Cap and Ball Velocity
- Thread starter thealchemist
- Start date
Ugly Sauce
Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2020
- Messages
- 6,170
It was always my understanding that the .45's (rifles) would achieve 2000fps.
Not to mention you can't get 50 grains of BP in a reproduction revolver - well at least not a 36. A Walker with a 9" barrel and 45grs of powder gets up around 1000fps at the muzzle. Regular Colts or NMAs top out around 37 grs of powder. Bind the action ? Just pop the cylinder out, clean the axle and hole and you're all set to go.
Palladan44
Member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2020
- Messages
- 1,897
All these years, never chronod' my front stuffers.
My best guess is my .50 Lyman great plains rifle with patched ball and a regular target load of 70 grains of Triple Seven FFF does the 175gr (or so) lead ball around 1700 fps
I'm guessing the hunting charge of 80 grains is probably doing 1,900 fps or better.
These are just guesses. Ill give it a try and see how good my guesses are.
My best guess is my .50 Lyman great plains rifle with patched ball and a regular target load of 70 grains of Triple Seven FFF does the 175gr (or so) lead ball around 1700 fps
I'm guessing the hunting charge of 80 grains is probably doing 1,900 fps or better.
These are just guesses. Ill give it a try and see how good my guesses are.
Cacas ex Fortuna
member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2022
- Messages
- 63
Sure hope so, Mine does 2030fps quite regularly.
I have a horn tip measure with a pin thru the opening where the standard (1633fps) load is.
Fill it to the top, and 2033fps happens.
45 Caliber, swamped and stress relieved Rice 42 inch barrel.
Ugly Sauce
Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2020
- Messages
- 6,170
Yes, a 42" barrel would be super-efficient. No problem producing top velocities I bet. That pin-thing is a great idea. I have an original long-rifle, (kind of a Tennessee "poor boy" style) along with it's original horn and measure. The measure is small, I suspect one measure was used for small game, and two measures worth for deer and people. But I'm just guessing.
Ugly Sauce
Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2020
- Messages
- 6,170
Yep I always put off shooting the ML's over the chronograph, as I have to get back much further and then get nervous about shooting it. !!!! But I should do that. I have mostly large bores, .58, .62, and .75" musket, and would be curious to know. I have a TC .50 cal, and shoot 85 grains of 2fg Swiss under the "Great Plains" 385 grain bullet. Of course that freight train don't need much velocity, but suspect it's traveling along at a brisk trot. Same with the 456 grain REAL out of the .58's, same 85 grain powder charge. (one measure fits all my .58's!) The barrel on my 1861 is at least 40", so I bet I'm getting good velocity out of that.
woodnbow
Member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2007
- Messages
- 2,070
He sure makes a fine barrel doesn’t he? I have a couple of his. A .45 match grade bullet barrel and a .54 ball barrel. Both are very good shooters, easy to clean, etc. and fairly priced.
woodnbow
Member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2007
- Messages
- 2,070
After I killed my Chrony F1 with a .54 caliber wad they suggested I make a shield of cardboard to prevent a repeat. I’ve never worried much about hitting it with bullets so I was surprised to learn that the screen would crack after an impact from a wool wad and doubly so to learn that it’s a pretty common occurrence. (Or maybe the customer services lady was trying to help me feel like less of a dope… it worked temporarily…)
Ugly Sauce
Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2020
- Messages
- 6,170
Heck, I put a bullet in my first one. A friend insisted I shoot his pocket .32 over it, because I wouldn't let him, lest he shoot my Chrony. So I shot it myself. Dang. Dumb little gun, I could have told him the velocity just by looking at the box and subtracting 100fps. !!!! But, that was better than him shooting it, and not paying for it. As it was, I had only myself to blame. I didn't shoot it at a target first, and verify where the sights were looking.
Ugly Sauce
Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2020
- Messages
- 6,170
Paul R Zartman
Contributing Member
And a little to the right...or was that lower left....
Ugly Sauce
Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2020
- Messages
- 6,170
It was ten inches low, windage was perfect. 
woodnbow
Member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2007
- Messages
- 2,070
Far be it from me to make sport of another’s misfortune… unless I’ve done equal or worse…It was ten inches low, windage was perfect.
J-Bar
Member
Trivia:
Colt experimented with a .40 caliber 1851 Navy. Four were made. #1 was on display at the NRA Museum at Bass Pro Shop in Springfield, Missouri for a while. Colt determined that the cylinder was too small for the increased ball diameter, which resulted in the larger 1860 Army with the rebated frame and cylinder being produced. It looks like historically they were more interested in increasing caliber rather than velocity.
Colt experimented with a .40 caliber 1851 Navy. Four were made. #1 was on display at the NRA Museum at Bass Pro Shop in Springfield, Missouri for a while. Colt determined that the cylinder was too small for the increased ball diameter, which resulted in the larger 1860 Army with the rebated frame and cylinder being produced. It looks like historically they were more interested in increasing caliber rather than velocity.
Last edited:
Gordon
Member
I only chrographed two BP guns across skyscreens ; my ASM Walker with .457" balls as the instructions said and 50 grains of Swiss FFF and grease lanolin over wipe and in my .36 Side hammer with 28 " barrel a lubed patched .350" ball and 35 grains FFF Swiss . The Walker roared and shot 1210 fps at 15' average of two shots ! The .36 Mule ear was 1810 FPS at 15 feet. The 50 grains 6" drop tubed in and was a full cylinder well compressed to seat the ball = absolutely maximum . The .36 rifle may of taken more powder but 35 grain was plenty for me . A 30 grain charge is most accurate and what I shoot. In the Walker 40 grains seats ball a little deeper and normal compression and what I have normally shot , when I infrequently shoot the beautiful beast and 40 grains FFF is very accurate .
Even with the open and replaceable skyscreen the black powder was messy and I had to wipe screens with soapy warm water cloth after each (4 ) shots.
Even with the open and replaceable skyscreen the black powder was messy and I had to wipe screens with soapy warm water cloth after each (4 ) shots.
Mauser lover
Member
After reading through this whole thread and noticing that it's pretty much run its course, I have a couple of things to say!
It seems that you have a goal: a BP magnum revolver. I get it. It'd be cool. There are however, two major problems I can think of. Sights can be adjusted or replaced, fouling can be cleaned, but there are two issues I don't think you'll solve.
The following is all in accordance with my limited research. I don't consider myself to be an expert, but I'm a nerd and love to study. If I'm wrong, please correct me, and I'm happy to admit that I'm wrong about something.
1. Precision
Look up "buffeting" in the aeronautical areas. When something is up against the sound barrier (slightly subsonic), they seem to be very unstable. If the projectile or vehicle is well into the realm of subsonic travel, it is pretty stable. Likewise if it is well into the supersonic realm. Nobody winning major competitions shoots supersonic .22LR, because essentially as soon is it breaks the sound barrier, it goes back subsonic and is buffeting in the transonic region. If you keep your projectile below the speed of sound to start with, it's going to be more stable for the whole flight. It's not going to speed up after it leaves the barrel. Long distance shooters want to keep their 6.5 mm projectiles supersonic as long as possible to stay past the problematic transonic area. I really don't think you can get past this region with black powder in a revolver due to my next point.
2. Velocity
Black powder is a low explosive, which means (at least, as indicated in my limited research) that the shockwave from combusting black powder is slower than the speed of sound. This is not to say that you can never get the projectile energized by combusting black powder supersonic, I just don't think you can get all of your powder to ignite fast enough in a cap/ball revolver. You'd need to think about your primer and figure a way to ignite all of your powder fast enough to not launch unburned powder into a low-earth orbit. Maybe use a 209 primer and hollow pellets of pyrodex to allow that heat all the way up to the front of the charge. We're firmly in the region of fully-custom arms at this point anyway.
I think the way to get a cap/ball magnum revolver is the way it was actually done. By switching propellants. Sorry. Military rifles from this era (black powder cartridge infantry small arms) attained fairly high velocities not simply by increasing the length of the column of propellant, but by making the cartridge wider at the base than the projectile. This is pretty tough to do in a revolver, especially with black powder. This is why to increase the power of your black powder arm, manufacturers increased the diameter of the bore. There's a max velocity determined by the propellant. F=MA, so you can make the F greater by increasing the M, even if you can't increase the A.
I think I'm right in these two major points, and I hate to be a wet blanket, but I don't think it can be done.
It seems that you have a goal: a BP magnum revolver. I get it. It'd be cool. There are however, two major problems I can think of. Sights can be adjusted or replaced, fouling can be cleaned, but there are two issues I don't think you'll solve.
The following is all in accordance with my limited research. I don't consider myself to be an expert, but I'm a nerd and love to study. If I'm wrong, please correct me, and I'm happy to admit that I'm wrong about something.
1. Precision
Look up "buffeting" in the aeronautical areas. When something is up against the sound barrier (slightly subsonic), they seem to be very unstable. If the projectile or vehicle is well into the realm of subsonic travel, it is pretty stable. Likewise if it is well into the supersonic realm. Nobody winning major competitions shoots supersonic .22LR, because essentially as soon is it breaks the sound barrier, it goes back subsonic and is buffeting in the transonic region. If you keep your projectile below the speed of sound to start with, it's going to be more stable for the whole flight. It's not going to speed up after it leaves the barrel. Long distance shooters want to keep their 6.5 mm projectiles supersonic as long as possible to stay past the problematic transonic area. I really don't think you can get past this region with black powder in a revolver due to my next point.
2. Velocity
Black powder is a low explosive, which means (at least, as indicated in my limited research) that the shockwave from combusting black powder is slower than the speed of sound. This is not to say that you can never get the projectile energized by combusting black powder supersonic, I just don't think you can get all of your powder to ignite fast enough in a cap/ball revolver. You'd need to think about your primer and figure a way to ignite all of your powder fast enough to not launch unburned powder into a low-earth orbit. Maybe use a 209 primer and hollow pellets of pyrodex to allow that heat all the way up to the front of the charge. We're firmly in the region of fully-custom arms at this point anyway.
I think the way to get a cap/ball magnum revolver is the way it was actually done. By switching propellants. Sorry. Military rifles from this era (black powder cartridge infantry small arms) attained fairly high velocities not simply by increasing the length of the column of propellant, but by making the cartridge wider at the base than the projectile. This is pretty tough to do in a revolver, especially with black powder. This is why to increase the power of your black powder arm, manufacturers increased the diameter of the bore. There's a max velocity determined by the propellant. F=MA, so you can make the F greater by increasing the M, even if you can't increase the A.
I think I'm right in these two major points, and I hate to be a wet blanket, but I don't think it can be done.
hawg
Member
A cap & ball revolver is limited by barrel length. It doesn't matter how big or long you make the cylinder it's only going to burn X amount of powder in an 8 inch barrel.
Jackrabbit1957
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2018
- Messages
- 2,863
It's already been done, the Walker Colt was considered to be the most powerful handgun in the world until the 1930s when the 357 Magnum came along. There was a black powder cartridge handgun as well, 577/600 Francotti that was pretty nasty, photos compared the cases to a .45 Colt, it looked like comparing a .22 to a .45.
woodnbow
Member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2007
- Messages
- 2,070
And then there’s the ASM .50 caliber dragoon revolvers or Clements .50 Old Army… the easiest way to magnum power in blackpowder arms is by increasing the bore size. Increased bullet weight is also helpful but only if you increase the powder charge to compensate. Then as @hawg notes, you’re stymied by the constraints of barrel length.
C Younger
Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2017
- Messages
- 216
I agree. I’d rather learn to compensate for the sights than carry a single action with adjustable sights. I’ve only got one single action with adjustable sights; a Ruger single six and I think it’s probably the ugliest gun I own.
hawg
Member
I have one of those too. It's pretty ugly and I don't like the way the action works but it is a good shooter. About the ugliest revolver is any double action. Don't get me started on modern semis.
thealchemist
Member
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2022
- Messages
- 16
I’ll bet one of those would fetch a pretty penny! I agree with you about the caliber over velocity. Seems like they really cared more about firing a big heavy projectile from the early medieval handgonnes up into the civil war era muzzleloaders. Small fast projectiles seem to be a more modern fascination
thealchemist
Member
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2022
- Messages
- 16
That’s a lot of good information, thanks for replying. I think I would agree with you
