remington or colt?

[Geraldo]

awrite youse guys splain sumpin to me.how can we discuss conicals in trad,revolvers but its a no no to discuss the sabots in perc rifles :hmm: by the way i would rather be beat with knowledge and experience than with b.s. and stupidity! this forum is definately doing its job even if it strays a bit from time to time! i enjoy all the input! since i found this site the page stays up! reading the other parts of this forum its obvious theres a wealth of knowledge and more than a little humor.

Because conicals have been around as long as the revolvers. Colt had recommended loads for round ball and conical bullets.

 

[Geraldo]

Well, OK, since Capper's Rules are in effect here, let's change course a bit and vote on a projectile for east texas in his hog-slayer;
I say big .44 with a conical bullet...simply because of the added knockdown power. What say you?

You know where I stand: big gun, big bullet. :thumbsup:

 

[bdhutier]

awrite youse guys splain sumpin to me.how can we discuss conicals in trad,revolvers but its a no no to discuss the sabots in perc rifles :hmm:

Don't forget, the original double-bullet mold that came with the Colts had 2 styles of cavity, the RB and the conical. Plastic little bullet carriers didn't come around for a few years after that! :wink:

 

[Zonie]

Discussing plastic bullet sleeves is not allowed because they weren't invented until well into the 20th century. Same thing applies to jacketed bullets because although they were invented before the turn of the century they were unheard of during and prior to the Civil War.

The Handgun Forum is a little special here and we do allow some discussion of things that are not permitted on the other forums like the fact that all of the C&B revolvers are basically "in line" guns.
We do not allow discussions on them little brass cans that some folks stick powder an' boolets an' primers in though.

 

[CaptainKirk]

If you can get one to load? You might have to take out the cylinder to load it.

You wouldn't have that problem arise with a Remmie... :blah:

I've never fired conicals out of my Army before. My Navy is, of course, .36, and I've fired the Taurus Belted Conicals through it, but they are much shorter.
I'd say if you were gonna load conicals with a big Colt, a cylinder loading ram would make short work of it. http://www.cabelas.com/product/Sho..._l=SBC;cat104792580;cat104701680;cat104218380

 

[Pete Gaimari]

If you can get one to load? You might have to take out the cylinder to load it.

You wouldn't have that problem arise with a Remmie... :blah:

I've never fired conicals out of my Army before. My Navy is, of course, .36, and I've fired the Taurus Belted Conicals through it, but they are much shorter.
I'd say if you were gonna load conicals with a big Colt, a cylinder loading ram would make short work of it. http://www.cabelas.com/product/Sho...at104792580;cat104701680;cat104218380[/quote]

Pretty cheap, but better than nothing.


btw I didn't say they wouldn't fit. I just shoot RB's.

 

[CaptainKirk]

If you can get one to load? You might have to take out the cylinder to load it.

You wouldn't have that problem arise with a Remmie... :blah:

I've never fired conicals out of my Army before. My Navy is, of course, .36, and I've fired the Taurus Belted Conicals through it, but they are much shorter.
I'd say if you were gonna load conicals with a big Colt, a cylinder loading ram would make short work of it. http://www.cabelas.com/product/Sho...at104792580;cat104701680;cat104218380[/quote]

Pretty cheap, but better than nothing.


btw I didn't say they wouldn't fit. I just shoot RB's.

Yeah, I realize you didn't say that...exactly... But unlike the Remmie, the loading cutout on my Colts is rather small, and I could see it being a PITA to angle a conical in there.

 

[Pete Gaimari]

I don't load in the gun, so it's a moot point for me. I find it easier and faster to load the cylinder.

 

[Zonie]

Folks say the darnedest things.

While saying, "But unlike the Remmie, the loading cutout on my Colts is rather small, and I could see it being a PITA to angle a conical in there. " I think you must have been referring to the .36 cal 1851 Colt.

The .44 cal. Colt 1860 Army was designed with conicals in mind. For that reason it has enough room under the loading ram to load most of the conicals that folks might want to use.

 

[himem777]

My new Remington 5.5 inch came in. I will take it to the range today and start a thread about it.

 

[CaptainKirk]

Folks say the darnedest things.

While saying, "But unlike the Remmie, the loading cutout on my Colts is rather small, and I could see it being a PITA to angle a conical in there. " I think you must have been referring to the .36 cal 1851 Colt.

The .44 cal. Colt 1860 Army was designed with conicals in mind. For that reason it has enough room under the loading ram to load most of the conicals that folks might want to use.

Zonie, if I may:
As I said previously,"I've never fired conicals out of my Army before".

You're probably correct here, but I never stated that I shot conicals out of my Army. Because I haven't. I suppose I should have pulled the two out of the safe and viewed them together before making a blanket statement like that, as I am doing right now, and I can see the Army is profiled better, and in fact the loading lever ram extends further towards the cylinder in the Navy than the Army, so...yes, it appears conicals would be easier to load. But I stand by my statement on the Remmie; conicals are quite easy to load on that particular gun.