Loads in a original rem 1858

Help Support Muzzle Loading Forum:

Crypt0manic

40 Cal
Joined
Jul 30, 2021
Messages
148
Reaction score
35
Hey! I have been reading about different loads and i somewhere read that uberti and the other replicas usually got harder steel then the original 1858 produced old remington cal .44 like the one i got.

So what i wonder about is how much harder steel etc the replicas got?

And in case you want to make out max power out of a old original remington 1858 what's the charge you would do? I mean one that isn't any type of replica.


i have been reading about a bunch of crazy loads here on this website for ballistics of bp guns and i see him loading a rem 1858 with 50 grains of Pyrodex. Max i have done is 30 grains of bp because i don't want to damage the gun. So i don't get how you can get such hard loads in a remington 1858 without anything happening? Is that because it's a new production a replica of harder steel or i could do the same with my old 1858 rem? Mostly curious i never tried anything else except black powder so far.
 

Crypt0manic

40 Cal
Joined
Jul 30, 2021
Messages
148
Reaction score
35
Looks as though the 50 grains of powder was going in a Walker.
44 Remington, 18588 inch50 grain 3F Pyrodex143 grain, .457 ball1207 ft/s462 ft-lbs24.65 ft-s

Seems like he managed to shoot his rem with 50 grains as well
 

Crypt0manic

40 Cal
Joined
Jul 30, 2021
Messages
148
Reaction score
35
Never ram the ball with 50. 30-35 max. Lots of smoke and fowling at that charge. 22-25 is plenty
Is that the amount equivalent in power to what they were shooting back in time? I mean around 1860 when they came out with the remingtons etc.

I always load with max 30 grains since i heard that's what they used to have in cartridges. At least the starr revolver not sure exacly about the remington.
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2021
Messages
100
Reaction score
127
Location
NW OHIO
If you weigh it out, you might (maybe) fit 50 gr of 4f in the chamber AND get a ball seated (you'd have to tamp the hell out of it and I'm still not sure you can do it with 4F... Maybe 0B swiss?), you definitely wouldn't be able to do that with a conical lol. The Pyrodex P is roughly 3F granule size, so I'm not sure how the heck he managed to do it lol, possible typo? The original cartridges only held 25ish gr of fine pistol powder (basically 4F), and a conical bullet... because that's all they could fit in the chamber lol.
 

rodwha

58 Cal.
Joined
Oct 2, 2011
Messages
2,997
Reaction score
387
Location
Lakeway, TX
Here’s the thing, my powder measure, yours, and 10 random guys here can all measure out identical powder in their measure and we’d find a range of charges. Another thing is some of the substitutes can be compressed more than BP so that you actually can get more in there, but not to what is within a “normal” 50 grn charge or what tends to be thought of a Dragoon charge with a ball.

The other thing is using the same powder measure and weighing out the various black powders you see some are more dense and weigh more. My old rifle measure’s 30 grn setting threw about 33 weighed grains of 3F Olde Eynsford, my new one seems to be zeroed for me, which is nice, and the only one of three that does (the other is a cheaply from Cabela’s starter kit that’s way off). I might be able to get 40-42 grns of Olde E without a wad under a .457” ball. Pyrodex weighs a lot less. But on my measure I’d venture to guess you could get an additional 5 grns to fit with compression. His scale likely is just set differently and with so many powders all weighing something different where do you mark the standard?
 

rodwha

58 Cal.
Joined
Oct 2, 2011
Messages
2,997
Reaction score
387
Location
Lakeway, TX
If you weigh it out, you might (maybe) fit 50 gr of 4f in the chamber AND get a ball seated (you'd have to tamp the hell out of it and I'm still not sure you can do it with 4F... Maybe 0B swiss?), you definitely wouldn't be able to do that with a conical lol. The Pyrodex P is roughly 3F granule size, so I'm not sure how the heck he managed to do it lol, possible typo? The original cartridges only held 25ish gr of fine pistol powder (basically 4F), and a conical bullet... because that's all they could fit in the chamber lol.
Paper cartridges during the Civil War were all over the place. I’m not familiar with the various powder makers back then or which the military used and when, but I have read a great piece where a fellow tested actual Hazard’s paper cartridges in .44 cal. They were found to contain 4F powder and during testing proved to be equivalent to modern Swiss powder. The writings talked about the need due to the small chamber capacities with conicals. Very interesting. Hazard’s .44 cal cartridges used 36 grns of 4F pushing a 211 grn bullet:

cleaning fish tank filter sponge

It looks like Hazard’s maximized their cartridges to fully fill the chambers as best they could. I would venture to guess the others were also using ~4F powders too with such small charges pushing heavy bulges.
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2021
Messages
100
Reaction score
127
Location
NW OHIO
Paper cartridges during the Civil War were all over the place. I’m not familiar with the various powder makers back then or which the military used and when, but I have read a great piece where a fellow tested actual Hazard’s paper cartridges in .44 cal. They were found to contain 4F powder and during testing proved to be equivalent to modern Swiss powder. The writings talked about the need due to the small chamber capacities with conicals. Very interesting. Hazard’s .44 cal cartridges used 36 grns of 4F pushing a 211 grn bullet:

cleaning fish tank filter sponge

It looks like Hazard’s maximized their cartridges to fully fill the chambers as best they could. I would venture to guess the others were also using ~4F powders too with such small charges pushing heavy bulges.
From what I understand, Colt's Cartridges with Hazard's powder were considered by many to be the best available. I'd venture to guess the light charge weights were made with a courser granulation of powder, which would have been cheaper to produce at the time (less handling in the powder mill, moving it back and forth between dusting and polishing)
 

rodwha

58 Cal.
Joined
Oct 2, 2011
Messages
2,997
Reaction score
387
Location
Lakeway, TX
From what I understand, Colt's Cartridges with Hazard's powder were considered by many to be the best available. I'd venture to guess the light charge weights were made with a courser granulation of powder, which would have been cheaper to produce at the time (less handling in the powder mill, moving it back and forth between dusting and polishing)
It’s hard to say but I’d venture to guess if you loaded less than 20 grns with a heavy bullet you’ll get dismal performance. I doubt pathetic performers would have been used. I guess it’s possible some company may have submitted a poor example.
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2021
Messages
100
Reaction score
127
Location
NW OHIO
It’s hard to say but I’d venture to guess if you loaded less than 20 grns with a heavy bullet you’ll get dismal performance. I doubt pathetic performers would have been used. I guess it’s possible some company may have submitted a poor example.
yah, that light of charge would essentially be a light plinking load lol, still dangerous, but much less so than the better offerings.
Well, you also have to think, without chronographs available, it'd be hard for civilian consumers to see what their gun was actually doing. Just like cheap ammo for modern guns today, sometimes people buy based on price, rather than power (especially if you didn't have access to testing equipment, which is very much a modern thing). The US Govt. set standards, but was desperate for ammo, and as long as it looked right, often times the inspectors would just accept it lol. That's more money in the contractor's pocket, using less powder, if they don't get caught... and some did, as I recall.
 

Crypt0manic

40 Cal
Joined
Jul 30, 2021
Messages
148
Reaction score
35
@Woody Morgan @Wildrangeringreen @rodwha @bang thanks for all the reply's.

Well the thing is i probably could get in at least 40-50 grn powder with a round ball but i mean how far can i go and still stay safe the gun won't explode? I see some people saying "use 25-35 grains MAX" and then i see people just pressing in as much powder in chambers they get in and shooting. I mean wouldn't there be a high risk for the gun exploding by just getting in so high amounts of powder? I heard back in time before cartridges they didn't have much time to measure the powder so they were just filling the chambers without measuring as long there is place left for putting in the ball?

And i see people saying "use this many grains MAX" then i see people just putting in crazy loads of 40-50 grains and shooting. I mean i don't get this....how many grains is okay to load it with? I probably can fit in 40-50 in chambers with a 454 ball.

Talked recently to a dude who had a remington before and i asked him what charges he did and how many grains...
What he told me is he just fills the chambers as much so the round ball will fit in and the cylinder rotate. I doubt he even measures at all....and same about another guy i know. I asked him what loads he uses...he just said he presses in as much he can.....why didn't their guns explode if the max charge i can use is 35 grains as some people tell me?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 14, 2021
Messages
100
Reaction score
127
Location
NW OHIO
@Woody Morgan @Wildrangeringreen @rodwha @bang thanks for all the reply's.

Well the thing is i probably could get in at least 40-50 grn powder with a round ball but i mean how far can i go and still stay safe the gun won't explode? I see some people saying "use 25-35 grains MAX" and then i see people just pressing in as much powder in chambers they get in and shooting. I mean wouldn't there be a high risk for the gun exploding by just getting in so high amounts of powder? I heard back in time before cartridges they didn't have much time to measure the powder so they were just filling the chambers without measuring as long there is place left for putting in the ball?

And i see people saying "use this many grains MAX" then i see people just putting in crazy loads of 40-50 grains and shooting. I mean i don't get this....how many grains is okay to load it with? I probably can fit in 40-50 in chambers with a 454 ball.

Talked recently to a dude who had a remington before and i asked him what charges he did and how many grains...
What he told me is he just fills the chambers as much so the round ball will fit in and the cylinder rotate. I doubt he even measures at all....and same about another guy i know. I asked him what loads he uses...he just said he presses in as much he can.....why didn't their guns explode if the max charge i can use is 35 grains as some people tell me?
Modern steel? Although the steel Remington and Colt were using by the late 50's and into the 60's isn't all that different from what repro's use today (their heat treatments were generally better, because the stuff they were producing then weren't treated as novelties lol). "just fill up the chamber and smash a ball on top" is a pretty common way of doing it, and especially with a ball, should be safe, as those pistols are proofed (CIP proofing loads for BP cartridges and percussion revolvers are similar, and basically boil down to: "pack as much powder in as you can, with the heaviest projectile that's going to be used, and light that puppy off... if it doesn't bulge or blow, you're good." of course, that implies the maker of the gun proofed in accordance with CIP standards lol (insert Traditions Spanish proof-marks that attest to mouse-fart loads lol). With BP, I wouldn't worry about it too much, considering no more than you can fit in the chambers. Pyrodex, being enhanced BP, has a slightly longer moment of force, but is still somewhat similar to BP (enough that with the limited amounts used, probably no biggie). 777, on the otherhand, has a significantly longer moment of force than BP, plus it is significantly denser than BP, so be verrry careful with that stuff, and work your way up. I would say, without testing, if you can get 4F granulation powder, you can probably replicate the Hazard powder loads, and if you use the P (which I think is the finest granulation of pyro) grade Pyro, you will probably get close to the same velocities, due to the addition of Potassium Perchlorate to the BP. You are just going to have to test it, just be careful.

Some one who knows for sure- Is pyrodex notably denser than BP? I think it is, but I don't mess with it all that much, so IDK for sure? if it is, that may also explain why his charges weigh so much?
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2021
Messages
100
Reaction score
127
Location
NW OHIO
Modern steel? Although the steel Remington and Colt were using by the late 50's and into the 60's isn't all that different from what repro's use today (their heat treatments were generally better, because the stuff they were producing then weren't treated as novelties lol). "just fill up the chamber and smash a ball on top" is a pretty common way of doing it, and especially with a ball, should be safe, as those pistols are proofed (CIP proofing loads for BP cartridges and percussion revolvers are similar, and basically boil down to: "pack as much powder in as you can, with the heaviest projectile that's going to be used, and light that puppy off... if it doesn't bulge or blow, you're good." of course, that implies the maker of the gun proofed in accordance with CIP standards lol (insert Traditions Spanish proof-marks that attest to mouse-fart loads lol). With BP, I wouldn't worry about it too much, considering no more than you can fit in the chambers. Pyrodex, being enhanced BP, has a slightly longer moment of force, but is still somewhat similar to BP (enough that with the limited amounts used, probably no biggie). 777, on the otherhand, has a significantly longer moment of force than BP, plus it is significantly denser than BP, so be verrry careful with that stuff, and work your way up. I would say, without testing, if you can get 4F granulation powder, you can probably replicate the Hazard powder loads, and if you use the P (which I think is the finest granulation of pyro) grade Pyro, you will probably get close to the same velocities, due to the addition of Potassium Perchlorate to the BP. You are just going to have to test it, just be careful.

Some one who knows for sure- Is pyrodex notably denser than BP? I think it is, but I don't mess with it all that much, so IDK for sure? if it is, that may also explain why his charges weigh so much?
I read the link you posted again a little more carefully, and this quote might explain the weight difference as well: " [referencing .36 revolvers:] 35 grains of 3F Pyrodex filled the chambers all the way to the top. When then the 80 grain ball was seated it significantly compressed the Pyrodex powder. It is important to note that Black Powder does not compress like Pyrodex. You can only fit 30 grains of GOEX Black Powder into the chamber with an 80 grain ball. The compressibility of Pyrodex offers a significant advantage in revolvers. The maximum load capacity is 25 grains of GOEX Black Powder when using a 130 grain conical. The maximum load is 23 grains GOED [mispelled GOEX, NBD] Black Powder with a 160 grain conical."

Basically, he's filling the chambers, and with BP, then smashing a ball on top (because he found it not to compress as much), and I'd guess he's tamping the Pyro, and then adding more (because he found it capable of significantly more compression), THEN smashing a ball on top. By his own admission, he is trying to get the absolute maximum weight of powder in the chamber. As a result, he is able to get 5gr more pyrodex in the chambers than BP (in the .36 revolvers). To be sure, it's an unconventional loading method, but it would be a similar idea to modern +p ammo today, I suppose. Something that you shouldn't shoot a lot of, as it wears on the gun more, but a few cylinders here and there aren't a problem, so long as you carefully work up loads that are safe. Assuming his observation on the compressability of pyrodex vs BP is true, and my guess at his loading method for it is somewhat close, I feel that he is getting exactly the amount in the chamber he says he is. (forgive me, I don't mess with Pyrodex much)
 
Last edited:

rodwha

58 Cal.
Joined
Oct 2, 2011
Messages
2,997
Reaction score
387
Location
Lakeway, TX
You cannot overload when using BP. I don’t know if compressing the powder and recharging before loading the projectile can be dangerous in a fit repro. It’s clearly been done by many people and there hasn’t been an issue anyone’s pointed out, nor has a new warning label been made after a couple of decades. However there’s more to the tale then powder. I created a short but very heavy bullet for my Ruger. Knowing it was taking up precious powder powder room I designed it with very long thick driving bands to create additional friction and therefor pressure. A guy loaded up two charges of 26 grns of Pyrodex P with my 285 grn bullet in his Walker and blew the chamber apart. Because Pyrodex compresses so much I guess it his was sort of an overcharge that was able to be squeezed under that bullet.
 

SDSmlf

69 Cal.
Joined
Nov 4, 2006
Messages
3,778
Reaction score
3,046
Location
Western North Carolina
44 Remington, 18588 inch50 grain 3F Pyrodex143 grain, .457 ball1207 ft/s462 ft-lbs24.65 ft-s

Seems like he managed to shoot his rem with 50 grains as well
Only thing I am sure about is that I would NOT TRUST any load data from whoever published that chart. Own original and reproduction 1858s. Quite some time ago, out of curiosity, compared the chamber capacity of an original to a reproduction and found them to be very close, about 50 grains (by weight) of 3F each, when loaded to the mouth of cylinder chamber with powder. Now if one were really dedicated and put the effort into it, imagine they could compress the load to the point of getting a ball below the face of cylinder, and the gun would go into battery and could be shot with that load. Not going to try that with an original, as they don’t make them anymore.

First two photographs are of the original’s cylinder weigh in, the next two are of the reproduction’s.
1628884066746.jpeg
1628884085759.jpeg
1628884110577.jpeg
1628884131915.jpeg

Well the thing is i probably could get in at least 40-50 grn powder with a round ball but i mean how far can i go and still stay safe the gun won't explode?
Will wait for your test results. Good luck.
 

springfield art

54 Cal.
MLF Supporter
Joined
Jun 17, 2019
Messages
1,707
Reaction score
1,121
Only thing I am sure about is that I would NOT TRUST any load data from whoever published that chart. Own original and reproduction 1858s. Quite some time ago, out of curiosity, compared the chamber capacity of an original to a reproduction and found them to be very close, about 50 grains (by weight) of 3F each, when loaded to the mouth of cylinder chamber with powder. Now if one were really dedicated and put the effort into it, imagine they could compress the load to the point of getting a ball below the face of cylinder, and the gun would go into battery and could be shot with that load. Not going to try that with an original, as they don’t make them anymore.

First two photographs are of the original’s cylinder weigh in, the next two are of the reproduction’s.
View attachment 89613View attachment 89614View attachment 89615View attachment 89616

Will wait for your test results. Good luck.
Yeah, no one should be trying to compress a load like that.
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2021
Messages
100
Reaction score
127
Location
NW OHIO
Only thing I am sure about is that I would NOT TRUST any load data from whoever published that chart. Own original and reproduction 1858s. Quite some time ago, out of curiosity, compared the chamber capacity of an original to a reproduction and found them to be very close, about 50 grains (by weight) of 3F each, when loaded to the mouth of cylinder chamber with powder. Now if one were really dedicated and put the effort into it, imagine they could compress the load to the point of getting a ball below the face of cylinder, and the gun would go into battery and could be shot with that load. Not going to try that with an original, as they don’t make them anymore.

Will wait for your test results. Good luck.
It's also really not necessary lol, a certain modern .45 only lobs a 230gr bullet at about 830fps... and most people think it's just dandy lol. I would recommend doing what they did originally with these, load it up with super fine pistol powder and put a bullet on top for serious stuff, and load the same amount and a ball for target shooting/plinking around. The lineage of that .45 cartridge's capabilities (going backwards) is .45auto-.45 Schofield- heavy conical loads in 1860 Colts and 1858 Remington army revolvers (The militaries play with .36 pistols now and again too). It has almost always been deemed enough for use as a sidearm. The old cartridge was meant to be a fast loading version of the percussion revolver, and the auto cartridge was meant for use in modern weapons, and make use of smokeless. The performance envelope just hasn't really needed to change in 160 years.
 
Top