.36 conicals for cap and ball revolver interest

Dick Dastardly · March 21, 2009, 08:37:54 AM

Howdy Mako,

I really like your design. I have one question about the rebate. What is the range of chamber mouth sizes in .36 Cal C&B revolvers? I'm now looking at a Two step rebate because of all the variables in chamber mouth sizes with my new DD/ROA-II design. Were it the case that the bullets would only be used in ROAs, there would be no need for the twin step base. But, repro pistols have chamber mouths as small as .444 and as large as .455. Designing a bullet that would accommodate that range of chamber mouth sizes left me with the two step solution in order to get it all to happen with one mold/bullet design. FWIW, I looked at a tapered rebate but didn't like the possibility of having bullets seat slightly cocked when rammed down on the powder.

I suspect that if you could mike enough different repro/import 36 Cal. cylinder chamber mouths you would encounter a similar diversity of diameters. So, if you design that rebate for the smallest/worse case .36 you might end up with a sloppy fit and thus a non concentric entry when the bullet is rammed home on the powder.

The obvious solution would be a different mold rebate size for each different size chamber. That's price prohibitive. Now, while your mold is in the design stage would be a good time to answer the rebate size question.

FWIW, unless you are going to market your design I'd be proud to add it to the fine line of DD Big Lube™ inventory designs.

DD-DLoS

Deadguy · March 21, 2009, 08:51:57 AM

I have worked on a lot of .36 cap and ball guns, and I can tell you that the range of chamber sizes can vary widely, from .360" all the way to .377". So, if the bullet drops at .378" with a rebate of .360", it should work in everything. In fact, Colt's original conical for the .36 measured .378". The EPP-UG design in .36 would be a handy little bullet for those that want a lightweight projectile, but the reason that most people go with a conical in .36 is because they want a heavier bullet for more power. However, I do believe that a design like Mako's weighing from 130-140 grains would probably sell better.

Mako · March 21, 2009, 10:23:14 AM

Howdy to you too Dick!
I would be proud to have you add it to your line. I just wanted this bullet for myself and any other pistolero that would like to never feel at a disadvantage with a Navy model revolver. Just the doubt alone is enough to put a hitch in my giddy up... One thing a man shooting percussion pistols Gunfighter style doesn't need is any more potential for problems.

You and I have spoken about the double rebate concept before and the plethora of chamber dimensions in all makes and flavors of .36 C&B revolvers. I will talk to you more about this offline. I believe I have a solution we can test, I'd be willing to pony up the cash to have the cherry cut for the test mold.

I had another thought as well, I have had several people send me personal messages asking about availability of bullets. I may buy a set of molds and send them to Springfield Slim so he can make bullets for any Vaquero who wants to try them.

Since you offered, I guess I will have to tell to what the LTSW © stands for... Loud Thumpn' Steel Whacker © . That pretty much sums up what I want this bullet for.

Have a great day,
Mako

Doc O · March 21, 2009, 01:30:10 PM

Thanks Mako.

Paladin UK · March 21, 2009, 01:46:16 PM

At loooooooong last is looks like were gonna get us a BIG LUBE.36 conical!!!

Bloody Brill
Well done Mako `n` DD!!

Paladin (Whats gettin kinda excited

) UK

Dick Dastardly · March 21, 2009, 04:03:06 PM

Howdy Mako,

LTSW works for me. It's the Cowboy Way. We'll talk off line. There's more to this than I care to explain here.

Thanks,

Dick

Pettifogger · March 21, 2009, 06:03:36 PM

Here's the only .36 conical I have right now. As I previously noted, it is useless. Cannot be seated fully into the chamber no matter what you do. I shoot all over the country and shoot C&B a lot. In my Navies I use 22 grains of BP or a volume equivalent of APP or 777. I seldom, if ever, leave up a KD using the standard round ball. If there is a KD, I use 777. Otherwise I use APP a lot since it makes logistics on trips easier. A 90 grain conical would be a total waste of time. They take longer to load and the only real purpose for a conical is insurance on KD's. The picture Mako put on looks interesting. In order for a conical to do a competitor any good, it would have to be easy to load (i.e., fast to load), short enough so it would seat in a Uberti chamber, and still have enough mass to make a difference on a KD. To me this would be at least 120 grains.

P.S. Is the Mako bullet real or just a concept at this time? If it is in production and there are any bullets, I would gladly buy some to test out at Buffalo Stampede and EOT.

Mako · March 21, 2009, 06:55:01 PM

Pettifogger,
It is still in development, I have modified some existing bullets to determine length and powder and then modeled them to determine the mass as I played around with the ogive, overall length and grease groove. We even turned one out of aluminum but it didn't have a large meplat and would have been either too light or too long with length added to increase the mass.

I spoke to Dick this Winter about it and told him I would get on it this Spring. This thread sort of forced the issue, I'm going to talk to my toolmaker tomorrow after church services and see if we can make a quick mold before I go through multiple iterations with Lee.

I'd love to promise you some samples but my schedule is sketchy, if we ship out then I get lots of time, but the resources sometimes are hard to come by. It depends on the support groups and what equipment they have available. They have been promising some tools in the hobby shop for some time, but I'm sure it will end up being wood working tools as we always get. I haven't seen a fully stocked machine shop for our use since Okinawa a few years back.

Regards,
Mako

Deadguy · March 21, 2009, 09:35:57 PM

Pettifogger,

That's the same conical that I have too. They work great in reamed chambers. I've done it to more than a few guns with good results. If you really want to use that conical, I'd gladly ream your chambers for you so it'll work.

Mako · March 22, 2009, 02:47:12 PM

Quote from: Deadguy on March 21, 2009, 09:35:57 PM
Pettifogger,
That's the same conical that I have too. They work great in reamed chambers. I've done it to more than a few guns with good results. If you really want to use that conical, I'd gladly ream your chambers for you so it'll work.

Deadguy,
I appreciate this post because I suspect that is the problem that Pettifogger is having. However I don't want to put words in his mouth, I'd like to hear from him.

What diameter have you been reaming those cylinders to? Have you found any that don't need reaming? Are your pistols Piettas, Ubertis or both?

The bane of developing a good bullet for the .36 has been the range of chamber diameters and the steps in diameters we see in some of them. I was almost to the point I was just going to design the bullet to meet the true groove diameter + .001" and just ream chambers and recommend that to anyone who wanted to do the same. That is actually the easiest and the most robust solution for getting an accurate well sealing bullet in the 130 grain range.

Ubertis are purported to have a Rifling Groove diameter of .379, of the six Ubertis I have in this caliber they all appear to be in the Ø.378-379 range. I don't have any Piettas in .36 cal., so I don't know what their groove diameter runs. If anyone out there can supply information about Pietta diameters please speak up now. I ran a poll on the STORM board in January and I had very few responses about Navy models and none about Pietta.

I spoke with a toolmaker today and we are going to make a one cavity mold to try out a concept I have to address the multitude of chamber diameters, but I may have to make a cut off on the low end and recommend reaming for anyone else. After evaluating this design and perhaps one iteration using info from Dick on a double rebated section I will finalize the rear end and get Lee to make molds for anyone who wants them through Dick's site.

~Mako

Deadguy · March 22, 2009, 05:28:33 PM

I usually ream to Piettas to .375", and Ubertis to .377" (any bigger and you'll need a custom mold to make balls for them!). I have found Pietta grooves to usually be .372"-.375" , Ubertis I have observed to be anywhere from .375" to .379". The Uberti rifling is usually so deep, that if you really want to make a good, accurate bullet, a hollowbase design would be a very good idea.

Pony Racer · March 22, 2009, 08:17:42 PM

Has anyone tried the "semi-conical" that i think is made by Buffalo brothers - it comes in a blue box.

I am talking about this product

http://www.dixiegunworks.com/product_info.php?cPath=22_99_311_313&products_id=3629

PR

Dalton Masterson · March 22, 2009, 10:17:20 PM

I used to use those in the .44 version. They werent bad to use. Its been 15 years or so since, but I think they were a gummy mess when I did use them. Can tell you I went back to round ball after using them, and never looked back until the current DD bullets.
DM

Pettifogger · March 22, 2009, 10:22:48 PM

$320.00 per thousand puts them well out of my price range.

Pony Racer · March 23, 2009, 06:21:38 AM

Ouch - thought they went a little high in the box but figured if you bought in bulk they might be a little less.

Guess not...

Oh well - I knew I had seen them when this topic came up so just trying to make sure they were accounted for.

PR

Dick Dastardly · March 23, 2009, 08:55:02 AM

Howdy Deadguy,

There's a problem designing a Six cavity hollow base mold. They are easy in single cavity but in Six cavity it's not so simple. Most pards that cast their own bullets prefer to get the job done.

The hb idea sounds like a good idea for the swaged bullet makers. Problem is, swaged bullets are not made with Big Lube™ grove design because of die questions.

Yup, thanks, I've looked at this idea but until I can figger out how to design a simple Six cavity hb mold it's not going to happen. Yup, I've also looked at nose pour for this and there's physical problems getting 'em to release the booliits.

DD-DLoS

Deadguy · March 23, 2009, 10:40:54 AM

DD, I didn't think a HB would be possible in a six-cavity mold. That would be more of a mold for seriously dedicated shooters who really like their Ubertis. However, a design like Mako's that drops at .379" with a .360" rebate would work, as long as the Uberti owner reamed out their chambers to groove diameter. The fact of the matter is, if the Uberti owner is not willing to ream the chambers, they are stuck with being limited to balls only because of the tapered walls.

Mako · March 23, 2009, 12:39:37 PM

Quote from: Deadguy on March 23, 2009, 10:40:54 AM
DD, I didn't think a HB would be possible in a six-cavity mold. That would be more of a mold for seriously dedicated shooters who really like their Ubertis. However, a design like Mako's that drops at .379" with a .360" rebate would work, as long as the Uberti owner reamed out their chambers to groove diameter. The fact of the matter is, if the Uberti owner is not willing to ream the chambers, they are stuck with being limited to balls only because of the tapered walls.

Deadguy,
We don't need that much rebate if people ream their chambers. Yesterday, I said I had almost settled on doing that but I wanted to make one more try for a bullet that would fit a majority of the cylinders without too much work. If all Ubertis will require reaming then the need for a Ø.360 rebate is questionable. The rebate could then be a few thousandths under the reamed diameter, this would give you better alignment and assure the axis is centered. If we require reaming for one group (which is probably the largest number of users) then the Pietta or other users shouldn't feel slighted if they had to ream as well.

That all being said, I'm trying for a solution that will meet the majority of the users needs. Are you contending that all Ubertis have stepped chambers? And if so, how far back does the front diameter extend?

Regards,
Mako

P.S. Prototype mold is being started today.

Deadguy · March 23, 2009, 01:00:43 PM

I was suggesting the .360" rebate so that people who own Piettas and choose not to ream out their chambers can still use them. The tapering on the Ubertis must start very close to the front of the cylinder if the Lee 130 grain conical will not go all the way into the chamber. I do not have an unreamed Uberti at the moment, so I wouldn't be able to tell you exactly where the tapering starts.

Adirondack Jack · March 23, 2009, 02:24:22 PM

here's a wild thought.

What if a nice bullet similar in design to my .36 HB above, but without the HB aspect, but with a base ala the EPP-UG were made? It could be done ala the EPP, and designed with just enough rebate to start straight, but would still load with the cylinder in the gun. A second version could be made with a longer rebated "tail", that would give the extra weight, but would either require the pistol's frame to be opened up, OR use of a loading stand. With proper consideration of how much to rebate the tail section, one could accomodate the existing cylinders without reaming. After all, so long as we have a couple of driving bands, well spaced as is the state of the art with the Big Lube designs, there is no reason that the tail cannot be undersized, as these BP revolvers, as used for CAS, will work just fine with such a projectile.