Can black powder revolvers be compared to modern calibers ballistically speaking?

[Panzerschwein]

Sure they can.

A .380 ACP pushes a bullet weighing about 85 grains at about 1000 FPS or so. It has a diameter of .357 for the most part.

A Colt Navy .36 (actually .375-.380) round ball with 25 grains of FFFG black powder pushes an 80 grain lead ball at about 1000 FPS, very comparable to a .380 ACP.

 

[goon]

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?

Seriously?
Sam, are just looking for something to nitpick on this slightly dreary PA morning?

I could point out that old primary sources exist telling us about people being shot with percussion revolvers. Their graves also still exist. I could point out that a .36 or .44 revolver can reliably put a hole in a place where it will shut the CNS down or cause blood loss. To me, that is all that "knockdown power" is... along with a little luck. As Gary noted, even several hits from a .30'06 isn't enough to ensure that something will be "knocked down."

But instead, I'll just say that if it's good enough for Cullen Bohannon, then it's good enough for me.

 

[Sam1911]

Yes, goon, I'm serious. If "folks are dead, so the round has enough knockdown power" is the standard you are applying, that's fine. That was all I was asking.

By that standard, pretty much all firearms have enough knockdown power, though. Heck, .22 LR fills a lot of graves.

 

[SleazyRider]

Suffice it to say, then, that a black powder firearm shouldn't be considered any less lethal than a modern, cartridge firearm. It has always amazed me that in New York State---perhaps the poster child of strict gun control legislation---virtually anyone can have a BP handgun delivered to their doorstep. Don't misunderstand me, I think that's how it should be; but in a state where wrist-supported slingshots are unlawful it seems incongruent. Perhaps our omniscient legislators don't consider them the ballistic equivalent a metallic cartridge firearm … or maybe it was an oversight.

Shhhhh!

 

[goon]

By that standard, pretty much all firearms have enough knockdown power, though. Heck, .22 LR fills a lot of graves.

With enough luck, even a rock has enough "knockdown power."

 

[zimmerstutzen]

deleted because duplicative

 

[zimmerstutzen]

Rodwa said: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.

But it does not specify for cap and ball revolvers either firmly or compress heavily is ok.

Cap and ball revolvers are NOT muzzle loaders. They simply do not load through the muzzle. Where it lumps percussion and flintlock most likely refers to muzzle loaders. The loading of metallic cartridges is far more similar and unlike muzzle loaders, cap and ball revolvers and metallic cartridges are loaded with mechanical lever presses. It would be hard to actually compress the powder heavily pushing down a ram rod with the hands.

Some fool at Hogdon does not quite know how to spell out that when loading the guns with a press or loading lever, don't heavily compress the powder.

It is like saying because there are no speed signs in a residential neighborhood, you can go 150MPH. Firmly is about as tight as a front loader can be loaded with a ram rod. You want to assume that this means cap and ball revolvers too, yet cap and ball revolvers are loaded with levered presses like metallic cartridges are loaded on presses. If compressing heavily is a no no, it is a no no in every gun that might be loaded that way, including cap and ball revolvers.

 

[rodwha]

"But it does not specify for cap and ball revolvers either firmly or compress heavily is ok."

Nope. It states percussion, which is what a cap and ball pistol is.

Maybe Hodgdon's just doesn't know what they're trying to say… :roll eyes:

It is rather obvious that light compression and firm compression are two different things. And as I said you cannot just grab one sentence out of the paragraph and state it applies to all yet ignore the rest. It doesn't work that way.

And if Hodgdon's felt that anything more than light compression was hazardous to even a slight degree I'm fairly confident in them that they would have stated such so your speed sign analogy isn't appropriate at all.


"Firmly is about as tight as a front loader can be loaded with a ram rod."

I certainly wish Hodgdon's would have replied to my email concerning such as "firmly" is a bit vague, and they certainly didn't state that it was merely as tight as can be compacted with a ramrod.

 

[Panzerschwein]

Keep in mind also these guns can shoot soft, pure lead spheres... with some velocity these can upset and deform in flesh and tear a wider wound cavity than the typically harder, jacketed lead bullets used in modern cartridges.

In the U.S. civil war, confederate cavalrymen preferred to load round balls in there Colt navies over full charges of powder vs. using the issued conical cartridges. They claimed higher effectiveness against enemy personnel, and author Elmer Keith was informed of this upon his interviews of veterans of that conflict.

I believe the blunter, lighter weight round balls would have been trucking along with those full loads of powder, better than the heavier conicals with the paper cartridges varying charge weight behind them. This may well have caused the round ball loads to expand and deform more, leading to greater wound effect with increased energy dump, resulting in the telling eyewitness accounts given to Keith.

Regardless of this, cap and ball revolvers were and are very much lethal weapons that should be treated with the utmost respect at all times, and while they are obsolete for defensive use today compared to other options, I would not feel under gunned with my Colt navy by my side.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

Rodwa said:Nope. It states percussion, which is what a cap and ball pistol is.


Your stretching the matter far beyond credibility. Firmly against the powder does not even carry the connotation of any compression what ever. Your glossing over the common meaning of the word to twist a press loaded gun into the same class as a muzzle loader is simply irrational. Further it is a disservice to newbies who may on your advise, attempt to use an 20 ton arbor press to cram as much powder as possible into a cylinder chamber to the unfortunate loss of finger and hands..

Your interpretation that because it says firmly against, that therefore heavy compression in cap and ball revolvers was "blessed" by Hogdon simply transcends reality.

 

[Crawdad1]

For the sake of discussion, the loading lever on a Colt, especially the creeper style, can put a lot of pressure on any given load. Are you saying that when using T7 that you have to monitor this 'force' between the terms 'firmly seated' and 'heavily compressed' while ramming the load?

And how exactly is someone supposed to do that?

 

[goon]

Man... this is the Blackpowder Shooting forum.

I have been away for a few months, but it used to be that you guys didn't take things so seriously. Y'all need to step away from the keyboards and shoot something.

 

[rodwha]

"Your stretching the matter far beyond credibility."

No sir. That would be you. You need to reread their load data.


"Firmly against the powder does not even carry the connotation of any compression what ever."

It certainly does. It Implies more than lightly, which I'd venture to say "firmly" is more than.


"Your glossing over the common meaning of the word to twist a press loaded gun into the same class as a muzzle loader is simply irrational."

I'm uncertain of the "common word" that I'm "glossing over." I'd assume that's the word firmly. How that correlates specifically to what a ramrod can produce in a muzzleloader I'd say is quite a stretch. I don't see that defined properly for the rest of us who weren't blessed with your understanding of the word. But maybe I chose the wrong word… But I didn't in ANY way throw a press loaded gun into the muzzleloader class as Hodgdon
's did that all by themselves. I guess you need to take that up with them as they are too vague for you and the rest of us.


"Further it is a disservice to newbies who may on your advise, attempt to use an 20 ton arbor press to cram as much powder as possible into a cylinder chamber to the unfortunate loss of finger and hands.."

I'd certainly like to know where I stated such. In no way on any forum have I recommended such. Please quote me where I recommended such.


"Your interpretation that because it says firmly against, that therefore heavy compression in cap and ball revolvers was "blessed" by Hogdon simply transcends reality."

And, again, please site where I said such about "heavy compression."

Please do not attempt to put words in my mouth. It's very easy to go back and see you are reaching and grasping for some reason unknown. I've greatly appreciated your opinion on everything else I've read that you've stated up until this point, and will continue to do so.


"...simply transcends reality."

What transcends reality is the lengths you've gone to put words in my mouth.

 

[Panzerschwein]

Wow... arguing about what "compressed charge" means and pretty much ignoring the OP's original questions.

"Good job" is not the right word for this situation, let's be the team we are and get back on track so we can help the OP's thread along instead of picking apart minutia. Take that to PM's if neccessary.

OP: like I said the Colt Navy is about equal to a .380 ACP if you are using full charges o' black. These old guns are NOT to be trifled with and are as deadly today as they were in 1851 or whenever they were first made.

 

[dickydalton]

Wow... arguing about what "compressed charge" means and pretty much ignoring the OP's original questions.

"Good job" is not the right word for this situation, let's be the team we are and get back on track so we can help the OP's thread along instead of picking apart minutia. Take that to PM's if neccessary.

OP: like I said the Colt Navy is about equal to a .380 ACP if you are using full charges o' black. These old guns are NOT to be trifled with and are as deadly today as they were in 1851 or whenever they were first made.

Someone always seems to do that.

 

[rodwha]

Certainly right. Sorry.

 

[4v50 Gary]

What can kill a man over a century ago can still to it today. Besides .36 caliber colts, spears, crossbolts, arrows and blunt instruments, fists and feet fall into this category.

On that note, let's end the discussion.