brewer12345
Member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,756
This would be a an 1858. Anyone got a favorite bullet mold? Got the round ball mold, just wondering if there is one worth looking into for bullets.
This would be a an 1858. Anyone got a favorite bullet mold? Got the round ball mold, just wondering if there is one worth looking into for bullets.
I have the lee conical mold that spits em out .456 and 220 grains. They really liven up my old 1860s and my 1858. They shoot almost as accurate as Roundball though YMMV. They also Load and shoot well on my pietta 1860 and my uberti 1858. I have changed my rammer on my pietta 1860 and havent tried to load them with the stock rammer. They are pretty stout boolits and i would not run them in a brass framed get-up
This will be in a stainless uberti.
Mine is also a stainless 1858 uberti
This would be a an 1858. Anyone got a favorite bullet mold? Got the round ball mold, just wondering if there is one worth looking into for bullets.
Best bullet would depend on the usage. I’m a hunter so mine must wear a wide meplat so none of the above mentioned bullets would work for me. I create my own designs using Accurate Molds and intend on making a final universal bullet to use in my Pietta NMA and ROA having found their more accurate hunting loads (started at 25 grns of 3F energetic powder) and want to fill in most of the excess with lead after I’ve nailed down their loads (have a new measure that allows me to adjust by 2.5 grns).
Not legal for big game in my state. Any critters I would shoot with this revolver would fall easily to a round ball.
Stupid question: when you load a bullet are you trying to shave a ring of lead like with a round ball?
It’s not necessary like with a ball that needs a long enough bearing surface to create a friction fit. It’s wasted lead on a bullet.
Its not necessary to shave lead on a ball either, none of my revolvers shave lead. I am really curious as to when this lead ring thing became a requirement to shoot a round ball, if its compressed into the chamber how is it gonna chainfire?? My thoughts are chain fires occur at the other end.
Amen, I want all the of the weight left on the ball plus I've had those silly lead rings bind the cylinder by getting trapped between the cylinder and recoil shield. That by itself was incentive to put a stop to the ball shaving.
Extract from SHOOTING THE BLACK POWDER REVOLVER, http://www.geojohn.org/BlackPowder/bps2.html :I like a chamfer on mine to keep that from happening. Who wants to fiddle with those little rings?
Extract from SHOOTING THE BLACK POWDER REVOLVER, http://www.geojohn.org/BlackPowder/bps2.html :
"Chamfering the chambers does three things for you. First: instead of shaving off a lot of lead and ending up with an undersized, and perhaps unsymmetrical ball, the ball is ‘swagged’ into the hole, thus making it possible to have a gas tight seal (assuming no trapped powder grains). Second: because you aren't cutting lead, but are swaging the ball in place (with just a very thin ring of lead shaved off), the rammer force is usually noticeably less. Third: because some or all of the balls in your cylinder won't be undersized or unsymmetrical by having been cut, each ball should fit the bore and engage the rifling better. When a ball fits the bore and engages the rifling properly, you should get a much more precise shot."
View attachment 996223
Considering that author used 90° countersink, 45° per side, it doesn't look as the best so called "drawing angle".
Please see article THEORY OF WIREDRAWING https://www.antaac.org.mx/assets/10.-theory-of-wiredrawing.pdf , diagram on page #8. Diagram shows minimum reduction value 10%, so for minimum force, optimum (assuming included) angle is 5°.. If we take for example Ruger Old Army, pushing bullet/ball .457" dia into chamber .452" dia, this is reduction of about 1%. So, I would say that 5° cone (2.5° chamfer) is OK per this article
Sir, did you post that all your revolvers are chamfered with 5° cutting tool? If so, is that 5° per side or included?