One of my Handloader's Digest books of the 1970s has an article on using jacketed hollowpoint bullets in cap and ball sixguns.
More trouble than it's worth.
First, the author had to chuck the cylinder into a lathe and gently ream the chambers to .450 inch, as I recall. Then, the .451 and .452 inch jacketed bullets were seated using an arbor press.
He used a Ruger Old Army, reproduction Walker and reproduction 1858 Remington, all in .44 caliber.
His conclusion? Interesting experiment but not very practical.
One thing to ponder too: Jacketed bullets create far more friction than lead bullets, thereby raising pressures considerably.
I don't think using jacketed bullets is worth it. The soft, pure-lead balls used in cap and ball pistols tend to flatten upon striking bone and heavy tissue.
Look at the ballistics of the Colt 1851 Navy: an 80 gr. lead ball at about 1,000 feet per second. This makes is ballistically equivalent to the modern .380 ACP load -- but the ghosts of millions in the 19th century testify mutely that the Navy was probably more effective than today's .380 ACP.
Why? Partly because of the lack of medical knowledge, partly because of infection (not everyone died immediately, but lingered for days or weeks) but I also suspect it's because that soft lead ball flattened out like a modern hollowpoint when it hit bone or heavy muscle.
Another factor to consider: bullet shape.
The ball is a sphere before rammed into the chamber, but after ramming resembles a half orange placed upon a half grapefruit. This is, in effect, the granddaddy of the semi-wadcutter bullet -- a design noted for transferring energy far more efficiently than a roundnose or sphere.
The late gun writer Elmer Keith (1899-1983) knew Civil War veterans when he was growing up in Montana. He said they noted that the conical bullet was a poor man-stopper, but the lead ball with a maximum charge, "took all the fight out of them."
Forgive my rambling ...
Back to your original question: Using jacketed bullets in cap and ball revolvers is more trouble than it's worth. It may be dangerous, by virture of raising pressures. It offers little or no advantage that, frankly, wouldn't be negated by ensuring accurate bullet placement.
Why bother?
