Best 44 revolver bullet mold?

I really like Eras Gone molds for the .36. I have no experience with their .44 molds but would anticipate equally good results. They, like everything else in this tiresome age, are completely unobtainable though.

A heeled bullet like the Eras Gone Johnston & Dow work very well and if you ever want to make paper cartridges they are ideal.

brewer12345 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

brewer12345 said:

This will be in a stainless uberti.

Click to expand...

Mine is also a stainless 1858 uberti

I also cast the Lee 200gr conicals. They will ring and swing a gong, I guarantee you!

I managed to get both 44 and 36 calibers of Eras Gone J&D molds late last fall. Initial attempts with 44 met with limited success. They were fiddly trying to load paper cartridges on gun with a Uberti 1860 Army.

brewer12345 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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).

brewer12345 said:

Not legal for big game in my state. Any critters I would shoot with this revolver would fall easily to a round ball.

Click to expand...

Might as well go with the cheap Lee RN mold unless you are looking for traditional.

It’s not legal in TX during the BP season as a primary but is acceptable as a secondary, during the regular season, and for non game animals such as hogs and axis, about the size of a mule deer.

I like these three but the one on the left, 195C from Accurate Molds, is my favorite for plinking.

Sized appropriately I don’t know why it wouldn’t.

brewer12345 said:

Stupid question: when you load a bullet are you trying to shave a ring of lead like with a round ball?

Click to expand...

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.

rodwha said:

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.

Click to expand...

I created my bullets to drop at .456” because I saw the Lee bullet for the ROA measured that somewhere. My next design will be .453-4” as I’d like it just a little over chamber diameter for my Ruger. My NMA has .449” chambers that are chamfered.

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.

Jackrabbit1957 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I agree with this statement. I think people just feel safer when seeing the shaved lead. I guess its more of a visual insurance of a gas seal. Too many youtube personalities have explained the lead ring thing ad a gas seal instead of actually teaching how the ball travels through the cylinder into the forcing cone and is then squeezed out the barrel end insuring accuracy

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.

Meant between cylinder and barrel.

Jackrabbit1957 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I like a chamfer on mine to keep that from happening. Who wants to fiddle with those little rings?

rodwha said:

I like a chamfer on mine to keep that from happening. Who wants to fiddle with those little rings?

Click to expand...

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."



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?

Onty said:

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?

Click to expand...

Fly reamed and chamfered my NMA cylinder. All I know is that it is now 0.449”. My ROA is still stock, but I’ve been contemplating a having the chambers deepened at which time I’d have it chamfered as well.

I’ve also been contemplating a hand reamer to take my NMA out closer to the .4525” bore it has, but those chamber walls look mighty thin as is. A fellow on another forum has to his, uses powder charges similar to mine using energetic powders as well and with bullets so he’s tried to reassure me. I load 0.457” balls and my 0.455-6” bullets in it and they load quite easily much like you stated.

Coffee has been taken from my diet for a bit so I’ll check out your link on chamfering angles in a bit. Thanks for posting that!