Can you suggest a correct ball diameter?

[Chill Wills]

Can you suggest a correct ball diameter?
I have my old (45 years old) Italian, brass frame, open top, Colt copy, 36 cal cap & ball revolver and want to get it going again. I have never cast for it and so need a mold of proper size.
I have a set of pin gauges, so I checked the cylinder mouths. All excepted 0.356" and two 0.357". I have not sluged the barrel but I will at some point.
My Ruger Old Army cylinders measure 0.451" and it is stated to use 0.457" balls, and that is what I do. They work well.
Using this as a guide, I could use a 0.365" ball in the 36 Colt. But I think people normally use 0.375", and I bought 0.375" in the past. I think?

I wonder what might be better?

[rodwha]

Those chambers tend to be larger though. A bit oversized is good but up to a point. Eventually it puts undo strain on the lever assembly.

I'm curious what your barrel slugs at. If those are too far apart it might be good to ream the chambers assuming there is meat between the chambers.

At this point I think 0.365" is enough. I wouldn't go beyond that.

[Battis]

I'd use .375" pure lead. I've never had to go smaller with a .36 cap and ball. Keep the loads low - brass takes a beating.
This is from a previous owner:

[54bore]

And to think i just melted down several brand new boxes of .375 Lead balls, most of them were new sealed boxes. I stil have a few boxes of .395 that will be added to the melting pot shortly

[rodwha]

I've read of people complaining about the strain and having things break with Pietta Remington NMA's with 0.446" chambers and using 0.457" balls. Pietta and most others state the 0.451" ball is what those smaller chambers need. Going too far over the chamber diameter isn't a good idea.

I had my Pietta chambers reamed to 0.449" and chamfered and I use 0.457" balls and 0.456" boolits without too much extra force needed, but that chamfer no doubt helps.

[mooman76]

.375 is what most use and that is what is most common. I have heard however some claim a .380 is actually more accurate but it is allot less common and moulds are harder to find. On your other revolver .454 is used allot. Most claim when you shave off a tiny little lead ring when loading, that's where it should be. I have no reason to disbelieve it.

[rodwha]

But what sized chambers are on your average .36 cal revolvers?

The Uberti Police model has .372" chambers. A big difference between that and what the OP measured.

[Chill Wills]

Thanks for the replies men. Reading this, I think there might be a range is size that works. I think getting a lead ring when seating the ball in the cylinder is good. Getting too much ring works the lever too much - that makes sense.
My next step is to drive a slug through the barrel/bore and see how it compares.

I'll be right back after I do that.

[pietro]

.



For any C&B revolver, Best Practice indicates that the ball should be of a size (diameter) that shaves off a thin, but even, ring of lead as it's seated in the chamber mouth.



.

[Chill Wills]

Right. If the cylinder does not shave a ring, the ball is too small. If the ring is not even all around, the ball becomes out of balance. Thin to one person may be thick to another.
I am just wondering if a guideline for, how much bigger, exists.

I fired up the Pb pot to cast a few soft slugs. I should know the barrel measurements soon.

[Chill Wills]

The barrel is 0.365 land and 0.375" groove. I'm good with that.
However, the cylinders are 0.356". That does not seem like that should be.
The entrance to the forcing cone is 0.390"

I know - BP bumps up Pb round balls. However, this still does not work well in my mind.

[pietro]

.

Sometime, folks can overthink things.....................

Shoot it - if it isn't broken, don't "fix" it. ;)


.

[Battis]

The problem with relying on a shaved ring of lead is if the chamber mouth is chamfered (beveled). The ball will seat lower and might not shave lead (or not as much).
I'd start with .375" roundballs, which are usually on the small size. Most of my .36 revolvers use .380". Some of the older ones could use .390".

[rodwha]

The .31 cal Pietta Remington has such undersized chambers that velocity and accuracy suffer greatly, and compared to the Colt models they are pathetic. An oversized ball helps, but obturation only goes so far.

Again it seems the typical .36 cal revolvers have larger chambers than what the OP states. And much larger (on a scale) to where a .380 ball is often better such as with the Uberti Colt Police model.

The ball used generally is less than 0.010" over chamber. My ROA, which cals for a 0.457" ball has 0.453" chambers. The Uberti Remington's have 0.450" chambers and call for a 0.454" ball, and the Pietta version has 0.446" chambers and calls for a 0.451" ball, and those chambers are on the small size.

Again, what is the typical chamber size of these .36 cal revolvers? Measure yours and see what you get compared to the ball you use. Or even try using 0.390" balls and see what you feel. I loaded a cylinder of 0.490" balls in my Ruger once as I forgot to grab some and it took quite a bit of effort which I wasn't nearly as worried with since the Ruger isn't made with softer steel. I wouldn't do it again unless I had to for some reason. I wouldn't do that with my Pietta even if it had 0.453" chambers that were chamfered.

*EDIT*

Those .44/.45 cal guns all have a ~.452" bore. Ruger made theirs correctly. And the chamber sizes listed for the repros are not the match grade guns you spend a good bit more on.

[rodwha]

I'd still look at opening up those chambers. They are too small compared to the bore and using a 0.375" ball or larger is certainly adding undo stress to the lever assembly.

If not that you'd potentially want to bring the bore down to ~.357" by lining it. Unless you don't care enough.

[dondiego]

Don't they make replacement cylinders? Boring the chambers would seem to be expensive in comparison to the overall value of the firearm. How much is a new revolver worth?

[rodwha]

His revolver is ~45 years old.

[dondiego]

His revolver is ~45 years old.

Got it.

[rodwha]

Can anyone supply chamber sizes for their .36 cal to compare? My understanding is they are north of 0.369".

[Chill Wills]

I'm with you on wanting to know what is usual and customary.

I need to look for what size reamers I have. I am far from setting this cylinder up to ream the chambers, but I still think the cylinder chamber mouths might be too small for the barrel. If this were a center fire cartridge revolver, I think this would be a very poor but fixable situation.

[rodwha]

They are most certainly too small.

Is there meat enough between the chambers to ream them out? I'm guessing with the typical .36 that there most certainly is.

[Battis]

My suggestion would be to shoot it like it is with .375" roundballs. I wouldn't ream the cylinders on a 45 year old brass framed reproduction revolver. I use undersize roundballs in my older guns to keep the pressures down. If the roundballs fall out or roll around, etc in the cylinders, then go to .380". If you want a perfect cap and ball revolver, get a Ruger Old Army. They're accurate, reliable and very well made.
I started with cap and ball revolvers, then went on to reloading the new fangled "self contained cartridges." I can see the comparison problems you might have if you started reloading cartridge ammo then switched to cap and ball, but I knew nothing about reloading when I fired strictly cap and ball, so I didn't have any comparison confusion - I just loaded the C&B and fired them. The key is soft lead - it's forgiving. Hard lead, or very oversized roundballs, will strain the loading lever too much.
I will add that I experienced two multi-chamber chainfires, but I traced the problem back to the roundballs that I had cast - the mold was defective, and the balls were uneven, which I knew, but I fired them anyway. No big deal - two chambers fired, and the ball that was in the "outside" chamber left the gun at a 45 degree angle (as it was supposed to do). I learned not to use bad molds.
But, it is your gun.

[Chill Wills]

Battis - thank you for your input. I think if you read from the first post, a few of your assumptions will be cleared up.

[Chill Wills]

They are most certainly too small.

Is there meat enough between the chambers to ream them out? I'm guessing with the typical .36 that there most certainly is.

Yes, so much so that it would not even be noticed. I was think (only thinking at this point) that ,356 to .368 is 0.012" or 0.006" that the chamber wall is opened all around. That is not too much at all on this large cylinder.

[Battis]

Yep, I forgot that you do have a Ruger Old Army.
I'm just curious - by reaming out the cylinders, would you be looking for improved accuracy or is it a safety issue?

[Chill Wills]

Yep, I forgot that you do have a Ruger Old Army.
I'm just curious - by reaming out the cylinders, would you be looking for improved accuracy or is it a safety issue?

Yes, I have had two and a Remington. And, this 36cal.

To your second question, there is no earthly reason to do anything with this revolver. It could just continue to collect dust and be no worse off. If I were to do anything, I would have learned what it should be if it was all correct and I would have to have ALL the projects completed that are ahead of it; ones that really have more value to me.

If anything at all gets done with this, it would be a snowy winter day project and done for the satisfaction of putting things to rights. At this point, I am learning what right is.

This was my first handgun when I was a late teen and I shot it with correct loads so much that the brass frame stretched a few thousands. I shortened everything up and returned the BC gap to something like 0.006" and shot it some more. Then bought my first centerfire, a S&W 67 and all but never picked up the little 36 again. Until now.

[rodwha]

What size ball had you been using? I'm not aware of any molds that drop a ball that would give you what you'd need so I assume you had been using a 0.375" ball. I'm also guessing that as it was your first gun you probably shot the snot out of it. If so it would seem your lever assembly can handle those stresses. Have you used felt wads? If not maybe they'd be enough to seal the bore as I highly doubt you get enough obturation to do it with a projectile that undersized.

[Chill Wills]

wodwha, your assumptions are very good. Dad and I cast for ML and fishing snag hooks but we did not have a mold for this revolver. If it wasn't in the local gun store, we did not have it.
I remember getting boxes of Speer round balls and maybe some Hornady RB's as well. And I really think they were 0.375" RB. You know how memory goes.
Yes, felt wads are a good idea to try. Plus just shooting it some but I would rather put the money into a mold than a box of RB's ....and then a mold too. Maybe I just need to buy and try.
The more I think about this, 0.375" chamber mouths and 0.380" ball fired into a 0.390" cone, feeding a 0.375" barrel should work out well.

Why would what I have now, an under sized 0.356" chambers, expanded into 0.390"cone, and then back to 0.375" barrel do one good thing for accuracy or seal the gas?
Starting with reamed up .375" chambers and 0.380 ball would distort the projectile the least, provide a good fit start to end, and seal well (if using a .380 ball mold).
Just thinking aloud.