Guns and Ammo just did a hatchet job on BP revolvers.

[piettakid]

They have an article on "Cap & Ball Revolvers" in their april 2021 issue and on page 74 they say "The power of these cap and ball revolvers is anemic by today's ballistic standards."

A rem 1858 (8 inch barrel) with a heavy but perfectly safe load of 40 grains BP has the muzzle energy of a factory load in 44 special or 45 ACP (not a +P).

An ROA has a slightly larger powder chamber and as strongly built as it is, could likely handle 50 grains of BP, though i've never tried that myself. In fact i suspect an ROA could even handle low pressure smokeless powder. Of course ruger says that's suicide. but they have to say that. It would be dangerous with a rem 1858 which is a true Civil war replica gun, but the ROA is much much stronger.

 

[Sim Carstairs]

I haven’t read the article, but some of the 750,000 deaths sustained in the US Civil War certainly were caused by these “anemic revolvers.” And all the game I’ve killed with them (usually with one shot) didn’t think they were wimpy. Dead is dead.

 

[windini]

Hush y'all!

Let 'em talk their trash ... and disenchant the Uninitiated.

Then, there'll be more for us Smokenati!

 

[Jeff62]

Yesterday I spent time with my Pieta 1860 Coltish shooting at 100 yards. I figured it out. I’m not advocating hunting with that weapon at that range but I CAN drop them into the kill zone now with that weapon.
Interesting, I had a 2x4 holding my scrap plywood target; a couple of the rounds plowed through that.
Wimpy? Noop.

 

[gtrgy888]

Yup, I can testify that my wimpy .36 punches right through 4-6 boards of one inch pine. If that’s anemic, a .45 ACP can hunt elephants.

 

[1KPerDay]

A rem 1858 (8 inch barrel) with a heavy but perfectly safe load of 40 grains BP has the muzzle energy of a factory load in 44 special or 45 ACP (not a +P).

Evidence please

 

[brewer12345]

On paper, the ballistics of my percussion rifles are anemic as well. My best accuracy load for my 24 inch barrel 54 rifle chrono'ed a .530 round ball at 1200 and change FPS last summer. The only shot I was offered during deer season was a Texas heart shot on a hundred pound button buck. The ball broke one of his thigh bones and proceeded to travel all the way to the front shoulder on the opposite side of the animal. It ran less than fifty yards before piling up. I would not like to stand in front of an anemic 44 round ball load from a garden variety 1858.

 

[DocRock]

Evidence please

The math doesn't work with 140 grs RB. Even at a 1000 fps, it's 60 foot pounds short of 230 grs ball at 850 fps, and roughly 100 ft lbs short of 200 grs at 950.

I don't want to be shot with 140 grs at 900 fps and I can't think of much that would do well after having been so shot, but round ball doesn't pack the punch of weightier bullets.

 

[piettakid]

Evidence please

http://poconoshooting.com/blackpowderballistics.html

 

[DocRock]

http://poconoshooting.com/blackpowderballistics.html

So, as I noted above, 140grs RB falls well short of 45 ACP 230 grs ball or a 44 Special 200 grs load.

 

[LoonWulf]

I wouldnt call them anemic in general. Anything capable of penetrating to the vitals is a lethal weapon.
my bulldog air rifle will fire 147gr .356 bullets pretty much right at 900fps for 3 shots, and It took exactly one round to punch clean thru a 150lb sows head and smash a few vertebrae.

Compared to a similar-sized modern revolver tho, they are definitely lower powered. Even in a conversion CYL for the large sturdy ROA its not recommended to use "modern" full power factory loads.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I haven’t read the article, but some of the 750,000 deaths sustained in the US Civil War certainly were caused by these “anemic revolvers.” And all the game I’ve killed with them (usually with one shot) didn’t think they were wimpy. Dead is dead.

Given medical capabilities of the time, any penetrative wound could be lethal, even by anemic revolvers. I have no doubt that plenty of people would have died of pellet gun wounds had the Civil War been fought with air rifles, LOL.

The 'anemic' comparison was not related to any sort of deaths, but to actual performance out of the barrel (ballistic standards).

A rem 1858 (8 inch barrel) with a heavy but perfectly safe load of 40 grains BP has the muzzle energy of a factory load in 44 special or 45 ACP (not a +P).

Okay, so you can get the same muzzle energy out of an 8 inch barrel that a .44 Special gets from a 4" barrel or a .45 acp gets from a 5" barrel. If you need twice the barrel to get the same result, saying that it is anemic by ballistic standards would not be unfair. A .44 special requires ~7.5 gr. of powder to accomplish the task. A .45 acp needs ~5 grains of powder.

 

[AZAndy]

Well, you know, it's called Guns and Ammo. If you want better information, read Guns and Lead, Caps, and Powder.

 

[Sim Carstairs]

I purposely try not to pay too much attention to these ballistic comparisons: It’s like a dog chasing it’s tail. When it takes hundreds of modern combat rounds to produce 1 KIA or seven cops firing 50+ rounds at a stationary dude 25 yards away and only hitting him three times, these ballistic comparisons mean little in the real world when people who are considered trained and seasoned shooters prove to be terrible marksmen. I’ve seen it hundreds of times and it’s not stress. Modern and high-speed really means zip if you can’t coolly place that bullet precisely where it needs to be whenever you need to do it. I’ve killed many deer with two black powder revolvers over the years and it didn’t matter to them if I was using the latest most super duper round the gun magazines were endlessly hawking on behalf of the manufactures at the time or there was a slight difference in FPS at the muzzle. I took careful aim, shot them exactly where I wanted, and killed them where they stood. I never heard anyone say, “Golly, Tim, that dead deer would even be more dead if you just had 80 FPS more or used what the gun magazine said to buy.” Dead is dead and practice makes perfect.

 

[45 Dragoon]

I wouldnt call them anemic in general. Anything capable of penetrating to the vitals is a lethal weapon.
my bulldog air rifle will fire 147gr .356 bullets pretty much right at 900fps for 3 shots, and It took exactly one round to punch clean thru a 150lb sows head and smash a few vertebrae.

Compared to a similar-sized modern revolver tho, they are definitely lower powered. Even in a conversion CYL for the large sturdy ROA its not recommended to use "modern" full power factory loads.

That's what they tell ya. You can shoot any tier 1 ammo you can find in the ROA with a Kirst conversion cyl. That's the strongest conversion by far!!

Mike

 

[archeryrob]

Every sport has their elitist snobs. Its like in hunting with compounds vs crossbows, compounds looking down on Traditional or primitive bows. Fly fisherman looking down on spin caster or bait guys. The list goes on how their way is so much better than those lesser, ignorant humans that use that by gone era stuff or something they don't like.

 

[Malachi Leviticus Blue]

Back to the OP's quote "The power of these cap and ball revolvers is anemic by today's ballistic standards."

It is a misleading statement.
It says the revolvers are anemic, not round balls are anemic, or small BP charges are anemic.
There are plenty of folks who have trusted their defense to a 380 or .22.
Calling a shot fired from a .44 cal C&B revolver loaded with a round ball and 30 grains of BP down an 8in barrel anemic is nonsense.
Make it a conical projectile with some extra oomph in the powder charge and it will be even less "anemic"

 

[Jackrabbit1957]

I don't think the guy who wrote that really understood the guns or the ammo, a lot of us here know better than to listen to someone like that. Considering we use soft lead bullets as opposed to jacketed or hard cast to me kinda tips the scale a little more toward the black powder stuff. When a round ball will pass through an animal and leave a good size hole coming out, what is it gonna do to a man? Anemic my hind end.

 

[armoredman]

They are. Don't mug me for insulting the Holy Black, but it is true that standard black powder revolvers, as much as we love them, are not exactly the cutting edge of technology. Many men fell to the Sopwith Camel, but nobody is going to fly a WWI biplane in modern air combat. The fearsome Tiger tank was murder on the battlefields of WWII, but would be a chew toy for an M1 Abrams. However, any man killed by either of these tools is still as dead as if hit with an APFDS Silver Bullet.
Put it in perspective - the June 2182 issue of Phasers and Blasters has an article about primitive chemical powered sidearms, "The power of these ancient cartridge firearms, such as the Colt 1911 or Beretta 92, are anemic by today's standards. Heck, they won't even vaporize the target, much less a guaranteed death strike first shot!"
Would I carry my little Pietta 44 as a primary sidearm? You know what, in some circumstances, yes I would, and I would feel just fine doing it. G&A doesn't like them? So what.

 

[rodwha]

They are. Don't mug me for insulting the Holy Black, but it is true that standard black powder revolvers, as much as we love them, are not exactly the cutting edge of technology. Many men fell to the Sopwith Camel, but nobody is going to fly a WWI biplane in modern air combat. The fearsome Tiger tank was murder on the battlefields of WWII, but would be a chew toy for an M1 Abrams. However, any man killed by either of these tools is still as dead as if hit with an APFDS Silver Bullet.
Put it in perspective - the June 2182 issue of Phasers and Blasters has an article about primitive chemical powered sidearms, "The power of these ancient cartridge firearms, such as the Colt 1911 or Beretta 92, are anemic by today's standards. Heck, they won't even vaporize the target, much less a guaranteed death strike first shot!"
Would I carry my little Pietta 44 as a primary sidearm? You know what, in some circumstances, yes I would, and I would feel just fine doing it. G&A doesn't like them? So what.

I’m at a loss for how all of that comes back to how anemic you feel these are, and I guess anemic needs to be defined. I use energetic powders (3F Olde Eynsford and Triple7) in my 5.5” NMA and 7.5” ROA. I need to do further, more precise testing, but my NMA is more accurate with a 30 grn charge that weighs 33, and my ROA loves 35 that weighs 38. I’ll be modifying my designs to essentially fill the excess chamber space with lead. From my measurements the bullet is estimated to weigh 220 grn +/- 10. Even with my shorter 195 grn bullets and the powder charges the NMA sits easily within standard .45 ACP performance and the ROA like higher end +P. I don’t see how anyone could call these anemic. Anemic compared to a .44 Mag sure. There are fellows hunting hogs in Florida using these guns, energetic powders, and modified Lee .45 bullets weighing 240 grns and these have proven to go nose to tail through them. Anemic stuff can’t do that in my opinion, but then anemic still hasn’t been defined well.

 

[.38 Special]

I browse G&A at the newsstand once every couple of years, just to see if the quality is returning to the standards of 30 or so years ago. No evidence of it so far, and this thread just reinforces that.

So "Crummy magazine publishes crummy article". Oh well.

 

[Dave Markowitz]

"Guns & Ammo says X."

Who cares.

 

[1KPerDay]

I imagine the intent was to compare the "standard" loads of lead ball over 20ish grains in .36 caliber and 30ish grains in .44 caliber. Which if you compare energy only is around the comparison of a .380 or maybe 9mm standard 115 grain load IIRC. But nobody is saying that a 9mm is anemic or insufficient for self defense these days. Furthermore if you compare standard lead "ball" loads in BP to a standard "ball" load in .380 or 9mm, I'd imagine a pure lead ball might actually perform better.

I personally don't care if X feels a .44 ball load is "anemic compared to modern pistols" since it's not a modern pistol, and that's the entire point (for me). It's certainly lethal, and certainly a lot more fun than shooting one of the latest "innovative/revolutionary" copies of a polymer-framed, striker-fired 9mm. They have their place and their purpose, but so does a Honda Accord when compared to a Ford Flathead or an AC Cobra or a GT40 or a CBR600RR to a Norton Commando. One takes a lot more maintenance and fiddling and gets you dirty and smells/feels different and provides a more soul-satisfying experience. Sure, if you want reliable transport to the local wallyworld to get your pre-packaged microwave dinners and bulk-packaged cheezy poofs, get the Accord. If you want a practical defensive or tactical/competition pistol, the cap and ball isn't going to cut it.

That's not the point.

And for those who use their cap-and-ball revolvers for defense/woods/hunting, as noted above, the right powders and bullets can bring them up to the power of pretty much any non-magnum-level modern handgun.

 

[Captain*kirk]

Tell that to my Walker. 60 grains behind a .454 RB isn't something I'd want to jump in front of.

 

[.38 Special]

One of my standard lines is "The round ball is effective all out of proportion to its size". I'm not generally a fan of energy figures for any bullet. That's especially true for handguns, and especially true for percussion revolvers. A .45 caliber round ball at reasonable velocity is adequate for anything up to 500 pounds at least, and energy figures be damned.