Conical bullets in C&B pistols

[CaptainKirk]

I currently cast both .454 RB and Lee conical's for my C&Bs in .44 and cast RB in .375RB for my Navy Colt in cal. .36. I have a few conical Taurus belted bullets left for the Navy, and when they're gone (if not before) I'm planning on buying the Lee conical mould for the Navy. I've done a bit of comparison between the RB vs conical on the .44s, and have seen the ballistics charts for the two. One thing I have NOT seen, though, is a "terminal ballistics" comparison between the two. (aka: "stopping power") I would "assume" (yeah, I know that's skating on thin ice!) that the heavier weight and longer ogive of the conicals would carry a higher terminal ballistics edge on impact, but truth is, I'm just guessing. Anyone have any data to back this up?

 

[nkbj]

In the 70's my 36 conical mold was a Lee 9mm round nose mold that I attacked with a 3/8" drill bit. Remember those little hand sized pieces of formica the hardware stores used to give away for samples? I used the grainy back on a couple of those to roll a taper to the tail end of the slugs. They worked absolutely fantastic. Super accurate as they were pressed into the chambers of the 1861 model. And they had impact on targets (flipper gongs, bricks, what have you) that had to be seen to be believed.
Those were my first experiences with conicals in a cap and ball. Learned what works and been a fan ever since.

 

[Don]

I think the main advantage of the conical would be better momentum thus better penetration. I have shot the Lee 130 grain conicals out of my .36's and performance was good as far as accuracy. Not as good as round ball but very acceptable.

Don

 

[CoyoteJoe]

Civil War veterans had more combat handgun experience than anyone ever before or since. They generally seemed to agree that the roundball as commonly used by Confederates was a better man stopper than the conicals as issued in paper cartridges to the Union troops.
No doubt the heavier and more pointed conical will deliver deeper penetration but that comes at the expense of reduced shock. More penetration than needed is just wasted energy and C&B revolvers really have no energy to spare.
The best accuracy I have ever gotten from a revolver was with a very short 172 grain .45 caliber wadcutter bullet from a mold Lee no longer offers. I seated those backward since the nose was of very slightly smaller diameter and started easily into the chambers. The rammer sat square to the flat bullet base to keep them straight when rammed down. Wish I still had that mold but I didn't know it was about to be discontinued. Lacking that bullet I feel the ball is the next best choice for both accuracy and terminal performance and is certainly the easiest to load.

 

[Dave Rosenthal]

I've never tinkered with conicals in a pistol. Afraid I'd get the round half-way down the chamber, and then it tilt and I'd smash it sideways, ruining any accuracy it might of had.

My balls are very accurate, so I think that I'll stick with them.

Dave

 

[CaptainKirk]

Interesting takes on this...
In my 44's (both) the conicals have a slight edge on accuracy. I would have thought the conical would have the edge in stopping power as well, but you guys are telling me the opposite!
I may have to try the wet phone book test this summer and see what the results are!
I have yet to find any published information in terms of remaining energy and terminal ballistics. Maybe I'll have to make my own?

Joe, I believe loading the conical "picket bullets" backwards is one of the theories as to why the early Walkers would blow up. I don't think I'd feel comfortable loading my flat-based Lee conicals in backwards, sounds like a recipe for trouble

 

[zimmerstutzen]

I have loaded 195 grain 45-70 bullets in my ROA. They are hard hitting, BUT, because of the reduced powder in the chamber, the felt recoil is less than the round ball over a chamber full.

 

[Norinco]

His bullet isn't conical, it's a wadcutter.

I wonder if anyone has attempted hollow point C&B bullets.

 

[CaptainKirk]

I wondered that myself.
Could be easily done with a drill bit and pocket knife.
I may try it, just for Sh!ts&Grins! :hmm:

 

[Dave Rosenthal]

I'd like to try shooting what ever design you feel is easier to load, as soon as the weather warms-up a bit. I have a friend with a Chrono, and I can use both a Walker and a '58 Remmy for the test. Maybe we could swap supplies so I could shoot some of those??

As to wad-cutters, the Walker cuts holes in paper like a wad-cutter! Maybe it's due to the amount of pressure I compact the powder charge with the wonder-wad & ball on top of the powder? Sort of fills-up the chamber walls and engages more rifling? That revolver is a tack-driver!

Dave

 

[poordevil]

I have yet to find any published information in terms of remaining energy and terminal ballistics. Maybe I'll have to make my own?



In about 2000 give or take, Ed Sanow (?) writing for Guns & Ammo or their Handguns did a series of tests in ballistic gel with C&B handguns.31 cal through Walker and Mike Venterino did some shooting of them into 1" boards. If I remember the C&B's all came out better than expected. Nothing to sneeze at.

p

 

[poordevil]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_173_29/ai_n7578405/

 

[Blizzard of '93]

I don't own a chrono so can't give figures of FPS.
but I've had good luck with Lee mold conicals in my '58 Rem 'Buffalo' and my ROA. they sure blow through young jack pines comparing them to .357 jhp.
MOF my 'carry' for bear hunts with some ol' timers hereabouts has been my ROA loaded w/a Lee conical over max charge of 3F. several of them carry bp guns .45's and bigger plus about everything else imaginable for firearms. hunting w/dogs. we never got a bear they all hi-tailed across the river to the bear sanctuary on National Fst preserve land. they know exactly what to do. lots of fun though, believe me it's quite an experience. heard they managed to bag one back in late October.

 

[F.G. Ford]

Thank you Poordevil.
Great information
Old Ford

 

[poordevil]

http://goexpowder.com/load-chart.html

 

[poordevil]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...sg=AFQjCNGzMsH2Kb8vm_veY_Me5_qwU_2nUA&cad=rja

 

[nkbj]

For any given c&b revolver the conical hind end just slipping into the chamber is gonna be a biggie on how accurately you can get it seated. And the front end still needs to be bigger than the chamber.

The length of the conical will of course determine the maximum powder charge you can load. Lube grooves of the bullet don't really seem to be needed if you lube in front but most molds have them anyway.
The grooves make a given weight of lead be a longer bullet. That takes up powder space but gives better alignment.

 

[DutchmanDick]

I have an original Civil War era gang mold that casts 6 .44 revolver conicals at a time. The bullets have a rebate at the base to allow them to start in the chambers easily, and a grease groove above the rebate. Unfortunately, modern cap & ball .44's seem to have undersized chambers (meant for .451 balls instead of .454-.456), so the slugs won't work in my Pietta 1860 Army or my ASM 3rd model Dragoon.

 

[nkbj]

Hey Rich.
Can you say how much those conicals weigh?

 

[DutchmanDick]

About 240-250 grains, IIRC, but it's been a couple years since I last cast them, and I melted them down for round balls when I found they wouldn't fit my guns. I don't have any cast right now, and it will have to wait until spring before I cast more (I cast outside whenever possible).