Yep, I've tried the Buffalo Bullets. Not impressed.
They're clumsier to load, especially in the 1851 Navy which has minimal clearance between the front of the cylinder and the end of the rammer.
Yep, you have to reduce powder to allow room for their length.
When I tried them, they came with a lubricated felt wad that the manufacturer suggested be placed twixt bullet and powder. Thus, even more precious room for powder was lost.
Being a heavier bullet, they strike higher on target than the round ball. The Colt designs usually shoot high as it is, and conical bullets shoot higher still. This situation is not conducive to consistent accuracy, if you have to use "Kentucky Windage" by holding above your target.
In my Uberti-made Remington .44 they're easier to load. I can get slightly less than 30 grains of Goex FFFG under it but it's hardly worth the bother.
Same may be said of the Lee conical bullet, which you must cast yourself (unless you're lucky enough to find some at a gun show).
In my Colt 2nd issue 1851 Navy, Pietta-made Remington Navy .36, Uberti-made Remington .44 Army, Pietta-made Colt 1860 .44 and Armi San Marcos Colt 1861 Pocket Pistol .36 the conicals have never been as accurate as a good, oversized ball.
In my Colt Navy, I've sometimes been able to put six balls into less than two inches at 25 yards from a benchrest. Conicals usually group about 4 or 5 inches.
My Remington .44 does about the same, twixt round balls vs. conicals.
Such comparatively dismal accuracy from the conicals hasn't kept me interested in them.
In my .36 calibers I shoot .380 diameter balls, available from Warren Muzzleloading (
www.warrenmuzzleloading.com) or cast my own. In my 44s I shoot .457 balls from Speer, or .454 if I can't find .457 balls.
A well-lubricated felt wad, seated firmly on the powder before seating the ball, is all the lubricant required. No lubricant is needed over the ball if a felt wad soaked in Crisco, lard/beeswax mix, Crisco/beeswax mix, or my favorite mix of mutton tallow/paraffin/beeswax is required.
I punch my own wads from hard felt, available as window stripping and made by Frost King of New Jersey/Nevada.
I've played with conical bullets through the years but always go back to the plain, lead ball. It's cheaper, easier to load, more accurate (in my revolvers, at least) and easier to find or cast.
Frankly, unless you're making paper cartridges for your revolver or wish to hunt deer with the Ruger Old Army, I don't believe that conical bullets have any advantage over lead balls.
As for long range shooting, I live in the remote Utah desert. Any time I wish, I can go out and literally shoot for miles, with the mountains as my backstop.
I've shot lead balls from my Colt 1851 Navy and Remington 44 out to about 300 yards, at man-sized rocks and such. Yep, that ball has the trajectory of a thrown grapefruit but some amazing shots may be made once you get the range right.
When shooting my Navy at 300 yards, I have to hold the top of the hammer just a hair up from where the forcing cone ends and the flat top of he barrel begins. This is hardly conducive to repeated sight settings, since the brass bead is no longer useable.
Anyone who thinks they can shoot cap and ball revolvers at long range with the same measure of accuracy of a smokeless powder revolver is kidding themselves. But it's a fun stunt to engage in when paper and tin cans become boring targets.
the original and reproduction Colts shoot about dead-on at 75 to 100 yards. I could make life mighty interesting for a man in the open out to 200 yards, and make him nervous out to 300.
But if you wish to see if your loads will be accurate at short range, try them at long range. Long range shooting greatly magnifies any aberrations of the load.
If the load is all over the countryside at 200 yards, it almost certainly won't group well on paper at 25 yards. The late gun writer Elmer Keith used to preach this and I believe it as well.
But try conicals. Each gun is an individual. You may just have a revolver that does well with them; mine don't.
