Real ballistic data

[lonewolf172]

Hi all. I have a Traditions .44 1858 New Army with an 8" barrel. I'm looking at using 30-35gr Triple7 FFF with either 141gr round ball or 200-220gr Kaido conicals (may have to open loading port). I've done some on-line research but getting confusing ballistic data. If anyone is using similar loads please message me with what your data/results/findings.

[rodwha]

What confusing data are you seeing? I haven’t seen a lot of chronographed data but I have found several, and the consensus is that with a ball you’ll be in the mid 300 ft/lb range and with a bullet you’re at around standard .45 ACP performance, close to 400 ft/lbs.

[lonewolf172]

One video I saw that was testing the Kaido 220gn conical said they were getting about 800-900ft/s. Read an article on the same subject and it said it was getting 1000-1100 ft/s with 35gn Triple7 FFF. I'm just looking for data from 1858 New Army owners who are getting actual ballistic information.

[charlie b]

Way back I had a Remmy (Navy Arms kit). Don't remember the exact load but it was enough powder so the round ball was about 1/8" below the chamber mouth. Chronograph with it showed 1200fps.

I would not duplicate that as I think it was over what most consider a max load in that pistol. It did not get fired a lot, maybe 100 rounds a year.

[rodwha]

One video I saw that was testing the Kaido 220gn conical said they were getting about 800-900ft/s. Read an article on the same subject and it said it was getting 1000-1100 ft/s with 35gn Triple7 FFF. I'm just looking for data from 1858 New Army owners who are getting actual ballistic information.

From the work I’ve done concerning my Pietta NMA I found that it’s most accurate hunting powder charge is 30 grns, which weighs 33 when using Olde E. I’ve measured the remaining chamber space and have been working on a modified version of my bullet to fill the excess with lead. My new bullet is estimated to weigh about what the Kaido’s does but likely holds more mass as I use a wider meplat and smaller lube groove. Volume measures are all a little different so it’s hard to say what 30 or 35 grns will produce from person to person, which is why I like to weigh my charges as well as it gives an absolute number. I only weighed them to get that accurate as I sent bullets to a fellow with a chronograph and the same guns to see what I’m likely getting since data on the internet varies and is vague when it comes to precise powder loads. The testing was a bit skewed, but he was getting low .45 ACP performance, lower than what I’ve anticipated. When I see numbers running close to light magnum I run quite a bit skeptical. Of course we know T7 compresses more readily so a few more grains can easily be doable. More typically I see bullet’s energy figures around 375-425 ft/lbs.

There’s a little debate, but it’s said that the original .45 ACP load was designed to mimic the government cartridge that replaced the .45 Schofield/Colt, which spat a 230 grn bullet at about 350 ft/lbs. What I’ve learned about Hazard’s Pistol Powder from Civil War paper cartridges is that the 211 grn bullet in front of 36 grns contained 4F powder that produced velocities consistent with Swiss powder. However reading a little on having moved on to metallic cartridges I’ve read that the recoil of the original .45 Colt load with a 255 grn bullet pushed by 40 grns of powder gave too much recoil for the average trooper, and those pistols weren’t exactly light. We often read of the powder granulations being 2F in everything larger bore, yet a museum curator who has disassembled late 19th/early 20th century handgun cartridges for display said that 4F was common in ven among large calibers, with some containing even finer powders. 2F may well have been used when trying to reduce the recoil since we see it held 40, then 35, then 30, and finally the 28 grn charges (not sure all of the latter was through the Colt cartridge or M1887 ammo), and may well have included using courser powders since you can’t have an air gap. I look at Mr Beliveau’s testing of 2 Rugers with standard Goex and T7, and testing a ball, Lee RN, and Kaido’s 255 grn modified Lee bullet. He loaded 25 grns because he took in to account that Hogdgon stated reducing the charge by 15%, which was said to do if one wanted the same performance as other powder, and also barely compressed the powder though it was stated necessary only when loading brass. So we know he could have used more powder, especially T7 (and safely). I haven’t fully tested absolute full charges as I worked in 5 grn increments, but it appears my Ruger holds ~5-7 grns more than my NMA. So I’d say it’s safe to say you could use his T7 figures as we see his Goex loads are 5 grns more volume. I’d venture to guess the Lee RN has a similar OAL as Kaido’s bullet and we see it’s pretty hot in a full length barrel (968 FPS/469 FT/LBS). Just cutting the barrel back greatly effected the velocity for some reason. I’ve seen lower numbers when used in repros though. I’ve speculate that Mr Beliveau’s numbers are the upper end. Note that the same bullet but with 35 grns of Goex it got 805/324 or close to what the old military load produced.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LP_dwo2nThA

[rodwha]

Way back I had a Remmy (Navy Arms kit). Don't remember the exact load but it was enough powder so the round ball was about 1/8" below the chamber mouth. Chronograph with it showed 1200fps.

I would not duplicate that as I think it was over what most consider a max load in that pistol. It did not get fired a lot, maybe 100 rounds a year.

What powder were you using?

These guns are built from better steel than what was used during the war. And they had powder equivalent to Swiss and using 4F granulation (Hazard’s paper cartridges), and that’s with a 211 grn bullet being pushed by 36 grns of powder. There are some who’ve sought evidence of failure when using 4F powder, which hasn’t been found it seems. Lyman even has listings in their 1st Edition Handbook using 37 grns of 4F and a ball for the 1860 Army. And Swiss powders were labeled 4F for pistols and 3F for rifles, a common practice in Europe from the few people on the boards I’ve chatted with. Assuming the gun is in good condition it can handle full loads. However bullets are the consideration as they enter other factors in with friction from bearing surfaces and the power needed to get the heavier mass moving, which builds pressure. I don’t advocate for using 4F when we have such great 3F powders available. One day I’ll probably buy a bottle of Swiss 4F just to see though. Oh, and this excludes brass framed pistols of course.

[Thundermaker]

OP, the reason you're finding different information in different places is because every gun is different. Performance depends on bore dimensions, cylinder gap, bullet hardness, cap and powder batches, and an infinite number of other factors. If you want to know for sure, you'll have to test your gun. A chronograph is a valuable tool.

[megasupermagnum]

There was a Handloader magazine not long ago that has all the data you need. I don't remember which one it is, but it was in 2020. I don't shoot 777 in mine, but that powder will generally give the highest velocity of any powder you can use in a cap and ball. I really doubt you will see 1100 fps from a 220 gr bullet, not with only 35gr volume of powder. With 35 gr of real FFFg blackpowder and a round ball, you are looking at 800-850 fps. Maybe 950 fps with 777 powder. Even the walker with 60 gr of FFFg only hits about 1100-1150 fps with a ball.

Based on what I've seen, with 35 gr 777 (the FFFg version),, I'd estimate around 950 fps with a ball, or 850 fps with the bullet.

[rodwha]

There was a Handloader magazine not long ago that has all the data you need. I don't remember which one it is, but it was in 2020. I don't shoot 777 in mine, but that powder will generally give the highest velocity of any powder you can use in a cap and ball. I really doubt you will see 1100 fps from a 220 gr bullet, not with only 35gr volume of powder. With 35 gr of real FFFg blackpowder and a round ball, you are looking at 800-850 fps. Maybe 950 fps with 777 powder. Even the walker with 60 gr of FFFg only hits about 1100-1150 fps with a ball.

Based on what I've seen, with 35 gr 777 (the FFFg version),, I'd estimate around 950 fps with a ball, or 850 fps with the bullet.

From what little side by side comparisons I’ve seen Swiss followed by Olde E, and then T7. From a revolver with a 30 grn charge it might have been 10-20 FPS faster than Olde E and maybe 50 FPS faster than T7, all fairly similar.

[Harter66]

I got 980 from a 141 gr RB with 777 FFFg at 35 gr .
I shot a few 45-200s over about 25 gr no chronograph data .

The consensus is that the RB shoots better than the conicals .
The Pickett types were only 210 gr and fit the frame cut out .

[megasupermagnum]

From what little side by side comparisons I’ve seen Swiss followed by Olde E, and then T7. From a revolver with a 30 grn charge it might have been 10-20 FPS faster than Olde E and maybe 50 FPS faster than T7, all fairly similar.

Someone help me out here. I swear I just read this comparison in a magazine, and I am quite certain it was in Handloader magazine, an article written by Mike Venturino. Upon looking at back issues online, I believe it is #329, December 2020. I can't seem to find mine at the moment, but on the Handloader website, it appears it is the article barrel length comparison, where Mike Venturio compares various barrel lengths for cap and ball revolvers, using a number of powders.

The short version of that article that pertains here, 777 powder produces the highest velocity of any powder, which is the same result that I get when I've tested it in muzzleloading rifles, and is the same result I see every time. I've never seen Swiss shoot faster than 777 volume for volume, although I'm sure it can happen sometimes. My own testing has found Swiss to be on a different standard than American powders. If you compare the grain size of Swiss Fg to OldE Fg, you will see they are WAY different. In fact, I'd say Swiss Fg is even finer than OldE FFg! So yes, I do find Swiss usually shoots the fastest if both granulations on the can are the "same". Comparing the velocity of OldE FFg to Swiss Fg finds little difference, and OldE may be faster.

Now back to cap and ball specifically. I've never seen anyone get 980 fps with 35 gr of normal powders, although you are not way out of reality. Being as fine as Swiss is, I can imagine the FFFg version must be like shooting FFFFg Goex. I've only tested my own 7 1/2" old army with FFFg OldE. With 35 grains, which is about all I can stuff in there reasonably, and a round ball, I got 841 fps.

[rodwha]

Someone help me out here. I swear I just read this comparison in a magazine, and I am quite certain it was in Handloader magazine, an article written by Mike Venturino. Upon looking at back issues online, I believe it is #329, December 2020. I can't seem to find mine at the moment, but on the Handloader website, it appears it is the article barrel length comparison, where Mike Venturio compares various barrel lengths for cap and ball revolvers, using a number of powders.

The short version of that article that pertains here, 777 powder produces the highest velocity of any powder, which is the same result that I get when I've tested it in muzzleloading rifles, and is the same result I see every time. I've never seen Swiss shoot faster than 777 volume for volume, although I'm sure it can happen sometimes. My own testing has found Swiss to be on a different standard than American powders. If you compare the grain size of Swiss Fg to OldE Fg, you will see they are WAY different. In fact, I'd say Swiss Fg is even finer than OldE FFg! So yes, I do find Swiss usually shoots the fastest if both granulations on the can are the "same". Comparing the velocity of OldE FFg to Swiss Fg finds little difference, and OldE may be faster.

Now back to cap and ball specifically. I've never seen anyone get 980 fps with 35 gr of normal powders, although you are not way out of reality. Being as fine as Swiss is, I can imagine the FFFg version must be like shooting FFFFg Goex. I've only tested my own 7 1/2" old army with FFFg OldE. With 35 grains, which is about all I can stuff in there reasonably, and a round ball, I got 841 fps.

I don’t read magazine articles much. What I’ve seen is what’s on forums, people’s experiences. There’s a little published data from Hodgdon for T7. Since powders are generally loaded by volume and powder measures vary a bit. My 30 grn charge of 3F Olde E weighs 33 grns. My new measure seems closer to the actual weight of that charge. And the crappy pistol measure that comes in the starter kits is way different (lighter). Anyhow, this variance always has to be considered unless specified. Some people even state large compressed charges with T7 and P since they do compress well. In essence what I’ve seen posted, especially a side by side comparison using a NMA and shooting Swiss, Olde E, and T7, along with a few others is that Swiss tends to be about 10-20 FPS faster than Olde E, which is about 15-30 FPS faster than T7. But I see very little rifle comparison data.

I have read of a couple of accounts where extremely high velocities, in a ROA for sure, getting claimed light magnum velocities. I’ve also read of deepening the Ruger’s chambers or buying the ClassicBallistix cylinder which claims to hold 5-10 additional grains over OEM.

I tend to like comparison tests as the volume would be the same. The whole loading procedure is otherwise the same.

I’d love to read the data you’re looking at.

I forgot to mention that initially the packaging for Swiss powder designed for handguns was 4F, their 3F being labeled as rifle.

Mike Beliveau did testing with two ROAs (5.5” and 7.5”) and compared his 3F Goex to reduced and mildly compressed T7 using a ball, the Lee RN, and Kaido’s modified Lee bullet that weighs 255 grns. He got 1062 FPS with a 33 grn charge from the 7.5” version, and 1011 with the shorter one. He gets 968 FPS with the longer gun shooting the Lee bullet with just 30 grns. And with 25 grns he sends that 255 grn bullet at 920 FPS.

[rodwha]

The fellow who tested 30 grns of 3F through his NMA showed a ball traveling an average of 920 FPS with Swiss, 906 with Olde E, and 847 with T7. T7 seems to also tend to have the largest standard deviations.

I use mostly Olde E these days, but always get some T7 when I buy powder from Grafs. They seem to perform the same from both of my pistols. My shooting is offhand at 15 yds. My rifle has been fed the crappy Pyrodex P and RS my dad gave me since I was just breaking it in and tinkering with it a little.

I have a book at home written by two enthusiasts who did a lot of comparison testing and sometimes Pyrodex P was a little faster than Swiss. The P I shot through my ROA seemed more powerful than the numbers I’ve seen, though this is a bit subjective as I’ve not bothered with any of the weaker powders as they make a .44/.45 pretty anemic for hunting with. It’s made me wonder if Pyrodex isn’t improved and similar to T7 these days.

Here’s another guy did some testing:

http://poconoshooting.com/blackpowderballistics.html