Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
36 Cal Conicals - How they fit
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 лис 2022
- Checking 3 styles of Conicals. Lee, Colt Cartridge, and the Richmond Laboratory mold designs, in 9 popular 36 caliber guns. Looking at how each fits in the chambers, nose fit in the loading lever, and if there is large enough frame cut out.
Thank you for the information sir it will be handy for me
Thanks so much for the encouragement. O.R.
Just want to thank you for all the hard work man I love what you do
I can tell you the Lee mold that is supposed to fit in the 1860 Army and Remington new model Army do not fit in the cylinders specially in a paper cartridge. Ears Gone molds work very well but be sure to cast with pure lead particularly with the Richmond Laboratories. I found the Kerr 44 Eras Gone for 44 cal and the Colt 36cal are the best in my opinion. I shoot a lot and have been casting bullets for over 50 yrs. Very good video thank you.
Appreciate your input on the Ears Gone molds. I can believe that the Lee wouldn’t be a happy thing using paper. Don’t have the Kerr and should make that addition, thanks. O.R.
Thanks for another great video! I really hope you`ll make some videos with the different guns shooting the historical conicals...both 44s and 36s, see how they group. That would be great!
Regarding the different 1851s cut outs in the frame , I think Colt went from the small v-notch to the larger cut out by the mid 1850s so both variants are historically correct. I find the v-notch variant a pain in the butt when it comes to fiddling paper cartridges into the chambers though.
I'll bet. The design on the 61's seems to have that fixed. Can't use the black powder on the indoor range, Probably set off some smoke alarm, and I'll have to pay for new filters. I have shot the Lee in the 44's, and it turned in good (as good or better than round) results. Anxious to try the 36's, especially in the faster twist Uberties. Too long till summer. O.R.
I like the .36s and have several. I use round ball and eras conical. Nice video and thanks for sharing.
I have a collection of “Confederate Tears”…
They are .36 caliber Remington conicals from the St. Louis Arsenal. I dug them up with a metal detector in West Tennessee.
Battle of Corinth 1862
I did a thin paper patch on my Lee 130 gr with my Uberti. Not sure how it will work yet, but fits tighter.
I think that it would be better as the slug will grip the rifling more. Rifles use patches (BP) and you use the one that is the thickest you can get and still drive down the bore.
The Colt Cartridge works bullet heel will probably be increased when used in a paper cartridge,making it a little large for the chamber mouth
I think you're right. It would be a tight fit.
Appreciate all information you provide to this channel...thank you sir 👍☕️☕️
Thanks so much for the encouragement. O.R
@@oldranger3044 Forgot to say Marry Christmas and Happy new year to all
@@alvintarrer6914 Thanks-same to you. We are thankful for our blessings, things are not as good elsewhere. O.R.
As always your videos are a wealth of information Sir, Thank you for sharing .
Nice video. Fed my curiosity regarding these bullets.
Great details in your video. I am encouraged to find that you don't necessarily have to have the Uberti make of rammer to push a conical in as some have said(as I have two Pietta Navys and would like the option to shoot bullets as well as balls). The Lee conicals that I just got from a second hand purchase also just drop down the throat of the pietta charge hole like the one you demonstrated at 12:08-12:14. I like the Colt factory design I may order that one.
I can encourage that because I personally like casting bullets. It is an investment that you will no doubt go back to more than once, and prices are only on the rise. Also because it is somewhat a custom item, chances of getting a used one are slim . As of now, it is my go-to 36 cal original style conical mold. Enjoy, if you push the buy it button. O. R.
If your chambers won't start the Lee's it's time to ream your chambers. My Pietta is tight, bout .362" way under bore. I bought an adjustable reamer for only about $17 and can take me up to .375".
I used to have one of those but think I broke it during a fit of rage. 🙁. I don’t think it had a pilot section which should be around.366-.367 so that I don’t get it to go to one side. Been there years ago and had to order a couple of replacement colt cylinders for 2nd gen 51 and 61. Good idea and might get better grip on the rifling (if needed). Only need to open up a couple thousands. O. R.
Adjustable? Do Tale Please? I have a few projects in mind, mostly on long gun muzzle loaders. I made my own but it could be better?
@@davefellhoelter1343 Sorry I’m not immediately picking up on the adjustable part? Can you go into a bit more detail friend. O.R.
@@davefellhoelter1343 I'm going to make a video on it probably tomorrow. I figured out a way to make a custom pilot so you can't screw it up.
Old Ranger, excellent informative video. Thanks for your time. Thumbs up ~John
Very informative Mr. OR! Thank you for sharing... 😎
Thanks for the info very well done best info I have found yet on the .36 cal again thanks
Thanks Mark, be happy if you found something there useful or interesting. O.R.
Thank! You Sir! you Got me "Thinking"? I had a bit of troubles with my eras gone buy Johnston & Dow conical paper cartages last time out. so Out to the Smithing bench I went to check on a Brand New projectile and historic paper cartridge design for my early/mid 70's Uberti 1858.
And a "No Go" on loading my new design up with ram my rod, but it's, ok? my DIY bench loader will work OK. Loader is going to be my new go to on the line. Just too easy to pop out an 1858 cylinder and do two cylinders at a time.
Keep your Smoke Poles SMOKING!
Thanks AGAIN1
I have a neighbor that has the same plan. Thinking he showed me 3 or 4 cylinders he has for his 1858. He likes them thar smoke poles too. O.R.
Very useful.
Hmmm interesting. My bases are at .364 on my bullets. And I have on hand both the Lee bullet as well as the kaido bullet. I don't have any trouble with starting issues. To be fair I only own Remingtons, a peitta and uberti. My only issue is with the peitta which is what dixie calls the belt model. The issue with it is the loading plunger sets to low in loading port. Not allowing longer bullets under the plunger. Another the colt but would not go without modifications to the plunger.
Now just a side note original Remington new model Navy's was made approximately between 80-85 percent smaller then the new model Armies. Fast forward to the replica Navies in both are full size Army frames and barrels. Lots of extra steel all the way around. With that in mind my loads are running slightly faster than many .38 special +p velocities.
Food for thought
Mountain man
I have the Pietta Navy, as you say, full size. Don’t have the Uberti, yet, but figured it might be smaller. Apparently not. I do have a Navy imported by Lyman sometime in the 80’s that’s considerably smaller. Probably a copy of the original but I can’t tell who made it.
Thanks again for your information. O.R.
Very informative video, thank you.
As usual OR a most interesting bit of research, looking at the fit of those projectiles I can see why chainfires are more of a regular thing now, the Colt Cartridge Work looks like a very nice bullet for the 36, although I have reamed my chambers out to .376, (.001" over groove size), so I will only really be safe with the Richmond Lab bullet, which appear to have a very small diameter spigot, I wonder if the tail sets up on ignition, and if it does that could be a variable, I think if we use conicals the front of the rammer must be re contoured, which is an easy job with a re ground 3/8" drill, I prefer the rammer to contact just on the shoulders of the conical ogive part of the bullet, but if ramming in the large diameter Richmond bullet I am sure there will be a ring pressed into the front of the ogive, I see you are forced to be inside now! Only 11 degs (C) here now, a bit different to the 45 degs (C) we had a while back. Thanks for posting this info! Chris B.
Right. Temp will be in the cellar for the next week. I had similar thoughts about the Richmond’s base. The trick might be the paper bullet where the paper might act as a patch. Too late for me to try it this year. I may have shot the Colt, will need to check my videos. Normally I only attempt to edit and post what seems interesting and if I feel the information is viable. The only saving grace for the Colt is the drive band and that is pretty thin and prone to casting defects.
I have a planned video idea for the winter. I believe I can put together a good argument that the gun in the Buffalo Bill Cody Museum at Cody WY claimed to have belonged to Wild Bill Hickok was in fact one of his guns. Don’t suppose you have or seen a copy of WILD BILL HICKOK Gunfighter by Joseph Rosa (English author)? Great book, good reading I feel. Be interesting to hear what you think about the video if I get to it. Stay safe and warm. O.R.
Another informative video. I'm interested in how well these various conicals shoot? I typically shoot round balls in my .36 cal revolvers. Looking forward to your range results.
Just wondering if you “Toms” are related. I think you’re the second Tom to be interested in seeing how these hog leg 36’s will do with various conicals, and up against round balls. Honestly, I don’t know, but years ago I tried the Lee in my 36 colt 2nd Generation. 👎🏿. Maybe it was me. Maybe it was the load. Maybe it was the bullet, gun, lube, or bad booze. I aim to find out , if I survive this winter. Thanks again for your comment. O.R.
@@oldranger3044 It was me I suppose. I commented on both conical videos, .36 & .44 cal. Historically, I've gotten exceptional accuracy with round balls in my testing. With conical it has been adequate, but not enough to warrant switching loads. However, I've gotten excellent accuracy with conversion cylinders and .45 Colt handloads in the same revolvers. So I am confident the right conical in a percussion load will shoot well also. I hunt deer with my Colt Walker and round balls. It is very effective. Overall I have gotten very good accuracy with both Colts and Remingtons even with heavier powder charges.
@@tomvawter4531 Thats interesting. I haven’t done anything with conversion cylinders. Makes sense that the 44’s would do well as the barrel is set up for a “something “ coming out of the chambers in the .446 to .448, depending on gun. So a.452 colt bullet will fill things up.
I would guess the 36 conversions to be different along those lines. With the exception of a healed bullet, the.357 probably rattles down the .360 bore, and I can’t imagine it bumping up to fill the difference. It will go ‘bang’, but probably not much for accuracy, and the lighter bullet is less than ideal anyway.
Thanks again for your information and comments. O.R.
Awesome details, just wondering barrel bore size are all same?
My 1861 navy ( replica arms 1963 ) had .376 bore and .378 ish cylinder mouth and I have to use own cast .380 RB.
Currently looking for conical bullet mold, I do paper cartridges and new on black powder firearms. (Lots of smokeless and cast bullet experience)
Appreciate informations.
That must be a brother or sister to my replica arms 1861. Serial #N478X. The bore on mine is close to.368, which is some larger than the current Ubertis (.360). Current Pietta are close to.360 bore, with.366 chambers as I recall. Uberti chambers slightly larger (.348). These are my measurements of what I own. Thanks again for your positive comments. O.R.
Got serial number N83 where locate under receiver, but under barrel and cylinder face has 76.
Barrel top had "1863 GETTYSBURG 1963" marking, not sure all matching or swapped burrel and cylinder in past. XIX stamp on RH of receiver, so it is 1963 build. Italian proof mark on, but no idea manufacturer's name. Nipple thread is M6 x 0.75, current Pietta nipples are too tall to fit.
Do you know parts compatibility for replica arms ?
I got worn out wedge issue and looking for replacement now.
Shiori
You are a thoughtful shooter.
Sir - did you ever consider a 2 ball 'DUPLEX' load?? - I'm wondering if I sliced a "flat" from a standard ball with a chisel .. such that two balls chambered face to face, weighed similar to a 'conical' bullet .. this might produce useful "snake eyes" on the target.
- Do you think this might be safe or too dodgy? - 'Buck'n'Ball' certainly was used historically eh.
- Old Feller Just thinking from NZ.
Sorry for the slow response, but my bell thing seems to have stopped working. Interesting that I have been shooting so long and that thought never happened. I believe rounds weigh about 70 for the 36's, so two would be a little high compared to conicals, but not outrageous. Be interesting to see how far South accuracy goes, and how much separation. Might be just the ticket if you don't have conicals, or one that fits, or if there's a need to do more damage. Might not be much room for powder, so suppose in that respect, it could be "self" regulating. Suppose I "gots" to know. Thanks. O.R.
I have some of these LEE conicals in .44 cal and its difficult to push them into the chamber. Several times they went in lobsided.
Now Im using only Johnston & Dow conicals.
Just wondering if they are the ones made by Lee specifically for the black powder guns. Some folks attempt to use the .452 bullets designed for smokeless, and their base is not small enough to correctly start. O.R.
@@oldranger3044 I have ordered them from a Polish Black Powder Guns&Equipment shop. They were made by a company called ACP Sport. But usually these companies get their molds from LEE. Johnston&Dow conicals are slowly becoming the standard in the Polish Black Powder scene because they are so much better and at the same time historical.
@@corneliussulla9963 Great to hear. Can I assume you are in Poland? Lots of folks in this area relatives were from there. If so, I hope things don’t get bad this winter. O.R.
@@oldranger3044 Thank you Sir. I was born in Poland but I live in /Hamburg Germany since my parents fled from communism in ´87. I have and use my black powder equipment in Poland, because in Germany I would need a permission, In Poland I do not. All the best to you and yours tto, Sir
@@corneliussulla9963 Thanks for sharing your situation. The German people were influential in the Yager styles of black powder rifles.. Sorry to hear that things are difficult there to enjoy the sport. Stay safe and warm this winter. O.R
Does anyone make a 36 cal. hollowpoint mold?
Check out NOE bullet molds. They have a HP .378 , of course not specifically meant for the 36 cal revolver. As far as I have seen, only a limited number of conical molds for the 36, and non were HP. O.R.
👍👍👍👍👍👍💪🇺🇸
No Remington?
I have a Pietta navy Rem and should or could have included it. The loading lever hangs down too far for the Colt factory, and the Richmond just about clears the lever but is maybe 10-20 thou too long. The Lee conical does make it however. Can't say about the Uberti model. Thanks for asking. O.R.
@@oldranger3044 You could file/Dremel a notch on the bullet side of the loading plunger.....enough to allow the tips of the bullets to pass underneath.
@@jason60chev That would work for the Richmond I believe, but looked liked about 1/8 inch for the Colt factory’s. O.R.
I think you dont have enuff 1851 navy revolvers. I think you should run out and buy another 2 dozen .....
Great idea, and just in time for Christmas. Done. O.R.
I reamed out my 36 caliber cylinders to .375 for my .373 barrel bore. That makes a .375 ball a sorta finger press situation... accuracy is good but I want a tighter fit so I bought a .380 ball mold. I don't see how guys are getting any accuracy with .366 chambers and .373 bore.... seems that undersized ball would rattle down the bore. Still... on my buddies 1860 Remington the cylinder was like .446 and the bore was .454 The gun actually shot well and when we reamed the chambers/cyl to .453 the accuracy only improved about 10% which surprised me. My 51 cut the groups in half with the reamed out cyl. I use a set of plug gauges.. they are only about $50 on amazon but are the only way to measure hole size except pounding an oversize ball in the hole/bore/cyl and then measuring the sized ball. Back in the day for revolvers (smokeless cast bullet guns) I would measure a bunch of bullets cast and jacketed so I had a range for say 44 mag from .427-.432 crude.... but accurate.
Here’s what I’ve found. The bore diameter of the 36 cal is .360. Then riflings are cut. A ball sized in a .366 chamber has .006 to engage the riflings, but It will not fill out to the side. If one drives even a .375 ball down the barrel there can still be seen light between the ball and sides where the rifling was cut because it is pretty deep cut on most. A similar thing is also true on the 44’s. Again, the bore is .440, not .454. These black powder guns seem to not follow the same rules that apply to modern cartridge guns. I’ve been very pleased with their accuracy, but not as much without the lube. O.R.
I am reolatively new to BP but I am decades into measuring bores and cylinders and have the tools... maybe my 8 or so BP revolvers I have owned and/or checked are really really strange but the groove dia on 36 caliber guns is always between .372-375 the land dia is unimportant. 44 caliber guns groove is .450-455 The rifling on BP revolvers is no different (deeper) than other guns except semi autos which mostly have shallow grooves because they are made for jacketed rounds. All that asside... lets use logic. Why would you cast or buy .375 balls for a a cylinder almost 15 thou smaller? even more curious.... why would they make larger dia balls and molds to fit the bore better if every ball is gonna get sized down to way less than bore anyway?
In front of me is a Pietta 51 navy 36 A .375 ball driven down the bore measures .369 Using pin gauges the bore is... as you found .360 so it is as you say... a .375 ball sized to 366 by the chambers will have 6 thou to engage the rifling. To me that is basically shooting a smoothbore but at low velocity BP? maybe it is enough? smootjhbores shoot pretty well at ranges up to 100 yards... BP rifles are higher velocity but they use a patch that you have to pound down the bore engaging the rifling. Also I have found that some cylinders are close to bore dia from the factory sooo either the ones that are very small compared to bore are right or the ones that are bore dia or so are right. I have done almost no accuracy testing but the little I have done shows improvement with the reamed cylinders... from almost nothing to very noticiable. I need to do some velocity testing.
To give weight tho to your thinking.. I have heard that BP guns have deep rifling because of the fouling but 9 thou deep is not real deep imo. To me this is an interesting discussion. if you are right then it means that BP revolvers relationship between bore and chamber is WAY different than smokeless revolvers. If I am right then it means accuracy is being wasted with small cyl... for sure more testing is needed @@oldranger3044
Oh and as you noted and I checked.. even a .375 ball will show light when driven down the bore so the bore is actually more like .380 (just a guess till I get a .380 mold) I believe that is what they meant by deep rifling to somewhat mitigate fouling. that means that you have almost 20 thou to play with so far as land vs groove. my theory says to use as much of it as you can LOL... you are using 6 thou... I am using almost 15 thou.. Does it make a difference? I am not completely sure at this point. I would/will shoot some balls into water jugs to recover the slugs. I will be looking to see any 'skipping' where the ball is not really engaging the rifling here and there. I need to find or buy a new cyl tho cause LOL I have reamed all mine out.
@@doranmaxwell1755 👍