Conical bullets or lead ball in Cap and ball revolvers

[B.L.E.]

I think the twist in a ROA is one in 16. It is essentially the same barrel used by revolvers chambered for .45 Long Colt, so I don't see a problem with stabilizing long heavy bullets. The TC Maxi Balls stabilize quite well out of that revolver.

I chronographed the Maxi Balls out of a ROA with 25 grains of Goex FFFg and I was getting about 650 fps ten ft in front of the gun.

In contrast, the .457 round ball leaves enough room for 45 grains of powder (according to my volumetric powder measure) and results in about 1000 fps with Goex FFFg and about 1125 fps with Goex FFFFg.

BTW, those full chamber FFFFg loads made other people at the range go "What the hell is that you're shooting?"

 

[Gatofeo]

I've been shooting cap and balls since about 1971. In all that time, I've found a proper-diameter ball to be more accurate than any conical.
Until Jan. 21, 2009.
I had my Uberti-made 1858 Remington .44 out for a day's plinking.
Firing from a benchrest at a measured 20 yards, it consistently put the Lee 200 gr. conical into groups that were 1" vertical and 3/4 wide.
This remains the best group I've shot with any conical bullet, though I have round ball targets that will match it.
Here are the particulars on that remarkable load:

Lee 200 gr. conical cast by me of dead-soft lead.
Home-brew lubricant of Gatofeo No. 1 Bullet Lubricant in bullet grooves.
Goex FFFG black powder - 26 grs. by powder flask.
Remington No. 11 cap, pinched into an elliptical to stay tightly on the nipple.

No greased, felt wad was used under this bullet. Indeed, there wouldn't have been room for one with this much powder, unless you reefed on the loading lever hard, which would have likely distorted the bullet.

Years ago I tried Buffalo Bullets but had little success. Balls were far more accurate.
However, I'll have to try some in this Uberti-made Remington replica. Perhaps this revolver has some special ju-ju.

For the record, this same revolver with .454 inch balls, over 30 grs. of FFFG black powder, and a wool felt wad greased with Gatofeo No. 1 Bullet Lubricant will sometimes put all six balls into a 1" group.
That's from a benchrest, at 25 yards, but not the norm. Those are good days. Most days it will group into 1-1/2 to 2 inches.
My ol' fuzzy eyes don't help matters.

Overall, I'd have to say that balls are more accurate. They are also much easier to get straight in the chamber. That's the key: getting the conical started straight is crucial to accuracy.
The Lee has three driving bands, the lower ones smaller in diameter than those above it, so you can start it straight.
The older designs had no such gradual reduction; starting them straight, and ramming them straight, was usually iffy.
For my purposes, I prefer lead balls over a greased felt wad.

But by all means try conicals in your revolver. If you do, however, fire them against a real target, at a known range, and take your time to load them. Do the same with round balls. This will give you a baseline for comparison.
If you just shoot tin cans and rocks from unknown distances, you'll never be able to learn which is more accurate.

 

[Ozzieman]

I don’t want any one to think that I am doubting every ones words on ball being more accurate than conical but to me with a longer bearing surface making contact with the rifling, the conical bullets especially if there hollow base should be more accurate (and I know I don’t know what I am talking about since I have no experience with conical).
Also the longer bullet should have better ballistics also.
I just wonder WHY conical bullets aren’t more accurate?????
You guys have brought up some very good points and good comments,,,,,, I am going to have to try some my self.
Thanks Gatofeo, guess I’m going to have to get some of Lee’s molds and try them my self.
My loads are much like yours with round ball, I picked up 20 boxes of Hornady 44 cal .451 lead round balls several years ago and in my Colt replicas I can get 3 inch groups at 20 yards with the same 30 gr, and yes my eye sight is going also.
The attached is my latest pair,,,

 

[Deadguy]

The biggest reason why the conicals are not as accurate in modern Italian replicas is probably because of the undersized chambers compared to the groove depth in the Italian guns. Most of the Italian .44s have .450" - .454" groove depth, and have .440"-.445" chambers! The longer, heavier conicals don't obturate that quickly, letting gas get between the bullet and the rifling, throwing accuracy off. The soft balls expand in the bore faster, reducing this problem. Ream your chambers to proper diameter and you will notice an improvement in the accuracy.

 

[Ozzieman]

Deadguy,,, I think you answered my question,,,,,
I just measured one of the guns in the photo that I attached and came up with very close numbers you did.
The chambers are (with a dial calipers) at the largest opening I can measure .443 and although it’s very hard to measure the grove depth accurately I did get number above 455 at the end of the barrel.
I would say you got that one right on the money.
Thanks

 

[flibuste]

deadguy is correct and there is another point to consider :

Apart from ROA, almost all italian replica revolver had a slow twist ( # 1:30) that is not suited to bullets.
However things have changed recently because Uberti has modified the rifling twist of their revolver : Since approximately 2000, the twist is similar to ROA ( 1:16) and they now stabilize the bullets .

So when testing a pistol the first point is to look at the barrel and check the twist rate .........

Regards