tsafa
Senior Forumite
Posts: 3,309
|
Post by tsafa on Dec 20, 2010 4:41:14 GMT
I have been shooting black powder revolvers for some time now; I recently bought a chronometer and an accurate scale and decided to do some tests. I compiled my own velocity data and did my own energy calculations. I wanted to share for two reasons. First in case there is some error in my method, people can correct me. Second, just to share the data.
The formula I am using to calculate energy is the one that came with the Chronometer book: Velocity X Velocity X bullet weight in grains / 450240 = Energy in Ft/lbs
My goal was to compare my Remington .36 cal to my Remington .44 and see how the bullet weight vs velocity variations work out. The .36 had a 6.5 inch barrel while the .44 had a 5.5 inch barrel. Each group listed below is an average of 6 shots. I disqualified any readings that seemed unreasonably high or low. Testing was done under field conditions, not lab conditions, so powder measures may be off by a full grain either way.
Gun..................Pyrodex FFFG (vol).......Bullet weight......... Average Speed............Calculated Energy .36 Remington.........28 grains.................80 grains...............1015.......................183 ft/lbs .36 Rem..6.5 inch.....32 grains.................80 grains................1275.......................288 ft/lbs .36 Rem................32 grains.................80 grains................1200.......................255 ft/lbs .36 Rem ...............35 grains.................80 grains................1250.......................277 ft/lbs (35 gr max capacity)
.44 Rem ..5.5 inch.....28 grains .............138 gr .451 ball...........550..........................92 ft/lbs .44 Rem.................32 grain...............138 gr .451 ball..........700.........................150 ft/lbs .44 Rem................. 32 grain..............140 gr .454 ball..........850..........................224 ft/lbs (.454 ball has tighter seal) .44 Rem..................35 grain...............138 gr .451 ball.........875..........................234 ft/lbs .44 Rem..................35 grain...............140 gr .454 ball........945..........................277 ft/lbs .44 Rem..................35 grain...............143 gr .457 ball.........960..........................292 ft/lbs (.457 ball has tighter seal) .44 Rem...................37 grain..............138 gr .451ball...........950.........................276 ft/lbs .44 Rem...................37 grain..............143 gr .457 ball..........960..........................292 ft/lbs .44 Rem....................42 grain.............143 gr .457 ball.........1019..........................329 ft/lbs .44 Rem....................46 grain.............143 gr .457 ball.........1050..........................350 ft/lbs max capacity for the .44 is 50 grains but was not tested.
It became clear very quickly that for the .36 the highest energy resulted from stuffing the chamber to the max 32 grains. 35 grains represents an over-stuffing and compressing of the powder, which yielded diminishing returns. I only had one size .36 ball (.375) and it was a very tight fit that shaved a ring off the ball as it was seated.
.44 on the other hand required a fair degree of experimentation. Two things seem clear. First, big .44 chambers like to be filled with powder, otherwise there is little benefit over a .36. If you want to save on powder... just get a .36. The second lesson learned was that it is very important to have a very tight seal. I had been using .451 balls which I was able to seat with less effort. The testing shows a significant energy change between .451 and .454. Some Revolvers, have slight differently sized chambers and a .451 may be tight enough. The important thing is that you have a tight seal that allows the pressure to build up behind the ball before it starts to move. The tight seal will be evidenced by a ring of lead being shaved off when you seat the ball and significant resistance when seating.
The energy of these black powder revolvers is quite impressive. I did some similar tests with modern pistols and got the following results.
.38 special snub .... 158 grain MFG.................................750 ft/s.........198 ft/lbs .38 special 6".........158 grain MFG.................................800 ft/s.........226 ft/lbs .357 6"..............125 gr Reloaded near max with Unique.....1250ft/s..........433 ft/lbs 9mm Glock 19.......115 gr...Winchester white box...............1150 ft/s.........337 ft/lbs 9mm Glock 19 .......115 gr Reloaded to max with Unique.......1190 ft/s..........361 ft/lbs (max=never exceed load)
|
|
|
Post by Larry Jordan on Dec 22, 2010 23:57:57 GMT
With the 44cal round ball you are getting approximately 300ft/lbs at the muzzle?! That's respectable. How was the muzzle blast? What about fouling? The BP Primer I've read recommends 20-30gr for the .44cal and says that the lighter loads should produce better accuracy and lower recoil to prevent dislodging unfired caps. (Was this ever an issue?) Do you have a copy of Sam Fadala's Black Powder Reloading Manual? I have a few of his books, but my interest was in long guns, not pistols. Stay Safe.
|
|
tsafa
Senior Forumite
Posts: 3,309
|
Post by tsafa on Dec 23, 2010 0:39:28 GMT
I was shooting 8 feet back to eliminate muzzle blast effecting the readings. I believe there is a formula to correct for that distance and give true muzzle energy. I have done some extensive testing with .22 LR and 9mm and I am getting anticipated velocities and energies with that ammunition so I have confidence that my measures taken with the Black Powder revolvers are accurate for field test conditions.
The chambers of the .44 Remington are larger the then .44 Colt. I have not had a chance to take reading with the colt yet, but I recall that the Colt .44 shoots well with 28 grains. The Rem .44 was giving be squibs with 28 grains. The ball was making it out of the barrel, but hitting way low. It felt under-powered and the energy calculation confirms about 100 ft/lbs. I believe the reason for this is because the chamber of the .44 Rem is larger then the .44 colt, that with 28 grains, the ball is not pressed up against the powder. Black powder needs that pressure to work properly. I am certain that I would get more pressure and velocity with the .44 Rem at 28 grains if I used wads between the ball and powder. I will try when I get some wads. I normally don't like to load with wads.
I used #11 caps which are slightly over-sized and I pinched them, #10 is better. They did not fall off even with the high recoil of 46 grain loads when pinched. At 46 grains, the recoil was still manageable. I was hitting 10x10 every time. Recoil felt about the same as my .357 which has a ported barrel.
Fouling was not excessive. I was able to complete my testes without having to swab the barrels. I was using pyrodex, which burns cleaner then real black powder. I do plan to do tests with real back powder at some point too this winter. The flash is visible at sundown, but not noticeable in the daytime to the shooter. My Walker which loads with 60 grains standard often fouls up after shooting 4 or 5 cylinder loads. The walker and the Colt design in general has a much tighter tolerance between the cylinder and frame. That is where the sticking usually occurs. Not the case with Remingtons.
I have not read Sam Fadala's work, but I have read much on Black Powder firearms. I read that Colt did not sell his revolvers with instructions on how much powder to put into them. I would think that soldiers and cowboys loaded them up pretty good. Wikipidea states that the .45 LC gets about 475 ft/lbs. I keep reading that black powder revolvers are only suppose to get about 180 ft/lbs. I find it very strange an unlikely that such a big leap in pistol power would come some fast. After my tests, I feel confident that the 1858 Rem was probably loaded with 40 to 45 grains and got standard energies of 300 to 350 ft/lbs. The frame of the 1858 is so much sturdier then the 1851 Colt that there is no reason not to load it up. The gun is also heavier, so it absorbs recoil better. I will have to put it on a scale to be certain, but it is about the same weight as my .357 with the 6" barrel.
BTW... the 300 to 350 ft/lbs is with the 5.5 inch barrel on the Rem. We will soon see what the 8" barrel does.
|
|
tsafa
Senior Forumite
Posts: 3,309
|
Post by tsafa on Jan 4, 2011 15:40:32 GMT
I got a chance to do some more testing. I tested out my .44 Walker (Uberti) and my .31 cal 1858 (Pieta).
gun........................powder (FFFG)..........bullet..................speed.....................Calculated Energy .44 walker 9"barrel...50 gr pyrodex............143 gr.457 ball............1040 ft/s avg............343 ft/lbs .44 walker 9"...........60 gr pyrodex............143 gr .457 ball...........1117 ft/s avg ...........396 ft/lbs .44 walker 9"...........66 gr pyrodex............143 gr .457 ball..........1238 ft/s avg............486 ft/lbs (max capacity)
It is significant to note that the .457 ball was not oversized and did not shave off a ring when seated for a very tight fit. My overall testing has shown that a tight fit is a very significant factor that greatly increases velocity. I have ordered a mold to make 200 grain Conical bullets. I am hoping that those will have tighter fit.
.31 pocket 1858......15 gr pyrodex..........47.5 gr .315 ball............433 ft/s avg................36 ft/lbs .31 pocket 1858.......15 gr pyrodex.........52 gr .323 ball................770 ft/s avg............... 68 ft/lbs
The testing of the .31 pocket pistol emphasizes the importance of a tight fit. The .315 ball is seated very easily with almost no effort (no shaving). The .323 ball on the other hand takes great effort and is infact quite painful on the hand as the short lever of the pocket pistol provides very little leverage. The .323 shaved off a nice ring and paid back with increased velocity for the added effort.
For comparison sake, this is the result achieved with my NNA mini revolver loaded with .22 mag
NNA mini...........CCI maxi-mag.............40 grain HP....................950 ft/s....................80 ft/lbs NNA mini...........Winchester Dynapoint....45 grain HP....................820 ft/s....................67 ft/lbs
|
|
|
Post by Larry Jordan on Jan 5, 2011 13:39:38 GMT
re: NNA mini revolver
22 mag or 22 LR (mini-mag)?
|
|
tsafa
Senior Forumite
Posts: 3,309
|
Post by tsafa on Jan 5, 2011 15:09:39 GMT
My NAA Mini has two cylinders, a .22 LR and .22 Mag. This testing here was done with with the .22 mag.
Something that I am wondering. The .31 caliber pocket revolver was manufactured and sold by both Colt and Remington, in their respective designs, I wonder if their are any actuals records of its use in the late 19th century. Googling does not bring up anything.
|
|
tsafa
Senior Forumite
Posts: 3,309
|
Post by tsafa on Jan 13, 2011 5:02:23 GMT
I tested out two Traditional Black Powder Rifles. My .50 cal Thompson Flintlock and and old .45 cal Jukar Caplock.
gun.....................barrel................load (vol).................bullet (patched)........avg speed..........energy Thompson Flintlock.....28"..............60 gr 2F GOEX BP...........178 gr .490 ball...........607 ft/s.........145 ft/lbs Thompson Flintlock.....28"..............80 gr 2F GOEX BP...........178 gr .490 ball...........1318 f/s.........686 ft/lbs Thompson Flintlock.....28"..............90 gr 2F GOEX BP............178 gr .490 ball..........1427 ft/s........805 ft/lbs Thompson Flintlock.....28".............100 gr 2F GOEX BP............178 gr .490 ball..........1460 ft/s........842 ft/lbs
Jukar Caplock...........34"..............60 gr GOEX BP................128 gr .440 ball...........920 ft/s..........240 ft/lbs Jukar Caplock...........34"..............90 gr GOEX BP................128 gr .440 ball...........1676 ft/s.........798 ft/lbs Jukar Caplock...........34"..............90 gr 2F Pyrodex RS..........128 gr .440 ball...........1709 ft/s.........830 ft/lbs
It is interesting to compare the rifles at 60 grains to the Walker revolver when loaded with 60 grains. The Walker is at least twice as powerful at the same load. I attribute this to the tighter seal in the revolver. The rifles were loaded with a slightly undersized ball wrapped in a patch. The purpose of the patch is to create a seal, but as the test shows, the patch method still allows a lot of gas to escape around the ball while it is in the muzzle. In the future I plan to test "miniball" see how much it improves performance. A minball, is a conical shaped bulled that has the rear hollowed out so that the base expands when fired to create a tighter seal.
I used GOEX BP only in the Flintlock because real black powder is more combustible and will have less misfires. With the cap lock I tried both GOEX and Pyrodex RS in the 2F grade. The Pyrodex produced slightly better results.
|
|
|
Post by Alexander on Jan 13, 2011 10:15:14 GMT
NIce job!, I have an old G&A magazine in which Phil Spangelberger (spl?) tested a 44 mag against a Walker and the walker didnt do bad. In fact it out penetrated the 44. Of course the 44 mag load was 180gr HP.
|
|
tsafa
Senior Forumite
Posts: 3,309
|
Post by tsafa on Jan 14, 2011 23:00:54 GMT
The .44 mag is suppose to yield an energy of about 1,200 ft/lbs, about the same as an M-16 loaded with 5.56. The testing I have been doing to date shows that a lot of factory ammo falls far short of the type of energy it is suppose to deliver. Mind you I am mostly testing Walmart target ammo.
I don't have a .44 mag to test, but I have done a number of tests with .357 which is suppose to go as high at 774 ft/lbs per wiki. The .44 Walker is often described as as the most powerful production handgun until the invention of the .357 in 1934. However, my testing has shown that most off the shelf ammo for .357 falls short.
My test results are as follows shot from a Taurus .357 with a 6 inch barrel:
Blazer Aluminum case....................158 gr jhp...............840 ft/s.........247 ft/lbs Federal .357 Brown Box...................158 gr jhp..............1040 ft/s........380 ft/lbs Remington .357 green/white box........125 gr jsp..............1340 ft/s........499 ft/lbs
As you can see above there is a very wide variation in power for .357 and it is usually short of that peak power that is often quoted.
Here are are the results of some reloads that I did:
9.2 gr Unique (near max)..............125 gr jhp...............1250 ft/s............433 ft/lbs 9.7 gr Blue Dot...........................158 gr jsp...............1073 ft/s............404 ft/lbs 10.3 gr Blue Dot..........................158 gr jsp...............1168 ft/s............478 ft/lbs 10.6 gr Blue Dot (near max).............158 gr jsp..............1189 ft/s.............496 ft/lbs 14.3 gr Blue Dot (near max).............125 gr fmj..............1475 ft/s.............604 ft/lbs
As you can see .357 can produce a more powerful result then the Walker with a load near the high end, but much store bought ammo will not or will only surpass by a very small margin.
|
|
tsafa
Senior Forumite
Posts: 3,309
|
Post by tsafa on May 16, 2011 21:05:13 GMT
I updated my webpage with some more extensive testing of conicals in comparison to round ball. I did the testing with the 1858 Remington with 8" barrel. I was very impressed with the ballistics. Gun Barrel......................... Powder by Volume.........Bullet Weight.......Average Velocity..... Calculated Energy .44 Remington, 1858 8 inch......28 grain 3F Pyrodex.....143 grain, .457 ball.......876 ft/s.........238 ft/lbs .44 Remington, 1858 8 inch......28 grain 3F Pyrodex.....215 grain conical..........820 ft/s.........321 ft/lbs .44 Remington, 1858 8 inch......35 grain 3F Pyrodex.....143 grain, .457 ball.......940 ft/s.........280 ft/lbs .44 Remington, 1858 8 inch......35 grain 3F Pyrodex.....215 grain conical..........870 ft/s.........361 ft/lbs .44 Remington, 1858 8 inch......40 grain 3F Pyrodex.....143 grain, .457 ball......1052 ft/s.........351 ft/lbs .44 Remington, 1858 8 inch......40 grain 3F Pyrodex.....215 grain conical..........893 ft/s.........380 ft/lbs .44 Remington, 1858 8 inch......45 grain 3F Pyrodex.....143 grain, .457 ball ......1081 ft/s........371 ft/lbs .44 Remington, 1858 8 inch......45 grain 3F Pyrodex.....190 grain conical..........1023 ft/s........441 ft/lbs .44 Remington, 1858 8 inch......50 grain 3F Pyrodex.....143 grain, .457 ball.......1207 ft/s........462 ft/lbs More detail at the following webpage: poconoshooting.com/blackpowderballistics.html
|
|
tsafa
Senior Forumite
Posts: 3,309
|
Post by tsafa on Jun 1, 2011 15:31:10 GMT
I did some more testing with heavy bullets in my 50 cal Thompson Flintlock Rifle. The results are pretty astounding to me. Barrel..........Powder by Volume..........Bullet Weight.........Average Velocity.........Energy.............Momentum 28 inch...........80 grains 2F........315 grain, .490 conical.........1186 ft/s..........984 ft-lbs.............53.37 ft-s 28 inch...........80 grains 2F........485 grain, .490 conical.........986 ft/s...........1047 ft-lbs............68.31 ft-s 28 inch..........100 grains 2F........315 grain, .490 conical........1307 ft/s..........1195 ft-lbs............58.81 ft-s 28 inch..........100 grains 2F........485 grain, .490 conical.........1089 ft/s..........1277 ft-lbs...........75.45 ft-s 28 inch..........120 grains 2F........315 grain, .490 conical.........1345 ft/s..........1265 ft-lbs...........60.52 ft-s 28 inch..........120 grains 2F........485 grain, .490 conical.........1234 ft/s..........1640 ft-lbs...........85.49 ft-s 28 inch..........140 grains 2F........315 grain, .490 conical.........1471 ft/s..........1514 ft-lbs...........66.19 ft-s 28 inch..........140 grains 2F........485 grain, .490 conical.........1345 ft/s..........1948 ft-lbs...........93.18 ft-s After studying the results of the 315 grain and the 485 grain bullets in the 50 caliber Flintlock there is one thing that needs to be said... SIZE DOES MATTER The powder was a mix of 50% 2F GOEX BP and 50% Pyrodex RS. The reason for this mix is because I did not have enough GOEX available. Previous testing has shown only a very slight increase in Pyrodex results. I wanted the to include as much real BP as I could because BP ignitions are more reliable with Flintlocks. I did not have a single misfire. It is also interesting to note that I was shooting the lead bullets of 315 and 485 grains into a tree-stump that was about 8 inches in thickness. No exit, but the 50lb stump was jolted pretty good. The soft lead seems to do a good job of expanding inside the stump and transferring the energy to the stump. Lead used in Muzzle-loaders is 99% pure lead and much softer then the lead used in modern firearms. I have also updated my webpage to include Momentum calculations for all my previous tests: poconoshooting.com/blackpowderballistics.html
|
|