View Single Post
Old November 29, 2012, 10:45 AM   #11
Join Date: November 28, 2012
Posts: 83
Hello Riflemen,

Your point taken. I beleive, many would agree.
My own reasarch started when I saw the video clip from Mike testing round ball 454, lee conical 456-220 and kaido, with best results on lee conical.

Mike also (if I am right) was using Uberti Colt army 1860, whilst mine is pietta.

As per informations availbale Pietta will have twist around 1/30 inch, and uberti 1/18 (cca), this will probably have better effect on stabilising conical.
And Mike, indeed, had better results with conical bullets in uberti.

FYG as per makers manuals - only Uberti recomends both: ball and conical
Manual of my Pietta recomends only the ball.
The difference in rifling twist of both guns, in my view may be the only reason in this difference of recomended loads.

So, if all above is correct then - you are right for guns in rifling twist 1/30. But it doesnt cost much for me try and have a piece of mind.

Another thing in my reasoning was, the ball 454 is 140 grain, whilst conical 450 is 200 grain. In Pietta makers version of colt army 1860 my group is about 7 inches above point of aim at 25 meters. (colt is sighted for 75 meter)
With heavier bullet I could get closer (lower) to POA at 25 mtrs.

As per our European target competition rules (probably the same in US) we are not supposed to temper with sights. Replicas must be the same (more or less) like originals.
Any modern sight or handmade adjustments are not allowed. So I can only temper with loads - BP and Bullets.
For this reason even Ruger Old Army is not allowed on standard competitions (not originating in 19th century)

So I'll try with heavier bullet and see what I will get in regards of both - Point of aim, and accuracy.

Anyhow, just to get back to point, The question was which conical bullet is suitable for army 1860: 456-220. or 450-200. The question was not: ball or conical.

Last edited by jolly1; November 29, 2012 at 11:40 AM.
jolly1 is offline  
Page generated in 0.05312 seconds with 7 queries