Uberti 1860 Army .44 Ballistics

Status
Not open for further replies.

gtrgy888

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2021
Messages
355
Location
Western US
Today’s shoot with the Uberti 1860 gave some interesting data about the power difference between Old Eynsford (a fairly stout powder) and 777 (an even stouter powder), as well as some conclusions about the maximum power historically possible from the .44.

The following are velocity and energy figures for 38 grains of OE (a full chamber):

.454 140 grain roundball:
1049 fps, 342 fpe

220 grain Kaido Ojama conical:
943 fps, 434 fpe

Those figures put a maximally loaded 1860 comfortably in the same power range as 9 mm or .40 S&W.

To approximate this same power range only required 29 grains of 777 by volume, which means that powder is much hotter than advertised. 777 is more like 25% hotter than premium black powder when measured by volume in the .44. Since I don’t see any reason to surpass 1,000 fps in an open top Colt, I recommend loading 777 to a maximum of 28 grains.

These results indicate a significant shift in what kind of ballistics were seen as necessary from the 1860’s to the present. The Navy .36 revolvers were loaded to .380 acp ballistics with maximal loading and widely regarded as adequate. The 1860 Army .44 was designed to be capable of stopping a horse in battle despite its maximal loading having only moderate power by contemporary standards. This charge was also reduced by Colt twice: first from 60 grains down to 50 grains from the Walker to the Dragoon pistol, then from 50 down to 40 (compressed) for the New Model Army. Often these guns were loaded much less than their maximum, which would tend to confirm that much less power than currently assumed is ballistically adequate for the roles these guns served (personal defense, hunting, warfare).
 
Sure wish we could find someone that DOES want to know the maximums . . . might come in handy for hunting hogs and such . . .

(Not being ugly, just curious as to the maximums . . . I like pretty warm 45 C loads and so do my 60's)


Mike
 
Sure wish we could find someone that DOES want to know the maximums . . . might come in handy for hunting hogs and such . . .

(Not being ugly, just curious as to the maximums . . . I like pretty warm 45 C loads and so do my 60's)


Mike

It’s mostly historical interest. There’s so much myth about these guns I felt it would be useful to know the likely upper bound. It also informs better loading practices. An even 30 grains of 777 is a hair too hard for historical accuracy, at least according to my data. I’ll be testing historical paper cartridge ballistics as well to suss out what loadings would have been typical.
 
Last edited:
Yep, 9mm country, except it’s a .45 and that round ball is deadlier than most folks know. I’m convinced that in a social setting a 45 round ball will way outshine a 9mm ball (fmj) and probably some of the 9mm’s more modern projectiles. And a .45 flat point of around 200 grains is even better.
 
Incuding the myth about the requirement to kill a horse at (fill in a number) yards. That one has been repeated many times but no one has been able to document it as part of any criteria. But, it does sound good and it should have been included.

Kevin


Yes. I have searched for any such requirement issued by the Army Ordnance Board for the cap and ball revolvers, the “RFP” that gave us the Single Action Army and Colt 45 and the trials the eventually delivered us the 1911 and have never found a document stating the requirement. It seems a perfectly reasonable parameter and makes sense in the context of the times, but I would like to see it documented somewhere.
 
Yep, 9mm country, except it’s a .45 and that round ball is deadlier than most folks know. I’m convinced that in a social setting a 45 round ball will way outshine a

You’re right. Here’s two shots of 220 grain flatpoint conical moving 946 feet per second with 437 foot pounds energy. Notice it essentially pokes holes, slowly drains the water, and dumps most of the energy behind the target.
 
Last edited:
Yep, 9mm country, except it’s a .45 and that round ball is deadlier than most folks know. I’m convinced that in a social setting a 45 round ball will way outshine a 9mm ball (fmj) and probably some of the 9mm’s more modern projectiles. And a .45 flat point of around 200 grains is even better.

Here’s 2 shots of 140 grain .454 lead roundball moving 1,042 feet per second with 337 foot pounds energy. Notice that it either pops and immediately empties the water bottle and/or throws it a foot in the air and rains water all around. Despite less overall energy than the conical, I’m convinced more of it ends up in the target.
 
Last edited:


Here’s 2 shots of 140 grain .454 lead roundball moving 1,042 feet per second with 337 foot pounds energy. Notice that it either pops and immediately empties the water bottle and/or throws it a foot in the air and rains water all around. Despite less overall energy than the conical, I’m convinced more of it ends up in the target.

Which probably has to do with the velocity and the inefficiency of the round ball as a ballistic object. It sheds energy rapidly, in air, water, ballistic gelatin or whatever. Energy dump can be an important characteristic.
 
Yes. I have searched for any such requirement issued by the Army Ordnance Board for the cap and ball revolvers, the “RFP” that gave us the Single Action Army and Colt 45 and the trials the eventually delivered us the 1911 and have never found a document stating the requirement. It seems a perfectly reasonable parameter and makes sense in the context of the times, but I would like to see it documented somewhere.

I've never seen any documented evidence of it either. I know it was referred to as a "horse pistol", and that may be where the confusion lies. It wasn't meant to shoot horses, it was carried on a horse in a pommel holster.
 
I've never seen any documented evidence of it either. I know it was referred to as a "horse pistol", and that may be where the confusion lies. It wasn't meant to shoot horses, it was carried on a horse in a pommel holster.
Exactly. And Colt referred to Belt pistols and Pocket pistols so logic would dictate…
 
Walker is the "horse pistol" - 1860 is a "belt/holster pistol".
Yes. I’m familiar, kinda having a piss at some of the silliness.
Figured Colt didn’t intend to designate the target by giving it that name. Unless, since advice I’ve long heard from oldtimers was to aim for the belt buckle to hit center mass. Maybe 1860’s are meant to shoot belts, Dragoon’s and
Walkers were meant to shoot horses and the various 1848’s were designed to go after pockets. I’ll bet my last dollar there’s more than one pocket ventilated by a Wells Fargo. I’m not gonna buy a Police model too many kin in law enforcement.


Okay, okay, I’ll quit now.
 
Ive seen what a round ball will do to animals particularly copperheads and rattlesnakes.

It doesn't poke a hole in them it literally blows them up. I wait for them to coil up in the defensive posture, then I send an to rattlesnake heaven.

As soon as you hear the boom of the shot you see snake bits flying everywhere. Ive only ever been able to find a few pieces of said snake after they are shot in this manner with .454 RB
 
They do interesting things to Jackrabbits as well, such as going almost completely through the animal at 60 to 70 yards. Conical bullets on the other hand do not. Either projectile puts them down for the count, no messing around.
 
It's just a reminder that neither Colt, or the US Army ever called the model 1860 revolver a "horse pistol", that's all.

And there’s the fact that the term “horse pistol” preceded the first Colt revolver by at least 200 years. The term was in use during the English Civil War (and probably before then) to denote long barreled, large bore pistols used by cavalry.
 
Ive seen what a round ball will do to animals particularly copperheads and rattlesnakes.

It doesn't poke a hole in them it literally blows them up. I wait for them to coil up in the defensive posture, then I send an to rattlesnake heaven.

As soon as you hear the boom of the shot you see snake bits flying everywhere. Ive only ever been able to find a few pieces of said snake after they are shot in this manner with .454 RB

They do interesting things to Jackrabbits as well, such as going almost completely through the animal at 60 to 70 yards. Conical bullets on the other hand do not. Either projectile puts them down for the count, no messing around.
I’ve told a story here once or probably twice (us old guys often tell those stories over and over, this one I sometimes wish I didn’t remember) about an experience I had as a young sheriffs deputy. We were first on scene to a domestic shooting. The shooter was a small female, 40’s and the deceased was a 6’2” 200# male (big athletic cowboy). We’d been called there many times in the past and this last time she finally picked up the revolver and shot him at a range of less than 5 feet. Right through the button as they say. He didn’t take a single step. They are serious weapons and I believe people forget just how deadly they are.
 
I was watching one of the crime video shows and the scene was actual surveillance footage of a robber firing a shot at a convenience store clerk. He was using a NMA type C&B revolver and you could clearly see the huge plume of smoke with the discharge. It's been a few years and haven't seen it since. Just guessing, but I wonder if he was a convicted felon who decided to use that due to difficulty obtaining a cartridge gun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top