58 Remington Chamber Depth

[GeoffC]

I might just have missed some very basic piece of info somewhere along the line, but I'm quite sure some on of you guys can set me straight on this.

Load data for the 58 Remington that I've seen seems to be around the same as that for the 1860 Colt Army.

This being the case, Why in the heck are the chambers so deep on my Remington? If I load the both pistols with the same load, I swear I've got a half inch of jump between my ball and the forcing cone in the Rem...

The colt will barely have a jump, some but minimal.

I could fit at least three wonder wads between my ball and charge and still have some room. That kind of shooting could get steep fast. I know about the cream of wheat trick and all that, but what was done back in the day about this?

Also this is with my 24 grain target(flask) load. I'm shooting balls, not conicals.

 

[Oyeboten]

I imagine Load data which is a suggested charge, when less than max, when provided by the Manufacturer of a Cap & Ball Revolver, is an expression of their covering their Caboose against possible mis-adventure if a person over-does it somehow.


As far as I know, the actual Volume the Cylinder Bores will accept, under a Ball, is what impirically, would qualify as a maximum charge for conventional Black Powder for that Revolver...and, that there is no reason a Steel Frame Revolver should not abide it alright.

Over a long enough time line of enough rounds of Maximum charges, probably any given Revolver will have had more wear-and-tear than it would have, firing the same number of light Carges.

Bore Volume in a given Model, might also vary from one make to another.

 

[mykeal]

You seem to think it's a problem that the Remington cylinder would have more empty volume when loaded the same as an 1860 Army.

Comparing the two gun designs is like comparing apples and oranges. You need to take each on it's own merits and faults. The optimum load* for a Remington has nothing to do with the optimum load* for a Colt, and if you start out comparing the gun designs based on a common load you'll get nowhere fast.

Find the right load for your Remington and go with it. Find the right load for your Colt and go with that. They very likely will not be the same.

*optimum load: the unique combination of projectile, powder, lubrication, filler and wad, if needed, that provide the smallest group at a given range. My definition - note the lack of reference to velocity, energy, power, etc. YMMV.

 

[scrat]

A Word Of Caution

The loading lever on the Remington does not go down that far as the Colt style design. The colts you can load them very low for small loads (why would you i dont know). The Remington though however be very carefull as if you go to low on the powder charge you can have a bomb on your hand. As here is an example.

Load up say 15 grains of powder in the remington.
then take a ball and put it in place Ram it down.
Now take some lube and some how get it over the ball.
Now cap it.
Pull the trigger. KAAAAAABOOOOOOOM in a bad way

why
because what you did not notice is the ball never sat against the powder as the Ram went all the way down that it could go but you have a huge air gap between the powder and the ball.

To prevent this. measure how far down the ram goes down a cylinder. Now you should never load (powder) less than that. I say powder because you still have to add a ball and or wad if you want. That will give it enough room to compress the load.

My Remington seems to do pretty descent at around 40 grains. The Remington cylinders are a tad longer than colts making them more suitable for bigger loads.

 

[rcflint]

The capacity of the chamber of an 1860 depends on the maker and the age. Many older 1860's had a 36 Navy chamber at the rear, where the cylinder is Navy diameter, and a 44 caliber chamber in the front, where the cylinder is larger. They, of course, had less powder capacity. Most newer made 1860 cylinders seem to have 44 caliber chambers all the way to the breech.

The chamber capacity, as someone already mentioned, is the amount of powder you can drop in with a ball on top that clears the forcing cone when rotated.

A lesser charge is usually more accurate, but less than 24 or 25 grains in a 44 is economical but not optimal, and in some revolvers requires a filler or an off-the-gun cylinder reloading stand.. A load of about 25 to 27 grains seems to work pretty well in a 44.

 

[GeoffC]

Yeah, if I'm going to carry my pistols hunting with me I'll load somewhere between 30 and 35 grains....

The Colt does have the tapered breech chambers in it, the cylinder chamber walls are not straight walled. I'd always just figured this was to make sure that with a reasonable load ball would seat propperly against the powder(since it'd take less to put the ball farther down the chamber)

 

[Hellgate]

The prior statements mirror my experience. The least powder I can get into any of my remingtons+wad+.454 ball is 20 grs. Without the wad I can get about 35grs+ball. The colt 44s have less capacity but are older ASMs that barely hold 30grs without the wad. They look like the cylinders are drilled to a smaller caliber (36?) at the bottom and 44 the upper 3/4 of the length. The newer Pietta Colt 44s hold more powder than the ASMs. So there's proof of the manufacturer making a difference. The standard original load was 28 grs under a ball.

 

[rcflint]

The small Navy diameter section of the 1860 Army cylinder can't be bored through 44 without getting too thin, or breaking through at the cylinder locking notch, as happened in many original 6-shot Colt conversions, so the stepped or tapered chamber leaves enough metal at the notch. Kirst and R&D avoided this condition by making a 5-shot cylinder for the conversions, so the notches aren't over a chamber, and also made space for the rims as a benifit, but I don't know which came first, the chicken or the egg.....

 

[Snowdog]

I haven't ever verified this info and it could be completely wrong, but when I was researching the 1858 Remington several years ago before purchasing my Pietta, I was either told by someone or read somewhere that the Remington model 1858 was designed to be compatible with the combustible paper cartridges that existed at the time, some using conical slugs.

If this is true, I suppose that might explain the deep chambers.

I can say for a fact that a 200gr conical will, when lightly pressed by hand into the cylinder, fit under the loading lever. This by itself doesn't prove a thing, but it's something to consider.

 

[junkman_01]

The Colts could also use combustable cartridges.

​

 

[rcflint]

I have loaded and shot the Speer and the Hornady swaged 200 gr 45 cal bullet made for 45 ACP. They hit with authority, and are pure lead. The Speer does not lead as much as the Hornady probably because of the Hornady knurled surface.

The nose of the Remington rammer does distort the bullet nose a bit, and an off-the-gun cylinder reloading stand would be better for preventing nose damage and straightness of seating. Also better for loading an 1860 as the SWC bullet won't fit in the Colt bullet cutout.

 

[GeoffC]

It'd be awesome if combustable cartridges were still available from somewhere!

 

[Shoot The Moon]

It'd be awesome if combustable cartridges were still available from somewhere!

Fairly easy to make your own.... there's a great tutorial here on this very website!

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=144094&highlight=Combustable+paper+cartridges

I have made them this way and they're great - just make sure that there aren't embers in the chamber when you load the next one. Likelyhood of this will depend on the paper you use......