Video - Round ball vs Conical performance series Part 1

[Bottom Dealin Mike]

This is part 1 of a three part series comparing the performance characteristics of various projectiles shot from a Colt style 1860 Army cap and ball revolver. In this series we will measure the accuracy, velocity and muzzle energy and penetration of round ball versus conical bullets. Part 1 will consist of the round ball performance test.

[Dick Dastardly]

Howdy BDM,

I'd be happy to contribute to the cause by donating some DD-PUK-45 210 grain Big Lube®LLC bullets.

DD-MDA

[Bottom Dealin Mike]

Dick,

You've already got my address. Send some along ad I'll test them on video and for the Guns of the Old West B-P column. Please send at least 25 bullets.

Thanks,

Mike

[Drydock]

Great fun to watch.  I would suggest that for the accuracy portion you should shoot the revolver from a rested position, say a shot bag beneath the butt, and 2 shot bags supporting the barrel, for better repeatability.

[hellgate]

Everybody's a critic (including myself). BDM, when I compare load effectiveness I figure on putting the most powder and the most lead per gun chamber down range. So, are you going to use the same charge of 30grs FFFg for each projectile to compare?

I would put as much powder as I could load under each projectile and compare that. I.E. maybe 35grs under the ball, and 30 under the conicals (whichever is the maximum I could chamber consistantly without forcing things. That way a choice of which load gives the best ballistics is based on the maximum load for each projectile based on the chamber dimensions for the gun. The Remington might just hold a little more powder than the Colt.

[Blackpowder Burn]

Very informative video.  I'm anxious to see the other 3.

[Bottom Dealin Mike]

Hellgate, I understand your point, but here is my thinking:

If I maximized the powder charge under each projectile I would maximize perhaps one or two of the test criteria...velocity and penetration, and that would be interesting. But what I chose to do was keep all the variables constant except one; projectile.

Now, if I really wanted to get fancy I'd invest the time trying different loads and different powders with each projectile until I had each one optimized for all three criteria. Then re-run the comparison.

Frankly that is more work than I cared to do, but it is something I'm thinking about for the future.

[Deadeye Dick]

BDM,
As usual your videos are very educational, interesting and fun. Thanks for taking the time and effort to video them and allow us to see them. I look forward to your next one.
Deadeye Dick

[Fingers McGee]

Great video Mike.  I've always wondered what the difference would be with different projectiles.  Now, I guess I need to do the same with my .36s. 

PS.  Can't wait to see how much of a shower you take shooting the 250 grainer   

[Cliff Fendley]

Thanks for posting this, I'm curious on the energy and penetration results for hunting purposes. I tend to agree with hellgate on using the maximum charge for each projectile or otherwise it seems like a mute point.

When energy and penetration matters I always run as close to the maximum charge possible without compromising accuracy.

Although it's interesting I don't have a lot of faith in the accuracy tests as you will find different guns like different loads.

Years ago when I got my first Pietta Remington New Army a hunting buddy got one too so we could take them on vintage deer hunts.

When getting them dialed in and trying different loads and bullets we found out my gun liked Hornady 454 round balls and his gun liked conicals from a Lee mold.

Identical guns just a few serial numbers apart liked different loads. We never did a penetration test and never accually figured up the energy but it would be curious to calculate. Even though shooting a lighter projectile mine was much faster with 35 grains under the ball and he only had 30.