1861 Springfield .58 cal - The Firearms Forum

millwright · 11-13-2007, 10:03 PM

Anyone have any experience with any BP substitutes in this arm ? Or, rather, repros of it.

Thinking particularly of Shockley's Gold and Hogdon's 777 under a 510 gr. minne' bullet. >MW

mrkirker · 11-15-2007, 06:29 AM

Just wondering, why are you wanting to use substitute propellant in a classic design such as one of the '61 models? At the range and in the field, I've noticed that most of the sub propellants are used in the non-traditional units that will never see a genuine grain of B/P. You've already 'graduated' to the real deal! Consider using the 'real' propellant!

Before anyone begins to sharpen their knives: My comment is in no way intended as a 'slam' toward anyone using or advocating the use of non-traditional firearms or substitute propellants, Ok? We are all 'shooters', just traveling different avenues . . . . . .

armedandsafe · 11-16-2007, 10:40 PM

Since I have to travel to another state to get black powder, my "traditional" Hawkens are used to "artificial" black powder. Some of us don't have the choices others have.

I have found that the subs are quite similar in performance to true black powder, so long as you use a volume measurement. 777 is a tad hotter than most BP and hotter (in my experiments) than any other sub. Drop the initial trial loads about 10% and work for an accurate load. Don't be afraid to use the lighter loads, if that is what it takes for your arm to reveal its accuracy.

Pops

millwright · 11-20-2007, 05:56 PM

Hmmmm.....Interesting responses.

We did shoot the thing a couple of days' back at around 100 yds and couldn't keep it on a 3'X4' cardboard. Visual conditions were lousy and we couldn't 'spot' the misses and the sights were a tough read as well.

I suspect not enough 'oomph' to set the minne bullet with any of the loads used. These were purchased and I don't know the alloy mix, but they do seem soft enough. Triple Seven, Shockley's and Goex were all tried. Of the loads shot, the 777 had the most 'bark' and felt strongest, but I'm chary of shooting it too strong as its FFFg, (bought with pistol work in mind) and I don't like that fine a granulation in a bore this big.

I'm also looking into paper patching. I don't expect stellar accuracy, but the condition of the arm indicates better than I'm getting and not all of the problem can be my technique.......At least 'errors' ought to be consistant. I'll continue to play and report on what I find. >MW

11-13-2007, 10:03 PM	#1
millwright Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 1,440	1861 Springfield .58 cal Anyone have any experience with any BP substitutes in this arm ? Or, rather, repros of it. Thinking particularly of Shockley's Gold and Hogdon's 777 under a 510 gr. minne' bullet. >MW -->

11-15-2007, 06:29 AM	#2
mrkirker Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,067	Re: 1861 Springfield .58 cal Just wondering, why are you wanting to use substitute propellant in a classic design such as one of the '61 models? At the range and in the field, I've noticed that most of the sub propellants are used in the non-traditional units that will never see a genuine grain of B/P. You've already 'graduated' to the real deal! Consider using the 'real' propellant! Before anyone begins to sharpen their knives: My comment is in no way intended as a 'slam' toward anyone using or advocating the use of non-traditional firearms or substitute propellants, Ok? We are all 'shooters', just traveling different avenues . . . . . .

11-16-2007, 10:40 PM	#3
armedandsafe Former Guest Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Moses Lake, WA Posts: 10,344	Re: 1861 Springfield .58 cal Since I have to travel to another state to get black powder, my "traditional" Hawkens are used to "artificial" black powder. Some of us don't have the choices others have. I have found that the subs are quite similar in performance to true black powder, so long as you use a volume measurement. 777 is a tad hotter than most BP and hotter (in my experiments) than any other sub. Drop the initial trial loads about 10% and work for an accurate load. Don't be afraid to use the lighter loads, if that is what it takes for your arm to reveal its accuracy. Pops

11-20-2007, 05:56 PM	#4
millwright Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 1,440	Re: 1861 Springfield .58 cal Hmmmm.....Interesting responses. We did shoot the thing a couple of days' back at around 100 yds and couldn't keep it on a 3'X4' cardboard. Visual conditions were lousy and we couldn't 'spot' the misses and the sights were a tough read as well. I suspect not enough 'oomph' to set the minne bullet with any of the loads used. These were purchased and I don't know the alloy mix, but they do seem soft enough. Triple Seven, Shockley's and Goex were all tried. Of the loads shot, the 777 had the most 'bark' and felt strongest, but I'm chary of shooting it too strong as its FFFg, (bought with pistol work in mind) and I don't like that fine a granulation in a bore this big. I'm also looking into paper patching. I don't expect stellar accuracy, but the condition of the arm indicates better than I'm getting and not all of the problem can be my technique.......At least 'errors' ought to be consistant. I'll continue to play and report on what I find. >MW