.36 conicals for cap and ball revolver interest

[Deadguy]

I have acquired a mold for 130 grain .375" conicals for .36 caliber cap and ball revolvers.  Think there would be enough interest in them for me to make them available for sale on my website?

[Springfield Slim]

Maybe, show us a pic of them. 

[Ned Pepper GB]

I have tried .36 conicals with some success. The biggest problem is getting them to seat properly, what is needed is a rebate at the base of the bullet so it goes in straight. See DD's Ruger Old Army bullet.

Ned

[Fox Creek Kid]

Weren't D.D. & U.K. Paladin working on a .36 "Big Lube" conical as well? 

[Dick Dastardly]

I'm still workin' on the little 36 Cal version of the EPP-UG.  I've got a LOT of irons in the fire, but this is one bullet design that I'll be bringing to market.  The 44 Cal EPP-UG has been very successful and I expect no less from the .36 Cal.

This means I've got to get another brace of pistols.  I'm thinkn' open tops in .36 Cal.

DD-DLoS

[Pukin Dog]

I'm still workin' on the little 36 Cal version of the EPP-UG.  I've got a LOT of irons in the fire, but this is one bullet design that I'll be bringing to market.  The 44 Cal EPP-UG has been very successful and I expect no less from the .36 Cal.

This means I've got to get another brace of pistols.  I'm thinkn' open tops in .36 Cal.

DD-DLoS

DD,
I'd be more than happy to test them out in the 51 Navy and 61 Navy conversions that I have!!!

[Dick Dastardly]

Yer on PD!

I'll want a thorough prototype testing before I release the design for production.  Don't hold yer breath waiting for 'em tho.  I've got a lot of irons in the fire right now and have to use 'em before the cattle wander off.

DD-DLoS

[Adirondack Jack]

A successful .36 C&B conical will end up looking like this:



Short enough to load in a Piettta '51 or '61 frame, light for caliber.  This one is a HB, designed to be cast of pure lead, and shot over a hefty load of pyrodex (all I had at the time), it performed nicely, mushrooming like a magnum JHP.  I spun it up about 12 yrs ago when I had a '61 Navy I carried afield.  The little HB bullet weighed about 65 or 70 grains (I didn't own a scale then) and was hell for rabbits, skunks, etc.

[Pettifogger]

Conicals in a .36 are more trouble than they are worth.  I have the Lee .36 mold.  It has a rebated base, but is simply to long.   No matter if you load it right side up or upside down it can't be seated deep enough for the cylinder to turn.  If you make the bullet very short, then the weight isn't that much more than a round ball and defeats the purpose of using a conical.  Ubertis also seem to have slightly tapered chambers.  At any rate, I gave up on conicals and use just use round balls in the .36.

[Deadguy]

The one I acquired is the Lee 130 grain, and I have only used it so far in guns that have had the chambers reamed out.  In those, it worked fine, and was nearly as accurate as round ball.  I did some penetration tests on wood boards, and it definitely carries a lot more energy than the round ball! Penetration is MUCH deeper.  Anyways, I do not know how it performs in guns with the now-common grossly undersized chambers, I suspect that may be the problem Pettifogger ran into.  All the guns that I tested it on were Pietta 1851 Navies with the chambers reamed to .375", and they took a 25 grain charge under the bullet just fine.  If I put them up, I'll have to put a little disclaimer in the description.  Thanks for the info, Pettifogger!  That hollowbase conical also looks really interesting.  It's probably the only design that would shoot well in both reamed AND undersized chambers.  I might have to talk to Old West molds about getting one of those made.....

[Fiddler Green]

Conicals in a .36 are more trouble than they are worth.  I have the Lee .36 mold.  It has a rebated base, but is simply to long.   No matter if you load it right side up or upside down it can't be seated deep enough for the cylinder to turn.  If you make the bullet very short, then the weight isn't that much more than a round ball and defeats the purpose of using a conical.  Ubertis also seem to have slightly tapered chambers.  At any rate, I gave up on conicals and use just use round balls in the .36.

Thank you! I was wondering when someone would say it. I feel the exact same way.

Bruce

BTW: round balls were good enough in James Buttler Hickock's Navys.

BB

[Mako]

Thank you! I was wondering when someone would say it. I feel the exact same way.
Bruce
BTW: round balls were good enough in James Buttler Hickock's Navys.
BB

Bruce,
Have you ever had to face a bank of falling plates or even one knock down with an 80 grain lead ball out of a percussion pistol?  Some people want a 130 grain .36 caliber C&B bullet, I'm one of them... 80 grains works about 50-75% of the time on a lightly set plate, I know, I've tried it under controlled conditions (just under max velocity allowed by SASS, which happens to be the standard "combat load" for the pistol).

Plus the sound of an 80 grain projectile at sub 1,000 fps (maximum velocity allowed by SASS) is anemic, most people shoot them at even lower velocities.  With the sound of the boom created by 26 to 26.5 grains of the Holy Black totally covers up the little "ping" sound of the 80 grain ball (mine actually weigh 79.4 grains) striking a steel target at CAS distances.  The target doesn't even begin to move, unlike a hit with a 150-250 grain projectile.  In addition the smallish splash of lead may not be noticed by the counters on your posse, especially if they aren't BP shooters themselves and haven't  learned to position themselves to avoid the smoke obscuring the targets.

You see, there are reasonable arguments for someone  wanting  a heavier projectile than a Ø.380 ball.
~Mako

[Mako]

This is what a 130 grain .36 caliber bullet designed specifically for C&B revolvers looks like.  I call it the MAKO - LTSW©.  It is designed to fit under the loading ram on any C&B revolver that has a clearance cut in the barrel underlug to allow conical projectiles.

The bullet has a relatively long rebated lead to allow guided insertion into the chamber. The bullet will sit approximately .375" above the cylinder face when seated in the chamber.  The truncated ogive will fit the ram face just as a ball does but with less of a contact patch.

The lube groove is generous, it actually has a larger groove volume  to diameter ratio than most of the current Big Lube® bullets or other bullets designed specifically for the Holy Black.

~Mako

[Fiddler Green]

Bruce,
Have you ever had to face a bank of falling plates or even one knock down with an 80 grain lead ball out of a percussion pistol?  Some people want a 130 grain .36 caliber C&B bullet, I'm one of them... 80 grains works about 50-75% of the time on a lightly set plate, I know, I've tried it under controlled conditions (just under max velocity allowed by SASS, which happens to be the standard "combat load" for the pistol).

Plus the sound of an 80 grain projectile at sub 1,000 fps (maximum velocity allowed by SASS) is anemic, most people shoot them at even lower velocities.  With the sound of the boom created by 26 to 26.5 grains of the Holy Black totally covers up the little "ping" sound of the 80 grain ball (mine actually weigh 79.4 grains) striking a steel target at CAS distances.  The target doesn't even begin to move, unlike a hit with a 150-250 grain projectile.  In addition the smallish splash of lead may not be noticed by the counters on your posse, especially if they aren't BP shooters themselves and haven't  learned to position themselves to avoid the smoke obscuring the targets.

You see, there are reasonable arguments for someone  wanting  a heavier projectile than a Ø.380 ball.
~Mako

I shoot my .45 Colt replicas for SAS. But, I did shot a clean match with my 1851 Navy and my 1860 Army. Both loaded with round lead balls. And, I've never had a problem hearing or seeing the spray from the .375 ball. Never had a knockdown not go down for me either. I did have one hit so hard it bounced back up! that sucked.

Also, I don't shoot "Holy" black. I shot black poweder. No one blessed my powder and I'd feel like a pegan calling it "holy".

Bruce

[Mako]

I shoot my .45 Colt replicas for SAS. But, I did shot a clean match with my 1851 Navy and my 1860 Army. Both loaded with round lead balls. And, I've never had a problem hearing or seeing the spray from the .375 ball. Never had a knockdown not go down for me either. I did have one hit so hard it bounced back up! that sucked.

Also, I don't shoot "Holy" black. I shot black poweder. No one blessed my powder and I'd feel like a pegan calling it "holy".

Bruce

Bruce
I ask your indulgence,  I wouldn't want you to be a "pegan"<sic> nor consider us as being one by our light hearted use of the term...so you may shoot your black powder, or as many of us would call it "gunpowder."

So let me make sure I understand,  I can be a bit slow, so bear with me.  I will admit I am confused so I need to ask these as a set of questions:

• Are you are telling us you have shot clean matches with an 1851 shooting 80 grain round balls and the knock downs you hit during that match went down?




• Or,  are you saying that you have shot matches with an 1851 shooting 80 grain round balls and you knocked down every falling target (you hit) that was calibrated per SASS requirements; "reactive targets are set to fall when squarely hit with no more than a standard .38 Special 158 gr. factory load."( page 20 of the 15th edition Jan  2009 SASS Shooters Handbook)?




• You are also saying that while shooting a match with your 1851s using 80 grain round balls, "I did have one hit so hard it bounced back up!" ?   Is that correct?

That last one definitely has me impressed.  An 80 grain projectile at 1,000 fps (can't go any faster than that by SASS rules) has 11.43 ft-lbs/sec  of momentum.  A 158 grain .38 spl factory load at 800 FPS (which is what most commercial cowboy loads seem to be in the 158 grain bullets) has 18.06 ft-lbs/sec of momentum.  The 1851s ball only has 63% of the momentum of the "factory standard" .38 spl load, yet if it is capable of not only knocking down that steel reaction target, but does so with enough authority to cause it to rebound back to a standing condition, then I am truly impressed.

The  energy of a hinged plate just falling is not sufficient to generate a 100% return on motion which is what would be required to have it rebound to a full standing position.  Just as a ball can't bounce as high as the height it was released from,  a plate can't rebound to its original position without additional energy being added to it.  This is usually in the form of velocity, which is what we would expect from a target being imparted an impulse from a projectile.  Even ignoring the energy lost when impacting the down stop position on the target holder it still requires a significant amount to be added to return it to the full upright position.

Well as I said, I'm impressed, I wish my experiences were similar to yours.  If they were then my pursuit of the 130 grain projectile would be moot.  I have always calculated that a 130 grain bullet loaded to safe pressures should just be able to make a moment of 15+ ft-lbs/sec which would make it around 85% of the moment of the standard .38 spl load specified by SASS.  With that load I would occasionally take up my '61s or '51s again instead limiting myself to my .44 Army Models as I have for last several years.

Regards,
Mako

[Fiddler Green]

Bruce
I ask your indulgence,  I wouldn't want you to be a "pegan"<sic> nor consider us as being one by our light hearted use of the term...so you may shoot your black powder, or as many of us would call it "gunpowder."

So let me make sure I understand,  I can be a bit slow, so bear with me.  I will admit I am confused so I need to ask these as a set of questions:

• Are you are telling us you have shot clean matches with an 1851 shooting 80 grain round balls and the knock downs you hit during that match went down?

..............................

Your reading to much into what I said.

I said I shot a clean match using a 1851 Navy and an 1860 Army. As you know, the Army is a .44 while the Navy is a .36.  My only option, at the time, was to shoot the match with cap and ball pistols (Read my post on the Tarus Gachos to understand why) and I opted to use the two Colts vs. a 1850 and an 1860 both in .44. Not ideal in either case, but, you work with what you have. I used the .44 for the knockdowns and the .36 for the plates. Fortunatly, the stages worked out for that.

No, I don't believe that the .36 would have taken down the knockdows: even with conical bullets (you can find my thread on them, as well) and even if it would, it would have been hard to reload between stages as I was using Colts (Piettas) and they have to be taken apart to load conical bullets.

I bounced a knockdown back up at the Coyote Valley Sharpshooters match with my 250 Grain BP loads. It went down (and stayed down!) with a off center second shot. The funny part of the match was watching one shooter pump 10 rounds into the first plate, out of his .38's, without moving it. If it were up to me: all matches would have knockdowns to eliminate the "Mouse fart" loads. But, I guess the "gamers" would just load appropriatly for the knockdowns and then load "mouse fart" loads for the rest.  It's really a sad reflection on our sport that people do that.

Bruce[/list]

[Mako]

Bruce,
I am extremely relieved to read your latest post, my world is now back on an even keel.  I was beginning to worry the color of your sky and mine were of a different color...

I will however remind you that you did say you never had a knock down not drop for you in response to my lament that an 80 grain ball wouldn't reliably drop a reactive target.  And you went on to say you used an 1851 without saying you didn't consider that it wasn't reliable for taking down reactive targets.

I will disagree with you about two things you just said in this last post:

• You contend that, "No, I don't believe that the .36 would have taken down the knockdows<sic>: even with conical bullets..." A 130 grain bullet at 775 to 800 fps will take down the reactive targets I have encountered.  I know this because family members shoot 130 grain .38 spl loads with Trail Boss that I load for them and have not ever failed to take down a reactive target they actually hit.  So conical 130 gr. bullets in a Navy caliber revolver are basically a ballistic analog to these .38 spl loads.


• It doesn't take longer to load a Colt pattern revolver if you disassemble it, I would argue that the opposite is true.  I exclusively shoot Colt pattern percussion pistols and have for years.  I would be willing to lay money that I can out load you and I disassemble both pistols after every stage.   I disassemble, inspect, clean and charge each pistol at the unloading table each and every stage except for the last one.   I take care to perform my duties as a posse member as well as being a percussion pistol shooter.

One of the reasons I designed the Mako-LTSW© was to allow people who weren't using 1861s or who didn't disassemble to have a 130 grain bullet they could easily load.  If I were just planning on being the sole user almost any design would work since I load off of the revolver. You will note the 1861's have the increased clearance feature like the 1860 and 1862 models in the barrel lug, you can get almost anything under the rammer on these models.  It is the 1851 pattern pistols and the Confederate copies that have the clearance issues.

With this last post you have actually refuted your original post concerning why there wasn't a need for a heavier projectile than the 80 grain ball for .36 caliber C&B revolvers.  You have told us, "No, I don't believe that the .36 would have taken down the knockdows<sic>" Which is what I originally said, and was the reason I offered as the need for a heavier .36 caliber bullet.  You do realize that the .451 diameter balls you use in your .44 Army model weigh 136 grains or less don't you?  You state, "I used the .44 for the knockdowns and the .36 for the plates."  The 136 grain balls worked, why wouldn't a 130 grain bullet?  So when you say, "No, I don't believe that the .36 would have taken down the knockdows<sic>: even with conical bullets (you can find my thread on them, as well), " I would have to ask you what is so different about a Ø.451 ball and a Ø.380 "conical" bullet which weighs 130 grains when it comes to moving steel?

One last thing...if you chronograph your Navy model shooting a 130 grain bullet and your Army model shooting balls you are going to find what appears to be a paradox.  The .36 caliber bullet can reach the same velocity as the .44 ball with about 5 grains less powder.  I will leave that for you to cogitate for yourself and to test it if you think I am wrong.

So I leave you with these last thoughts:
My original closing statement still remains as I said in my original post to you, "You see, there are reasonable arguments for someone wanting a heavier projectile than a Ø.380 ball."  What has changed, isn't that a valid and I would even venture to say a strong argument for a conical bullet for the .36 caliber revolvers?

I'd also be willing to bet James Butler Hickok would use a heavier bullet than an 80 grain ball if he were loading up at the table next to you at your next match. Why would I say that?  Because Wild Bill hated to lose, I have read he didn't even trust cartridge pistols because he couldn't be sure that someone had actually put powder in the cartridges.  Furthermore we always associate Hickok with the 1851 revolver, we do so because of his presentation pair that are in museums today.  I have read that in the famous Tutt fight where he shot him through the heart at 75 yards he was actually carrying a pair of .44 Dragoons and in another documented fight with Phil Coe he was carrying .44 Army models.  I have also read that Hickok actually carried .44 Army models more so than he did the Navy models.  We just don't know, but he may have carried .44s instead of .36s when he expected trouble. They are roughly the same size and except for the grip handle much the same. Any man who would shoot a C&B revolver in 1876 because he was concerned about reliability and whether or not they were properly charged might be the first to use a larger caliber in the weapon type he preferred.  This is of course conjecture on my part, but I believe it is a reasonable assumption.

Regards,
Mako

[Griff]

See Dixie Gun Works .36 Caliber Brass Mould... has one cavity for RB and one for a 90grain conical that works great in my '51 Navys.  Never felt the need for a heavier bullet... my std. load of 17grain of 3F behind that conical would knock down the huge KDs they used in the early days of CAS... Lately I've not met a KD that my 77gr RBs wouldn't take down... (if hit in the upper 1/4).

Trying to get a heavier conical in the '51, IMO is not necessary.  'Sides, I take the moral high ground by shootin' the '51s anyway.  Worth 10 misses in style points alone!

(for you purists... I was shooting in the "traditional" category the day this was taken as I was using borrowed ammo for the Henry and borrowed SG; plus many new shooters have NEVER seen anyone shoot a C&B uisng a squaw grip)!

[Mako]

Griff,
My hat is off to you just for style points alone.  But you really should get a picture of yourself with a manly grip...
~Mako

[Griff]

Griff,
My hat is off to you just for style points alone.  But you really should get a picture of yourself with a manly grip...
~Mako

Nay, nay... there are times when the (earplugs in) whispered comments in the peanut gallery, "wow, that cap n' ball revolver doesn't seem to slow HIM down," are pleasing to the ego!