Totally hypothetical, so don't freak out!

I don't know whether this example will help any. There are fellas who load their Schuetzen rifles in much the same manner. They breach seat the bullet, charge a case with black, through a drop tube, to the very edge of the case mouth. Insert a wad with the thumb and mash the charge down in with thumb-over-wad. Insert case in chamber and fire it. I've been told about 1/16th of an inch between case mouth and bullet base.

At one time the turn of the century competitors did the same as you are describing Pond, load the bullet through the muzzle to just in front of the chamber, and insert the black powder charged case, and fire. They did get some pretty darned good accuracy. So good in fact that many resisted using smokeless for years.

I have read elsewhere that doing this may ring the chamber. So I am at a loss frankly, and choose to shoot smokeless in my schuetzen.
 
Last edited:
Im sorry Pond . I have been following this since you first posted your question .
I went back and re read the thread and I still fail to see the reasoning past trying to get a larger load from a design that was not intended to carry a larger load .

If your looking for an improvement its just not going to be there simply by loading it from the muzzle .
In theory , as long as the chambers in the cylinder were filled to the chamber face and you loaded from the muzzle the ball to set so as it would compress the charge in the chamber just slightly when the cylinder locked up , you should have no discernable differences in the amount of pressure that would escape.
In Fact , in theory as long as you loaded with the cylinder locked up , you could load your powder , wad , bullet or a patched ball combo from the muzzle . The cylinder however would have to stay locked against the barrel.
Where we would run into trouble again , would be if the revolver design could hold up to the charge ?.
That being said , what your asking about , isn’t new . There were designs , both artillery and side arm that accomplished just what your asking about.. For the most part they were breech load / muzzle loading designs that often fall into the category of early cartridge evolution . IE a breech would be loaded with powder . The projectile would be loaded either from the breech or muzzle . The breech would then be forced against the barrel then either locked down or as in early designed artillery , the breech would be wedged / locked up against the barrel .
Problem from what I have read , seems to always have been an issue with gas / pressure escaping between the breech and barrel facings .. Somewhere I have a photo of a flintlock design which had a breech that was nothing more then a big iron cartridge which face was fit much like a modern cartridge. This was set to the barrel , much like locking up a cylinder in a revolver .
So yes in theory what your asking , could work . But again the question of if the design your applying it to , could hold what ever charge you subjected it to .

I would also say , Yes , when speaking of the US of BP as a propellant, you can load breech loading cartridges from the muzzle . But really there isn’t a whole lot of reasoning why one would want to .
 
I went back and re read the thread and I still fail to see the reasoning past trying to get a larger load from a design that was not intended to carry a larger load .
Click to expand...

Yeah, well... pretty shallow on my part, but that is basically the extent of my motives in asking! ;)

I agree with your point about it being of little benefit... but when I get an idea in my head, I want to see if it can be done. I've wasted a lot of money doing that, but it's been fun! (although mostly in the realm of motorbikes)

If I find a place I can shoot BP, only then will I need to decide if a carbine's performance would suffice for my entertainment or would I want a full-on muzzle-loader like a Hawken or Kentucky etc.
 
I know you mentioned revolving carbine but is a BP Revolver an option or does it require the same license as a modern firearm?

I just started shooting BP revolvers about a year ago. I had previously bought a Pietta New Model Army (1858 Remington) years ago (2000ish) and immediately outfitted it with a 45 Colt Kirst Conversion Cylinder - shot it a couple times then shelved it. The fact that everything could be delivered to my door without needing to fill out a 4473 is what attracted me to the conversion cylinder BP revolver.

Going back to black powder - something I quickly noted is that the components to shoot BP (Powder, Caps, balls) are just as or more expensive than shooting large caliber factory pistol cartridge ammo (44 mag, 45 Colt, etc). The only way I could see bringing that expense down would be to cast your own lead bullets and possibly making your own powder in bulk.

I don't know that making your own powder is less expensive.
 
I gotcha.

You might consider a shoulder stock for a pistol over the carbine.
attachment.php

Pic borrowed from http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=494632

With either I'd recommend keeping your off hand away from the front of the cylinder.
 
I will share a couple of my Kirst conversion pistols with you all. Fun to build and dremel the loading port. Yet not cheap but it is unregistered beings home built.

KirstKonv1.jpg
 
peggysue - not cheap was my experience as well. For the price of the BP revolver and Kirst Conversion - could've easily bought a new or used Ruger Blackhawk.


14516313907_62de0eda1a_b.jpg
 
So how do those conversions work? Do they allow you to fire a CF cartridge out of a BP gun?

Isn't that risky with smokeless being so much more powerful? Or is it the cylinder that takes the brunt of the pressure?
 
Last edited:
So how do those conversions work? Do they allow you to fire a CF cartridge out of a BP gun?
Click to expand...

yes .
but depending on the gun it maynot be recommended to shoot common factory ammo.

Isn't that risky with smokeless being so much more powerful? Or I'd it the cylinder that takes the brunt of the pressure?
Click to expand...

yes and no .
Its not recommended that you use a brass framed revolver
Kirst warns not to use loads greater then 1000fps .. There is debate as to what that’s all about but there it is .
You don’t just go out and buy a can of smokeless and start cranking out shells.
it’s the cylinder that takes most of the pressure . that’s not to say the barrel isn’t also subject to pressure . As we discussed previously it’s an overall design consideration , not just the pressure .

Its best IMO if your going to shoot smokless, to either purchase so called cowboy rounds from a repratable source or do your research , collect recommended load data and learn to reload your own .
In my 36 cal 1851 Uberti I load 4.2 gr of American select and a 125 heel bullet . Works very nice , low recoil and still pushing 900fps .

If your on the cheep , its going to be cheeper to Buy one of the models that others have listed .
That also , depending on the maker, can mean you can use Factory loads
 
Isn't that risky with smokeless being so much more powerful? Or is it the cylinder that takes the brunt of the pressure?
Click to expand...

There's more to it than strength of the gun. If being strong enough for smokeless pressure was the only issue, then the Ruger Old Army, which is a modern gun converted to percussion revolver, would be happy with loads of Unique or Bullseye.
Smokeless powder must be ignited with a sealed primer. This the cartridge conversions provide.
You can't just set smokeless on fire with a spark, the primer explosion is responsible not only for igniting the powder, but also for establishing the initial high chamber pressure that smokeless needs to burn rapidly.

There is a company called Weslake Engineering that takes modern Taurus revolvers and converts them to smokeless cap and ball pistols so that the British can more easily own them. These use #209 shotgun primers instead of #11 percussion caps.
 
Revolving carbines were designed as a short range repeater to fire on human targets for the purpose of stopping them with a wound or a kill. It was never designed as a hunter piece and not for a long range piece. It is light and has a thin barrell. You COULD hunt small game such as rabbit and squirrel. A deer might be left wounded. Not much energy or accuracy or any means for developing distance accuracy. When you overload a cylinder in the Remington action you risk at the very least, warping the cylinder pin ton the point your cylinder is slightly angled, the cylinder pin now can't be withdrawn from the frame, the seating "hole" in the frame for the pin can be affected in that it takes a slight oval shape, the cylinder develops non-visible cracks or visible cracks thus becoming a serious hazard to fire again. Also in these actions, anything at all positioned beyond the cone becomes the cause of a barrell bulge. Never ever trust a revolver action of this sort to anything generating extreme pressures. It simply isn't designed for it and it can injure or kill and or destroy a very valuable piece.
 
simply put NO.
If all the machining is correct based on being a true 44

presume chambers are bored at .448
the bore is a true .440 (44 caliber)
the groove depth is .003 (common these days) remember the earlier model piettas used odd # of grooves, thus at any given spot no two grooves were in exact alignment
( close, but not exact.)
thus you would have a max internal diameter in the barrel of .443, but
the projectile except some very small areas would actually only be .440.
Thus the projectile now for all intents and purposes would be a slip fit in the chamber.
It would no longer have the tight friction fit needed to stay in-place until enough gas pressure had built up from the ignition and burning of the powder behind it, to dislodge it and propel it down the barrel.

I wouldn't worry about the extra powder because of this.
But even if it would work, still would worry about the 5 or 8 grains you might gain

Now if you meant seat the ball just above the forcing cone still in the barrel.
Then again no.
Majority of the 'force" from igniting, will just go out the cylinder end gap.
Also since you have not in anyway, "contained" the explosion of the ignition and powder burning, the pressures just aren't going to be there anyway.
Yes the pressure that is developed, might propel the ball out the barrel, But it won't have enough force behind it, to be useful for hunting or even target practice.
Mostly all you will get is a powder flash, just as if you lit a pile of powder on the table top.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top