proper load for BP revolvers?

[gmatov]

Low Key,

Hey, you have fun, too. There ain't much more fun that you can have that is still legal, and is so cheap to do.Problem is that up here in the NEast, it's gettin' cold, hard for an old man's fingers to cap a C&B nipple.

Gonna have to load and cap at home, have I think, 5 Rem cylinders, 6 you count the 36, and 3 Colts. 64 rounds is one thing when you are loading at the range, an afternoon, almost, if they are all loaded, mebbe half an hour, no fun, to me.
Last trip to my range, a fellow shooter says, y'know, this is the 22 rifle range? 25 yard.

I says, what the hell, this is the only set of butts in the club that has loading benches. What do 22 shooters need loading benches for?

The pistol range has a 4 inch hand rail around it. How'na hell do you load a C&B on a 4 inch hand rail? A shooting situation, OK, you could do that laying on your back under a bridge. Shooting to try for group, not body hits, you want to try for consistancy, same load chamber after chamber.

Ah, well,

Cheers,

George

 

[Low Key]

5 cylinders and cold weather, I say load em up at home the first round, shoot em dry and then go back to the front seat of the car for a reload session, then back on the line and shoot em dry again!

Did some shooting myself yesterday, we had cold wind blowing and that makes it hard on a young mans fingers when capping a nipple, lol! I did manage a 2 in group with 30gr pyrodex p/vol...thats the accuracy load my revolver likes best.

Stay warm up there George,

 

[Clark2]

Thanks everyone for their extensive replies.

But, let me simplify the question...

How many of you have ever loaded the chamber completely full with BP and ball, such that the ball rests ~ 1mm below the surface of the chamber? I think that pretty much sums up my question.

thanks,

-C

 

[gmatov]

Clark,

All it has to do is pass the forcing cone, no matter how much powder you can fit into the chamber.

If the cylinder rotates, you are within the load. Shoot it!!!

Low Key,A young man's fingers? You puppies still got circulation, should be warmer fingers than mine when it gets below 40 degrees F.

Less we get a warming spell, probably done till Spring.

Have fun, Bud. Think I will sleep in.

Cheers,

George

 

[Low Key]

Clark,

I've done that with my 1858 Remington, loaded the chamber full and then compress the ball down on top of the charge. As george says, all you have to do in seating the ball is clear the forceing cone so the cylinder will rotate and you're good to go. It will be easy to do with pyrodex p or H777 but you will have problems with real bp if you try this because pyrodex and 777 will compress easily and real bp will not. BP will compress only so much before it stops compressing and you can't force the ball down on it any further. 40gr is my max with real bp and I can do 45 gr with pyrodex p and still get the ball completely seated...this is with no wads or lube pills, only powder and ball. Have your gun checked over by a COMPETENT gunsmith before trying max loads like these...you need to be absolutely sure that your gun is sound.

 

[mec]

Results with two revolvers. Measure calibrated for Goex fffg. The swisss powder is denser and actually weighs more than indicated. 40 grains of goex/ball is a full chamber. Swiss is heavily compressed to make it fit and puts a strain on the loading lever.

velocity extreme spread
Remington
35 Grain Swiss FFFg 1089 33
40 Grains Swiss FFFg 1104 37
40 Grains Pyrodex P 1125 35
*35 Gr/Vol. H777 1061 28

Colt 60 Army
35 Grains Swiss Uberti 1031 48
Same Load Different Day 1020 34

40 Grains Goex FFFg 992 34
40 grains Goex FFFg with Wonder Wad 942 30
40 Grains Swiss FFFg 1042 49
40 Grains Swiss FFFg with Wonder Wad 1055 80

 

[sundance44s]

Sundance44s

Mec thanks for the figures i don`t own a conograph .. and i like to see the numbers .. I`ve done a lot of testing shooting into old phone books ..cap and ball 44 ca. can be pretty impressive .

 

[Low Key]

http://www.firearmexpertwitness.com/customguns/calcnrg.html

Run the numbers through this calculator, you'll find some interesting results.
The fast pyrodex velocity and a 143 gr ball yeilds nearly 402 ft/lbs of kinetic energy...pretty impressive, nearly equals the .45 auto in ft/lbs if I remember correctly.

 

[gmatov]

Mec,

I think we hit the wall, with "diminishing return" at the 35 to 40 gr loads.

Mebbe an abberation with the 40 GOEX no wad showing higher by 50 fps than 40 with wad.

1,000 fps is impressive by any standard for a BP pistol.

To what would you attribute the higher velocities with the Rem as to the Colt, tighter cylinder gap? I know mine have a smaller gap than my Colts do.

Cheers,

George

 

[hildo]

Interesting to view this topic.
I also think it is very plausible a heavier bullet will hit the target higher than a light bullet, with the identical load, because the muzzle has already started to rise before the bullet has actually left the barrel. Since the heavy bullet will cause the gun to recoil more, and is also slower than a light bullet, it seemes logical the heavy one hits higher.
At the moment the bullet starts moving, the barrel starts rising.

Now I have something about recoil based on my own, limited, experience.

@Gmatov
You said in your thread on 28th of october: "IF you COULD fill up the chamber AND the barrell with powder, and cap that chamber, AND fire that chamber, you would have a BIG fireball, but you would have almost no recoil. You would have some."
and
"Once again, there is little to NO "rocket" effect to a pistol OR a rifle shot."

I understand that you are saying that shooting without a bullet will have hardly any recoil.
Couple of months back I bought a .69 model 1777 charlesville flintlock musket.
I had no correct size bullets at that time but was eager to shoot it.
Loaded it with 100 grain ffg and a piece of toiletpaper (to keep the powder in the rear of the barrel)
Bang! Hardly any recoil.
Since there was hardly any pressure build-up (without the bullet) I loaded the musket with 230(!) grains and again with some toiletpaper.
Bang! Based on the experience of the previous shot I hardly expected any recoil but it pushed me actually a bit of balance.
There was very noticebly more recoil with the 230 grain than with the 100 grain bulletless loads.
My conclusion is there definately is a 'rocket effect' when shooting without bullets, so there should be some when you shoot with bullets as well. Although it may be minor when compared to the recoil that the bullet itself produces.
Am I correct, or do I overlook something?

 

[Plink]

There's definately a rocket effect. The effectiveness of muzzle brakes at reducing recoil by diverting gas pressure away from the bore line proves that.

It's a lot milder with a black powder gun than with higher pressure centerfires though. I've fired heavy black powder blanks and got a stout push too. You need to remember though, that the powder's weight is factored in to recoil. It adds to the total ejecta weight whether there's a bullet or not.

 

[gmatov]

Plink's right. It isn't so much a "rocket effect" as it is pushing over 1/2 an ounce of ejecta, the powder, out the barrell. The powder has less inertia, unrestrained as it is, without a ball.

If you loaded 80 grs powder, and a 150 gr ball, you'd have more felt recoil because the ball would be one piece as far as inertia goes. Still 230 grs of ejecta.

Blanks have an overpowder wad, I don't know how heavy, to help confine the pressure and allow a more complete burn within the barrell, or you'd have a pitiful bang. Try it with your C&B revolver, 1 chamber of powder, an overpowder wad, felt or fibre, and I'll bet you won't get much of a "push" or a "bang".

Cheers,

George

 

[hildo]

This really makes me think.

Pushing the weight of the powder out of the barrel (bulletless shot) would explain the recoil. Right?
But is it not so that the powder burns, maybe even most of the powder in a long barreled musket, so there is hardly weight left that comes out of the barrel?
Except ofcoarse the pressurized gasses that developed in the barrel from burning BP, but gas has not much mass.

My guess is the pressurized gasses come flying out of the barrel, hitting the air on the inside (and outside) of the barrel, which forces the gun to travel the other way. The recoil.

A a NASA rocket works simular since a rocket is basicly nothing else but a very long lasting controlled explosion where no unburned fuel is thrown out of the rocket. Maybe if you would shoot that bulletless blackpowder gun in outer space it would not recoil at all since there is no air. It seemes a NASA rocket works in outer space since it pushes itself along because the gasses flying out of the rocket push against molocules of the rocket's own exhaust gasses.

A toy rocket, the kind filled with blackpowder that is ignited by a fuse, will burn it's BP load slowly as well and it will fly upwards until the BP is all burned. This is also a controlled and slow 'explosion' (sort of recoil). I do not think it would push much unburned BP out of the rocket since such a rocket is designed to maximize it's flight and unburned fuel would not be efficient. When all of the BP load in a toyrocket would explode all fuel would probably not be burned (an inefficent rocket) and, say it would not blow up, it probably would not fly very high...

Therefore my guess is that there is more rocket effect in a gun with a long barrel than effect from the powder being pushed, unburned, out of the barrel.

Indeed. Shooting my Dragoon with 50 grain and a wad does mot make much recoil. Neither did my musket with 100 grain and toiletpaper. The musket shot with 230 grain / toiletpaper made a lot more recoil.
I think it made even more recoil than the maximum of 2.3 x that would be expected. Exponential increase it is called I believe?
Would this be logical as well?

What do you think?

 

[Tommygunn]

Maybe if you would shoot that bulletless blackpowder gun in outer space it would not recoil at all since there is no air. It seemes a NASA rocket works in outer space since it pushes itself along because the gasses flying out of the rocket push against molocules of the rocket's own exhaust gasses.

"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

That is how rockets work -- inside or outside an atmosphere.
If you fire a BP revolver in space, the same exact principle applies.

 

[Plink]

Hildo, matter doesn't just disappear.

The weight of powder, becomes the same weight in gasses. It doesn't matter if the fuel is burned or unburned, the weight of the ejecta is the same.

Also, gas velocity has a lot to do with it. The faster the gasses exit, the harder the push. That's the basis of "rocket effect" right there. It's also why centerfires are more powerful even with their smaller charge. The charge contains more energy, the gasses are hotter and expand faster, etc.

 

[gmatov]

Hildo,
I am not a "rocket scientist".

That said, if you fired that "blank" in space, yes, you would feel and see the recoil. Objects in a no gravity situation have no weight, but they do have mass.

If you were to eject 230 grs of BP from a barrell, you would definitely get a kick out of it. The same principle is used with the "rocket packs" the astronauts use for maneuvers outside the space craft. A few ounces of fuel burned to make a jet of force to move them to where they want to go.

The toy rockets with BP are not the same, they do not use the same burning rate powder. Not an instant burn, more a controlled burn, as to speed. If it all burned at once, or nearly so, as in a BP pistol or rifle, it would go so high, and no more. If it is a controlled burn, of long duration, ejecta is being reacted against till the powder, the propelling charge, is exhausted. It is pushing all the way.

Similarly, a fast burning smokeless powder has a sharp, short, pressure wave. It reaches maximum pressure in a short time. A slow burning powder is building up pressure the length of the bore.

That would be closer to the model rocketry. The more finely divided the powder, as in BP pistols, the quicker the burn rate. Compact it, as a solid, as in rocketry, and it will burn from the end up till it is all exhausted.

Read this link. Bill Knight. 45% of the powder is gases, 55% is unburnt solids, ejecta. http://thunder-ridge-muzzleloading.com/Bill Knight.htm

You actually have the equivalent of a 125 gr or so ball as the ejecta. AND, since the powder is not confined, as with an actual ball in the barrell, to allow a fuller burn, maybe evn more.

So, yes, you would have felt recoil.

Cheers,

George