The 1858 Remington Forum
General Category => At The Range => Topic started by: cap and baller on April 01, 2017, 11:28:41 AM
Hello again everyone I was gifted a good amount of Kaido bullets from and cast by Old Fogey and was able to get out and try them for about an hour. If I had more time I would've shot more however, the little bit of data I gained suggested that further test will yield good results as opposed to the Lee 200's. I shot a cylinder from each revolver at different distances and recorded the group (pair lol). Due to some technical difficulties I was unable to gain all of my data from the range but I can gather more next weekend!
My findings tell me that the bullets out of the Carbine want to rise with distance while the pistol wants to drift. This leads me to believe that the Kaido bullet may be accurate out of the rifle even further before it begins to sway left or right. My next test will utilize greater distances while rested and more shots per group.
1858/1866 Uberti Carbine-
2 Shots at 30 yards
Frozen Pie test
1858 Pietta 8"-
2 Shots at 20 Yards
Hello again everyone I was out all Saturday trying to gather a bit more data with the Kaido 240 grain and Lee conical bullets! I took 9 different groups all 6 shot with the exception of 1 iteration of Lee 200 for 5 shots. The load for the Kaido and Lee bullets were 35 grains while the roundball for the Pistol was 44 grains and the rifle 40. I used 3F Goex for the test with Remington caps #10's for pistol and #11 for the carbine.
First up is the Pietta 8" revolver at 30 yards! I had only enough ammo for 1 group per type and the Lee footage was lost due to corruption. The first picture is the Kaido group, then the Lee with the Hornady .457 roundball last. I cleaned out the barrel after each cylinder for this test.
The Uberti Carbine was tested at 50 yards then 30 yards. I shot back to back cylinders of the same type of bullet without cleaning the barrel to see if fouling changed anything. I did clean them between bullet types and lube everything up. The first 2 pictures are of the Kaido groups, followed by 2 pictures of the Lee groups and lastly 2 pictures of the roundball groups!
Oh and those 30 yard group pictures too! Tad bit tastier than the 50's by a long shot M__ The third picture is of the Lee group I forgot to mark it at the range. There is alot to consider with the data gathered.
-Roundball even with its slighly more erratic spread than expected it was still quite more accurate than either the Lee 200's or the Kaido 240 grain conical bullets. Some say twist rate however, my pistol and carbine have smaller cylinder chambers than their barrels rifling. Even with a snug fit in the cylinder does it contact the rifling at all or enough for that to be the deciding factor? If the Kaido and Lee shaved off lead and forced a tighter seal, would more pressure have been built and perhaps fly truer?
-Cleaning/Swabbing barrel- This was done mainly due to the above rational. Many have expressed higher accuracy with a bit or soot layer in their barrels. I suspect this is because is narrows the diameter with a material that the projectile and force forward or whiz by. Basically the dirty barrel makes the bullet more snug and contact the rifling a bit more or at all. Was this the case? Technically the majority of my 2nd groups were tighter however, was this due to recoil adjustment, accidental change of PoA or a more precise load. A 2nd cylinder of each in the pistol might have helped confirm or deny this.
-30 Yard Kaido Pistol- 3 Shot lined up in the same hole and we confirmed it by checking the back of the box which had 3 cleaner holes. This was an interesting group as it was pretty tight in that instance, even more so than the carbine at 30 yards. I cant imagine why except s better position on the rest perhaps... just maybe.
- Powder weights and loads- I chose the higher end range on these loads to simulate a max hunting/defense load. With the length of the bullets powder was cut back by 5 grains to get a fit however the roundballs were given service loads. I have not found accuracy to suffer much with the roundball at max load. If I planned to use a roundball for anything serious I'd want it going as quick out the carbine as it'll fly. The conical bullets practically demand a stout load to stay on target while the roundball can be accurate in the 20-30 range or less. If the Lee's didnt use carbs and lube cookies perhaps more powder could be fit in and they'd fly truer.
-A proper rest- I dont own a rest and I forgot the bag of rags I had intended to bring out that day. The bag started to melt from the very first rotation from the cylinder gap. We placed a cardboard layer over it which caught fire a few good times especially with those supersonic carbine loads. I domt usually shoot rested unless its natural, and that boulder didnt like my barrels finish. Maybe one day I will have a rest... and a chronograph... and a flintlock :D
Cap and baller, thank you for taking the time to post that information. It is very interesting, and has given me some food for thought. I want to try a Lee bullet and a .457 ball in my .44 caliber revolvers.
Thanks for the response! I am a bit curious what a third cylinder out of the carbine would've produce and a 2nd one from the pistol. I guess I should express that in order to seat the bullets, Kaido and Lee into the Pietta cylinders I needed to line it up as much as possible and give it a few light taps with a mallet. Just enough to get it about 1/4-1/3 and let the ram rod do the rest.
Also the cylinder gap was allowed enough heat and pressure to burn our cardboard layer and break a few pieces off! Kinda entertaining however, it just illustrates another reason why you shouldn't try to hold this bad boy like a traditional rifle. I could imagine some stances potentially feeling a bit more... hot under the collar if they did not know.
Hi cap and baller. Thanks for all the test and posting the targets. It always seems like you can get better groups with a little less powder and a tight round ball than anything else you can feed them. I haft to admit you have some good results there. I can't seem to get the kind of groups I like with hot loads at any range or distance. Do you think the longer barrel handles hot loads better than the shorter barrels?
I feel as though the carbine barrel allows for more velocity to be gained and thus perhaps keeps it flying straighter for longer to a point. There is a youtuber Deuce and Guns who chrono's the 60 Navy and a 12" Buffalo from 25 grains-45 grains. His research showed that the gain in velocity from both pistols was negligible or equal at the 40-45 grain range as far as fps. The carbine obviously would gain higher speeds with the same load however, the longer barrel might allow it to gain energy upwards to 60 grains of powder.
The only ways to test the above would be to chrono the carbine at max loads and eventually I plan to have the cylinder reamed to a better diameter and a bit deeper for 5-10 extra grains of powder. Seeing how the 8" handled on Deuces Chronograph I dont think much could be gained with a deeper cylinder unless you're using 777 or Swiss Grade over Goex or Pyrodex.
Just a couple of points;
I've chronoed the 8" Remington Armys, the Colt Walker and the Remintgon carbine. With the same bullet I get slightly more velocity out of the 18" carbine with 30 grains of powder than I get from the 9" Walker with 50 grains of the same powder. So yes; the extra barrel length gives you more acceleration length and thus more velocity and energy. It also gives you a longer sight radius, which should translate to better accuracy in most cases.
It would be very helpful if you would write on the target which firearm was used to shoot the group-- I can't make sense of the photos because they don't say. When I do this kind of testing I write all the following on the target; the date, the gun used, all the load data (e.g. including whether a lube cookie was used, and what kind of lube, etc.) the bullet, the type and weight of the powder, the POA and the distance to the target. Sometimes I'll include information about the weather at the time, also.
As to the issue of the undersized chambers; A recovered bullet from my deer last fall showed full rifling engagement, even at the bullet heel which is even smaller than the undersized chamber. That one was fired from the Uberti Wakler, with a cold, clean bore.
What's happening then is the soft, pure lead is "obturating" (expanding outward under pressure and acceleration) into the rifling. While I have read reports of improved accuracy resulting from the chambers of a percussion revolver being reamed to between one and three thousandths over groove diameter, while all modern, commercial lead bullets are made at least one thousandth over standard groove diameter, and while it is common wisdom to use oversized bullets when shooting bare lead, you do nonetheless get good rifling engagement out of an undersized chamber in these percussion revolvers. Dig up some of your fired bullets and you'll see;
I can see where the disconnect would be Omnivore with how the data is presented. The pictures are not properly labeled on the group or in the file only the bullet and distance which I should've indicated. I can clean up the thread once I get a couple hours and make it more coherent. Currently,
1) The first post has 4 pictures. The first are The carbine shooting the Kaido at 15 yards, then 30. The last two pictures are of the 8" Pietta shooting the Kaido at 30 yards then 20 yards.
2) The 2nd first 3 pictures are of the 8" Pietta using first the Kaido, then Lee and finally Roundball at 30 yards. Then we start seeing back to back groups at 50 with the Uberti Carbine at 50 Yards. Picture 4&5 are the Kaido, 6&7 the Lee and 8&9 the Roundball.
3) The final post has 4 pictures. The first 2 are Kaido groups at 30 yards followed by 1group of Lee then 1 of Roundball as the final picture.
I will take a bit more time out in the sticks to clarify the findings on the next occasion. As far as the velocity of the carbine, is there a potential load where the barrel length would no longer gain velocity for the caliber its pushing? And that is great to know that there is rifle engagement happening with the softer lead! I will get one cylinder fixed up and play with it before sending em all in to see if it is more accurate. Thanks for the thoughts and the Lee's Omnivore!
...is there a potential load where the barrel length would no longer gain velocity for the caliber its pushing?
Not sure what "the caliber it's pushing" means, but in a practical sense I think the answer is; No. With black powder, more barrel length typically always means more velocity, all else being equal, and significantly more. If you were shooting extremely small powder charges though, I could see the pressure dropping during the time the bullet is in the barrel, to a point where the pressure is only enough to maintain velocity and no longer increase it. In shooting 22 LR for example, because the cartridge uses so little powder, there is a barrel length beyond which you no longer get more velocity, and beyond that you may even get less velocity because the powder has "run out of steam" and no longer overcomes the friction between bullet and bore. At that point the extra barrel length is a liability, slowing the bullet down rather than accelerating it.
With anything resembling a "normal" powder charge in the Remington Carbine, with its fairly short 18" barrel (the originals IIRC were offered in 24", 26" and 28" barrel lengths) you'll always get more velocity than from an 8" barrel, and the difference will be significant. 18th Century American Long Rifles tended to have very long barrels, in the range of 36" to well over 40". One of the loads I tested in the carbine gave me the energy of an extra 15 grains of powder, meaning that 30 grains of O.E. 3F gave me the same kinetic energy as 45 grains in the Walker, with the same bullet.
I've posted several sets of chronograph reading on this very section, so you can find those and see for yourself. Also; I've found that the heavier bullets gain more kinetic energy than the lighter ones, and far more than round ball. They may go a bit slower, but the energy is greater. For example I got up to 600 foot pounds energy from the carbine using a 240 grain bullet, and no 200 grain bullet yielded near that much, even with five more grains of powder. The longer barrel delivers more power. Pure and simple.
It can seem complicated, but it really isn't. The heavier bullet is resulting in higher pressure, which translates to higher temperature, which speeds the combustion of the powder during launch (I call it a hotter burn). Thus you get better energy efficiency out of the powder when using heavier bullets. Lighter round ball then leaves more unused energy spitting out the barrel after the ball is gone. Thus, although a round ball will come screaming out of the carbine at the highest velocities, it will not be carrying as much kinetic energy as the heavier conicals.
The faster round ball would be great if you want to slap the snot out of a coyote at close range, or explode a water jug for fun, but less good if you want full penetration and bone-breaking power on a large Mule deer. For the latter, you definitely are better off with a 225 tor 240 grain conical, going slower, but carrying more energy with more momentum. the longer the bullet, the less powder capacity however, so there's going to be a point of diminishing returns when it comes to bullet weight. Back ion the 1860s the heaviest bullets used in the 8" pistols was around 255 grains. Also; SuzukiBruce done went and ruptured a Walker cylinder trying to use a 285 grain bullet, so more pressure isn't always a good thing.
More barrel length then is also going be more advantageous when using larger powder charges. So it is that I'll predict that a Wakler using 45 or 50 grains of powder and a 225 or 240 grain bullet, and having a longer barrel of 18" up to 30" would gain more velocity per inch of added barrel than the Remington using 30 or 35 grains of powder and the same bullet. Again; at some point, as you REDUCE the powder charge, there will be no added velocity due to adding barrel length, and BELOW THAT (below some very small charge of powder) adding barrel length will slow down the bullet. It's just that we're no where near using so little powder or so long a barrel.
Thanks again Omnivore for the solid amount of information and clarification! I read it a few times and it all seems like common sense when you think about it. This is why I want to extend the amount of powder the Uberti Carbines cylinder can contain and hopefully, this will yield a significant increase velocity for the conical bullets. I do kinda wonder how a flat tipped conical that shaves off lead when seated would do in the rifle. The more snug fit should allow for more pressure to build before forcing the bullet on its journey. I have so many thoughts and idea's and as pointed out not all is line up properly (?^ I very much appreciate the guidance I've been given by the members of this site as it is a luxury!
This is a minor point, but I tend to size my bullets, and chamfer the chamber mouths, so as not to shave lead.
The only problem there is inventory; Uberti and Pietta 44s tend to have different diameter chambers, so if I bring a batch of cartridges with bullets sized for the Ubertis and I use them in a Pietta, they'll shave just a tad bit of lead on seating. If I use a cart with the bullet sized for Pietta in an Uberti, the paper doesn't cut and stay out at the chamber mouth like I want, and I get essentially a paper patched bullet. It still works either way, but is not optimum. This suggests that I should have all my 44 chambers modified to a common diameter.