Billy Shears
New member
Can someone help me out here?
I’m considering a conversion cylinder for an 1860 Army so I can shoot .45 Colt ammo, of which my basement is stocked with many hundreds of rounds.
I’ve searched other threads and found some good information, but I’m still not completely satisfied that I understand the situation.
As I understand the instructions that come from Howell’s and Kirst, anyone who uses their conversion cylinders is cautioned to use either black powder loads or “cowboy” level smokeless loads, whatever those are.
I think I understand the reasons why smokeless loads should be kept toned down to “cowboy” level. Unique powder, for example, is a fast burner, and even a small charge, say 7.5 – 8.0 grains or so, can cause high pressures when loaded behind a 255 grain round nose flat point .45 caliber bullet. However you measure it, it’s a potent load.
What I don’t quite understand though is why the conversion cylinder makers say .45 Colt black powder loads of a similar strength are ok. Or, to be more precise, why they don’t issue more specific warnings about BP loaded cartridges.
I know this is kind of convoluted so I beg your patience, but this is what I’m seeing. A traditional cap and ball load for an 1860 Colt is a roughly 140 grain lead round ball over 25-30 grains of black powder. This produces something along the lines of .38 Special power.
The original .45 Colt black powder load however was a 250 or 255 grain bullet over 40 grains of black powder. Out of the 7.5 inch barreled Single Action Army revolvers, according to Duke Venturino, these produced 950 fps and in excess of 500 pounds of energy. Literally a “horse pistol” load. The 1860 Army has an 8 inch barrel and would presumably produce similar velocities with similar loads.
This is way beyond “cowboy” level ammunition. Seems like just running the numbers, even a .45 Schofield black powder cartridge [250 grain bullet over 28 grains of BP] would be far more powerful than the original cap and ball loads and a step or two above smokeless “cowboy” loads too.
How is it then that the conversion cylinders are rated to fire such heavy black powder loads, but users are cautioned strongly against smokeless loads moving at similar velocities?
Seems to me like this can’t be simply a pressure problem, but what do I know? Is it frame stretching? Or parts breakage? Or what? All I’m thinking is that if the revolver can stand it, these black powder cartridges would be great for a camp or woods gun.
So, I guess my long-winded round-about question is…is it dangerous or unwise to fire a steady diet of these BP cartridges out of an 1860 Army revolver with a conversion cylinder?
Am I risking catastrophic failure, early and unnecessary parts wear, or some other unknown complication?
Or is it entirely OK to do this and I’m just being a Nervous Nelly?
Any info appreciated.
Thank you.
I’m considering a conversion cylinder for an 1860 Army so I can shoot .45 Colt ammo, of which my basement is stocked with many hundreds of rounds.
I’ve searched other threads and found some good information, but I’m still not completely satisfied that I understand the situation.
As I understand the instructions that come from Howell’s and Kirst, anyone who uses their conversion cylinders is cautioned to use either black powder loads or “cowboy” level smokeless loads, whatever those are.
I think I understand the reasons why smokeless loads should be kept toned down to “cowboy” level. Unique powder, for example, is a fast burner, and even a small charge, say 7.5 – 8.0 grains or so, can cause high pressures when loaded behind a 255 grain round nose flat point .45 caliber bullet. However you measure it, it’s a potent load.
What I don’t quite understand though is why the conversion cylinder makers say .45 Colt black powder loads of a similar strength are ok. Or, to be more precise, why they don’t issue more specific warnings about BP loaded cartridges.
I know this is kind of convoluted so I beg your patience, but this is what I’m seeing. A traditional cap and ball load for an 1860 Colt is a roughly 140 grain lead round ball over 25-30 grains of black powder. This produces something along the lines of .38 Special power.
The original .45 Colt black powder load however was a 250 or 255 grain bullet over 40 grains of black powder. Out of the 7.5 inch barreled Single Action Army revolvers, according to Duke Venturino, these produced 950 fps and in excess of 500 pounds of energy. Literally a “horse pistol” load. The 1860 Army has an 8 inch barrel and would presumably produce similar velocities with similar loads.
This is way beyond “cowboy” level ammunition. Seems like just running the numbers, even a .45 Schofield black powder cartridge [250 grain bullet over 28 grains of BP] would be far more powerful than the original cap and ball loads and a step or two above smokeless “cowboy” loads too.
How is it then that the conversion cylinders are rated to fire such heavy black powder loads, but users are cautioned strongly against smokeless loads moving at similar velocities?
Seems to me like this can’t be simply a pressure problem, but what do I know? Is it frame stretching? Or parts breakage? Or what? All I’m thinking is that if the revolver can stand it, these black powder cartridges would be great for a camp or woods gun.
So, I guess my long-winded round-about question is…is it dangerous or unwise to fire a steady diet of these BP cartridges out of an 1860 Army revolver with a conversion cylinder?
Am I risking catastrophic failure, early and unnecessary parts wear, or some other unknown complication?
Or is it entirely OK to do this and I’m just being a Nervous Nelly?
Any info appreciated.
Thank you.
As you can read from the Wiki quote a typical .45 Colt load was generally 28 to 40 grains of BP. I would consider these loads to be within the "cowboy load" range.
