• This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.



    Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades

Maximum Powder Charge

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

jordanka16

32 Cal.
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
I wondering what the max powder charge would be for my 1858 remmie.

Specifically, I want to know how much powder I can put behind a 180 gr. Buffalo conical.

The uberti manual says a max load of only 30 gr. but that seems really low to me. I've put 35 behind a round ball.

Thanks!

edit: manual actually says only 25 grains for a conical
 
More goes into this equation than merely the amount of powder you can "crush" beneath a ball or bullet! I see no practical reason - none at all - for trying to eke out the absolute maximum amount of velocity/power from a tool designed to offer a particular amount of performance.

Will you blow it up by trying to crush 40 grains into the chamber? Probably not. But you probably won't be able to do it! THAT'S NOT A DARE!

I shoot 30 grains volume of fffg or Pyro P. If I want a little extra ooooomph, I load 30 grains of 777 (all loads under a ball.)

If you want more power, I know there are cartridge arms you might consider.

Regards

Dan
 
Revolvers will typicall shoot high to begin with...but when you shoot max charges they will shoot extremely HIGH,,,,
When I load my Starr .44 double action with the max charge of 40 grains it will shoot 18" high at 50 yds....
Most target shooters rely on 18- 25 grains in .44's for target work...
 
Thanks for the suggestions guys, but I really just need to know the guns limits. I'm not hunting or anything long range, I'm demonstrating how much power these guns really have at close range on ballistic gelatin, and will probably only do it once.

I don't intend to load it so full that it explodes, I would just like to know it's upper limits.
 
Most target shooters rely on 18- 25 grains in .44's for target work...

You can do with 10 grain Swiss Nr. 2 and 15 grain of "Weizen Gries" in a Rogers & Spencer at 25 m.

Otherwise you figure range is what target shooters use and many are close to the 18 grain. You only need to hole paper and that does not require overkill power.

I am not sure because I did not try it but the Rogers and Spencer might take the volume of max 45 grain Swiss Nr. 2 under a .457 ball. Should not damage the gun but may be not a great pleasure for your hand.
 
Elmer Keith in his book Six Guns claimed you really could not overload a percussion revolver, you could cram in as much powder as possible. HOWEVER that may have been under the assumption a round ball was being used. A conical, especially a Buffalo Bullet, which is more like a wad cutter and heavier than the old conicals- that added weight builds up more internal pressure.
The round ball rapidly loses velocity but at the muzzle it will be faster than the conical and may have been more devastating. You would want to load with the old "sprue" type round ball and put the flat end forward. That gives more impact.
I think it would be interesting (at least to me) to know at "gun fight range" say about 15'- what creates more destruction in the gellatin, a ballwith the sprue to the front or a conical. I would get the conicals from Dixie gun works since they sell conicals of the original shape. The base on the Dixie conical is also rather short so it is probably ok to load as much powder as possible- and I would use fffg black powder not a substitute. Since you have a Remington, noted for its strength- I think all should be okay.
Let us know the results!
One side note- from a PC point, I don't know how common it was to load concials, they may have been only used as a combustible cartridge with a 17 gr. charge of fffg. The old gun fighters carried combustible cartridges as quick loading back up ammunition but usually started out with balls, sprue end forward and as much powder as the gun could hold.
On the other hand....If you just want a black powder weapon for hunting. And, you want to load a heavy bullet with no regard to being PC, I don't know what to say. It's probably best not to try to make a magnum out of a BP revolver. If you want a pistol for muzzle loader hunting season- see if you can get a 69 caliber military type pistol or at least a 54 caliber ( these would be single shots). Mountain men killed buffalo with such pistols.
 
Why not believe the manual? Sure the manufacturer might low-ball the load for legal purposes, but why would you believe some yahoo on the internet over the people who made it. Go ahead and fill it up. It sounds like that's what you want to hear.
 
RussT, I was just using the term generically. I feel that so many people believe too much of what they read on the internet without researching it themselves. This is how newbies get their heads full of useless and just plain wrong information.
 
R.M. said:
This is how newbies get their heads full of useless and just plain wrong information.

If this were true, you wouldn't be able to believe anything on this site.

I asked a question hoping to get an answer from someone who maybe had experience in this department, rather than going out and blowing myself up with an unfamiliar firearm.
 
jordanka16 said:
If this were true, you wouldn't be able to believe anything on this site.
Good point.
Let's look at the bore protection issue.
Guy A says use Ballistol. Guy B says it's no good. You should use WD40. Guy C says that's no good, you should be using XYZ.
So who do you listen to. If your manufacturer says something, maybe you should take their advise, at least until you're able to form your own ideas.
 
Actually....it is almost impossible for ANYONE to tell you the capacity of the chambers on your particular gun Because we dont know if your chambers have been reamed out to match your bore size...or perhaps your chambers are tapered...meaning they get smaller as you measure back toward the nipple....SO
it does not take a rocket scientist to determine the actual capacity of a chamber....one must just pour some powder in the chamber leaving what looks like enough room for the ball to seat...
if the ball seats but still leaves some open room in the chamber you would add More powder the next time...
Sooner or later you will end up with the ball seating just low enough in the chamber for the cylinder to load.....
Then You know Exactly how much that particular chamber will hold.....
Remember...each chamber may hold a litle more or less...therfore...each chamber must be checked independantly....

Oh...there are NO Yahoos on this website...

:nono: :nono:
 
excellent example.

If 1 person with a proven record for giving good information recommends something I would tend to believe it.

If someone who is often incorrect were to tell me to use a certain product, I would tend to not believe it.

I don't just listen to every post made and try it, I look at your profiles, and your past posts to see what other information you have given, and then draw my own conclusion, along with using the information available in other places.
 
jordanka16 said:
excellent example.

If 1 person with a proven record for giving good information recommends something I would tend to believe it.

If someone who is often incorrect were to tell me to use a certain product, I would tend to not believe it.

I don't just listen to every post made and try it, I look at your profiles, and your past posts to see what other information you have given, and then draw my own conclusion, along with using the information available in other places.

Good plan. :thumbsup:
 
use what is writen in the books or by the maker. not info given by a unknown "expert". rember some of the people giving advise may have not even shot a pistol.
 
The loads given by the manufacturer are based mostly in its desire to avoid products liability suits here in the USA, based on what materials it uses to make the gun. You don't want to blow up the gun, and neither does the Company want you to do it, either. Stay within the recommended load. A Conical has a lOT MORE WEIGHT( obvious to the casual observer) and ALSO A LOT MORE Bearing surface, which increases the Coefficient of Friction between the bullet and the barrel. Its that increase in C/F, and the resulting rise in chamber pressure that poses a real threat to blowing up the gun.

I don't know any BP gun where you don't load a lesser amount of powder behind a CONICAL(bullet) than when shooting a PRB, or even a bare RB.

Most pistols, and revolvers had military application before civilian use was ever considered by the makers. The military gave the short arms to cavalry units, and they were trained to fire with the front sight on the enemy's stomach, or BELT BUCKLE.

Pistols and revolvers, using fixed sights , well into the 1890s, were sighted in to hit dead on at 75 yds! At shorter ranges, the ball/bullet would strike higher, but that would put the projectile in the chest cavity, or neck or head, if the shooter fired too quickly, and didn't get that front sight down in the rear notch. Adjustable rear sights are a 20th century invention, for handgun use. Even the .45 Colt pistol was zeroed to shoot HIGH, and soldiers were still taught to aim for the belt buckles, in WWI.
 
I think the "yahoo" is Elmer Keith, as least that's the source I quoted on loading up the chambers- read his book yourself if you want. By the way Elmer is universally considered the greatest six gun, hand gun shooter that ever lived. On a steel frame replica Colt I cram all the fffg black powder I can with never a problem, and by cram I mean really crunching the powder. Been shooting BP percussion revolvers 40 years plus I rebuild them. You have the Remington which is even stronger so you ought to be fine unless you have some kind of indexing or mechanical problem with the gun, like spitting lead, etc.
PS: I have shot some of the buffalo bullets and they are okay but I prefer pc shapes so I usually go with the Dixie Gun Works patterns on conicals although to be honest I don't like conicals that much. In any event the long buffalo bullets will probably limit how much powder you can get into the chamber, They say 25 gr. You probably won't be able to get much more than 30 "ish".
And,
1. Why are you doing what you are doing?
2. If you are testing in ballistic gel- try the round ball with the sprue still on- see how it does at short range. Most of the old timers felt it was better than the pointed conical, although the buffalo bullet may be better than the old time conicals as the buffalo bullet has more of a blunt point.
3. As far as "blowing up" the gun. What usually happens on a revolver like the Remington is that you start stretching the frame if you are over doing it. That can happen on some 38 specials that get a steady diet of plus P ammunition. If you have a caliper measure the inside of the frame and test it from time to time.

PPS: there are a few more places on the net you can go looking for information but I don't think we are supposed to mention them so surf around for some other groups. Might make you feel better if you get some more feed back on the issue.
 
crockett said:
I prefer pc shapes so I usually go with the Dixie Gun Works patterns on conicals

I would like to try a period correct shape, (I assumed the buffalo bullets were), but the only .45 conicals I could find on Dixie were the buffalo bullets, and bullets for a .45-70.

crockett said:
Why are you doing what you are doing?

I'm comparing the damage done by various calibers of pistol, for my own amusement.

crockett said:
If you are testing in ballistic gel- try the round ball with the sprue still on- see how it does at short range. Most of the old timers felt it was better than the pointed conical, although the buffalo bullet may be better than the old time conicals as the buffalo bullet has more of a blunt point.

Most of the data I've seen says that even though the conicals are heavier, they travel at about the same velocity as a round ball, and since they have more mass, that would mean more kinetic energy, which generally means better terminal ballistics, it's worth testing though.
 
Back
Top