Conicals for ML pistols?

[Randy Bohannon]

Can you only use hollow
base conicals in a ML pistol or could you use a 230 grain cast lead RN solid bullet if you happened to have a mould for one?

[tacfoley]

Can you only use hollow
base conicals in a ML pistol or could you use a 230 grain cast lead RN solid bullet if you happened to have a mould for one?

It depends.

It your ML pistol is an older style/design with deep rifling - Kuechenreuter, LePage, Charles Moore, Manton et al, then it was designed to shoot a patched ball - hence the deep rifling. This rifling is deliberately slow to rotate a comparatively light ball, rather than bullet of double the weight or more.

Some pistols of more modern design, like the CVA [based on the Hawken rifle] might be able to shoot such a projectile.

I've never encountered anybody shooting hollow-based conicals in an older style pistol. Shooting such a projectile in a modern design might be counter-productive, after all, what you are looking for here in UK is to be able to make a hole in a piece of paper with regularity, not, as we do over the way, shoot feral hogs.

tac

[Randy Bohannon]

Thanks Tac, it would be through the Euroarms Rogers & Spencer I hope to acquire.

The mould was one ingot as part part of a job lot and hopefully will turn out a clean bullet after I have tidied it up a bit.

I will I'll be using the mould anyway for a .45 Colt gallery rifle which is also on the cards and so it's not loss if it isn't possible.

i think the mould was originally intended to make bullets for a 45 ACP which may mean it may throw them out a little on the small side for a 45 muzzle loader, depends on what size they need to finish up at I suppose.

[Turnup]

If a pistol then there would be difficulty either with obturation (if bullet cast under size to allow it to be muzzle loaded) or with loading (if bullet cast to correct size and hence oversize for muzzle loading).

If a revolver then I see no particular reason why this would not work. 230 gn (presume .44 or .45 cal) is a lot heavier than a ball, so some load adjustment might be needed, and of course the twist rate of the barrel might be far too low to stabilise such a projectile - or is it one of these new fangled nitro muzzle loaders (which I presume have a faster twist than a BP gun)? Still it could work.

In BP guns it seems that balls work a lot better than bullets but it is worth an experiment.

EDIT: This post underlapped some other responses. The proposed firearm is a revolver and not a pistol. The Euroarms R&S is a good gun with balls, I see no advantage to using bullets in it but you might be fortunate. Worth a try anyway.

[Randy Bohannon]

Thank so Turnup,

Agreed that ball is the best thing to shoot through it and I will order a mould when I have the revolver and am able to slug the bore.

As I already have this other mould I would like to give it a go, as you say, unless there is some safety reason not to or something like that.

[tacfoley]

Thanks Tac, it would be through the Euroarms Rogers & Spencer I hope to acquire.

The mould was one ingot as part part of a job lot and hopefully will turn out a clean bullet after I have tidied it up a bit.

I will I'll be using the mould anyway for a .45 Colt gallery rifle which is also on the cards and so it's not loss if it isn't possible.

i think the mould was originally intended to make bullets for a 45 ACP which may mean it may throw them out a little on the small side for a 45 muzzle loader, depends on what size they need to finish up at I suppose.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about a simple muzzle-loading pistol, not a revolver. Most of us tend to call BP revolvers 'loose-loaders' since they don't actually load via the muzzle.

Conical are just fine in most revolvers - where you can actually get one in between the chamber and the frame, that is. The products of this mould - at .452" - just may be too small. The idea is to throw a projectile that will actually shave a little lead ring on being forced into the chamber, this ensuring a good seal. Anything less than that will result in the recoil thrusting the ball/bullet forward and jamming the action.

tac

[tacfoley]

If a pistol then there would be difficulty either with obturation (if bullet cast under size to allow it to be muzzle loaded) or with loading (if bullet cast to correct size and hence oversize for muzzle loading).

If a revolver then I see no particular reason why this would not work. 230 gn (presume .44 or .45 cal) is a lot heavier than a ball, so some load adjustment might be needed, and of course the twist rate of the barrel might be far too low to stabilise such a projectile - or is it one of these new fangled nitro muzzle loaders (which I presume have a faster twist than a BP gun)? Still it could work.

In BP guns it seems that balls work a lot better than bullets but it is worth an experiment.

EDIT: This post underlapped some other responses. The proposed firearm is a revolver and not a pistol. The Euroarms R&S is a good gun with balls, I see no advantage to using bullets in it but you might be fortunate. Worth a try anyway.

I don't know of any nitro-converted previously C&B revolvers that have had the barrel changed as well as the cylinder. However, I'm here to learn.

I agree with the futility of using a conical in a C&B revolver - as I noted, it's not as though we are able to us them for hunting, as happens in the USA. Shooting a conical in my ROA seems to be a complete waste of powder, cap and lead. Unless, of course, it's a 'man-thing' to shoot something that kicks like a 'real handgun' and has all the accuracy of a garden sprinkler

tac

[Turnup]

I don't know of any nitro-converted previously C&B revolvers that have had the barrel changed as well as the cylinder. However, I'm here to learn.

I agree with the futility of using a conical in a C&B revolver - as I noted, it's not as though we are able to us them for hunting, as happens in the USA. Shooting a conical in my ROA seems to be a complete waste of powder, cap and lead. Unless, of course, it's a 'man-thing' to shoot something that kicks like a 'real handgun' and has all the accuracy of a garden sprinkler

tac

I agree it is doubtful that a nitro conversion would also replace the barrel on grounds of expense, but when I wrote I was thinking particularly of the modern products typified by the inventive Mr Westlake. Some are m/l conversions of S5 handguns and I believe that some are made entirely by Mr Westlake. I have no specific knowledge but it seems to me that either could have a twist rate more suited to bullets. Irrelevant to the thread as it turns out.

Back to the thread - it occurs to me that there might be some difficulty in inserting a bullet using the built in rammer arrangement because there is insufficient clearance with the rammer fully raised. It would still be possible to load the cylinder off the gun and various contrivances are available (or can easily be made) to facilitate this.

WRT "man thing" - a bullet will allow less space for powder. The ROA with ball and a maximal charge of BP (IIRC about 40 gn) produces an impressive bang, a clearly supersonic ball, and prodigious amounts of smoke I guess the 230 gn bullet will give lots of recoil but there will perforce be less powder behind it so perhaps not so testosterone inducing?

[DesG]

I've tried conicals in my old Rogers and Spencer, both flat base pointed ones using the mold which came with it and REAL bullets of 200 and 250gn from my lee molds for my TC Hawken. They certainly pack more of a punch than round ball and are great for destroyng the target frames as you wont get anywhere near the target with them. Same goes for my Pedersoli pistols. They are designed to use round ball and work best in my experience, with round ball.

Nothing to stop you trying it though.

[tacfoley]

I agree it is doubtful that a nitro conversion would also replace the barrel on grounds of expense, but when I wrote I was thinking particularly of the modern products typified by the inventive Mr Westlake. Some are m/l conversions of S5 handguns and I believe that some are made entirely by Mr Westlake. I have no specific knowledge but it seems to me that either could have a twist rate more suited to bullets. Irrelevant to the thread as it turns out.

Back to the thread - it occurs to me that there might be some difficulty in inserting a bullet using the built in rammer arrangement because there is insufficient clearance with the rammer fully raised. It would still be possible to load the cylinder off the gun and various contrivances are available (or can easily be made) to facilitate this.

WRT "man thing" - a bullet will allow less space for powder. The ROA with ball and a maximal charge of BP (IIRC about 40 gn) produces an impressive bang, a clearly supersonic ball, and prodigious amounts of smoke I guess the 230 gn bullet will give lots of recoil but there will perforce be less powder behind it so perhaps not so testosterone inducing?

I didn't know that Mr Westlake made conversions of S5 firearms in .44/.45cal, not ever having seen any. However, his .38cal firearms are certainly designed with modern bullets in mind, as they shoot .38cal wadcutters which are .357" diameter.

I already mentioned the possible lack of clearance when trying to load a conical in a tight frame - not being all that familiar with the R&S, I can't say that this would, in fact, be the case. I only ever shot ball in mine about thirty-five years ago. For sure, taking the cylinder off to load it would obviate any problem there.

tac

[1066]

Just a knock on from what Tac was just saying..I had a good try with conicals, in my Rem1858, around 30 years ago and no matter what I tried, I couldn't get them to compare with a good round ball for accuracy.

However, I still have a hankering to do some experiments with full wadcutters in a M/L revolver or my LePage - maybe a short stubby solid base W/C.
The wadcutters certainly shot well in my K38 and .32 target pistols.

[tacfoley]

Just a knock on from what Tac was just saying..I had a good try with conicals, in my Rem1858, around 30 years ago and no matter what I tried, I couldn't get them to compare with a good round ball for accuracy.

However, I still have a hankering to do some experiments with full wadcutters in a M/L revolver or my LePage - maybe a short stubby solid base W/C.
The wadcutters certainly shot well in my K38 and .32 target pistols.

Custom mould needed for any calibre muzzleloader and wadcutters......

Good luck. Jeff Tanner might be able to help out.

tac

[enfield2band]

The idea is to throw a projectile that will actually shave a little lead ring on being forced into the chamber, this ensuring a good seal. Anything less than that will result in the recoil thrusting the ball/bullet forward and jamming the action.

tac

^^^
This.

A friend of mine tried conicals in his ROA and the bullets worked themselves out of the chamber and jammed the cylinder. He gave up on them in the end and now just uses ball.

[tim56]

Tried them in my ROA,s and a Rodgers and found them not worth the effort. Harder to cast than round ball. Fiddly to load due to a flat bottom instead of being round.
I found they shot 4" higher and were no more accurate so went back to round ball. How ever if you spent time experimenting with loads you may well find an advantage
possibly over longer distances. I shoot at 20 and 25 yds so not worth it for me. Tim

[Randy Bohannon]

Cheers lads, there is no machismo or anything like that - it's just curiosity about a new discipline.

tac,

That Jeff Tanner, do you think he'd make me a custom rifle bullet mould?