For .45 Colt Open Tops, what is the best bullet shape and weight?

[Virginia Gentleman]

I am wondering what the best shape and weight for accuracy seems to do best in .45 Colt Open Tops?

[FlyingZebra]

I'm interested to hear about this too, I'll stick around to see where this goes...




-FZ

[HolliferADollar]

I have a pair of 1871s in 45 Colt, 4-5/8" barrels.  My usual bullet is a 200 LRNFP, but I got 3000 200 gn semiwadcutters at a great price so I am using them.  I haven't done any target groups, but so far I have not seen any change in accuracy at SASS ranges (5-7 yards).  Hope that helps.

btw Both are shot from Cowboy 45 Special cases with 1 CC of 3FG Goex & 0.3 CC of grits as filler.

Holler

[FlyingZebra]

Holler

1871 45 Colt / 200 gn semiwadcutter / 1 CC of 3FG Goex & 0.3 CC of grits as filler

Does this wadcutter have grease grooves?
What lube?
Do you use other lube inside the case?




-FZ

[Lefty Dude]

I'll bet that 1CC load of Goex fff is a real Wart Hog load !

I think I shoot a mite more in my C&B 44.

[FlyingZebra]

Well, yes -- I'm running 30gr fff and a 200gr conical in my 60.
No filler, card or wad.  Lubed bullet.
Might change a bit when I get the chambers opened and balanced.
I'm not happy with the undersized chambers, and I'm interested to see how y'all fellows are doing with the open top cartridge guns and properly sized bullets.

I'm not racing my 60 though - but I do want to get optimal power and accuracy as I'd like to be able to rely on it here on the ranch on coyote etc at and past 100yds.
It should be able to work out and be accurate well past these 7-15 yard ranges.
I just haven't heard of anyone here running them past 25 yards and on paper.

Ears up.
Can't wait to hear more.



-FZ

[HolliferADollar]

Holler

Does this wadcutter have grease grooves?
What lube?
Do you use other lube inside the case?




-FZ

They are standard SWCs from Valiant with a nice wide lube groove.  I tried 50 rounds with the smokeless lube & didn't like the way the guns looked after shooting them (very dry residue).  As a result, I remove the smokeless lube with a heat gun, then run them through my sizer again to lube them with my home brew of equal parts beeswax/paraffin/crisco.  A friend sold me 3000 of the bullets for $120 so it's well worth the effort.

Holler

[Virginia Gentleman]

Stupid question...does bullet shape matter whether the cartridge is loaded with black powder or smokeless?

[FlyingZebra]

Virginia Gentleman

A 'better' black powder bullet will have deeper grease grooves, typically more grease volume overall.
The black needs proper grease to keep the fouling soft and the bore consistent shot to shot.

Barrels designed to run jacketed bullets (and smokeless in general) will have a shallower groove.




-FZ

[Pettifogger]

Bullet shape in a revolver makes no difference.  Shape makes a difference in a repeating mechanism like a rifle, but makes no difference in a revolver where the rounds are loaded one at a time into the chambers.  The only thing different between a BP bullet and a smokeless bullet is the size of the lube grooves and the type of lube.  For BP you usually need bigger or more lube grooves.  If you are shooting a BP sub, then you can use any bullet.

[Abilene]

And actually, with real BP, you don't even need any lube at all in your bullet if you are shooting it in a pistol.  For 15 years I've been using smokeless-type bullets with no lube in my pistol ammo.  At the loading table, after loading five, I squirt a blob of butter-flavored Crisco over the fronts of the first two rounds to be fired.  No fouling problems and easy cleanup later.  This doesn't work in a rifle  so I use soft-lubed bullets for that.

[Seth Hawkins]

The cartridge on the right is my .45-cal 165 grain pistol bullet.



It's a heeled bullet for a .44 Colt cartridge.  Like Abiline, I don't bother to lube these when reloading them.  I just rub a little lube on a few of them when I load them.  The powder makes enough lube in the (relatively) short pistol barrel that it's not a problem.  If the ever important barrel/cylinder/frame fitment is correct, and the correct parts are properly lubed, fouling isn't a problem.

The cartridge on the left is my .44 Henry cartridge with a 225 grain bullet that's interchangeable with the .44 Colt cartridge.  As Abilene also pointed out, the short, un-lubed pistol bullet doesn't work well in a rifle.  So, the 225 grain heeled bullet with a single, deep groove is used to carry soft, sticky lube.

[rifle]

My opinion for an 1860 Colt Army would be a lighter bullet close to the weight of the ball it's designed to shoot. That would be for longevity of the gun.

As far as coyote and the 1860 Army with the ball a distance of 100 yards or more is really pushing it. Try 35-40 yards with a full throttle powder load and ,maybe, a self imposed limit of 50 paces. You know....loadin the 45 Colt with a round ball........which is the projectile the gun was designed around. A ball with a lube pill/grease cookie or lubed wool wad under it would have a good velosity with a case of black powder and for milder loads a case of Fg powder. Smokeless powder with the ball has data in Speer manuals. Gallery loads that would work fer Cowboy shootin. Trail Boss powder would work if there's data for the ball with it.  Using balls in the cases the ball is grimped at the wide part I'd say. Anywhoooo....bullets heavier than a ball would reach out further and retain more velosity and ft/lbs energy.   A 230 grainer bullet in a revolver would get out there around a hundred paces with some whomp I'd speculate. A rifle/carbine would be better to be ethical bout it.

I wonder sometimes why more Hombre don't use balls in the cartridge cases instead of bullets in the models of cap&ballers converted to cartridge and even the Open Top 1871-2 models. The 140gr. balls would have less recoil than heavier bullets and shoot less high. than bullets also.  Maybe Folks just like the idea of lube in the grooves of a bullet instead of a wad or lube pill under the ball. Maybe folks would rather lube/size a bullet rather than make lubed wool wads or lube pills for under the balls.

Of course with the bullets......the WIDE lube grooves of those Big LUbe Bullets would be THE THING.

The Army with the conical would be able to reach out further and the bullet with a wide flat meplat would be best to be ethical shooting game.

A Walker or even a Dragoon would be better for 100 yard coyote. The weight of the guns would dampen the recoil of a heavier bullet.

Longer range coyote aside, I'd say a bullet for the cartridge conversion of the Colt Army in the lighter range like 180-200 gr. would be easier on the gun. A Kieth style bullet with the flat on the nose and the sharper first driving band would be best for game and the 165gr./180gr. bullet for Cowboy shootin would work.

That's my hodge/podge opinion. 

[Virginia Gentleman]

So you all think that a 200 grain bullet in an open top or lighter is the way to go for the longevity of the gun?  Have there been problems with heavier bullets being used in OTs?

[rifle]

I wouldn' say there's been problems per say but the heavier bullets are longer and more bearing surface and put more force on the guns. Long time use of the heavier bullets can get wear or deformation to the wedge and rear of the barrels wedge slots and arbor slots.
I've had problems with mid way loads and hard cast bullets and ended up welding the front inside of the arbor slots so I could file fit in a new "factory" wedge when the cylinder gap was getting wide. I've had the breech end of the barrels at the bottom of the forcing cones ,where they are  thinnest get cracks. New barrels fixed that. The original barrels were too thin at the bottom of the breech end forcing cones.

I've fired plenty of 219gr. 45acp pure lead and wheelweight bullets with no problems after the barrel changes. The same goes for using 230gr. purelead RCBS Cowboy bullet mould bullets. No problems with those pure lead ,slightly heavier than 200gr. ,bullets.

In general to avoid wear over the long run I'd be of the opinion that the lighter bullets are easier on the guns. It's a bummmer when you realize the newer wedge in yer gun doesn't tighten it up as well as it once did and the cylinder gap is growing.

It's a philosophy that isn't without merrit to use lighter bullets when it's possible I'd thunk. It could be like a rule of thumb to try to stay away from the hard cast bullets and when possible use lighter bullets and when using bullets heavier than 200gr. go for pure lead if possible.

The commercial factory ammo usually uses the hard cast bullets soi if a person has to buy ammo at least they could pick the more mild ones.
All I know is the Black Hills is good ammo but hotter usually than some others. I just read a test with using factory ammo and the more mild ones were hot enough and were the most accurate.

It's up to the operator of the guns what they like and want. I'll bet there's Hombre out there that use 230gr.bullets all the time and feel they are not too heavy for the guns.

In the end you have to realize the guns are warranted for factory ammo so the manufacturer must have some confidense in that type ammo and the heavier bullets it could have.

I guess a person would have to do a lil thunkin on the subject and draw a concusion as to what they want to use. Shootin the different types ammo could give a person a viable perspective based on the experience.

I do recommend lighter bullets of pure lead but that isn't written in stone anywhere. Just my opinion.

[Long Johns Wolf]

What Rifle said plus: I am a .44 Colt cal. pard of the custom conversion faction using inside lubed 200 grainers of .429 dia and 16 BH.
For years I am shooting mild NC reloads with a MIP of around 120 by the thousands without problems.
FWIW here is my experience with heavy and hot loads - within CIP specs - in conversions. Last September at a CAS match I had to shoot BH factory ammo with 230 grainers - calculated MIP close to 170 - in my Centaure conversions. Felt recoil was stouter than what I was used to from my reloads.
During the 4th stage the wedge in one of the conversions started moving out of the slot ... to a point where the firing pin could did no longer reach the primer. Which I noted and thumb-pressed the wedge back into the barrel lug. During that stage this accounted for additional time only.
During the 6th and final stage of the day what had to happen eventually happened: the wedge disconnected completely and flew away with the final round. Thanks God nobody was hurt and I found the wedge in the dust.
Reassembled the pistol which was not damaged and ready for another match ... with lighter CAS loads.
Long Johns Wolf

[Seth Hawkins]

+1 for the light bullets

My custom conversions shoot a heeled .45-cal bullet.  When I got them back from being restored I tried a little of everything in them as far as bullet weight and shape goes.  Other than lots of recoil, the heavier bullets offered no advantage.  I went with the lighter bullets for precisely the same reason as the others have stated - they will punish the guns far less, and extend the life of a gun that has a naturally flawed design.  Since I'm shooting a heeled bullet, there needs to be ample bullet to engage the bore or it will start tumbling.  The 165-gr bullet I shoot is about the smallest/lightest bullet I can use that still provides enough bearing surface to keep the bullet stable as it passes down the bore and out to the target.  I think anything smaller would end up being a round ball.

Believe it or not, the load is surprisingly accurate.  I've found pretty much all heeled loads in my rifle and pistols to be pretty accurate.

[rifle]

Original 44 Colt load was 200-215gr. bullet with approx. 21gr. course powder. That would be for the Richards conversion of the 1860 Army. The fps was approx. 720 and the ft./lbs. approx 200+.

The 44 Henry cartridge the 1871-2 Open Top was designed to use ( after  the Civil War  to use up millions of left over Henry rifle cartridges) was a 200-215gr. bullet with 26-28gr. black powder. The fps was approx. 1,100+ from the rifle and approx. 500+ ft./lbs. energy.
That made the 1871 Open Top Colt a little more powerful than the 1860 Army conversion. The 1871 Open Top incorporated improvements over the Richards conversion design. It was stronger.


About Wolf's wedge problems at that match when using 230gr. bullets.....  The bullets were hard cast I'd bet. Maybe.
The rear wedge slots in the barrel and the front of the arbor slot may need attention to have them mate flush with the mate surfaces of the wedge.

No light showing between the mate surfaces. But.......The barrels rear slot surfaces and the arbor slot front surface may need reconfigured.

Put simply....A line drawn across the rear barrel slots surface would be perpenticular to the centerline of the barrel bore with the arbors front slot surface then corresponding to what the angle of the front edge of the wedge would then be.

That puts the barrels rear slots surfaces hitting the wedge rear surface evenly perpendicular to the centerline of the bore of the barrel. That makes for a wedge that can't slip away out of the barrel like a slippery bar of soap can slip out of ones hand .

The front angled edge of the wedge being flush with the "angled surface to the front of the arbors slot" doesn't make for that slippery bar of soap slip when the rear of the wedge is perpendicular to the centerline of the bore of the barrel.

One can visually see  the logic to the rear wedge edge being perpendicular to the centerline of the bore in regard to the wedge staying tight. The same for the logic to the mate surfaces being flush to one another also. This happens to be the way to have a wedge that can be thumb pressed in the gun and actually be tight and stay.

The only way that would be better would be to have a wedge that enters with it's front and rear edges tapered in regards to one another and then when the wedge is tight the edges of the wedge then become parallel. That would mean the rear barrel slot edges and the front arbor slot edge would be parallel too.

Know what I mean?

I've noticed that with the cap&baller Colts the rear barrel slots and the front arbor slot in regards to the wedge edges and each other the fit can be all over the place ......except  proper .....too often.

[Long Johns Wolf]

Thanks Rifle, for the explanation.
Karl Nedbal will look at my 2 Centaure Long Cylinder Conversions early May.
This is supposed to be a complete overhaul and will include the wedge issue.
Karl's objective will be to make the pair 100 % match-ready for the open German CAS Championship later during the year.
Long Johns Wolf

[Lefty Dude]

If you slug the barrel of a Centaure 1860 barrel you will find a very tight bore/groove. Mine runs .446"-.447". And if you shoot .452" hard cast 200 gr. or heavier bullets great stress will occur on the frame & such.
With my Centaure/ New Thure conversion 45 S&W I am using 200 gr. conicals that are pure lead and sized .450".

I will also try loading some .451" round balls and see how they shoot, as Rifle suggests.
So far the nod goes to the 200 gr. .450" conical.