Using the wrong balls? (1858 Remington)

[darkerx]

Yes... You are right... And if I give the gun to my grandma, it will group higher too.. Because she will not manage well the recoil.

You can also group lower, because you are stressed by anticipation, and it is a handled weapon...

Anyway... I was speaking about ballistics. You are dealing with handling skills.
There is no point arguing.

 

[mykeal]

Well, let's talk about ballistics then. I assert you are still incorrect.
S=A*T^2. Where's the mass?

Oh, and by the way, if you're going to claim that aerodynamics cause the heavier bullet to fall faster, I suggest in advance that they have the same ballistic coefficient since they were swaged into the same chamber.

 

[darkerx]

@Mykeal:
1- good shooters group at the same place. They manage the recoil..
2- Same weight but more tight=>more mature explosion when the bullet starts moving=>more pressure=>more velocity=>you will reach the target sooner=>the bullet will have had less time to fall=>group is higher.
Period.

 

[Sam1911]

- good shooters group at the same place. They manage the recoil..

Actually, this simply isn't true. Again, I have tested this extensively myself. I shoot a 200 gr. bullet through my 629 to a much lower point of aim than a 300 gr. bullet going the same velocity.

You cannot be a good enough shooter to "manage" recoil to eliminate a basic rule of physics.

 

[Sam1911]

=>more pressure=>more velocity=>you will reach the target sooner=>the bullet will have had less time to fall=>group is higher.

No. Again, same velocity (in my other example).

Second, the amount of drop exhibited by a bullet moving between 800 and 1,200 fps over 10-20 yds is so negligible as to be almost completely not worth considering. A round ball fired at 800 fps will have dropped less than 0.5" more than the same one fired at 1,200 fps. So that can't explain the several inch difference you see with a heavier bullet.

Not trying to argue -- just hoping to explain the physics.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Beyond the argument, thanks for the link arcticap.


So, if I hear you correctly, when I pour a load down the cylinder of that 1858, it's optional to put a wad over it before seating the ball? I'm not talking about a centerfire conversion cylinder here.


I'm totally new to cap-and-ball revolvers. But as I told Sam Thursday, it was the most fun I've had shooting in a long, long time. I rarely get really excited over a new gun these days, but this was like being a kid again. So thanks for the assistance.

 

[mykeal]

So, if I hear you correctly, when I pour a load down the cylinder of that 1858, it's optional to put a wad over it before seating the ball?

Yes, that's correct. It's optional.

It's a good idea, but it is optional.

 

[arcticap]

I punch out home made over powder cards from juice cartons instead of using wads. They're thinner and free of cost.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=452294

 

[[email protected]]

With the same pistol, same load, my wife shoots about 4 inches higher at
25 yds than I do. Been doing that for over 20 years. I just lower the rear
sight when she shoots. We both can "Manage" the recoil. She just shoots a
little different. We don't fight it, we adjust to it.

 

[Dave Markowitz]

Sam, Ken, I prefer using wads in my percussion revolvers to using grease over the balls. It's much less messy, and the lube doesn't get blown off by the flash from adjoining chambers. Wonder Wads work fine but are getting increasingly expensive. I now make my own by punching them from felt I bought from durofelt.com. I lube them with a mix of beeswax, mutton tallow, and paraffin wax.

I've also found Swiss black powder to be much cleaner burning than Goex (more expensive, too, alas).

Cabela's carries Remington Number 10 caps.

As for accuracy, I find the limiting factor is usually the crummy sights found on 19th Century guns and replicas. The Remingtons and Rogers & Spencer are better in this regard than the Colts. A Ruger Old Army will shoot right along with breech loading single actions.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

 

[Sam1911]

Dave, thanks for the recommendations! I've been using wads AND grease, but what a mess!

Both of our guns are the "target" models with very nice adjustable modern sights.

 

[darkerx]

Folks... I stop arguing with you. I'm considering the weapon+ammunition system, you are considering weapon+ammunition+shooter. We should continue for days...

Now, to come back to the point of the thread, I think that .490 are not a bad choice for a rem58: while adding only a little more weight when compared to a .457 (143 to 176 gr (from which you remove the "lead ring")) you obtain a much larger contact with the chamber, which delays the time when the bullet will move, which will greatly increase the efficiency of your powder (velocity will be much higher, momentum also MV, energy much more 1/2MV²).

 

[Cauterizer]

Remington #10 percussion caps

This is all I've ever used on my Remmie 1858..they fit like a glove and require no tinkering. Cabela's always seems to have them in stock and I buy a tin of 100 whenever I walk in the store as they can be hard to find elswhere...never had a misfire yet...or god forbid a hellish chain fire using Remington caps.