Range Report 09302023: .45 Colt Shootoff

Today's range practice was entirely devoted to the .45 Colt (not "long Colt," Plese!) cartridge.  I shot my Pietta 1860 revolver, which had been converted to fire .45 Colt with a Kirst Konversion system, against my Pietta Remington New Model Army with a Howell conversion cylinder to compare and contrast the weapons.

My Colt Conversion Revolver and ammunition.

My conversion revolver started as a normal Pietta Colt 1860 Army.  I purchased a Kirst Conversion for it because I thought it would be interesting to have a cap-and-ball revolver that was actually converted to shoot metallic cartridge ammunition rather than buying one of the ready-made Richards-Mason conversion reproductions on the market.  This was a huge mistake.  The Kirst system, I am sorry to say, is not optimized for the current batch of reproduction revolvers (I understand that they used to be better), and as the Italian companies have tweaked their designs slightly over time Kirst has failed to keep up with them, and, in addition, have implemented cost-saving measures in their own production process which made them even worse.  I sent the kit and my revolver to Gary Barnes (see the link HERE) to have the revolver converted because Mr. Barnes had done spectacular work on other cap and ball revolvers I own (including the Remington I shot today), but, unfortunately because of the above-mentioned problems, the revolver had to go back twice to make it function correctly.  I finally have the revolver in good working condition (but see below), so today was supposed to be the acid test.

Howell conversion cylinder.

I thought it would be interesting to compare the conversion revolver against a standard cap and ball revolver using the Howell drop-in conversion cylinder, so today that's what I did.  Both revolvers have been extensively reworked by Mr. Barnes for accuracy and reliability, with trigger/action jobs, forcing cone adjustments, muzzle corrections, etc., although the Howell cylinder is stock.

.45 Colt ammunition in a period-correct Frankford Arsenal cartridge package.

My ammunition is as close as I can make it to the M1873 military cartridge (except for the Benet primer), with 35 grains of 3F Swiss powder (a few rounds had Schuetzen today, but I didn't track which ones they were) under a 250-grain lead bullet.  For information about how I load .45 Colt ammunition, see the article I wrote HERE.

For the purpose of comparing accuracy I used the String Test, a method dating to before the Civil War which takes group size and the distance from the center of the group to the point of aim in a single measurement.  All historical shooters should be using this process to gauge their accuracy--please, no more "group size" numbers!  To learn more about the String Test and how to use it, along with a video link, see HERE.  Note that I should really have used the Figure of Merit calculation for the purpose of this test since it measures the precision of the piece rather than the accuracy of the man and his weapon--more on this below.

Shooting Conditions:  Lytle Creek Range.  52 degrees, heavy clouds, wind from 10:00 at 10 mph (but highly variable), humidity 89%, barometer 29.83 inHg.  All shooting was done at 15 yards from an offhand position.

Tables One and Two (Two isn't marked, but it's the lower dot).

Table One:  Colt Conversion
Rounds: 10
String measurement: 44.25 in.
String Test: 4.4 in./rd.

Table Two: New Model Army
Rounds: 10
String measurement: 28.0 in.
String Test: 2.8 in./rd.

Table Three.

Table Three: Colt Conversion
Rounds: 5 (There was a cease-fire at the range, so I couldn't finish the table fo fire.)
String measurement: 24.0 in.
String Test: 4.8 in./rd.

Tables Four and Five.

Table Four: Colt Conversion
Rounds: 10
String Measurement: 28.0 in.
String Test: 2.8 in./rd.

Table Five: New Model Army
Rounds: 9
String Measurement: 21.25 in.
String Test: 2.1 in./rd.

Table Six.

Table Six: Colt Conversion
Rounds: 10
String Measurement: 27.25 in.
String Test: 2.7 in./rd.

I had several problems come up during this shoot.  As you can see, I only shot two tables of fire with the Remington, and the latter one only had nine rounds.  This is because the catch holding the loading lever broke off during fire after the nineteenth round, so I stopped using it.  The Colt also had a problem wherein the plug holding the ejector assembly to the barrel worked its way out during fire.  The simple fact is that these Italian replicas are not well made (at least in comparison with the originals), and 35 grains of Swiss with a 250-grain bullet is a very stout load.  This is what caused both problems.

Broken latch on Remington.

Colt plug working out; note how this made the ejector assembly sit crookedly.

Conclusions
Both revolvers shot well, it cannot be denied, but the Remington shot much better; this is not a surprise, Remington are simply better designed revolvers (and I don't want any comments about how Remingtons foul faster, in period you would never fire more than a single cylinder or two of ammunition in any engagement, so the fouling issue that arises in modern fantasy shooting sports is irrelevant).  The fixed rear sight on the Remington, together with its higher visibility, makes for better, clearer sight pictures that are faster and easier to achieve and to hold.  In addition, my Colt shoots high, as most of them do, and while you can aim off to adjust for this (note the better scores I achieved as the day progressed, especially the superb group in Table 6), this takes longer to do since you have to take the time to estimate where your sight picture should be.  Aiming off is hard to do consistently, too, unless you have a modern target with rings that you can use for acquiring the sight picture--that's why I prefer the dots I use on my targets as a test of practical marksmanship.  Since the Remington shoots to point of aim, shooting is not only faster, the estimation factor is removed, making for more consistency.  Note that if all of the shots for each piece are combined, the overall String Test results are 3.5 in./rd. for the Colt and 2.6 in./rd. for the Remington.  Finally, note that when using the Remington with paper cartridges I consistently getting String Tests under 2 in./rd., so clearly the heavy .45 Colt charges I'm using here are not optimized for accuracy, they are intended to replicate the military ammunition of the day.

In this comparison I shot offhand and used the String Test.  In fact, although this is the best way to gauge how any given man shoots his weapon, it was the wrong approach here as it is a gauge of accuracy, not of precision.  Precision refers to how well the specific piece shoots with any given load, regardless of who is shooting it.  Precision should be judged by firing from a rest (to take the man out of the equation as much as possible) and should be judged using the Figure of Merit system, which determines the mean radial deviation of each round from the others in a group.  To learn more about the Figure of Merit, including a video demonstrating how to do it), read my article HERE.  The simple fact is that this system is somewhat laborious, and I was just being lazy; besides, the String Test really does compare apples to apples as long as it's being performed by the same shooter using the same process.

Although I should not have used the String Test today, these results played up one of the reasons the String Test is such a useful method for gauging accuracy.  If you look at the groups on the targets in the pictures above, the Colt's groups were not all that much worse than those of the Remington, but the Colt groups were farther from the point I was trying to hit--The Intended Mean Point of Impact--than were those of the Remington.  In combat, being able to hit what you're aiming at matters, so if you have a tiny, tight little group but it's 10 inches away from the spot you're trying to hit (e.g., a head), then that's not nearly as useful as a sloppier group that's mostly hitting the spot for which you're aiming.  This demonstrates why the String Test is so valuable and important, and why we should hear no more about group size.

Range Report 16 SEP2023: The 1859 Sharps Infantry Rifle

Pedersoli 1859 Sharps Infantry Rifle, cartridges, cartridge packs, and implementia.

Introduction
I had several goals for today:  First, I wanted to see how my new, slightly shorter, linen cartridges fit and fired in my Sharps.  Second, I wanted to compare and contrast my linen cartridges made with the Eras Gone Richmond Labs Sharps bullet with the historically inauthentic Hahn cardboard tube cartridges using the Lyman "Christmas Tree" ring-tailed bullet.  There is a lot of talk about the Hahn cartridges being more accurate at the short ranges used in certain kinds of competitive shooting, and while that kind of shooting has little relevance to what I do, it is still an interesting comparison.  To that end, I shot groups of both cartridges (far more than the results chronicled below) both over the chronograph and at targets to determine the String Test results for both.  For the impatient, the historically correct linen cartridges outperformed the Hahn modern cartridges in both respects, but that is a simplistic answer, and those interested should really read the detailed discussion which follows for a more nuanced answer.

New Cartridges and Cartridge Pack
The new, slightly shorter line tubes worked wonderfully.  I shortened the linen tubes by 0.2 inch, leaving all else the same; they had the same load, I just didn't use as much filler (see below), and they fit the chamber of the rifle better.  None of them got caught in the block when closing it the way the earlier pattern did, even when the chamber was heavily fouled.

I got a .54-caliber bore brush and used it to clean the chamber after every ten rounds, and this helped a lot with the problem of having the base of the cartridges stick out from the chamber to interfere with the rising block, too.  I also swabbed the bore with a wet followed by two dry patches every ten rounds.  I had absolutely no shooting problems while using this routine, which was a great relief after all of the problems I have had getting this rifle to shoot.

Because I shortened the cartridges I wanted to redesign the box I use for making cartridge packs (see the above picture), and since I was doing that I took the opportunity to also make a completely new box design based on one that my friend Barry Geipel designed for the Smith Carbine cartridge packs.  This design is easier to make and is a lot more secure since it has larger tabs to hold it together.   I will be using Barry's design for my Smith cartridge packs, too, once the ones I already made wear out.

Barry Geipel-Style cartridge pack box.

The Cartridges
The linen cartridges were made with linen shells and contained 65 grains of Schuetzen 2F powder, cornmeal filler, and a 530-grain soft lead bullet cast using the excellent Richmond Labs Sharps mold from Eras Gone Bullet Molds.  The bullets were dipped in my historically correct bullet lube recipe taken from the 1861 Ordnance Manual.  They are close to being perfect reproductions of cartridges used in period (although the North didn't use the R.L. bullets, no one offers a mold to reproduce the correct Federal style bullets).  For a detailed explanation of how I make and package these cartridges, read my blog post on the subject HERE.

My linen cartridges (ungreased).

The Hahn cartridges are made using the modern Lyman version of a ring-tailed Sharps bullet inserted in a cardboard tube for ease of manufacture, and are not at all authentic in design or construction.  They include 55 grains of Schuetzen 2F powder, and the bullet weighs about 490 grains.  The cardboard tubes are sold by Charlie Hahn.

Hahn cartridges.

Muzzle Velocity and Energy
Naturally, the results will be very different for these cartridges.  My linen cartridges have the standard government load of 65 grains of rifle powder under a bullet that weighs 530 grains, while the Hahn cartridges have 55 grains (ten less) with a bullet that weighs 490 grains (about 40 less).

The linen cartridges had an average muzzle velocity of 919.7 feet per second which yields a muzzle energy of 995 foot-pounds.  Unfortunately, I do not have any information about the muzzle velocity of the historical cartridges, so I can't make a comparison.

The Hahn cartridges had an average muzzle velocity of 762.7 feet per second, for a muzzle energy of 633 foot-pounds.

I used this calculator to determine muzzle energy:  http://ballistics101.com/muzzle_energy_calc.php

Accuracy
As always, when judging accuracy I use the String Test that was used during the 19th century.  To understand the String Test and why it is the superior method for determining accuracy read my blog post HERE.  In fact, however, what I should have been comparing was the precision of the shots, not the accuracy.  Accuracy is a gauge of the man and how well he shoots a given piece, whereas precision is a gauge of the weapon, with the man removed from the equation as much as possible.  For precision, the Figure of Merit is a better gauge and is what I should have used here, but I was feeling a bit lazy, and since I shot both sets of shots in exactly the same way I believe the accuracy score still gives me what I wanted to know.

Conditions:  Lytle Creek Range; bright and sunny; wind 2 mph from 4:00; humidity 52%; barometer 20 in.Hg.  Range: 100 yards.  Shooting position: Seated Unsupported.  Full sight.

Table One:  Hahn Cartridges
Rounds = 10
String measurement: 49.0 in.
String Test:  4.9 in./rd.

Table One: Hahn Cartridges.

Table Two:  Linen Cartridges
Rounds = 10
String measurement: 45.25 in.
String Test:  4.5 in./rd.

Table Two: Linen Cartridges.

Conclusions
Clearly, the linen cartridges have significantly better terminal ballistics, with 362 more foot-pounds of energy than the Hahn cartridges, which speaks volumes to the intended use of the Sharps Rifle as a weapon for skilled skirmishers and designated marksmen (although that term wasn't used in period) who routinely engaged targets in excess of 500 yards, and sometimes double that.  Not surprisingly, the Sharps has a muzzle velocity roughly comparable to that of the 1861 Springfield Rifle used in the war (despite having a shorter barrel), and a significantly slower muzzle velocity than the contemporary P-53 Enfield Rifle which had a muzzle velocity in excess of 1,200 fps.

The String Test numbers, however, are much closer, a mere 0.4 in./rd., which surprised me greatly.  The Hahn cartridge is widely held to be better for this kind of short-range shooting (which is why it is more popular with modern target shooting groups), a fact which I was sure wasn't correct, and although I was right, I expected the linen cartridges to actually outperform the Hahn cartridges by more than they did.  In truth, I should have fired from a rest, and I should have kept the same sight picture for every shot instead of trying to adjust fire for better accuracy because that would have given a more realistic analysis of the precision of the cartridges, and I think the Hahns would have fared worse in that comparison.  Regardless, I think these results are still clear, just not as definitive as they could be.