.445 round balls in Pietta 1858 Remington New Army

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yup, and muskets, and pistols and revolvers and shotguns too, oh my!


I'd guess he got that from kwhi's post in this old thread referenced above -
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/loading-patched-balls-in-a-revolver.410840/

In reading that thread it seems kwhi43 was saying the practice of fully wrapping a ball was done with success. I don't think he meant a typically patched round ball, which would obviously get stripped off at the forcing cone. I mentioned early on that the ball would have to be fully wrapped for the patch to be effective beyond the forcing cone, but I wasn't understood. Anyway, it seems the consensus is that it's either dumb or not worth it to patch a ball in a revolver cylinder, unless you have no other options.
 
Exactly. My guess is that the extreme pressure and expanding gasses are keeping that patch nice and tight up agains the back of the ball.

Right. And the forward part of the patch stays put as it and the ball move through and out the bore as a unit. And if, as one commenter mentioned, a paper patch bullet will work here, there's no reason a cloth-patched ball won't work.
 
As we usually advise when reloading smokeless powder cartridges, reference all the data you can and not just a couple of suggested sources from one commenter. You'll find the safely doable possibilities are generally a good bit wider than some would have you believe.
 
It's a pity that the designers and manufacturers of cap & ball revolvers in the 1800s did not have the benefit of the engineering wisdom of the patched ball advocates and pundits here.

Samuel Colt could have learned so much from them. :D
 
Last edited:
As we usually advise when reloading smokeless powder cartridges, reference all the data you can and not just a couple of suggested sources from one commenter. You'll find the safely doable possibilities are generally a good bit wider than some would have you believe.

Absolutely.

Along with the excellent examples that I have cited, the OP and anyone else interested in cap & ball revolver shooting should avail themselves of any and all books, websites, You Tube videos, and on-line forums on the subject. Also helpful, if possible, would be to learn from experienced black powder shooters in person at a range.
 
Last edited:
“Obviously get stripped off at the forcing cone.”

pure conjecture

I encourage you to prove me wrong. Thought you said you were going to do a test. Until then, I'll just keep believing basic physics... lol

Exactly. My guess is that the extreme pressure and expanding gasses are keeping that patch nice and tight up agains the back of the ball.

I totally agree with that (see my drawing earlier in this thread). The patch just won't be engaging the rifling.

Right. And the forward part of the patch stays put as it and the ball move through and out the bore as a unit. And if, as one commenter mentioned, a paper patch bullet will work here, there's no reason a cloth-patched ball won't work.

I doubt it... With a paper patched bullet, the paper will engage the rifling before the metalic bullet, and the paper is adhered to the bullet. Not so with a patched lead round ball out of a revolver. Apples/oranges. I suppose one could glue the patch to the ball to ensure it engages rifling first, but the patch might not shed away, and irregularities would probably take its toll on accuracy. Anyway, it would be great to see a slow motion test of a patched round ball out of a revolver. I could be wrong. Have been before.
 
Last edited:
I encourage you to prove me wrong. Thought you said you were going to do a test. Until then, I'll just keep believing basic physics... lol

.
basic physics huh?
I wasn’t going to engage your sanctimony further but the gases leaking around the patch and ball will all be moving in the direction to hold the patch tightly to the ball. Yet somehow you aver that the patch will somehow get stopped instantly by the forcing cone, release the ball, and then magically restart its inertia, while the ball will continue down the bore, rattling around like a pea in a bowl. Someone like you isn’t going to believe a test anyway regardless of what result it shows. If accuracy is good at 15 you’ll just say it wasn’t far enough to show the dramatic decrease in accuracy. but I’ll do a test when I get around to it. You just keep working on your basic physics...
 
I have seen it done once...by a Japanese shooter who knew nothing about the borrowed revolver he was shooting. We had to pry the bullets from the cylinder with a ball puller before he damaged the gun.
 
What was the ostensible damage you feared would occur? Just curious. Was it patches left in the bore, a ball failing to exit, or something else?
 
If post #21 is the case, what of the competitive shooters referred to in post #19?

Personally, after thinking about it...

What happens when you patch one in your muzzle-loaded rifle or pistol? Unless you're using pre-cut patches, you'll lube a piece of pillow ticking which you'll place over the bore with your round ball, use your short-starter to seat the ball just inside the muzzle, then use your patch knife to trim a perfect patch even with the muzzle and ahead of the ball before ramming the ball home to compress the powder. The ball is pretty well wrapped and the patch will do its job all the way. I've loaded enough pre-cut patches to see that a properly sized and centered patch and ball aren't much different... the ball is still effectively wrapped.

Now, let's say we remove the cylinder from our C&B revolver, powder the chambers, and use a bench-mounted press to seat the balls. Many times, and depending on powder charges and filler vs no filler, there'll be space in the chambers ahead of the balls. Let's say we load a .440-.445" ball and patch it .010-.015"... those pre-cut patches will have to be centered, and I believe it'll be just enough patch to keep the ball wrapped. Let's say we use pillow ticking which will be cut flush with the chamber mouth... again, depending some on seating depth... there may be a bit more patch ahead of the ball.

Depending on ball diameter, patch thickness, and several other factors, I don't see a problem.
Never knew a "competitive shooter" who patched round balls for a revolver. Single shots, of course. I shot for years at state shoots and the nationals spring and fall with all three guns, revolver, cap and flint and never saw it. Please tell me someone who has seen it. That patch is not going to stay on the ball past the cylinder gap and on through the barrel.
 
Someone like you isn’t going to believe a test anyway regardless of what result it shows. If accuracy is good at 15 you’ll just say it wasn’t far enough to show the dramatic decrease in accuracy. but I’ll do a test when I get around to it. You just keep working on your basic physics...

We all await your test results with quivering anticipation. :D
 
The razor sharp sarcasm, personal attacks, rudeness, and unsupported speculation not withstanding, it comes down to this.
It was suggested a patched round ball could be used in a revolver.
Multiple examples of it being done have been shared, including videos, and first hand accounts.
No one in this thread has claimed or advocate that it was necessarily the best choice, the only choice or for everyone. Only that it's been done, and it's safe enough to do so if you want to.
Regardless, there seems to be some passionate opinions that it's never happened, and couldn't happen because they've never personally seen it, or can't comprehend it.
 
So would you say that IF a patch shows rifling grooves, we could say with confidence that it made it down the barrel still attached to the ball?

I think that would be an excellent test! A ring of well indented grooves around where the middle of the ball would be. Would be good to compare a patched round ball from a single shot and one from a revolver.
 
The razor sharp sarcasm, personal attacks, rudeness, and unsupported speculation not withstanding, it comes down to this.
It was suggested a patched round ball could be used in a revolver.
Multiple examples of it being done have been shared, including videos, and first hand accounts.
No one in this thread has claimed or advocate that it was necessarily the best choice, the only choice or for everyone. Only that it's been done, and it's safe enough to do so if you want to.
Regardless, there seems to be some passionate opinions that it's never happened, and couldn't happen because they've never personally seen it, or can't comprehend it.

It appears that some members sadly regard any and all humorous comments as a personal attack on their honor and integrity instead of a little harmless ribbing as most people would recognize it as. How sad.

Rudeness? I reviewed every post here and found no post where anyone resorted to rudeness or insults on either side of the question.

However, with regards to the patched round ball debacle:

1) In the end, only a few You Tube videos exist where it has been attempted, and with indifferent results.
2) Experts, such as Mike OTDP in posts #61 and #62 and PapaG in post #64 have stated that nobody bothers to do this except the uninformed.
Their personal first hand experience is NOT unsupported speculation.
3) Nobody on any black powder forum or in any book advocates it. Quite the contrary.

Sure, you can do it, and it won't blow up your revolver.
You could also try loading your chambers with wooden match heads as propellant, and that probably would not blow up your revolver.
But why bother?
 
Last edited:
I think that would be an excellent test! A ring of well indented grooves around where the middle of the ball would be. Would be good to compare a patched round ball from a single shot and one from a revolver.

The advocates of patched balls could prove their point by conducting such a test.
Fire 30 rounds through a revolver, recover the patches and the balls, and show us the results.
How about it?
 
No advocate here. Just a non-doomsdayer/skeptic with logic on his side. I'll do that test when I can find the proper materials.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top