Can black powder revolvers be compared to modern calibers ballistically speaking? IE: can a Colt 1851 Navy say be roughly equivalent to a modern caliber as far as velocity, stopping power, penetration, etc? If so what exactly? I'd be interested in knowing an accurate comparison if the 1851 as well as the 1847 Walker.
Can black powder revolvers be compared to modern calibers ballistically speaking?
- Thread starter greenr18
- Start date
- Status
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Sure! Its all about velocity and bullet weight. Bullet construction and how a soft lead ball reacts when it hits tissue will come into play too, but start with velocity and bullet weight.
Here's a little write up on some of the Colt guns: http://americanhandgunner.com/colts-last-three-cap-ball-models/
He says:
John Taffin wrote a great piece on this, too: http://www.sixguns.com/range/CBSIXGUNS.htm
He got velocities between 800 and 1050 fps with upper range charges, using a .454" round ball that would weigh about 141 grains.
That's around 9mm+ performance.
Switching to conical bullets will up the weights here and probably lower velocities a little.
Here's a little write up on some of the Colt guns: http://americanhandgunner.com/colts-last-three-cap-ball-models/
He says:
John Taffin wrote a great piece on this, too: http://www.sixguns.com/range/CBSIXGUNS.htm
He got velocities between 800 and 1050 fps with upper range charges, using a .454" round ball that would weigh about 141 grains.
That's around 9mm+ performance.
Switching to conical bullets will up the weights here and probably lower velocities a little.
zimmerstutzen
Member
Ft. lbs of muzzle energy is comparable, to an extent. Beyond that, the projectiles need to be of nearly the same diameter and ballistic co-efficient to be truly comparable. A round ball has a really terrible ballistic coefficient and slows down more rapidly than some bullets, but on the other hand, the heavier conical bullet also better resists deceleration due to air resistance, even though it starts out slower. . While the foot pounds may be identical at ten feet from the muzzle, the difference at various distances down range could be as different as night and day. A soft lead ball can make up for some of it's lower energy in shock value because the round ball expands when hitting soft tissue and can make a larger hole than it's diameter when it left the muzzle. Depending on distance from the shooter, the round ball may still have sufficient velocity to out "shock" the quarry when compared to the conical. At longer distances, the conical will almost always be much better in ft lbs of energy. But then how far can a person shoot reasonably with a a cap and ball revolver. I did a fair amount of 100 yd shooting with a Ruger old Army and a 36 caliber 1858 Remington. Even with a two hand hold, keeping the shots on a standard sheet of newsprint paper at 100 yds is admirable.
If you want to have something that comes closer to matching a more powerful modern handgun load, you probably need to go with a Walker or a muzzle loader built for hunting, like the TC Scout pistol.
If you want to have something that comes closer to matching a more powerful modern handgun load, you probably need to go with a Walker or a muzzle loader built for hunting, like the TC Scout pistol.
whughett
Member
Propellants are all about "stored" energy and how that energy is released.
Listed here is the loading data found in a 1970, 45th edition of Lymans reloading hand book and how that would compare to a comparable smokeless load in a similar caliber.
Assuming on my part the bp loads are near chamber capacity for the listed projectile.
Black Powder...............................................*Smokeless Powder
36 cal. Navy Remington.**.......................... 38 caliber Colt New Police
.375 RB (78 to 80 grain wt) .................. 121 grain cast bullet
25 grains 3f, velocity 1005fps ................. smokeless load5 grain 1069 fps
Conical Bullet 145 gr.............................. 141 grain cast bullet
15 grain 3f, velocity 690fps.................. ... smokeless load3.8 grain 925 fps
44 caliber 1860 Army............................... Colt S.A.A 45Colt
.451 RB (140 grain wt)............................. 175 grain Cast Bullet
37.0 grains 3f, velocity 898fps................... smokeless load 12.0grains, 1192fps
Conical Bullet 155 grains ........................ 255 grain cast bullet
25.0 grains 3f, velocity 805fps ................ smokeless load 10.00 grains 1011fps
* six different powders listed for a given weight bullet, listed is max.
** Firearms listed were "Navy" Imports. The ones I have are by Uberti.
Looking at the data one could see that for lighter projectiles the smokeless/black powder loads for hand guns could be duplicated but as bullet weight went up the black powder loads would lag behind. Rifles/Muskets of course would be a different matter and other factors would come into play here, such as when does it cese to be a firearm and becomes a bomb.
Listed here is the loading data found in a 1970, 45th edition of Lymans reloading hand book and how that would compare to a comparable smokeless load in a similar caliber.
Assuming on my part the bp loads are near chamber capacity for the listed projectile.
Black Powder...............................................*Smokeless Powder
36 cal. Navy Remington.**.......................... 38 caliber Colt New Police
.375 RB (78 to 80 grain wt) .................. 121 grain cast bullet
25 grains 3f, velocity 1005fps ................. smokeless load5 grain 1069 fps
Conical Bullet 145 gr.............................. 141 grain cast bullet
15 grain 3f, velocity 690fps.................. ... smokeless load3.8 grain 925 fps
44 caliber 1860 Army............................... Colt S.A.A 45Colt
.451 RB (140 grain wt)............................. 175 grain Cast Bullet
37.0 grains 3f, velocity 898fps................... smokeless load 12.0grains, 1192fps
Conical Bullet 155 grains ........................ 255 grain cast bullet
25.0 grains 3f, velocity 805fps ................ smokeless load 10.00 grains 1011fps
* six different powders listed for a given weight bullet, listed is max.
** Firearms listed were "Navy" Imports. The ones I have are by Uberti.
Looking at the data one could see that for lighter projectiles the smokeless/black powder loads for hand guns could be duplicated but as bullet weight went up the black powder loads would lag behind. Rifles/Muskets of course would be a different matter and other factors would come into play here, such as when does it cese to be a firearm and becomes a bomb.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Messages
- 22,510
Certainly you can load up a BP revolver to drive up velocity and muzzle energy to a certain extent. But there's a reason why modern cartridge revolvers replaced them and their heirs (.460 Ruger, .454 Casull, .500 S&W, 44 Magnum) rule the roost.
elhombreconnonombre
Member
"The Shooting Times " had an excellent article online regarding the 1851 Navy. Generally, its pretty comparable to a 38 Special, 9mm, and 38 Auto . The Walker...well its "the Walker" and in impromtu competitions on the fields of Mexico in 1847 and 1848 could throw a conical 220 grain bullet (the bullet mold for the Walker cast only conicals, no round balls) as far and as accurately as an 1841 Mississippi rifle. The Walker continues to hold the crown as the most powerful revolver officially issued to US military forces and perhaps to any military force worldwide IMHO.
Last edited:
swathdiver
Member
I believe that making paper comparisons will give a false sense of weakness on the part of the black powder sixgun. On paper it's said that the .36 caliber is about the same as the .380. In reality it's more akin to the .38 Special.
The powder works different and more importantly, soft lead reacts very differently than a jacketed round, they are far more lethal on flesh and bone IMO.
The powders of 1970 are not as potent as today which now more closely resemble 1860s Hazard's Pistol Powder.
The powder works different and more importantly, soft lead reacts very differently than a jacketed round, they are far more lethal on flesh and bone IMO.
The powders of 1970 are not as potent as today which now more closely resemble 1860s Hazard's Pistol Powder.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Ok, but how the powder works doesn't change anything once the bullet is up to speed and out of the barrel. When someone records a velocity, that's the velocity, whether it was launched from a black powder muzzleloader or a cartridge auto loader.
I understand why we sometimes say that, but if that were really the case, then jacketed hollow points would have fallen by the wayside in favor of soft lead bullets, and that's not the case.
You need a certain hardness in a cast bullet to keep down leading at modern pressures, but if dead soft slugs were really the best stoppers, we'd still be using them.
A .36 caliber percussion revolver is about equivalent to .38 S&W; a .44 to the .45 Schofield (not quite to the .45 Colt). Lethality did not really increase until modern powders and better steel resulted in cartridges like the .357 and .44 Magnum.
The advent of metallic cartridges did not bring about some kind of magical increase in the power of handguns. The different burning characteristics of smokeless powder made it better for auto pistols (and of course cleaner) but no magic there either.
Jim
The advent of metallic cartridges did not bring about some kind of magical increase in the power of handguns. The different burning characteristics of smokeless powder made it better for auto pistols (and of course cleaner) but no magic there either.
Jim
MCgunner
Member
Well, lessee, wonder how my .44 Remmy compares with the Howell .45ACP conversion......oh, wait,.... never mind....
I chronographed a full to the top compressed charge of 777 under a 220 Lee RNHP out of my 7.5" ROA once.
1234 fps
1269 fps
1304 fps
1333 fps
1287 fps
Mean Vel 1285 fps
807 ft lbs
That's a pretty hefty load by magnum caliber handgun comparison. Beats anything I ever got out of a .357 magnum. One problem, though, after the third shot, the bullets creep far enough forward to start interfering with cylinder rotation on the forth, fifth, and sixths shots.
Here's another one I have in my notes....31 caliber 60 grain pointed conical out of a ASM Remington .31 pocket model. full compressed charge of 777...
898 fps
107 ft lbs
I chronographed a full to the top compressed charge of 777 under a 220 Lee RNHP out of my 7.5" ROA once.
1234 fps
1269 fps
1304 fps
1333 fps
1287 fps
Mean Vel 1285 fps
807 ft lbs
That's a pretty hefty load by magnum caliber handgun comparison. Beats anything I ever got out of a .357 magnum. One problem, though, after the third shot, the bullets creep far enough forward to start interfering with cylinder rotation on the forth, fifth, and sixths shots.
Here's another one I have in my notes....31 caliber 60 grain pointed conical out of a ASM Remington .31 pocket model. full compressed charge of 777...
898 fps
107 ft lbs
Last edited:
Zeke/PA
Member
My ROA is the most accurate handgun that I own without a doubt!
However it is not my choice for a daily carry weapon as I prefer a small Smith 638 in .38 Special for that chore.
However it is not my choice for a daily carry weapon as I prefer a small Smith 638 in .38 Special for that chore.
whughett
Member
oops.............777 is NOT BLACK POWDER. The subject of the OT
Wait a minute here, have not ever used 777 myself but have I not see numerous cautions against COMPRESSING the load........................is someone pushing the envelope of safety here.
MCgunner
Member
No, not from a Ruger. That frame can handle .44 magnum, it can handle any black powder sub you can stuff in it in any amount. I don't stuff my replicas this way, actually use PYRODEX in them, which is black powder, but SAFER, so use Pyrodex if you want safety. It's not a low explosive. It will not blow you up if you drop ashes off your cigarette in it. Burns like hell, though.
But, then, I'm sure you don't smoke, do you?Actually, I don't shoot these compressed 777 loads at all, run Pyrodex in all my revolvers, but I have tested 'em in two guns and fired a few more cylinders full in the ROA for grins.
If I ever go hunting with the ROA, it'll be with 777.
Last edited:
"777 is NOT BLACK POWDER."
True. But it does give very similar results when compared by volume to both Swiss and Olde Eynsford powders which are real black powders. But what I found was that I could compress T7 more than Olde as I can get 45 grns of 3F T7 behind a ball but had to shave the "nose" of a ball when I tried that the first time with Olde E.
"...but have I not see numerous cautions against COMPRESSING the load........................is someone pushing the envelope of safety here."
It's an erroneous statement made by many as you'll note if/when you actually read what Hodgdon's states, which is:
For percussion/flintlock firearms:
"Seat the projectile firmly against the powder ."
And for metallic cartridges:
"Loading density should be 100% with light compression not to exceed .100". Testing has shown that Triple Seven will perform best when the bullet just touches the powder. Allow no airspace between the base of the bullet and the powder. Do not reduce loads by means of filler wads or inert filler material such as Grits, Dacron or Grex. Do not heavily compress powder charges. The use of filler wads, inert fillers or heavy compression may cause a dangerous situation, which could cause injury and/or death to the shooter, bystanders or damage property. Do not create loads for cartridges not listed."
If it were dangerous also in muzzleloaders and/or cap and ball guns I'm quite certain they'd have the same statement there as well.
I've emailed them several times asking for clarity on what "firmly" is, as well as the misstated needed reduction of 15% due to safety, which isn't stated either, but to replicate a known BP load, which obviously didn't take into consideration Swiss powder's performance as it's near identical, but never received a reply.
I would like to see data on the pressures created as this is what makes it dangerous, and I don't know how the pressures differ between T7, standard Goex, or Swiss.
True. But it does give very similar results when compared by volume to both Swiss and Olde Eynsford powders which are real black powders. But what I found was that I could compress T7 more than Olde as I can get 45 grns of 3F T7 behind a ball but had to shave the "nose" of a ball when I tried that the first time with Olde E.
"...but have I not see numerous cautions against COMPRESSING the load........................is someone pushing the envelope of safety here."
It's an erroneous statement made by many as you'll note if/when you actually read what Hodgdon's states, which is:
For percussion/flintlock firearms:
"Seat the projectile firmly against the powder ."
And for metallic cartridges:
"Loading density should be 100% with light compression not to exceed .100". Testing has shown that Triple Seven will perform best when the bullet just touches the powder. Allow no airspace between the base of the bullet and the powder. Do not reduce loads by means of filler wads or inert filler material such as Grits, Dacron or Grex. Do not heavily compress powder charges. The use of filler wads, inert fillers or heavy compression may cause a dangerous situation, which could cause injury and/or death to the shooter, bystanders or damage property. Do not create loads for cartridges not listed."
If it were dangerous also in muzzleloaders and/or cap and ball guns I'm quite certain they'd have the same statement there as well.
I've emailed them several times asking for clarity on what "firmly" is, as well as the misstated needed reduction of 15% due to safety, which isn't stated either, but to replicate a known BP load, which obviously didn't take into consideration Swiss powder's performance as it's near identical, but never received a reply.
I would like to see data on the pressures created as this is what makes it dangerous, and I don't know how the pressures differ between T7, standard Goex, or Swiss.
MCgunner
Member
Hmm, closely reading this original post and the title of the thread, I fail to see where it specifies use of true Black Powder in the thread, only a "black powder revolver" compared to modern revolvers, to which I offered the ROA's ballistics which I do consider safe in that gun. Seems to me, SOMEONE isn't just pulling the safety card, but might just be a black powder only fanatic, sub powder Luddite as well? Of course, it can be argued that the ROA IS a modern revolver. I have to admit that myself. His examples were a 51 Navy and a Walker, not an ROA.
Hey, check this out, I shoot loose Bullseye in my NAA Supercompanion and load Bullseye in my Remington '58! Yes, works quite well in my .45ACP conversion cylinder.
"...a .44 to the .45 Schofield (not quite to the .45 Colt)."
Mr. Beliveau was able to produce some significant numbers using a ROA,a lightly compressed and reduced load of 3F Triple 7, and a 255 grn Kaido bullet that was choreographed at 920 fps giving it 479 ft/lbs of energy, though it was pointed out to me that the amount shaved off is unknown skewing the energy by up to maybe 20 ft/lbs.
But the point is that there was no need to reduce the load, and there was no need to lightly compress the load, which means that the figures certainly could have been higher. How much? I'm not sure, but I wouldn't think it out of the realm of possibility that 500+ ft/lbs could have been achieved.
And no T7 isn't BP, but it does perform like Swiss and Olde Eynsford.
True, the original load used 40 grns, which was reduced to 35, and then 28-30. But this was also using 2F powder from what I understand. And what I don't know is the performance levels of the powder used as it varied then as it does now.
I'd think it hard to replicate the original 40 grn load, but maybe get close to the 35 grn load's performance.
Mr. Beliveau was able to produce some significant numbers using a ROA,a lightly compressed and reduced load of 3F Triple 7, and a 255 grn Kaido bullet that was choreographed at 920 fps giving it 479 ft/lbs of energy, though it was pointed out to me that the amount shaved off is unknown skewing the energy by up to maybe 20 ft/lbs.
But the point is that there was no need to reduce the load, and there was no need to lightly compress the load, which means that the figures certainly could have been higher. How much? I'm not sure, but I wouldn't think it out of the realm of possibility that 500+ ft/lbs could have been achieved.
And no T7 isn't BP, but it does perform like Swiss and Olde Eynsford.
True, the original load used 40 grns, which was reduced to 35, and then 28-30. But this was also using 2F powder from what I understand. And what I don't know is the performance levels of the powder used as it varied then as it does now.
I'd think it hard to replicate the original 40 grn load, but maybe get close to the 35 grn load's performance.
MCgunner
Member
BTW, in a .31, you simply can't get enough powder into the thing to do much. Stuffed with 777, that 60 grain pill only pushed about 100 ft lbs, a number I get from my .22 mag NAA Black Widow. Pyrodex gives more like 60 ft lbs, about .22LR pistol ballistics. That little Remmy .31 is cute, but I'd much rather be armed with a .380, just sayin'.....
I don't have any experience with .36 calibers, never fired one over my Chronys, don't know how they compare (reference to the Navy). Beyond the fact that Bill Hickok was deadly with his Navys, I think I'd rather carry my little 20 ounce 2" .357 magnum Taurus 605 Poly. Hell, I think I'd rather carry my .38 Special Ultralite both for reasons of weight and concealment and raw ballistics. It pushes over 250 ft lbs with a +P 158 grain HP. I can't imagine a .36 Navy could in any way top that.
The closest IMHO that a cap and ball gun can come to a modern revolver is in .44 Caliber in big belt guns. The Walker is a monster, both in ballistics and in size. I can match that Walker's ballistics with my .357 magnum in a MUCH easier to carry gun.
These comparisons are fun, but if one is actually thinkin' of carrying a cap and ball concealed, well, I love all the modern choices these days. I guess if I had to carry a cap and ball gun, it'd be the NAA Supercompanion loaded with 2.0 grain s Bullseye (by weight, but measured in a scoop) and the NAA 30 grain conical. That bullet is comparable to my NAA Black Widow in .22 mag pushing about 1100 fps and, at least it's concealable. Texas is not an open carry state.
I don't have any experience with .36 calibers, never fired one over my Chronys, don't know how they compare (reference to the Navy). Beyond the fact that Bill Hickok was deadly with his Navys, I think I'd rather carry my little 20 ounce 2" .357 magnum Taurus 605 Poly. Hell, I think I'd rather carry my .38 Special Ultralite both for reasons of weight and concealment and raw ballistics. It pushes over 250 ft lbs with a +P 158 grain HP. I can't imagine a .36 Navy could in any way top that.
The closest IMHO that a cap and ball gun can come to a modern revolver is in .44 Caliber in big belt guns. The Walker is a monster, both in ballistics and in size. I can match that Walker's ballistics with my .357 magnum in a MUCH easier to carry gun.
These comparisons are fun, but if one is actually thinkin' of carrying a cap and ball concealed, well, I love all the modern choices these days.
I guess if I had to carry a cap and ball gun, it'd be the NAA Supercompanion loaded with 2.0 grain s Bullseye (by weight, but measured in a scoop) and the NAA 30 grain conical. That bullet is comparable to my NAA Black Widow in .22 mag pushing about 1100 fps and, at least it's concealable. Texas is not an open carry state.
Last edited:
Crawdad1
Member
You could carry the '62 Pocket revolvers in 36 caliber. Same frame as the '49 Pocket with a bigger punch. If that's the reason the OP started this thread.
Round balls from BP revolvers were deadly enough in their day. It's hard to make a truly accurate comparison because of the different projectiles. I don't feel that just looking at energy alone tells the whole story, but here's what does...
I don't believe that "knockdown power" actually exists beyond having enough power to get a bullet to a place where it can stop an aggressor or a game animal. Drive a bullet through something in a place where it will shut down the CNS, cause a lot of blood loss, or cause a mechanical injury, and you'll cause its behavior to change. That's "knockdown power," and the Colts and Remingtons of the past seemed to have enough of it.
I don't believe that "knockdown power" actually exists beyond having enough power to get a bullet to a place where it can stop an aggressor or a game animal. Drive a bullet through something in a place where it will shut down the CNS, cause a lot of blood loss, or cause a mechanical injury, and you'll cause its behavior to change. That's "knockdown power," and the Colts and Remingtons of the past seemed to have enough of it.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Ok, cool. Can you explain what makes you feel this is so? Is it experience with shooting animals with those rounds? (I assume not humans!
) Historic anecdotes?
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Messages
- 22,510
Knockdown power? There is no guarantee that any modern handgun bullet that ensures 100% knockdown yet alone a rifle bullet. Recall Charles Henderson's Marine Sniper. Hathcock fired two 30-06 bullets into an opponent and it took a third bullet into the head to drop him.
That said, a .36 caliber bullet fired from a cap 'n ball can still kill a person today as it did over 100 years ago. However, it may take some time for the recipient to bleed out.
That said, a .36 caliber bullet fired from a cap 'n ball can still kill a person today as it did over 100 years ago. However, it may take some time for the recipient to bleed out.
zimmerstutzen
Member
This from Hogdon concerning trip 7: "Do not heavily compress powder charges."
Folks are always trying to convert the guns into something they are not.
I have frequently wondered how good a market there would be for either a 50 caliber cap and ball revolver or for a 44 caliber with a beefed up stretched frame and a cylinder that ran a half inch longer.
Folks are always trying to convert the guns into something they are not.
I have frequently wondered how good a market there would be for either a 50 caliber cap and ball revolver or for a 44 caliber with a beefed up stretched frame and a cylinder that ran a half inch longer.
whughett
Member
OK folks.............egg on face and a little tabasco with that crow please.
whughett
PS: Not a purist tend to shoot whatever will give the most bang for the buck.
whughett
PS: Not a purist tend to shoot whatever will give the most bang for the buck.
Last edited:
Where it states not to heavily compress is under the loading of metallic cartridges as it states otherwise under muzzleloaders. That's where people have been confusing this as they've done with the need to reduce the loads by 15% for safety. It's not what it says. If you continue reading beyond the loading of cartridges you'll note that it states to seat the projectile firmly against the powder which is very different than the light compression it states for cartridges.
And if you are follow what is said in that paragraph and have it roll over to muzzleloading then you'd need to follow the rest of it as well such as no fillers or reduced loads. You can't just pick one sentence to follow. But that's exactly why I stated that if it were a universal caution it wouldn't have been left out when they moved to muzzleloading arms. It's far too important and with them covering their hind quarters I'm certain they wouldn't have left themselves open. They certainly didn't in regards to cartridge loading.
I'm not following the idea that these guns are being converted into something they are not though. It seems to me that we're doing precisely what had been done way back then, though the conversion cylinders may be a bit different...
And if you are follow what is said in that paragraph and have it roll over to muzzleloading then you'd need to follow the rest of it as well such as no fillers or reduced loads. You can't just pick one sentence to follow. But that's exactly why I stated that if it were a universal caution it wouldn't have been left out when they moved to muzzleloading arms. It's far too important and with them covering their hind quarters I'm certain they wouldn't have left themselves open. They certainly didn't in regards to cartridge loading.
I'm not following the idea that these guns are being converted into something they are not though. It seems to me that we're doing precisely what had been done way back then, though the conversion cylinders may be a bit different...
- Status
