conical molds for the pietta 1858
- Thread starter dr1445
- Start date
I would say it is a matter of using the full capabilities of the revolver, the conical carries more energy and has better penetration then a rb. I had a 44 mag for many years, mostly I shot 44 special power loads, did I have full house ammo on hand and did I shoot it to keep current yes.
maillemaker
New member
There are a few reasons someone might be interested in conicals.
If you are competition shooting, people are always looking for a refinement of the "optimal load" for accuracy. Now most people I have heard talk about shooting conicals vs. round balls in revolvers claim they get better accuracy with round balls. But Dualist in his article in Guns of the Old West had better accuracy with conicals.
Another reason you might want to use conicals is if you want to create historically-accurate cartridges for the revolver, which used conical bullets.
Finally, while not of any importance for paper targets, as dr1445 points out conical bullets are generally heavier than round balls and thus deliver more energy to the target.
Steve
rodwhaincamo
New member
I have some 240 grn Kaido conicals so I decided to see if they'll work in my new Pietta '58. Here's a pic of the bullet's OAL and a short video I posted of what needs to be done to seat it:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=742677
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=742677
maillemaker
New member
Looks good. How do they shoot for you?
Steve
Steve
rodwhaincamo
New member
I've yet to get to the range with it. But I intend on spending alllll day once I get there!
I finally broke in my rifle and need to work on an accurate hunting load for it, as well as try some more of the 320 grn REALs I have.
Back to the pistol…. I've read that the Pietta doesn't do as well with conicals as it does with RB's as the twist is slower and geared towards them instead. So I had worked with Tom at Accurate Molds to design some bullets that are shorter and the same length a ball, but weigh quite a bit more, though I see my designs were removed recently now that nearing ordering time. I'm not sure what the problem is so I sent him another email. But in theory they ought to do much better than a ball or other conical.
I finally broke in my rifle and need to work on an accurate hunting load for it, as well as try some more of the 320 grn REALs I have.
Back to the pistol…. I've read that the Pietta doesn't do as well with conicals as it does with RB's as the twist is slower and geared towards them instead. So I had worked with Tom at Accurate Molds to design some bullets that are shorter and the same length a ball, but weigh quite a bit more, though I see my designs were removed recently now that nearing ordering time. I'm not sure what the problem is so I sent him another email. But in theory they ought to do much better than a ball or other conical.
Chestnut Forge
New member
When you do make it to the range, try some RB too. I think you will be pleased with the results. My Pietta '58 shoots great with them. I'm running a .454 backed with 30 grains of FFFg. It will put six out of six in a milk jug at 50 yard from the duelist stance. That reminds me, need to pick up some more 454s.
freedom475
New member
Try .457's....you will never shoot another 454's again.
If you shoot real BP in your pistols, if you try 4ffff, you will never shoot 3ff again either.
If you shoot real BP in your pistols, if you try 4ffff, you will never shoot 3ff again either.rodwhaincamo
New member
If Goex made Olde Eynsford in 4F I'd try it. Swiss is too expensive.
I cast .457" RB's.
I cast .457" RB's.
freedom475
New member
Olde E is a little hotter...so 3f may be enough if you use the Olde E. The 4f that I shoot is Grafs' and it works real well in revolvers.
For anyone new to the sport...DON'T us the 4f as the main charge in any rifle!! (or single shot pistol)
For anyone new to the sport...DON'T us the 4f as the main charge in any rifle!! (or single shot pistol)
Last edited:
rodwhaincamo
New member
According to a fellow who researched Civil War pistol cartridges found that the small powder charges (15-22 grns) used with conicals were about equivalent to 4F, and that the power levels achieved were like that of Swiss.
I find this very interesting as many state that these cap n ball guns are no more powerful than a .38 Spl if using a .44 cal gun. But it seems their findings are based on common powders available during the 60's and 70's, and not on what was available then.
The pine board penetration tests show that what they used was obviously more powerful than the more common powders available, not to mention the military record of soldiers (many) shooting a brown bear with their .36 cal pistols with no real effect until an officer armed with a .44 cal pistol (likely what we know as a Dragoon?) killed it with 2 shots.
If a '60 Army, '58 NMA, and ROA with their similar chamber capacities are only capable of achieving .38 Spl power levels a few more grains make it what, a .38 Spl +P?
The one thing I'm uncertain about is that he compared Triple 7 to Swiss powder as they give very similar velocities when used in the same volume. But does that produce the same pressure and a similar enough pressure curve?
Many state that Hodgdon's states you must reduce the powder charge by 15% as it's much more powerful than BP. But that's not what it says. What it does say is that, because it is more powerful, you'll need to reduce the charge by 15% to achieve similar velocities as BP, which obviously doesn't coincide when using Swiss or Olde Eynsford powders.
I've emailed Hodgdon's several times asking for clarification on that, as well as what many state as not compressing the powder, which is another misunderstanding as their site states not to compress it when loading cartridges. What it does say is that it should be compressed "firmly" when loading muzzleloaders/cap n ball guns. They've not responded to any inquiries.
That said, I'm comfortable loading full house loads in my ROA as I know it's more than capable of handling it, but I'm leery of doing so in a reproduction or muzzleloader of any type.
I find this very interesting as many state that these cap n ball guns are no more powerful than a .38 Spl if using a .44 cal gun. But it seems their findings are based on common powders available during the 60's and 70's, and not on what was available then.
The pine board penetration tests show that what they used was obviously more powerful than the more common powders available, not to mention the military record of soldiers (many) shooting a brown bear with their .36 cal pistols with no real effect until an officer armed with a .44 cal pistol (likely what we know as a Dragoon?) killed it with 2 shots.
If a '60 Army, '58 NMA, and ROA with their similar chamber capacities are only capable of achieving .38 Spl power levels a few more grains make it what, a .38 Spl +P?
The one thing I'm uncertain about is that he compared Triple 7 to Swiss powder as they give very similar velocities when used in the same volume. But does that produce the same pressure and a similar enough pressure curve?
Many state that Hodgdon's states you must reduce the powder charge by 15% as it's much more powerful than BP. But that's not what it says. What it does say is that, because it is more powerful, you'll need to reduce the charge by 15% to achieve similar velocities as BP, which obviously doesn't coincide when using Swiss or Olde Eynsford powders.
I've emailed Hodgdon's several times asking for clarification on that, as well as what many state as not compressing the powder, which is another misunderstanding as their site states not to compress it when loading cartridges. What it does say is that it should be compressed "firmly" when loading muzzleloaders/cap n ball guns. They've not responded to any inquiries.
That said, I'm comfortable loading full house loads in my ROA as I know it's more than capable of handling it, but I'm leery of doing so in a reproduction or muzzleloader of any type.