New threads and interesting conversations directly in your inbox. Sign up now and get a daily summary of the latest forum activities!
Discussion in 'Handguns' started by bearbullets, Nov 2, 2016.
What do you think of this test?
Cap and Ball Revolvers vs Ballistic Gel
Good post. And if the ballistic gel does not convince anyone of the lethal attributes of BP, perhaps the knowledge that shooting something at that distance can set the target on fire will. ;-)
I'll take the 44 thank you... good video, thanks!
After we touched off the 44, we noticed unburned powder where the first and second block meet.
Should some one be trying to hurt me I would reach for a .44 over a .31. Yes a lot of boys found the truth about the after life after meeting a .31. On the other hand they dug about a ton of lead out of Cole Younger. Balistic jell can show wound channels andpenitration and such, however it can't show the 'Ahhh, I've been shot' factor.
I would point out that a lot of ball has been found on WTBS sites
I didn't need convincing that BP revolvers are very lethal and compare well to modern guns. Interesting video, thanks for sharing.
Very interesting indeed! I've often wondered what a FN design would do, and wasn't so sure the RN would flatten that much.
The CW conicals for the revolvers were generally rather pointy though. I'm not sure how much that would change your results, but the pointier the projectile the more it allows the flesh to stretch leaving a smaller than projectile wound, which would make a lot of sense as to what Mr Keith's war veteran friends said concerning the lack of effect concerning conicals and men.
I'm also not sure what the loading ram face was shaped like and how it refaced the conicals. Maybe they weren't so pointy once rammed home.
Have a Remington New Army .44, a Colt 1860 Army and a 3rd Model Dragoon. I enjoy the .44s in all stripes. Might run into you one day at the Lafourche range.
That sounds like a plan. I was back in the Houma area late last month.
There were several flaws the boys missed.
First the .36 was flattened, but notice how it wasn't wider than the body with the imprinted rifling? It was flattened by loading, NOT by the impact.
Next, while it's nice that they used pretty large bullets in the .36 and the .44, I would they had used round balls in all three first, THEN sought to show how using the heavier conicals compared to the more common round ball.
Third, I would have preferred to have them do an additional test, with new gel, using a side of raw pork ribs of a thickness comparable to an average human's rib cage inserted 1" inside the first block. They would have had a much more realistic result of what soft, lead projectiles will do after it passes through bone, giving an idea of the actual mushrooming that might happen. Perhaps the .31 would not have been "barely adequate" unless one gutshot or headshot the bad guy???
So an interesting video to compare energy..., not sure of performance.
I've not loaded many of the Lee RN type conicals in my guns but I do know my rams are concaved. I couldn't flatten the nose like that.
I've actually been considering additional rams so that I can ground them flat as my custom conicals are of a WFN design with a larger meplat than the Lee bullet (not the RN) and these get an odd imprint on the nose.
I, too, would have liked to have seen a comparison between a ball and conical, and adding ribs would be an excellent idea.
I certainly don't know what the strength of all of the various powders used 150 years in pistols were like, but I do know that Hazard's Pistol Powder was much like Swiss or Olde Eynsford. I'm curious what a much more powerful powder would have done, especially in the .31.
I also would have liked to have seen the .44 loaded to 1860 Army/NMA levels to compare to the .36.
My understanding is that the paper cartridges with conicals were more common during the Civil War in their revolvers.
Much easier and quicker to reload. I couldn't imagine loading components loose during a battle in a field. I'd even take the less than stellar conical performance with quicker reloads over loose components and a better ball.
Well, when you are doing a lot of this stuff on the fly, you never know what will happen. We just happen to bring along a Dragoon since viewers would ask what it would do in gel too. I would have like to have seen a regular 1860 Army vs 36 in gel. It is something worth doing in a future test. Thank you guys for letting me know what you want to see. And on the note of the ramming. The reason we are using a Kaido bullet is because in the Dragoon, the Lee bullets will need the tips shaved off in order to rotate under the rammer, so that was inevitable. But its a 220 grainer and quite close to the weight used in the Army cartridges during the Civil War.
Regardless I think your video was good. I hope you do more!
I notice how the ball has the typical straight waist belts on it from obturation and cutting when seated.
This is a good example of what a sphere actually turns into when it leaves the barrel.
You made this video?
Can you show us a .36cal MiniÃ© ball, please?
He meant a conical give it a break.
Right. Thank you for that. I thought it might have been a slip of the tongue, but you can never be certain.
Do you have intentions of doing more gel testing?
How about chronograph tests?
Separate names with a comma.