Pietta Rifling

[Relic shooter]

Robert Hoyt still rifles barrels this way. He says they all realize gains in velocity as compared to standard constant rate rifling.

Good point BK..
Never considered that gain twist might increase velocity due to less resistance but now that you bring it up i'm sure Hoyt is correct.
Most of the ML firearms I shoot & hunt with are bigger bore european originals with deep rifling & faster twist so I'm sure they produce less fps but love the accuracy plus require less powder.
relic shooter

 

[M. De Land]

The gain-twist rifling used on original Colts & Remington C & B revolvers were more accurate because they had much deeper rifling that better engaged a ball or bullet.
The 'shooter grade' modern repro 58 Remingtons I've seen have had much shallower rifling, I found they performed well with lighter loads but projectiles tend to skid with heavy loads.
If not concerned with looking original & want top notch accuracy I think most will agree that the ROA remains the best modern repro performer.
relic shooter

A ball does not need much rotation to be accurate nor deep gain twist rifling to get it to spin and percussion guns were originally designed to shoot balls not bullets. I don't think this was the reasoning behind early Colts having gain twist although I can't think of a logical reason for them to have had it other than possible fouling control. Super accuracy was not a prerequisite that would be built into a weapon of combat but rather reliability and efficiency. My guess is that fouling control thinking may have been the best reasoning for it.

 

[Stantheman86]

Rifling in and of itself was designed to control fouling, accuracy was just an accidental discovery

 

[M. De Land]

Rifling in and of itself was designed to control fouling, accuracy was just an accidental discovery

What I meant was deep grooves and slow twist foul slower than does shallow rifling and fast twist . Gain twist rifling in a revolver shooting round lubed balls would likely make more shots before needing to be cleaned because of this.
We don't actually shoot a round ball in percussion revolvers anyway , after loading sheer and bump up we are shooting short cylinders with two, more or less, hemispherical ends which is why they don't need to spin much to be accurate.

 

[J D Jones]

Robert Hoyt still rifles barrels this way. He says they all realize gains in velocity as compared to standard constant rate rifling.

Any idea of the actual gain average in several barrels with each type rifling?

 

[Relic shooter]

Lots of varied opinions on the forum, I would hope the ultimate goal of most members is to help our newer members out.
I was fortunate to have spent 60 plus years collecting & shooting mostly original rifled muzzleloading rifles & pistols that were mfg in America & Europe for both civilian & military use, my goal in most cases was accuracy.
These were mostly vintage & some custom built rifles, muskets or pistols had good to excellent bores with either slow, fast or progressive twist rifling. Some had shallow or deep cut rifling that were best suited for patched round balls or slugs but in no way did any of these bores produce more fouling if they were properly charged & loaded with the proper designed projectile. I get excellent accuracy with minimal fouling out of my original Colts & Remington revolvers with the correct charge, lubed wads & the proper sized round balls... Same with the right style & size bullets.
Newer shooters benefit from learning from forum members that excessive fouling & poor grouping is a result of an incorrect patch & ball combo, projectile choice, powder charge or a combination of all three.
relic shooter

 

[Bad Karma]

A ball does not need much rotation to be accurate nor deep gain twist rifling to get it to spin and percussion guns were originally designed to shoot balls not bullets. I don't think this was was the reasoning behind early Colts having gain twist although I can't think of a logical reason for them to have had it other than possible fouling control. Super accuracy was not a prerequisite that would be built into a weapon of combat but rather reliability and efficiency. My guess is that fouling control thinking may have been the best reasoning for it.

I’m not sure you can toss the desire for accuracy aside so readily. By the time Colts appeared on the scene combat pistols and pistol shooters had achieved a certain level of sophistication and accuracy. These pistols will make effective hits on combat silhouettes at a hundred yards with some training… I’ve never heard anyone say that gain twist rifling was less prone to fouling, that’s new to me. I have heard only claims of greater accuracy and velocity. One of the War Departments favorable comments wrt the Navy and the New Model Army was of the superior accuracy of the Colts pistols. They were also the most reliable and efficient weapons available in the Army’s view. Charles Pate documented this in his excellent history of the 1860 Colt.

Any idea of the actual gain average in several barrels with each type rifling?

as you’d imagine, it’s variable but he’s mentioned 2-300 fps in 54 caliber. Which is a pretty big number.

 

[Bad Karma]

What I meant was deep grooves and slow twist foul slower than does shallow rifling and fast twist . Gain twist rifling in a revolver shooting round lubed balls would likely make more shots before needing to be cleaned because of this.
We don't actually shoot a round ball in percussion revolvers anyway , after loading sheer and bump up we are shooting short cylinders with two, more or less, hemispherical ends which is why they don't need to spin much to be accurate.

Two things Mike, I don’t think they lubed bullets much or at least Colt didn’t mention it in his manuals. And yes we’re shooting blunt boat tailed round nosed bullets…

 

[M. De Land]

I’m not sure you can toss the desire for accuracy aside so readily. By the time Colts appeared on the scene combat pistols and pistol shooters had achieved a certain level of sophistication and accuracy. These pistols will make effective hits on combat silhouettes at a hundred yards with some training… I’ve never heard anyone say that gain twist rifling was less prone to fouling, that’s new to me. I have heard only claims of greater accuracy and velocity. One of the War Departments favorable comments wrt the Navy and the New Model Army was of the superior accuracy of the Colts pistols. They were also the most reliable and efficient weapons available in the Army’s view. Charles Pate documented this in his excellent history of the 1860 Colt.

as you’d imagine, it’s variable but he’s mentioned 2-300 fps in 54 caliber. Which is a pretty big number.

Any combat hand gun by it's very nature is not designed primarily for long range engagement. Kieth acknowledged this as well but was able to demonstrate that in a pinch a revolver used with certain techniques can be very accurate at long range.
A ball shooting revolver would be the least able to prosecute long ranger efficiency because of it's ballistic disadvantage compared to a bullet.
Balls slow down much faster, have more arched trajectories and are effected by wind drift far more than are bullets at comparable velocities, a simple fact of physics that cannot be disputed.
Colt did not design his revolvers for hundred yard engagement. The fact that they can have enough accuracy under certain conditions to deliver it in the hands of a few good shooters was never the focus of their genies .
They were designed for short range , close quarter, fast occurring encounters such as the Texas Rangers were having dealing with border area enemies !

 

[45D]

According to Robert Nieman (editor and author of Texas Ranger Dispatch Magazine) "The [Walker] was as effective as a common rifle at 100 yards, and superior to a musket even at 200."
I guess the Rangers didn't know the limitations of the Walker. . .

Still seems like it's easy enough to determine "sight distance" from the original specimens and don't really understand why it's such a big deal. Who would rather have battles/ wars/ conflicts at 10 yards rather than 100 yards?
Mr. Bradshaw is famous for long range (competition) shooting with modern S A's . . . shouldn't be hard to think the originals were used the same way to stay alive.

Mike

 

[nkbj]

If a fella was to want a primo piece, he could get a used Pietta .36 and get it rebored to the rifling and chambers he wanted, then send it to Mike for a tune up if it needed it. He might buy something just as good for more money but why not "have your way" to start with?

 

[M. De Land]

According to Robert Nieman (editor and author of Texas Ranger Dispatch Magazine) "The [Walker] was as effective as a common rifle at 100 yards, and superior to a musket even at 200."
I guess the Rangers didn't know the limitations of the Walker. . .

Still seems like it's easy enough to determine "sight distance" from the original specimens and don't really understand why it's such a big deal. Who would rather have battles/ wars/ conflicts at 10 yards rather than 100 yards?
Mr. Bradshaw is famous for long range (competition) shooting with modern S A's . . . shouldn't be hard to think the originals were used the same way to stay alive.

Mike

The main reason for close quarters war on the border that influenced Colts thinking on revolver design was because most of the belligerents (Apache , Comanche primarily) were armed mainly with bow and arrow and lance which are close quarter weapons (30 yards about max).
Actually the Patterson was the real game changer not the Walker because of the five shot advantage in close quarter fighting. Remember Pattersons were .36 cal ( not really horse killers) but the Indians were used to coming up against single shot carbines and pistols so after the first shot they could close and have the advantage with bow and arrow repeat fire and lance.
The Walker (when cylinders didn't explode) had the power to knock a horse down and topple and enemy which was a great advantage but this still was not primarily long range engagement but rather cavalry action just as in the Civil War.

 

[J D Jones]

I’m not sure you can toss the desire for accuracy aside so readily. By the time Colts appeared on the scene combat pistols and pistol shooters had achieved a certain level of sophistication and accuracy. These pistols will make effective hits on combat silhouettes at a hundred yards with some training… I’ve never heard anyone say that gain twist rifling was less prone to fouling, that’s new to me. I have heard only claims of greater accuracy and velocity. One of the War Departments favorable comments wrt the Navy and the New Model Army was of the superior accuracy of the Colts pistols. They were also the most reliable and efficient weapons available in the Army’s view. Charles Pate documented this in his excellent history of the 1860 Colt.

as you’d imagine, it’s variable but he’s mentioned 2-300 fps in 54 caliber. Which is a pretty big number.

That seems to me a huge number. However I've documented over 100 FPS difference with the same powder charge between two different makes of the same weight bullet everything as close to the same as I can put it together.

 

[Bad Karma]

That seems to me a huge number. However I've documented over 100 FPS difference with the same powder charge between two different makes of the same weight bullet everything as close to the same as I can put it together.

It is. I don’t doubt it though. Apparently it takes a fair amount of energy to get the ball moving forward and turning at the same time.