PDA

View Full Version : Crazy $'s on BP revolvers, tips for deals, ideas for bolts & chainfire prevention


Bill Akins
January 21, 2011, 01:50 AM
Just a few musings, reflections, tips, pictures and ideas of mine here. First I'll start with the crazy inflated prices currently on black powder revolvers.

As some of you already know, there are only a small number of BP revolver manufacturers. There may be a few more than I list here, but the main ones are Uberti, Pietta, EMF, Navy Arms, CVA and I think Dixie Gun Works makes their own too. Armie San Marcos is out of business. Cimmeron cherry picks their guns from Uberti's (as do some other distributors) so they don't really count as a separate manufacturer even if they do some cleaning up and slicking of the actions. If I made any mistakes or left any major ones out I apologize, but I think those represent the main bulk of the BP revolver manufacturers.

Recently Uberti merged with Beretta and I have heard that they plan to scale back on their BP production. In fact I heard that the Uberti 2011 production may be held up until April. Pietta is still trucking right along and might benefit corporately if Uberti lags behind due to their new merger with Beretta. But what has me amazed is the prices I am seeing for BP revolvers both brand new from the dealers and used at auction.

I remember back in the '70's, '80's and '90's when folks at gunshows had to practically give away a black powder revolver to move it. First everyone wanted a "Dirty Harry" mdl 29 Smith & Wesson. Then everyone wanted one of those "new" hi cap 9mm's (even though the hi cap Browning hi power had been out since 1935). Even as late as the late '90's I remember passing tables at gun shows where it was common to see a usually brass frame, 1851 or 1860 colt clone or 1858 Remington clone, for around $50 to $75 dollars.

Back then most of the general shooting public other than those like myself who just dug it, weren't interested that much in BP revolvers. Too much trouble to load, too many accessories and too messy many told me. My first one was a .44 cal Walker back in the mid '70's. Also the first time I ever shot it (which was my first time ever shooting a BP revolver) was my first experience with one rd chain firing along with the purposely fired rd. I bought my Walker used but in like new condition for $75.00

Black powder guns just didn't move much. It was a great time to be into it because stuff was CHEAP! You could also easily pick up a BP revolver at a yard sale for $25 or $30 dollars. Half the time the used one you bought hadn't even ever been fired! Most shooters didn't know much about how to load and shoot them and as a result they weren't expensive or popular with the general shooting public back in those days in spite of the Uberti supplied revolvers used in the Spaghetti westerns.

Then came CAS and SASS and everything changed. I saw formerly $50.00 brass framed (and steel framed) BP revolvers just skyrocket in price and stay there in spite of everyone buying so called "assault rifles" just before the anointed one's election. Trying to find a good deal on used BP revolvers these days is getting harder. Ruger quit making their fine Old Army just after they made a few of the CAS styled ones in blue and stainless with the 5.5 inch barrel and the Vaquero style fixed sights for CAS shooters.

I just saw a stainless, Vaquero sighted, 5.5 inch barrel ROA go on a major auction site a few days ago for OVER $700.00. Insane. You can put together an AR15 for that! A similar stainless 5.5 inch barrel Uberti or Pietta Remington can be bought new for about $380.00 but even that's insane. The smart thing to do is to buy a used stainless Remy for about the going rate of $175.00 (seen a lot of the stainless Remys going at that price) and then cut the barrel and loading lever down to make it a 5.5 inch barrel.
Re-dovetail the lever latch and front sight on the shorter barrel.

That's much cheaper than buying an over $700.00 stainless, 5.5 inch barrel, Vaquero sights, Ruger Old Army. The Remy is still stainless and looks a lot like the ROA. Are ROA coil springs really worth that many hundreds of dollars more compared to a stainless leaf springs Remy? Not to me. I can replace a lot of Remy leaf springs for that $575.00 in difference in prices.

I really would like a brace of those stainless ROA's, but again....insane inflated prices also driven by their now being out of production. Bill Ruger said his BP Old Army was the finest BP revolver in the world and that there would always be a ROA as long as he was alive. And he was right. Only then Bill Ruger died and the Old Army died with him even though I think Ruger corporate heads made a big mistake discontinuing the ROA since CAS and SASS is growing and the demand for ROA's is increasing, artificially driving ROA prices up because they are discontinued.

Also the Italian (most of the BP manufacturers are) manufacturers are afraid of the decreasing and unsure fluctuation value of the dollar. Many are requiring their distributors to pay for their shipments up front now rather than pay for the shipment later when the dollar may not be worth as much as it would be prior to shipment to the distributors. And they are charging MORE for their products than they were before simply because our dollar is not worth as much as it used to be. All that factors in to a higher cost to us.


Now for my tips on getting good deals on BP revolvers.


So what do I and we do to get a good deal on BP revolvers? Several ways. Sometimes you get lucky at a yard sale and find one whose owner doesn't realize how much they have gone up in value. Sometimes we just luck up finding someone who just wants to quickly get rid of one cheaply at a forum classifieds. Then there's several other ways I have been looking into. Buying parts at auction that just need a few other inexpensive parts to complete an entire revolver. Or buying a rusty or neglected revolver that most people will turn away from because it looks bad....but you and I can fix that up easily with a wire wheel, polishing wheel, a few screws or inexpensive parts and some cold blue to get a nice revolver that most others didn't realize it could again be.

A pitted barrel as long as it isn't REAL bad doesn't really throw off accuracy that much. Pure lead will quickly fill in most pits in a barrel and the rifling is deep enough so that a few pits won't harm much IF you DO get a pitted barrel on an otherwise good deal. Everyone seems to want a steel frame vs a brass frame because the steel is stronger and they have been told that brass frames can eventually come loose from the cylinder pin or stretch.

That is true if you shoot hot loads. But if you stick to 15 grains in a .36 cal, or 25 grains in a .44 cal, or even a little less, you likely will never have that problem. I have both brass and steel frames. But the brass framed ones will usually be less expensive so the best bang for your buck, and if you stick to light loads, the brass frame will usually do just fine. Steel frames are better, but brass is the cheaper deal and works fine with light loads.

Case in point. Here's a Navy Arms copy of the Confederate Griswold & Gunnison, half round barrel copy of the .44 cal 1851 Colt, that I have a low pre-bid of $55.00 on at a little known online auction. Nice looking aftermarket stag grips. It appears the revolver may have been a kit gun that was neglected to be blued and has a lot of surface rust on it making it very esthetically unappealing and undesirable to most people. The average person might not want an ugly revolver all rusted looking like that and might think "it's a piece of rusted junk!" But I look at it and think "cool all or most of the parts are there" and I see what easily can be done to clean it up and have a nice looking revolver again.

Many of the entrepreneurs at smaller less well known auctions, will be buying to re-sell and make a quick flip profit on larger more well known auctions charging more such as GunBr**er. They will pass up on a revolver if it looks like they will have to work on it to flip it. Too much trouble. That's where you can get a good deal on a shooter for you.

A little time with the bench grinder wire wheel and dremel wire wheel, then onto the polishing wheel and some cold blue should clean that right up. Not sure what is going on with that strange looking hammer, but if it needs replacement, hammers are not expensive and easily obtainable cheaply at online auctions. Take a look at this below. Would you turn away from it or realize what you can easily do to fix it and have a great deal? (The stag or fake stag grips alone will cost you around $40.00 or more). If you think most people wouldn't want it because of the rust, that's exactly what you and I can be counting on so we can get a good deal. We can look past the surface aesthetics and know how to easily fix it while many do not.

http://inlinethumb29.webshots.com/19996/2718751950099763970S600x600Q85.jpg

http://inlinethumb18.webshots.com/2385/2469876580099763970S600x600Q85.jpg

Another thing I have learned is to not be in a hurry to buy a BP revolver.
Resist the urge to "get it right now". Don't impulse buy. Take your time and look in the many forum's classifieds, yard sales, scour the auctions and don't be afraid to get a fixer upper. There is no hurry. You aren't going to be likely using this for self defense. You have other modern guns for that. It's a fun gun. So no rush.

Next an idea I have on improving the cylinder locking bolt so that it minimizes the scoring of the cylinder lead in grooves and any cylinder "ringing" in general.

In responding to another thread about revolver timing issues where we were talking about the bolt scoring and "ringing" the cylinder, this idea suddenly stuck me about how cylinder lead in groove scoring and cylinder "ringing" could be further minimized.

Modify a bolt head so that it has a teeny free rolling, ball bearing, peen captured in the top of the bolt head so that it not only won't fall out, but can only rise to the normal height of a normal bolt head. The bolt head is re-contoured so that the very tip edge of the top of the ball bearing is at the top of the bolt head. The ball bearing would roll across the cylinder instead of the bolt normally dragging across the cylinder. The sides of the bolt are still the same so it doesn't affect engagement with the side of the cylinder slots. There are already very small set screws manufactured, that are made to hold a spring loaded, tiny, peen captured, ball bearing. You can screw this set screw into threads tapped into the bolt head after you first re-contoured the bolt head so that the ball bearing was the furthest most sticking up part of the bolt head.

Now instead of the bolt head dragging across the lead in grooves or ringing your cylinder, the ball bearing just rolls into the lead in grooves and or rolls across the cylinder minimizing scoring and ringing. (The difference between dragging a stone block to the pyramid or rolling it on bearings.) The sides of the bolt would remain unchanged so that firm slot lockup remained the same.

I wonder why no one makes bolts like that? It seems like a good idea to me.

The other idea I have had that goes back 30 years (to a wooden mockup I built) is a chain fire prevention plate that would obviate the need to use greased wads or grease over the projectile.

We know that most chainfires are caused by loose caps on the rear of the cylinder rather than from the front of the chambers of the cylinder. Where fire from one cap enters past the loose or missing cap on another nipple and sets that chamber off too. This usually happens when you have fired a round or two and don't realize some of your caps have come off because you were using looser #11 caps instead of #10's, or because you neglected to pinch your #11 caps so they would fit the nipples tighter. So that when you fire again, the fire from your percussion cap enters into an adjacent nipple that has become uncapped.

It is not exactly rare, but it is an infrequent occurrence and can be dangerous. It did happen to me back in the '70's on the very first time I ever fired a BP revolver. Luckily I had just loaded only two cylinders on my first BP revolver, a Walker clone. I fired once and then when I fired the second loaded cylinder, it was just a "snap" of the percussion cap.

After pointing the revolver downward to ensure it wasn't a hang fire, at an angle away from my face, I inspected the chamber and saw it was empty. The flame between the barrel to cylinder gap had entered into the adjacent chamber (because I hadn't used a greased wad or greased over the ball) and set it off along with the chamber I meant to shoot. Luckily that adjacent chamber was not blocked by anything and the round just fired out alongside the barrel. But an unnerving experience on my very first shot of a BP revolver so many years ago. After that I used greased wads or grease or crisco or bore butter over the balls.

So although most occurrences of "chainfiring" occur from the nipple end, as you can see, they can easily also occur from the cylinder chamber end too.
So back then in the mid '70's I started thinking about how this could be prevented without having to use greased wads or grease over the balls and came up with this idea. I made a wooden prototype that I still have that you can see in the below pics. To this day I have questions about if it would work as I envision it should. It still leaves the bottom cylinder chamber exposed (for loading) and if not fitted tightly against the cylinder, it could still allow chamber end chain firing. But if made correctly and from the proper fire and explosion proof materials, I think it could have possibilities.

With no mods to the revolver in any way. It fits over the cylinder pin and also fits over the forcing cone so it will not rotate. My idea was to have some sort of asbestos material on the rear of this plate that could be greased. That way it would be lubricated so the cylinder would turn against it and also the grease would help prevent fire from one cylinder from entering behind and between the plate and into another cylinder. The problem is, the force and flame coming from the front of the cylinder may cut through any such material just as it will cut through the material of a sandbag rest from the barrel to cylinder gap explosive force.

The force and flame may prevent this idea from working like I would hope it should. But that is unproven because I never continued my experiments on it and I never progressed past making a wooden concept mockup to make a steel one or even hard plastic one with greased material on the back side of it. A durable material other than steel for the plate might be better just in case it did fail and a chainfire occured. That way the chainfire would destroy the plate without blowing up the cylinder whereas a steel plate holding in a multiple chainfire behind it could be a nasty little bomb. Gotta think safety here.

The proper flame proof material on the back of the plate that could withstand the cutting force of the explosion may work. Maybe some type of kevlar or something similar. Maybe I'll get the time to play around with it again sometime. But I'll be sure to tie the revolver down and pull the trigger with an extended lanyard cord in a cheap BP if I do, just in case.

Anyway, here's a few recent pictures of my old wooden mockup so you can see how it worked and fit.

Wooden top edge broke off over the many years since the 1970's of clattering around in one of my parts drawers.
http://inlinethumb01.webshots.com/45632/2036694680099763970S600x600Q85.jpg

http://inlinethumb04.webshots.com/1283/2549411250099763970S600x600Q85.jpg

The wooden mockup was made to fit my old 1851 colt clone which is long gone. When I put it on my current 1860 clone, the barrel would not go all the way back to the frame. (See the gap at the bottom of the barrel to frame engagement). But you can still get the basic idea and this could be remedied if I made another one to fit.
http://inlinethumb05.webshots.com/24324/2125687040099763970S600x600Q85.jpg

http://inlinethumb52.webshots.com/42995/2083728780099763970S600x600Q85.jpg

Ah well, that's enough of my bored musings for one day.
Hope I didn't bore you. Sometimes I tend to write long ones.


.

junkman_01
January 21, 2011, 04:12 AM
'As some of you already know, there are only a small number of BP revolver manufacturers. There may be a few more than I list here, but the main ones are Uberti, Pietta, EMF, Navy Arms, CVA and I think Dixie Gun Works makes their own too.'

You got it wrong here pardner, EMF, Navy Arms and CVA were importers, and are either out of business, or no longer dealing in C&B revolvers. Dixie Gunworks is also an importer/distributor as is Buffalo Arms, Cimmeron and Taylors.

Bill Akins
January 21, 2011, 04:31 AM
Bill Akins wrote:
As some of you already know, there are only a small number of BP revolver manufacturers. There may be a few more than I list here, but the main ones are Uberti, Pietta, EMF, Navy Arms, CVA and I think Dixie Gun Works makes their own too.'

Junkman 01 wrote:
You got it wrong here pardner, EMF, Navy Arms and CVA were importers, and are either out of business, or no longer dealing in C&B revolvers. Dixie Gunworks is also an importer/distributor as is Buffalo Arms, Cimmeron and Taylors.

Junkman 01, thanks for that correction, but that's why I also said:
"If I made any mistakes or left any major ones out I apologize, but I think those represent the main bulk of the BP revolver manufacturers."

Pietta and Uberti being the main ones. The point was there are not that many black powder revolver manufacturers. It was unimportant to my point specifically who they were. Only that they are relatively few. That's why I preempted with my above statement apologizing in advance if I made any mistakes or omissions in who the manufacturers were.

l.cutler
January 21, 2011, 05:35 AM
I think if you did have a chain fire with that thing on there you would have a BIG problem. Blown cylinder maybe, or at least a lot of shrapnel.

B.L.E.
January 21, 2011, 07:27 AM
Black powder revolvers expensive? Compared to modern cartridge revolvers, no.
Why should a cap and ball revolver be cheaper than a modern revolver? The gun is just as complicated. The timing is just as critical. The precision is just as important as on a modern revolver.

One major cost saving step is to leave the outside of the revolver unpolished and some of those bargain black powder revolvers are pretty rough compared to a modern S&W.

pohill
January 21, 2011, 07:44 AM
Colt found out very early on that it's a bad idea to encase the ignition of the cylinders - his first revolvers had shrouds over the nipples which actually caused chainfiring. Then he chamferred or beveled the chamber mouths to direct the gasses/flames/nuclear waste away from the other chambers.
I've had two double-chamber fires, both caused by "unround" roundballs. My fault for using those poorly cast balls.
As far as the cost of BP revolvers - I buy used guns. They're relatively cheap and most of the bugs have been worked out.

Rifleman1776
January 21, 2011, 10:03 AM
There are so many misstatements in your long treatise it would take all day to respond in detail.
Your contention that bp revolvers were slow sellers in the 70s and 80s could not be more off the mark. They were hot sellers. This was the time of a great surge in muzzle loading and historical reenactment interest. I owned a gun shop at the time that specialized in muzzle loading firearms. Revolvers were very popular, especially as entry level guns for aspiring muzzle loading enthusiasts. Granted, many (most?) of the imports, and they all were, did not exhibit very good quality. But they sold very well.
Your suggestion to restore that rusty gun with a Dremel is a formula for ruination. There are many other better ways.
I suggest you get some expert advice and experience then rethink your position.

Fiv3
January 21, 2011, 10:26 AM
The relative price of BP to cartridge shooting is what got me started on BP in the first place. The finish of the Italian guns might not be the best, but the fit is pretty impressive for a sub $200 revolver. My Pietta '58 locks up tight and ticks like a clock. Even my well neglected DART imported Baby Dragoon/pocket model that my dad found has a very sharp walk and talk in spite of some nipple flattening and hammer/pin wear.

For guns that are pretty much solely range toys or to be fondled, they are great values. I'm working on procuring an 1860 Colt for my birthday. It's more than i like to spend on myself, but for $199...where else are you gonna find that much flash and smoke in .45 caliber:D?

What I DO find expensive is the lead balls. Most of the sporting good stores tend to only keep the .50 and .54 caliber stuff on hand in this area since there is a muzzleloading season on deer. So spending $12-14 on 100 round lead balls and then ANOTHER 8 or 9 to ship them (lead is heavy, man), well there goes the cost savings:p

I'm trying my hand at casting once I run through all my stock piled ammo. Hopefully they come out round. I figure that I don't get to shoot nearly as much as I would like. $50 of primer and propellant with my own cast ammo should keep me shooting for a couple seasons anyway.

Hardcase
January 21, 2011, 10:45 AM
Fiv3, I cast .451 balls from stick-on wheel weights and they work great for me. I've never checked for roundness - when I load, I just point the sprue mark out and leave it at that.

I did cast a few from clip-on weights, but they were pretty tough to load, so I guess the story that the clip-ons and the stick-ons are different must be true. I was actually afraid that I was going to break the lever on one of my Remmies.

The stick-on weights don't feel like pure lead when I'm loading. My .451s take more pressure to seat than a Hornady .451.

Fiv3
January 21, 2011, 11:41 AM
That's great to hear about the weights. I went as far as to buy some pure lead (99.9%) that should net me a couple hundred balls. My dad is also good friends with the manager at a tire shop. He should be able to hook me up here and there with some weights:D

Bill Akins
January 21, 2011, 11:43 AM
I.Cutler wrote:
"I think if you did have a chain fire with that thing on there you would have a BIG problem. Blown cylinder maybe, or at least a lot of shrapnel."

Bill Akins wrote:
"To this day I have questions about if it would work as I envision it should. It still leaves the bottom cylinder chamber exposed (for loading) and if not fitted tightly against the cylinder, it could still allow chamber end chain firing. But if made correctly and from the proper fire and explosion proof materials, I think it could have possibilities." ....and....

"A durable material other than steel for the plate might be better just in case it did fail and a chainfire occured. That way the chainfire would destroy the plate without blowing up the cylinder whereas a steel plate holding in a multiple chainfire behind it could be a nasty little bomb. Gotta think safety here".

Yes, that's why I also wrote the above I.Cutler. It was just an interesting idea I had a long time ago that I was musing on. One that I've neglected to experiment further on BECAUSE it has drawbacks that could be dangerous unless done very carefully. Even then, it may not work properly at all, but was just an interesting concept. I think I made that clear in my above quotes.

mykeal
January 21, 2011, 11:51 AM
We know that most chainfires are caused by loose caps on the rear of the cylinder rather than from the front of the chambers of the cylinder.
No, we don't.

Chain fires are caused by hot gas entering a charged chamber. That can happen from EITHER opening. Hot gases envelop the cylinder - there is a plethora of video available on the internet proving that. A gas will find its way through any opening available, down to molecular sizes. Prevention involves BOTH proper fitting caps on the back AND a properly fitting projectile in the front.

Bill Akins
January 21, 2011, 11:59 AM
BLE wrote:
Black powder revolvers expensive? Compared to modern cartridge revolvers, no.
Why should a cap and ball revolver be cheaper than a modern revolver? The gun is just as complicated. The timing is just as critical. The precision is just as important as on a modern revolver. One major cost saving step is to leave the outside of the revolver unpolished and some of those bargain black powder revolvers are pretty rough compared to a modern S&W.

Why should a cap and ball revolver be cheaper in price than a modern revolver? Because they do not have the safety features built into them like a modern revolver. Because the interior fit and finish inside of a BP revolver is frequently rough and no where near the finished quality of a modern quality cartridge revolver such as a modern Colt or S&W. Because they frequently out of the box come improperly timed compared to most modern revolvers. Because they take more time to load and cannot compete with a modern revolver or semi-auto in a firefight. Because you wouldn't want to trust your home security or your life in a gunfight to one. Because they are "fun guns" and not primary for modern self defense revolvers. Because of the corrosive qualities of black powder residue that will rust your revolver in a day or two if you don't immediately clean it after firing, they require much more meticulous care and cleaning than a modern cartridge revolver. Because their actual design is not as strong as a modern cartridge gun. Because the less expensive and weaker materials used on many of them (brass frames, weaker steels, etc) are not as strong as modern steel cartridge guns which is why when they are converted to cartridges they have to take a vastly reduced load compared to modern cartridge guns. Those are enough reasons for me to believe they should not cost as much as a well made modern revolver. Of course that's just my opinion. Yours may differ.

Fingers McGee
January 21, 2011, 12:07 PM
Chain fires are caused by hot gas entering a charged chamber. That can happen from EITHER opening. Hot gases envelop the cylinder - there is a plethora of video available on the internet proving that. A gas will find its way through any opening available, down to molecular sizes. Prevention involves BOTH proper fitting caps on the back AND a properly fitting projectile in the front.

Absolutely correct.

Bill Akins
January 21, 2011, 12:17 PM
Originally Posted by Mykeal
Chain fires are caused by hot gas entering a charged chamber. That can happen from EITHER opening. Hot gases envelop the cylinder - there is a plethora of video available on the internet proving that. A gas will find its way through any opening available, down to molecular sizes. Prevention involves BOTH proper fitting caps on the back AND a properly fitting projectile in the front.

I agree. That why I said...

"So although most occurrences of "chainfiring" occur from the nipple end, as you can see, they can easily also occur from the cylinder chamber end too."

mykeal
January 21, 2011, 01:24 PM
I guess my problem was with the wording "We know most".

'We' means you and me, and while I cannot speak for the knowledge you possess, I can assure that I don't 'know' any such thing. If I don't object, then it's given that because you used the word 'we', I agree with your premise, that 'most' chainfires are initiated from the rear of the chamber.

The reason I don't agree is that there is no evidence to support the assertion of 'most'. Further, review of the physics provides no mechanism that suggests that thesis is correct.

'We know most'? No, I don't think so. I submit 'I believe most' is more appropriate.

Doc Hoy
January 21, 2011, 03:17 PM
My only chain fire event was in a .36 Cal brass frame revolver in the 1851 Colt pattern, a Sheriffs model. I am fairly certain it occured at the nipple end, because I had some pinched caps and I had done what I consider to be a fairly good job sealing the chambers at the mouth. Good fitting bullets and schmootz on each of the chambers. I can tell you it was a disconcerting happening and I hope to avoid it in the future. I am glad that I always shoot alone. No telling where the bullet fragments went.

Apart from a smudge of lead on the left side of the barrel lug there was no outward evidence. But when I pulled the pistol apart, I found that the arbor was loose whereas it had not been noticably loose before the chainfire.

I have retired the pistol because of evil spirits. The serial number is 666. (Just kidding about the serial number)

Regarding stick on weights my limited research (restricted to speaking to a technical support person from a large manufacturer of weights in the US) reveals that their weights are never less than 93% lead but normally closer to 99%. The percent of other metals has to do with the price of the metals when they are purchased and she told me that since most of the US manufacturers buy their lead in commodity lots, one could assume that just about every manufacturer is using roughly the same proportions at any time. There are a lot of assumptions in that paragraph.

Add to the asumptions that many weights are now imported from china, and it is hard to tell how pure the lead is in a wheel weight. Also consider that most weights are probably three to five years old when they are retreaved from the tire guy and it really is a crap shoot. Someone will almost certainly wade in with a precaution against weights because of Zinc. This is (in accordance with my experience) not valid since zinc weights are generally relatively pure zinc and float on the top of the melt to be picked out with a ladel. The steel clamp comes to the top of the melt pretty quick too. Obviously, known pure lead is better from a scientific standpoint, but in terms of saving money, I just had the mechanic who does all the work on my vehicles give me about eighty pounds of weights. Probably ten pounds were zinc or steel clamps. The rest will go downrange.

I calculated the weight of a pure lead sphere at the diameters I am accustomed to and I am getting bullet weights that are relatively close to the calculation so I am satisfied with the bullets I make from wheel weights. I do agree they are somewhat harder to start than Hornady bullets, but I can caste a series of bullets that is far more consistent than the bullets I buy (used to buy) from Hornady. They do pass the thumbnail test.

Bill's comments about revolvers bought in the seventies brought back memories. My first revolvers were kits bought through Shotgun News and I think they were from EMF although it was a long time ago. The only revolver I bought new was a 12 inch barrel in 1851 pattern with a brass frame. The importer called it a Ballister and it was a bad move. The barrel of the revolver was bent so badly that the middle of the barrel was about a sixteenth of an inch off of a flat surface when the barrel was laid sideways. I straigthened the barrel with a wooden shim and clamp arrangement to the point where it was no longer detectable. It shot okay, but I really had my nose out of joint because of the bent barrel.

I am with Bill on trying to score used revolvers. They are mighty fun to work on. Every once in a while you can fix one up for less than it is worth but I don't find that happens very often.

I am with Rifleman on the popularity of BP revolvers during the time frame discussed. I feel like I personally bought enough of them to keep the industry healthy. (Actually I only built about a dozen revolvers) but it seems like nearly everyone of the sailors who shot .45 also had one BP something-or-other.

Noz
January 21, 2011, 04:49 PM
The most hated phrase on the gun forums is "everybody knows" when in truth they don't


I just ran a bucket of stick on wheel weights and to my chagrin, about 5% of them were zinc. Didn't melt with the rest so I hit them with the torch and a quick blast didn't melt them. Into the trash they went.

Model-P
January 21, 2011, 07:13 PM
And, what if they did melt with the torch?
Most stick-on WWs are nearly pure lead. Pure lead melts at a higher temperature than clip on weights with antimony. Zinc will melt at a higher temperature than pure lead, and you could have ended up with zinc in the mix by giving it that extra boost. If weights do not melt at pure lead temperatures, don't push it. There's no reason to try anything hotter than the temperature at which the pure lead had already melted.

Hardy
January 21, 2011, 11:17 PM
I don't know. I got my first bp revolver in 1972. It was an original gunnison bought from a roadside antique store w/ colgate toothpaste can/ a tin of caps and some balls. With no knowledge and being a fool I loaded it and it chain fired. It never again after greasing chambers. I then bought CVA kits for 89+/- and sold them for around 175. I lost interest about 1979 but never had chainfires if I greased chamber openings. After getting married in 1989 and having child I had no interest in these guns until about 2 years ago. I believe the costs were more than the original post for these guns back in the 70's but the ball diameters were not too specified. By using a felt wad and specified diameter ball that shaves lead when loaded in chamber should be safe. Of course by adding crisco or equ above ball will more insure. As far as caps, ain't got a clue. But I think those guns cost 100+ for the cheap ones even back then But ummm I have CRS.

hickstick_10
January 21, 2011, 11:33 PM
I just saw a stainless, Vaquero sighted, 5.5 inch barrel ROA go on a major auction site a few days ago for OVER $700.00. Insane. You can put together an AR15 for that! A similar stainless 5.5 inch barrel Uberti or Pietta Remington can be bought new for about $380.00 but even that's insane. The smart thing to do is to buy a used stainless Remy for about the going rate of $175.00 (seen a lot of the stainless Remys going at that price) and then cut the barrel and loading lever down to make it a 5.5 inch barrel.
Re-dovetail the lever latch and front sight on the shorter barrel.

Theres no comparison between the ROA and a bubba'd and hack sawed spaghetti Remington. :rolleyes:

It might be time to consider supporting domestic industry instead of imported arms, if that means you can only purchase one American made firearm as opposed to two cheap imported ones so be it. Or else your only source of boom sticks may be a country that decides they dont want to make your toys anymore.

I think Ruger corporate heads made a big mistake discontinuing the ROA since CAS and SASS is growing and the demand for ROA's is increasing, artificially driving ROA prices up because they are discontinued.

I'm inclined to agree with you, as far as artificialy high pricing is concerned, but it was the stingy consumer who wanted Mcdonalds fast and Walmart cheap that spelled the end for the ROA IMHO.

Hawg
January 22, 2011, 08:11 AM
If Ruger made copies of Colt's and Remingtons that would be one thing. Personally I wouldn't have a ROA. I'll spend my money with the Italians.

B.L.E.
January 22, 2011, 10:18 AM
I'd like to see Ruger build a smaller cap and ball pistol, perhaps based on the Single-Six .22 frame and designed to use a roundball size commonly available as buckshot for economical and fun plinking.

Model-P
January 22, 2011, 06:14 PM
If Ruger made copies of Colt's and Remingtons that would be one thing. Personally I wouldn't have a ROA. I'll spend my money with the Italians.


I agree. I'm sure the Ruger "Old" Army is a very nice and well-built revolver in its own right, but it doesn't represent anything historical.

pohill
January 22, 2011, 07:30 PM
Ah, the Ruger Old Army. I, too, was a non-believer. The ROA has no history, I always said. Not exactly true - it has a history of its own. Mine was made in the early 70's so it's practically Civil War era.
Seriously, do not count out the ROA until you try it. It is, hands down, the best made cap and ball revolver out there. I like the larger .457 chamber mouths for cold weather shooting, and the adjustable sights, even if I never use them. The gun never, ever jams, for any reason (caps, fouling, etc). I have many repros and several originals - the ROA is a great addition to any collection.
Try it - you'll like it.
You're gonna like your ROA - I guarantee it.
Bet you can't shoot just one.
Nobody doesn't like ROA...
And any other commercials you can think of.

Bill Akins
January 23, 2011, 06:02 PM
Rifleman 1776 wrote:
There are so many misstatements in your long treatise it would take all day to respond in detail. Your contention that bp revolvers were slow sellers in the 70s and 80s could not be more off the mark. They were hot sellers. This was the time of a great surge in muzzle loading and historical reenactment interest. I owned a gun shop at the time that specialized in muzzle loading firearms. Revolvers were very popular, especially as entry level guns for aspiring muzzle loading enthusiasts. Granted, many (most?) of the imports, and they all were, did not exhibit very good quality. But they sold very well.


No need to be rude and impolite Rifleman1776 (you were). I know what black powder revolvers I saw selling and what they were selling for in the 70's, 80's and 90's. I never said BP revolvers didn't sell. I did say that back then they sold to a niche group of people like myself and did not generally interest the majority of the shooting public who were more interested in cartridge revolvers at that time. And that is true according to my experiences and is my opinion, and my opinion is unchanged because it is based on what I saw and experienced. Since the recent advent of CAS and SASS that has drastically changed. There was nothing “misstated” about my statement. That was my experience where I lived and my opinion. Your experience may have differed. But that does not make what I saw and experienced and my subsequent opinion any less valid than your opinion.


Rifleman 1776 wrote:

Your suggestion to restore that rusty gun with a Dremel is a formula for ruination. There are many other better ways. I suggest you get some expert advice and experience then rethink your position.


You are incorrect in stating that my suggestion of using a dremel to aid in restoring a rusty revolver would be "ruination". You neglected to mention WHAT attachment would be used on a dremel. You just said..."Your suggestion to restore that rusty gun with a Dremel is a formula for ruination".

There are many different kinds attachments tips for a dremel motor. Not all of those tips are just grinding stones or metal cutting tips and cutoff wheels. A small wire wheel and buffing wheel in a dremel is an invaluable tool for getting rust out of hard to reach spots. There is nothing "ruinatious" about that and I have used that combination many times in restoring rusty guns. I wouldn’t recommend using a dremel motor with a cutting or grinding tip on small critical areas such as the cylinder stops because there is too much danger of slipping and messing up the small area of the slot. But I have found dremel motors with different attachments to be valuable tools for many other gun repairs, and using a dremel motor with a mini wire wheel or a mini buffing wheel attachment I do not consider a formula for ruination. Do you consider a dentist’s drill to be a “formula for ruination” to your teeth? That’s what a dremel motor is, basically an electrical version of an air powered dental drill. It really depends on the tip in the dental drill or dremel motor and what that tip is being used for.

If you feel otherwise, that is your opinion and you are entitled to your opinion. But just because I might disagree with your opinion, I would not be rude, impolite and call your opinion a “misstatement”, a “long treatise” or attempt to denigrate you by telling you to get “some expert advice and experiences and then rethink your position”. I see no need to be rude and impolite and make assumptions regarding someone's experience just because I might disagree with someone else’s opinion.

Regarding your last statement of ….” I suggest you get some expert advice and experience then rethink your position.”

You do not know what experience I have. Actually I have extensive experience with black powder firearms and firearms in general over the last 40+ years. So your suggestion that I get some “experience “ is an inaccurate assumption on your part.

I do not believe either myself, you, nor anyone else is a firearms “expert”. There is no such thing as a firearms “expert” just as there is no such thing as an “expert” lawyer or doctor. That’s why they are called “Law practices” or “Practitioners of medicine”. They recognize that they are not expert but just “practice” their profession to the best of their ability. When someone starts getting the big head and thinking of themselves as “expert” in any given field, they will quickly find out that they don’t know everything in that field and that there is always someone else who will know some aspect of that field that they did not know as much about.

A wise man realizes that he can never be an “expert” at everything there is in the firearms field because it is just too vast. Metallurgy, ballistics, mechanics, mathematics, artisan skill, design, engineering, the list goes on and on. It is impossible for one person to be an “expert” and to know everything there is to know in all those fields. Even such luminaries as John Browning, Samuel Colt, Hiram Maxim, Eugene Stoner, could not know everything and be “expert” in all the many various aspects there are in the field of firearms. So there are no real “experts”. What there are, is people who know nothing about firearms, and then those who have varying degrees of knowledge and experience.

So because of what I just explained, I don’t think of myself nor anyone else as a firearms “expert”, but I do have 40+ years of “experience” and regarding what you told me to get some “expert advice and experience and rethink your position”, I do not feel is necessary, because I am confident in what I DO know and in what experience I do have. If there is something I DON’T know and need to know, then I will seek the advice of another non “expert” firearms “practitioner” who does know that particular specific area I need advice on. But I won't listen to someone else if they are rude and impolite to me for no good reason.

You do not win friends and influence people by being rude and impolite to people for no reason. Regarding that, "I suggest you “rethink your position” of why you feel it necessary to be rude and impolite to someone when it is unnecessary and that person has not attacked nor been previously rude to you.

This is supposed to be a firearms community where we can meet and make friends and share what experiences and knowledge we have as well as to further our education in the firearms field. Opinions may differ, but there is no excuse for personal attacks, rudeness and being impolite

junkman_01
January 23, 2011, 06:11 PM
Bill Akins,
Wow, I got a headache from reading your long winded rant! :barf:

Bill Akins
January 23, 2011, 06:18 PM
No one forced you to read it Junkman 01. Another rude impolite person. Lots of good people here, some not so much. There's always the "ignore" list to avoid "headaches". As I see who the impolite and rude ones are, I'm going to start using it myself. I'm here to have a good time, learn and share experiences, not put up with impolite rude people when I don't have to. You and one other person just earned my ignore list Junkman 01. Rude away, I won't see those posts anymore. I have no intention of engaging in the title of Glenn Beck's book. It's a waste of time and not productive.

junkman_01
January 23, 2011, 06:34 PM
Thank you very much. Is that polite enough for you? :mad:

Bill Akins
January 23, 2011, 07:33 PM
Since the Ruger Old Army is no longer manufactured, buying a used one is not helping an American manufacturer. That was only done by the original purchaser before the ROA went out of production. Since I can't buy a new ROA to help an American manufacturer, I don't feel guilty for buying an Italian BP revolver. Would I like a Ruger Old Army in stainless with the 5.5 inch barrel with the Vaquero style fixed sights? Sure, and I always would like to help out an American manufacturer such as Ruger. But in this case I can't since they don't manufacture it anymore. The used ROA's like I described are going for over $700.00 as I saw a used one go for recently at auction. My alternative solution for that is below.

Is it bubba'd or a nicely done modification? You be the judge.

Here's my modified Pietta 1858 Remington. It started life as a stainless, adjustable sights, 7 & 1/2 inch barrel, target model. It now has a shortened 5 & 5/8th's barrel and correspondingly shorter loading lever. A dovetail slot in line with the barrel has been added to the shortened barrel for the front sight attachment. The end of the shortened loading lever has been re-slotted for the spring loaded lever latch and the other end of the latch has been reattached to the bottom of the shortened barrel. The barrel muzzle has been nicely crowned ( they don't come crowned from the factory). I timed, tuned and honed the action.

An R&D conversion cylinder allows me to shoot .45 colt long cartridges or to use the original BP cylinder if I want. It is of good quality and I like it very much. It's not the stainless ROA with the 5.5 barrel and the fixed Vaquero style sights with the .457 sized cylinders and coil springs throughout....but it ain't bad. And sometimes "ain't bad" is good enough. For me at least. To get the same equivalent setup with the ROA I would have to pay over $700.00 for the ROA, then pay another $289.00 for the ROA conversion cylinder. That would be a total of approx $1000.00 (before taxes) for the equivalent setup I only have $520.00 invested in. Would I prefer a stainless ROA like I described? Sure. But this setup cost me half as much.

If someone doesn't care about having the $289.00 conversion cylinder, they can pick up a BP cylinder only used stainless 1858 Pietta Remy at auction for about $175.00 if they shop a bit. (That's what I've seen some go for). Then do their own mods like mine. Then they'd only have $175.00 and a little of their own time invested. Not too shabby compared to over $700.00 for a stainless, 5.5 inch barrel, fixed Vaquero style sights, ROA.

http://inlinethumb41.webshots.com/37032/2966262460099763970S600x600Q85.jpg

http://inlinethumb54.webshots.com/45877/2290370470099763970S600x600Q85.jpg

http://inlinethumb07.webshots.com/42630/2822957140099763970S600x600Q85.jpg

hickstick_10
January 23, 2011, 08:18 PM
Since the Ruger Old Army is no longer manufactured, buying a used one is not helping an American manufacturer. That was only done by the original purchaser before the ROA went out of production. Since I can't buy a new ROA to help an American manufacturer, I don't feel guilty for buying an Italian BP revolver. Would I like a Ruger Old Army in stainless with the 5.5 inch barrel with the Vaquero style fixed sights? Sure, and I always would like to help out an American manufacturer such as Ruger. But in this case I can't since they don't manufacture it anymore.
ahuh they made the gun for 30 years and in all that time, when they were relatively inexpensive on the used market or new you chose not to purchase one. Obviously you chose not to support Ruger on the old army venture.

See my comments on consumers wanting Walmart cheap.

Many others have kicked the tires and hummed and hawed about the revolver. They chose the spaghetti revolvers (for various reasons not just economy). And now the gun is gone. More and more domestic firearms manufactures go under as people choose to save a few bucks for a sub par product. Marlins gone, Winchesters gone and others will follow as people choose to have 2 imports for the cost of one domestic firearm.

I dont understand how people hated the gun while it was made, and clamour for it when its gone. Or some are irritated that its out of their reach on the used market, when they could have bought a new one for less if they saved up for one and bought it while it was being manufactured.

20-20 hindsight.

Simple solution, lobby Ruger to make the gun again if you want one. But no amount of "dremeling" will ever make a "uberti remmy" an old army in finish quality, reliability or strength.

Hardcase
January 23, 2011, 08:38 PM
http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s189/ciscokid007/refereeTimeOUT.jpg

pohill
January 23, 2011, 08:49 PM
Some shooters don't like the looks of the ROA but I think it can hold its own with any gun. I do like the look of the 3rd Generation Colts the best (the 3rd one down has a fit and finish as good as the ROA, and it's just as reliable).
I like 'em all.

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m217/pohill/Colt016.jpg

One of my latest - it's an actual gun (2mm pinfire)
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m217/pohill/DSCF3111.jpg
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m217/pohill/DSCF3115.jpg
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m217/pohill/DSCF3117.jpg

hickstick_10
January 23, 2011, 08:54 PM
That savage revolver is beautiful.

Hawg
January 23, 2011, 09:02 PM
Many others have kicked the tires and hummed and hawed about the revolver. They chose the spaghetti revolvers (for various reasons not just economy). And now the gun is gone. More and more domestic firearms manufactures go under as people choose to save a few bucks for a sub par product. Marlins gone, Winchesters gone and others will follow as people choose to have 2 imports for the cost of one domestic firearm.

IF American manufacturers made what we wanted at a decent price we would buy American. They don't so we buy Italian and Chinese. I'm not going to buy a gun I don't like just because it's American made and shoots bp. The Italian and Chinese know what we want and supply them at affordable prices.

hickstick_10
January 23, 2011, 09:07 PM
What do you consider a decent price?

Even when the originals were made they were expensive.

Hawg
January 23, 2011, 09:37 PM
If you could get an 1873 Colt made like the originals with the hammer mounted firing pin for 500 or so or a winchester 92 without a hammer block safety for about the same price I'd buy American. They cant and wont make guns like the originals for any price. The Italians can and will. Nuff said. This thread has been hijacked enough.

Bill Akins
January 23, 2011, 09:47 PM
hickstick 10 wrote:
ahuh they made the gun for 30 years and in all that time, when they were relatively inexpensive on the used market or new you chose not to purchase one. Obviously you chose not to support Ruger on the old army venture.

What makes you assume that I never owned a Ruger Old Army hickstick?
I never said I never owned one. I simply said I would like to have the stainless, 5.5. inch barrel, Vaquero style fixed sights version that Ruger was making for CAS/SASS at the end of the ROA production, but that their costs since being discontinued have inflated so high that I chose not to purchase a used one. That particular ROA, stainless, 5.5 inch barrel, Vaquero style fixed sight model I never owned. The fact is, once back in the early 80's I did buy a new non stainless, blue, standard long barrel (only barrel that was available back then) Ruger Old Army, brand new from a local dealer, but had to sell it to pay for some transmission work I needed done.

I currently own six Ruger 10/22's. Two of which I bought brand new from Wal-Mart and the other four I bought used. I've also owned a Ruger Blackhawk which I bought new. So I've supported Ruger through the years. But if I hadn't, would that make me a bad person because I hadn't bought brand new Ruger products? Did Bill Ruger supporting the assault weapons ban make him a bad person and justify shooters not buying Ruger products?

hickstick 10 wrote:
Marlins gone, Winchesters gone and others will follow as people choose to have 2 imports for the cost of one domestic firearm.

Over the years I've also bought a new Marlin mdl 1895 in 45-70 caliber as well as a new 30-30 mdl 1892 Winchester. (Correction, that was a mdl 1894 Winchester)

hickstick 10 wrote:
I dont understand how people hated the gun while it was made, and clamour for it when its gone. Or some are irritated that its out of their reach on the used market, when they could have bought a new one for less if they saved up for one and bought it while it was being manufactured.

If I had hated the ROA I would never have purchased a new blue one back in the '80's. Unfortunately by the time I became aware of the existence of the stainless, 5.5 inch barrel, Vaquero style fixed sights version, they were already out of production and prices inflated accordingly. Ruger did not make that particular model for very long and when they did, they made an even more limited amount in the 5.5 inch barrel length.

hickstick 10 wrote:
But no amount of "dremeling" will ever make a "uberti remmy" an old army in finish quality, reliability or strength.

No dremel tooling was done on my Pietta Remy. None was necessary. I never said a Remy was equal to the ROA. I just said that for the price difference, it was good enough for me. There's nothing wrong with my sharing my experience with an alternative is there?

The problem with making assumptions without adequate information is those assumptions can often be incorrect.

Good Lord. I posted a few experiences, some thoughts on some ideas and my alternatives to expensive purchases regarding BP revolvers. But it seems like some people do not appreciate that and just want to argue for the sake of arguing. Some folks want to argue over things as insignificant as whether I should use the word "many" instead of the word "most". Some make unfounded assumptions without adequate information to form those assumptions. Others are rude for no valid reason.

Why don't we argue about something important, like whether the word "ain't" or the word "isn't" is more valid. :rolleyes: For Pete's sake. Are we intelligent adults here? Arguing for the sake of arguing is not productive. Can we get back on track with intelligent discourse and have some fun and informative information instead of useless arguments over nothing? Sheez.

hickstick_10
January 23, 2011, 09:48 PM
What hijacking? part of the OP's issues in his posts is the cost of BP arms.

Bill Akins wrote:
Over the years I've also bought a new Marlin mdl 1895 in 45-70 caliber as well as a new 30-30 mdl 1892 Winchester.

that 1892 in 30-30 get sold for transmission work to? :rolleyes:

Model-P
January 23, 2011, 10:21 PM
The other idea I have had that goes back 30 years (to a wooden mockup I built) is a chain fire prevention plate that would obviate the need to use greased wads or grease over the projectile.


This idea is not as progressive as you might think. Colt's first experimental revolvers had shields over the front.
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c315/lookere/DSCF6263.jpg

The idea was quickly abandoned, and probably due largely to the obvious problem of difficulty in reloading. Colt must have found that the disadvantages outweighed any advantage, and this before any of his first production Patersons were manufactured.

Bill Akins
January 23, 2011, 10:25 PM
hickstick 10 wrote:
that 1892 in 30-30 get sold for transmission work to? :rolleyes:

No. A few years ago I gave the 30-30 Winchester to my son and some years before that I traded the 45-70 Marlin for a stainless, long slide, target sights, 1911 .45 pistol, because I got tired of the 45-70's recoil kicking like a Missouri mule.

But what does what I did or didn't do with the 30-30 have to do with the price of eggs other than for your question along with your rolling eyes smiley alluding that I'm a liar? Perhaps instead of giving it to my son, I should have sold it to help fund a research study on why people want to argue about insignificant things just for the sake of arguing. Another one for my ignore list. Rapidly weeding out who I want to correspond with and who just want to argue and are a waste of my time.

junkman_01
January 23, 2011, 10:41 PM
Bill Akins wrote:
Over the years I've also bought a new Marlin mdl 1895 in 45-70 caliber as well as a new 30-30 mdl 1892 Winchester.

This guy is blowing smoke. The Winchester M1892 was NEVER chambered in .30-30 (.30WCF) because that round is too long for the '92 action. :eek:

hickstick_10
January 23, 2011, 10:44 PM
Bill I dont want to hinder your enjoyment of this forum, but your not going to get positive responses by blocking others for criticizing your "thorough" style of posting or question some of your information or methods. The condescending style of writing (at least to me but I'm no expert on writing), doesn't exactly garner a favorable response to your posts either.

Just cause some disagree with you, doesn't mean its an argument. It should be no surprise others question your opinions and methods as strongly as you express them.

And if your going to speak of your 40 years of experience, then be sure your facts are straight so fewer people will question you. Like claiming you own an 1892 in 30-30

This is a forum after all, and a discussion gets mighty boring if everyone agrees with each other.

Bill Akins
January 23, 2011, 11:04 PM
Thanks very much for your post Model P. Your post and that picture was very informative and helpful. I was unaware that Colt had experimented with cylinder shields before he produced the Paterson. I've never gone past the stage of just making a wooden mockup. But Colt (obviously by your picture) made and experimented with tight fitting steel versions of cylinder shields. Your post convinces me that further experimentation of this on my part would be fruitless. Your post is the kind of helpful, sharing, educational post that is germane to the subject of my original post. Thanks again I much appreciated the information and enjoyed looking at the picture.

Model-P
January 24, 2011, 12:24 AM
My pleasure. When I first read about your idea, I had this nagging thought that I had seen it somewhere before. Then a mental image of an old revolver with an enclosed front and rear, and having a spike dagger on its front kept coming to mind. Well, I finally dug out one of my books on Colt's development where I thought I had seen it, and there it was. Thanks for helping knock some rust off my aging gears:). I posted the other photo because I felt the image was clearer, but here's the earlier one with the dagger.
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c315/lookere/DSCF6264.jpg

Bill Akins
January 24, 2011, 01:47 AM
Thanks for that second photo Model P.

Like you said in the first Colt cylinder shields photo, since the shield completely covered the front of the cylinder, that would make reloading a chore to have to remove the cylinder each time to reload. The second photo shows the same thing. Also obviously I am sure Colt thought about leaving the bottom cylinder open for reloading just like I did on my wooden mockup. If it had worked I'm sure Colt would have kept it. It must not have worked or Colt would have. I suspect Colt's experiments showed him the same things I was afraid of. That on first thought the shield would preclude cylinder front chainfire, but after he experimented he must have found out that the flame still would get through to the other cylinders, and perhaps the flame even be more directed behind the plate sideways into another cylinder front. The only question I have is since they didn't have non metallic heat & explosion resistant materials sufficient to make a shield out of, that could destroy itself in the event it failed so the cylinder wouldn't blow up, and the photos don't show any kind of heat resistant material backing that could be greased on the back of the shields, this makes me wonder if using modern materials if the idea might be able to work nowdays. But I recognize that even using modern materials (Colt didn't have) that the idea still may not work. Just an academic exercise in theory.

The problem ultimately is sealing the barrel to cylinder gap. The Russian Nagant revolver did this very effectively. As the Nagant's cylinder came into alignment with the barrel, the cylinder was forced forward and telescoped over the barrel's forcing cone. The cartridge's projectile was seated below the mouth of the case so that the case itself was force wedged into the forcing cone when the brass case expanded upon firing, creating an effective gas seal which precluded any cylinder to barrel gap flash.

Of course the Nagant came out decades after percussion revolvers became obsolete. But I wonder if the same basic principles of the Nagant could be used in a percussion revolver. Instead of a cartridge case head being wedged into the forcing cone, a projection could be made onto the front of the cylinder that was like that case head. So that when the cylinder came into alignment with the barrel, the cylinder was shoved forward (just like the Nagant) and that projection wedged into the forcing cone. Which could help prevent cylinder front chainfires. Maybe not as well as the brass cases expanding because there would be no malleable brass case expanding in this instance, but better than the normal barrel to cylinder gap. Just a thought. I wonder if any experimenters during the percussion era experimented with that. Do you have any knowledge if anyone did Model P?

pohill
January 24, 2011, 06:26 AM
I guess you didn't see post #6...
The Savage & North .36 revolver used a gas seal. Colt did not like it.

Bill Akins
January 24, 2011, 07:51 AM
Pohill wrote:
Colt found out very early on that it's a bad idea to encase the ignition of the cylinders - his first revolvers had shrouds over the nipples which actually caused chainfiring. Then he chamferred or beveled the chamber mouths to direct the gasses/flames/nuclear waste away from the other chambers.

Yes I did see your post on that Pohill. It was just much easier to visualize and understand it with the pictures Model P provided. Plus the pictures showed not only a shroud over the nipples, but also a shield over the front of the cylinder. But I still owe you a belated thanks for that #6 post as well Pohill. Sorry, I didn't mean to overlook your helpful and informative contribution. There was this ridiculous internet phenomenon I call...."the pile on wolfpack frenzied shark attack because they can"....going on at that time that was diverting my attention from the subject matter of my original post and I neglected to give proper attention to your post #6. So please forgive me if I overlooked and neglected to acknowledge your post. You were after all, the first one to mention Colt doing any kind of shrouding of the cylinders.

I would like to hear more from you about how you were saying that Colt chamferred or beveled the chamber mouths to direct the gases away from the fronts of other chambers. Could you help explain how that chamferring and or beveling was done, and exactly how well it worked?

pohill
January 24, 2011, 09:59 AM
I'm just busting them on ya. I wasn't looking for an apology, just wondering if you read that post.
The chamferring is pretty basic - Colt figured out that deflecting the gasses outward from the chamber mouths would keep those gasses from entering the other chambers.
As far as the "attacks" - keep in mind that anyone who owns a BP revolver is basically a "tabletop gunsmith", and we all have our ideas of how things are done or should be done or were done. When a new guy shows up with some differing opinions, well, we all pee in the corners to mark our territory and snap at him. But that will pass and then we'll settle in with some informative "discussions".

Bill Akins
January 25, 2011, 09:59 PM
I made a mistake on the model type of my Winchester 30-30 rifle I was talking about earlier that I gave to my son. It wasn't a model 1892, it was a model 1894. I went back and posted that correction in my relevant post. I just wanted to set the record straight because I was impolitely called a liar over a simple type of model typing mistake. Also I just discovered that unfortunately, even though you put someone on your ignore list, if you read a thread without first logging in, you still see the posts of those you placed on your ignore list unless you do log in first. I'll have to remember that and always log in before I read so I won't have to be subjected to impolite individual's posts.

I gave the Winchester MODEL 1894 30-30 to my son because I wasn't crazy about its straight upward ejection system dropping the cases back down onto the rifle and several times in shooting it I got spent cases falling in front of my bolt trying to jam the rifle. Not all the time, but often enough that it bothered me and I didn't like the hot cases hitting my hands either. I bought my side ejection Marlin model 1895 in 45-70 which was a great rifle and ejected to the side like I like. But after a few boxes of rounds I got so sick of the mule kicking recoil of the 45-70 coupled with the design of the buttstock of the Marlin, that I traded it for a 1911 pistol. So although I did buy and own Winchester and Marlin lever action rifles in the past, I don't currently own any of them today.

Anyway, it would be nice if some people here could be polite enough to not call someone a liar simply because of a Winchester model type date typing error. It's pretty easy to make a typing mistake and type model 1892 instead of model 1894, especially so because Winchester also made a model 1892.
Hell, I just now caught myself typing 1992 and 1994 in my above sentence and had to change it twice.

Otherwise I guess I could be just like them and scour their posts like a snake in the grass just waiting for them to make an honest mistake or typing error and then pounce and accuse them of "blowing smoke" (accusation of lying) like was done to me. Yeah I could do that, but then I'm not a jerk and that wouldn't be a productive use of my time nor would it be an exercise in fun at this forum. Not the kind of fun I and any normal person considers fun anyway.

HisSoldier
January 30, 2011, 04:56 PM
Belatedly I'd like to add that there is no good reason for the common assumption that having a Dremel at hand is an invitation to shoddy work. I think most gunsmiths have and use a Dremel on occasion. Anyone who would produce cruddy work with a Dremel would produce cruddy work with a Foredom, and frankly I find the Foredom to be far less convenient than a Dremel. The correct uses for a Dremel are almost endless.
I have close to 1/2 million bucks worth of tools in my shop, and still find the Dremel handy at times, in fact, at times it is the correct tool for the job at hand.

As far as rude people goes, yes, there does exist a "piling on" effect in a forum like this, I've seen it many times. If anyone wants to see how bad it can be, start reading the comments under Youtube videos, that's where you will see that a large percentage of people cannot make a point without using disgusting language and saying things about others that certainly don't reflect any understanding of the Golden rule.

Frontier
January 30, 2011, 06:11 PM
An interesting discussion, guys!;) One point I would question is that Cimarron and others "cherry pick" their guns from Uberti. I have seen this posted often before but I do not believe it to be true. I have visited the Uberti factory and there was no evidence of any special treatment for the various US importers. I doubt that anyone there had the time to check every gun that came off the line to pick out the "good ones".

Frontier

Doc Hoy
January 31, 2011, 06:21 AM
What an opportunity!? Visiting the Uberti Factory!

I would love to see it.

Bootsie
January 31, 2011, 10:56 AM
I kind of lost track of the issues of this controversal thread but I like Frontier's Doc Hoy's comments regarding Uberti. Have been to that company twice recently and can confirm it is worth more than one visit when you happen to be in the Milano or Venice area.
Very friendly and helpful people there although they are now part of the Beretta group. Actually Beretta helped a lot to improving their quality standards and investing into state of the art machinery.
If you have a problem with one of their guns no matter if it is a cartridge pistol or muzzle loader tell them. They solve it right there ... on the spot. They will even let you talk to their gun smiths on the production floor. If you happen to be at the factory during the right time of the year you might have the chance to see a few of Uberti's exquisite, selected exhibition guns and also prototypes. They have a museum area there near the conference room where you can have a look at all the guns you always wanted to own and then some.
Let my know if you are in need of Uberti contact information.
Bootsie

62coltnavy
February 2, 2011, 02:21 AM
Have you seen Uberti's website? They do custom engraving and show examples of stuff I've never seen here--but unless there is a dealer that can order it, I think it's unobtanium. http://www.ubertireplicas.com/