Kerr .44 Bullets in Pietta 1858 Remington, 5.5" and 8" Chronograph Results

Cast up some of the Era's Gone Kerr .44 bullets for the first time, they weigh 225 grains out of pure lead. Shot them over the chrono today in my Pietta 1858 Remingtons, completely stock, 5.5" and 8" barrels. Used Hodgdon 3f 777, Pyro P, and Swiss 3f. Loved the ease of loading these Kerr Bullets, drop right in and as easy to load as roundball. My guns have not been modified in any way. Didn't shoot them in my many Colt repros, but they all fit and were easily rotated under the rammer, including my Pietta 1851 .44 "Navy". No mods required, I LOVE IT!! Used CCI #11's for all shots, with Crisco over the ball/bullet. Plan to lube my Kerr bullets, but just wanted to shoot today. I love my Colt repros, and own them in a 3 to 1 ratio over my Remingtons, but when shooting many rounds the Remingtons are just a pleasure. I had ZERO cap jams or failures to fire. I prefer my Colt's, but the Remingtons are just that much more reliable. I know, some fella is already typing that he has shot 13,480,342 through his Colt's, modified with a cap rake, Slix-Shots, JB welded hammer face, and precision honed everything, and never has a cap jam. Bully for you, you win.

Chrono was at 7 yards, man target at 25. Shot off hand, with more attention to not hitting my chrono than getting groups. Still pretty pleased. My guns shoot low with round balls, and the Kerr bullets hit to the point of aim, which is nice. Of course, they will hit 23 ft. high in my Colts, which already hit high with roundball. Oh well, still just like my Colt's better, oddly enough. Just copied and pasted my field notes.

1858 Pietta Remington 8"

20 gr. PYRO P 225 gr. KERR

709
797
760

755 fps avg. 300 ft./lbs


25 gr. PYRO P 225 gr. KERR

830
843
830

834 fps avg. 347 ft./lbs

30 gr. PYRO P 225 gr. KERR (Near Max)

920
912
903

911 fps. avg. 414 ft./lbs.

25 gr. 3f HODGDON 777 225 gr. KERR

853
914
900

889 fps. avg. 394 ft./lbs.


30 gr. 3f HODGDON 777. 225 gr. KERR (Near Max)

973
960
941

958 fps. avg. 458 ft./lbs.

30 gr. 3f HODGDON 777 .454 ROUNDBALL

1107
1137
1052

1098 fps avg. 369 ft./lbs.



35 gr. 3f HODGDON 777. .454 ROUNDBALL

1135
1151
1172

1152 fps. avg. 406 ft./lbs.


35 gr. SWISS 3f. .454 ROUNDBALL

1082
1025
1028

1045 fps avg. 334 ft./lbs

30 gr. SWISS 3f .454 ROUNDBALL

1019
958
975

985 fps avg. 296 ft./lbs.

30 gr. SWISS 3f. 225 gr. KERR

917
866
867

883 fps avg. 389 ft./lbs.

25 gr. SWISS 3f. 225 gr. KERR

796
800
814

803 fps. avg. 323 ft./lbs.



1858 Pietta Remington 5.5"

30 gr. PYRO P 225 gr. KERR (Near Max)

808
683
705
814
782

758 fps. avg. 287 ft/lbs.


25 gr. PYRO P. 225 gr. KERR

740
700
662
625
744
698

694 fps. avg. 240 ft./lbs.

30 gr. 3f HODGDON 777 225 gr. KERR

882
932
816

876 fps. avg. 383 ft./lbs.

25 gr. 3f. HODGDON 777 225 gr. KERR

854
736
835

808 fps. avg. 326 ft./lbs.

25 gr. SWISS 3f. .454 ROUNDBALL

817
747
771

778 fps. avg. 185 ft./lbs.

25 gr. SWISS 3f. 225 gr. KERR

702
703
701

702 fps avg. 246 ft./lbs.

Very Nice

I'll have to try some in my 1858 Carbine

Great test and interesting results.

I did some testing as well with the Kerr bullets a little while ago, out of a 2.5" barrel Pietta ACE

PastorB said:

Cast up some of the Era's Gone Kerr .44 bullets for the first time, they weigh 225 grains out of pure lead. Shot them over the chrono today in my Pietta 1858 Remingtons, completely stock, 5.5" and 8" barrels. Used Hodgdon 3f 777, Pyro P, and Swiss 3f. Loved the ease of loading these Kerr Bullets, drop right in and as easy to load as roundball. My guns have not been modified in any way. Didn't shoot them in my many Colt repros, but they all fit and were easily rotated under the rammer, including my Pietta 1851 .44 "Navy". No mods required, I LOVE IT!! Used CCI #11's for all shots, with Crisco over the ball/bullet. Plan to lube my Kerr bullets, but just wanted to shoot today. I love my Colt repros, and own them in a 3 to 1 ratio over my Remingtons, but when shooting many rounds the Remingtons are just a pleasure. I had ZERO cap jams or failures to fire. I prefer my Colt's, but the Remingtons are just that much more reliable. I know, some fella is already typing that he has shot 13,480,342 through his Colt's, modified with a cap rake, Slix-Shots, JB welded hammer face, and precision honed everything, and never has a cap jam. Bully for you, you win.

Click to expand...

Dang, didn’t even get to the wizzing contest!!



Nice report, thank you for posting it. I do like the Kerr in my Colts. It’s accurate and gives good power and yo can load and shoot all day with the amount of lube they carry.

Stantheman86 said:

Very Nice

I'll have to try some in my 1858 Carbine

Click to expand...

DUH! Thanks for reminding me! I have that carbine somewhere, literally haven't seen it in 20+ years. I got to go dig it out and give it a whirl. A looong time ago, I shot it over a chrony, with some 200 grain Buffalo Ball-ets and round balls thru it. Both got lower velocity with the same charge than the 8" revolver. I think that long barrel, combined with the cylinder gap, actually drags the projectile down in fps. Paul Harrell has a video that shows similar results with a cartridge gun, a 6" barrel got more fps than the 16". I could never get mine to shoot worth a hoot, thus it was relegated to a dark corner somewhere. Maybe the Kerr bullet will be a difference maker. I did kill a nice buck with the carbine, but at a range that a thrown brick would have sufficed.

PastorB said:

DUH! Thanks for reminding me! I have that carbine somewhere, literally haven't seen it in 20+ years. I got to go dig it out and give it a whirl. A looong time ago, I shot it over a chrony, with some 200 grain Buffalo Ball-ets and round balls thru it. Both got lower velocity with the same charge than the 8" revolver. I think that long barrel, combined with the cylinder gap, actually drags the projectile down in fps. Paul Harrell has a video that shows similar results with a cartridge gun, a 6" barrel got more fps than the 16". I could never get mine to shoot worth a hoot, thus it was relegated to a dark corner somewhere. Maybe the Kerr bullet will be a difference maker. I did kill a nice buck with the carbine, but at a range that a thrown brick would have sufficed.

Click to expand...

I feel like it's gonna need a Max load and probably a sub like 777 to really push the lead down that 18" pipe

Nice data dump! Thank you for the info.

PastorB said:

DUH! Thanks for reminding me! I have that carbine somewhere, literally haven't seen it in 20+ years. I got to go dig it out and give it a whirl. A looong time ago, I shot it over a chrony, with some 200 grain Buffalo Ball-ets and round balls thru it. Both got lower velocity with the same charge than the 8" revolver. I think that long barrel, combined with the cylinder gap, actually drags the projectile down in fps. Paul Harrell has a video that shows similar results with a cartridge gun, a 6" barrel got more fps than the 16". I could never get mine to shoot worth a hoot, thus it was relegated to a dark corner somewhere. Maybe the Kerr bullet will be a difference maker. I did kill a nice buck with the carbine, but at a range that a thrown brick would have sufficed.

Click to expand...

Seems as though many of the Remington pattern revolvers ship with an excessive barrel/cylinder gap. Remington percussion guns have enough trouble with fouling control, if the gap is set for .002“ or so I would expect velocity to rise as well as running better with blackpowder.

Stantheman86 said:

I feel like it's gonna need a Max load and probably a sub like 777 to really push the lead down that 18" pipe

Click to expand...

Yep. Triple 7 at around 35-40 grains will zing it out there. I use 60grain 2F triple 7 in 45-70 loads and it will push a 405 grain bullet at 1350 fps. I’d like to know the results of what 3f T7 would do in one of the 1858 Remington carbines

TreeMan said:

Yep. Triple 7 at around 35-40 grains will zing it out there. I use 60grain 2F triple 7 in 45-70 loads and it will push a 405 grain bullet at 1350 fps. I’d like to know the results of what 3f T7 would do in one of the 1858 Remington carbines

Click to expand...

My local shop sells the 3f 777, I'll have to go get some, all I have is 2f 777

Plus it shoots cleaner , which is a plus for the Remington types

Great chrony report, thanks. Remember the faster you go the greater chance of leading. I ordered me a chrony to check up the speeds compared to the reloading books info.

I forgot I had pictures of Kerr bullets I made into paper cartridges with 22 grains of Schuetzen. They fit easily in my Pietta 1860 with enlarged loading port. They fit really easily in the unmodified Pietta 58s when loaded loosely.

Stantheman86 said:

Very Nice

I'll have to try some in my 1858 Carbine

Click to expand...

no such thing

hrt4me said:

no such thing

Click to expand...

I think Stan means this?

https://gunmagwarehouse.com/blog/the-remington-revolving-rifle-cool-but-behind-the-times/

hrt4me said:

no such thing

Click to expand...

No such thing as what ? A Uberti 1858 Carbine?

It's actually the "1866 Carbine " but it's a reproduction , and no one will know what you're talking about if you refer to Ubertis carbine version of the 1858 as anything other than an "1858 Carbine"

yes, I know, I have a few of them, but calling it an 1858 is a misnomer

Stantheman86 said:

No such thing as what ? A Uberti 1858 Carbine?

It's actually the "1866 Carbine " but it's a reproduction , and no one will know what you're talking about if you refer to Ubertis carbine version of the 1858 as anything other than an "1858 Carbine"

Click to expand...

It’s up to us to educate them. Pedants of the world UNITE!

hrt4me said:

yes, I know, I have a few of them, but calling it an 1858 is a misnomer

Click to expand...

Absolutely no one besides you and maybe 5 people on Earth are going to call it an "1866 Remington " unless they own an original and technically, referring to this repro as an "1866 Remington " is incorrect because it's not even a repro of that.

The Uberti isn't even a good copy of the 1866 carbine, it's 100% just the Uberti 1858 with a stock and a long barrel, basically a fantasy gun

The originals had heavier and longer barrels, and were more common in .36, or as cartridge guns.

It's a creation unto itself and is thus an 1858 Remington Carbine like the Zouave rifle is an "1863 Remington " , but just saying Zouave is just what people do when referring to a repro

Uberti calls it an "1858 New Army Carbine" so I mean, what are we supposed to call it?

Email Uberti and tell them their own guns are identified incorrectly

Ugh. Can't we just get along and enjoy our hobby, instead of trying to one-up one another? Arguing over semantics! I was on another forum, which I left because no matter what I posted, someone who needed to feel important would immediately challenge the validity of my statement. If I said the Sun rises in the east, someone would correct me and say it actually rises at an azimuth of 87.56°, which is not true east, thus proving their superiority over me. I got factory boxes of .45 Colt ammo, and I also got factory boxes of .45 Long Colt ammo. I've been scolded on numerous occasions saying, ".45 Long Colt never existed!" When folks talk in absolutes, it often displays a lack of knowledge. My Lee Dies in .45 Colt say on the instructions ".45 Long Colt", while my Lee Loader simply says ".45 Colt". I know a fella who has an original Springfield Trapdoor in .30-40 Krag, lots of folks say there is no such thing. These forums should be a place to learn from others knowledge and experiences, not verbally brow-beat someone into submission.