The '62 is a tiny gun....

Status
Not open for further replies.
sigwally said:
The performance of 4f seems worth investigating. I will buy a pound of it next time. Would full power loads in my 1862 Police with 4f Goex be excessive for the smaller frame??
Click to expand...

As Woodnbow mentions, you can't get very much powder in a '62. 15-16 grains seems to be about it under a 130 grain slug in my pistol, I suppose you might get 20 grains under a ball with a thin wad. 15 grains under the slug in my '62 certainly does not produce much recoil, flash or blast. A little more than 3fg, but nothing that would indicate excessive zip and boom. Now in my Remington, 24-26 grains of 4fg under a heavy slug pops off with "authority" for sure.
 
nice cap n ball always thought of getting one just havent yet, also wife was looking over my shoulder asking where is the picture of the puppy.
 
I use close to 20 Goex grains of 3F under a decently tight fitting ball and an Ox-Yoke wonder wad in my Uberti 1862 Police. It seems a good snappy load and everything seats nice and firm on the ram rod with just enough ball clearance to work correctly. I could see a 130 bullt maxing out at 15 grains or so 4 F and it sounds the way to go with a bullet like that .
 
woodnbow said:
No... well. Not in my opinion. Full power being 15 grains or so?
Click to expand...


What I was planing on doing was adding as much black powder as possible where I can still seat a lubed wonder wad and ball, but barely. Then I was going to remove the nipple and weigh the powder. That would be my maximum load. I was going to do it this way because the 1862 Police cylinder is rather limited in it's capacity. So here is my question: Would this be safe to do with 4F ? How about the same max load with 777 ??
 
sigwally said:
What I was planing on doing was adding as much black powder as possible where I can still seat a lubed wonder wad and ball, but barely. Then I was going to remove the nipple and weigh the powder. That would be my maximum load. I was going to do it this way because the 1862 Police cylinder is rather limited in it's capacity. So here is my question: Would this be safe to do with 4F ? How about the same max load with 777 ??
Click to expand...
Also, Goon says the Colts design is as strong as the Remington. I tend to agree. I’m working on wearing out a few 1860’s. I’m 75 this year and afraid I might not get it done! :rofl:
 
I keep reading almost everywhere that it is impossible to "overload" any modern black powder revolver. This is, of course, with black powder or any commercial substitute. Just wanted to run it by the experienced Brain Trust here. As General George Patton used to say "Tanks!"
 
I always load so that the bullet or ball sits a "comfortable" distance below the chamber mouth. As I use my revolvers in the field, I don't want to find myself reloading and discover one load just won't go all the way down. DANG! That would jam up the gun.

A lubed wonder wad will contaminate the powder over time, not a concern for a days shooting at the range. But, you can save quite a bit of powder space by using the Kid's wad method, which is a thin paper-towel lubed wad sammiched between two thin milk carton/paper plate wads or discs. That will let you load a bit more powder, but, there's just so much you will get in those tiny chambers. However, 15-16 grains of 4fg under a 130 grain bullet pops off pretty good for me, and leaves plenty of "wiggle room" in case a load seats high for some reason. I'm guessing you might get 17-18 (19?) grains under a ball, with a very thin Outlaw Kid type wad. That would leave a mark, and make a noise, for that small of a gun.
 
You don’t want your bullet seated flush with the chamber mouth as gas cutting will eat it. Omnivore on the 1858 forum found you need about 1/16” of clearance to keep this from happening. He mostly seems to use wide meplat bullets so maybe a RN like the Lee (or a ball) is saved from this.
 
Am I the only one who believes that using max loads of 4f behind a heavy slug is going to wear these small pocket frame guns out in short order. These are not large frame Colt or Remington navy models. If you want to loosen your arbor or widen the wedge slot to the point of rattling then do this on a regular basis if you don't use only moderate amounts of 4f to produce moderate 3f equivalent loads (preferably on the less hot side) for decent ballistics appropriate for the caliber and size of the frame.

There are old Lyman manuals with 4f load data out there.

I am far from being a fan of powder puff loads in fact I hate them. It peeves me to hear people preach using these grossly underpowered loads and implying others are fools for wanting loads that don't bounce off of soft wood but there is a point of diminishing returns. Having hot loads on standby in case of an emergency or a few test runs I can understand, but using a steady diet of hot loads in these little revolvers may not be a good idea.
 
Considering that the '62 will only hold about 15 grains of 4fg behind a 130 grain slug, maybe a couple more, I wouldn't/couldn't consider that a max load, other than that's about all the powder you are going to get in that tiny chamber. From that perspective, it's not really a max load, other than it's the maximum amount of pixie dust you can get in it. Pressure-wise, it's actually kind of "powder puff". I wouldn't expect a '62 to shoot loose with that load.
 
Has anyone done any chronograph work with the 1862 using 777? A full load of Triple Seven behind a ball should get this gun into the "Maybe for self defense in case of emergency / maybe for coyotes if needed" territory... I think. Of course it would not be the FIRST choice in either situation, but strange and unexpected things come upon us all without warning.
 
There’s a fellow who chronographed .36 cal loads using 20 grns of 3F Olde E IIRC, energetic powder regardless, with his 110 grn bullet that’s roughly the length of a ball and found it produced low end .380 ACP performance. This was in an 1851, but it’s what a maxed load in a ‘62 would be.
 
sigwally said:
Has anyone done any chronograph work with the 1862 using 777? A full load of Triple Seven behind a ball should get this gun into the "Maybe for self defense in case of emergency / maybe for coyotes if needed" territory... I think. Of course it would not be the FIRST choice in either situation, but strange and unexpected things come upon us all without warning.
Click to expand...

I think that 15-17 grains or 4fg under a 130 grain slug, or slightly heavier if it was short enough, will get the attention of a coyote, wolf or cougar. As my one and only chain-fire occurred with T7, the one and only time I ever tried it, I'd not load that in a revolver again. Or anything else for that matter. Perhaps 4fg Swiss would be the "hot" ticket. ?!! A short 125 grain slug, with a wide metplat might be the ticket for the 1862. If one could get 20 grains under such a slug, I think it would be in the zone for protection.

I'm somewhat confident in my 15 grains under a 130 grain slug, I carry it mainly as a small game/survival gun, and always pair it up with a powerful rifle, or musket, (I would not pair it up with my bow, or a .22 rifle, etc.) but the unexpected does come unexpectedly, and I would press it into service if I couldn't get the rifle/musket reloaded quickly enough. With it's high level of accuracy, I think I could get a coyote/wolf's/cougar's attention with it, and put out some discouraging hurt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Ugly Sauce
  • Locked
Saga of the new '62 begins.
Replies
23
Views
1K
Pocket
Pocket
frontiergander
  • Locked
JSG SP in my 1860 Army Colt
Replies
7
Views
1K
Crawdad1
Crawdad1
Ugly Sauce
  • Locked
New Look for the DGG 1860 "Sheriff's Model".
Replies
2
Views
253
Ugly Sauce
Ugly Sauce
Ugly Sauce
  • Locked
Hope for the 1862, I seemed to have done something right.
Replies
13
Views
882
Ugly Sauce
Ugly Sauce
Old No7
  • Locked
1860 + 1862 + Memorial Day = ...................
Replies
7
Views
780
LonesomePigeon
L
Back
Top