2ffg vs 3fffg in long barreled cap and ball guns

Hello,

So a couple years ago I bought a 1858 Remmy. With an 8 inch barrel. Settled on for a hunting load 40grains of 777fffg. With Johnston and Dow conicals. Gets going to

40grn 777 217 jd, 960fps SD:20 es:70
40grn 777 140 rb 1229fps Sd:70 es:170

Last year I bought a 12 inch target barrel for it and installed.with the extra length I’ve only increased to

jd: 1030fps Sd:17 es:50,
rb: 1255fps Sd:50 es147

Has anyone ever tried 2ffg 777 in a cap and ball Revolver? I’m curious if the very little increase in velocity is because the powder is done burning. I don’t want to add too much more powder in there. With 777 it doesn’t compress as much as regular pyrodex so it’s about 1/8th below flush.

3f pyrodex I can squeeze 50grn 140rb 1207fps and it’s seating depth will vary. Also seems to kick more violently then the 40grn 777. And I think strains the loading lever to compress it.

Im curious if the longer length can take advantage of the slower burn of 2f. But don’t know if 2f generates higher pressure to start then 3f? Anyone tried this before I buy powder that if it doesn’t work I’ll never use?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You might try 4F it works in my guns and notice I did not get specific on the TYPE of gun ! Remember (LESS IS MORE) with BP 4F/Ed

Can't speak to pyrodex but using BP I only use 2f in my cap n ball guns....

Once you achieve the magic velocity you’re looking for, what are you going to hunt with it?

I’ve taken my Ruger Old Army in hopes a doe would present herself fairly close. Had one show up but let her pass

I have only used 777 in one ML revolver.. a 3rd model Dragoon as there was no BP available in that town. It shot well when loaded as the directions stated. Used a .454 RB, light compression of the 777, dobbered the cylinder throat with Crisco and fired 10 cylinders with our son out in AZ.
Since I use 3F Goex and far happier with it all. That 777 I would gladly trade for any BP. Or I will burn it up next 4th of July we are north in our 1.1" 1/6 scale navel cannon with dried grass wadding.

Double posted ???

Deer, and if the need occurs black bear and big cats.

Also the 12inch barrel shoots true to aim vs the 8inch wich is about 7 inches higher.

If I can get a more powerful and accurate hunting load I’ll take it. But it’s not critical to do so.

Has anyone chronographed a 2f or 4f loading of BP? I’ve never seen 4f for sale anywhere around here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My son was shooting 65 grains of 5FA goex in his walker - the bloke we used to partner the powder deal with chronoed it and said 5FA shoots about 5 -10% faster in a percussion rifle then FFFg anyway in the end it loosened that old walker up and I had to do a rebuild on it - the load was pretty spectacular and kinda violent
so a rebuild / reset the cylinder pin and new wedge
corrected the arbor length
replaced the pins on the action to barrel joint (I made those a little too neat they need to allow a touch of movement)
reamed the cylinders to .462 and we went to .464 ball (the barrel slugged .462 in the groove)
It now shoots quite accurate with a full cylinder of powder and no filler
BUT in order to quieten things down some I switched him to a coarse FFg homeschooled powder.
It still gets everybodys attention specially in under a tin roof at the club we attend but its lost the violent edge
have not chronoed it -

Conventional wisdom with rifles has it that we use 15% or so extra of FFg to get the same velocity as FFFg in say a 28 inch barrel - that difference definitely diminishes in a longer tube - but if it is showing up in a 28inch its definitely gonna be there in shorter (pistol) barrels

FFg doesnt generate as high a peak pressure as FFFg - I think a bit of search would get you plenty of science on that score

I missed any mention of "cartridges" in all this. Guess you're not talking about cartridge conversions. LOL

Dave

The load that launches the 217 gr. projectile at 1030 f/s meets the old criteria for hunting white tail with a pistol. In fact, it leaves a little to spare in terms of velocity AND bullet weight. If you can put 6/6 of those in the kill zone of a deer at whatever range you envision, then you're already where you need to be.
The old criteria for handgunning deer were:
1.) No smaller than .40 cal.
2.) No lighter than 200 gr.
3.) No slower than 1000 f/s at the muzzle.
The .357 Magnum, loaded to the max, is something of a "rule-beater" in terms of bore diameter, because it can readily exceed the other criteria with room to spare. Other more conservative handgunners don't agree with this, but they may know something that the rest of us do not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by indian joe

My son was shooting 65 grains of 5FA goex in his walker - the bloke we used to partner the powder deal with chronoed it and said 5FA shoots about 5 -10% faster in a percussion rifle then FFFg anyway in the end it loosened that old walker up and I had to do a rebuild on it - the load was pretty spectacular and kinda violent
so a rebuild / reset the cylinder pin and new wedge
corrected the arbor length
replaced the pins on the action to barrel joint (I made those a little too neat they need to allow a touch of movement)
reamed the cylinders to .462 and we went to .464 ball (the barrel slugged .462 in the groove)
It now shoots quite accurate with a full cylinder of powder and no filler
BUT in order to quieten things down some I switched him to a coarse FFg homeschooled powder.
It still gets everybodys attention specially in under a tin roof at the club we attend but its lost the violent edge
have not chronoed it -

Conventional wisdom with rifles has it that we use 15% or so extra of FFg to get the same velocity as FFFg in say a 28 inch barrel - that difference definitely diminishes in a longer tube - but if it is showing up in a 28inch its definitely gonna be there in shorter (pistol) barrels

FFg doesnt generate as high a peak pressure as FFFg - I think a bit of search would get you plenty of science on that score

---

Would be fun to see a video of that 65 gr Goex load - I bet it was fire and brimstone at the muzzle.

On a related note, you mention something I knew but have rarely seen written in print - that the cylinder bores need to be bigger than groove. I have an original 1860 Army which conforms to that standard and it always was quite accurate. Unfortunately, the Italians didn't pick up on that detail so modern guns often don't shoot that well because the ball doesn't engage in the rifling, nor does it seal properly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HWooldridge

Would be fun to see a video of that 65 gr Goex load - I bet it was fire and brimstone at the muzzle.
you bet! we did have a still pic that a gal took with him at the pistol club shooting in the dark - scary the flames coming out of that cannon

On a related note, you mention something I knew but have rarely seen written in print - that the cylinder bores need to be bigger than groove. I have an original 1860 Army which conforms to that standard and it always was quite accurate. Unfortunately, the Italians didn't pick up on that detail so modern guns often don't shoot that well because the ball doesn't engage in the rifling, nor does it seal properly.

---

yeah I rehabilitated the walker and he also had a 1860 army with identical rifling -deep rifling which I never liked for blackpowder - they were both .450 on the lands and .462 groove , cylinders were .452 from memory ---most blokes (target anyway) shoot these guns with about a half to two thirds powder charge and filler - they seem to do ok - I think the breakfast food takes up the windage in the grooves and also stops gas cutting - so they "get away with it" - neither of those guns shot worth a crumpet with full loads and now they both are good - we got a Pedersoli mold that drops .464 ball, they also make a .462 mold - so I reckon Pedersoli and a lot of European shooters have this figured out - the cylinder walls on that Army were skinny enough after I reamed it - only went deep enough to load a ball on a full charge -

The Johnston and Dow 217 bullets are 448 at the heel, and 461 at the shoulder.

Paper cartridges and slix shot nipples and a capper make shooting cap and ball almost as easy as a SAA, and there’s nothing to eject.

I’m not using a conversion cylinder. In my area on state land you can only use rimfire, black powder front stuffers and shotguns. Only handguns allowed are rimfire and cap and ball because it’s a front stuffer.

Game warden around here also thinks the old remmy is pretty cool as he doesn’t see people using them too much. But he didn’t like the look of the 17wsm AR because he thought it was centerfire when it wasn’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk