mustanger98
Member
That's where I'd think to begin testing, then try a .015 patch. Then I'd go to a .445 ball with the .010 patch.
.445 round balls in Pietta 1858 Remington New Army
- Thread starter TwangBanger
- Start date
- Status
That's where I'd think to begin testing, then try a .015 patch. Then I'd go to a .445 ball with the .010 patch.
Malachi Leviticus Blue
Member
That horse isn't dead if there are still any hold outs that think a patched round ball in a revolver can't work and cant be accurate.
In hickok45's video posted above he fires 2 cylinders (12 rounds) of patched round balls out of a revolver.
you can even watch him load them patch and all.
All shots are free hand.
He misses the first shot (presumably high) on a relatively small target at a reasonable range but not sure where to hold.
He then aims for a larger target and hits it.
He then holds at the same position and hits the same mark which looks to me to be with in 1/4 in
next is off maybe 2 inches
next is closer
Final shot of that cylinder is at a gong which looks to me to be about 50 yards away and he nails it.
Second cylinder is all hits including one very small tactical target and another nailing the 50 yard gong again.
That's all the proof required that it can be done, has been done, and might make perfect sense in the right situation.
In hickok45's video posted above he fires 2 cylinders (12 rounds) of patched round balls out of a revolver.
you can even watch him load them patch and all.
All shots are free hand.
He misses the first shot (presumably high) on a relatively small target at a reasonable range but not sure where to hold.
He then aims for a larger target and hits it.
He then holds at the same position and hits the same mark which looks to me to be with in 1/4 in
next is off maybe 2 inches
next is closer
Final shot of that cylinder is at a gong which looks to me to be about 50 yards away and he nails it.
Second cylinder is all hits including one very small tactical target and another nailing the 50 yard gong again.
That's all the proof required that it can be done, has been done, and might make perfect sense in the right situation.
Old Stumpy
Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2019
- Messages
- 1,451
Okily Dokily.
noelf2
Member
Did Hickok say what size ball he used? Anyway, I'm not interested in accuracy. I just want to know if the patch stays around the ball down the bore.
Malachi Leviticus Blue
Member
I don't think he ever mentions an actual ball size, only that he usually uses the right size balls but all he has are some that are too small.
1KPerDay
Member
Working on it
mustanger98
Member
While .44cal C&B revolvers are mostly said to us .451" and .454" ball, I've lately heard of some that require .457" ball. This could be the case with the Walker and Dragoon models.
arcticap
Member
I'm not sure what the patches would need to come out looking like to prove that they adhered to the ball.
They may exit looking one way if a wad is placed under the PRB and another way if a wad isn't placedt behind the PRB.
I think that the photo examples are speculation since those are what tightly rammed patches look like that exit a rifle barrel, and not ones that are loaded into a smooth revolver chamber and pass through a loose revolver barrel.
I think that it should be admitted that some folks have an expectation of what they think the patches should look like after they exit if they engage, but don't really know what they should look like if they engage the rifling.
The patches may not scrub the walls of barrel the same way in a revolver as they do in a rifle.
This is one simple factor to consider.
If a wad were behind the ball and helping to push the patch through, the patch may show markings that aren't shown without the wads.
That doesn't necessarily prove that the rifling marks were caused by adherence to the ball or due to the wad following the patch.
Just food for thought for the purpose of objectivity.
Perhaps the patches need to be examined under magnification for all I or anyone else knows since they never tried examining revolver patches such as these before.
The patch markings in the photo may be an example of unrealistic expectations due to pre-conceived notions.
As well, different markings or a different dynamic may occur that affects the behavior of the patch if filler were placed under the PRB for all we know.
The proof may be obvious or it may be minute.
Who would really know at this point besides someone who has done a lot of testing or shooting with different kinds of PRB loads and then examining the patches for common or uncommon traits and then comparing them.
One suggestion would be to mark the inside of the patch that's touching the underside of the ball.
That way if the patch gets turned around and captured by a wad that pushes it through the barrel, the marked side of the patch will indicate if the patch had turned inside out or not as it passed through the forcing cone.
That could be helpful whether a wad or filler is loaded behind the PRB or not.
Then a person could determine which side of the patch is getting marked by the rifling if at all, i.e. - the inside of the patch or the outside of the patch.
The inside of the patch should not show rifling marks unless the patch was being turned inside out as it passes through the forcing cone.
Last edited:
1KPerDay
Member
I wouldn’t say “require” but yes the Uberti .44s have a little larger chambers and .457” balls cut a more definite ring of lead than .454”.
.451” in Ubertis I haven’t tried but I imagine they wouldn’t be ideal, at least in my Walker. For me, .454” work well enough in both that I don’t buy two sizes.
Last edited:
mustanger98
Member
I say "require" because according to some accounts, the .457" ball's tighter fit and more definite lead ring made the difference between chain firing and firing safely. That said, I'd have thought it would've been solved by the wads, grease, or both.
- Status
