Too Much Pressure?

[rodwha]

I had Tom at Accurate Molds design me a .45 cal bullet for my cap n ball guns that's the length of a ball so as not to use up any powder capacity. It's listed as the 45-195C, and I assume it will weigh ~215 grns or so when cast of pure lead.

http://accuratemolds.com/bullet_deta...=45-195C-D.png

I'm certain my ROA can handle a full load of 3F Olde E or Triple 7, but I'm thinking this could get really scary in a repro. I can get 40 grns behind a ball with a little extra room.

How does one know they're getting a little iffy in a percussion gun? Caps can break up anyway. Hammer at half cock I'm sure is a sign. But it seems uncertain until it's likely really bad!

He has also made me a lighter bullet that can hold even more powder than a ball.

http://accuratemolds.com/bullet_deta...=45-170C-D.png

Thoughts?

[Omnivore]

I don't know. Using several search terms I haven't found a case of a modern repro revolver exploding, unless there's a bullet stuck in the bore, as from a squib load, and then another round is fired. In that case the barrel can bulge or split. Considering that the Walker is often loaded with sixty grains...

I've read where someone, first hand account, stuffed 50 grains vol of 777 in a Remington repro by compressing the powder and did enough shooting with it that he collected a bunch of data. I've fired lots of loads of 40 grains Goex 3F under a 200 grain Lee bullet in a Pietta Remington, but the only trouble there was that seating hard, right at the chamber mouth, resulted in the originally sloppy loading ram levering inward toward the cylinder axis and dinging the chamber mouths. Look out for that. My new Uberti Rem is even more sloppy in that department.

Lots of stories of originals letting go due to inconsistent metallurgy or flaws in the metal. The '60 Colt Army cartridge conversions with original rebated cylinders bored though often blew out at the cylinder notches and I have several photos of that. So far I'm not finding any cases of a blown cylinder in a repro due to BP or a substitute. Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough. Maybe someone else can help enlighten us.

I'll be stuffing 28 grains 777 into an Uberti Colt '61 Navy with that new 100 grain bullet, but since it's design and wall thickness is similar to the Walkers that routinely hold 60 grains with more lead in front of it, I don't have the slightest doubt about it's holding up to it. If you hear that I'm in the hospital on the next week or so, well, then I was wrong... The repro 44s handle more than 28 grains, with heavier lead, all the time and they can have thinner walls, so I'm not worried about my 36 at all.

I have been known to be wrong, but I think as long as you don't go shaving steel to open up chambers, or deepen them, you little to nothing to worry about. The chamber capacity isn't great, and more lead means less powder.

Originals in 44, with their inferior metallurgy, were often loaded with 255 grain lead and 30 grains black, and supposedly a lot of the powder made in the South was superior to most of the worlds BP during the Civil War.

Now of course you know that there are plenty of folks who will tell you we're blithering fools for even thinking along such lines. Fair enough, and guns can and do explode, but tell that to a young Elmer Keith and maybe we'd never have the 357 Mag or the 44 Mag. He was loading up 38 Specials and 44 Specials to insane levels. That'd be a huge no-no in today's society. I expect Keith and his contemporaries did their homework though, and probably knew something about proofing standards then.

Now, going from BP to nitro in a gun that's made and proofed for BP, or maxing out an original firearm of any kind from the 1860s and you're really asking for disaster. Lots of documented kabooms there, and even deaths. Then again I've heard of people topping off the chambers of original Colt Navies and compressing the ball down on top of it, as routine.

By the way; a flat base conical of the same length as a round ball will leave slightly less powder capacity, due to the "corners" around the base of the ball being filled up with lead, see. Maybe not enough difference to matter, but it technically leaves less room under it.

[Omnivore]

The 240 grain Kaido bullet is used in a '60 Colt Uberti repro with 40 grains stuffed in under it, for a velocity of 899.5;
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VVmYReP...%3DVVmYRePzoOQ

That's MUCH faster than with 30 grains, so the pressure is definitely beginning to spike.

[AbitNutz]

I can't speak to anything but the ROA but with the ROA there is just no worry. I have had the stock cylinder deepened by David Clements as well as having a late issue Classicballistx cylinder with greater capacity (IMO this last run of Classicballistx cylinders are better than stock. they're made by Kirst.) I have loaded both with 45 grains of Swiss 4F (the Ruger manual states you can use 4F) and a 220 gr BigLube bullet and fired long and continuous strings with no ill effects other than when the smoke cloud overwhelms you. I have also loaded as much Tripple 7 as the chambers could hold and compressed it, 50 grains...before I knew that you should only use light compression. Nothing hurt but the accuracy.

In short, I have loaded the heaviest bullets possible with the as much of the hottest powders I could get in there, with no wad...and the only thing that happened was that I learned a few things. You can't hurt the gun but it doesn't help in the accuracy department. My standard load is no wad or grease over the chamber, 35 or 40 grains of Triple 7 and a the 45-200S by Accurate Mold and HP'd by HP Mold Service. I've ordered the 220S from Accurate and when I get it...I'll send it to HPMS for conversion.

[Alan]

Any plain lead boolit you can get in the cylinder automatically reduces powder capacity to a safe level w/ BP or a normal BP substitute. That said, nothing shoots as well in most of my guns as a tight-fitting pure lead RB, greased felt wad, and all the (2F) powder that will fit without letting the wad touch the ball as it centers itself in the chamber mouth.

[AbitNutz]

RB loads do seem to be more forgiving. I had to play around with different bullets, loads, etc before they equalled RB accuracy.

[mooman76]

I don't think there is a danger of blowing up, I doubt you could get enough BP/sub powder in there but I bought a Navy 36 from a friend that was kind of loose and I planed to fix it. I asked him how much powder he put in it. He didn't know, he just filled it up. So the biggest concern probably would be wearing out the gun before it's time. A steel frame would probably be ok but the brass frame aren't as strong.

[rodwha]

My concern is borne from having increased the bearing surface a little, as well as adding so much more weight than a typical FN bullet of it's length. It ought to increase pressures over any other conical/bullet that's out that I'm aware of. Kind of hindsight here…

Is there any way to harden a repro cylinder without making it even slightly brittle?

I often have wondered if the reason why RB's often outperform conicals/bullets isn't the length. I'm VERY anxious to cast some up and head to the range! I've yet to shoot my Pietta, and so I'll have to spend ALL day there so I can get a fair picture of how it performs with RB's and these boolits! *Sigh* These hobbies are just soooo much work.

[rodwha]

No brass frames for me! Cabelas has a nice enough sale on steel frames!

I've had very good results with all of the bullets, conicals, and RB's I've fired through my ROA. Offhand there's just not much difference between them at 15 yds. I did find that 30-35 grns of 3F Olde E and a ball was better than lighter or heavier charges (going by 5 grn increments). I had to try as I all too often read of light loads being the most accurate.

[Omnivore]

If the lightest loads were always the most accurate, we'd all be shooting 22 shorts, and yet the 500 S&W is said to be a very accurate pistol.

It's all about how the gun is designed, built, fit and finished.

Pietta Remingtons have a 30 inch twist, while Uberti Remingtons are more like 18", and bullet to bore to groove fit is different between the two. then there are things like forcing cone angle and finish, chamber to barrel indexing, bore and rifling consistency and probably several other things I haven't even considered, which will determine accuracy. Point being; you simply cannot make a blanket statement like "light loads are more accurate" that applies to each and every gun. The loading manuals for another example are sprinkled with statement from the ballistics testers about accuracy, and they sometimes show that the heavier loads are most accurate for a given gun, powder and bullet.

Then there's the shooter. All else being equal, it has often been reported that a shooter will do better with lighter loads simply because of the anticipation of heavier recoil will often cause you to flinch at the last fraction of a second and pull the shot off target. It is THAT that I concern myself with most of all.

I've been certified as a pistol instructor and have taught many first-time shooters, and have been out with many more experienced shooters, and it is just about universal that the more you shoot without a break, the more you flinch. Every time a new shooter starts to shoot wide or miss, I have them unload and do some dry firing (Pop the cyl out of the Remington and you can dry fire it all day) and every single time we do that, you'll see the muzzle jump like crazy on the first dry fire. The shooter then sees first hand what's happening, I have them practice a few more times and them go with live ammo. And every single time, the next several shots at least, will go right where they're supposed to go. And so we've demonstrated to the shooter, for sure and for certain, where the practice needs to be concentrated.

The more you've shot that day without dry-firing, and the faster you try to shoot, the more you tend to flinch. I've seen it over and over and over again. That's why IPSC type shooting, or pin shooting, where both speed and accuracy are needed for a good score, is excellent practice. It is practice for the body, yes, and it fisks out equipment and technique issues, but mostly it's practice for the mind.

Unless you have a defective gun or ammo then, The Biggest factor in accuracy is almost always psychology. We might call it "Zen in the Art of Pistolcraft".

[Fly]

Heck just buy a Walker.I just do not understand reinventing the wheel.These guns have had every load
a man can think of shot threw them over the years.

JMOHOP Fly

[rodwha]

That's further down the list but on it! I love the history behind it, as well as the light rifle load!

But imagine putting 60 grns behind this ~215 grn bullet!

[Omnivore]

excess650; just for clarity, the penetration test with the Kaido bullet was done using 30 grains behind it. He only fired the one shot with 40 grains to get an idea of the velocity, because it was so difficult to stuff than much into the Colt with that long bullet. In any case it's a decent hunting load for the Colt Army, as it's in the relm of the standard 45 Colt power level. A Dragoon or Walker would be an obvious choice, but they are heavier arms. There are always trade-offs.

If hunting deer in my home state of WA is the goal, the Colt '60 Army is pretty well out of the running. We have a 45/45/8 rule-- A BP handgun must be approved by the manufacturer for 45 grains powder, must have a caliber of at least 45 (that's a bit of a grey area in definitions) and a barrel length of at least 8". The Colt Army is close, but fails in the 45 grains department. Maybe a Dragoon would qualify in the load department, but its 7.5" bbl doesnt. So the Walker is probably the only currently available revolver that might qualify (do ROAs come with an 8" bbl?), though of course there are plenty of choices in single shots.

[rodwha]

ROA has a 7.5" barrel.

I seemed to be able to get 45 grns of 3F Triple 7 behind a ball. I tried it using 3F Olde E and had to trim the ball. But it still wouldn't qualify due to the last 1/2" missing….

However, you might get 45 grns behind the 170C which is shorter than a ball.

[Hellgate]

Rodwha,
Check out biglube.com for 45 cal pistol bullet molds for the C&B. He has a 150gr, 210 and 250gr 6 cavity gang molds for $99+S&H.

[rodwha]

I have looked at his. I don't feel the need for such a large lube groove, and I like how the ones I had Tom design take up much less powder capacity and have a much larger meplat.

I do like his stepped base though, and his price is nice!

[Hard_Cast]

Too much powder? It can happen, especially on open tops, and especially on brass frames! Here is an 1860 brass-frame .44, and when the cylinder arbor separated, it took threads with it! In looking at the recoil shield, there are indentations where the cylinder pinged the frame, and there is a crack between the arbor's threads and the cylinder hand. Keep it between 21 and 28 grains for any gun you care for, 30 to be considered hot, and 40 is pushing it, IMO. I replaces it with a stainless steel framed 1858, and I'm not looking back! Plus, cylinder swaps are a breeze!

[rodwha]

I like boom and thunder so I wouldn't consider a brass frame too much though I really like a Spiller & Burr!

[rodwha]

That's one thing I don't understand about the Buffalo revolvers I see as they are made with brass frames, but with a 12" barrel all I can see it being for is hunting where you'd likely want a higher powder charge.

[Omnivore]

Brass frame 44s don't make much sense to me. Just my opinion. The 12" bbl does give you a longer sight radius and a tad more MV. Some have reported good accuracy out to 50 yards with the Buffalo and round ball.

The Pietta 44s all seem to have ~30" twist barrels too, and yet if you look at any modern 45, they all have twists in the ~15 to 18" range, including the rifles chambered for pistol calibers (higher velocity = higher RPM, same bullet). Sometimes a slow-ish twist will work well with conicals though.