Did a few chronograph tests today ROA

Yugorpk, Thanks for a great post. Those are some impressive energy numbers. With the 255 grain conical and 35 grains of T7, your best all around load, what kind of accuracy were you getting or haven't you tried that yet?

yugorpk, I tried to chrono my ROA loads a couple of years ago using black powder but got erratic readings from my Chrony. I thought it was due to the thick smoke or maybe the wads under the conicals I was shooting. I'd get a few 760-830 fps readings with a ~315 fps thrown in every now and again.

I used only 3F black powder. The screens were at 12 feet from the barrel when it was shot. Any ideas on why I got the odd readings?

I suspected something like that. Thanks for the reply.

yugorpk said:

I was shooting from 12 ft away with my truck blocking the wind. Shooting at a steel wheel 50 yards away. Hit it most times . Wind was way too high for decent off hand accuracy testing so I didnt try. I think the smoke from black powder or maybe unburned powder blowing through the skyscreens screws the chronograph readings up. Pyro and T7 have relatively little smoke compared to black powder and don't seem to have the same issues although really tightly compressed T7 behaves the same way and the 200FPS fluctuations I was getting with 40 T7 and the 220's may have been caused by unburned powder blowing through the traps. It was reading up to 1300 FPS and was kicking like a mule but the readings were so erratic to be unreliable so i threw them out. I have crono'd goex fffg before from behind a cardboard sheet and wasnt all that impressed in the numbers. I might try Swiss 4F G if I can find it some time.
My personal feeling having shot a lot of heavy conicals and plain old bullets in these things is the heavier the bullet the better the powder burn which is why a lot of times you'll see a faster bullet from the same charge as with a lighter bullet. The Hornady 255 work very well but there arent too many other off the shelf store bought options in the .454" sizing besides home cast. I also don't believe that pure lead as an alloy for casting has any advantage over a medium hard alloy with these guns. Basically if it works in the Blackhawk it will work in the Old Army.

Click to expand...

Heavy bullets are reputed to be the most efficient since the powder has more time to burn at the outset in moving the bullet off the load... or some such.... Shooting conicals versus round ball at the same loads, you can sometimes see the burning powder follow... and if you're shooting into the wind... a roundball load, like with my Buffalo recently and .454 balls, was getting me sprayed with powder.... Very nice looking gun... Thank you.

I have a question for you... when you say that the triple 7 with the 255 grain bullet was the best overall load, did that include accuracy?

Much Aloha...

I've been wantin to chronograph my loads and test them in ballistics gelatin. I moved and the nearest outdoor range, which is nearly an hour away, won't allow either.

I had custom bullets made with wide Keith-like meplats of 0.375" as it seems I cannot count on expansion of pure lead.

Judging by Mike Beliveau's testing of ROAs with Triple 7 and various projectiles I've felt that a stock cylinder could achieve 500+ ft/lbs with my lighter two bullets (170 and 195 grn), and maybe 450 ft/lbs with my 285 grn bullet. I also have a 245 grn bullet I designed also, but haven't ordered a mold yet.

Are you running with stock cylinders or have they been deepened, or even the ClassicBallistix cylinders? I've estimated that my 285 grn bullet would be about maxed out with 25 grns of 3F T7, but it seems you were able to load more behind a heavier bullet that is no doubt much longer than mine as I designed mine to be about as short as possible. My 195 grn bullet is merely 0.460" long so as to take up no more powder than a ball (I probably lose a grain of two of capacity I guess).

These are the 3 designs I hade Accurate Molds create for me:

http://www.accuratemolds.com/bullet_detail.php?bullet=45-170C-D.png

http://www.accuratemolds.com/bullet_detail.php?bullet=45-195C-D.png

http://www.accuratemolds.com/bullet_detail.php?bullet=45-285C-D.png

This is the 245 grn version I've yet to order:

http://www.accuratemolds.com/bullet_detail.php?bullet=45-245C-D.png

I use Gatofeo's #1 lube in the grooves.

My ROA seems to be more accurate with 35 grns of 3F T7 or Olde Eynsford with either my 170 or 195 grn bullets. 40 grns is max with BP but I can squeeze an additional 5 grns with T7 as it compresses further. My Remington NMA does better with 30 grns with either the 170 or 195 grn bullets. As there are no convinient places to shoot where we moved to I've yet to shoot the heavy bullet.

Apparently I'm too close to Austin. Several ranges but none are outdoors.

So the results you posted were with stock cylinders?

I'm no match shooter either, but I do like accuracy. I figured that with 35 grns and a 195 grn bullet I'd get 400-450 ft/lbs or such which ought to be good for medium game.

Maybe I'll try 40 grns with a wad with my 195. That ought to be close to max with T7. I don't use wads much anymore.

The 285 grn bullet would use a max load as its for the off chance I must track something dangerous. I want penetration fore to aft!

Oh, and I'm no pistolero. I'm getting 3-3.5" or so offhand at 15 yds. Or I was when I was shooting! With other loads it increased that by 1/2-1 1/2" or so, and fliers never help!

Why can't I ever fit 40 grains of FFFG under a 255 grain bullet into any of my modern 45 Colt cases?

I have had a hard time compressing 35 grains of FFFG in a modern Winchester 45 Colt case. they aren't balloon cases like the originals.