The Double Ball load.

[Ugly Sauce]

“Compensating” for more mass by increasing the powder charge can be dangerous. Look at any table of reloading recipes and you will see that as bullet weight goes up, maximum powder charge goes DOWN. The increased inertia of more projectile mass increases pressure by itself, without using more powder.

Now you are probably correct that some shooters in bygone times tried more powder under a double ball load, and I am sure you are knowledgeable enough not to do it yourself. Just trying to clarify that you were making a historical observation, not recommending the practice.

Truth. However, I think I can increase the charge within safe limits. I forget what a .570" ball weighs, around 270 I think, so that's a total of 540 grains when loading two, just a tad heavier than most Minnie's in that caliber. I have had this rifle since I was young and dumb, and it's been well proofed. I used to shoot a 570 grain minnie', and it took a lot of powder to keep it from tumbling. The Navy Arms "Zouave" that they took to Africa and shot very big game with, and famously wrote it up used very crazy heavy loads. I believed they even proofed it with insane loads, and failed to blow it up.

But no, I do not recommend the practice.

I guess the question would be what would be considered a heavy or maximum charge under a single ball. The answer to that would vary wildly depending on the rifle, and who one would ask. However, I'd not consider 80 grains under 540 grains of bullet weight to be a maximum charge. Anyhow, I will use my best judgement and try to stay safe. !!

 

[J-Bar]

There was a thread in this forum several years ago which described a reproduction Walker being blown up with a combination of heavy conical bullet and a middling blackpowder charge. I don’t remember the exact numbers involved, The discussion impressed me to be cautious if I use heavier than normal projectiles. Certainly there is more steel in a rifle chamber than in a Walker’s cylinder chambers, but I’m glad you are going to be cautious.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

The Walker thing is interesting. Many originals seemed to have blown up, and yeah it's even happened with reproductions. What's up with that?

With a reproduction, that's mysterious. If they are proofed, it's strange that the metal had such a flaw in it to cause a blow up. But sometimes I wonder if proofing doesn't set a gun up for failure. Produce a hairline crack or something. ? Then one has to wonder if it wasn't loaded with smokeless, but then claimed later or after the fact that is was black powder, the shooter not wanting to be shamed. ? I know sometimes people involved in firearms accidents are not truthful about what happened. A very famous incident recently we've all heard about where a SAA, in good condition, went off without pulling the trigger! (and killed someone)

Years ago in Washington State, in the early days of muzzle loading and ML seasons, a guy blew his fingers off when standing with his hands over the muzzle. It was a flintlock, and he claimed that his snowmobile suit caused a spark that set off his priming. So yeah, pistol and rifle blow-ups...one never knows what really happened.

Not only will I be cautious, I will be Mr. Caution himself.

 

[Jackrabbit1957]

I believe on the Walkers blowing up had to do with soft iron cylinders combined with loading a picket type conical bullet backwards, some guys apparently got confused as to which end went up when loading.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Unlike the following revolvers, I heard that the Walker was not supposed to be, or not intended to be loaded with as much powder as the chamber would hold. ? Doesn't the Dragoon have a shorter cylinder? If so, I wonder if that was to reduce powder capacity a bit.

Man, a Dragoon loaded with double-balls in each chamber. That would be a nasty up close weapon. !

 

[Lyle]

Unlike the following revolvers, I heard that the Walker was not supposed to be, or not intended to be loaded with as much powder as the chamber would hold. ? Doesn't the Dragoon have a shorter cylinder? If so, I wonder if that was to reduce powder capacity a bit.

Man, a Dragoon loaded with double-balls in each chamber. That would be a nasty up close weapon. !

Would it be a problem if two balls were loaded in one cylinder? If 20 grains of powder were put in a 36 with a round ball there would be room to add another ball.

 

[paul harm]

Ugly, what kind of charge you using in your 62 ? Back in the 70s I bought a H&H barrel [ 20" long ] , a proper lock, and built a Jaeger. Never could hit a barn with it till I upped the powder charge to 120grs of 2F. I would have thought a lesser charge would work in it. The barrel had round grove rifling, 1 in 66.

 

[drobs]

TC double ball load info:







Also not legal for Deer in Missouri but kind of fun to mess around with.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Ugly, what kind of charge you using in your 62 ? Back in the 70s I bought a H&H barrel [ 20" long ] , a proper lock, and built a Jaeger. Never could hit a barn with it till I upped the powder charge to 120grs of 2F. I would have thought a lesser charge would work in it. The barrel had round grove rifling, 1 in 66.

110 grains of 2fg is what my Jeager likes. It too is round bottom rifling, and is a Colerain barrel. I think it is also 1:66" or maybe 1:60"

I have never shot it with less than 100 grains, although it seemed to shoot "okay" with 100 grains. Also shot some .575" balls with denim patches over 110, not as okay but they stayed on a paper plate at 90 yards. !! My barrel is kind of tight and shoots .600" and .595"s balls best.

 

[paul harm]

Thanks. All my other rifles have Bill Large barrels and they're 1 in 48. My 62 is a H&H barrel and I have a .610 RB mold for mine. I believe the twist slower than 1/48 demand more powder for good groups.
Drobs, I don't know where you got that article from, but everything I've always read is the 1 in 48 is the one rate of rifling that can be used for PRB or bullets with good success. 1/48 or anything slower is good for PRB. Faster is good for bullets. It's what TC used for their caplock rifles seeing how they also designed the Maxie Ball. The one barrel could be used for PRB or their new bullet. If it came from TC, I'd really be surprised why they'd even print it.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Would it be a problem if two balls were loaded in one cylinder? If 20 grains of powder were put in a 36 with a round ball there would be room to add another ball.

Good question, and probably uncharted territory. My guess would be that a revolver cylinder/chamber leaves less room for error than the breech of a rifle barrel. ? I've also been wondering lately how exactly the Italians proof revolver cylinders. Since you can't over charge them with black powder do they use smokeless to achieve a specific pressure? or...what?

Another "thing", a .375 ball weighs around 80 grains, so two would be 160 grains. Some common .36 caliber bullets weigh in around 140 grains, (the Kaido for one) so a double ball would only be 20 grains over that. "Enough difference to make a difference"? Or spike pressures anywhere near a proof load? I don't thinks so, but..??

 

[Ugly Sauce]

TC double ball load info:

View attachment 1070976

View attachment 1070977

View attachment 1070978

Also not legal for Deer in Missouri but kind of fun to mess around with.

It is interesting that they suggest seating the first ball over the powder, and then seating the second one. As mentioned, I experienced a ball coming back up the barrel from compressed air between the balls. So I'm quite sure both balls should be rammed down together, or as a unit. Perhaps the shallow Minne' ball rifling of my .58" made for a better seal, whereas deeper rifling would allow the air to escape. ? A tight fitting ball in a smooth bore might even be "worse" as far compressing air between the balls, if loaded one after the other. Anyhow, don't anyone take that advice, always ram both balls down at once.

 

[paul harm]

My neighbor had a Bill Large barrel of 72 cal. He could push a PRB down the bore and sit down and a couple of seconds latter watch the ram rod come back up out of the barrel about 8". He was loading with the hammer down on the nipple so there was no where for the air to go. He changed his loading procedure. The problem was he made his own locks and set triggers. You had to set the trigger before you could cock the gun. He pulled the triggers and made them how we're use to seeing. He had double triggers, single set where as he should have had db triggers, db set for a hunting gun.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

I have an original rifle made sometime before 1846, percussion, and the set trigger (double triggers) has to be set before you cock the gun. I've always wondered why that was.

 

[paul harm]

Easier to make and inlet the right distance from the sear.

 

[bstogsdill]

Hi, just curious, has anybody shot 38 special 148 grain hollow base wad cutters from a 36 caliber? I was thinking about this as well as a double ball load. It's just a pistol for plinking or small game..
I have no idea if it would be accurate at all or not.

Cheers

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Not sure that a .357" bullet would fit well in the chamber, seems like it would be a very loose fit. If my Remington wasn't loaded up right now I'd check it and see. But I think it would be a loose fit. I think ramming it would deform the skirt quite a bit. If the skirt didn't deform, there would be air space in the chamber unless you filled the hollow base with powder, and then capped it with tissue paper or something before loading. It would be longer than even a 140 grain Kaido, reducing powder capacity.

Does not seem to me that a revolver chamber would/can hold enough powder to really reap any benefit with double balls. Possibly propelling 160 grains of lead (140 grain bullet usually being considered a heavy bullet in a .36 revolver) over maybe 10 grains of powder. ? Just a wild guess. I think a single ball over a full charge would cause more damage. ?

I don't think either would be worth the time, effort, powder and lead.

 

[Jackrabbit1957]

I played with the idea of a .357 bullet in a 36 rifle, its too small for the bore so I tried it patched. Accuracy was dismal, as in couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from the inside dismal. Ugly sauce is right, not worth wasting the powder and lead.