PDA

View Full Version : 1858 Remington locking up


mrappe
October 4, 2010, 04:54 AM
I was at the range today and after about 3 cylinders (I was 3 pre loaded cylinders) It started to get so hard that I could hardly rotate the cyliner by had when at half-cock. Even pulling the base pin out to change thcylinders was hard. The gun was cleaned and lubed prior to loading. I had put some Bore Butter on the base pin and in the hole that it slides thru after each 5 were shot completed but it still was hard to turn. It may have been where the cylinder/barrel gap was that it was sticking. I was shooting Goex FFF.

Doc Hoy
October 4, 2010, 06:08 AM
I have never experienced this binding that folks talk about in a Remington clone pistol but I must hasten to add that I load with a loader one cylinder at a time. The cylinder comes out of the pistol after only six shots. And the loading sequence permits the pistol to cool a bit before the next round.

I am going to respond, not because I have a tested solution but because I am applying a little logic. I want to emphasize that you will get responses to your question from other more experienced shooters. You should pay far more attention to them than to me.

When this happens, check for a build up of gunk, either around the cone of the barrel or on the cylinder pin. Also check the lubrication on the cyliner pin. If, as you say, the cylinder pin is difficult to retract, you may already have found the problem. I personally have never seen this build-up but as I say the way I shoot just naturally keeps the build-up to a minimum. I don't even check for it really, since I pretty much know it isn't there. The gaps on the Remingtons I own are either .006 or .008 and they are pretty much consistent, no matter which chamber I am measuring.

You may also want to put the pistol down and let it cool between cylinders. I have never read anything about pistols binding up because of thermal expansion. But if you are shooting three cylinders in rapid succession, that pistol is getting mighty hot. If it is a brass frame pistol, the difference in expansion between the dissimilar metals may be the source of problem. I would respectfully solicit the input of others on the point of heat build-up as a source of binding. You could test it by simply shooting slower, while holding all other variables constant.

Rifleman1776
October 4, 2010, 08:47 AM
I have to challenge Doc Hoy on part of his response. When it comes to experience with C&B revolvers, from what I have seen here, I believe he is our forum guru. Do listen to his words of wisdom.
However, I'll toss out a couple possibilities. Common with C&Bs is fragments of caps falling into the frame and causing grief. Your problem description does not really seem to be caused by this, though.
And, the sad part. The import C&B revolvers, even the supposedly "good" ones are pretty much slapped together on an assembly line in the factories. They are not carefully stoned, honed, polished, fitted and given love kisses like a modern revolver in one of our American factories.
I suggest you, or a knowledgeable person, disassemble your revolver and do the stoning and honing yourself. You may discover an internal problem or, just the cleaning up might solve your problem.
Let us know what you do and the outcome.

Noz
October 4, 2010, 09:05 AM
The Remingtons are noted for fouling build up in the barrel/cylinder gap and on the base pin.
Without doing some major engineering and metal work, the simple solution is to remove the cylinder between every cylinder full or two and wipe the fouling from the face of the cylinder and the base pin. A lot of people use the separate loading stand with Remingtons because you have the cylinder out anyway for cleaning.
Because of their design, Colts will run longer without cleaning than will the Remingtons.

noelf2
October 4, 2010, 09:09 AM
PAM non stick cooking spray on the cylinder pin, every few cylinders, is wonderful !!!

Doc Hoy
October 4, 2010, 11:57 AM
To Rifleman1776....You are too kind.

I had initially thought of caps in he works but the description of the problem seemed to lead me away from it. It is definitely worth considering.

I have thought long and hard in the topic of fouling and I am categorically under prepared to speak on it since, as I said, the way I shoot (much as is described by Noz) does not provide me with a lot to observe. I would say this:

It might be worthwhile to go to town on the cylinder pin with some light sandpaper taking only about a thousandths (max) off but, more pertinently, putting a nice smooth finish on the pin. I would deliberately restrict the work to the part of the pin upon which the cylinder rotates when the pin is all the way in the pistol. (Pistol in battery). Might also try some light steel wool in the pin hole in the cylinder to smooth up that surface as well. I have never tried this. I don't know if it will correct the problem given that it does nothing to address buildup in the barrel gap. I don't even know where most of the dirt that I see on my wiping rag comes from. That in itself might be a worth while piece of data.

Here is the downside:

This action may actually make the pistol worse because if the problem is related to crud getting inside the cylinder and getting on the pin, then anything you do to the pin or the cylinder will only serve to open the gap and possibly allow more fouling. You have to look close for fouling on the pin since the movment of the pin in the frame as you retract it would have the effect of wiping off all of the crud, leaving it on the frame. If you pull the pin out. Wipe it down and scmootz it with Pam or Rem Oil and it works easier after the process, you know that at least some fouling got onto the pin.

mykeal
October 4, 2010, 12:29 PM
Absolutely do not reduce the diameter of the cylinder pin on the 1858 Remington. The problem is common; it's fouling building up on the pin. The fouling enters from the cylinder face because there's usually a significant gap between the cylinder face and the forcing cone/barrel breech, plus the machined flat on one side of the cylinder pin. Reducing the diameter of the pin only makes this worse.

The Ruger Old Army solved this problem with a bushing on the face of the cylinder plus a fully round cylinder pin with little clearance between the pin and the cylinder.

I believe denster has a fix for the problem involving adding a bushing to the Remington cylinder face.

In the mean time, simply keep the cylinder pin clean between loads.

Noz
October 4, 2010, 01:37 PM
Doc, Some will cut a spiral groove the length of the arbor, much as coarse screw threads. The idea there is to be able apply more lube to the arbor therefore allowing the gun to run longer. I've never seen any evidence that it is helpful.
The best way to handle them is to clean frequently.

zippy13
October 4, 2010, 02:29 PM
+1 to mykeal's description of the flush cylinder face being the culprit and the reference to the ROA's solution.
Since I started using a cylinder loading press, I've been keeping the wheel and base pin cleaner and the binding is a thing of the past.

Doc Hoy
October 4, 2010, 02:39 PM
:D

Pay close attention to what these other guys are saying.

g.willikers
October 4, 2010, 03:55 PM
Or you could switch to triple 7 powder, as it does not foul much.

Hawg Haggen
October 4, 2010, 08:18 PM
Three to four cylinders is about normal.

Model-P
October 4, 2010, 10:32 PM
Well, I have to say that a lot of these guys that pooh-pooh using Crisco have had to come up with some extreme methods to reduce cylinder seizure. I use Crisco over the balls and never have a problem with the cylinder seizing. So, there!:p

HisSoldier
October 5, 2010, 05:41 PM
One thought I had about thermal binding, it would seem to me that the temperature of the cylinder would be higher than that of the barrel, and certainly higher than the pin. (???) The opposite might be the culprit, that is, the clearance between the cylinder and pin might be growing as the cylinder heats up.

I'm a total heretic though, I haven't ever used real BP in mine, and part of the reason is that I read somewhere that BP is more likely to gunk moving fits up.

I expect Doc Hoy is right in the use of a separate loader solving the problem, I use one, and the taking off and putting back in the gun must surely strip some gunk off.
If what I said about BP making these problems worse why do people use it, just the history? I use Pioneer, so I'm doubly more the heretic. :D

Because of their design, Colts will run longer without cleaning than will the Remingtons.

I thought sure I'd read the opposite, but haven't owned a Colt clone. It would seem that a smaller pin would be less likely to seize up, why is the Colt pin able to stay cleaner? They have a spiral groove, right?

Model-P
October 5, 2010, 06:11 PM
One thought I had about thermal binding, it would seem to me that the temperature of the cylinder would be higher than that of the barrel, and certainly higher than the pin. (???) The opposite might be the culprit, that is, the clearance between the cylinder and pin might be growing as the cylinder heats up.


Metal typically expands as it is heated. The cylinder would be getting hot while the frame would not be getting nearly as hot. The cylinder grows, but the frame does not (to any appreciable degree). That 1/4" or so of barrel sticking back from the frame plays such a negligible role that it can be discounted. So, in theory, the cylinder will expand and get closer to the rear of the barrel which is mounted in the relatively cooler frame.

............ why do people use it, just the history?

Of course. It is what these guns were designed to use.

It would seem that a smaller pin would be less likely to seize up, why is the Colt pin able to stay cleaner? They have a spiral groove, right?

The Remington barrel/cylinder gap and cylinder pin gap are on the same plane, and the pin gap is formed by a cylinder/frame bearing surface which can easily become affected by fouling. The fouling blows right into the pin gap.
The Colt has an opening exposing a wider section of pin, so the fouling blows down toward the pin but over a wider area and not forced into a cylinder/frame bearing surface, plus there is clearance between the pin and cylinder at the front end.

The Colt pin does, indeed, have a spiral cut groove.

mrappe
October 5, 2010, 06:23 PM
I have never experienced this binding that folks talk about in a Remington clone pistol but I must hasten to add that I load with a loader one cylinder at a time. The cylinder comes out of the pistol after only six shots. And the loading sequence permits the pistol to cool a bit before the next round.

I was shooting 3 pre-loaded cylinders with 5 shots each before I reloaded any of the cylinders and whenever I put in a new cylinder the cylinder was cool and the gun was warm. I shoot slowly and since I am at a public range I don't many shots off before they call a ceasefire which happens every half hour and then you have to wait for the 100yd range to post new targets which takes about 10 min. so the gun was not hot. I know this because I was always mounting it on my loading stand without a cylinder during the ceasefire so I was pickinging it up by the barrel. I have a feeling that the problem was the gunk in the face of the cylinder and the forcing cone but I may be wrong. It would take less friction to stop the rotation there than on the pin although I also have a 1860 Army and it gets stiff but not soo much. I think I will try some different lube and possibly taking along a wire bruch for the cylinder etc.

Howard31
October 5, 2010, 06:57 PM
I liked what NOZ said,a spiral grove down the pin would hold more lube.
I use cookies over the ball for lube.I really don't have a problem with the cylander face binding but I have a major problem getting the pin out to change the cylander. I use a generous amount of Ballistol spray and it does help.

Model-P
October 5, 2010, 07:02 PM
Yes, the frame on a Remington should be keeping the cylinder back from the rear of the barrel a set distance. In my experience, it is usually the cylinder/frame bearing point and/or pin on a Remington that will get sluggish, rather than the cylinder against the rear of the barrel. The cylinders on Colts, on the other hand, are free to push up against the rear of the barrel, and "sluggishness" will more often be due to this with them rather than anything having to do with the cylinder pin.

mrappe
October 5, 2010, 09:16 PM
Yes, the frame on a Remington should be keeping the cylinder back from the rear of the barrel a set distance. In my experience, it is usually the cylinder/frame bearing point and/or pin on a Remington that will get sluggish, rather than the cylinder against the rear of the barrel. The cylinders on Colts, on the other hand, are free to push up against the rear of the barrel, and "sluggishness" will more often be due to this with them rather than anything having to do with the cylinder pin.

I beleive that you are coccect, there is almost no gap there and any leading/powder buildup may gum it up.

HisSoldier
October 7, 2010, 06:47 PM
........ why do people use it, just the history?
Of course. It is what these guns were designed to use.


My point is that the fake BP works so much better, in my meager experience, that had it been available in the 1800's they would have been designed for the fake powders. I get no where near the fouling, so as a practical matter, had anything been available in the 1860's that would allow you to shoot two or three times as long between thorough cleanings, and one's life being at stake and all, there is no way anyone would have used it.

MJN77
October 7, 2010, 07:53 PM
That would be your opinion. Some people use real BP to protect themselves even today. Look on this board for more than a few threads about CCW with BP revolvers. To each his own, but to say there is "no way anyone would use it" is kind of ignorant.

Hawg Haggen
October 7, 2010, 07:57 PM
had anything been available in the 1860's

Had a frog wings he wouldn't bump his butt. They didn't so is a moot point.

Model-P
October 7, 2010, 09:48 PM
Exactly.

mrappe
October 8, 2010, 08:06 AM
The reason that I shoot BP and not the other stuff is because of history. I don't shoot a c&b revolver because it is the most efficient way to propel a bullet. I would just shoot my HK if that was what motivated me. That is why I personally would not put target sights on my BP revolver event though I would be able to shoot better. Please forgive me but I am some what finatical about historical accuracy. If I could invent a time machine I would go into the past an not the future. That is why I am now looking for mutton fat to make tallow for lube. I want to understand what things were like back then. I got into Cowboy Action Shooting not because I love to shoot as much as I love the history. Some people are more interested in the shooting that the history and I respect that also. To each his own.

Thank You,
Mike

arcticap
October 10, 2010, 11:31 PM
A lot of folks tout historical correctness, but how many would actually want to use fulminate of mercury percussion caps if they were available today?
And no, I don't think if someone chose to use those corrosive caps that they should be considered to be ignorant.
But wouldn't hardly anyone actually chose to? :rolleyes:

mrappe
October 11, 2010, 07:43 AM
but how many would actually want to use fulminate of mercury percussion caps if they were available today?

I don't know much about them but I would at least give them a try to see what they were like. From what I have read they were non-crossive as opposed to potassium chlorate which was but they lost their effectiveness over time.

MJN77
October 11, 2010, 10:43 AM
People shoot corrosive ammunition every day. All the surplus ammo for mosin nagant rifles are corrosive. Corrosive ammo and primers aren't a problem if you clean the guns after using them.

arcticap
October 11, 2010, 01:32 PM
From what I'm reading, potassium chlorate was mixed in with the fulminate of mercury which leaves corrosive salts as a byproduct.

Also, according to Mike Irwin on THR it's errosive:

Mercury fulminate is, however, errosive as all hell. It explodes with such force and heat that it when it was used pretty much straight in the early guns (like the pill bottle lock) it would pretty quickly fry the old soft iron and steels used in gun making.
It's not uncommon to see the nipples on old muzzleloaders looking pitted and fried, which is the result of the heat and force of the mercury fulminate percussion caps.

http://www.thehighroad.us/archive/index.php/t-42824.html

The potassium chloride byproduct is reported to affect some steels adversely, including 416 stainless and carbon steel:

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-corrosion-resistance-d_491.html

MJN77
October 11, 2010, 08:44 PM
These revolvers seem to have faired well, and they are all original. Most C&B guns I see in museums have nipples that reflect the overall condition of the revolver. I have seen rifles and pistols that saw heavy use in the Civil War, that didn't look all that bad. I have also seen civilian guns that look like hell. Again I will say it depends on how well you clean them.
http://i591.photobucket.com/albums/ss359/mjn77/f5467afb37c1b3d56b116e77e026592a.jpg
http://i591.photobucket.com/albums/ss359/mjn77/da57f0bef587b565ee17ec5978043842.jpg
http://i591.photobucket.com/albums/ss359/mjn77/466e6a5238519ba606cdb1ba1b819362.jpg
http://i591.photobucket.com/albums/ss359/mjn77/jki.jpg

HisSoldier
October 12, 2010, 01:29 PM
I think that the argument that since better powders weren't available in the early 1800's they shouldn't be used now is silly. But I suppose to carry the argument farther we should all shoot flintlocks or matchlocks, I mean, who's to say they aren't superior? Those of you who got on my case about using what I consider to be a vastly superior powder might want to carry your philosophy farther and get into matchlocks.

The only revolver I own is my 1858 stainless. Stainless! They didn't have stainless steel in 1858, so that's totally bogus, right?
Well, I don't like to deal with corrosion, at all, period, so I shoot my stainless gun, then clean it well and oil it. Some guys are so "traditional" they should shoot guns made only with the same tools they had in 1858, and of the same crappy materials. Better yet just shoot originals, with poorly preserved powder and hit or miss caps.

No ones shooting back right?

I don't want to go back in time and I don't want to replicate the problems they had in 1858, they all jumped on smokeless powder when it became available, they all jumped on stronger steels and better priming systems.

I assume those who make a big deal of "real" black powder ride a horse to the range?

MJN77
October 12, 2010, 04:45 PM
HisSoldier, why are you whining about people thinking differently than you? I don't know why you have a burr up your a$$, but you were the one that came to the BLACK POWDER forum and made generalizations that it was stupid to use real BP because YOU don't like it. Most of the long time BP shooters on here have used every kind of BP and BP substitutes made, and a lot chose to stick with the real stuff. I have been shooting BP for 15 years and own several different BP guns, and I have tried all of the powders. I like BP best. If you don't like it don't use it. Nothing wrong with that, but if some of us choose to use real BP, that's OUR business. You are welcome to take your attitude elsewhere or stop acting like an ignorant jackass and grow up, so as to have an adult conversation, it's up to you. But to attack other shooters that like real BP for whatever reason, is down right arrogant.
No one "got on your case", we just presented differing opinions. If you took it that way, that was not the intent but it's on you. Get a thicker skin. Some of us just don't agree that subs are "vastly superior". That is YOUR OPINION. I have never had a hangfire or ftf (failure to fire) with real BP but I have with subs because they have a higher ignition temp. Also, flintlocks will not work reliably with subs for the same reason. In my experience, neither will a percussion sharps.(so much for vast superiority) You said yourself that you have little experience with BP and only own one type of BP gun. People don't agree on everything. Some of that comes from experience. YOU are the one that went on the offensive with your pissy little tirade. I say again, if you don't like real BP fine, but don't tell others they are stupid because they do!

P.S. Real BP isn't as corrosive as your "vastly superior" BP subs.

P.S.S. Your "1858" is actually an 1863 new model army :D

mrappe
October 12, 2010, 04:50 PM
Those of you who got on my case about using what I consider to be a vastly superior powder might want to carry your philosophy farther and get into matchlocks.


I hope that you do not consider me as one of those. I just shoot BP for my own historical intrests. I completely respect anyones decision to do otherwise. It is about having fun. The way you choose to have fun is up to you. Don't let anyone make you feel like you are doing it wrong. That attitude is bore out of people who want to feel superior. I personally enjoy shooting all kinds of modern guns with smokeless powder.

Mike