Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: ariansworld on August 30, 2009, 10:37:11 PM
-
Well, I am going to get a cap and ball revolver made by traditions. I will be getting the 1851 navy replica. Not sure if I should get it in .36 or .44, does anyone have any opinions on this?
Thanks,
Arian
-
A flight simulator forum is definiately the place I'd look for advice on this so good call there. That said I'd choose the .44.
-
A flight simulator forum is definiately the place I'd look for advice on this so good call there. That said I'd choose the .44.
:rofl
-
i have the .36 and its a sweet shooter. :aok a little time consuming to load though.
-
The Navy Colts (M1851 and M1861) were NEVER made in .44cal, it was strictly a .36cal. Colt's .44cal cap and ball revolvers were the Walker, M1848 Dragoon and M1860 Army.
If someone's selling you a "Navy" in .44 it's either ACTUALLY one of those three (and if it's a Walker you'd be able to tell the difference, because that thing is MASSIVE) or NOT a faithful reproduction, in which case you may want to look elsewhere.
My own Navy reproduction is by San Marco, it's based on an earlier model frame with the squared trigger guard (my dad's own San Marco Navy was the later, rounded guard). Some years ago Colt began manufacturing the Navy again, even picking up where the original serial numbers left off. Not sure if they're still in production, though.
-
"By GOD girl??? Thats a Colts DRAGOON!!!" "Your just a Corn Nubbin!!! What are you doin with all this pistol!!"
- Rooster Cogburn
"Well, ya gonna jerk them pistols, or whistle Dixie??"
- Josey Wales
Just gotta have the .44 man!!! A brace of 2 would be better!!!
Have fun, be safe!!
RC
-
Main issue is what you're looking for. The Dragoon and Army .44s have more power, but the Navies are lighter and as a result are a bit easier to handle. Speaking of power, it wasn't until the 44 Magnum that anyone made a (production, at least, not sure about any special one-offs) revolver to match the Walker (used a powder charge equal to some rifles). You pay for it in weight tho. That monster weighed in at 5lbs.
Incidentally, if you watch the Little Round Top scene in Gettysburg. Chamberlain uses the 1860 Army, while Tom has the '51 Navy. Great shot of Chamberlain swapping out cylinders during a lull (for those who complain about the reload time, that's the quickest way to do it).
-
Sax, I think those were Remingtons used by the Union Inf Officers.. Open top Colts couldn't swap Cyls without removing the barrel assy...
-
Nope, watch again. Tom used a M1851 and Chamberlain had an M1860.
-
The percussion revolvers are pretty fun, but I also find them messy and inaccurate. Pyrodex or a different synthetic powder would help with the mess.
I had a .44 (1861 Army)for years, until a friend blew it up by forgetting to grease the chambers. He pulled the trigger once, and five chambers fired. One down the barrel, three down the sides of the barrel, and one right into the back of the loading lever. I loved that gun, but having made the switch to single-shot pistols, I won't go back to a revolver. My accuracy improved radically when I was taught to point-shoot it and ignore the sights. I actually removed the front sight eventually.
Power-wise, both are inadequate for hunting anything other than small game. If you're poking holes in paper, it doesn't matter what the caliber is. Chances are you'll need to order balls through the mail, unless you have a black powder store near you. Most stores don't carry the .451 or .454 balls for the .44, or the balls for the .36 either. If you hunt with it, the .36 is great for squirrels, and won't destroy as much meat as the .44. Most squirrels will be pretty safe anyway, hehe!
Both will be fun for plinking, but like Saxman says, for historical accuracy, I'd pick the .36 over the .44 if you choose the 1851 replica, since the .44 isn't an 1851 replica...
If you're looking for more power, accuracy, and a higher rate of fire, you'd be better off to go with a single-shot pistol. I can load and fire a flintlock pistol 10 times in the time it takes to load and fire the revolver once, for six shots. I have much more power, and much better accuracy. I just sold my .45 flinter, and am in the process of building a .54 flinter for hunting deer. It's also nice because it uses the same powder, patches, and balls as my rifle (as well as all of the cleaning tools).
-
mtnman,
There's stories of the .44 Army knocking down bears in the West...
And as I said, have spare cylinders loaded and it takes very little time to swap them out in the field. Officers during the Civil War had belt pouches specifically for storing extra cylinders (two, three, or even four spares). The Colts especially break down very quickly by removing the wedge on the left side of the frame if it fits properly (the wedge on my Colt is too tight to do that and I never got around to getting it fixed).
-
Yeah your right Sax, It clearly shows the open top Colt, with the barrel off, and Chamberlain fumbling with the barrel and key to reassemble it...
The Rem was actually a superior pistol, didn't blow up as much.. And the gun stayed in one piece when replacing cyls... Less loose parts to fumble with!!! Little heavier, not as slender...
:salute RC
-
Personally I always preferred the .36 myself. I liked the "Navy" look with the polished brass.
Either way your going to spend time cleaning after every shoot. But IMO the brass was easier to keep clean and didn't rust.
.44's were heavier, burn more powder, but if all your shooting is paper do you really need the extra size?
-
Get a Remington replica (1858 Remington New Army)- much easier to change the cylinder on a Remington than on a Colt, and the topstrap design makes it much more rugged and accurate. I've had one (from Cabelas of all places) for several years and love it. I put about a hundred live rounds and several hundred blanks through it a year, and any problems I have are caused by either bad caps or damp powder, never a malfunction of the weapon itself.
And why would anyone shoot anything other than a .44? Its what those pistols were made for.
This isn't me, but gives you a good idea what you're getting into. recoil is surprisingly light given the calibre and size of the charge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFGar_g4oCc
-
Sax, I think those were Remingtons used by the Union Inf Officers.. Open top Colts couldn't swap Cyls without removing the barrel assy...
Those are Colts in the movie, but many Officers (and Cavalrymen) did use Remingtons, especially men from upstate NY, where they were made. Cheaper than a Colt, more rugged and easier to reload. But Sam Colt was a better salesman than Eli Remington, at least at first. The Army eventually realized they were being jipped and started buying Remingtons instead of Colts, but it took a while.
-
There's stories of the .44 Army knocking down bears in the West...
Must have been a l'il one :) I've seen video of Inuit people killing polar bears with pistols loaded with .22LR rounds, so I don't doubt it's possible. I'd like to hear of those folks who tried it, but didn't find it to be adequate. Maybe they didn't make it back to spread the tale? Even in historical times, there were more black bears out west than grizzlies, and black bears aren't that much toughter than whitetail deer to kill. As for grizzlies, Lewis and Clark found them to be much more formidable, requiring multiple shots, as well as multiple shots in the head with their rifles and muskets which were much more powerful than the revolvers. Lewis stated in his journal that he'd rather fight two indians than one grizzly :lol
They're fun to shoot- I could see one for targets or re-enactments. And I think if you got really close, you could take a small deer with a .44 pistol, simply because you could (hopefully) hit it several times.
At best, the revolvers are limited to a small powder charge due to the length of the chambers. I think I could max mine (.44 Army) out with about 37gr of powder? Even a Walker is limited to a max of maybe 50gr? The .36 won't even hold 30gr. They can't be loaded heavier, because the ball sticks out of the chamber and the cylinder won't rotate.
With a full powder charge and a round ball, the .36 is limited to about 200 ft. lb. of energy- which is about equal to a .22LR. Loaded with a larger conical, the velocity drops about 40%, and the ft. lbs. drop to about 150. Not hunting-class for much beyond rabbits, squirrels, and occasional bad-guys. A .22 is generally not considered adequate for fox or coyote unless you're up-close and personal, and can carefully place a shot (animal in a trap).
The .44 is better. A full charge with a round ball gives about 375 ft lbs (at the muzzle). Compared to a .22 Magnum with a muzzle energy of around 360 ft lbs, that's better, but still not very powerful. I know people that have used them (.44's) for javalina and coyote, but they're illegal for deer in any state because of the low energy they develop.
They probably develop ME close to some of the little auto-pistols, which are considered adequate for shooting paper and people. Compared to a .357Mag, at 500-700 ft lb ME, and a .44Mag at over 900 Ft lbs at the muzzle (about half the ME my muzzle-loading rifle) they're not very powerful.
They're great for plinking, with lots of smoke, flames, and noise! Fun for sure, just not very powerful. And I'm sure bad guys would be impressed too, if you had time to load it! The first time I fired my .44 Army it was at an indoor range, in a booth next to 3 gang-banger types taking turns firing one of those l'il auto pistols. The looks they gave me said they were impressed, lol!
I admit to being biased, of course. Those cap and ball revolvers are just a little too modern/high-tech for me. I'll take the easier to load and clean, more powerful, more accurate, single-shot flintlock pistol any day!
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/kentuckypistol.jpg)
-
Incidentally, the Walker had power roughly equivalent to the .357Mag. Powder charge went up to 60 grain.
Video is awful, but killer audio:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2N6FoKB4a0
-
Mtnman...I'll take a Colt Walker or Dragoon in .44 cal over that stone age flint lock any day of the week. I've fired replica models of all 3 and that flintlock has the same accuracy as a sawed off .410 shotgun shooting slugs...scary as hell to fire too. The Remington 1858 in in .44 cal with multiple cylinders is quite a nice weapon. If the originals were as sturdy as the replicas I'm surprised the Colts were as popular. All of the revolvers are very accurate within their effective ranges but a good shooter can do pretty well at longer ranges if he knows how to "fudge" the loads.
Of course a good shooter can make almost any gun perform with some practice.
-
I have to agree with gyrene on accuracy. That's a beautiful pistol but most of those flints were smoothbore, while the cap and ball revolvers have enough rifling to stabilize the round. Nothing like a full-length rifle, but much better than the smoothbore flints could do. I think the one exception was the Kentucky pistols, which may have been rifled (I'd LOVE a matched set Kentucky longrifle and pistol).
-
I ended up getting the .36 cal version.
-
(I'd LOVE a matched set Kentucky longrifle and pistol).
I hear ya...nothing like having a matched set in your gun cabinet.
Dixie Gun Works (http://www.dixiegunworks.com/default.php?cPath=22_162)
Of course you could build your own using TC Hawken kits.
Brother in law bought a muzzle loading "hunting rifle" complete with camo pistol grip stock and scope...I told him he should have gone the distance with a real muzzle loader instead.
I'm more of a revolver and repeating rifle man myself...give me a Colt Single Action Army and a Henry lever action in .45 LC and...WOOOHOOO!!!
-
(Thinkin like a Missoura Bushwhacker ;) ) If had had to live or die by cap and ball pistol, I'd carry several!!!
Probably 2 x .44armys, and 2 x .36navy shorties, and a .44 derringer... At pistol ranges, 60-80ft or so, they work just fine power wise.. They'll give a nasty wound from the soft lead, and the slug will stay in ya... Smash bone too!!!
Different syle of shootin, loose but smooth.. Let the pistol roll up to verticle as you recock it, so the loose cap can fall out, and drop the frontsight onto the target as you squeeze off the next shot!!!
When cocked, a notch in the hammer is the rearsight, but it is only a rough sight, your frontsight is most important!!! Lot of practice and "feel" involved with those oldstyle revolvers... Lots of fun tho!!
Better learn to shoot with both hands, ya just know, that .36 will want a mate!!! Crossdraw??
Stay safe, have fun!!
RC
-
I ended up getting the .36 cal version.
Awesome! Gonna get a chance to shoot it soon?
They really are fun!
-
Where is a good place to get lead in bulk and some moulds? I have an OLD laddle that was used to melt lead for this reason.
-
I dunno about the bulk lead, but Cabelas and Dixie Gun Works both sell molds in both round ball and conical bullet for the .36 Navy. Or at least they did the last time I checked.
www.cabelas.com
www.dixiegun.com
-
Bulk lead is a chore to get a hold of in my experiences, but it might just be because this is California. Lead is very hazardous, yada yada. I can't in all honesty recommend this, but typicaly I find some cheap lead balls (or shot) of any calliber, then melt them down and pour it into my desired mold. Just make sure you make your bullets outside or in some really well ventilated area and that if your melting down something other than pure bulk lead that it is made out of pure lead (which is why I like melting down extra/leftover lead shot, it's as pure lead as anything else).
-
Where is a good place to get lead in bulk and some moulds? I have an OLD laddle that was used to melt lead for this reason.
Dixie Gun Works and Track of the Wolf both carry moulds. Probably lead too, but it'll cost you dearly to ship it. It's heavy. Almost like lead, lol!
I get a lot of lead from friends who do home refurbishing. Old lead pipes, and especially lead flashing from roofs. Lead wheel weights, decoy anchors, dive-belt weights, etc...
If you're using it for black powder firearms, it's extremely important that it be pure lead. Tin and antimony are often mixed with lead, and you'll find it in lots of scrap lead (I've found it in old automotive wheel-balancing weights). The good news is that when you melt the lead, the impurities will float to the surface, and you can carefully skim them off.
Lead projectiles for black powder firearms need to be soft enough to scratch/dent with your thumbnail. It the lead is harder than that, it isn't pure enough.
-
Tire shops, and Auto recyclers, anywhere they dismount auto tires.. Get the used wheelweights..
Lead a plenty!!!
-
A flight simulator forum is definiately the place I'd look for advice on this so good call there. That said I'd choose the .44.
Ive been shooting black powder my whole life. I say go with the .36. Correct me if Im wrong but i think that was the issued caliber for the Navy Colt. The Army got the .44 gun right?
-
Sax, I think those were Remingtons used by the Union Inf Officers.. Open top Colts couldn't swap Cyls without removing the barrel assy...
Hes right I own the Rem Outstanding piece
Watch Josey Whales and you will see he change the Rem in the last fight
-
Mtnman...I'll take a Colt Walker or Dragoon in .44 cal over that stone age flint lock any day of the week. I've fired replica models of all 3 and that flintlock has the same accuracy as a sawed off .410 shotgun shooting slugs...scary as hell to fire too. The Remington 1858 in in .44 cal with multiple cylinders is quite a nice weapon. If the originals were as sturdy as the replicas I'm surprised the Colts were as popular. All of the revolvers are very accurate within their effective ranges but a good shooter can do pretty well at longer ranges if he knows how to "fudge" the loads.
Of course a good shooter can make almost any gun perform with some practice.
Sounds like you shot a (or some) pretty crappy flintlock(s). All of the decent ones I've shot have been capable of more accuracy than the shooters are. The pistols I've owned and shot have been easily capable of three-inch groups (or less) from a rest at 50 yds, which is a heck of a long shot for a pistol. I've found the single most limiting factor to be the sights, which have been much better on period-correct single shot pistols than on any period-correct revolver. Not only better quality, but more adjustable, and with a longer sight-radius.
Most of the bad reputation flintlocks enjoy is from two factors. Movies, which use incorrectly (over) primed locks to be more dramatic, and inexpensive low-quality flintlocks in inexperienced hands. The locks on my pistols and rifles cost more than the complete guns I often see attempted to be shot, or for sale in stores. There's more than one reason the militaries of the world utilized flintlocks for over 260 years, and why there wasn't a wholesale rush to replace them with the newfangled percussion locks when they became available. The best thing about percussion is that it led to the cartridge; not that it was necessarily better than the flintlock, but that it pointed the way to something better.
The single shot pistols have longer barrels, which aids in accuracy, as well as power. More powder is capable of being burned in a longer barrel. Where with a revolver the length of the cylinder is the limiting factor in powder charge, in a single shot it's the barrel length. An over-charge won't blow the pistol up, it just won't fully burn the charge before the projectile leaves the bore. The single shot also doesn't waste power by leaking gas out of the cylinder/barrel seam. Less leakage, longer barrel, larger powder charge (and being capable of fully burning that charge) all add up to more power...
The only advantage the revolver has over the single-shot (and in certain situations, it's a huge advantage) is in its rapid fire capability. In target shooting, that's not an important advantage, unless the competition is taylored to it. And the beauty of the revolver in battle is that it's easy to knock someone down for good (people go into shock, animals generally don't), even with a weaker gun. In battle, six weaker shots is better than one powerful one. Twelve is even better.
Flintlocks are old-style, but if well designed and cared for they're extremely fast, accurate, and reliable. Shooting mine in competition against percussion guns and even inlines, I'm not handicapped, trust me.
"Scary as hell to fire"? That's just plain funny! :rofl
-
Incidentally, the Walker had power roughly equivalent to the .357Mag. Powder charge went up to 60 grain.
Video is awful, but killer audio:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2N6FoKB4a0
Sorry, I stopped one book to soon, that one only showed charts up to their recommended 50gr.
The data I have for the Walker with a 60gr charge of Pyrodex P with the 138gr .454 ball gives a muzzle velocity of 1215 fps, and ME of 452 ft-lbs, which is awful close to the low-end .357Mag charts (Generally 500-830 ft. lbs, depending on load, but can obviously be loaded with the lighter 38Spl). They got up to 499 ft lbs when they substituted 4F black powder for the Pyrodex, and by using a .457 ball instead of the .454. Of course, the 4F load isn't considered safe unless the manufacturer specifies it. It generates quite a bit more pressure.
So it looks like a maxed-out Walker is about equal to a bottom-end .357Mag, which really is pretty impressive, considering the technology available then. A bit heavy, but great at doing what it was designed for. The only real drawback mentioned (and I've seen) is the loading lever.
Of course, they mentioned that accuracy was best with charges of about 30gr loads, and fell off as powder loads increased.
-
Rich,
Don't pay much attention to the nomenclature. While the Navy WAS designed more for the US Navy due to its smaller size, the primary users of both it and .44 Army WAS the army. In fact the Navy was by far the more popular of the two--especially among cavalrymen--for all the reasons mentioned in the thread: it was smaller, lighter, and easier in the hand than the Army (weight was the main reason the Walker was ultimately replaced by the Dragoon, Navy, and Army). Testimony to that, it was in production far longer than the 1860 Army, (both ceased production in 1873) rivaled only by the Single Action Army.
mtn,
That's the scary thing about the Walker. It took them nearly a century to develop another sidearm with that sort of power.
Simple fix to the loading lever is a strip of leather around it and the barrel. Time-tested and Texas Ranger approved. :aok
-
mtn,
That's the scary thing about the Walker. It took them nearly a century to develop another sidearm with that sort of power.
Six-shooter, anyway. The Walker still doesn't pack the punch of my .54 flintlock (which is rifled, btw). I also wonder if the reason it took them so long, was there really isn't any reason to do it. It doesn't take a big pistol to do what the Walker did, which was to knock people down at close range. The ease of fast fire was undoubtedly more important than the actual power.
Why didn't Colt design that with the lever latch like the other Colts? That feature worked great on my Army. I've always thought the lines of the Colts was much more appealing than the Remingtons, but tying the lever up with a strip of leather seems half-azzed.
BTW, when carrying multiple loaded cylinders in the field, did they leave them uncapped? Or did they devise a "safe" way to carry them capped? Maybe carrying them in a hazardous manner was considered safer than not being able to swap out an empty cylinder quick enough? A loaded and capped cylinder wouldn't be something I'd want to carry around, but then I wouldn't want to try capping the chambers on a running horse either (lots of prairie dog holes out there...)
-
BTW, when carrying multiple loaded cylinders in the field, did they leave them uncapped? Or did they devise a "safe" way to carry them capped? Maybe carrying them in a hazardous manner was considered safer than not being able to swap out an empty cylinder quick enough? A loaded and capped cylinder wouldn't be something I'd want to carry around, but then I wouldn't want to try capping the chambers on a running horse either (lots of prairie dog holes out there...)
They would either load 5 of the 6 chambers and leave the hammer down on the empty one, or some (like the Rem, not sure on the Colt) had a notch in between the nipples that you could rest the hammer on. Half-cock, rotate the cylinder to a spot between chambers, and gently lower the hammer. Kept the hammer a bit elevated (could snag on the coat or the leather accouterments a bit easier), but it was as safe as you could make it and also help lock the cylinder in place so it didn't move with all the bouncing and jostling.
-
LOL, I've tried to reload a modern CARTRIDGE revolver (Python) on a galloping horse, LOL good luck!!!! It was down the fenceline of my own pasture, so the speedloaders were easy to find, didn't loose any.. But it was close to impossible, very impractical... Wouldn't bother trying it with a cap n ball Remington, and forget it with an open top Colt... That would be humorous to watch someone try tho... Even tried it with a Schofield Smith, and it was still almost impossible with loose cartridges....
I own horses, tried these very things in reality... Stand pumpkins on the fence posts as targets for Indian bow and lance, swords, machety, pistols, shotguns, and carbines... Ride down the fenceline at full gallop, take a single shot at every other target... Believe me, Its not an easy thing to do, even with practice... It is actually much easier to connect with a Sabre.... And no, my regular hunting animals aren't gunshy anymore... This is how I trained them NOT to be!!! On a GUNSHY horse??? LOL, Have fun, LOL!!!!
Never mind hitting something, you'd be lucky to stay on the horse at all, LOL!!!
Thats why Cavalrymen or Bushwhackers would carry multiple pistols and a sword... In addition to the ones on their person, you could count on a couple more hanging on their saddle... ALL of them, secured by lanyards.. And horseback tactics would involve a series of charges/recalls, so troopers could reload while waiting to reform the charge...
RC
-
They would either load 5 of the 6 chambers and leave the hammer down on the empty one, or some (like the Rem, not sure on the Colt) had a notch in between the nipples that you could rest the hammer on. Half-cock, rotate the cylinder to a spot between chambers, and gently lower the hammer. Kept the hammer a bit elevated (could snag on the coat or the leather accouterments a bit easier), but it was as safe as you could make it and also help lock the cylinder in place so it didn't move with all the bouncing and jostling.
Yep, understand that. That wasn't what I was asking.
-
They would either load 5 of the 6 chambers and leave the hammer down on the empty one, or some (like the Rem, not sure on the Colt) had a notch in between the nipples that you could rest the hammer on. Half-cock, rotate the cylinder to a spot between chambers, and gently lower the hammer. Kept the hammer a bit elevated (could snag on the coat or the leather accouterments a bit easier), but it was as safe as you could make it and also help lock the cylinder in place so it didn't move with all the bouncing and jostling.
The Colts didn't have the notch, but they could still be carried with the hammer resting halfway between. However mtnman was asking about the extra cylinders.
I believe they carried them pre-capped. Obviously you wouldn't do that TODAY for safety purposes, but things kind of go out the window when it's a choice between being able to quickly reload in a firefight or an accidental discharge. However the belt pouches for the spare cylinders weren't just limp bags, they were made of formed leather so there was probably a very limited risk of accidentally touching off a cap.
Rip,
That's why the revolvers were often a secondary firearm. The Federal cavalry especially went to repeating carbines like the Sharps and Spencer very early on. The early metal-cartridge Henry rifles and carbines also appeared at this time, although they had SIGNIFICANT issues with knock-down power (the scene in Dances with Wolves where Costner is using a Henry against bison is total BS. The early Henry had problems knocking down PEOPLE, much less an animal like that).
-
(the scene in Dances with Wolves where Costner is using a Henry against bison is total BS. The early Henry had problems knocking down PEOPLE, much less an animal like that).
That is a pretty humorous scene, isn't it? There are some goofy ones in The Last of the Mohican's too. Both of those movies did a pretty good job with accuracy overall, but could still be picked apart if you know waht you're looking for.
When I was first getting into BP firearms 25 years ago, the guy who helped me build my first rifle did demonstrations for our Boy Scout group. He's the only one I've ever seen load and shoot a muzzleloading rifle on a galloping horse. Impressive as hell, but not very accurate... I wouldn't want to swap cylinders on a Colt while galloping, but can imagine a few instances where I'd sure give it a try. And if I practically lived on horseback, and practiced enough, I bet I could succeed more ofetne than not.
-
Oh, extra cylinders. Sorry, misunderstood.
From everything I've read, you carried them uncapped. They could go off in the pouch if you didn't. Or you could accidentally set it off while loading it into the frame.
-
I fired that bad boy yesterday. I got to tell you I am amazed of how good it shoots. It shot the same whether I was shooting a factory recomended load of 23 grains or the 60 grains of powder I crammed into the cylinder. I will definantly be buying another now, this time in .44 cal.
Arian
-
Be careful overloading the powder. The Walker Colt had a reputation for cylinders blowing up, but what's often left out is the fact that almost all of these failures were caused by troopers doing just that.
-
Never put more than about 30 grains into a revolver. 60 grains is almost up to carbine levels of powder. You're liable to have it blow up in your face with no warning whatsoever.
-
I fired that bad boy yesterday. I got to tell you I am amazed of how good it shoots. It shot the same whether I was shooting a factory recomended load of 23 grains or the 60 grains of powder I crammed into the cylinder. I will definantly be buying another now, this time in .44 cal.
Arian
They sure are fun, aren't they? Something about BP firearms just gets me going, in a way no modern firearm can... I'm amazed you got 60gr into a .36! I'd also warn you to be careful, you may not get any warning before you have a big problem. At least with a .36, you probably have thicker cylinder walls? I'm not sure though, it's been years since I've played with the revolvers. Pressure will also vary depending upon propellant type and granule size; what are you using?
I've been of work for a while due to surgery, and as a result have had time to work on finishing my latest pistol. I'll start a thread and post pictures when it's done, maybe even video of firing it. All I have left is some final shaping of the stock, browning the parts, and drilling for the flash hole. I'm hoping to get it doen and use it for deer this year.
-
They sure are fun, aren't they? Something about BP firearms just gets me going, in a way no modern firearm can... I'm amazed you got 60gr into a .36! I'd also warn you to be careful, you may not get any warning before you have a big problem. At least with a .36, you probably have thicker cylinder walls? I'm not sure though, it's been years since I've played with the revolvers. Pressure will also vary depending upon propellant type and granule size; what are you using?
I've been of work for a while due to surgery, and as a result have had time to work on finishing my latest pistol. I'll start a thread and post pictures when it's done, maybe even video of firing it. All I have left is some final shaping of the stock, browning the parts, and drilling for the flash hole. I'm hoping to get it doen and use it for deer this year.
I had some jim shockey's powder fffg. I was also using some pyrodex RS powder. Did 60 grain loads on both. Shot great on both, but i prefered the jim shockey's because it burned a lot cleaner. My average load was around 24 grains.
-
Treize,
I think the Walker was designed to take up to 60gr. However as I said, some troopers tried to do more than that which is what caused the cylinder failures. Walker really got a bad rep from that, even though it was entirely a matter of morons not reading the operator's manual rather than a failure of the gun itself....
-
I had some jim shockey's powder fffg. I was also using some pyrodex RS powder. Did 60 grain loads on both. Shot great on both, but i prefered the jim shockey's because it burned a lot cleaner. My average load was around 24 grains.
I'm not all that familiar with Jim Shockey's powder. I've tried it, as well as every other synthetic I've come across, but none of them work in my guns. I liked them for target shooting with percussion guns simply because they burned clean, but not in flinter's, and those are all I've owned/shot since about 1990 (I'm limited to black powder in my guns). I never shot anything but pyrodex in my revolver, and never had an issue with it (although it doesn't really burn all that clean). The synthetic powders are harder to ignite than actual black powder is, but that's not an issue with revolvers.
If I remember correctly, the Pyrodex RS is a rifle/shotgun grade, and they have a "P" version for pistols. The P would burn faster (and with a higher pressure) so would be better for pistols and revolvers with their shorter barrels. It's likely that 60gr of the RS isn't going to burn fully, especially in the smaller calibers, so you'd be blowing excess unburned powder out of the barrel. If you can only burn 40gr before the ball leaves, your blowing 20gr out onto the grass... Even if you don't go with a heavy charge, burning the P grade would mean equal effect, but with a smaller powder charge.
The same can be said for the 3F powder. The 3F powder designation is pistol/revolver appropriate, much more-so than 2F would be, especially in the 50 caliber and under bore sizes. Since 3F is finer, it burns faster and generates more pressure, so a smaller charge is again possible, and it's more likely to fully burn in a shorter barrel. A powder charge will also burn faster in a larger caliber barrel than in a smaller caliber barrel.
BTW, if your curious as to whether you're blowing excess powder out of the barrel you can find out easily enough by shooting over a white sheet spread on the ground, or over snow. Blowing excess powder out will give more recoil, but no increase in velocity. It can actually decrease the velocity.
-
Treize,
I think the Walker was designed to take up to 60gr. However as I said, some troopers tried to do more than that which is what caused the cylinder failures. Walker really got a bad rep from that, even though it was entirely a matter of morons not reading the operator's manual rather than a failure of the gun itself....
I've seen guys use 4F powder as well in some of those, and that's just a bad idea. I'm not sure that the troopers would have had access to it though, since there probably weren't any flintlock shooters amongst them.
-
Treize,
I think the Walker was designed to take up to 60gr. However as I said, some troopers tried to do more than that which is what caused the cylinder failures. Walker really got a bad rep from that, even though it was entirely a matter of morons not reading the operator's manual rather than a failure of the gun itself....
Books I have say up to 50 grains. And keep in mind that most modern powder, even regular blackpowder (not counting stuff like pyrodex and Triple-7), packs a bigger punch into a smaller amount than historical, especially pre-Civil War. I've seen references that state a Brown Bess was loaded with the equivalent of 200 grains of powder behind a .75 ball, when modern powder can get the same (or better) performance out of about 120. 200 grains (I use Goex) behind a full size ball in a Bess would at least split the barrel, if not blow up outright.
Modern guns and powder should really be loaded with manufacturer or organizational safety recommendations in mind, not historical references. I don't know any reputable reenacting groups that allow their members to load anything more than 30 grains into a .44 revolver, even when firing blanks. Heck, we only use 30 grains firing .65 horse pistols, and thats plenty.
And even if you don't blow up or otherwise damage the weapon, you're just wasting powder- black powder burns very slow, and chances are a lot of it hasn't even ignited when the ball leaves the barrel. Even using the federally mandated 120 grains in a musket, we still have a two to three foot tongue of burning powder coming out the muzzle of a four-foot barrel. We figure about a third of the charge actually ignites after its left the barrel- but then, we're firing blanks, and anything less than about 100 grains just kinda goes "fwump" and doesn't give a realistic impression of loading and firing a live weapon at our demonstrations. Part of the draw is the sound and fury we unleash. :)