Misfire99 questions my views on brass frames and black powder being the most accurate propellant. He apparently feels that what I've written in this post is opinion given as fact.
If I appear to be some strutting peacock, spouting my opinions and observations as fact, then that was not my intent. I just wanted to help out shooters with a wealth of information in one place.
Perhaps what I view as "wealth" others may view as garbage. It's certainly their right to view it as they wish.
Alas, Misfire99, I know exactly why you take me to task. I too have seen all manner of opinions given as fact. That is why I posted the following at the end of my submission:
CARRY A GRAIN OF SALT --- Some of what is related at the range, and on the internet, is exaggeration, fabrication, unsubstantiated or downright dangerous. Some of the things I've listed here are opinion. Others may disagree with me, and they’re entitled, but I base the above on my own experience.
I think this makes it clear that my opinion is offered. I mean no offense, Misfire99, and am pleased I can perhaps clarify what I wrote and opined.
I wrote the above treatise to help folks, some of whom had never fired a cap and ball sixgun, wade through mounds of information. It's a primer to inform the average person what they should know if they plan to buy a cap and ball sixgun.
When I began shooting cap and ball sixguns in 1970, the only guide was in the Lyman handbook. It counseled to use axle grease as a lubricant over the ball. No mention of a greased felt wad was made. Nor was there any mention of trying different powders, ball sizes or caps.
Lyman made it sound so simple: throw a measured amount of black powder in each chamber, ram down a ball of soft lead, slather grease over the ball, put on a cap and fire away.
We now know that there are many other variables that can enhance or detract from the accuracy of a cap and ball sixgun.
Blackpowder
In my experience, black powder has always been more accurate than the synthetic powders such as Pyrodex, Hodgdon 777, Clearshot, etc. As of this writing (February 2008) I've tried them all and found that black powder is more accurate in all of my cap and ball pistols.
I've tried them from a benchrest, at a measured 25 yards, against standard bullseye targets while taking pains to gently squeeze the trigger.
My loading procedure was made as identical as I could make it, right down to how much pressure I used to seat the greased wad and ball.
I can't explain it, but then no one has been able to satisfactorily explain why certain smokeless powders in modern rifles and pistols are more accurate, all other things being equal (bullet, case, primer, etc.).
It is said that when you die, all the questions you ever had will be answered by your Maker.
Well, "Why are some powders more accurate than others, all other things being equal?" will be among those at the top of my list (along with, "Did that blonde in the yellow Corvette really wink at me back in 1985?
).
Moreover, other cap and ball shooters have told me they noticed the same thing: black powder tends to be more accurate in their revolvers. Some go beyond "tends to" and state with conviction that it is always more accurate.
I feel the evidence that black powder is more accurate than the synthetic powders is pretty good.
Of course, each revolver is an individual and some may show a marked preference for the synthetics.
As for accuracy, it's a relative term. What is "accurate" to one shooter may be barely adequate to another.
But when my Remington 58 puts six lead balls into a 1-1/2 inch circle at 25 yards from a benchrest, and the best I can get with synthetic is a 3-inch group, then I know that black powder is more accurate in that gun.
And when others tell me that they have experienced the same phenomenon, perhaps this information has crossed over from being opinion to fact, or as near to fact as could be.
And yet, there's one in every crowd: Some revolvers will undoubtedly be more accurate with synthetics.
I believe this is due to the Great Hairy Thunderer's penchant for going, "Boogah-Boogah!" just to keep us mystified! I have no doubt that He, She, It or They have a sense of humor.
I still believe that black powder, generally FFFG granulation, is most often more accurate than the synthetic powders in cap and ball sixguns. Until my targets and others indicate otherwise, I'll continue to tell others to use it for best results.
But you may have experienced the opposite. That's the nature of shooting, whether old or modern guns.
The best lesson in the vagaries of ammuntion in one firearm may be found in the .22 Long Rifle cartridge.
Take out a rifle or pistol known to be accurate, along with at least 10 boxes of different ammo (Remington, Winchester, Wolf, Federal, CCI, Aguila, etc.) and shoot 10 shots of each type into its own target. Use a benchrest at 25 yards, or 50 yards for some rifles.
Compare targets. You will be amazed at the difference in group size with each type of ammo.
Each firearm is an individual, with marked preferences.
However, when it comes to cap and ball sixguns, I agree that more than propellant is responsible for accuracy.
Consistency
Your point about consistency being the key to accuracy is well taken.
You and I agree on this point. And it's not just true about cap and ball sixguns, but all firearms and reloading.
I load my cap and ball sixguns meticulously. Always have. In fact, many have become impatient watching me load my guns but I take the time to ensure that all components are just-so, and I try to apply the same pressure to each wad and ball (I load them separately) each time.
This passion for consistency shows on the target.
I'm not out to load quickly to save my skin from Commanches, I'm out to shoot accurately.
Brass frames vs. steel frames
This is a bone of contention among many shooters. Myself, I don't like brass frames for what I believe to be solid reasons, or at least solid generalities.
Generally, guns with steel frames are better made than those of brass. It seems as though manufacturers, knowing that brass frames are more easily milled, rush through the job more quickly and don't take the time for final polishing and fitting.
Frankly, I believe they know their market: most purchasers of brass-framed guns know little or nothing about cap and ball sixguns and buy them because they're
pretty or
cool.
Manufacturers don't have to put a lot of work into brass-framed guns because odds are that the buyer will overlook other failings as long as the brass is shiny.
I'm sure some will take issue with me on this point, and I only base it on my suspicions, but I've witnessed dozens of buyers and potential buyers of brass-framed guns at shops and shows --- they're not the most informed or discerning lot of customers I've seen. They're entranced by the gleaming brass and can't see past that.
I've overheard more than one potential buyer ask if the shop also carried cartridges for it.
However, I admit I have seen a few brass-framed guns that were well made. But only a few. I have also seen steel-framed guns that were poorly made, but not nearly in the numbers I've seen brass frames.
Back in the 1970s there were many poorly made steel and brass-framed guns.
I don't see poorly made steel framed guns as much anymore, but I still see plenty of brass-framed guns bearing tool marks, unpolished chambers, rough bores, etc.
Look around the trigger guard of a brass-framed gun and you'll usually see where they missed polishing; I don't see that on steel guns.
As a general rule, I feel that steel-framed guns are not only more durable but better made. And we all want the best quality we can get with our hard-earned bucks, right?
I wrote the above treatise with today's buyer in mind, presumably buying a new gun.
Buy a brass-framed revolver if you wish, but I think the extra $20 to $30 invested in a steel frame of the same model is worth it.
The Confederates produced revolvers with brass frames not because they
wanted to, but because they
had to. Brass was easier to machine, and the Confederacy lacked the technology and raw materials to make steel-framed revolvers to any degree.
If you're a reenactor who wants to accurately portray a Rebel, then a brass-framed revolver would lend authenticity to your getup.
But for general shooting, I still believe that steel-framed revolvers are best for the average shooter. They are more durable, can accommodate heavier loads and are generally better made.
Do you need the extra power that a steel framed revolver offers? Probably not, especially if you're just putting holes in tin cans and paper, but it's nice to have the option.
Perhaps someday you'll want to hunt small game with your sixgun, or have an opportunity to shoot at long range and need the extra power. Why limit your options with a brass-framed revolver that demands you load it below capacity so you don't strain it?
Ball vs. conical bullet
Okay, we're back to my experience and the experience of others I've talked with, and read about on the internet.
Round balls (an oxymoron, since I've never seen a square ball of any type. Balls are, by nature, spheres) are more accurate than conical bullets.
My experience, and the experience of others, shows this as yet another one of those trends that is a generally accepted fact. Generally. Most times.
I have no doubt that some revolvers shoot conical bullets more accurately, but I don't believe they're the norm.
And again, I wrote the above treatise as a guide for new shooters.
Perhaps I was pedantic in some areas and should have disclaimed with, "in my opinion" but when something works for you, and has worked for a long time for you and others, you tend to forget to add that disclaimer.
Overall, I still believe that balls are most accurate. The rub lies not in the design of a conical bullet, but in the design of the revolver.
Seating a conical bullet straight into the chamber, no matter how careful you may be, is nearly impossible.
Because of tiny variations in each conical bullet, and the rammer's alignment with each individual chamber, you will never be able to seat a conical bullet as straight as a ball.
A ball plops down in the chamber mouth pretty much straight. It's the nature of a sphere to align itself in a hole.
An elongated bullet, however, can be tipped one way or the other --- however minutely --- during the seating process.
So, let's say that the bullet is seated a teensy-tiny-iddy-bitty way off to the side. Too little for the shooter to notice, but not quite straight nonetheless.
Upon firing, the conical bullet leaves the chamber at a slight angle to the center axis, and then is slammed into the rifling at the same slight angle.
It travels down the bore
kerslonchwise too.
It leaves the muzzle with the center line of the bullet at a slight angle to the bullet itself.
Think of it as a toy top, nearing the end of its rotation, and spinning in a wide arc. That's exaggerated but you get the gist.
Spin a baseball at high speed, however, and it will end its rotation with far less pitch and yaw than a toy top.
Some conical bullets, in some revolvers, can be wonderfully accurate.
But I still believe that the greatest accuracy potential lies in the lead ball.
Lead balls are also generally easier to obtain and cheaper to buy.
Again, I suggested using lead balls with the new shooter in mind, or for the sake of convenience.
I play around with conical bullets on occasion. I've yet to find one design, in any of my revolvers, that can beat the lead ball for accuracy.
And to get near the accuracy of the humble ball, I have to tinker and tinker and get even more meticulous than I normally am.
After a while, the ol' desert cat's ears are flat on his head and he's growling, hissing and muttering.
I don't feel that, for most shooters, conical bullets are worth the extra effort, certainly not to just put holes in paper or cans.
But they are worth it, by virtue of their greater weight, when hunting medium game such as coyote, up to small deer. Their greater weight means more energy expended on the animal, for a more certain kill.
Damn, the ol' cat rambled on and on didn't he?
Well, I just wanted to explain my position.
I understand your position as well, that I've offered opinion as facts.
Oh, no doubt I have. But as I said before, when you and others see the same result time and again --- and only a few contrary examples arise.
But thanks for taking me to task. We all need a "Hold on there a minute" often, to keep us on our toes.
I hope there are no hard feelings with my response. I respect your opinions and experience. In the end, I think we both want the same thing --- to pass on our experiences for the betterment of others.
Best wishes!
--- Gatofeo
