Should I go even higher on muzzle velocity?

[Mysterious Stranger]

4 hours ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

Your partners ears and faces will thank you for not running hard cast bullets at or near maximum velocities. Nobody cares that you’re insensitive to recoil. Nobody cares if your shots are half inch off center at Cowboy distances.

 

They do care about excessively loud rounds. They do care about splash back that draws blood and they do care about damaged targets.

 

Stating that ‘only accurate guns are interesting’ in this context is like stating you only like hammers that can also chop wood.

 

I don't think 925 fps is going to be anywhere near "maximum" velocities, nor is it going to be any splashback or sound level issue (IPSC shooters shoot much faster bullet velocities and no one is suffering hearing pain or loss because of it). Nor will a 130g bullet at 925 fps damage any targets.

 

As for "half inch" inaccuracy at CAS handgun distances, with one of the revolvers, I'd have to shoot at just over 2.5 yards to get that kind of grouping, and even in CAS we don't put the targets THAT close.

 

You might not used to 130g bullets at 925 fps, but objectively there is nothing wrong with it as a solution, provided it actually does improve accuracy. It won't necessarily, but I won't know if I don't even try.

[Mysterious Stranger]

3 hours ago, The Rainmaker, SASS #11631 said:

You have too much time on your hands and to ask for validation here is an exercise in futility.

But... it's your project, so have a good time experimenting and I will suggest making only one change at a time or you will never know what worked and what didn't.

Happy Trails...

 

The point in retirement IS to have more time to do things you like, and I like experimenting within safe boundaries to optimize whatever I am doing. It's the nature of retired engineers and project managers. Old habits are hard to break. I do recognize the wisdom of changing only one thing at a time. Usually I try to do just that, but when I have a particularly bad experiemtnal outcome (like with those soft Hornady 158g bullets), I do "clear the table" and start all over because it saves time, energy, and money. 

[Captain Bill Burt]

5 minutes ago, Mysterious Stranger said:

 

I don't think 925 fps is going to be anywhere near "maximum" velocities, nor is it going to be any splashback or sound level issue (IPSC shooters shoot much faster bullet velocities and no one is suffering hearing pain or loss because of it). Nor will a 130g bullet at 925 fps damage any targets.

 

As for "half inch" inaccuracy at CAS handgun distances, with one of the revolvers, I'd have to shoot at just over 2.5 yards to get that kind of grouping, and even in CAS we don't put the targets THAT close.

 

You might not used to 130g bullets at 925 fps, but objectively there is nothing wrong with it as a solution, provided it actually does improve accuracy. It won't necessarily, but I won't know if I don't even try.

To be clear, I'm not discouraging your questions on the forum, nor am I discouraging your quest for accuracy.  I'm simply answering the question you posed.  

[Griff]

What you NEED to do get your revolvers checked and fixed if out of spec.  Then, if you still have accuracy problems, is to test more powders.  Whatever it is you're using currently is not working to your satisfaction.  A general rule in accuracy testing is that you start somewhere below the maximum and work up until you see a degradation in the accuracy and back off.  If the powder you selected isn't giving you the accuracy you desire, change powders... if that doesn't work, change again... ad nauseum.  As to leading, leading is caused by one of three factors... 1st and most important, is bullet fit to groove diameter.  2ndly, speed.  pure lead begins to leave behind traces of itself around 1400 fps.  3rdly, insufficient lube or an incompatible lube with powder type.  Another factor can simply be inconsistent bullet structure at the interface between the hot ignition gases and the base of the bullet.  i.e. one with an irregular corner.  Improper bullet fit can be induced during the loading phase of cartridge assembly, or during the firing process.  As noted above, if your bbl diameter (groove) is .357 and either the chamber throats are .355 or even .356, or even inconsistent in size, it won't matter what powder you use, your accuracy will suck.   Until you get the revolvers checked and fixed if something is out of whack, fiddling with your ammo and asking questions here is a waste of your and our time.  

 

By the way, a simple check that can be done by anyone, anywhere is to 1 - make sure the gun is unloaded.  2 - Hammer down on an empty chamber, cylinder locked in firing position.  3 - Using a cleaning rod, brass jag and cotton patch, run the patch all the way thru the bbl into the cylinder.  You shouldn't feel any significantly additional binding as the patch passes from the bbl to the chamber.   If you do, your throats are probably to blame.  

[Mysterious Stranger]

46 minutes ago, Bison Bud said:

Sounds to me that your 4.4 grain load is about as good as it's going to get.  Accuracy may improve somewhat with higher velocity, but probably not enough to make it worthwhile.  If it were my choice, I'd make sure the round is sub-sonic in the rifle and just deal with that load in the revolvers (850 fps is not that bad) and that sounds pretty much like where you are with the 4.4 grain load.  You could try to adjust the windage errors, especially in the worst case revolver by slightly turning the barrels, but the groupings are probably a combination of factors ranging from the poor sight picture to, bullet size, hardness, and possible leading issues.  While the true beauty of reloading is being able to taylor the rounds to fit your needs and to what the guns prefer (and that can vary quite a bit sometimes) it's not real hard to over think things.  Good luck and good shooting to all.  

 

You could well be correct about 4.4g being as good as I can get with these two specific revolvers. I won't know though unless I try more powder. If more powder does not give better results, I will likely try the sample 158g hard cast bullets currently finally enroute to me. If i'm still unsatisfied at that point, I'll install the UniqueTek larger expander and retune the bullet seating and bullet crimping to work with that and see if it makes a difference.

 

I also suspect that the gunsmith's efforts on the revolver sights could have a big impact, because of the experiment I did for the last range session with the RIFLE. The OEM front sight bead on the (Uberti Competition) rifle was VERY small in diameter: .0978" (i.e. between 1/16" and 1/8"). As a temporary experiment, I bought a foot of metric brass tubing that has the same ID  as the bead's OD, and an OD of .177" (same as a small pistol primer). I cut an approximately 3/16" slice of that tubing (i.e. a 1/16" thick "doughnut" of tubing), cut a slot in it to clear the base that holds the OEM bead, and pushed it onto the front sight bead, where it stayed successfully without falling off during my range session, due to the slight interference fit.

 

 

That .177" "bead" surrounding the .0978" OEM bead enabled me to pick up the sight picture VERY quickly and very accurately, even with my 72 year old eyes! I was amazed at how much difference it made in my sight picture acquisition, accuracy, and speed.

 

As a result, I did some Googling and found a gunsmith located one province away here in Canada that makes custom front sights from available OEM components,  and he was able to assemble a front sight mount with the same dovetail dimensions as my OEM Uberti front sight, but with a larger .150" bead (53% larger), AND also .125" higher overall, which also solves a separate minor problem: the OEM rear sight even at its lowest setting on its elevator ramp still gave a POI that was 3" above POA. So, a nice and very cost effective change that solves two issues at once.

 

So, I suspect wider, and brass versus blued, front revolver sights could be a game changer for me. We'll see.

[Mysterious Stranger]

11 minutes ago, Griff said:

What you NEED to do get your revolvers checked and fixed if out of spec.  Then, if you still have accuracy problems, is to test more powders.  Whatever it is you're using currently is not working to your satisfaction.  A general rule in accuracy testing is that you start somewhere below the maximum and work up until you see a degradation in the accuracy and back off.  If the powder you selected isn't giving you the accuracy you desire, change powders... if that doesn't work, change again... ad nauseum.  As to leading, leading is caused by one of three factors... 1st and most important, is bullet fit to groove diameter.  2ndly, speed.  pure lead begins to leave behind traces of itself around 1400 fps.  3rdly, insufficient lube or an incompatible lube with powder type.  Another factor can simply be inconsistent bullet structure at the interface between the hot ignition gases and the base of the bullet.  i.e. one with an irregular corner.  Improper bullet fit can be induced during the loading phase of cartridge assembly, or during the firing process.  As noted above, if your bbl diameter (groove) is .357 and either the chamber throats are .355 or even .356, or even inconsistent in size, it won't matter what powder you use, your accuracy will suck.   Until you get the revolvers checked and fixed if something is out of whack, fiddling with your ammo and asking questions here is a waste of your and our time.  

 

By the way, a simple check that can be done by anyone, anywhere is to 1 - make sure the gun is unloaded.  2 - Hammer down on an empty chamber, cylinder locked in firing position.  3 - Using a cleaning rod, brass jag and cotton patch, run the patch all the way thru the bbl into the cylinder.  You shouldn't feel any significantly additional binding as the patch passes from the bbl to the chamber.   If you do, your throats are probably to blame.  

 

Thanks for your detailed analysis, Griff! Both revolvers are scheduled to go to the gunsmith on May 1st, where he will try to correct the sight positioning and visibility problems, AND examine and correct both revolvers for throat, barrel, forcing cone, etc issues.

 

On powder, I am stuck with TiteGroup, as that is the only powder that I was able to get here that has a reasonable probability of remaining available in the foreseeable future. No point in developing  a load with a powder I can buy 1 lb of today, but not likely to be able to buy more of next week. And why "give up" on a powder that IS available, that has a good track record with many CAS shooterts, and that I have only ladder tested to MIDpoint of the load table? I think it just makes sense to go higher than the midpoint of the load table and see what happens.

 

The only reason I stopped at 4.4g was because you guys on this forum promote low muzzle velocities, and by that standard, 850 fps is "high". But it's really NOT high at all for a 130g bullet. It's actually low in the overall universe of shooting. Heck, a 9mm 115g or 125g round that shoots at only 1100 fps is considered "slow" in the overall universe. It takes 1300+ fps to be called "fast". I shoot my SIG P210A with 115g bullets that are zipping along at about 1375 fps. And that 1375 fps load happened to be the most accurate load in ladder testing.

[Captain Bill Burt]

39 minutes ago, Mysterious Stranger said:

 

The only reason I stopped at 4.4g was because you guys on this forum promote low muzzle velocities, and by that standard, 850 fps is "high". But it's really NOT high at all for a 130g bullet. It's actually low in the overall universe of shooting. Heck, a 9mm 115g or 125g round that shoots at only 1100 fps is considered "slow" in the overall universe. It takes 1300+ fps to be called "fast". I shoot my SIG P210A with 115g bullets that are zipping along at about 1375 fps. And that 1375 fps load happened to be the most accurate load in ladder testing.

On mornings where I slept well and it's a really clear day I can see some of my pard's bullets in flight, so by that standard 850 fps is high, though I have no problem with that speed.

[ShadowCatcher]

On 4/20/2023 at 9:12 AM, Mysterious Stranger said:

I have been doing some extensive testing trying to find a .357 Magnum handload that will work in both my 1873 rifle and my 2 Cimarron Model P revolvers, and it has been challenging because both revolvers are replicas of the "original" Peacemaker, so have really small and hard to see crappy front and rear sights, and both have laser boresight proven serious sight windage errors (one having almost double the windage error of the other), AND one of the 2 revolvers is notably less accurate than the other (5.4" versus 2.9" 5-shot group size at 25 yards). Before anyone says I'm stupid for testing CAS revolvers at 25 yards, I am doing it to accentuate the differences on paper, so please, no advice to reduce the test distance.

 

<SNIP>

 

How high a muzzle velocity have any of you successfully used, i.e. good accuracy and no leading, with 130g BHN 12-14 bullets?

 

I've had a few revolvers like that in the past, and I've had it corrected by a gunsmith who would

move the barrel to the right, not by twisting it in the frame, but by bending it in the frame.

 

It typically only takes a few thousands of an inch to move POI in one direction . . . but from what you describe we're talking almost .2 inches

or required deflection.

You might want to put a bore laser into the back of the barrel and see if it is (the barrel) pointing to where the sights are or off into the weeds.

If the bore axis is not the same as the front sight/rear sight axis, you can get the sights to line up and still have the barrel off to the side.

If it's that far off you might need to send them off to the mother ship for repair, or find a good gun smith who can bend the barrels, the readjust

the forcing cone and barrel to be square to the cylinder.

 

SC

 

[Mysterious Stranger]

11 minutes ago, ShadowCatcher said:

I've had a few revolvers like that in the past, and I've had it corrected by a gunsmith who would

move the barrel to the right, not by twisting it in the frame, but by bending it in the frame.

 

It typically only takes a few thousands of an inch to move POI in one direction . . . but from what you describe we're talking almost .2 inches

or required deflection.

You might want to put a bore laser into the back of the barrel and see if it is (the barrel) pointing to where the sights are or off into the weeds.

If the bore axis is not the same as the front sight/rear sight axis, you can get the sights to line up and still have the barrel off to the side.

If it's that far off you might need to send them off to the mother ship for repair, or find a good gun smith who can bend the barrels, the readjust

the forcing cone and barrel to be square to the cylinder.

 

SC

 

 

Yeah, I did the laser boresighter test, and the laser showed that both revolvers' sights are off in windage, with one being twice as bas as the other. The gunsmith will determine why. I suspect it might be as simple as the front sights were soldered on a little carelessly at the factory. I have heard from multiple sources about the barrel bending technique. It is apparently legitimately a good solution as the "bend" required is apparently VERY small when done that way.

 

To explain why, consider even just the rather small conventional sight adjustment needed to correct even a 4" windage error at 25 yards:

With a 5.5" sight radius, you need to move the front sight or rear sight only 4 / 900 x 5.5 = .024".

 

But with the barrel bending with a 4.75" barrel, you have an even shorter "sight radius" of barrel length to work with, AND the bend does NOT need to be anywhere near as large as .024", because the barrel does not need to bend anywhere near .024" simply to get the bullet on a path that will take it 4" way from POA at 25 yards. You just need to alter its DIRECTION of exit by a tiny fraction of a degree, whose trigerimetric SIN is 4/900, which is about 1/4 of one degree! The "bent" barrel is not much different from an unbent barrel!

[ORNERY OAF]

It's your guns, I would say try the hotter loads as long as you are staying in safe ranges. You may find a slightly hotter load that you guns eat like candy...not all here preach the lightest load possible to knock down targets. Not all here like the poof-tinkers...some of us shoot Pale Rider and love the smoke,flame,recoil and the bang of steel.

[Mysterious Stranger]

5 minutes ago, ORNERY OAF said:

 . . . not all here preach the lightest load possible to knock down targets. Not all here like the poof-tinkers...some of us shoot Pale Rider and love the smoke,flame,recoil and the bang of steel.

 

YES!

[Jackalope]

Or, as an alternative idea....

 

It seems you've already made up your mind what you want to do.  Maybe give it a try, then report your results.

[Mysterious Stranger]

12 hours ago, Jackalope said:

Or, as an alternative idea....

 

It seems you've already made up your mind what you want to do.  Maybe give it a try, then report your results.

 

I think it makes sense to test a range of 4.4 to 5.0g, still of course staying below the 5.2g maximum in the load table. It's the easiest thing to try while waiting for the gunsmith appointment.

[Turkey Flats Jack]

Settle on the load you want with the recoil that you are confident won't hinder you getting back on target quickly. Have a competent gunsmith open the rear sight notch and a slightly over sized front sight. Adjust the windage error with a file on the front sight. 2 benefits of going this route. First you correct the windage error and have poa same as poi. Second larger sight radius makes it easier to aim with aging eyes. Just my $0.02 worth

[Texas Jack Black]

 I must be missing something here. What are you trying to accomplish with your 70 yr old eyes and a fixed sighted revolver  that you will be attempting to shoot as fast as you can at  targets set at spitting distance ?

[Mysterious Stranger]

4 hours ago, Turkey Flats Jack said:

Settle on the load you want with the recoil that you are confident won't hinder you getting back on target quickly. Have a competent gunsmith open the rear sight notch and a slightly over sized front sight. Adjust the windage error with a file on the front sight. 2 benefits of going this route. First you correct the windage error and have poa same as poi. Second larger sight radius makes it easier to aim with aging eyes. Just my $0.02 worth

 

I'll see what the gunsmith recommends once he has examined the revolvers.

[Mysterious Stranger]

1 hour ago, Texas Jack Black said:

 I must be missing something here. What are you trying to accomplish with your 70 yr old eyes and a fixed sighted revolver  that you will be attempting to shoot as fast as you can at  targets set at spitting distance ?

 

The same thing as the buyer of a sports car might want to do when he discovers that the car does not go where the steering wheel aims.

[Texas Jack Black]

   Have someone else the  culprit revolver  then tweak the barrel and go enjoy the game. Remember this is not bullseye shooting.

[ShadowCatcher]

On 4/21/2023 at 10:55 AM, Mysterious Stranger said:

 

Yeah, I did the laser boresighter test, and the laser showed that both revolvers' sights are off in windage, with one being twice as bas as the other. The gunsmith will determine why. I suspect it might be as simple as the front sights were soldered on a little carelessly at the factory. I have heard from multiple sources about the barrel bending technique. It is apparently legitimately a good solution as the "bend" required is apparently VERY small when done that way.

 

To explain why, consider even just the rather small conventional sight adjustment needed to correct even a 4" windage error at 25 yards:

With a 5.5" sight radius, you need to move the front sight or rear sight only 4 / 900 x 5.5 = .024".

 

But with the barrel bending with a 4.75" barrel, you have an even shorter "sight radius" of barrel length to work with, AND the bend does NOT need to be anywhere near as large as .024", because the barrel does not need to bend anywhere near .024" simply to get the bullet on a path that will take it 4" way from POA at 25 yards. You just need to alter its DIRECTION of exit by a tiny fraction of a degree, whose trigerimetric SIN is 4/900, which is about 1/4 of one degree! The "bent" barrel is not much different from an unbent barrel!

I think you’ve actually answered your own question with this. If the laser shows that the barrel itself is pointing in a different direction than what the sites are aligned to, there is no ammunition velocity, that’s going to make the bullet correct that misalignment of the sight axis versus the barrel axis. 
 

Calling it a bent barrel might be a misnomer, in that the barrel is still straight, but its bent at the frame threads to point to the right a bit more! As a result the rear of the barrel will need to be squared up to be flush with the cylinder.
 

If the frame was drilled and threaded at even a slight angle off of  perfectly perpendicular to the back of the firearm, then it’s going to be set off at an angle, and while the front and rear side can be aligned to each other, the centerline of the barrel will not be aligned to that, and therefore the barrel needs to be bent over until its centerline matches the line between the front and rear sight. 
 

I’ve had to do that with a colt detective special to correct 4 inches at 25 yards and I’ve had to do that to several Ruger vaquero pistols, new and old models to take two or 3 inches of error out of them. I learned that technique from a Smith and Wesson gunsmith who once showed me a set of different length pipes that they would use to bend the barrel over while clamping the frame and a padded vice.

 

The nice thing about correcting it this way, when done correctly, is that the front sight stays truly vertical, and the ejector shroud stays in the exact proper position to keep the injector and shroud from being twisted by rotating the barrel.  
 

Good luck getting the guns fixed- “Only accurate guns are interesting “!

 

SC

[Mysterious Stranger]

25 minutes ago, Texas Jack Black said:

   Have someone else the  culprit revolver  then tweak the barrel and go enjoy the game. Remember this is not bullseye shooting.

 

I'd love to have someone else who is a known good specifically Colt Peacemaker shooter shoot each of the two revolvers, but given Canadian winter weather and this Spring's very cold start, I have so far this season been the ONLY shooter at the range, other than 1 or 2 diehard 600 yard rifle shooters over on the 1000 yard rifle ranges! It'll likely be only after mid May that the CAS people will start showing up! Last year (before I moved here), I heard they normally shoot from "sometime in May to  whenever it gets too cold and too dark". They shoot one Wednesday evening per month, and it gets too dark for that by early October. Me, I'd have gone for Saturday shoots, but I guess that here in Alberta, the certifiably most redneck Province in Canada, that is "Gun Shows" day. 

 

I think this casual approach may be an integral part of the "It's not bullseye" mentality among CAS shooters, as the guys all seem very casual (Your SASS costuming sheriffs would be dismayed by the lack of proper attire). 

[Mysterious Stranger]

22 minutes ago, ShadowCatcher said:

I think you’ve actually answered your own question with this. If the laser shows that the barrel itself is pointing in a different direction than what the sites are aligned to, there is no ammunition velocity, that’s going to make the bullet correct that misalignment of the sight axis versus the barrel axis. 
 

Calling it a bent barrel might be a misnomer, in that the barrel is still straight, but its bent at the frame threads to point to the right a bit more! As a result the rear of the barrel will need to be squared up to be flush with the cylinder.
 

If the frame was drilled and threaded at even a slight angle off of  perfectly perpendicular to the back of the firearm, then it’s going to be set off at an angle, and while the front and rear side can be aligned to each other, the centerline of the barrel will not be aligned to that, and therefore the barrel needs to be bent over until its centerline matches the line between the front and rear sight. 
 

I’ve had to do that with a colt detective special to correct 4 inches at 25 yards and I’ve had to do that to several Ruger vaquero pistols, new and old models to take two or 3 inches of error out of them. I learned that technique from a Smith and Wesson gunsmith who once showed me a set of different length pipes that they would use to bend the barrel over while clamping the frame and a padded vice.

 

The nice thing about correcting it this way, when done correctly, is that the front sight stays truly vertical, and the ejector shroud stays in the exact proper position to keep the injector and shroud from being twisted by rotating the barrel.  
 

Good luck getting the guns fixed- “Only accurate guns are interesting “!

 

SC

 

Like I said, I'll see what the gunsmith says. I do'nt think I should disregard the possibility that the front sights were merely mounted a little carelessly. Also, it is conceivable that they front sights got bent by either physical mishandling of the firearms in the manufacturing or supply line processes, OR by being heated too much when they were soldered to the barrels. The front sights are under .05" in thickness (width) on these 2 revolvers! And, as a newbie TIG aluminum welder in training, I have been told, and have myself confirmed, that it is VERY easy to overheat thin metal, and when you do, it warps.

 

Remember, a 4 inch windage error can be created by just a .024" positioning error in the top of the front sight after it has been soldered or otherwise heated into position. That's just 1/42 of an inch.

[Marshal TKD, Sass # 36984L]

Sights? We don’t need no stinking sights. 
Small groups? We don’t need those either.

Shoot Outlaw and don’t worry about it.

[Colorado Coffinmaker]

 

HEY PETTIFOGGER!!  You wanna share that Popcorn??

 

Barrel Bending??  Is that supposed to be a JOKE??

 

Peanuts Here!!  Get yer Fresh Hot Peanuts Here.

[Mysterious Stranger]

2 minutes ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

 

HEY PETTIFOGGER!!  You wanna share that Popcorn??

 

Barrel Bending??  Is that supposed to be a JOKE??

 

Peanuts Here!!  Get yer Fresh Hot Peanuts Here.

 

No joke. Serious. Google "barrel bending jig". Remember, we are not talking about bends of a magnitude that you could see. We are talking about 1/4 of a degree or less to correct even a BIG windage error. That's pretty tiny.

[Colorado Coffinmaker]

 

I'm not even going to address the differences in "bending" a two foot+ shotgun barrel as opposed to trying to "bend" a 4.75 inch pistol barrel.

 

I give up.

[Mysterious Stranger]

Just now, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

 

I'm not even going to address the differences in "bending" a two foot+ shotgun barrel as opposed to trying to "bend" a 4.75 inch pistol barrel.

 

I give up.

 

I never said I would have the gunsmith try to bend my handgun barrel! I was merely pointing out that barrel bending is NOT a joke. It is a ral solution in some situations, and apparently fairly common on shotguns, maybe because their barrels use thinner metal than rifles?

[Texas Jack Black]

 Is this thread  an  April Fools joke gone crazy?

[Mysterious Stranger]

1 hour ago, Texas Jack Black said:

 Is this thread  an  April Fools joke gone crazy?

 

Afraid not. Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction. No way I am going to accept and tolerate a 4" or worse windage error at just 25 yards on any firearm I own., just as I would not tolerate a car that pulls to one side, a radial arm saw that cuts non-square corners, or a TIG electrode that deflects its arc to one side.

[The Surgeon]

Your expecting a pistol with a 4.75" barrel with a design from the 1870's to shoot as accurate as a modern semi auto I think that's why people are giving you a hard time. Even a modern day stock revolver is lucky to shoot sub 3" groups at 25yds as for th4 windage error sometimes it happens on a fixed sight gun. Nothing wrong with trying to correct it but I think your off base on the accuracy. 

[Too Tall Bob]

Here’s your bent barrel results 

[Mysterious Stranger]

2 hours ago, The Surgeon said:

Your expecting a pistol with a 4.75" barrel with a design from the 1870's to shoot as accurate as a modern semi auto I think that's why people are giving you a hard time. Even a modern day stock revolver is lucky to shoot sub 3" groups at 25yds as for th4 windage error sometimes it happens on a fixed sight gun. Nothing wrong with trying to correct it but I think your off base on the accuracy. 

 

The design may be from the 1800s, but the materials, machinery, and processes used to make these revolvers in NOT from the 1800s. Using modern methods, makes this simple design EASIER to build well than in the 1800s. Colt Peacemaker replicas routinely deliver 3" groups in magazine and online tests. Some need handloaded ammo to do, but, hey, that is being provided here. I am not giving up hope on getting both of these revolvers to shoot decent groups and to at least close to the POA! 

[Mysterious Stranger]

31 minutes ago, Too Tall Bob said:

Here’s your bent barrel results 

 

Apparently, during World War 2, the Germans equipped some tank crews with a bent barrel weapon, to enable them to shoot enemies who had climbed onto their tank and were trying to either open a hatch or place an external explosive. The weapon enabled the crew to fire at the enemy without exposing themselves. I found references to it online.

[Too Tall Bob]

That’s what you are looking at. 

[Cholla]

11 hours ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

 

HEY PETTIFOGGER!!  You wanna share that Popcorn??

 

Barrel Bending??  Is that supposed to be a JOKE??

 

Peanuts Here!!  Get yer Fresh Hot Peanuts Here.

https://www.coltforum.com/threads/method-of-sighting-in-colt-saa-that-will-make-you-cringe.400656/

[Abilene Slim SASS 81783]

Dontcha love it when someone asks a question and argues with most everyone who replies, because he didn’t get the reply he wanted?

 

I need more popcorn.