Design A .36 Cal Bullet

[rodwhaincamo]

I am wanting an Uberti '62 Police. I understand it to have a max load of about 25 grns of 3F. Were you to design a FN bullet for it would you make the OAL the same as a RB (.380") that might weigh ~125 grns or would you make it shorter (~.350") so as to have a slightly higher max load and a bullet that weighs ~100 grns?

With sporting grade powder this ought to perform similarly to a 38 S&W/380 ACP/38 Spl.

 

[Bezoar]

your reference is off. the load in question would simply be a 32 smith and wesson without a case.

30 grains of pyrodex p or black powder and a .454 diameter roundball in an 1860 will give you 38 special.

 

[rodwhaincamo]

I use sporting grade powders. My .44/.45 cal surpass most typical standard pressure .45 Colt loadings.

So I base this on chrono results using 3F Goex in a .36 cal Remington:

http://poconoshooting.com/blackpowderballistics.html

It should at the least give 150 ft/lbs with a ball, but using a sporting grade powder it'll give a higher figure, which should put it up around what a .380 ACP/.38 Spl would produce.

I use 3F Olde Eynsford and Triple 7 powders. If Swiss weren't so expensive I'd try it too, but I've seen side by side comparisons and all 3 powders give siliar results, which are much higher than standard Goex, Pyrodex, or any of the other typical powders.

 

[rodwhaincamo]

Here's some testing done by Mike Beliveau using a Ruger Old Army (what I use) and 3F Triple 7 (also what I use) and various projectiles. I have the Kaido bullet, but I'm buying an Accurate Mold with different bullets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LP_dwo2nThA

You'll note that he reduces his load by ~16%, which isn't necessary in a Ruger, and I don't. His results are nearly 500 ft/lbs with a 255 grn bullet. Mine must be closer to 550-600 ft/lbs.

Even a RB is well into the 45 ACP territory at something like 371 ft/lbs IIRC. Not anywhere near a 38 Spl standard load…

As you can see 28 grns of Pyro P gave 183 ft/lbs with a ball. Well over a .32 S&W. And that's with a weaker powder. Although I've been told that I'd be hard pressed to get 20 grns and a ball in a Colt Pocket cylinder. I'd still bet, especially with a sporting grade powder, that's it's over the 85 grn RN 680 fps and 90 ft/lbs figures. Maybe more like a .32 ACP at the least, still possibly as much as a .380 ACP as it won't give up any powder capacity, and with more bearing surface will bring up the pressures a bit more than what a RB would.

 

[enyaw]

What's the sense of trying to magnumize a Colt pocket pistol. No smart butt to the guestion. Just curiousity.
One thing to figure is the strength of the gun and the longevity of it using Sporting Powders,which I assume means hot loads, that increase the pressures.
The recoil shield has a ring on it that keeps the caps from chainfiring against the frame and that ring is the achilies heel of the gun. Dent that in from higher pressure loads and you end up with a wide cylinder gap when the gun is at full cock locked into battery.
I've seen where 777 powder damaged cap&baller revolvers in the ring of the recoil shield area with six dents made by the parts of the cylinder that hit it.
One thing to consider when working a load fer a cap&baller shooting balls or conicals is the "other variable" besides ft/lbs,velosity ect.ect.
That variable is the important factor of "what the ball/bullet hits" and how that affect equates to the whole picture.
Take a round ball load and shoot it into a road killed deer or whatever is made up of something close to the human target and study the results. Might be surprising.
Elmer Kieth,in his book "Sixguns", tells of stories actuall Civil War veterans told of the balls and a chamber of powder took the fight out of the enemy Cavalry better than the conical bullet. Actual combat test results.
The lead ball makes a unique wound channel that is wicked.
The lead ball may not kill with a one shot stop but it can stop. The famous Wild Bill Hickock was said to like the higher velocity of the "51 Navy" and he uwsed the balls to stop a few antaganists. He accidently shot his own deputy with two balls and it stopped him cold even though he took two days to die.
If you compress the powder and get 20-22gr. in the "62 Pocket Police" or the "62 Pocket Navy" Colt chambers with a ball the velosity is higher than without the compression. Compression ups the pressures/velosity.
If you compress the 777 powder(whichs is actually a smokeless made to smoke,I've read) then there will be a velosity rise. Same thing with black powder FFFg or even FFFFg powder. It isn't recommended to cpmpress the 777 powder. Pyrodex compresses easily and the vel. are higher than with black powder.
Anyway, with a conical there's less room for powder so the vel. is lower because of the added weight. Round nose bullets slip thru game(or people) with a different wound channel than the balls with a worse wound channel. Flat nose bullets pach a better punch.
Loading conicals that need be heel based can be a chore. Balls the right side always load well.
One has to consider that the chambers of the Italian cap&ballers are under sized for the groove diameter of the barrels rifling. That looses pressure and slows the velocity. The chambers sized at the groove diameter or ,001-.003 over the barrel grooves raises pressures/velosity. I can tell that with the guns I ream chambers to make them the right size for the barrel grooves. The report of the guns is different(sharper) and they seem to hit harder and faster. Reaming is a decision one has to make fer themselves.
An example....wifes "Pocket Police Colt 1862" loaded with 20gr. FFFg Goex and balls ......an eighty paces shot to a foot by 8 inch aprrox. hunk of tractor tire rubber left out there in the dirt farm field......the lead ball didn't penetrate the rubber but....stuck in it. That was a good shot indeed.
I'd thunk that if someone wanted a harder hitting pocket gun the 1860 Colt Army 44-45 with a shortened barrel of,say, 4 3/4" to 5 1/2" and the grip birds headed would be better than the Pocket Police 1862 as a hide-out.
Anywhoooo....some ideas about upping the pressure/vel. and ft/lbs of cap&ballers may be a help.....or deterrent. Depending.......
When you compare balls from a cap&baller to round nose bullets,like 38 special loads, one has to consider what effect happens when the projectile hits the type of mass it hits. If a person didn't want to shoot into a road kill then wet papers could be used to judge penetration but...not judge wound channel in soft tissue much.
Well,that's my personel opinions and nothing more and....who the heck am I anywhooooo.....

 

[rodwhaincamo]

I don't want to magnumize a '62 Police. I want to achieve 38 Spl power levels if possible.

Sporting grade powders are actually what was more commonly used in pistols back during the Civil War. I've read the documentation from another who researched paper cartridges. The powders were very similar to 4F Swiss.

If the old pistols held up to 3F or 4F Swiss then these reproductions ought to do so as well. I do have to admit I've only been using 3F Triple 7 and Olde Eynsford in my Ruger Old Army, as I've only recently acquired a Pietta '58 and have yet to get to the range.

The ball vs conical effectiveness mentioned by Mr Keith's CW friends is one thing that has brought me to wanting to create the perfect bullet for these guns.
If a ball was known to take the fight out of a man and a conical seemed to zip right through without enough effect I'm thinking that A) the velocity being much higher allows the RB to expand much more and quickly creating a horrific wound, and B) the typical heavy round nosed conicals were likely traveling so slow that expansion wasn't present, and that the RN design allows the flesh to expand leaving a small wound channel.

So, with these things I mind I figure that a wide FN that isn't nearly as heavy as a typical conical, but is just a little heavier than a ball ought to cut a nice hole to begin with, and with velocity still fairly high, ought to begin expanding from that point instead of the tip of a ball. I believe it should increase expansion. And with a little extra weight it ought to penetrate a little further, or at least a similar depth since it may have opened up larger slowing it down.

Then there is the very small driving band of a ball upon seating it in the chamber. With these bullets there is a greater bearing surface which ought to create more pressure and then a higher velocity. So I'm thinking that a FN bullet of say 95 grns might very well travel as fast as that 80 grn ball, but have more energy and a greater penetrating ability.

My idea of creating this bullet and using a WFN is so that I don't take up any of my powder capacity. Here's a link to a .36 cal bullet he has designed previously:

http://accuratemolds.com/bullet_detail.php?bullet=38-095B-D.png

It weighs 95 grns using WW. Using pure lead I'll guess it might weigh 100 grns. It has an OAL of a RB. But if I increase the base diameter to .369", reduce the lube groove a little, increase the driving band lengths, start the nose off of that top driving band, and increase the meplat to .300-.325" I think I could easily get it to 115-125 grns. So that would be the bullet that uses no more capacity. I could also reduce the OAL to say .350" increasing the capacity a little and dropping the weight to just a bit over a ball, maybe up to 100 grns.

This isn't the final product, but this is what I've had him create for me for my .45 cal C&B pistols. I want to change the base diameter to .445", increase the length of the driving bands to .1", keep the OAL at .40", and increase the meplat to .350 or even .375". I'd, in essence, modify this to .380":

http://accuratemolds.com/bullet_detail.php?bullet=45-160B-D.png

On a side note I've also talked to a fellow about having hollow point pins installed that are reversible so that they can be converted back to a FN design.

Many seem to think that T7 shouldn't be compressed much. But if you read through the whole thing it specifically states that a very mild compression is necessary when loading cartridges. What it states for percussion/flintlock weapons is to compress it "firmly." I've emailed them asking what exactly "firmly" is without a response.

I've compressed my T7 loads in my ROA with gorilla force and I get similar results as I do when using Olde E powder. I don't have a chronograph so I can't say that my velocities aren't all over the place, but then i ought to see much larger groups, which I don't.

I've read of a few others who have used a chrono and compressed T7 quite hard without seeing large variations. But I cannot comment on their results, and don't know if they would have had even better results if they hadn't compressed it quite as hard.

I think I've had someone respond long ago about the chamber diameters, as well as the bore diameters, but I'll have to go back through old threads to see.

I'm planning on having my Pietta '58 chambers reamed to .450-.453" so that it not only increased the accuracy, but so that it can easily share bullets with my ROA. If/when I purchase a Colt '62 I'll ream those chambers too if they are small, but I likely wouldn't go beyond maybe .376" or so as I'd like to still be able to use .380" RB's.

My Pietta '58 Remington is a 5.5" version. After I've shot it a bit and see what I think I may send it out and have it shortened to 4-4.5" if I can get the cylinder pin hinged, as well as dovetail the sight and lever lock, and maybe even give it a semi birds head grip. But I'm not sure shortening it is necessary. I like the way it feels now.

 

[enyaw]

Thos bullet designs look like good pones to me. Whatever you feel comfortable with and have confidence in.
I'd make it simple if it were me. Sometimes simple is better.
I'd have a bullet mould made for a bullet without lube grooves since the lube grooves with lube in them don't really do much for keeping the guns barrel clean unless using "Big Lube Bullets". The best way to do that is the thin lube pill/grease cookie.
So I'd be thunkin bout a bullet no longer than the diameter of a ball with one flat side and......load the ball end in the chamber first.....like a round nose bullet loaded backwards ........and have a thin lube pill inserted right on top the powder under the bullet. Regular type recipie for using black powder and a smokeless type lube fer 777 or maybe Alliant Black MZ powder. I've tried that powder and like it. It's my choice fer a repo black powder.
The backwards round nose makes loadin the bullet easy especially when the loading port of a gun is not big enough for a regular bullet. Makes no sense to me to design bullets fer cap&ballers that are better suited for cartridge. Cap&ballers shoot balls so a ballish bullet makes more sense to me in many aspects.
That type bullet has a little more weight without diminishing powder capacity very much at all even with a lube pill/grease cookie about an eighth inch thick.
The "62" Pocket Police or Navy are cool lil guns fer hide-outs but.......I thunk you'd get 38 special whomp easier using the 1860 Army for the foundation of the gun. Make the grips birds head and shorten the barrel to bout five inches. (shortening the barrel too much lessens the vel.) Use the flat ball bullet design and a thin lube pill so the bullet has a flat face and a round end fer loading easy and a little more weight without lessening the powder capacity much at all.

When 777 powder first came out they recommended not compressing. I thunk that's changed maybe because they don't want any space between ball/bullet and the powder because of the faster pressure curve of that powder. They most likely just want to inform people to keep the bullets/balls on the powder.
You know.....balls of pure lead do obsturate when they hit stuff but no where as much as some may think.
I've shot balls of lead into stoney dirt banks and dead solid trees and the like and dig them out and find they aren't mushroomed much at all. When they hit a solid stone they get flat but if they break the stones or go into sub soil on a bank or into a solid dead tree(or live tree) they usually don't mushroom a lot at all. Balls can crack into old hard locust tree fence posts and still not deform a lot. In game I've shot when the ball is recovered from under the hide of the off side the balls aren't mushroomed much. The deer shot may have the heart lung area turned into mush like a littlebomb exploded there and stillnot mushroom the ball much.
I have several 36 cal revolver cap&ballers reamed in the chambers so the balls used are the .390 inch size. Like when the barrel groove diameter is at .382 or so. I recommend using balls at least .007-.010 inch above the chamber size. They still go in easily.
Pietta 36's have smaller groove diameters usually compared to Uberti...unless things have changed.Why not get one of those pocket type 36's they have. I fergit what it's called but it's smaller some compared to a regular Pietta 1851Navy. "The Sheriff" maybe???? It can take a Kirst Konverter too I thunk.
I like my chambers at least right on the groove diameter but like it better when the chambers are .003 in. bigger than the barrel grooves diameter. Just me and what I like.
I thunk it would be difficult to get 38 special vel. or ft/lbs from a 36 cal cap&baller. The 38 specials shoot heavier bullets with faster vel. since they use smokeless powder. There are 38 special loads with light bullets but they'd have lesser ft.lbs without a faster powder.
The onlyway to get close to what a 38 special is in ft/lbs would be to use the fastest powders there are fer cap&ballers.
Pyrodex compresses quite a bit and has higher vel. than black powder.
Triple 7 has a quick pressure curve. FFFFg has some zip to it. A converted 1851 Navy from Uberti is chambered for "38 Special" specifically. Why not go to a conversion model of the cap&ballers that actually shoots 38 specials?.
Try a nice Open Top 1871-72 in 38 Special or a nice converted "51" Navy in 38cal. or a ****converted to 45 Scholfield 1860 Army*******??????
An 1860 Army converted to 45 Scholfield would do 38 Special ft/lbs and more right? Chop one down some with some birds head grips and a 4 inch barrel and shoot it with 230gr. bullets at 700-850FPS with smokeless powder and that would have some whomp to it. Good whomp.

 

[rodwhaincamo]

The .36 cal Colt '62 Police I have in mind is a 4.5" Cimarron model. Granted the barrel is a little shorter than the .36 cal Remington '58's (6.5") so there ought to be some velocity lost with the shorter barrel. But the powders he used (Pyrodex P and 3F standard Goex) are much weaker in comparison to Triple 7 or 3F Olde Eynsford.

If you look at his chronograph results of 28 grns of P and a ball he gets 1015 fps and 183 ft/lbs which is about comparative to a 380 ACP or a weaker 38 Spl loading. His results with 25 grns of 3F and a 130 grn conical were 811 fps and 190 ft/lbs.

http://poconoshooting.com/blackpowderballistics.html

So a 38 S&W with a 145 grn LRN gives 685 fps and 150 ft/lbs, a typical 380 ACP with a 90 grn HP gives about 1000 fps and 200 ft/lbs, and a common 110 grn HP in a 38 Spl is about 1010 fps and 249 ft/lbs.

If we look at test results with his .44 cal "Navy" we see that 35 grns of P and a 140 grn ball produced 930 fps and 269 ft/lbs. That same ball and load using 3F Goex gave only 860 fps and 229 ft/lbs. But with a reduced load of 30 grns of 3F Triple 7 and that same ball 1020 fps and 324 ft/lbs were produced. Quite a bit more with less powder.

So, knowing a Police won't quite hold as much powder as the lighter loads I listed for the .36 cal NMN, and a shorter barrel, I think that those numbers can be replicated in a Police using Triple 7 or Olde Eynsford. Now use a bullet that's shorter than a RB, but weighs as much or slightly more and I think it might get into 38 Spl territory. At the least it's comparable to a 380 ACP with a slightly larger projectile.

My theory isn't perfect, and it's hard to prove without doing such, but I don't think I'm too far off of the mark. Especially when adding more bearing surface adds more pressure, which adds more velocity.

Concerning your experiences of lead balls not expanding much. I've read both accounts, that a ball at close range makes a nasty wound and expands as much, if not more, than a typical HP bullet would. But then I've also read of several accounts, much like yours, where little deformation has been noted. This is what prompted me to contact Hollow Point Molds. They have reversible hollow point pins so that it can be converted back to a FN design.

I'd certainly agree with you on a .44 cal being the better platform as I believe bigger is usually better, especially where projectiles are concerned, and even more so when they are traveling it typical handgun velocities. However, I'm a rather little guy and would have problems dropping my .44 cal '58, even with a shortened barrel, into my pocket. And if I could get it in there I'd walk in circles!!! Ha ha ha!

I've just really fancied pocket type pistols, including the ole vest pocket derringers and such. But I don't really want a pistol that's not much good beyond putting holes in paper. I treat them all as weapons, although antiquated. This is one reason why I've been reluctant about the .31 cal Remington pocket model. At best it may perform as well as a 32 S&W or 32 ACP. Maybe that's somewhat doable, but sure is on the weak side.

After contemplating this further it seems that a wide FN bullet with a weight of 85-100 grns and being slightly shorter than a RB makes more sense to me seeing that the capacity of a .36 pocket is rather shallow. This ought to outdo a .380" 80 grn RB by quite a bit as it'l have more powder and more bearing surface to generate higher pressures.

Since powder capacity is at a premium here I wouldn't want any sort of lube cookie taking up any of my space. Shallow lube grooves make more sense to me.

My sense of logic has failed me though...

 

[rodwhaincamo]

Looking at it a little further, and knowing it's not exact, but seeing that, based on the .44 cal 1858 using Pyrodex with a 45 grn charge and .457" RB, and a 30 grn charge of T7 pushing a .454" RB to a similar velocity shows me that I can 70% of the charge to achieve a similar velocity. Running those numbers a 20 grn charge of T7 ought to push an 80 grn RB to what the 28 grn Pyrodex charge did (1015 fps and 183 ft/lbs). With a slight increase in powder capacity I'm not sure that 200 ft/lbs could be surpassed. So it looks more reasonable to me to figure it could be about equivalent to a 380 ACP. That, assuming the pressure difference makes up what's lost from a 2" shorter barrel.

 

[enyaw]

Those Uberti Pocket Police and Navy come with longer barrels like 6" maybe 6.5".
I saw an 1871-2 Uberti Open Top Navy model in 38 Special with birds head grip and about a four inch barrel once. Tell the truth it seemed small like I could put that in my pocket and have room fer two. I wear Carharts and Dickies work pants with the tool pockets and all. The 38 special Navy Open Tops and converted to cartridge 1851's have smaller cylinders than the 44/45's.

I don't know if you have to go with a percussion and have an aversion to cartridge that shoots smokeless and all or lot but......you'd get what you want exactly with a 38 special model.

You've got the figures and all down to understand what you want and how to do it but.....The heavier loads fer those percussions shorten the longevity of them. I know that as a fact. I damaged a couple of Navy Colts with 28gr. 777.
They shot real well and seemed to me to have plenty of velosity. I remember shooting across my pond at a mud bank and shot one hole then put the other five of a cylinder in the same hole like a 2 inch group or less. It's at least 40 yards across the pond. The balls seemed to get there before the hammer fell they were that fast. Anyway my test was foolish and Ilearned that the 777 powder is too hot fer cap&ballers but.......
I tested Alliant Black MZ some and it was fast and wasn't hurting my gun with normal 22gr. loads in a 36cal.
Anywhoooo....what's on paper doesn't always equate to real world results. Just gives an idea of what one might expect.
I saw a huge man shot with a .380 and he was walking and talking and had a hole in his upper chest near the shoulder. The bullet went straight to being under his hide on his scapula. The bullet was there like a sorta big bump inder the hide there. He wasn't up fer fightin much at that point. Kept saying,"man that hurts", over and over.
Normal load fer a Navy 36cal is 22gr. powder FFFg. That is most likely what Wild Bill Hickock used to kill more than one antaganist. These are my "numbers".ha ha ha May not be one shot kills but I imagine they were one shot stops or maybe two or three shot stops.
Like the Civil War vets that actually shot people with the Navy Colt seem to relate to Elmer Kieth when he was a youngin. The Navy took the fight outta those soldiers in the heat of battle when adrenilin was high and all.
Those kinda nnumbers,so to speak,tell a story. People used the Navy Colts to good avail back in the day.
That tells me the 36 cal. 1862 Pocket Police could be loaded up and still be in the "standard load" area and sting someone pretty good up close. The fire and smoke would put the scare into someone even if you missed.
You like the Pocket 1862 Police then get it...shoot it at stuff...and you'll see it'll be just about as good as a Navy since it can take a load equal to the Navy load with what powder squeezes in. If you want to push the envelope just stay in the safe realm.
Here's a number for ya....I shot a squirrel in the head with my wifes 1862 Uberti. Probably with 18gr.FFFg and the ball.
I didn't keep the shot closer to the front of the head to stay away from the shrapnel of bone messin up the edibles. I aimed fer the eye.
There wasn't much head left at all and some of the front legs/shoulders parts were torn to hell.
Ifin a man was shot with a Pocket Police at close range in the head,or chest near the heart with a normal load of black and the ball(even with a thin lube pill in the chamber under the ball) he would be hurtin. Might still shoot back some but....maybe not ifin he was hit a coupla times in the head and the chest.
I say...get yer Pocket Police and shoot the danged thing at stuff . Try some smallish sand stone rocks and see how they would bust up into pieces. Shoot a big rock from 30 paces and see the ball hits and makes like a grey paint splotch where to mushroomed into oblivion. (Always wear eye protection of course)
Those kinda things give some "numbers" that tell a true story.
The trick would turn into makin the Cap&baller reliable using "cap guards" and all so it fired every time you dropped the hammer. Makin sure the caps fire went to the powder every time. Makin sure the thing would keep workin when the powder fouling built.
Whether or not you want the reliability and fouling control the lube pill provides or you want to practice shootin and use a ram rod after every five shots to keep accurate or not is a thing to thunk on. The ineffective lube groove in a short bullet would be about as useful as no groove at all. Ifin you just want the five shot gun to shoot five times when needed skip the lube groove in the bullet and shoot with a lil smear over the front of the chambers to avoid chain fire.
Take a cheapy ,but good, Lee ball mould and make the bullet I described that is no longer than a ball with one side a flat and the other a round nose and load the round nose first in the chambers. All you do is center up on the center of the top of the moulds hole and use a drill the right size and enlarge the top of the hole to create the flat end of the newly created bullet. "The backwards flat ended round nose". ha ha ha ha It'll work. Best way to start shootin conicals from the cap&baller that shoot well with the type rifling twist the gun has and all that. Just load the round end in the chamber first.
You'll get a bullet that doesn't weigh too much fer the gun. Just don't enlarge the one end past the center of the "ball hole" in the mould. Wtch hpw long the tapered end of the drill is. May need to start with the drill as is and then grind the end off some to finish.
Use the Lube pill so the gun keeps functioning and shooting accurate. Lube pills are "good"fer cap&ballers.
You might want to have the chambers reamed so the chambers size then balls/bullets the right diameter fer the barrels grooves but.....the 1862 Pocket should have chambers the right size already. Ask why they don't do that with all the cap&ballers and I'll tell ya I don't know but....the Pocket Police probably has the chambers the right size right outta the box.
Just don't try loading too hot fer the gun or it won't last real long. Practice with normal loads and keep the "hot loads" to a minimum.
My wife loves her 1862 Pocket Police and.....it's a really accurate gun. She likes 18gr.FFFg Goex or Swiss and the ball. Pretty lil wife with a pretty lil gun.

 

[rodwhaincamo]

Cimarron offers a 4.5" barreled version with the loading lever. Taylor's offers a 3.5" barrel w/o the loading lever assembly, which I had initially considered. As easily as the barrels can be swapped the idea of a 6.5" barrel for woods walking (and if I find myself good enough, small game shootin'), then a swap to the 3.5" for pocket carry. But the expense of it, and the fact that I really enjoy shooting for hours at the range tells me I'd be better off with the 4.5" barreled version.

I've also seen a modification to these '62 Pocket models where a pin is installed in the hammer window that sits within the safety pin notch of the hammer. It still allows use of the safety pin, but is a backstop to the caps keeping them from coming off, as well as opening up the recoil shield a bit on the side to allow spent cap fragments to more easily slide off when the cylinder is rotated. This gave 100% reliability in the testing. I'd goes it's still only 99% as nothing is truly 100%.

 

[enyaw]

Howdy Bud!
Hey have you checked out the Pietta 36cal. short barrel Sheriff Model yet?
You may like to get one someday. They can be converted to 38 Colt cartridge as can any Pietta Navy. They are good guns and cheaper than the Uberti 1862 Models. So after you get the 1862 you could bet a Pietta Sheriff to play with. Ut can be converted to 38 Colt with the conversion kits sold. The 38 Colt conversion takes smokeless powder and can be loaded up some.
Just get the Kirst Konverter or preferably the Howell conversion someday if you wanted. Depends on the size throat to the chambers you want. Kirst sells one with wide throats to accomodate the barrels percussion bore oversize compared to 38 special size barrels at .357inch.
The longer the barrel the better the velosity. Don't get the barrel too short when you get the 1862 Model.
If you can't do a job on a Lee ball mould to make the conical with a round end and a flat end then gunsmith types here or at CASS can do it fer ya(economically I'd thunk because the job wouldn't be too difficult). Just let them know you want the round nose bullet with a flat end and a round end and no longer than a round ball.
By the way.....that round end/flat end bullet can be made from a 44-45 size mould fer the bigger guns too. I've never heard of anyone doing that with a ball mould to make a conical bullet that's loaded round end first in the chambers. Wonder why? Makes sense to me. A lube groove isn't needed in a cap&baller ifin a person uses a thin lube pill on the powder under the balls. Woolwads soaked in a wax/lube work too. The lil extra weight to a ball turned into a flat ended conical would pack a lil more punch especially with that wide flat end hittin first. I guess the subject of this thread about designing a bullet for a 36 cap&baller is covered from my end. Round about way of gettin there but......that's how I thunks bout things.
Good shootin Hombre!

 

[Jim Watson]

It all makes my head spin but if you are pushing the loads, the hundred bucks for a chronograph would be well spent. What Joe Blow did with something kinda sorta like you are interested in may not signify.

 

[rodwhaincamo]

I think I'll eventually have to get a Colt '51 since they've got the grip everyone raves about, and for that I suppose I'd just get the standard model.

A chronograph is needed, but a bit lower on my list. The ole lady keeps telling me that I can't get a gun every Christmas… So a chronograph!!!

 

[DD4lifeusmc]

.36 cal bullet

try accurate moulds he has some.
http://www.accuratemolds.com/catalog.php?page=3

 

[rodwhaincamo]

I did. I don't care much for his 95 grn bullet, but his new 1-- grn bullet is close to what I have in mind.