1860 with FFFg powder

I was shooting my 1860 with homemade soft lead balls and a wad from O'Riellys gasket cork material. it was doing ok, but nothing to get excited about.(the balls for the .44(actually .45 LC) where .454 or close. I also tried some of the balls I pour for my friend who has a Ruger old army, (which takes a .457-8 ball.) with the soft lead balls it wasn't much trouble to use the .457 balls. the next 6 shots where like a was shooting an almost .44 magium!!. I was using FFFg powder and the results where awesome! and my 1860 was shooting to point of aim. very accurate!. I put a cork wad over the powder and then a dab. of grease on top of the wad. then the ball goes in. the over size ball, holds the powder just enough to really get a bang out of the powder and one shot make so much smoke that you have to wait a bit for the smoke to clean to see where you shot went. 27.5gr.s of FFFg goex powder is my load. I can shoot this load all day long without fouling the barrel.

I used shoot an 1860 Army with 30grs of 3F, a dry lubed felt wad and a .451 Ball. With a Dab of Crisco for the first cylinder. I never had an experience as you describe. I didn't use .454 diameter ball because they were so blasted hard to load, I was afraid of breaking the loading lever. And I still got a full ring of Lead from loading the .451 Diameter Balls.

Wow.. just goes to show you how different each gun is.. fitting the personality is key, just like a woman...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Markopolo

Wow.. just goes to show you how different each gun is.. fitting the personality is key, just like a woman...

---

We have a 1860 army that was a mediocre shooter

Cylinder throats were .451 used a .454 ball ....shot kinda ok with wads under the ball

slugged the bore .........? groove is .462!!!! the ball was only about half engaged the rifling

Reamed the cylinder throats to .462 and now load a .464 ball from a Pedersoli mold

Now it shoots real nice with a full charge ---- we did a Walker had same dimensions = same problem = same result .

I think poor ball fit to the rifling is likely why so many of these repro colts wont shoot a full load but shoot good with target loads - the filler (semolina, creme of wheat, wads, whatever) takes up the slack and stops powder blow by/gas cutting.

Also have a ASM 51 navy repro in 44cal that came proper dimensioned rifling to cylinder sizes and is a dream to shoot - will do well with about any load you like to give it.

Mr.pakmc, what brand is your 1860? Pietta, uberti, etc. Also what are your cylinder chamber diameters? Barrel land and groove diameter? Are your cylinder chambers chamfered to swage a ball/bullet, or are they left sharp and cut a ring off the ball/bullet? Im interested in these little details that may help explain why a .457 ball worked so well and better than 454 balls.

my .44 1860 is a uberti (taylors, i think) and I did chamfer the cylinder chambers. so the whole 457 ball is in the cylinder without shaving lead.the cylinders mike out about .456-7, and the barrel groves also mike out about .450. I put a cork wad on top of the powder, with a dab of grease on top of it and then swage the ball on top of that. (no chain fires, and I can still shoot the gun with out cleaning the barrel over 70 shots. (which I"ve done) we have plate racks here on our range(6 -1/2or5/8 steel plates at 10 yards. I've run 6-7 cylinders without missing a plate or cleaning the gun(did I tell you how much I love the 1860 open top???) I think I'm just getting better combustion with the tighter ball.(it sure feels like it.) I have 777 but I use that in a .36 that I shoot.(which will soon be a 1861 navy.)
where in South TExas. I'm just south of houston!

back to you outlawkid! I have an 1851 Pietta navy(I think, but it is in .44 caliber) and it's cylinders mike out about .445 so does the forcing cone in the barrel. but the end of the barrel ilooks like its about 445, but it looks like the front end of the barrel had a sharper twist than the back half, I hear (somewhere) that the old guns had a tighter twist at the end of the barrel to help accuracy? and it kinda looks like this pietta is the same way?? any one??

Im in deep south texas by mcallen. Hmm...your uberti seems to have cylinder chambers that are larger than groove/bore diameter..did you have your cylinders reamed so that they were over groove diameter? That could be one of the reasons youre getting great accuracy. As far as your pietta 1851 navy...im not sure they ever came with gain twist barrels...they usually stick to their standard 1:30 twist rifling... But piettas remington models are said to have a faster twist just like ubertis but i cant say for sure since i dont own a pietta remington model.

I shot my pietta 1851 Navy this morning. first with FFFg and a .454 balll. it did ok, about 4-5 inches high at 10 yards. I then shot it with FFFg powder with a .457 balls. just a little more kick!. then with about 27.5gr.s of 777. some more kick. all loads where accurate. the .457 balls shot about3-4 inches high and the 777 shot about 2-3 inches high. all loads shot to point of aim(very little right or left most shots where a little high of point of aim???(did that make any sence?).

So what is happening here I believe is this;

1- the .457 .458 balls get a longer flat side on them then a .451 .454 ball does forced into the same diameter cylinder.

2- this longer "bearing" area performs just like a conical in that it takes more pressure to dislodge it from the cylinder.

3- this pressure pounds the hind end of the "longer" ball and helps "OBTURATE" the ball as it moves from the cylinder thru the forcing cone of the barrel.

4- after obturating past the cylinder and into the forcing cone your ball now fills the rifling of the barrel and thus you now have a far more accurate revolver then with the thinner and shorter balls which can not obturate completely into the rifling due to not as much pressure build up with the thinner flat area on the ball ... and ... thus you get windage gas cutting and lack accuracy as well as lead/powder deposits AHEAD of the ball which gets "ironed" tight to the barrel and you get foul out very quickly.

My take on this.

I’m with bigted for the most part on his assessment, though there’s no obturation if the chambers are that much larger than the grooves. Having the much longer bearing surface has been seen to improve things when the chambers are grossly undersized.

Just increasing the bearing surface seems to improve things regardless. Note the same charge used with merely a ball size increase, along with what’s shown for the .31 Rem:

http://poconoshooting.com/blackpowderballistics.html

As to the Pietta Remington .44 I can say that my 2013 model certainly has a 1:16” twist unlike the older models having the 1:30”.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rodwha

I’m with bigted for the most part on his assessment, though there’s no obturation if the chambers are that much larger than the grooves. Having the much longer bearing surface has been seen to improve things when the chambers are grossly undersized.

Just increasing the bearing surface seems to improve things regardless. Note the same charge used with merely a ball size increase, along with what’s shown for the .31 Rem:

http://poconoshooting.com/blackpowderballistics.html

As to the Pietta Remington .44 I can say that my 2013 model certainly has a 1:16” twist unlike the older models having the 1:30”.

---

you boys are proly right -- it makes sense --but I reckon its a bandaid measure compared to a gun setup correctly with cylinder throat a couple thou over groove depth - the full cylinder charges was where we saw the most improvement - very satisfying to shoot a decent group with 65 grains in a walker that was previously shooting a shotgun pattern.

So my assessment takes into consideration a stock Uberti revolver. Their un reamed cylinder is always smaller in 44 cal then the groove diameter of the barrel.

Taking this in consideration (because reaming a 44 cal cylinder seems like rolling dice to me) the longer bearing surface of the larger balls (to a degree) has better ability to not skip into the rifling , but to grip immediately upon journeying through the forcing cone. This allows all the pressure to remain behind the [now obturated ball] ball and corresponding faster velocity and energy, as well as the immediately felt recoil and corresponding accuracy of the revolver.

Above in this text, I mentioned the possible situation of reaming a 44 cal cylinder as rolling dice. I am not convinced that the stop notch's will withstand any reaming ... and ... if the reaming is only done in 1/2 inch or so of the cylinder bore, then you are relegated to a consistant load that leaves no air gap between ball ( that now can only be seated so far in the cylinder chamber ) or still further be relegated to the use of fill to ensure a full and compressed powder charge.

Mr.bigted brings up some good points about reaming a .44 colt and the stop notch area. Is the gun reamed all the way down the chamber or just down enough to seat the ball etc? Did you ream them, have them reamed, or did you purchase the gun reamed? Ive never seen a stock uberti .44. Colt cylinder reamed from factory. I am a huge believer in reaming cylinders over .001-.003 over groove diameter. I myself have reamed cylinders and i have seen the difference in accuracy. Although all mine are .36 cal and the stop notch area isnt an issue

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Markopolo

Wow.. just goes to show you how different each gun is.. fitting the personality is key, just like a woman...

---

Figuring out a gun is a lot easier than figuring out a woman!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOutlawKid

Mr.bigted brings up some good points about reaming a .44 colt and the stop notch area. Is the gun reamed all the way down the chamber or just down enough to seat the ball etc? Did you ream them, have them reamed, or did you purchase the gun reamed? Ive never seen a stock uberti .44. Colt cylinder reamed from factory. I am a huge believer in reaming cylinders over .001-.003 over groove diameter. I myself have reamed cylinders and i have seen the difference in accuracy. Although all mine are .36 cal and the stop notch area isnt an issue

---

well yeah you would have to be nuts to ream that stepped cylinder right down to the stop notch -- I reamed ours just enough to load it properly - i woulda been a whole lot more happy if the galloot that made it had made the barrel right size for the cylinder - same as my armi san marco 45 - but they didnt and I have zero interest in shooting my breakfast food outa my pistol :lol: I eat me cereal outta a bowl with milk on it an i put blackpowder in me gun. [smilie=2:

Indian joe....youd be surprised as to what people do to their guns. Ive seen and heard of people reaming all the way to the bottom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOutlawKid

Indian joe....youd be surprised as to what people do to their guns. Ive seen and heard of people reaming all the way to the bottom.

---

No not surprised really - there a lot of people out there dont think a real lot
That 1860 cylinder was pretty skinny after we took ten thou outta it - woulda been just plain dumb to go .462 all the way to the bottom - same with the walker really - plenty of meat there but the thing already holds 65 grains of powder - ya just dont want a bigger powder chamber in either of these

Back in the 60s I started competing with C&B revolvers. The replica industry was still a couple years away from flooding the market like they do today, so we used originals. Most of the boys using them would ream the cylinder to accept a swaged 200 grain SWC, often the same bullet loaded into an ACP cartridge. There were some impressive groups fired.

The cylinder was reamed so a ledge remained against which the bullet would be seated. How deep depended on what powder charge you wanted.

Kevin