PDA

View Full Version : I'm gonna shoot this here brasser, safe load?


deerslayer303
January 6, 2013, 05:30 PM
Alright I wanna shoot this wall hanger (1858 NMA Brasser). I know you can't put a steel frame load in these. What should be a safe load? The owners manual really don't break it down for brass vs steel frames. 20grs real black too much? My measure only goes by 10's. And how much corn meal filler will bring the ball to the right level in the chamber? Sorry if I asked this before but I have forgotten. I think all my years of climbing in Aircraft fuel tanks have burnt up some memory cells :D

jimbob86
January 6, 2013, 05:32 PM
I've shot Pieta with as much as 30 ...... no filler.

Doc Hoy
January 6, 2013, 06:22 PM
...and maybe a little more. Remington brass frames are stronger than Colt (IMO). I am assuming .44.

I don't think filler is needed.

deerslayer303
January 6, 2013, 06:29 PM
Thanks guys! Just didn't want to punish it too much.

David13
January 6, 2013, 06:31 PM
Usually they say keep it about 20 or so at the most. I use Wonder Wads, which I seat gently with a wooden dowel.
dc

Hawg Haggen
January 6, 2013, 06:38 PM
I wouldn't go over 15 in brass and what Doc said about Remingtons being stronger is not right. Sorry Doc. Here's the first sign of a revolver soon to be a paperweight and yes Doc it is a Remington .36

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y269/rebel727/36%20Remington/000_0095.jpg

deerslayer303
January 6, 2013, 10:07 PM
Ouch Hawg! How many rounds fired done that? I won't shoot the brasser that much I have never shot it. I didn't really buy it to shoot. But I look at it everyday and I just gotta.

Hellgate
January 7, 2013, 12:10 AM
20 grains in a 44 ought to last a real long time. What eventually happens is the back of the cylinder dents into the frame and opens up the cylinder gap. I looked at a brasser 44 Remmie at a shoot once that was for sale with a "make offer" tag on it. The gap had to be about .015 and there was a perfect footprint of the back of the cylinder in the frame. I'm not sure how much stretching there was (had to be some) but the indentation of the recoil shield was obvious. Once the gap opens up a bit the cylinder has longer to travel before it slams into the frame so it hits harder and harder each time. I'm guessing the bolt held the cylinder close enough to fire the cap but then the cylinder is knocked forward a bit (closing the gap) but then slides back under recoil. So once the loosening begins it progresses faster.

Hawg Haggen
January 7, 2013, 05:32 AM
18 rounds and IIRC they were 25 grains. Its been a pretty good while but I know they weren't over 25.

Doc Hoy
January 7, 2013, 06:49 AM
I didn't say "immune to stretching", only said "stronger" which I continue to believe.

Not disagreeing here. I think we are saying two different things.

On the other hand...

I am surprised that eighteen rounds at 25 gr did that. So my advice to go over 20 in a .44 should be modified downward.

mykeal
January 7, 2013, 08:32 AM
Doc,

Why do you believe that 'Remington brass' is stronger than 'Colt brass'? What is it about the Remington design that changes the metallurgy?

Doc Hoy
January 7, 2013, 08:58 AM
I wouldn't know that.

I have no scientific proof of my opinion. I have only the musings of one who has a slightly more than casual familiarity with forces and materials.

Here is my logic:

In the case of the Remington, the forces that are applied as the ball travels down the barrel push forward on the barrel with a force that is roughly (and maybe exactly) equal to the force applied to the recoil shield. The force stresses the tensile strength of the frame top and bottom as it tries to stretch the frame. So you have force trying to stretch the brass at the top of the frame over the cylinder and the bottom of the frame just above the trigger. Hawg's photo is clear evidence of the force applied to the recoil shield. (Though I truly did not realize that 25 grains would do that after 18 shots)

In a Colt open top revolver, the only member of the revolver upon which this stress can be exerted is the arbor. And more correctly, the mating between the arbor and the frame. So we have a steel rod that is threaded into a brass hole. And all of the force pulls on that rod.

It is the same or (I think) nearly the same during loading when one loads with the cylinder in the revolver

I imagine, it would not be hard to determine to tensile strength of the cross-sectional area of brass we are taking about and compare it to the sheer strength of the threads in brass.

Machinery's Handbook probably has that data. I have never compared it or researched it. To me it seems intuitively obvious, but there are plenty of things that are obvious to me but are still quite wrong.

I call upon someone to describe the forces in a way that is different from my understanding. I also call upon someone to dispute my opinion about the relative strength of open top and full frame revolvers.

I am not saying I am right. I am saying I think I am right.

brazosdave
January 7, 2013, 10:19 AM
I shoot between 20 and 22 in my .36 and up brassers, no ill effects, and they group just fine at that load.

Doc Hoy
January 7, 2013, 10:50 AM
What we are really talking about is changes in the individual revolvers which in the opinion of the shooter make the revolver less than optimal for one reason or another. These changes would be the result of shooting the revolver with loads that are above what would be prudent. Other things may contribute to the changes as well. This is my own interpretation and others may disagree.

But those changes might include:

Dents in the recoil ring of a Colt revolver as we have all witnessed.
The damage to the recoil shield of a Remington like that in Hawg's photo.
Loose arbors in Colts
Elongation of the top and bottom member of the frame in a Remington. (Never witnessed and perhaps never occurring)

The effects of these changes are both cosmetic and operational. But in the end, the shooter gets to determine what is okay and what is not okay.

I did a little reading on sheer and tensile strength as applied to these revolvers and after the reading and a little cursory calculation, I THINK I have arrived at the conclusion that the frame of a Remington Brass revolver will fail at a pull of about 1.5 times what it takes to make the threads on a Colt arbor to fail. Please understand that I am not citing this as evidence that Remingtons are stronger than Colts in a practical sense because we are not stressing our revolvers in such a way that they fly apart into two pieces because of the loads we use. I am merely stating my supposition that the force vectors are similar.

FURTHER

That calculation is very general and involves many assumptions and therefore could be terribly wrong in either direction.

I can say this: In an engineering treatise I read that it is recommended that the thread engagement length should be at least the same as or longer than the major diameter of the threads. I have four arbors from Colts in my parts box and I can say that none of them have a thread engagement length that is equal to the major diameter of the threads. They are all roughly 75% of the minimum recommended length. This is a function of the geometry of the revolver. Even this fact alone does not make Remington frames stronger than Colt frames.

I just think they are.

Hellgate
January 7, 2013, 12:04 PM
Doc,
I enjoyed your gentlemanly dissertation and I "think" you're right.

brazosdave
January 7, 2013, 12:59 PM
I'm not a filler guy, but I do use lubed wads

noelf2
January 7, 2013, 03:11 PM
I think Doc is right too. Not considering the threads and arbors and such, or the properties of the brass in the recoil shields between one run of frames and another, but by the fact that the evolution of the revolver to withstand ever increasing pressures and recoils has favored the top strap design. Probably, but not certainly, because it is a stronger design.

mykeal
January 7, 2013, 09:43 PM
In the case of the Remington, the forces that are applied as the ball travels down the barrel push forward on the barrel with a force that is roughly (and maybe exactly) equal to the force applied to the recoil shield. The force stresses the tensile strength of the frame top and bottom as it tries to stretch the frame. So you have force trying to stretch the brass at the top of the frame over the cylinder and the bottom of the frame just above the trigger. Hawg's photo is clear evidence of the force applied to the recoil shield. (Though I truly did not realize that 25 grains would do that after 18 shots)

In a Colt open top revolver, the only member of the revolver upon which this stress can be exerted is the arbor. And more correctly, the mating between the arbor and the frame. So we have a steel rod that is threaded into a brass hole. And all of the force pulls on that rod.

The only force pushing forward on the barrel, if any, is the friction between the ball and the bore. That is certainly not equal, or even close, to the recoil force exerted on the cylinder. And in both designs that recoil force is fully reacted by the recoil shield; the cylinders in both cases are free to move on their respective arbors, constrained only by the recoil shield at the back.

Your thesis omits any mention of moments, which are certainly significant. The recoil force vector is along the centerline of the fired chamber and the bore; this axis is offset from the arbor and necessarily creates a bending moment in the Colt arbor and frame. It's this bending moment that causes the thread loosening in the Colt design. The frame reacts all the moments in the Remington design.

Hellgate
January 7, 2013, 10:02 PM
Mykeal,
Sincerely, pardon my ignorance, but I don't know what a "moment" is. You said,
"The frame reacts all the moments in the Remington design." I don't know what you mean by this. My training is medical not physics or mechanical. Could you translate into a language understandible by a neanderthal?

mykeal
January 7, 2013, 10:21 PM
A 'moment' is a force that tries to bend the structure to which it applies. When you pull (or push) on a wrench you're actually imposing a bending moment in the wrench. Think of a torque wrench - you pull on it with a force of, say 20 lbs, and the wrench is, for example, a foot long, you're applying a bending moment of 20x12 or 140 inch-lbs to the handle of the wrench, which results in a torque of 140 inch-lbs to the bolt or nut the wrench is attached to.

Another example: walking out on a diving board. If you weigh 100 lbs (well, not you specifically, just an example), when you first stand on the fixed end of the board you're exerting a force of 100 lbs on the board, but no bending moment as you are directly over the fixed end. As you walk out on the board your weight doesn't change, so the force you exert on the board doesn't change, but the board starts to bend. What's happening is that as you move away from that fixed end you are exerting two forces, one being your weight and the other being a bending moment that is the product of your weight times the distance you've walked away from the fixed end. Both forces cause stress in the board and both must be considered in any structural analysis.

Hellgate
January 7, 2013, 11:46 PM
Mykeal,
Keep in mind you are dealing with a Neanderthal here. So, the Remington frame takes all the "hit" (both fore and aft) when the gun is fired whereas in the Colt both the frame (when the cylinder hits rearward) and the arbor threads (when the bullet passes down the barrel, pulling the barrel and arbor forward). Right? (sort of)

Doc Hoy
January 8, 2013, 07:03 AM
My thesis omits moments of torque because of two things:

1. They would be difficult to quantify accept to say that their total wants to send the recoil upward as well as backward. I say that because when I fire a pistol the barrel wants to rise a bit.

In the way of amplification, the barrel does not rise appreciably until the ball has left the barrel. The means that the force imparting acceleration to the muzzle of the barrel in the upward direction has not developed the moments of torgue until after essentially all of the acceleration has been imparted to the ball.


2. In the end moments matter little more than the acceleration of recoil because my point is not which direction the forces are directed but the members upon which they act. In a Remington there are two members and in the Colt there is one.

Further, Even if we consider only the moments, the stress imparted to the frame of the Remington would act mostly as a pulling force on the upper member of the frame. And depending upon the pivot point of the revolver when it is held in the shooter's hand and fired, the force on the lower part of the frame could be either push or more likely a bending force. Because of the shape of the grip in a revolver and the fact that our holding the revolver imparts a force which wants to hold it in a constant orientation, I think the pivot point would be below the center of the cylinder but I am not certain of that. I am relatively certain though, that the pivot point of a revolver fired in free space is different from the pivot point of a revolver that is fired while somoeone is holding onto it and trying to point a target.

In a Colt, all of the force is felt as either a pulling force on the arbor or a bending force on the arbor.

As was said, this force is evident on the recoil shield of the Remington or the recoil ring of the Colt. Absent the effect of the bullet in the barrel this force tries to accelerate the revolver rearward and upward at the muzzle. The explosion in the cylinder drives it back against the recoil shield and this act pulls on every part of the revolver which is connected to the recoil shield. So in a Remington that is two frame members, plus the barrel, plus the loading lever. In a Colt it is the arbor, plus the barrel, plus the loading lever.

What is the weight of a Colt barrel and loading lever in comparison with the weight of the Remington barrel and loading lever? (That is a rhetorical question.)

noelf2
January 8, 2013, 04:15 PM
^^^Yeah, what he said^^^ "My boy's wicked smart"

mykeal
January 8, 2013, 04:24 PM
At this point, let me withdraw by just saying that one cannot dismiss the effects of moments in calculating (or characterizing) the stresses imparted to the structural members.

Rondog
January 8, 2013, 04:45 PM
Well, I just learned something disturbing. I never dreamed that shooting C&B revolvers could wear them out like this. Had no idea.

deerslayer303
January 8, 2013, 04:58 PM
^^^ Yeah and here I have been wanting a Gunnison and Griswold for a shooter! Ummmm maybe not seeing as how they are all brass. But I guess if they wear out they will just be display pieces.

Hawg Haggen
January 8, 2013, 06:07 PM
You don't have to worry much about steel frames. I have yet to damage a steel frame Colt or Remington. I wouldn't mind having a G&G myself but it wont get used much and only with light loads.

Captainkirk
January 10, 2013, 10:02 PM
You have to really work at it or abuse a brasser to wear it out.
Keep your loads light and you'll be fine.
That being said, for another $50.00-100.00 you can get a steel frame that WON'T wear out.

deerslayer303
January 11, 2013, 11:36 PM
Oh I have a steelie that sees alot of use. I just look at this brass framed '58 Remmie hanging on my mantle everyday, So I want the SHOOSTING to begin at least once :D