Author Topic: max charge for 58' Remington? (Read 2785 times)

Will52100 · « **on:** February 12, 2005, 04:50:58 PM »

Went to a local gun and knife show and got a good deal on a used Pietta remington replica in 44. Don't think it'll replace my colt navies, but it is a little differant and I've wanted one for a while.

My question is what is the max powder charge that can still seat a ball and the cylinder turn? I know most people down load and such, but I'd like to try full power loads first and go from there. I seem to remember that the max load is 40 grains?

Thanks

filmokentucky · « **Reply #1 on:** February 12, 2005, 06:48:25 PM »

Mine holds 30 grains by volume of fffg. With the best will in the world, I don't believe I could get 40 grains in there and still seat the ball below the chamber mouth. The Remington rammer is a bit weak and doesn't take to rough usage. You'll note that the link is held by small pins. They have been known to break under stress.

Will52100 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 12, 2005, 07:06:37 PM »

Thanks, I have a 28 grain spout on my flask for my 60 armies, but that left the ball pretty low in the chamber mouth. May weigh out a couple differant charges and see what it'll hold.

Will

Wynn · « **Reply #3 on:** February 13, 2005, 02:04:14 AM »

I load 30 grains of fffg with a lubed, felt wad and the ball seats about 1/8" below flush in the chambers. I think that without the wad and with lube over the chambers, you might get 35-38 grains in there and still be flush. If you try it, let us know how many grains you can cram into yours.

Mark whiz · « **Reply #4 on:** February 13, 2005, 02:28:34 PM »

MY Pietta 1858 calls for a max charge of 30gr using .454 round ball.
I keep it at that and it does just fine - especially since I have the brass-framed model.

Will52100 · « **Reply #5 on:** February 13, 2005, 04:46:01 PM »

35 grains seems to be about max for a ball, and 30 with a wad. Nice gun, but still not a Dragoon or Walker!

jeager106 · « **Reply #6 on:** February 15, 2005, 08:00:17 PM »

I have a Pietta stainless with adj. sights.
Not p.c. but I don't care.
I chrono'd a bunch of loads.
I found I could get 35 grains of Swiss 3fg and T-7 3fg under a .454 ball.
Muzzle gee-whiz was almost 1100 f.ps., recoil was stout and accuracy was poor.
Going back to 30 grains of Elephant and Goex 3fg gave me 750-ish and 825-ish f.p.s and accuracy in the under 2" range at 25 yards.
I would not use the 35 grain T-7 or Swiss 3fg loads in a brass framed revolver.

willysjeep134 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 17, 2005, 04:33:53 AM »

I once put too much FFg in my buffalo model and had to slice off part of a round ball that wouldn't seat deep enough to let the cylinder turn. Usually I load 30 grains or less. If you want a taller load without stressing the gun too much you could put cornmeal over the powder charge. Supposed to keep the bore really clean too. I usually run about 800 FPS with a roundball and 30 grains of FFFg Elephant out of my 12 inch barrel.

Gatofeo · « **Reply #8 on:** February 17, 2005, 07:55:17 AM »

My Uberti-made Remington .44 Army will take a 40 gr. measure of Goex FFFG powder.
However, that's deceiving. Curious, I recently weighed 10 charges from each of my flask spouts. My 40 gr. spout actually threw an average of 37.5 grains, as I recall (I'm at work and can't look at it right now).
All of my spouts
The point is, what the spout shows isn't always the truth.
By the way, the above is without a greased wad, just the naked ball.
I use a loading stand, which holds the revolver upright while seating. Not only does it give you a better feel for how much force you're applying, it can help you seat a ball below flush, over a large charge.
REMINDER: Hodgdon 777 cannot be used as a substitute with black powder, volume-for-volume. Hodgdon lists 35 grains as the MAXIMUM load in a .44 cap and ball pistol, though the chamber will surely hold more.
If you use Hodgdon 777, reduce the load 15 percent (by weight) from what you normally use as a black powder load.
Hodgdon 777 is good stuff, but it's powerful. It's also expensive. If you can find it easily, you're better off with regular black powder.

Will52100 · « **Reply #9 on:** February 18, 2005, 05:41:33 PM »

Thanks, I weighed out and seems to hold 37-38 grains, but for normal shootin' 30 grains works just fine.

All I shoot is black powder, with the exception of 22's. Don't realy care for the BP subs, doesn't seem right to me.

Naphtali · « **Reply #10 on:** February 27, 2005, 06:53:53 AM »

Will52100:

Since the answer to your unasked question is: You can safely load as much powder behind the projectile as you can fit -- while still having the cylinder turn -- why not experiment?

The problem is not a "safe load" problem; it is a "will the projectile back out of its chamber in recoil and jam the revolver" problem.

How much powder can you lightly compress behind the projectile while retaining about .125" for lubricant and recoil slop?

If/when you experiment, you want to maintain only one chamber to test recoil back-out. Load one other chamber at a time. Fire and check. If, after a [given] number of firings, the test chamber's bullet is still retained for acceptable cylinder functioning, there's your answer.

Ramrod · « **Reply #11 on:** February 27, 2005, 02:34:21 PM »

The spout on my old CVA flask is marked 35 grains, I have no idea what the actual weight thrown is. The balls seat just below the mouths of the chamber, and accuracy is good. Never had one back out in a couple thousand rounds.

Will52100 · « **Reply #12 on:** February 28, 2005, 07:57:21 AM »

I've only had one gun that would back out on ocasion, a Uberti 51' navy. The chamber mouths would barrely shave any lead from a .380 ball. It's since been converted to 38 long colt.

I've used 60 grain loads in my walker with nary a ball backing out.

My main question was mostly just how much can I fit under the ball, not safety.

Just for an idea of how strong even mild steel in the revolvers are, I cut the cylinder down on a 51 navy and milled a breach plate to convert it to 38 long colt and to proff the cylinder I used the standard prof methoud of 1.5 times normal load. Basicly 357magnum powder charge with a 165 grain lead hollow base. I mounted the gun to a vise and fired it from a distance. It held up fine to 12 rounds, but would probably shoot loose from too many.

IntrepidWizard · « **Reply #13 on:** February 28, 2005, 05:28:15 PM »

I use 30gr of Pyro with wad or 35 gr Pyro with ball and Crisco and have killed Coyotes and Bobcat with that load,penetrates Milk gallons well.

Remington Kid · « **Reply #14 on:** October 24, 2005, 04:25:11 PM »

Never could understand why some people feel you can't even fit 35 g in the 1858. You can and I do load 35ga of fffg and a wonder wad over the powder and a .454 ball over that and still have over a 1/8" at the end for grease . That's my target load and it shoots great with 30 or 35 g. of fffg.
I can also and do load 38g of fffg with a wad over the powder and a .454 ball and still have room for grease to keep thing running smooth. Been using these loads for years and have never broke a rammer or hurt the gun in any way. It will also shoot 40g of fffg and a .454 ball with grease over the ball with no problems and it's very accurate.
I have taken 4 deer with this gun and the ball has passed through both lungs and out the other side and only one deer has gone over 40 yards.
Load your gun with 35g of fffg or 30 g. of 777 and a wonder wad over the powder and a .454 ball. Shoot a 2x6 at 20-25 yards at and angle so the bullet will pass through and be buried in the ground on the other side. Try that with a 38+P load and see what happens.... you will see that the old mith that the 1858 Remington is no better than a 38+P is just that, a myth.
In a book I'm reading now about the C&b revolvers one of the authors witnessed a man shot by a 1858 Rem .44 in his kitchen. The ball passed through the mans stomach, glanced off the table top and went through a cabinet door and it was found later lodged in a loaf of bread.
The man lived due to fast medical help but he was in bad shape for a long time. These guns are not toys or under powered in any way shape or form. They killed many men during the war and long after and they are still more accurate than the revolvers made today, Mike

Will52100 · « **Reply #15 on:** October 25, 2005, 05:57:08 PM »

Too true they arn't toys. I've often wondered just how acurate the foot pounds measurement is relating to actual leathality. According to some, the walker was the most powerfull handgun till the 357 mag suplanted it. Frankly I find it hard to believe that the old 357 could outpereform a pure lead 45 cal. round ball over a 60 grain charge. heck just ask Wild Bill if his 36 navies were underpowered.

flamenblaster · « **Reply #16 on:** October 27, 2005, 02:48:06 AM »

I too beleive that c&b revolvers are under estimated for their ability..but in today's world of 500 magnumitis..i guess many think that if its less powerful than a small cannon it cant possibly be effective. These guns were designed with thin-skinned animals of small bone structure in mind..and on people as well as game animals they can be effective..anyhow i can squeeze 40 gr. into my 1860 pietta..but the accuracy and fouling are horrible..only put 30 in there anymore..will use 44 magnum for big power..and thats even puny nowadays :-)