Fine Tuning a Remington Navy on the Remington Army frame.

Status
Not open for further replies.
DSC07314.JPG

I never did get great results with the KCRB, or the Kid's modified Remington type bullet. However, I think it needs more shooting, and it seemed to like the lube discs underneath it. I think it will also make a good bullet for a combustible cartridge, with the lube discs underneath it, and the bullet hot-dipped in a lube that it likes. And, shooting it over 26 grains of 3fg, and smashing it down to the max to get it in the cylinder, wasn't "fair" to the bullet. It will require a little more shooting.
 
Last edited:
DSC07315.JPG

Okay, I continue to be most impressed by the "KREAL", or the Kid's custom bullet designed somewhat loosely along the lines of the LEE "REAL" The KREAL seems to be the most consistently accurate bullet. It carries a lot of lube, and does not seem to be the least bit "fussy" about lubes or wads. The other thing I like about it, is that it loads the fastest, drops into the chamber right up to the front driving band, so there's no fussing and fiddling with placing the rammer on the bullet. It would be pretty hard to get it to "cant" while loading, which is the #1 accuracy killer with bullets in a revolver.

Also notice that going from 3fg to 4fg didn't open the group up much, but man did it pop off! It's really producing some hoss power with the 4fg, very noticeably. Going from 2fg to 3fg in a pistol is sometimes hardly noticeable, but I tells ya, she really popped with the 4f. And didn't shoot left, or right, or way high or low. Just a tiny bit higher. I think it will stay on the plate out to 50 yards at least. I will not miss having my 1860 with me with that load.

So there's some observations so far. The amount of shooting I'm doing is kind of poor for any real "scientific" observations, but the caps and powder is running low. Thanks for listening!

Edit: interesting observation: Normally, even with light fouling, the first patch comes out black. Cleaning the barrel after shooting the group with 4fg, first patch came out very clean, just kind of a grey color. ? Lightest fouling I've ever seen.
 
Last edited:
Noticeable increase in zip and boom. The interesting thing about that is that when one switches from 2fg to 3fg, or visa versa, there's not a lot of difference, and fouling is about the same. I suppose the decrease in grain size is more between 3fg and 4fg, than it is between 2f and 3f. No duh? Did you find a dramatic decrease in fouling?
 
More recoil with 4F has been noted but not more velocity compared to 3F.
Hellgate posted:

"Get the first edition of the Lyman Blackpowder Handbook (1975) and it gives loads using 4Fg in the C&Bs. There is not much difference in pressure or velocity between 3F & 4F GOEX. For example in the 36 cal '51 Navy with the 81gr .375 ball:
FFFg 14gr=752fps @6900 LUP pressure for 102 ft/lbs energy
FFFg 26gr=1079fps @ 8600 LUP pressure for 209 ft/lbs energy
FFFFg 14grs=884fps @6900 LUP pressure for 140 ft/lbs energy
FFFFg 26grs=1033fps @8820 LUP pressure for 192 ft/lbs energy

LUP= Lead Units of Pressure Copper units of pressure (CUP was inadequate to measure the lower BP breech pressures)

Note that for the lighter charges 4F is better, for the heavier charges it loses steam compared to 3F. Go figure." --->>> SEE POST #2 https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/4f-vis-a-vie-3f-bp-for-revolver.521361/#post-6471921

Also interesting is a post by orpington:

"I am currently reading The Complete Guide to Handloading, by Philip B. Sharpe. Today, I read Chapter XXVII, 'Obsolete Black Powder and Foreign Cartridges'. In the third to the last paragraph of that chapter, which was written in 1937, Sharpe writes the following:

"If you must use black powder, use the proper size for best results. For heavy rifle cartridges requiring 50 or more grains of powder, use granulation Fg or FFg; for lighter loads use FFFg; for handgun cartridges, FFFFg is practical. Most handgun shooters have trouble chiefly because they use too large a granulation of powder."

Has what was considered FFFFg in 1937, and what is considered FFFFg now changed over the years? If it is identical, it appears we should be using FFFFg powder in revolvers, instead of the more commonly used FFFg. Any thoughts? The author is certainly very credible, so I think he might be correct in his assertion. ?????????" --->>> SEE LAST POST #27 https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...wder-usage-other-than-flintlock.746331/page-2
 
Wow that is interesting. I guess I'll have to shoot some over the chronograph, one of these days. Don't see any reasons why his assertions would not be correct.
 
Interesting that recoil was increased but not velocity, I don't have a chronograph and not likely to get one, I just know it felt different from using 3f powder.
 
Im interested in seeing what the chrono readings would be for the conicals with 3f and/or 4f of an energetic powder such as Swiss, old eynsford, or triple 7. I know when i use 20-25 grains of old eynsford i can feel the difference compared to regular goex.
 
DSC07329.JPG
18 Kid Custom Colt Bullets cartridged up, dipped and ready to go. 20 grains 4fg. With the roads clearing up in the mountains, I think I'll be spending more time wandering the wilderness, than shooting. And, caps are getting low. The Kid's bullets ROCK. All the ones he sent me worked great. All things considered, I'll probably keep the Remington loaded with the KREAL's, and the cap pouch filled with them. I'll use the 24 grain flask and spout to throw charges of 4fg.

The KCCB's in the cartridges will be carried for that last-stand, the moment of truth, the final hour, surrounded by wolves, when my life is fading fast, and I wonder, "how long can this kind of fun last". !!!

So yeah, wrapping this exercise up. Again, all the bullets shot great. The KCCB sometimes showed accuracy equal to the KREAL, but the KREAL was more consistently accurate, and faster to load.

I liked the Kid Custom Remington Bullet, KCRB, but it requires a lube disc, so it's really best in a cartridge. I really have trouble getting a lube disc in those paper cartridges. Fumble Fingers! So the KCCB works better for me in the cartridge, as it does not like any more lube than the lube groove holds.

The Kaido was/is a great bullet, and loads well. When maximum weight is desired, it's probably the best choice. But, it was not as accurate for me as the Kid's bullets. On the other hand, I did not shoot many of them. I'll do that as time goes by.

Anyhow, thanks to the Kid, I have more confidence with the Remington New Model Army-Navy caliber than ever. And of course, it never jammed or malfunctioned, or even hiccupped with any of these different bullets, caps, wads, powder charges or lubes. With any of the bullets and a full charge of 4fg, she's certainly not a Pop-gun.

The Remington says: "Thanks for listening!"
 
arcticap said:
More recoil with 4F has been noted but not more velocity compared to 3F.
Hellgate posted:

"Get the first edition of the Lyman Blackpowder Handbook (1975) and it gives loads using 4Fg in the C&Bs. There is not much difference in pressure or velocity between 3F & 4F GOEX. For example in the 36 cal '51 Navy with the 81gr .375 ball:
FFFg 14gr=752fps @6900 LUP pressure for 102 ft/lbs energy
FFFg 26gr=1079fps @ 8600 LUP pressure for 209 ft/lbs energy
FFFFg 14grs=884fps @6900 LUP pressure for 140 ft/lbs energy
FFFFg 26grs=1033fps @8820 LUP pressure for 192 ft/lbs energy

LUP= Lead Units of Pressure Copper units of pressure (CUP was inadequate to measure the lower BP breech pressures)

Note that for the lighter charges 4F is better, for the heavier charges it loses steam compared to 3F. Go figure." --->>> SEE POST #2 https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/4f-vis-a-vie-3f-bp-for-revolver.521361/#post-6471921

Also interesting is a post by orpington:

"I am currently reading The Complete Guide to Handloading, by Philip B. Sharpe. Today, I read Chapter XXVII, 'Obsolete Black Powder and Foreign Cartridges'. In the third to the last paragraph of that chapter, which was written in 1937, Sharpe writes the following:

"If you must use black powder, use the proper size for best results. For heavy rifle cartridges requiring 50 or more grains of powder, use granulation Fg or FFg; for lighter loads use FFFg; for handgun cartridges, FFFFg is practical. Most handgun shooters have trouble chiefly because they use too large a granulation of powder."

Has what was considered FFFFg in 1937, and what is considered FFFFg now changed over the years? If it is identical, it appears we should be using FFFFg powder in revolvers, instead of the more commonly used FFFg. Any thoughts? The author is certainly very credible, so I think he might be correct in his assertion. ?????????" --->>> SEE LAST POST #27 https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...wder-usage-other-than-flintlock.746331/page-2
Click to expand...


And Swiss was always packaged this way until more recently:

80624-E39-2-D0-E-4-C6-A-8825-A5-F889-DA3-E70.png

Only 4F is labeled as for pistols, and that’s what the few guys in Europe I’ve “spoken” to have said they use there.
 
Im also looking at getting a new mold for my wifes 36 to pep it up a tad. Im thinking of getting another accurate mold. The Kreals look like theyd deliver a good thump on something'. theres also another design that someine else already made on toms catalog i like. Its a rnfp heeled design weighing in at 135 grains.

But the thought of making a custom bullet is alluring to me as well.

Id like one anywhere from 130- 140 grains in weight.

Thank you for the write up on these boolits!
 
DSC07225.JPG
It's strange that a true Remington Navy has not been produced. Don't see why it would not sell well. Well, she may be a pig, but she's a pig with lipstick on. And that Army size cylinder, bored to .36, sure holds a lot of powder. I find it has a good feel and balance with the slightly shorter barrel. And I find that a pistol in the 40oz range, (My Miss Piggy is right on 40oz I believe) give or take one or two ounces, is still a comfortable carry. I start to feel the weight when they go over 41-42 ounce. On the other hand, anything 36 ounce and under is just about "un-noticeable" on the belt.
 
Ugly Sauce said:
View attachment 995635
It's strange that a true Remington Navy has not been produced. Don't see why it would not sell well. Well, she may be a pig, but she's a pig with lipstick on. And that Army size cylinder, bored to .36, sure holds a lot of powder. I find it has a good feel and balance with the slightly shorter barrel. And I find that a pistol in the 40oz range, (My Miss Piggy is right on 40oz I believe) give or take one or two ounces, is still a comfortable carry. I start to feel the weight when they go over 41-42 ounce. On the other hand, anything 36 ounce and under is just about "un-noticeable" on the belt.
Click to expand...
The Uberti Navy Remington is (or was...) Navy sized smaller frame, cylinder, etc. Over the years I’ve noticed that Uberti guns tended to be more faithful replicas of the originals, similarly to ASP, ASM, some others. My main beef with Pietta began with a comparison of their 1860 vs the original... their quality back then was nothing to squeal about either. They have made huge strides in QC and build very functional replicas.
 
DSC07225.JPG
My Uberti Remington Navy is on the Army frame and Cylinder, and it's an older production. It does have a shorter barrel, but the cylinder is identical to an Army cylinder I have kicking around, except for the size of the holes in it!!!
 
woodnbow said:
Well bless my soul... Uberti has discontinued the little Navy Remington. I should have kept that one too!
Click to expand...

You don't mean that Uberti discontinued their current Remington Navy with the 7.375" barrel, right?
I think that you're referring to a much older model with a smaller frame than their current one.
Dixie describes the current one as having a tapered octagon barrel and says it's N-SSA approved.

https://www.dixiegunworks.com/index...ct_name/RH0630+Uberti+Remington+Navy+Revolver
 
The one I have has a 6.5" barrel, exact length. It is the original factory length barrel. No taper. Is that true of the older guns? As mentioned many times, it was a sample gun, it was not purchased until I got it from the guy who got it from Uberti's daughter. Did the older production pistols have a longer barrel? I'm guessing I obtained this one about 35 years ago, but I don't know how long my friend had it before that. It was still "New In The Box" when I got it. He had never fired it. !!!!

JCooperfan, you are right, it is overbuilt for a .36", and most people probably did opt for the same gun but in bigger caliber. That would be a logical choice when you had a choice between both guns laying side by side, and you were not a .36" fan. The Remington New Model Army is a powerful revolver. But if you never knew better, as I didn't, it handles well, and carries well, not being over 40 ounces. Shooting slugs with full loads, it is decently powerful, and "wonderfully" accurate.
 
I was wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. The barrel on my pistol does have a taper to it. Dang...never noticed or thought about it before.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Ugly Sauce
  • Locked
Continued saga of the Sixty-Two.
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
sigwally
S
J-Bar
  • Locked
Range Report: Comparing Lubed Wads to Over-The-Ball Lube in a Ruger Old Army Revolver
Replies
9
Views
2K
Pyro
Pyro
Old No7
  • Locked
Shooting the "1858 Remington New Army" - Range Report
Replies
17
Views
2K
Oohrah!
Oohrah!
Ugly Sauce
  • Locked
50 yard range report Remington New Model Army-Navy Caliber
Replies
4
Views
204
Ugly Sauce
Ugly Sauce
Ugly Sauce
  • Locked
Hope for the 1862, I seemed to have done something right.
Replies
13
Views
883
Ugly Sauce
Ugly Sauce
Back
Top