Here in the remote Utah desert, I regularly shoot my Colt 2nd generation 1851 Navy and Pietta-made 1860 Army marketed by traditions.
Both are high-quality guns.
I'm going out on a limb here but I feel I must comment.
I have sometimes hit man-sized rocks and bushes out to 300 yards or so with the Navy and its .380 round ball.
The accuracy is there, to be certain, because the balls all hit to about the same place at that range. When they do that you simply keep elevating the barrel until you've got the range.
Unfortunately, this means elevating the front sight until it's the brass bead is well above the notch in the rear hammer. At that point, you just have to memorize about how much barrel should show past your hammer nose.
In my instance, it's about 3-1/2 inches of barrel showing, measuring from the muzzle. This isn't really accurate, but most of the hits would be close enough to keep an aggressor's head down.
The .44 Army uses about the same amount of muzzle elevation to lobs its 457 balls onto the target.
In the .36, I use 24 grains of Goex FFFG black powder with a well-greased felt wad between the .380-inch ball and powder. In the .44, I use 35 grains of FFFG powder and a felt wad between the powder and the .457-inch ball.
Both balls have the trajectory of a thrown grapefruit. However, in these two revolvers they also shoot very consistently, landing at the same place each shot.
Long-range shooting with a cap and ball revolver is possible. The biggest hindrance is the primitive sights. The Ruger Old Army or a modern-sighted Remington .44 would be easier to use, but you'd run out of sight adjustment at such ranges.
What's needed is a post front sight, and a rear sight with a flip-up ladder. Frankly, I don't see such a thing being marketed but it sure would be fun to tinker with.