Conical bullets in a cap and ball revolver

[Jaegermeister]

I got lucky and obtained the Eras Gone bullet mold but my Uberti 1860 Army has been at Goon’s for 6 months. I’m very anxious to try these paper cartridges.

 

[B P Arn]

Can I get some opinions on how much is considered max charge in grains for a Colt Walker made by CVA?
(I haven't bought Cream of Wheat in years. But guess I'm heading to the store now! LOL)

And I don't know whether I should start a new thread for this but here goes....
When I put the cylinder back in the revolver, when I tap in the barrel wedge I've always been paranoid as to how tight I should have it.
The tighter it is the harder to cock the hammer and rotate the cylinder.
I'd like it to be easily cocked and rotated for shoot ability but I never have known what the limits are on how loose it can be.
When I take it apart, the wedge and the accompanying spring don't separate like on my Uberti Navy.

So I need opinions and guidance here on how tight or loose for that wedge.

Are there any other adjustments I can make easily to tweak to my preference?

I put as much 3F black powder into my Walker as possible, while still allowing a ball to be seated, which is 55 grains in mine. It will hold 60 grains, but then I have a hard time seating the ball properly into the chambers.

It sounds to me like your arbor is too short, and the front of your cylinder is rubbing against the rear of your barrel. You should be able to drive the wedge in solidly without that happening. If you do a search, you will find several different methods to diagnose and correct this.

 

[rodwha]

When I first got into black powder handguns about ten years ago, I bought Lee ball and conical bullets for my 36 and 44 caliber revolvers. I was so sure that the conical bullets would be the way to go. They weren't. After much frustration, and dismal performance on paper, I threw away the conical bullet molds, with no regrets.

Some times the juice ain't worth the squeeze...

Sounds like you have slow twist rifling. My 2013 NMA from Pietta I was told would have the slower 1:30” twist. It didn’t. It’s 1:16” just like my ROA. I’ve tried about 10 different projectiles through my ROA, and just 3 in my ROA but I found their more accurate loads with a ball kept their accuracy with the various bullets, though the two bullets I’ve used I designed thinking it would be a slow twist so one weighs 170 grns and is just 0.400” long, and the other is 195 grns and 0.460” long. Group sizes stayed the same.

As these are hunting weapons I much prefer the mass of a bullet and one with a very wide meplat is far superior. I need to retest my guns as I have a new measure that I can get a bit more detailed with, but I’ll be taking more measurements and making a universal bullet for my pistols and filling most of the excess room with more lead. From what I’ve worked on so far it will be 0.497” long and weigh about 210-230 grns.

 

[B P Arn]

My BP guns are not weapons, nor used for hunting. I enjoy shooting them at various types of targets. Round balls load easier, and shoot more accurately, so that is what I use. Simple as that.

 

[rodwha]

I forgot to mention that I will purchase an additional plunger so I can make an epoxy nose on the end so it won’t kiss my bullets.

 

[rodwha]

My BP guns are not weapons, nor used for hunting. I enjoy shooting them at various types of targets. Round balls load easier, and shoot more accurately, so that is what I use. Simple as that.

I find loading my bullets easier. There’s no lubed wad necessary to load cutting back on that step 6 times. But my point was just that you likely have/had slow twist barrels. If the Lee bullets would have worked equally as well would you still prefer a ball?

 

[B P Arn]

I don't use any wads, just a small about of beeswax/Crisco/lanolin mixture over the seated balls. A ball is the easiest for me to use, and it gives acceptable results. That is why I use it.

 

[mkpatrick]

Quote: (It sounds to me like your arbor is too short, and the front of your cylinder is rubbing against the rear of your barrel. You should be able to drive the wedge in solidly without that happening. If you do a search, you will find several different methods to diagnose and correct this).


I have this issue with my Uberti Navy too.
I had no idea this was a malfunction or a flaw.

 

[Zonie]

Quote: (It sounds to me like your arbor is too short, and the front of your cylinder is rubbing against the rear of your barrel. You should be able to drive the wedge in solidly without that happening. If you do a search, you will find several different methods to diagnose and correct this).


I have this issue with my Uberti Navy too.
I had no idea this was a malfunction or a flaw.

It's a common flaw with many of the reproduction cap & ball pistols.
The length of the arbor should cause the barrel to stop moving rearward at the same time that the lower area of the barrel just touches the frame.
If the arbor is too short, the lower part of the barrel will stop on the frame while the wedge continues to drive the barrel rearward as it is pushed into place.
The amount of rearward movement can be so great that the back of the barrel will push the cylinder back until the ratchet on the back of the cylinder locks up against the recoil shield.
By putting a spacer into the arbor hole in the barrel to prevent this from happening, this problem can be fixed.

 

[Bad Karma]

These work fantastic in the ROA.

 

[Bad Karma]

And these are good in the Colts. Short enough to allow a full charge of powder, rebated base so they load straight into the chambers and there’s not a great deal of extra force required to ram them home. Thanks @rodwha ....

 

[mkpatrick]

It's a common flaw with many of the reproduction cap & ball pistols.
The length of the arbor should cause the barrel to stop moving rearward at the same time that the lower area of the barrel just touches the frame.
If the arbor is too short, the lower part of the barrel will stop on the frame while the wedge continues to drive the barrel rearward as it is pushed into place.
The amount of rearward movement can be so great that the back of the barrel will push the cylinder back until the ratchet on the back of the cylinder locks up against the recoil shield.
By putting a spacer into the arbor hole in the barrel to prevent this from happening, this problem can be fixed.

Are the spacers available as a part I can buy? Or is this something that a gunsmith needs to do for me?

Thanks,

Mike

 

[nkbj]

A washer small enough in diameter to fall down the hole in front of the arbor will often do the job. And, likely as not the washer you find at the hardware store will be ever so slightly too thick. My solution was to set a piece of fine grit emery paper of a smooth table top and start sanding the washer thinner. You might have even more space but hopefully they didn't make it too terribly huge.

If you read up on the methods people use, some find the gap to be so big they add a screw to the end of the arbor.

 

[BillinOregon]

Y'all are making me jones for another cap and ball revolver. Thanks to all the posters here for sharing so many different experiences, and often in such detail.

 

[Mknight702]

Tell you what, I'll shoot a .44 and you can catch them at 50 yards in that heavy wool shirt

At 25 yards both balls and conicals go straight through 2" pine boards, so I am a little doubtful an extra 25 yards is likely to reduce the energy enough to bounce off plywood or a thick woollen shirt, even after going through the 2" plank.

 

[mkpatrick]

A washer small enough in diameter to fall down the hole in front of the arbor will often do the job. And, likely as not the washer you find at the hardware store will be ever so slightly too thick. My solution was to set a piece of fine grit emery paper of a smooth table top and start sanding the washer thinner. You might have even more space but hopefully they didn't make it too terribly huge.

If you read up on the methods people use, some find the gap to be so big they add a screw to the end of the arbor.

I'm sorry if I sound thick but can you refer me to a place or a site or something like that where I can find this to read up on? I do google searches and it just sends me to gardening sites when I include Arbor in the search.

 

[B P Arn]

I'm sorry if I sound thick but can you refer me to a place or a site or something like that where I can find this to read up on? I do google searches and it just sends me to gardening sites when I include Arbor in the search.

Here is some great information:

https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/threads/correcting-uberti-short-arbors.123285/

 

[sourdough]

Just an observation:

Would it not be more appropriate to call it a "Cap & Conical" revolver?

Regards,

Jim

 

[M. De Land]

This may sound dumb to the more experienced, but I've wondered why I never hear anybody mention using patched balls in a revolver? Would it interfere with the rotation of the cylinder or would you just need to use an uncommonly sized ball? I thought it would nearly eliminate any chance off chain fires.

The gap jump between the cylinder and the barrel would likely shred the cloth patch and the ball would then be undersize for the barrel groove. It works with paper because the paper is consumed. Percussion guns were designed to shoot balls and later conicals were adapted to them which is why they work better with balls for their intended purpose. If one wants deeper penetration then get a bigger ball or more powder behind the existing ball.
If one takes a close look at the forcing cone design in original percussion and most reproduction guns it is easy to see they were made for a ball as they usually are short and about half a ball dimameter in depth. Had they been made for conicals they would be configured more like modern chamber throats which usally are from 8 to 11 degrees of included angle taper.
I don't ever remember reading civil war accounts of the men who (mostly cavalry troops) actually used the percussion revolvers, decrying the use of the ball but have read most of them preferred balls over conicals if they had time to reload loose components.
They felt the round ball killed better than the pointy conicals used in the paper cartridges if I understand this correctly from what Elmer Kieth wrote after interviewing one or two actual participants in the Civil war.

 

[nkbj]

There isn't much penetrating going on to get to human vitals.
Look at the human torso and think about it in terms of how the projectiles behave.
At revolver distances round ball is the lighter and faster projectile.
So let's say you have a relatively blunt projectile going faster* than a slower pointy one.
Which one is more likely to do the most grievous damage towards stopping someone more quickly?
It's a no brainer.

There's another factor in this that I became well acquainted with when hunting with revolvers. Not big game with big powerful pistols but pot meat with slow soft lead. It's the meat and bone of the animal that gets pushed aside that causes the greater damage and a blunt nose with a little extra velocity means noticeably greater damage. That means that before it slows down a faster moving round ball creates greater trauma than a slower streamlined bullet. And the ball just didn't have to penetrate very far to get to a man's vitals.

*Think rate of displacement, like cubic inches per second.