Uberti 1860 Army .44 Ballistics

[StrawHat]

I have seen where it said they were sighted in at 75 yards but not what the target was. I have heard speculation it was to hit either a horse or the man on the horse. Disable a troopers horse and you've pretty much taken him out of the fight.

The cavalry was most often used as mounted infantry. Disable the ride and you would still have a fighter on the ground. Same with the Indian.

Kevin

 

[hawg]

The cavalry was most often used as mounted infantry. Disable the ride and you would still have a fighter on the ground. Same with the Indian.

Kevin

True dat but he wouldn't be part of a charge and the rest of his troops would be between him and you.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

For sure. I'd be thinking of a way to take it apart, and hide it in my blanket. Those long barrels would be a problem, and the stock is only a few inches shorter. Certainly some did, perhaps if you were quick enough to hide it in the brush anytime a Yank patrol came by, might get away with it. Maybe not a lot of patrols on some of the lesser used routes. ? Or if you had a horse you could cross-country, but again I think that if you got caught you might experience some "abuse". A lot of bad stuff must have happened during that period.

 

[CraigC]

I have a hard time drawing equivalents between blackpowder/roundball and cartridges/bullets. Especially when energy is used as the measuring stick. Because it ain't one, never was.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Energy figures, when using the foot-pounds of energy formula favors velocity, so it does not always present a true representation of energy. That formula, although it gives kind of a good baseline for comparative purposes, does not really take into account the actual dynamics of the projectile such as shape and size of the bullet or ball. So indeed, difficult to draw equivalents between a round ball, and a bullet. Kind of like, a .22-250 will show more energy, or foot pounds of energy than a .45-70, (I think, without consulting the data) but which one would you shoot a buffalo with? So, energy figures are only a very vague baseline at best.

 

[Mizar]

Energy figures, when using the foot-pounds of energy formula favors velocity, so it does not always present a true representation of energy.

Ummmm, the figures are correct because they represent the kinetic (motion, from Greek) energy of a moving object. And there is only one way of calculating it in Classic mechanics, where the speed of the said object plays the most important role in the equation (formulas are different, being Foot-Pounds or Joules, but the principle of calculation is the same). It's just that lots of people put a heavy emphasis on kinetic energy while it's not that important in the overall performance of a given projectile.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

You may be right, but here's my question. If a 243 Winchester has around 1447 FPE at 200 yards, and a Black powder/Trapdoor .45-70 load only has 988FPE at that distance, which one is more likely to drop the buffalo with one shot, at that range? Some of the guys who run the ranches where you can bring your own gun, and shoot a buffalo, report that the guys with their Sharps and Springfield rifles are dropping the Buffs much more quickly than the guys with their .300 Mags, .338 Winchesters, etc. ?? That tend to make me say hmmmm! I don't think the formula is good as it relates to objects fired from firearms. ?

 

[Mizar]

The formula is quite good for calculating one thing - kinetic energy. What some people tend to think of it's importance regarding firearms, is a whole different matter. Emphasizing on energy is like judging a caliber effectiveness only by the bullet diameter alone and nothing more. But the kinetic energy itself has nothing to do with people's perceptions of importance - it's just a unit of measure, nothing more.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Bravo!