BP pistol loading.


PDA






jwr747
October 10, 2008, 03:21 PM
while I'm thinking of it,do you folks load your Colt/Colt clones with the cylinder in or out of the pistol? I've always left my cylinder in,to lazy to pull cyl. out. but seems lately I've seen several devices for loading with the cyl. out of the frame. looks ok for Remington style pistols,but a PITA with Colt. thanks jwr

If you enjoyed reading about "BP pistol loading." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Tomahawk674
October 10, 2008, 03:27 PM
I wouldn't remove and reinsert the wedge on a colt for loading, that's not practical in my opinion.

sundance44s
October 10, 2008, 03:31 PM
Me eaither on the Colts ...way too much trouble for me ...The 1858 Remington has me a spoiled child .

Calibre44
October 10, 2008, 03:52 PM
I always load with the cylinder in.

Its a crisp Autumn day here today so I took the afternoon off work, went to the range and put 48 shots through my 51 Navy. I was the only one there sun in the sky, not a breath of wind, colourful Autumn foliage in the trees, and smoke in the air marvellous!

Good start to the weekend.:)

fineredmist
October 10, 2008, 04:13 PM
I was a "on the frame" loader until I used a off frame tool. Yes it is a pain to remove the cylinder but it is so much easier and cleaner off frame. The caps go on quickly and lubing the chambers is a breeze, give it a try you might like it.

sundance44s
October 10, 2008, 04:21 PM
Nothing like wipeing things off while the cylinder is out ..I use very little crisco most of the time just the first chamber to be fired on a Remington..so wipeing the cylinder pin while the cylinder is out does keep my revolvers running smooth for hours of shooting fun ....good cheap easy relaxing fun ..nothing like it Fall is cap and ball weather for me .

WARDER
October 16, 2008, 03:59 AM
hi,always load your colt with the cylinder in place , powder , filler , ball and a smear of lithium grease over the ball .use about 15 grains of powder for a .36or 21 grains for a .44 topped of with semolima as a filler to bring the ball close to the top of the cylinder. GOOD SHOOTING

armoredman
October 16, 2008, 04:25 AM
I haven't had a chance to try my 1858 out yet, but I'll do it on frame, no off frame loading device yet.

Smokin_Gun
October 16, 2008, 07:05 AM
Is that prerecorded Ward? LoL!:neener:

SG

madcratebuilder
October 16, 2008, 07:44 AM
I'm a in-frame loader. I would consider on off frame for my Remingtons if I spare cylinders. I don't think I would put the caps on before inserting the cylinder in the frame, maybe I'm just to nervous in the service.

6Gun4Fun
October 16, 2008, 09:49 AM
I developed my loader with the express purpose of increasing the accuracy of my Old Army. I had tried the other loaders out there, but they all had one shortcoming, repeatability. I did my share of reloading and wanted to bring that same consistency to the loading bench. I could control the powder charge and even weigh each bullet, but to seat each bullet to the same depth in the cylinder chamber was a variable and subjective to "feel".
With The Triple P loader, I know that each time I lower the loading lever, it's seating the ball/bullet to the same depth every time, consistency at the loading bench directly effects accuracy at the firing line. Sure it's a bit more time consuming to load off frame, but as previous posters have mentioned, it gives one the opportunity to clean the firearm before shooting again, which also effects the accuracy of a firearm over prolonged periods of shooting.

BHP FAN
October 16, 2008, 11:09 AM
I always buy spare cylinders for whatever is my current BP revolver,so it's a natural to load off frame.I had two Remmies and six cylinders,at one time.Currently I have a Rogers and Spencer with one percussion cylinder,and one for cartridges.

mykeal
October 16, 2008, 04:28 PM
I know that each time I lower the loading lever, it's seating the ball/bullet to the same depth every time, consistency at the loading bench directly effects accuracy at the firing line

I was under the impression that consistency in the amount of compression was more important than fore and aft location of the ball in the chamber. If there is any variability in the amount of powder thrown by your measure (even as little as 0.25 grains) loading to the same location will result in varying amounts of compression from load to load. Or is location more important than powder compression? Do you have any comparative data?

Mike 56
October 16, 2008, 04:54 PM
I like to load off the frame i fitted the wedge on my Colt it just took a few passes with a file and then i polished it with a stone now it just takes a tap with a screwdriver butt and the wedge is out. It is no slower than taking the cylinder out of my Remington.

Mike

6Gun4Fun
October 17, 2008, 12:52 AM
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. The volume in the chamber is a constant, The ball diameter is a theoretical constant. Once you come to realize how deep you need to seat the ball in the chamber to achieve the desired pressure on your selected charge, the only variable becomes the amount of powder placed in each chamber of the cylinder. You simply lock the seating depth and let the loader do the work for you, it will seat the ball to the same depth every time.

J.T. Gerrity
October 17, 2008, 01:04 AM
"How deep you seat the ball" for maximum accuracy would be slightly under the face of the cylinder, including filler, if used. Mykeal is correct; unless you're weighing out your charges, they will be inconsistantly compressed, no matter where you seat the ball.

6Gun4Fun
October 17, 2008, 01:09 AM
That's exactly my preferred loading method, just below flush from the face of the cylinder, 35 gr under a lubed wad with my Old Army.

WARDER
October 17, 2008, 03:18 AM
for good accurasy in an old army at 25 mtrs we find 21grs powder topped with filler and ball seated just below the cylinder rim topped with lithium grease-- perfect .forget your lubed wads there rubbish for whimps.

6Gun4Fun
October 17, 2008, 09:39 AM
I hunt deer at close range and want maximum penetration on impact. I can sacrifice a little on accuracy to insure a humane harvest.

6Gun4Fun
October 17, 2008, 09:40 AM
Someone here has already done a study on shooting with lubed wads and has proven that wads reduce fouling without the use of messy over the ball lube. No whimpy womans loads will do for hunting when it comes to humanely harvesting bambi. 21 grs may work well for you cutting paper Warder, but I don't eat wood pulp...LOL!

WARDER
October 17, 2008, 10:40 AM
hi 6GUN,using those loads with a dopy wad it sounds as if you don't eat much BAMBI either. LOL

6Gun4Fun
October 17, 2008, 10:51 AM
Truth is, I had about 400 lbs of venison go through my freezer in the past year! Sure tastes better then tree bark!

6Gun4Fun
October 17, 2008, 11:05 AM
Warder, I just went to your profile to see who you are. Your profile says you are a new member and haven't made any friends yet.....somehow that didn't surprise me.

WARDER
October 17, 2008, 11:09 AM
6gun will you be my friend ????????[/COLOR]

Voodoochile
October 17, 2008, 11:10 AM
If I hadn't bought the loader from Powder Inc. a while ago I'd buy one of these for the same price that I had paid.

Wads are nice & admittedly help in accuracy in 2 of my pieces but 2 others don't seem to like em as much as going Naked & grease over ball or just my lubed conical, it really depends on the revolver on what it's going to like for accuracy, for instance my little Pietta '58 with it's 5.5" barrel likes a 30gr. FFFG charge, lighter loads seem to open the groups up a little where my 1860 likes a light 24gr. FFFG load.

6Gun4Fun
October 17, 2008, 11:18 AM
When I load the .220 gr hollow points I have to back down to 30 gr of powder and lose the wad. It didn't seem to change the POI at all.

WARDER
October 17, 2008, 11:42 AM
all jokeing aside has anyone tried buffalo bullet co's ,< ballets > in their revolvers ,there shaped like a elongated ball about 200grn in .45 very pricy over here but supposed to be good .

Voodoochile
October 17, 2008, 12:17 PM
Never tried the Buffalo Ballets because of their cost but tis why I cast my own.

Yeah in my '58 with the 5.5" barrel it likes the 220 grainers over 30gr. FFFG Goex which produces about what a Schofield round would do, my Uberti '58 as had a max charge of 36gr. FFFG in it with a 220 grainer in it "nose of the bullet very close to the end of chamber" & it really rocks to what I think it to be close to what a .45 Colt load will produce.
Oh & like I said I don't see the need to use a wad when I use my conicals.

6Gun4Fun
October 17, 2008, 12:40 PM
I didn't know it until recently that the lee .220 hollow poing .456 for the Old Army hasn't been available for some time now. Glad I found one when I did, the hollow point profile flattens the top of the bullet, and it won't scrape on the forcing cone at 30 gr. of black.

Voodoochile
October 17, 2008, 12:48 PM
Are you loading this in a ROA or a Remington copy?
My Pietta '58 will take the 220gr. Lee Conical which drops at 222gr. & squeeze 36gr. FFFG but will almost touch the barrel, another reason I use 30gr. FFFG.

WARDER
October 17, 2008, 12:57 PM
with out a word of a lie i found that by turning the conical bullets upsidedown in my ruger they grouped better than the proper way up ?.Has anyone tried it .

6Gun4Fun
October 17, 2008, 01:03 PM
Ruger Old Army 7 1/2 inch stainless

Voodoochile
October 17, 2008, 01:21 PM
I tried the upside down bullet once & didn't like it, it shot OK but I didn't trust it for damaging my '60 Army.

I had another guy tell me that the Lee .456 shouldn't work in my '58 till I told him that I had Reamed the chambers to .451 to be .0015 over the grove diameter of the barrel.

WARDER
October 17, 2008, 01:29 PM
i reamed the cylinder of my san marco walker took about 15 thou from it great improvement i am also now putting a .390 ball into my pocket police uberti by the way i got one of the last stainless pocket police to come from uberti,they dont make them any more i have it about 20 years now still shoots great .ill try and get a picture on for you to see

Smokin_Gun
October 17, 2008, 03:15 PM
with out a word of a lie i found that by turning the conical bullets upsidedown in my ruger they grouped better than the proper way up ?.Has anyone tried it .

Yup about 5 years ago...out of a Colt Dragoon's Chambers either way the groups sucked in comparison to Round Ball loads... The 255gr soft lead flat nose in a .45 Colt 35gr of real BP fffg worked xlint....That's my load for cart boolits...Other than that I prefer R.B. to Dum Dums.

SG

Tomahawk674
October 17, 2008, 06:52 PM
So reguarding the easy of loading bp, how come they haven't come out with powder pellets in .36 cal size?

they could have 3 variants like 15, 20 and 25 grains. I'd love to have that.

Oddman
October 18, 2008, 03:13 AM
I'am in the market for a good quality loader for my 1847 Walker, If it works with the Walker I'll take one. thanks

1858rem
October 19, 2008, 12:42 AM
i think the ball-ets are 160-180g:scrutiny:

WARDER
October 19, 2008, 04:14 AM
do you guys not understand muzzel loading is for fun, load like it is was supposed to be done otherwise just shoot those brass things with lead in there nose . Bythe way Smokin-gun your nearly there .

Smokin_Gun
October 19, 2008, 01:38 PM
:evil:

SG

Smokin_Gun
October 19, 2008, 01:39 PM
Rims???:neener:

SG

If you enjoyed reading about "BP pistol loading." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!