SWC in 1858 Remington

[crossfire]

I have seen a few 150-160gr SWC (and LRN) bullets in .45 caliber and have heard of these being used with light loads for action shooting. My question is, can these be used in an 1858 Remington provided they are cast in "cowboy" alloy and sized to .454" with a normal 25-30gr load of blackpowder or even one of those 30gr pellets of Pyrodex?

[Paladin UK]

JMOHO.............

I would not call 25-30grs of BP  a `light load` I would be looking at 20-22gns TOP!!  and a 30gn Pyrodex pellet I would not even entertain!!
Also if the #58 is brass framed dont even try it!!  again JMOHO they`re  far too hot for a brass framed pistola.

Paladin (What lurvs the Holy Black ) UK

[Montana Slim]

"cowboy alloy" = No....will be too hard, you'll have a hard time loading, pure lead is recommended.
".454 diameter" = No...too big. Need to be around .450 - .451

Good luck stuffing 30 grains of powder in there with a bullet  just too much bullet & lead.

You cannot overload a modern-made BP revolver by trading off powder space for more lead...just be sure to stick to BP ONLY.
The brass-framed guns won't fly apart either...but full loads could shorten the service life..depending on the model & caliber.

Of course, the best way to convince yourself is to give it a whirl...it's the most convincing evidence available.

Now...I have loaded pure lead bullets from a .45 ACP mold, cast at around .450 diameter, atop 20 grains of 3F in my Remington. To load I removed the cylinder & started by using a tap from a plastic mallet. I believe I went ahead and seated them flush with the mallet. Then put the cylinder in the gun, then continued to manually ram. If you have a standalone cylinder loader, this would be the most convenient method to load elongated balls (modern term = conical bullets).

IMO, the RB is the best projectile for most C&B revolvers. The higher powder capacity / velocity offsets the projectile weight under most circumstances.

My Dragoons start/load the same bullet on top of 40 grains of powder with room to squeeze a bit more, if I wanted. On those revolvers, I am able to load directly with the built-in loading tool. In Dragoons & Walkers, you can meet or exceed the power of the .45 Colt BP cartridge using an elongated ball projectile.

Slim

[Steel Horse Bailey]

Right you are, Wayne!  Ain't it wunnerful!

When I first got my 1st Mod Dragoon (2nd Gen. Colt) I wanted to see what a 50 gr. load was like, since that is the reported size the cylinders were made for and will hold.  I put in about 19.7 grs. of loose 3F powder (not measured, but that's what the average load of powder using that particular spout allows) and then seated a 30 gr. Pyrodex pellet on top followed by a .454" ball.  I could have put in probably 25 grs. of loose powder under the pellet, but I didn't want to do anything stupid.

They were a hoot to shoot!  They were the first and ONLY BP loads that had any perceptible recoil (not bad, but like full-house 158 gr. loads of 357 fired from my Python; noticeable, but not a lot, in other words) and the normal BOOOM had a much more powerful crack! in it.  I'm hoping to get more Pyro pellets to do some more bigbang shooting soon!

For those who may shy away from Pyrodex, don't.  It isn't any nastier than BP ... IF cleaned promptly after shooting.  Wait a bit and you might have some trouble, but clean when you get home and you're fine.  The main disadvantage to Pyro is that it IS a bit harder to ignite, but by putting the loose powder in my chamber closest to the flash-hole, I didn't have any ignition issue.  Also, putting Pyro in a cartridge and using a standard primer will have no issues, either.

Now, to tie this into the topic at hand, I also tried my super-dooper Dragoon loads with a few of my Buffalo Bullet "Ball-ets" I had.    Obviously, the somewhat heavier projectile allowed for a bit more recoil and "thump" at the target end, but I couldn't see any value to that except for hunting.  Using a 43-45 gr. 3F charge and a ball has produced the best accuracy combination.  That works as well with a conical, too.  The "super" loads weren't as accurate, but not terribly less and certainly were accurate enough for NCOWS distances - which are generally quite a bit farther than SASS distances.

Wasteful and necessary?  Prob'ly not.

Fun?  You bet!!

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

There are going to be several problems loading cylindrical bullets as opposed to round balls.

When loading a round ball, the idea is the ball is slightly over sized. When a slightly over sized ball is shoved into the chamber, a thin ring of lead is shaved off the ball. The ball then has a very short cylindrical section which forms the seal of the ball in the chamber. This seal is important for two reasons. It seals the chamber from sparks finding their way past the ball to the powder charge. This is very important, it is one of the ways a chain fire is avoided. The other reason for the tight fit is the friction of the fit is the only thing holding the ball in place in the chamber. Without a tight fit of the ball in the chamber, there will not be enough resistance of the ball to moving to allow the powder to burn properly. The ramming mechanism built into the barrel of C&B revolvers is not terribly strong. It does not afford much mechanical advantage because the lever is fairly short and the pivot pin is fairly small in diameter. When ramming a ball into the chamber, it is important that the ball is pure lead. Adding much of anything to the alloy makes the ball harder, and it gets harder to shove the ball into the chamber. It is possible to damage the ramming mechanism if the ball is too hard.

When conical bullets are rammed into a chamber, they have no cylindrical section. They are completely conical. So the ring shaved off the bullet is similar to the ring shaved off a ball.

With a cylindrical bullet, one would no longer be shaving off a thin ring of lead, one would be shaving off a long ring. The amount of resistance to the bullet going in would be increased tremendously. If the bullet were made of anything other than pure lead, the resistance would be even greater. A really good opportunity to break the loading mechanism.

If the bullet were perfectly the same size as the chamber, one would still have to be sure a good gas seal was made as the bullet went into the chamber.

It really is an impractical idea to seat a cylindrical bullet.

A 44 caliber round ball is right around 158 or 160 grains in the first place. If you really want light loads, there is nothing better than a 44 cal round ball. Even with a hefty load of 30 grains or so of FFg, a round ball fired from my 1860s recoils no more than a moderate 38 Special load. This is because the ball is so light, and also because unlike a cartridge, the ball is only held in place lightly by friction. There is no crimp mechanically holding the ball in place, so it starts to move as soon as the powder ignites.

[Montana Slim]

...but remember, the surface area of a RB contacting the chamber is very small.

But, the SWC .45's I load in my Dragoon, while the do not "shave" lead, thare a close fit to the chamber...and, have many X's the surface area of the RB. I've never them move under recoil - even with the Dragoon loads. Note, I'm using pure lead.

BUT, hard alloys will tend to shift under recoil...even RBs that "shaved" lead. When the projectile protrudes from the cylider face, the gun is tied-up.

Also, the Remmington rammer is pretty robust....Unless your unlucky to have aone with a casting defect....the weakest link is the pivot screw..

Slim
Personal experience with all of the above