Troubles with the .44 Johnston and Dow in an Uberti 1860 Army

[bear166]

Howdy folks. I took my 1860 out yesterday to test out some paper cartridges I'd made up, and I have to say that I was incredibly disappointed. I'm here to see if my experience is very typical, if I might perhaps be doing something wrong, or if there's anything I can do to improve things.

A while back, I ordered some .36 Colt and .44 Johnston and Dow conicals from Gimcrack and Bunkum (great shop by the way, and absolutely a quality product). I've already tested the .36 Colt in my Navy, and I was very impressed; they seated easily, and I found them to be extremely accurate.

My experience with the .44s was entirely the opposite. I found it very difficult to even get the heel of the bullet into the cylinder to allow them to be seated, as the bullets are just much wider than the space I have to work with. Even upon getting them under the ram, it took what seemed to me an excessive amount of force to get them to seat, to the point where the loading lever scraped up my hand. Even then, I found that most of them would not seat deeply enough to quite clear the end of the cylinder, resulting in the tips of the bullets being shaved off as I cycled the action. They are seated over 25 grains of FFF, which I understand to be the typical load for this cartridge; seems like that should be a small enough charge to allow it to seat all the way down.

I also found them to be very inaccurate. Only 5 out of 18 shots ended up on paper at seven yards. Now, I'm not the best shot, but when shooting roundballs out of this gun, I don't have much issue at least getting most if not all shots on paper. Interestingly, they seemed to be shooting very low (a few even by a foot or better), which is strange because like most '60s mine tends to shoot high with roundballs. The bore was pretty fouled up by the end, so perhaps I didn't give the bullets quite enough lube when I rolled them up, although interestingly the last group was the best, with 3 of 6 shots landing on paper.

It just seems like I must be doing something wrong here, as I know this is a very popular cartridge among BP shooters. My thoughts on next steps would be to try a lesser charge and put the lube over the loaded bullet instead of directly on the bullet. Thanks in advance for whatever tips you guys might be able to share!

 

[Armored farmer]

That seems like a light load.

Bullet hardness is an issue. It can sure make loading a lot more difficult....I know from a batch of too hard .454 rb that I cast one time.

Are you sure that your bullet isn't meant for a ruger old army? They're bigger bore than uberti iirc

 

[dirt-poor]

Maybe the conicals were misaligned when seated, got pressed in a little crooked, and were then deformed enough to affect accuracy. I have tried .36 conical bullets in an 1851 Navy. They shot well, but were hard to load, starting with the same problem you describe.

It was impossible to get them seated when trying to load them with the cylinder on the gun. With the cylinder off the gun, it was easy to seat the bullets, but my cheap loading press was useless for pressing them in because the plunger wouldn't raise up high enough to reach the top of the bullets. I had to load them one at time by seating each one by hand, pushing it in a bit, and then reassembling the gun at half-cock with the cylinder positioned so that the protruding bullet had sufficient clearance to be rotated under the plunger. Way too much trouble,

For me, the answer would be to buy a decent loader for loading conicals off the gun. Maybe that would also work better for loading your .44 Johnston and Dow conicals.

 

[woodnbow]

Howdy folks. I took my 1860 out yesterday to test out some paper cartridges I'd made up, and I have to say that I was incredibly disappointed. I'm here to see if my experience is very typical, if I might perhaps be doing something wrong, or if there's anything I can do to improve things.

A while back, I ordered some .36 Colt and .44 Johnston and Dow conicals from Gimcrack and Bunkum (great shop by the way, and absolutely a quality product). I've already tested the .36 Colt in my Navy, and I was very impressed; they seated easily, and I found them to be extremely accurate.

My experience with the .44s was entirely the opposite. I found it very difficult to even get the heel of the bullet into the cylinder to allow them to be seated, as the bullets are just much wider than the space I have to work with. Even upon getting them under the ram, it took what seemed to me an excessive amount of force to get them to seat, to the point where the loading lever scraped up my hand. Even then, I found that most of them would not seat deeply enough to quite clear the end of the cylinder, resulting in the tips of the bullets being shaved off as I cycled the action. They are seated over 25 grains of FFF, which I understand to be the typical load for this cartridge; seems like that should be a small enough charge to allow it to seat all the way down.

I also found them to be very inaccurate. Only 5 out of 18 shots ended up on paper at seven yards. Now, I'm not the best shot, but when shooting roundballs out of this gun, I don't have much issue at least getting most if not all shots on paper. Interestingly, they seemed to be shooting very low (a few even by a foot or better), which is strange because like most '60s mine tends to shoot high with roundballs. The bore was pretty fouled up by the end, so perhaps I didn't give the bullets quite enough lube when I rolled them up, although interestingly the last group was the best, with 3 of 6 shots landing on paper.

It just seems like I must be doing something wrong here, as I know this is a very popular cartridge among BP shooters. My thoughts on next steps would be to try a lesser charge and put the lube over the loaded bullet instead of directly on the bullet. Thanks in advance for whatever tips you guys might be able to share!

Some of the ubertis and all of the Pietta 1860’s I’ve examined (not that many admittedly) have too much material on the barrel block surrounding the arbor. It’s difficult to get any conical to load due to this without taking a dremel to that area. The picture is of a second generation Colt and its got the same problem to a lesser degree, I can load a short 195 grain wide flat pointed bullet with a bit of fooling around. I just couldn’t bring myself to going after it with a Dremel...

 

[bear166]

That seems like a light load.

Bullet hardness is an issue. It can sure make loading a lot more difficult....I know from a batch of too hard .454 rb that I cast one time.

Are you sure that your bullet isn't meant for a ruger old army? They're bigger bore than uberti iirc

The bullets are very soft, and easily deformed. I can't find any information on the guy's website about what the composition is, but I would guess them to be pure lead or very close to it. As for the load, I think I've read that 25 grains is the historically accurate load (can't find a source now though) and that is what the powder measure built into the cartridge former measures.

You're right about the Rugers being bigger bored, but the fellow that makes the bullet is very interested in maintaining historical accuracy and I believe the .460" diameter is correct for use in the 1860.

Maybe the conicals were misaligned when seated, got pressed in a little crooked, and were then deformed enough to affect accuracy. I have tried .36 conical bullets in an 1851 Navy. They shot well, but were hard to load, starting with the same problem you describe.

It was impossible to get them seated when trying to load them with the cylinder on the gun. With the cylinder off the gun, it was easy to seat the bullets, but my cheap loading press was useless for pressing them in because the plunger wouldn't raise up high enough to reach the top of the bullets. I had to load them one at time by seating each one by hand, pushing it in a bit, and then reassembling the gun at half-cock with the cylinder positioned so that the protruding bullet had sufficient clearance to be rotated under the plunger. Way too much trouble,

For me, the answer would be to buy a decent loader for loading conicals off the gun. Maybe that would also work better for loading your .44 Johnston and Dow conicals.

That's an interesting experience regarding the Navy. Like I mentioned, I had no issue at all with the .36 Colt conicals in my Navy. That said, your experience is very similar to what I'm seeing with the Johnston and Dows, and I would guess you're right about deforming causing accuracy problems. They take a lot of work to get in seating position, which visibly deforms the bullet; can't imagine that lends itself consistent accuracy.

I suppose it'll be worth looking into using a loader. Kind of irritating, but I guess it beats the frustration of trying to load them with the gun assembled.

Some of the ubertis and all of the Pietta 1860’s I’ve examined (not that many admittedly) have too much material on the barrel block surrounding the arbor. It’s difficult to get any conical to load due to this without taking a dremel to that area. The picture is of a second generation Colt and its got the same problem to a lesser degree, I can load a short 195 grain wide flat pointed bullet with a bit of fooling around. I just couldn’t bring myself to going after it with a Dremel...

View attachment 1023933

I don't think I'll be doing any Dremel work on mine either, but that is interesting information, thanks for sharing it!

 

[JCooperfan1911]

Pietta chambers run small.

Slug your barrel and chambers, I'll bet the later is undersized.

Also the loading recess on the barrel is too small for many conicals from the factory. Get in there with a Dremel and open it up. I did mine and a stiff whiskey helps the process. Some sanding papers of various grits and a little cold blue and nobody can tell.

I'll snap a photo of my job when I get home. Don't be afraid, these repro pistols all need work from the factory and that's part of the fun, kind of like a model kit from when we's was kids.

These two things will solve your problems.

 

[bear166]

Pietta chambers run small.

Slug your barrel and chambers, I'll bet the later is undersized.

Also the loading recess on the barrel is too small for many conicals from the factory. Get in there with a Dremel and open it up. I did mine and a stiff whiskey helps the process. Some sanding papers of various grits and a little cold blue and nobody can tell.

I'll snap a photo of my job when I get home. Don't be afraid, these repro pistols all need work from the factory and that's part of the fun, kind of like a model kit from when we's was kids.

These two things will solve your problems.

I've definitely heard that both of those problems tend to occur with Piettas, but I did get an Uberti because my understanding is they tend to be more friendly to conicals out of the box. Not saying that's the case with this one, as it's clearly not friendly to this particular conical at any rate. But I will say that once I can get the heel of the bullet in, there is plenty of room in the loading recess for the bullet to pass under the ram. My issue is seating the bullet before rotating it into the recess; the base of the barrel just sticks out too far to get the bullet to seat easily. And anyway, the recess already goes all the way up to wear the ram sits, so the bullet would hit the ram regardless of how much bigger I made the recess (unless I misunderstood your suggestion).

I have heard of people reaming out their chambers even on an Uberti, and it could be that mine are smaller than the bore diameter. If that's the case, that could improve accuracy and ease the seating process, but I seriously doubt that whatever small amount of material removed would help me much in getting the heel seated. I'd probably have to open them up a whole .2" to get the leeway I need, haha!

 

[44 Dave]

I am shooting the J&Ds out of 1969 built 1860 Armies. Can not quite fit 25 gr. of powder in my paper cartridges for them. but they do fit the loading port (just).
I cast my own and they mike. at .459 on the driving band ( also works well in my Ruger Old Army) the heel and rest of the bullet clear fine. Am using the thin curling papers and dip lube just to the heel. I do notice more force is required to load than cartridges made with .454 round balls.
I do slightly chamfer my cylinder openings (originals were)