C&B - Round Balls more Accurate than Conicals?

[flmason]

Was looking at the article on Gunblast that mec posted about the .50 caliber C&B revolver. I noticed a caption stating that RB's were typically more accurate than conicals in C&B revolvers.

Anyone know why this would be true? Rate of twist, something else?

I could see a problem if the conicals are difficult to load concentrically, but otherwise I wouldn't expect an theoretical difference assuming correct rate of twist.

Anyone know how bad the difference "typically" is?

 

[BHP FAN]

I don't know why conicals are less accurate in a cap'n'ball sixgun [unless it's bullet drop,due to weight?] but they are.I have two conical molds,and the best use I've found for them so far is to size the bullets down to .451,and use them in my .45 acp reloads.

 

[Das Jaeger]

Yup

not allot of twist to get a heavy conical spinnin the way it needs to be spinnin in a short barrel . Twist has some to do with that of course , thats why rifles for Conicals are generally 1:24-ish twist or less , and round ball barrels are 1:60-plus .
Not allot of time to burn off powder in a an 8" barrel either , and pushin a slug that wieghs allot needs allot of push and allot of octaine . My 12" barrel 1858 Remington does very well with heavier bullets , very well .
I said this before too about RB's , they aint RB's anymore once they come out of a cap and ball pistol if they are the proper dimension when put in the cylinder , the sides are shaved , and the face of the RB is compressed and even dimpled just lightly making it look more like a round boat-tail semi-wadcutter head bullet. Back one out of proper dimensions sometime and look for yourself !
That tis one accurate bullet my friends , hard to beat that design and the rifling lands and grooves in these guns shoot it very well .
Thats my opinion anyway and they way I see it . As fact of course , hee hee hee

Das Jaeger

 

[BHP FAN]

Well, no less than Elmer Keith agreed with you,in his book ''Sixguns''.He said that conicals were better for penetration,when used at close range,and round ball was better for accuracy.

 

[rcflint]

An article I read one time said that given the time to load loose powder and ball, the Civil War soldier considered the round balls more deadly than the issued paper cartridge conical. Could be a matter of powder charge and the lighter bullet weight giving more velocity.

 

[Tommygunn]

One reason is that conicals tend to cant as they're loaded.
Other than that, sectional density might be an issue.

 

[flmason]

@Das Jaeger - Yeah, no doubt they aren't round once you seat them. But it's easier to write "RB" than "Projectile Formerly Known as Round Ball".

Since .44 RB's go in at about 140 grains. (seems light to a .44 mag adherent) was researching the issue because the 200 and 220 gr. jobbies "sound" more effective, LOL!

Used RB's in my CVA Navy some years ago. 20 gr. of powder. Seemed a rather light load, even by .38 Special standards. I'd equate it with about .380 performance of the top of my head. With the numbers I'm reading on the .44's coming in at .38 Special-ish performance.

 

[Voodoochile]

It also depends on the cylinders chamber diameter compared to the grove diameter of the barrels bore.

For instance:

my 2 year old Pietta NMA w/ 5.5" barrel has a grove diameter of .4495 yet all 3 cylinders had a chamber diameter of .4460.
Not a huge difference for ball because apaun firing the lead ball more than likely obtruces {sp} to the bore of the barrel & takes the full rifling to impart spin.
For a conical, I would think that the mass of the projectile & no design in the rear to assist the projectile in fully expand to the rifling causes gases to go around the projectile & slightly steer it apaun exit of the barrel.

Once I reamed the chamber of the NMA from the .4460 to .4510 & recrowned & throated the barrel 2 things happened.
(1) the velocity increased by an average of 35 fps. using the same charges.
(2) benched accuracy improved with conicals from 4.5" avg. to 3.0" avg @ 25 yards.

Now ofcorse this isn't totally scientific but from what I had experienced with this lil cannon tells me that I may be remotely correct.

 

[madcratebuilder]

It also depends on the cylinders chamber diameter compared to the grove diameter of the barrels bore.

+1
Reaming the chambers to barrel size is the first mod for a "target" revolver, IMHO.

 

[mec]

There are historical references to paper cartridges using heavy bullets -140=150 grains in 36 caliber and close to 240 in .44s. I suspect that these were civil war vintage as the loading window on the earlier 51 navies wouldn't accomodate such long bullets. We pretty much don't know how accurate they were because the current replica moulds throw bullets in the 100 to 110 grain range. The bullets from the brass replica moulds aren't particularly round and they are also difficult to fill out. They are usually undersized too. The iron moulds from dixie make good bullets and they are fairly accurate but not so much so as a round ball. Most replicas have rounded loading stem cups that squash the sharp pointed bullets. Original colts have coned stems as do my personally modified replicas. For most replicas the 125 grain buffalo bullets seem about as accurate as round ball. They are round nosed and more compatable with the loading stems.

I've even gotten good accuracy from a Walker replica and the conical bullets from a mould that is supposed to resemble the original picket bullet. Again, I coned the loading lever stem to fit them. This issue of GUNS Magazine has an article on page 34 that lists a few loads with each type of projectile
http://www.gunsmagazine.com/digital/G0909.htm

 

[Voodoochile]

MEC;
Got your book & might I say very informative..

 

[mec]

we've had to ream and regulate chamber sizes on an old armi san marco and it did make a big difference in accuracy. I find the Uberti chambers somewhat larger than pietta. This means the pietta works well with 375 and .451 balls whereas they will sometimes, jump forward under recoil in the Ubertis. In my uberties, i find that speer 375s work well because they are true diameter and perfectly round. The hornady balls seem to be a bit out of round with undersized aspects but swage to shape in the pietta chambers and shoot very well.

 

[junior geezer]

i use .490" ("50 cal") buffalo bullet round balls in my 1860 replica army. i re-size to about .457" in a gutted "mauser" case sizer die (.308, '06, whatever, they all will work), remove, reverse and resize again (to remove taper); then final-size to .451". they come out weighing around 175gr. and work very well indeed.

 

[BCRider]

So you're making up cylindrical balls? Or would these be called boattail balls?

That must make for a LONG push to seat them. Also do you need to use more care with lining them up?

 

[junior geezer]

So you're making up cylindrical balls?

not certain you're addressing my comments, BCRider, but if you are:

cylindrical... i guess. elongated and with added bearing surface, certainly. i load over 28 gr fffg with an over-powder felt wad, so no apparent difference in pushing them in. they are of course pure lead. and no, no more added care in aligning them with the chamber mouth. i pretty much just "shoots 'em like normal." accuracy does seem to be better than with .451" RB and i have to think they hit harder.

in other words, "they work for me."

 

[higene]

Chronographed Speeds

I found the chronographed speeds of the various powders interesting. Comparing Goex, Swiss, and Pyrodex. This answers a question debated on another thread.

Higene