not yours, will be happy with the Lee 456-220-1R , made for the Ruger Old Army. But if you want to take a modern flat-based revolver bullet as cast, you need some sort of straight-line inserting device.

a couple of things here 1) by reaming for a round ball fit you leave most of the cylinder wall intact - I took 5 thou more than the picture shows and I think my proper cylinder was a tad smaller diameter than the practice one pictured - it was skinny enough to make you think about what you doin.
2) the roundball loads easy and fast - I dont know what the attraction of a flat based revolver bullet is in a capgun - I have ZERO interest in that - comes under the heading of useless foolin around - they dont shoot better than a ball - way more messing around loading - more difficult to cast - nothing at all to recommend it - but also a safety issue - I would not ream that Army cylinder deep enough at .462 to take a cylindrical boolit - I dont think that would be smart at all.

[bigted]

Joe, i am inclined to be in your camp with the round ball's. I have an older pietta 61 sheriff and i once shot over 50 of my cig paper cartridges with no lube whatsoever, never a bobble nor hickup, but the fact remains that for all the 50 shots, the accuracy remained hovering around the 4 inch area at 25 yds. Hence my quest for a more accurate setup for small game hunting and accurate paper punching.

Round balls carry plenty of whompom for what i have in mind. If i desire hunting bigger stuff i have plenty of suppository revolvers to accomplish this.

[indian joe]

Joe, i am inclined to be in your camp with the round ball's. I have an older pietta 61 sheriff and i once shot over 50 of my cig paper cartridges with no lube whatsoever, never a bobble nor hickup, but the fact remains that for all the 50 shots, the accuracy remained hovering around the 4 inch area at 25 yds. Hence my quest for a more accurate setup for small game hunting and accurate paper punching.

Round balls carry plenty of whompom for what i have in mind. If i desire hunting bigger stuff i have plenty of suppository revolvers to accomplish this.

4 inch doesnt sound good enough huh! - heres somethin for ya to chew on - if you can properly centre a 4inch group at 25 yards you will score over 90 - and it will take an olympic standard pistol shot to beat you - (gotta do it onehand offhand of course!!! :bigsmyl2:). ....... sounds simple .. but if the gun can only do 4inch and the operator can only do four inch - then thats lookin like most of 8 inches and now you is back in my league:veryconfu

[indian joe]

Update, went out and resluged everything on the 61 and dont know where i got those numbers but the correct numbers for the Uberti 36 cal model 1861 are as follows,

Bore -- .3665
Groove -- .375

Cylinder mouth -- .372

So with these corrected numbers it looks like my task is smaller than i thought.

Think my reaming to the cylinder should be .377 inch and then i will have a .002 crush into the barrel grooves for a great fit.

What say yee?

Big Ted ----I say 375 - thats a bog standard 3 eights inch reamer easy to find/borrow - put a little chamfer on the cylinder mouths - ya need a bigger ball tho.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

If that is a hand reamer it is likely to have about a sixty-fourth of an inch of taper for the last 38in. or so of length. It should enter the existing chamber, and is pretty close to the minimum weakening you suggested. I would chuck the reamer in a bench drill, and hold the cylinder in an old lathe chuck I use as a machine vice for round things. But I would both position that "vice" and rotate the reamer by hand. The drill would just be to ensure verticality.

Unfortunately I don't believe anything as cheap and easily found will do for a .44.

[Good Cheer]

Goodness!! Understand obturation very well and have plenty experience taking advantage of the science involved IN RIFLES where 50 grains is the least amount of black powder used and mostly from 70 to 135 grains of 2Fg and 3Fg. Obturation works very well when you have such a kick in the hiney to immediately swell the projectile of near pure lead to fill the grooves in the barrel.

Now for what i do not know is whether this works with the smaller charges such as 21 grains in 44 cal AND dealing with a cylinder gap that will bleed off much of the needed pressure that performs this obturation magic. Let alone the 17 grain charges in my 36, both shooting conicals that limit the room for a larger charge.

4 and 5 + inch groups at 25 yds are not going to cut it for me past simply shooting large steel targets as fast as you can. This kinda accuracy has no place when wanting to take a squirrel in the noggin which is around 1 inch if lucky, grouse heads even smaller but rabbits being a bit larger in the noodle.

Hard to grasp ... i think not!

Looks to me as though a flat base can expand with a small charge when it has a big lube groove not very far from the base. And I don't know why exactly but it works on a maxiball too. But then the big lube groove is wasted space in a pre-defined available volume if it isn't being used by lead or powder.
Other than that a shallow hollow base with the skirt appropriately thin can be made to work. If the load is being worked up for hunting it imposes more considerations because heavy (for inertia and expansion into the rifling) means less powder... it's all a trade off.

[rodwha]

Other than that a shallow hollow base with the skirt appropriately thin can be made to work. If the load is being worked up for hunting it imposes more considerations because heavy (for inertia and expansion into the rifling) means less powder... it's all a trade off.

Well that all depends on the design. I created a 195 grn WFN bullet that is just .460”, or barely longer than a ball so as not to take up powder capacity.

[Edward]

Just got a new to me Lyman 1858 /44cal today ,unfortunately my Lee 451 RB mold will not get here till Monday .I think a range day will still happen as my 445 balls now are a sporty red and come in at 450-451 . Not traditional but it will be noisy/smokey ,accurate don"t know but will be fun ! 217215

[indian joe]

If that is a hand reamer it is likely to have about a sixty-fourth of an inch of taper for the last 38in. or so of length. It should enter the existing chamber, and is pretty close to the minimum weakening you suggested. I would chuck the reamer in a bench drill, and hold the cylinder in an old lathe chuck I use as a machine vice for round things. But I would both position that "vice" and rotate the reamer by hand. The drill would just be to ensure verticality.

Unfortunately I don't believe anything as cheap and easily found will do for a .44.

I made my 458 reamer from a grade five high tensile bolt - it worked a treat (or did I get lucky?) - made the .462 from a grade eight bolt - that was just a bit tooooooo clever - didnt work so well - same old deal aint broke dont fix it!!! - the grade five is just carbon steel - easy to harden - grade eight is a much tougher alloy steel and the same heat treatment did not work - luckily the bolt itself was good enough to take the last bit out of those two cylinders but that was all it would do. Tother one is still good and sharp.
The process took about an hour - just turn an appropriate size bolt to correct dimension (polished), set up in the mill and cut four flutes (I eyeballed the setup of the flutes), sharpen the flutes carefully by hand, spun it in my drill press with the oxy torch on it till we got dull red heat, dunked in oil to cool, done deal.! I have a decent lathe and a milldrill.

[bigted]

4 inch doesnt sound good enough huh! - heres somethin for ya to chew on - if you can properly centre a 4inch group at 25 yards you will score over 90 - and it will take an olympic standard pistol shot to beat you - (gotta do it onehand offhand of course!!! :bigsmyl2:). ....... sounds simple .. but if the gun can only do 4inch and the operator can only do four inch - then thats lookin like most of 8 inches and now you is back in my league:veryconfu

Naaa 4 inch will not do. Im not an Olympic shooter and almost all shooting is done rested. I am a realist tho and might be reaching for the unreachable, but will continue reaching anyway as i have seen some awful good groups with just small tinkering done , with my centerfire revolvers.

8 INCH? Wow. Thats terrible. I used to target practice at 100+ yards with an old security six and hit 6 to 8 inch targets of opportunity in an old rock quarry.

[Good Cheer]

For the Pietta .44's, perhaps an 11.4mm hand reamer?

[Hanshi]

I've only owned 2 c&b revolvers, a Navy Arms 1858 Remington many decades ago, and a Rogers and Spencer more recently. The Rogers & Spencer stayed well under 2" at 25 yards and that was with the flimsy, wiggly and tiny front "sight".

[heelerau]

I don't seem to have a problem with my cap and balls, a London Navy and 3rd Mod dragoon. I do load with a greased hard felt wad over powder. I have found that keeps the bore clear and helps compress a lighter load. I just use round ball, and have been known to win an event with my Navy and beat blokes with much smarter pistols with much better sights

[John Taylor]

Found out about the cylinder problems about 40 years ago. Have reamed many cylinders out to groove diameter with no problems. Never had a cylinder rupture but I do know where there is one the came apart from using smokeless. When I was making cartridge conversion cylinders I used a dummy barrel to line the reamer up for boring the cylinder. An ATF agent suggested I don't do that anymore so I quit making them.

[Good Cheer]

Found out about the cylinder problems about 40 years ago. Have reamed many cylinders out to groove diameter with no problems. Never had a cylinder rupture but I do know where there is one the came apart from using smokeless. When I was making cartridge conversion cylinders I used a dummy barrel to line the reamer up for boring the cylinder. An ATF agent suggested I don't do that anymore so I quit making them.

Hey there John Taylor.
How much can you safely take out of Pietta .44's chambers?
Enough to make the chambers a couple thou over groove?

[John Taylor]

Usually the chambers are only a few thousandth under the groove diameter so most of the time it only needs about .004" reamed out. That's .002" per side so the wall thickness is about half the thickness of a sheet of paper thinner.