Triple7, Pietta 1858 New Army and Conicals

[1winnen]

Hi. Is anyone using the combination in the Title above? If you are could you tell me what charge you're using of T7 and weight conicals? I have a 1858 and I want to use T7 and either Kaidos 220 or 240gr conicals. My other question is in regards to the compression issue. I have heard 2 different theories. One says NOT to compress like you would other BPs or substitutes and the other says it's really not an issue. My other question is about accuracy. Do you find T7 to produce good accuracy provided the shooter does his part. Please let me know your thoughts on it. Thanks

[Tatume]

Advice for cartridge use may be applicable to your cap and ball revolver.

http://www.hodgdon.com/loading.html

Triple Seven In Cartridges: Use data specifically developed for Triple Seven FFG only. Cartridge loads should be used exactly as listed in this pamphlet. You may safely use a card or polyethylene wad up to .030" in thickness to protect the base of the bullet. Loading density should be 100% with light compression not to exceed .100". Testing has shown that Triple Seven will perform best when the bullet just touches the powder. Allow no airspace between the base of the bullet and the powder. Do not reduce loads by means of filler wads or inert filler material such as Grits, Dacron or Grex. Do not heavily compress powder charges. The use of filler wads, inert fillers or heavy compression may cause a dangerous situation, which could cause injury and/or death to the shooter, bystanders or damage property. Do not create loads for cartridges not listed. Contact Hodgdon Powder Company for recommendations concerning other loads.

[1winnen]

I've read all that before. What I was looking for was those who actually use T7 in their Rem 1858s and conicals. But thanks anyway.

[rodwha]

Why would loading a cap n ball fall more under the loading of cartridges and less like that of a percussion arm?

My understanding with the loading of T7 in a firearm is more about consistency. But this is no doubt the same issue with any other muzzleloader powder, though not as amplified possibly? So to be as consistent as possible I've seated my projectiles as hard as possible.

I get very similar groups compared to those I used Olde Eynsford powder instead.

In my Pietta '58 I use my custom 170 and 195 WFN bullets with 30 grns of powder as it's the most accurate. I can easily get 35 grns behind them.

[rodwha]

My neighbors kids tossed a few springs from their trampoline into my backyard. I have entertained the thought of trying it on the loading lever so that it breaks at a certain pressure instead of seating it until it moves no more.

[1winnen]

I think what I'm going to do is get a dowel, mark an empty chamber, then mark it with 30gr loaded and then mark length of the conical. I've read some where to not use gorilla force to seat the conical. Just steady pressure. At least that's what I read.

[rodwha]

In the video of Mike Beliveau loading T7 in the ROA's he did exactly that, and somehow figured how deep a mild compression would move it.

I wish there were someone who had a chronograph that could run a test on compression and T7. Virtually no compression, mild compression, heavier compression, and absolute compression.

My problem with steady compression is how to replicate that 5 more times, and every other time after that as well. That's why the trampoline spring made sense, as isn't a large or heavy contraption to drop in my full range box or carry afield.

But then I figure I ought to get similar results by the absolute compression as well as far as consistency goes. And that seems to do as it doesn't produce anything wild in comparison to when I've used the same charge of Olde Eynsford. Maybe I ought to do testing from a rest though as there likely could be some difference, but I'm not sure it makes enough of a difference to me as I'm doing well enough at 15 yds.

[Rattus58]

In the video of Mike Beliveau loading T7 in the ROA's he did exactly that, and somehow figured how deep a mild compression would move it.

I wish there were someone who had a chronograph that could run a test on compression and T7. Virtually no compression, mild compression, heavier compression, and absolute compression.

My problem with steady compression is how to replicate that 5 more times, and every other time after that as well. That's why the trampoline spring made sense, as isn't a large or heavy contraption to drop in my full range box or carry afield.

But then I figure I ought to get similar results by the absolute compression as well as far as consistency goes. And that seems to do as it doesn't produce anything wild in comparison to when I've used the same charge of Olde Eynsford. Maybe I ought to do testing from a rest though as there likely could be some difference, but I'm not sure it makes enough of a difference to me as I'm doing well enough at 15 yds.
why wouldn't you load the powder, load your wad to a consistent pressure, much easier than getting the ball pressure right and just load to the wad?

[rodwha]

I'm not following. I don't understand how this can be consistent between them all assuming you aren't loading them to what you can absolutely seat them at. It seems there is much more room for difference without using a contraption to ensure consistent pressure.

[Omnivore]

I watch the angle of the lever when seating. Bottom line is; without a special contraption that mechanically seats each bullet to the same depth, and weighing each charge for consistent charge weight, (just like we do when reloading metal cartridges) you're never going to get "consistent" seating depth or "Consistent" powder compression. Then there's bullet deformation, which means that although your bullet NOSES may all be at exactly the same depth, it doesn't mean your bullet BASES are going to be at exactly the same depth, because they'll not all deform exactly the same. So use a powder that isn't so finicky.

Anyway; I was compressing the heck out of T7 in my Colt '61 Navy with the 380-100C bullet, and I got decent (but not impressive) results. I get better results, accuracy wise, so far using Swiss 3F. In fact, I'm getting better groups than with any handgun so far, except for a 22LR.

[Good Cheer]

Look at your chambers closely to see if they even have the same internal volume. I have a Pietta that definitely does not.

[Captain*Kirk]

Hi. Is anyone using the combination in the Title above? If you are could you tell me what charge you're using of T7 and weight conicals? I have a 1858 and I want to use T7 and either Kaidos 220 or 240gr conicals. My other question is in regards to the compression issue. I have heard 2 different theories. One says NOT to compress like you would other BPs or substitutes and the other says it's really not an issue. My other question is about accuracy. Do you find T7 to produce good accuracy provided the shooter does his part. Please let me know your thoughts on it. Thanks

Never used T7 so going by what I've read both from Hodgdon and other forum topics.
The first thing to remember with T7 is that you need to reduce max charges by 15% over Pyrodex P or 3F powder. Assuming a max charge on a '58 is 35gr 3F (this depends on whether you can seat the 220/240gr Kaido and still rotate the cylinder with that volume), then using T7, your max load would be around 28-29gr T7.
The second thing is to not to excessively compress the T7. I would think light, even compression using the loading lever and a stand would be sufficient. You will know if you are overdoing it.
Accuracy and pressure/velocity...like any other BP gun/powder/bullet combination, you are your own ballistics lab, friend...and only your own test results with your gun will reveal the best combo. I wish there was an easy answer, but there's not. Start low on the powder charge and work your way up, a grain at a time, until you find the most accurate charge for your gun, then fine-tune it WRT compression, bullet, etc. Take copious notes and save your targets.
I own six Remmies at present, and they all have their own preferences and peccadilloes. If I didn't keep notes I wouldn't have a clue what each one liked.

[rodwha]

Hodgdon's recommends reducing the T7 load to give similar performance as BP. Since standard Goex and similar powders certainly give much lower velocities than T7 I can see that, though when the charge is reduced by ~16% (Mike Beliveau's testing) it was still much faster. However when comparing the velocity to Swiss and Olde Eynsford you'll find similar velocities when comparing equal volume of powder charges.

So is it a safety issue as many believe or is it just to get similar performance to standard BP's as they seem to suggest?

I've emailed them several times asking for clarification on this and what "firmly" seated is as most believe you shouldn't compress T7 either, which is not what it says.

I'm not concerned with my Ruger, but I do load my Pietta '58 with 30 grns of 3F T7 or Olde E, but it's not about safety to me (I've talked with several guys who do load theirs to the brim, which isn't to say that one of these days it won't give, but they've been doing it for some time), but that I get better groups, and 30 grns still packs a whallop as well as produces a nice thunderous ring with plenty 'o smoke. The same goes for my .50 cal sidelock. It can handle more, but 70 grns seems to give me the better results.