Double ball cylinder loads where bullets are not crimped in place?

[Naphtali]

Playing with my depth micrometer, I noticed that cylinders of my 1858 Remington 44 replica have huge "usable" depth in chambers. Two round balls could load into a chamber and still have sufficient chamber capacity for a decent propellant charge. While I do not have the devil-may-care attitude to load up a cylinder with double ball loads, has anyone tried it - and had nothing dangerously unpleasant occur?

One obvious potential problem for which I have no knowledge or experience is whether recoil from firing such heavy projectile(s) would cause unfired chambers to back some top layer round balls partly out of their chambers to jam the revolver - assuming that destroying the cylinder or revolver by way of an overload would not occur.

Although I do not own one, I guess this double ball thought might pertain to 1863 Remington 31s, and 1860 Colts.

[Good Cheer]

Hmm, would it work like shooting heavy boolits only put two holes down range?

[NC_JEFF]

Naphtali, your question raises a question with me. Is it possible that instead of two balls, a wadcutter or semi-wadcutter style lead boolits can be safely fired from these guns?

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Conical bullets certainly were, and combustible cartridges made containing them, although it is questionable whether they offered any advantage over the round ball. But they weren't double the weight of the ball, and the question of how two balls might tend to expand is a very complex one. It might also accelerate the erosion of steel nipples.

Assuming it works, the second bullet would probably impact just a few inches from the last, and is unlikely to offer any advantage over one ball at a much higher velocity. If I ever felt tempted to try this (and at the moment I don't), it would be by starting from very underpowered powder charges. Watching for primer deformation or case expansion are telltale signs you are not going to have...

[Naphtali]

Conical bullets certainly were, and combustible cartridges made containing them, although it is questionable whether they offered any advantage over the round ball. But they weren't double the weight of the ball, and the question of how two balls might tend to expand is a very complex one. It might also accelerate the erosion of steel nipples.

Assuming it works, the second bullet would probably impact just a few inches from the last, and is unlikely to offer any advantage over one ball at a much higher velocity. If I ever felt tempted to try this (and at the moment I don't), it would be by starting from very underpowered powder charges. Watching for primer deformation or case expansion are telltale signs you are not going to have... Primer? Case?

[Ballistics in Scotland]

I am led to believe cap and ball revolvers don't have any, so two of the warning signs you might expect with a cartridge firearm aren't available to judge by. The percussion cap is made to fragment for easy removal, so I don't believe it would give any reliable information.

[Hellgate]

I used to shoot double ball loads from my '61 Navy 36 cal figuring that 81 X 2 was only 162 and the conical was 130gr and some other bullets that were used were SWCs for 38SPL so I figured (I "figure" a lot) what the hell. I was originally informed in the late 1960s that "you can't over load a C&B with black powder" since you will run out of space for the powder with the extra lead before anything catastrophic happens. So I'd put about 15 grs FFFg and ram two balls on top and have at it. It was an underpowered plinking load with a little more kick but not much else. I have not tried it in my 44s yet. Let's figure: 140 something and 140 something is 280 something. I'm not sure how much powder space there would be left after 280 something grains of lead. Tell you what: I figure YOU ought to try it first. My figuring is it (most likely) would be another underpowered plinking load and not much else. But there's always that word floating around: catastrophic.

[lobogunleather]

The use of double ball loads in muzzle-loading pistols was fairly common back in the day, but I have not heard of trying it with the C&B revolvers. Most likely detrimental effect I can think of would be the loaded balls in other chambers moving forward under recoil impulse (as others have speculated). In addition to the possibility of blocking cylinder movement there is also the possibility of creating a void between the balls and the powder charges, which is something to be avoided with black powder.

Overall I agree with Hellgate. Let someone else try it!

[Good Cheer]

From penetration experiments on gelled paper with a .44 1858 it looked like swapping powder space for volume of lead pretty much ended up making the same hole depth.
http://i791.photobucket.com/albums/yy192/SNARGLEFLERK/1858452066vsRB_zpsa7734763.jpg (http://s791.photobucket.com/user/SNARGLEFLERK/media/1858452066vsRB_zpsa7734763.jpg.html)

These were shot with a 6" barrel 1858 Remington converted to use .41 molds.
http://i791.photobucket.com/albums/yy192/SNARGLEFLERK/stacktop3_zps11ae4d05.jpg (http://s791.photobucket.com/user/SNARGLEFLERK/media/stacktop3_zps11ae4d05.jpg.html)
The nose design on the molds (round nose vs SWC vs wadcutter) made the biggest difference.

[dagger dog]

Would a revolver loaded in that manner be called a 12 shooter ? :bigsmyl2:

Really the lead ball or balls stay put on firing and the cylinder backs up during recoil, causing the boolit to migrate to the front of the chamber and tie up the action.

[Omnivore]

If one ball doesn't creep forward under recoil, two of the same ball won't creep forward either; twice the mass + twice the holding power = no difference in creep.


Is it possible that instead of two balls, a wadcutter or semi-wadcutter style lead boolits can be safely fired from these guns?

Certainly. I have a bullet mold for just such an item. I use them in a Pietta Remington New Model Army (44). The bullet is the 45-240C, though it weighs out a few grains heavier in pure lead-- 247 as I recall;
http://accuratemolds.com/bullet_detail.php?bullet=45-240C-D.png

You CAN overload a C&B revolver. At least you can overload an Uberti Colt Walker due to its higher powder capacity. One fellow has reported doing just that, using the 45-285C (285 grains, and probably a bit heavier in pure lead) in a Walker with a hefty powder charge;
http://accuratemolds.com/bullet_detail.php?bullet=45-285C-D.png

It blew the chamber and so he didn't fire a second shot. He still uses that cylinder, though now it's a five shot. 285 grains is heavier than anything reportedly used back in the day in a revolver. I believe the heaviest I've read about was either 255 or 260 grains, and those were commonly loaded into paper cartridges. Millions of them were made back in the 1860s, and powder charges ranged from pathetic to 30 grains or a little more.

My 247 grain heeled semi wadcutters do pretty well with 32 grains of Old Eynsford black powder, though the bullets are far too large at the meplat to load on the gun - they interfere with the frame and won't fit under the loading lever, so the cylinder must be loaded off the gun. I've already opened up the loading port to take Lee 200s but it would need a LOT more opening to take the semi wadcutters.

It feels to me as though the 200 grain Lee bullet over a 30 grain Pyrodex pellet charge is a stiffer load. I have yet to chronograph those loads.

[koger]

I shoot heavy conicals in my ROA, with 32gr 3FFFg, and it does a fine job, 2 dead deer can attest to it. And it shoots just as accurate with a soft lead conical, as it does with a RB.

[rodwha]

I recently talked with Bruce about the load and his Walker. He, again, asked my thoughts on why it burst his cylinder, and so I told him of the responses I was given. These ranged from ASM having quality issues, he was the 3rd owner with no real idea if it was ever abused or neglected which may have compromised it, that the bullet may not have been seated firmly on the powder, and that it also looked as though smokeless was used, though I doubted that as he seemed knowledgable enough. And then there is the greater weight with greater bearing surfaces that I created to increase the pressure/velocity from my Ruger knowing it can easily handle it.

There really is no way to know for sure, and it could have even been a few issues.

He also thought thinks he used 54 grns of powder as the spout was a 27 grn version. Regardless I was and am surprised.

Kaido do makes conicals as heavy as 255 grns that works fine.

[Omnivore]

I shoot heavy conicals in my ROA, with 32gr 3FFFg...

OK, define "heavy", please. Are they 500 grain, depleted uranium bullets, or "just a little bit heavier than a round ball"? I would assume that "heavy conical" for a 44 is something between 200 and 260 grains, but then I would rather not be left to assume. And if it works great, then people might want to know which specific bullet we're talking about, so they might could try the very same one for themselves, eh?