Problem with a Colt 1860 Army Signature Series - Page 2

Hawg · November 6, 2013, 05:12 AM

Quote:

I've said it before - I have two Signature Series Colts, both 1861 .36 Navy. I have never seen or handled a better made gun than either of these. Much better than Italian, Belgian or Spanish guns, and even the 2nd Generations I've seen and handled. Fit, finish, action, quality...top notch.
Maybe I just got lucky.

I don't think anybody is saying they aren't good guns. I'm sure they are very good. I just don't think they're worth the price tag.

DoubleDeuce 1 · November 6, 2013, 11:33 PM

I have an 1861 Colt Navy Signature Series. Fit and finish is beautiful. Lucky I guess.

Bill Akins · November 7, 2013, 08:05 AM

To fix that pin alignment you may have to take a round jeweler's file to the holes to enlarge them on one side of the pin hole. Sounds like the pins and holes were either misaligned or have a burr on the holes or something. A quick way to use the round jeweler's file to enlarge the side of the hole so the pins go in without the arbor flexing downward,....is to put a round jeweler's file into your drill. Then carefully, without putting too much sideways pressure on the file as you operate the drill, file on the side of the hole where the pin is brushing up against. Be careful though to not put too much side pressure on the drill as you file though, so you won't break the file. I've had to use this fix before. It works.

.

Conrad67 · November 8, 2013, 12:05 AM

Gentlemen,

Thank you for your input. Obviously, I have 'stirred the pot' on the third generation Colt controversy. Many of you make valid points: that I have pondered.

While it is true that Colt licenses it's name to be placed on many different items, the Colt name on a firearm is a different story. As a consumer, if the Colt name is on a firearm, I expect a high quality item and I expect a higher price tag because of it.

Legally, Colt can sell it's name to whomever to produce whatever. However, I don't know if it is a moral or ethical responsibility to ensure that the quality controls are in place for 'whomever' to live up to the Colt name on a firearm. This was a Colt failure.

Obviously, this consideration was not taken when they sold the rights to a licensee to produce their signature series blackpowder revolvers. The quality is hit-or-miss and not, in my opinion, up to Colt customer expectations.

It is a shame and (in my opinion) shameful, that Colt made questionable business decisions with a firearm that bares Samuel Colt's signature.

I appreciate your input.

Hopefully, I will be able to fire this gun someday. I own an original, a second generation, and the suspect third generation.

pohill · November 8, 2013, 06:29 AM

My two 3rd Generation Colts.
The top one was unfired when I got it. I tried to take it apart once, but stopped when the barrel would not separate from the frame (with the force that I was using). Not wanting to mar it in any way, I stopped and let it just sit there looking pretty. Then I got an email from a collector who had seen the pic online somewhere and he offered me X amount of money for the gun - over a grand. We went back and forth for months over the price, then I decided that I did not want to sell it. Instead, I took it out and fired it (18 rounds). It shoots as well as it looks. What a great gun. When the collector heard that I had fired it, his offer dropped by over $200. I still have the gun. I took it apart to clean it - the reason it had been so "stuck" was the hardened factory grease. Now it comes apart with minimal force, and is as tight and smooth as any gun I've ever owned.
The bottom one in the pic was fired when I got it but still fits together nice and tight. It's a great shooter - it actually spits out the spent caps like a semi-auto ejecting empty cases. I have studied it to see what actually makes that happen but cannot figure it out.
I have original guns that I shoot, plus Piettas, Ubertis, a Santa Barbara Remington (recently sold but I fired it), and I gotta say, these 3rd Generation guns are amazing. But they do come apart with some difficulty compared to the others. I would never put a conversion cylinder on either.
Your fluted 3rd Generation 1860 is a beauty ( as are the other two).

Hawg · November 8, 2013, 05:16 PM

Very nice Pohill.

pohill · November 8, 2013, 07:06 PM

I never met a BP gun that I didn't like. One of my favorites is my Pietta 1860 .44.
Smooth, balanced, great looking...

Bill Akins · November 9, 2013, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Pohill wrote:
...."it actually spits out the spent caps like a semi-auto ejecting empty cases. I have studied it to see what actually makes that happen but cannot figure it out."

Interesting. Pohill, would you please elaborate a bit more on that?
I mean, do you mean the caps actually fly off the nipples upon firing, or simply smoothly roll out the cap ejection channel real nice when you re-cock the revolver?

.

pohill · November 9, 2013, 11:41 PM

I was wondering who would pick up on that. It's a great gun but not that great.
I should have used a winking little smiley.
Wouldn't that be a great feature?

Bill Akins · November 10, 2013, 01:06 AM

Pohill, I realize now you were just joking. Lol. But I was wondering which way you meant that when I thought you were being serious. According to what you wrote, it could be taken two ways.

1. You meant that once fired, as you re-cocked the revolver, the caps smoothly fell off the nipples and smoothly rolled out the built in cap ejection channel in the receiver. (Which of course is what they are supposed to do and what that cap channel is for, if the caps do in fact come loose from the nipples after firing).

2. You meant that upon firing, the caps blew straight back off the nipples.

The first one is normal and frequent even though often the fired caps stay on the nipples and don't eject out the built in cap channel in the receiver.

But the second one isn't actually that outlandish either, since if your nipples were drilled out to the correct aperture, and you used the same powder load all the time, it is very possible that you could have meant that the caps smoothly blew off the nipples, thus "ejecting like a semi-auto".

I have frequently thought about that possibility. We all know how the ejector on a semi-auto works. The spent shell comes back and encounters the ejector coming through a groove in the bolt, and the ejector hits against the left side of the spent case, causing the spent case to eject out to the right.

If one were to drill out their nipples to enable more gas pressure to impinge rearwardly upon the caps upon firing, thus being enough gas pressure to blow the caps off the nipples, and then modify their 1860's hammer so that it wasn't flat all across where it contacts the cap, but instead had an angle to the right side of the hammer's face, it could be possible that not only would the caps blow off the nipples due to gas pressure, but also that if the nipples were drilled out enough, that the very small and short rearward movement of the cap off the nipple, would also move the hammer back just enough to where it doesn't actually cock the hammer (so it doesn't go full auto), but to where it just barely moves the hammer enough rearwardly to where the face of the hammer is off the cap and allows the cap to fly out, hit the angled face of the hammer and fall into the cap channel of the receiver frame, all without actually causing the cylinder to advance, since the hammer doesn't move rearward enough for the cylinder pawl to move upward enough to engage or advance the cylinder.

And due to an angle set on the right face of the hammer, that the caps would blow off the nipples and encounter the angle on the hammer face and then eject to the right side into the cap channel of the receiver frame, instead of blowing back and hitting the face of the hammer and just falling directly downward into the hole of the hammer thus jamming the action. The trick would be to get the hammer to just come back far enough for the caps to just barely blow off the nipples, hit the angled face of the hammer and be deflected to the right, into the cap channel of the frame and fall out the revolver, all without the hammer coming back far enough to cause any cylinder advancement, so it wouldn't go full auto.

It would take some experimentation with different size caps, different nipple apertures and powder loads and milling an angle into the face of the hammer that doesn't also prevent the hammer from popping the cap, (although it would mean that the hammer would only hit against the rear middle and left of the cap's rear, (the right side of the hammer's face not contacting the cap to fire it, since it is angled so that the cap can be deflected to the right by it).

Not that crazy really. I think it could be done.

And I agree Pohill, that WOULD be a great feature.

.

pohill · November 10, 2013, 06:51 AM

I recently fired a .45 Kentucky rifle (kit gun) with a weak main spring, or possibly an altered nipple, and it was not a good thing - grains of BP blew into my face.
I only fired it once and gave it back to the owner without really investigating.
Ejecting a spent cap might work better on a side hammer gun (Allen & Wheelock). There certainly is alot of unused power in the blowback.

Highorbit · August 1, 2015, 04:28 PM

Just to ad a little to this ancient thread.
Is the arbour 100% straight?

I have the exact same thing with a 1973 "Mystery" 60´Army. ("Westerner´s Arms" on top of the barrel, Italy and BP stamps, "113" under barrel, covered by the ramrod, Roman numericals for 1973 and "44 Cal" Just over the screw holding the wedge.)

What caused the issues with this one was some genius puttin a full 30 grains of smokeless modern powder in it and thereby rupturing the cylinder.

(Cylinders will be interchangeable in definate, if you own a file, so that might be swapped out, correct?)

This little strike of brilliance left the gun with three tell-tales.
#1 Arbour drooping slightly forward.
#2 Takes a bit of force to assemble/disassemble. (Barrel)
#3 If you pull the cylinder back towards the hammer, the tiny visible gap between cylinder and barrel will be wedge-shaped.

Bishop Creek · August 1, 2015, 04:56 PM

Quote:

What caused the issues with this one was some genius puttin a full 30 grains of smokeless modern powder in it and thereby rupturing the cylinder

Dear Lord!

Highorbit · August 1, 2015, 05:09 PM

Not surprising really, there are´nt that many modern BP revolvers over here (Sweden). Our laws states that anything designed for a gas tight catridge OR made after 1900 requires a license. BP revolvers are handguns (Rifles you can get on a hunting license - a bit easier) To own a handgun here you basically need to be a competition shooter, participating in competitions at least annually, or they simple revoke your license and take your guns away.

The know-how and simple gun handling and care simply got legislated away.

I.e. - darn, we ran out of bp, can we use that stuff? Sure, same stuff, right?

Hawg · August 1, 2015, 05:42 PM

I would have thought that with 30 grains of smokeless powder either by weight or volume but especially by volume that the gun would be totally destroyed.

Bishop Creek · August 1, 2015, 05:59 PM

Me too Hawg. I'm surprised the shooter wasn't destroyed too.

Highorbit · August 1, 2015, 06:06 PM

By volume, I guess, not many people load these things from a scale.
Apparently it ruptured the single chamber loaded and two adjacent ones, thankfully empty. The blast went straight up and no harm came to the shooter.

This gun and a few other "early modern" bp revolvers came to me from an Uncle that passed away. Shot it many times and, like I mentioned, it is a bit unwilling when it comes to assembly, but it shoots straight.

November 7, 2013, 08:05 AM	#28
Bill Akins Senior Member Join Date: August 28, 2007 Location: Hudson, Florida Posts: 1,135	To fix that pin alignment you may have to take a round jeweler's file to the holes to enlarge them on one side of the pin hole. Sounds like the pins and holes were either misaligned or have a burr on the holes or something. A quick way to use the round jeweler's file to enlarge the side of the hole so the pins go in without the arbor flexing downward,....is to put a round jeweler's file into your drill. Then carefully, without putting too much sideways pressure on the file as you operate the drill, file on the side of the hole where the pin is brushing up against. Be careful though to not put too much side pressure on the drill as you file though, so you won't break the file. I've had to use this fix before. It works. . __________________ "This is my Remy and this is my Colt. Remy loads easy and topstrap strong, Colt balances better and never feels wrong. A repro black powder revolver gun, they smoke and shoot lead and give me much fun. I can't figure out which one I like better, they're both fine revolvers that fit in my leather". "To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target".

November 10, 2013, 01:06 AM	#35
Bill Akins Senior Member Join Date: August 28, 2007 Location: Hudson, Florida Posts: 1,135	Pohill, I realize now you were just joking. Lol. But I was wondering which way you meant that when I thought you were being serious. According to what you wrote, it could be taken two ways. 1. You meant that once fired, as you re-cocked the revolver, the caps smoothly fell off the nipples and smoothly rolled out the built in cap ejection channel in the receiver. (Which of course is what they are supposed to do and what that cap channel is for, if the caps do in fact come loose from the nipples after firing). 2. You meant that upon firing, the caps blew straight back off the nipples. The first one is normal and frequent even though often the fired caps stay on the nipples and don't eject out the built in cap channel in the receiver. But the second one isn't actually that outlandish either, since if your nipples were drilled out to the correct aperture, and you used the same powder load all the time, it is very possible that you could have meant that the caps smoothly blew off the nipples, thus "ejecting like a semi-auto". I have frequently thought about that possibility. We all know how the ejector on a semi-auto works. The spent shell comes back and encounters the ejector coming through a groove in the bolt, and the ejector hits against the left side of the spent case, causing the spent case to eject out to the right. If one were to drill out their nipples to enable more gas pressure to impinge rearwardly upon the caps upon firing, thus being enough gas pressure to blow the caps off the nipples, and then modify their 1860's hammer so that it wasn't flat all across where it contacts the cap, but instead had an angle to the right side of the hammer's face, it could be possible that not only would the caps blow off the nipples due to gas pressure, but also that if the nipples were drilled out enough, that the very small and short rearward movement of the cap off the nipple, would also move the hammer back just enough to where it doesn't actually cock the hammer (so it doesn't go full auto), but to where it just barely moves the hammer enough rearwardly to where the face of the hammer is off the cap and allows the cap to fly out, hit the angled face of the hammer and fall into the cap channel of the receiver frame, all without actually causing the cylinder to advance, since the hammer doesn't move rearward enough for the cylinder pawl to move upward enough to engage or advance the cylinder. And due to an angle set on the right face of the hammer, that the caps would blow off the nipples and encounter the angle on the hammer face and then eject to the right side into the cap channel of the receiver frame, instead of blowing back and hitting the face of the hammer and just falling directly downward into the hole of the hammer thus jamming the action. The trick would be to get the hammer to just come back far enough for the caps to just barely blow off the nipples, hit the angled face of the hammer and be deflected to the right, into the cap channel of the frame and fall out the revolver, all without the hammer coming back far enough to cause any cylinder advancement, so it wouldn't go full auto. It would take some experimentation with different size caps, different nipple apertures and powder loads and milling an angle into the face of the hammer that doesn't also prevent the hammer from popping the cap, (although it would mean that the hammer would only hit against the rear middle and left of the cap's rear, (the right side of the hammer's face not contacting the cap to fire it, since it is angled so that the cap can be deflected to the right by it). Not that crazy really. I think it could be done. And I agree Pohill, that WOULD be a great feature. . __________________ "This is my Remy and this is my Colt. Remy loads easy and topstrap strong, Colt balances better and never feels wrong. A repro black powder revolver gun, they smoke and shoot lead and give me much fun. I can't figure out which one I like better, they're both fine revolvers that fit in my leather". "To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target". Last edited by Bill Akins; November 10, 2013 at 01:36 AM.

November 6, 2013, 11:33 PM	#27
DoubleDeuce 1 Senior Member Join Date: February 21, 2013 Posts: 101	I have an 1861 Colt Navy Signature Series. Fit and finish is beautiful. Lucky I guess.

November 8, 2013, 06:29 AM	#30
pohill Senior Member Join Date: December 27, 2005 Location: northeast Posts: 521	My two 3rd Generation Colts. The top one was unfired when I got it. I tried to take it apart once, but stopped when the barrel would not separate from the frame (with the force that I was using). Not wanting to mar it in any way, I stopped and let it just sit there looking pretty. Then I got an email from a collector who had seen the pic online somewhere and he offered me X amount of money for the gun - over a grand. We went back and forth for months over the price, then I decided that I did not want to sell it. Instead, I took it out and fired it (18 rounds). It shoots as well as it looks. What a great gun. When the collector heard that I had fired it, his offer dropped by over $200. I still have the gun. I took it apart to clean it - the reason it had been so "stuck" was the hardened factory grease. Now it comes apart with minimal force, and is as tight and smooth as any gun I've ever owned. The bottom one in the pic was fired when I got it but still fits together nice and tight. It's a great shooter - it actually spits out the spent caps like a semi-auto ejecting empty cases. I have studied it to see what actually makes that happen but cannot figure it out. I have original guns that I shoot, plus Piettas, Ubertis, a Santa Barbara Remington (recently sold but I fired it), and I gotta say, these 3rd Generation guns are amazing. But they do come apart with some difficulty compared to the others. I would never put a conversion cylinder on either. Your fluted 3rd Generation 1860 is a beauty ( as are the other two).

November 8, 2013, 05:16 PM	#31
Hawg Senior Member Join Date: September 8, 2007 Location: Mississippi Posts: 16,189	Very nice Pohill.

November 8, 2013, 07:06 PM	#32
pohill Senior Member Join Date: December 27, 2005 Location: northeast Posts: 521	I never met a BP gun that I didn't like. One of my favorites is my Pietta 1860 .44. Smooth, balanced, great looking...

November 9, 2013, 11:41 PM	#34
pohill Senior Member Join Date: December 27, 2005 Location: northeast Posts: 521	I was wondering who would pick up on that. It's a great gun but not that great. I should have used a winking little smiley. Wouldn't that be a great feature?

November 10, 2013, 06:51 AM	#36
pohill Senior Member Join Date: December 27, 2005 Location: northeast Posts: 521	I recently fired a .45 Kentucky rifle (kit gun) with a weak main spring, or possibly an altered nipple, and it was not a good thing - grains of BP blew into my face. I only fired it once and gave it back to the owner without really investigating. Ejecting a spent cap might work better on a side hammer gun (Allen & Wheelock). There certainly is alot of unused power in the blowback.

August 1, 2015, 04:28 PM	#37
Highorbit Junior Member Join Date: July 22, 2015 Posts: 3	Just to ad a little to this ancient thread. Is the arbour 100% straight? I have the exact same thing with a 1973 "Mystery" 60´Army. ("Westerner´s Arms" on top of the barrel, Italy and BP stamps, "113" under barrel, covered by the ramrod, Roman numericals for 1973 and "44 Cal" Just over the screw holding the wedge.) What caused the issues with this one was some genius puttin a full 30 grains of smokeless modern powder in it and thereby rupturing the cylinder. (Cylinders will be interchangeable in definate, if you own a file, so that might be swapped out, correct?) This little strike of brilliance left the gun with three tell-tales. #1 Arbour drooping slightly forward. #2 Takes a bit of force to assemble/disassemble. (Barrel) #3 If you pull the cylinder back towards the hammer, the tiny visible gap between cylinder and barrel will be wedge-shaped.

August 1, 2015, 05:09 PM	#39
Highorbit Junior Member Join Date: July 22, 2015 Posts: 3	Not surprising really, there are´nt that many modern BP revolvers over here (Sweden). Our laws states that anything designed for a gas tight catridge OR made after 1900 requires a license. BP revolvers are handguns (Rifles you can get on a hunting license - a bit easier) To own a handgun here you basically need to be a competition shooter, participating in competitions at least annually, or they simple revoke your license and take your guns away. The know-how and simple gun handling and care simply got legislated away. I.e. - darn, we ran out of bp, can we use that stuff? Sure, same stuff, right?

August 1, 2015, 05:42 PM	#40
Hawg Senior Member Join Date: September 8, 2007 Location: Mississippi Posts: 16,189	I would have thought that with 30 grains of smokeless powder either by weight or volume but especially by volume that the gun would be totally destroyed.

August 1, 2015, 05:59 PM	#41
Bishop Creek Senior Member Join Date: March 20, 2011 Posts: 566	Me too Hawg. I'm surprised the shooter wasn't destroyed too.

August 1, 2015, 06:06 PM	#42
Highorbit Junior Member Join Date: July 22, 2015 Posts: 3	By volume, I guess, not many people load these things from a scale. Apparently it ruptured the single chamber loaded and two adjacent ones, thankfully empty. The blast went straight up and no harm came to the shooter. This gun and a few other "early modern" bp revolvers came to me from an Uncle that passed away. Shot it many times and, like I mentioned, it is a bit unwilling when it comes to assembly, but it shoots straight.