Uberti Cattleman muzzleloader in .44 - which mould?

[Jamesthut]

I've recently purchased my first muzzleloading gun - as the title says, an Uberti Cattleman in .44, which I've yet to get my hands on.

I'm just wondering exactly which Lee moulds would be appropriate. The Uberti manuals suggest a 454 or 457 round ball mould, or a 454 conical bullet mould. A friend suggested a conical bullet might be more accurate, so I wanted to explore this route. Lee appears to make conical moulds in 450 (MOLD D C 450-200-1R - I assume too small?) and 456 (MOLD D C 456-220-1R) but not 454. Does anyone know if the 456 conical mould would work well? Or should I stick to round ball, and if so, which size?

Any advice welcomed.

J.

[Der Gebirgsjager]

Welcome to the Forum, James. Glad to have you aboard. You'll find lots of good information and advice here.

I have two of the 1873 muzzle loading revolvers. That's not the best description of their nomenclature exactly, as they don't muzzle load. You have to remove the cylinder to load it, but it's not loaded through the muzzle like a Hawken rifle. Anyway, I used the .454" round ball with good success. I haven't tried the .456" or .457" balls and can't really comment on it, but getting the .454" into the cylinder chambers is a tight fit. If you do use the larger diameter balls I suspect the revolver will shoot fine, and be perfectly safe, as a ring of lead is shaved off the ball when it is seated into the cylinder. As for a conical bullet, I have not tried them in these revolvers, but have done so in other black powder type firearms. It has been said for a long time that, generally speaking, conicals are not as accurate as ball. Some have had success with them, I know, but it usually requires more attention to the loading of the projectile into the cylinder. If they are tilted one way or another in the cylinder, then they will deform some when entering the barrel in straightening out and lose accuracy. I have tried them in various revolvers and found them not to be as accurate as ball. You will likely get a loading tool with the 1873, but if you don't you'll have to purchase one, as it's time consuming and difficult to load the cylinder without one; and since the revolver is not equipped with an under-the-barrel rammer it's just about impossible to load the cylinder in the revolver.

274206

DG

[AntiqueSledMan]

Hello Jamesthut,

I have the LEE 450-200-1R, and it casts about .451+.
I run them through a .451 sizer before swaging a heel for my 44 Colt Original.
Most get sized, a few don't show as much.
I would measure your cylinder bores & go from there.
My Pietta 1873 BP measure about .447".
Of course you could push the .456 thru a .454 sizer.

AntiqueSledMan.

[sharps4590]

Just get the .454 RB mold and don't waste time or powder on conicals, unless you're an inveterate experimenter. I've owned and fired 44 cal., C&B revolvers since the early 70's and all I ever used for RB's was .457. One works as good as the other. Only difference might be a little tighter loading. But then you get a little longer shank to engage the rifling.

[StrawHat]

Just get the .454 RB mold and don't waste time or powder on conicals, unless you're an inveterate experimenter. I've owned and fired 44 cal., C&B revolvers since the early 70's and all I ever used for RB's was .457. One works as good as the other. Only difference might be a little tighter loading. But then you get a little longer shank to engage the rifling.

I have similar experiences and my recommendations would be the same. A larger ball might be a smidge harder to load but it provides a larger belt for the rifling to grab.

Round balls are decent for small game also.

Kevin

[Wayne Smith]

Note - use only pure lead loading these. Anything harder can damage your loading lever even when using a loading tool.

[Bent Ramrod]

I have one of those as well. Was hoping to use it as a test bed for all the 0.454” conical moulds I’d accumulated, but after bending and having to replace the lever on my cylinder loading tool, I’ve pretty much stuck with 0.452” round balls.

The only conical I’ve tried in C&B revolvers is the Ideal 450229, in an 1860 Army replica. I was able to convince myself it shot harder and more accurately than a round ball until I actually shot it at paper targets over a chronograph. If it’s pre-lubricated, you don’t have to put grease over the cylinder mouths, but that was its only advantage over a round ball.

Never tried it in the Cattleman, though, and that has a quicker twist than the normal C&B gun, so the results may vary.

[Nobade]

I have been seeing great results with the Kerr 44 bullet from erasgone molds in my '58 Remington. If your revolver has relatively normal dimensions I would bet they would work in yours as well. Quite a bit more energy than a round ball and very accurate. And of course pure lead only.