Lee Conical bullet vs Ball

[mec]

Group attempts with bullets from the replica/brass moulds have usually turned up "combat accuracy." The Lee conical comes closer to the accuracy expected with the round ball.

These were shot with pyrodex:

and this with fffg. The ball group is better than the conical but several groups were actually bigger since I had forgotten to thoroughly clean the barrel between loads. With Black, the powder fouling can really make a difference

 

[mec]

Some more experimentation with the 200 grain conicals cast from the Lee mould. I had some very consistent results from a Ruger Old Army and 40 gr/vol H777 and the same volume of swiss fffg. Since the Dragoon has longer chambers I started by clicking the measure out to the 45 grain setting and using H 777. I tried the same thing with Swiss and found that it would not compress quite far enough to get the bullet below the chamber mouth. Therefore, the H777 loads are from the 45 grain measure while the Swiss loads are with 40 grains.
http://www.gunpix.com/gallery/Muzzleloaders_and_Blackpowder/dragoonleeblt.jpg
The heavier load of H777 gained 58 feet per second over the Swiss and it appears that they would have been pretty close together at the same charge level The inconsistencies I have seen with readings of H777 did not reappear even though the powder column was slightly compressed.

Accuracy is not up to the expectation with a round ball but that is usually the case. Groups with both loads were 2-2.5" at 60 feet from a fairly steady bench rest. The standing, one -handed group shot over the chronograph from the same distance is not much bigger. The off-hand group was with the h777 load

 

[Don]

Mec

I love your posts they are always very informative and they address the same guns that I'm interested in currently. What do you know about Cabela's 1860 Colt Army? Do they hold 35grains of powder as others do? I believe they are made by Pietta. I like to carry a cap and ball revolvers as back up when hunting or fishing in case I run into an over inquisitive coyote or bear or two legged vermin that have no scrupples. Modern big bores are out of my price range so I look to cap and ball guns to fill the bill. I'd like to buy another big bore in the near future but I'm torn between the 1860 and the 3rd gen. Dragoon. I want portability and thumpability, what would you recommend?

Don

 

[mec]

I'm not familiar with very recent Pietta revolvers but hear that their quality has improved quite a bit. They should have the same capacity as the Uberti Armies which will hold 35 grains of black or the same volume of pyrodex and a ball- even with a wonder wad between powder and ball if you choose to use one. My Uberti and a couple of others will put the ball out at over 1,000 fps with pyrodex p or swiss black powder- Less with Goex fffg. Several Piettas of different designs that we have been shooting have slightly smaller chambers mouths - .448-9" instead of the .450 current on the Ubertis.

You can probably get spare parts from VTI and Taylor though Pietta itself seems to loose interest in their revolvers once they are sold. An old Pietta Remington we have and a couple of recent Lemats have had good chamber to bore dimensions and are accurate.

the performance we have recorded puts the .44 belt revolvers in the power range of the old 38-44 outdoors man loadings of the 38 specials and should be pretty effective outdoor defense rounds.

 

[Tight_Wad]

mec

I bought a LEE 220g conical mould for my Ruger Old Army. Apart from the fact that the conicals proved less accurate than ball, I found it quite difficult to start them off straight and seat them squarely in the chambers. I wondered if you experienced the same problem?

I dipped the lube grooves in melted tallow/beeswax and pushed them through a .454" sizer die thinking I would be able to avoid the messy lube and lolly-stick routine. Unfortunately, in practice this just resulted in the conicals shifting forward under recoil (probably because they were so well lubed!).

I found it an interesting, if frustrating, experience but I've gone back to using round ball - it's less hassle. A ball will always self-centre and being slightly oversize you can be sure it won't move until you bust a cap on it.

Thanks for an interesting post and I love the photo's.

Tight Wad

 

[mec]

I have a ginchy mould that throws some bullets nice and some with wings. Sending them through a .452 sizer helps a bit with my uberti's with .450 chambers. Still, balls are more accurate and less prone to cause problems-even though the lees tend to seat very straigh under my rammers.

Buffalo bullets are a step up and it looks like some of my loads with them group as good as ball. The Ruger OA shoots all into the same small groups given the optimum loads. Another trouble with bullets is that I regulate my sights for ball and the bullets all hit higher.

 

[Bartek]

So, do You finally recommend Lee conicals or not? I congratulate Your target-shooting results! :front: My target after shooting is just tragedy... ::

 

[mec]

Oh. I guess so. Just as soon use balls for my purposes but since they seem able to group well I think the lees are ok. Main reason I delved into them was because bullets were fairly important and widespread when these revolvers were state of the art. For hunters and such, the bullets shape is better for retaining energy at longer range than the ball.