• You are using the old Black Responsive theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

colt 1862 pocket powder capacity

Status
Not open for further replies.

dr1445

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2016
Messages
49
i have been looking at 1861's but there seems to be more 5 shot 1862's around. how much powder will the 62 hold? thanks
 
Think I've shot mine with 15 grains (by volume) of black powder substitute and a round ball/ very mild load and easy on the pistol
 
What it will hold is not always the most accurate load. I've been shooting 2nd Generation Colts for over 30 years now and my Pocket Navy and Pocket Police shoot pretty accurately with 17 grains of FFF Goex and wonder wads. Having said that, you need to remember the Colts tend to shoot high at close range because of the sights. The Pocket Models, at least to me, seem to be more prone to this than the larger 1851s with a longer barrel. At 15 yards I hold about 4 inches low on the target.
 
thanks for the replies. but i should have stated max powder capacity. i like to practice with the actual loads i would be using in a hunting situation. i find 30 gr plenty accurate in my remingtons.
 
If you're using a wad 20 grains is pretty full. I regularly load 18 grains of 3F Swiss. Remember the Swiss doesn't compress as much as Goex.
 
dicky, the regs have run real bp out of the state. i have several lbs of olde but i hold that in reserve [unlimited self life] and shoot pyrodex p.
 
dicky, the regs have run real bp out of the state. i have several lbs of olde but i hold that in reserve [unlimited self life] and shoot pyrodex p.
I also chronographed a Buffalo Bullet Co. 125 grain conical over 18 grains of 3F Swiss out of one of my Secon Generation Pocket Navies at 880 FPS. That's pretty good out of a 5.5" barrel. I'd guess that Pyro P would be about the same as that. many years I used that because Real BP was harder to get.
 
Loose powdered Pyrodex isn't as energetic as Swiss or Olde E. Triple 7 is however, and if real BP is an issue where you are I'd suggest T7 if you are using that as a hunting weapon if medium game is your interest.

I'd also suggest a custom .36 cal bullet with a wide meplat. I had Accurate Molds create one for me that weighs 100 grns but is slightly shorter than a ball so as not to take up precious powder capacity.

http://accuratemolds.com/bullet_detail.php?bullet=38-100B-D.png

There are a few designs that may also be of interest.
 
pyrodex p is my choice for a range powder @ $20/#. t7 or old e [5# shipped] is good for the real thing around $27/# but t7 has self life problems.
 
I've heard of shelf life issues once opened. I haven't noticed any difference, but then I don't have a chronograph either.

On a Yahoo group the fellas there drop a dessicant into their powder, which I've been doing too. Not sure if it helps but it can't hurt.

If your '62 is just meant for small game it's moot with accuracy trumping all. But if medium game is a possibility I'd want more oomph. But then I'd prefer a .44/.45 instead.

I'm not certain just how well a .36 would be against medium game, but with a conical they used them in the Civil War to some extent. Better than a ball.
 
Well, here's a pic of my 1862 Pocket Navy cylinder. There is 18 grains of 3F Olde Eynsford and a lubed wad .070" thick , before compression, under those 380 balls. There is still .050" from the top of the balls to the cylinder face. I do Not over-compress my loads in this little shooter, either.
I have loaded 20 grains of 3F without the wad before.
 

Attachments

  • DSC00001.jpg
    DSC00001.jpg
    72.9 KB · Views: 50
I'm curious how the sans wad loads sat in the chambers compared to your shown loads.

I was a bit skeptical of stuffing 25 grns of actual BP in those chambers. My understanding is the .31 cal will hold 15 grns and a ball so a slight increase in diameter couldn't truly add that much more I wouldn't think, but then our powder measures aren't all on the same page. But then I suppose weight isn't either as density varies as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top