Interest in Big Lube™ bullet monds for .36 Cal C&B pistols

[Dick Dastardly]

Is there enough interest in a bullet mold design to drop .36cal bullets for C&B pistols?  Several pards have asked and I can shrink the fine EPP-UG design down to that size.  I'd want to be able to move 25 molds in order to place the order with LEE Precision.  LEE would take about Six months to make the molds after they accepted the order.  The below exchange is from another pard that is looking for this design.

I don't have a good Big Lube™ projectile for the 36s, yet.  There is considerable interest in just such a design.  I'd take the EPP-UG and shrink it down to fit Navy C&B guns.

I'll take it under consideration.  If there's enough interest to sell 25 of those molds, I'll do it.

DD-DLoS

Thanks DD.

Can ya ask on the Darksider Den if there is any interest?

[Pettifogger]

Scroll down to the conicals.  I already have one of the Lee conicals.  I have had zero luck with it.  The Uberti chambers seem to have a slight taper.  No matter how hard I mash on the loading lever I can't get them to seat below the mouth of the chamber.

[Howdy Doody]

Howdy DD. I have one pair of .36 cal 51 Navy models by Pietta. I'll shoot them in a plainsman class since I know I am being scored by other BP shooters, but that little pure lead ball doesn't make much sound or movement on a chunk of steel. I like the way the EPP-UG boolists I cast from wheel weights, make that ding on steel. I get noticeably better scoring since I started shooting them in the ROAs. I use the stand I bought from you to load my cylinders and it goes like gangbusters, since I don't even twist my pin lock closed.
BUT, I can't see myself fooling with a wedge to load cylinders out of gun. I don't know about others, but if I was to cast a conical, then it would be wheelweights and not pure lead. A ball goes well enough for that.
Just my opinion pard. I know you are always trying to make things better. There are those however that like to shoot Remington 44s and a little smaller EPP-UG would work better for them and they are a snap to pull cylinders on. I would like to see a little more rebate or whatever they call it on the EPP for starting in the chambers. I sometimes have to take extra time to line them up before ramming when the chambers are real fouled towards the tail of a 12 stage match.

[Dalton Masterson]

I am with Howdy on this. I think they would work great for Remmys, and Colts with a loading stand. The biggest problem I have with my EppUG right now is that there isnt enough rebate to start the bullet straight in the cylinder. I have a small pile of bullets I have destroyed trying to get them lined up just right. They work great in my cartridges, but my small chambered Piettas dont care for them too much.

If they were more easier to load in a .36 51 or 61, then yes I would buy a set. That would mean a slightly shorter bullet, or a more pronounced rebate to get them into the cylinder more to start them under the loading lever.
Thanks. DM

[Paladin UK]

Ho DD........

YES.... YES....... YES..... PLEEEEZE!!!

I`d Lurv a ...   .36Bullet Monds!!

I too have the Lee..36 conical    BUT, ya gotta use wads `n` stuff!! and like DM says it needs a rebate jest like yer DD ROAs!!

I  have yet to hear a BAD report on ANY of yer Big Lube Boolits!!

So I`m sure it will fly `straight `n` true` and make them steels ring!!

Paladin (What wants needs a .36 big Lube Boolit  ) UK

[Sir Charles deMouton-Black]

I am interested.

I'm with Dalton on the EPP-Ug 150.  I finally tried one in a Pietta .44 remmie.  It wasn't pretty!

[Dick Dastardly]

My sidekick, Silas McFee, has a Remington 58 with both C&B and Kirst Konverter cylinders.  Walt slugged the barrel and found that it was near .454 while the chambers in the cylinder mouth were around .445.  Walt reamed the chambers to match the barrel.  It seats, loads and shoots the EPP-UG bullets with ease.

I'm thinkn' that a LOT of Italian clones have small chambers and big bores.  It's a lawyer thing.  I know for a fact that ROAs are not made this way.  I have Two of 'em and so does Silas.  They easily load and shoot the EPP-UG bullets.  I also have a brace of 1860s and both C&B and Kirst Konverter cylinders.  They thrive on EPP-UG bullets.  Of course, Walt reamed those chambers also. . .

So, I'm wondering if the .450 rebate is not just right for chambers that match the bores?  The original EPP-UG bullet molds had a .452 rebate and we found that fouled chambers were a mite tight.  That's the reason we went with the .450 size rebate.

Have any pards that have had difficulty starting the bullets straight miked the chamber mouths and slugged their barrels?  I'd like to hear what they learned.

Thanks,

DD-DLoS

[rifle]

Dick, the Italian clones do have undersized chambers and have tapers quite a bit too. Not all. The Pietta ""Shooters Remington(called a Tiro sometimes) has equal chambers and grooves at .455. The Pietta distressed finish cap&ballers have equal chambers and grooves in the barrels too. The Pedersoli's are nearly equal in chambers and barrel grooves too. The Rugers are .002-.003 oversize chambers compared to the barrel grooves. The Uberti 1862 Pocket Police have equal chambers to barrel grooves.  I ream chambers fer people sometimes and there aren't any complaints I ever heard. My guns that are reamed in the chambers like it and shoot better with balls. I like the chambers .001-.003 oversize compared to the barrels grooves.
Anywhooo......ifin you were to make Big Lube bullet moulds with rebated(heeled) bullets fer the standard run of the mill cap&ballers with the undersized chambers there would be a range to fit it(heel/rebate) into where it would have to run minimal to fit more guns.  Conicals would probably want to tumble since they would be undersized for the barrels when the chambers are factory specs. unless you had a hollow base in the heel of the bullet which with a six cavity mould would be a little difficult to do.  
I'd imagine you'd have to make moulds for heeled bullets expressly for the cap&ballers that are coming out of the box with the chambers not undersized which would limit the number of different guns the bullets would fit well.
It would seem like a short Big Lube grooved bullet that had the flat end at the front and the ball shaped rear would go in plenty of guns if the backwards looking bullets were the size of the recommended round balls for the guns. The round balls end up in that shape,just about, anyway from the loading plunger flattening the front of it quite a bit and the rear stays nice and round. Take a backwards lookin bullet that is shaped like a ball after it is seated in a chamber and stick a deep wide groove in the middle,more forward actually. Then you'd have a Big Lube Bullet that could be loaded without removing cylinders and have a lot of lube and fly as good as a round ball ,at least, since it actually would be a ball with a lube groove.  Just as long as the length stayed as close to the length of a ball as possible. Length of a ball? That's a good one.    ha ha ha 
I hope someone isn't going to bring up that theory that a round reared bullet expands gas somehow to burst cylinders.  Cap&ballers always have rounded rears to the bullets cause they are round balls.      You know what I mean about the original Walker revolver bullets that had pointy fronts and the men loaded them backwards and people say that's why Walker cylinders blew up.   I thought it was the iron cylinders that made them blow.  Anyway round reared bullets aren't pointy reared. 

I've often wished for a flat front /rounded rear bullet with a lube groove in the middle(a little forward actually) that fit the cap&ballers.  They could be put in lube sizers with the round rear up and the flat end down like a regular bullet.   Call it the "Backwards Bullet" or the "Flat ended ball".  ha ha ha
Just make it short enough to fit in the loading recess of the cap&ballers so the cylinders don't have to come out to load the bullets in a loading stand.  The accuracy even from undersized chambers couldn't be any worse than the balls that are normally used.
Have a test mould made and try er out. I'd been planning on doing that for years but haven't gotten around to it. I got the idea when my Lee conicals were too hard to load straight putting them in heeled flat side first so I loaded them backwards with the round front going in the chamber first and they shot better that way. They were still a little too long though and had skimpy lube grooves.
My idea of a good "heeled bullet" for a cap&baller where the flat end went in first would be short,have a heel that went in easy and....had a hollow base to the heeled part of the bullet. That couldn't be made in a six cavity mould but only a single cavity mould. That short heeled and hollow based bullet would be good though as long as the heel went in easy and the bullet was just about as short as a ball(just a tad longer) and the lube groove was big enough. 
Anywhoo...I'd buy a mould fer a "Backwards Big Lube Bullet" or the,"Flat Ended Big Lube Ball" ,like I mentioned, because I think it would work well in a cap&baller just as long as it was nice and short to load without taking cylinders out and had a good lube groove to it. The round rear to it would be the way to get it in easy and far enough and the flat front would shave lead going in the chamber if it was the diameter of the recommended ball size for the guns. Did I say that already?

[Deadguy]

What I have found that works very well in the cap and ball revolvers is the Lee REAL bullet, in .45 caliber 200 grain size for the so-called .44 caliber cap n balls.  The base is slightly undersized, and the bullet tapers outwards as you get to the front, until the front is slightly oversized.  When loaded, they go in straight because of the taper, and they have big lube grooves in them too.  Also, the oversized front gets bent forward instead of shaved off due to the "V" shape of the grooves, turning it into a scraper which helps keep the bore clean.  My Dragoon absolutely loves them.  Anyways, a bullet made like this, in .36 caliber, around 140 grains, would be great.  It would load straight in guns with undersized chambers (if for some reason the gun's owner chose not to ream the chamber to proper size), as well as properly sized chambers.  Plus, the extra weight would make a louder CLANK when shooting the metal targets, making scoring easier.

[rifle]

DeadGuy, what Dragoon do you have? Uberti? Old or new one?   Ever measure yer chambers at the mouth of them? Tapered in further? Dragoon loves Lee Real bullets? Get any accuracy from them?   I tried those years ago but can't remember in what gun or how they shot or loaded. Probably tried them in a Colt Army 1860 but really can't say for sure. Anywhoo....they sound interesting enough to try them again. I'd hope they were tapered enough to go in the chambers without taking barrels and cylinders off. Going in straight is a big plus with any conical bullet. If they did that and especially if they filled the barrel grooves they should shoot real well. I've heard,and have tried it somewhere along the trail, that Maxi bullets from Thompson Center moulds can work. The 44/45's that is.  I don't remember any 36cal. bullet I've ever tried that fit the 36's except the Lee Conicals. I've tried them but I don't remember anything great about them. Probably because of the undersized chambers or ,put another way, oversized barrel grooves of the Italian cap&ballers. Now I remember...they didn't shoot too straight. They would be good enough for fast close work like Cowboy shooting though. They hit harder than a ball that's for sure.
Anywhoooo......making a mould fer Big Lubey Bullets that would work in the different brands of cap&ballers having different chamber sizes would be a good trick. They have differing chamber sizes and barrel groove sizes that may take a bullet in a certain range maybe. I know Pietta and Uberti are pretty close in chamber size. More difference in barrel groove diameters though.   Of course that changes from gun to gun and over time varies some it seems.  Doesn't vary a lot though. A bullet with a min. heel to fit all and a max. front to seal (shave more or less lead depending on the gun) all could work.

[River City John]

I have used the .36 Buffalo Ball-ets (TM), which do have a rebated heel to get them started properly aligned with the chamber before ramming. Might be a good design feature to incorporate.

[Deadguy]

It's an Uberti Dragoon.  I reamed the chambers out to .455", though I did use the REALs before I reamed them out as well.  Both before and after the reaming, they go in straight and they go in more than far enough to load the regular way, without taking the barrel off.  That Dragoon has never liked round balls.  Before I reamed it, it shot about two foot "groups" with round ball at 25 yards.  I then tried the 200 grain REALs, and those groups shrunk to about 5 inches.  After reaming the chambers, the ball groups shrunk to about 6 inches, and the REAL groups shrunk to about two inches.  I think the reason for the markedly better performance of the REAL in this case is because the Dragoons were originally designed around a 190 grain conical, and the REAL is pretty close to that.  I have tried the REAL in 1860 Armies as well.  In those, the group size with the REALs was about the same as with round ball, though the REALs were easier to load, penetrated through wood much deeper, and shot a bit higher.

[rifle]

Mr. DeadGuy Sir, that's all interesting. You know.......a person taking the time to wring the most from his cap&baller. The conicals giving a good grouip after the gun was reamed isn't surprising. The fact the balls still didn't give a better group is though. The rifling twist being 1-48 and all I'd think the balls would shoot better than the REAL Bullets. 
I'd wonder why the .455 in. ream job on the chambers? The .458-.460 in. diameter seems more like it would match the rifling grooves in the barrel. Did you slug the barrel and measure that carefully or use calipers in the muzzle? I found,been there done that, when measuring rifling grooves that way with calipers in the muzzle that the reading can come out smaller than it really is. The seven grooved barrel rifling making it difficult ,even with slugging the bore with lead, to get a good reading. Where is this going? Well....maybe the chambers are still a tad small and that affects the performance of the balls and their groups. I've found, in a few guns, that the balls give better performance when they are right at groove diameter or .001-.003 over groove diameter and....when undersized for the bore........001-.002 smaller than the bore gives terrible groups compared to ,say, .004-.005 undersized. You know...right on or a couple of .001's over is real good and .004-.005 can be good but .001-.002 undersized is the worst. Don't ask me why but I've experienced that.  Anywhoo......maybe yer chambers are still a coupla .001's under sized.
Lead "bumped up"  inside the barrel and knocked out and measured gives a true reading if a guy is real careful with measuring because of the seven grooved barrels. If the lead ain't "bumped up" with rods at each side of it in the barrel it will give a smaller reading than it should. Aywhoooo.....using that Cerrosafe that's made for slugging bores might be the best way to go. It's melted and poured in a blocked barrel and when hard it's tapped out and measured. It's designed so it doesn't shrink after it cools. Just my thoughts about that Dragoon of yorn. I'd check it out and maybe it'll end up being a cap&baller extrourdiaire since it already shoots those REAL bullets pretty well.

[Deadguy]

I went with the .455" reamer because, even knowing that it would still be .001"-.002" undersized, because a.) it's still much better than the .450" chambers it originally had and b.) it's the biggest you can go and still use commonly available round balls.  Though, now that I have pretty much stopped using round balls and use the REALs almost exclusively in my cap and balls, I may still get a .458" reamer, though, at two inch groups at 25 yards as it is now, there wouldn't be any further benefit as far as CAS matches are concerned.

[Deadguy]

As for your other point about best accuracy being acheived with an oversize chamber, I can vouch for that, too.  I have used my .455" reamer on Pietta and Uberti 1860 Armies with amazing results. Six shot groups smaller than 2" seem to be commonplace with that combination, using round balls.

[rifle]

Mr. DeadGuy, two inch groups at 25 yards used to be the standard that revolvers were judged by. There are plenty of revolvers that couldn't best that Dragoon whether they be cap&ballers or cartridge reolvers. I'd stay the course on that one Buddy.
The Uberti and Pietta 1860 Armys of yours reamed with the .455 reamer and showing good results with the balls and.....the Dragoon not showing as good reamed a coupla .001's under in the chambers seems to justify my reasoning about balls not liking .001-.002 undersized chambers where as people seem to give good reports with the chambers .004-.006 under sized. Of course I believe thay give the best results (the balls) with the chambers right at groove diameter or .001-.003 over sized.
Thanks for giving me even more to do. Now I'm going to have to dig out my REAL moulds and try them in my Dragoon. Well.....maybe not. The Dragon is reamed .458 fer the balls. That might be a tad big for the REAL bullets. How big is the top half. I don't remember.

[Deadguy]

The Lee REAL, at it's widest point, is .467".  So, it should still work just fine with your .458" chambers.  Have fun!

[rifle]

DeadGuy, Funny. I have a coupla Uberti 1860 Army Colts reamed .455 in. They have groove diameters of .452 and ,453 in. If I'm remembering right. I have too many guns. Whenever I get one out to shoot I have to measure the chambers to see what balls to use.  They shoot good. 44's have a more shallow groove diameter in relation to the ball diameter. What I'd call a better relationship in that area than the 36cal. guns that have deeper grooves in relation to the ball diameter. There's a relation between ball diameter and barrel groove depth I've noticed and the grooves that are shallower in relation to the ball sixe shoot more consistant I think.  I noticed the relationship when I was slugging barrels for reaming chambers. I could put an oversize ball in a 36cal. barrel(say a .390 ball) with starting it and hitting the lead till just about even with the barrels breech end with a METAL hammer. The lead would obtuate a lot and fill the forcing cone completely. I'd drive the lead in the barrel past the forcing cone with a wool dowel. Why I don't know but I.....put the barrel up to a window to see if light came thru. Light showed in every corner of every barel groove. I ended up with a theory that lead getts pushed backwards by the lands as the ball goes in the barrel and pulls lead out and back away from the grooves when the rifling depth is too deep in relation to the ball size. The 36's have too deep of barrel rifling grooves and that, I think, causes the inconsistancy they have compared to a 44 cal. The 44 cal. seems more consistant to me. I know there are those to debate that but I'd stick to my guns and not change my mind. I believe the 36's are less consistant than 44's because the grooves are deeper in relation the the ball size than 44's where the rifling grooves are shallow enough to let the lead fully engage to the bottoms and into the corners of the grooves. Anywhooo......some may say,"ya but if the 36's don't have the lead fully filling the grooves in the barrels the pressure of the powder would obtuate the lead to fill the bvarrel grooves well". Don't believe it. Once the lead is past the fircing cone all the pressure does is move the ball further into the barrel. Sort of like the path of least resistance. The ball will get pushed down the barel easier than it will get obtuated. The rules of physics apply and without the friction to give backpressure on the balls the pressure can't obtuate the lead past a certain point after the ball is past the forcing cone. Why? The light balls and the area of surface contact with the barrel steel isn't conducive(not enough) to the pressure obtuating the lead much after the ball passes the forcing cone. The 44's on the other hand have shallower grooves compared to ball diameter and they fill the barrel grooves more consistantly and shoot more consistant. They weigh more than a 36 ball and have more area in surface contact with the barrel steel so the pressure may be able to obtuate the lead as it goes down the barrel keeping a good seal. I believe the 44 balls fill the grooves well without the lead obtuating anyway. They don't have to rely on obtuation to seal the barrel grooves.  If an over size ball is wacked with a lead hammer to the point it completely fills the forcing cone and then is pushed into the barrel a ways there is never any light showing in any of the grooves when the barrel is looked thru and into a light. Well....there can be cases every once in awhile where the balls show a little light in a groove or two in the 44's but not anywhere as often as with the 36's. That is a weird trait of the lead. It can be mushed into the forcing cone using a steel hammer to do it and then be driven into the barrel and show light in the grooves of the barrels. Talking about oversize balls being driven in. Oversize bullets(conicals) and the lead filling the grooves? Well.....I can't remember what I found there. I just assume the lead of an over size conical bullet will fill the rifling grooves. Of course I assumed that about the balls and the 36cal. barrels for a long time too.  haha ha    Anywhoooo.....I have a theory that if most 36cal. barrels were reamed in a way to take some off the top of the lands in the barrels to where the riflings were .003 in. deep they would probably almost always fill the grooves with lead from the balls and thus shoot better than they do on average now with deeper rifling.  Anywhooo.....is surmiss that if one were to try to make a conical bullet that would shoot good in a standard non-reamed anywhere 36 cal. cap&baller the bullet would need things.  It would have to be short to go in and have a heel to it that went in easily but was still a close fit to the cylinder chamber walls and had the front being at least .001-.002 over barrel groove diameter to engage the rifling grooves well. One last thing I think that bullet would need to get it to be consistant. It would need a hollow based heel to it. Hollow based heel bullet with a good grease groove. 
On the NEI Handtools site in the catalog part in the moulds numbers and size part in the bullet size .456 is a 170 grain cap&ball bullet that has all the shape right(almost) and it needs a hollow base to the heel and that could be a good cap&baller bullet if the size was established properly.   The way it is it would shoot well in 44's I bet but would need the hollow base in the 36 cal. size fer sure.   It doesn't say whether the heel is .456 or the front part is .456.   If the rear was .444 and the front .453 it would shoot good in Pietta 44's. If the heel was .447-8 and the front .453 it would shoot good in Ubertis.  It couild be .444 rear heel and .453 front and shoot good in both possibly. More possible if it had the hollow base to the heel part.    Man, I go on and on don't I?      Wonder if anyone even reads these things I type?   You reading this Dastardly? No comments from the Master mould design man?  How about you DeadGuy? Still there? 
The other theory I have is that cap&ballers can shoot conicals better when loose in the barrels than they do shoot the balls when they are loose in the barrels.

[Deadguy]

Well, that certainly would explain why I've never seen a .36 that shot better than a .44.  Anyways, the bullets would have to be more like .456" at their widest so that those of us with reamed chambers or Roooger Ol' Armies can use them as well. 

[Dick Dastardly]

Let's see, hmmmm.  I started out this thread to learn the answer to what the Subject line asked.  It'll take me considerable filtering sort this all out.

DD-DLoS