I thought the same thing about how the accuracy may be affected by a factory undersize chambers and possibly an alignment problem not noticed. Maybe just a guy that's doin his best with bad eyes or sumpthin. (I was told by Val Forgett once a long time ago the Italians made the chambers a little under size to "accomodate subsequent shots fired with the black powder.) I see it as........ the under sized chambers thus balls would shoot better longer thru a loose bore when the loose bore got smaller from fouling.
Funny the conicals were more accurate outta the Army compared to the ball. Anyway the author of the article didn't say anything about the chamber size compared to the groove size of the rifling.
The test I was lookin at was in a magazine. Guns of the Old West.
Anywhooooo....I put this thread up to show the little differences in bullet weight and small difference in powder charge can have an affect almost out of proportion with the differences. Barrell length was one of the differences. Just to show it in case someone is interested in what can be gleaned from it ( the test I read about). One example is the 225gr. bullet compared to the 240gr. bullet in the Army Colt test.
The Ruger with the 255gr. bullet and the long barrel and 35gr. powder had a good bit more whomp toit then the Army with the ball.
That shows me that even if there are those that treasure their Army revolvers and trust them enough with good accuracy to kill game there is something better fer huntin the bigger game. Miore powder,more lead and more barrel.
Therefore if someone was not knowing what was best to use and they were not adhered to a certain gun they could pick a bigger gun from the get-go. The test could show that even a Remington that can carry a lil more powder would be better then the Army Colt. Not slightin the Army Colt since it's my favorite(I have more of them that I can keep track of the number of them)....just sayin.....
You Hombre here know it all already but there are "Newbies" out there that may read this stuff here and start off on the right foot huntin with a bigger gun........or start off with a smaller gun and not the finese of accuracy with it you Hombre have and shoot game just to watch it run away. A person without the neurosurgery precision some of you have with yer cap&ballers may do better with a bigger gun that may widden the bread basket so to speak.
Of course I'd be tellin a newbie wanting to hunt with a revolver of any kind that they should not do it till they can aim small and hit small in the center of the bread basket with 100% accuracy..........learn what 15,25,30 (or whatever)yards look like out in the field.
Anywhooooo.....I'd be thunkin hard about whether or not I'd be takin a shot at a BIG BUCK ,even if real close, with an Army revolver or as a matter of fact any cap&baller revolver. I'd be wishin I had my rifle.
A MIDDLIN SIZE deer I would shoot at if real close with an Army Colt that was accurate.......maybe....I thunk. I gotta stop thunkin and start thinking.
One thing to consider is that round balls can ricochet inside game. Had it happen. It was a 53cal. ball shooter rifle with 100gr. FFg powder and just short of 100 yards. The ball hit right by the edge of the shoulder on a side shot and came out the other side exactly like it went right thu. Thing is....the buck went down right on the spot and never even kicked his hind legs.
While field dressing it I noticed the spine above the enrty hole was broken badly. The ball went in and went straight up and broke the spine and came out looking like it went right through. Strange.
I mentioned before I shot a big buck at 32 paces front on in the neck with a 45/70 barreled rifle (muzzleloader) and 75gr. FFg powder and a 500gr. bullet and the deer neck stopped the bullet right where it hit the bones of the neck. That's not about the ball but is an example of how tough a big buck can be .........and the little deer can be tough too. I find them dead after deer season and see some hard hits to them and they get away to die and be wasted. Just sayin......