|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
View Poll Results: Colt replicas, brass or steel frame cap and ball revolvers, which do you prefer and i | |||
brass | 8 | 14.04% | |
steel | 49 | 85.96% | |
Voters: 57. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 9, 2009, 07:40 AM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 6, 2006
Location: Hernando , Ms.
Posts: 579
|
Remember the CSA was useing some melted down church bells to make those yellow metal pistols ..they were haveing a shortage of iron at the time .
Brass church bells had a high bronze content ..brass is too soft for bells they would not ring made of brass only. |
September 9, 2009, 09:19 AM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 8, 2007
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 16,190
|
Quote:
|
|
September 10, 2009, 03:36 AM | #28 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2005
Location: Central Connecticut
Posts: 3,166
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
September 10, 2009, 10:13 AM | #29 |
Member
Join Date: May 28, 2007
Location: Mpls
Posts: 38
|
Steel is the only way to go. It even looks better.
|
September 10, 2009, 04:34 PM | #30 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 28, 2001
Location: West Tennessee
Posts: 4,300
|
Quote:
Brass is copper and zinc. |
|
September 11, 2009, 09:26 AM | #31 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 2, 2007
Location: Northern Orygun
Posts: 4,923
|
Quote:
What impresses me is they continued to produce revolvers while they moved the factories as the Union troops advanced in to the South. |
|
September 13, 2009, 10:31 AM | #32 |
Junior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: Waldport, OR
Posts: 1
|
Point vs Counter Point
I'm new to Black Powder, and I'm getting discouraged before I even start. I like the looks of the replicas, and the history behind them. So, I bought 4 of them in the last 18 months or so.
I have 2 new Pietta revolvers, an 1861 Colt, .36 steel frame, and an 1858 Remington police, .36, with a steel frame. In addition, I have an unfired 1860 Colt Signature Series, .44, with the fluted barrel. Also, I have a well used 1851 Confederate, with the brass frame, I don't know who made it, but it's about 40 years old. I was enthusiastic when I bought these guns, but now I'm not so sure. People on various forums claim that the steel used in the replicas is "soft", and the guns are poor quality, and won't hold up to ordinary use. I even see my Colt Signature series bad mouthed for poor quality. Well, if the people owning these type of guns are dissatisfied, then what is the point in owning any of them, and how do the dealers get $300.00, give or take a few dollars, for them from us? |
September 13, 2009, 10:35 AM | #33 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 8, 2007
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 16,190
|
Quote:
Don't listen to them. They know not of what they speak. The only one you have to go easy on is the brass frame. |
|
September 13, 2009, 06:19 PM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 7, 2009
Posts: 433
|
for live shooting i would use steel and for reenacting i would use brass.
|
September 13, 2009, 06:39 PM | #35 |
Member
Join Date: September 11, 2009
Posts: 90
|
Brass serves the same purpose now that it did at the time it was used in the originals. Expediency, and cost are fine reasons for choosing brass in a black powder weapon, but not in any way the equal of good iron or steel. Any gun made of brass will wear and stretch more rapidly, and make catastrophic structural failure more of a possibility. Aesthetically, it's a personal choice. As a hobby machinist, and trained blacksmith, I find the argument that brass frame revolvers could possibly match steel for structural integrity, and maintaining tight tolerances through repeated mechanical stress, explosive shock, and abrasion an irresponsible attempt to justify what has always been an economical choice. Brass requires allot of effort to keep looking good, it will corrode quickly from a wide variety of sources and is hard to seal on working surfaces. The point is, that there really is no debate to be had as to the superiority of brass or steel. Steel is superior in every aspect with the exception of machinability (brass is far softer, and therefore easier to work). Enjoy shooting those brass guns, but treat them as what they are; a weaker, cheaper gun that will need to be checked periodically for indications of work hardening, and cracking, as well as stretching beyond normal tolerances.
|
September 13, 2009, 09:23 PM | #36 |
Staff
Join Date: November 2, 1998
Location: Colorado
Posts: 21,841
|
Regarding soft steel, I'm given to believe that the Italian replicas of the '70s were of dubious quality, and I recall a friend's gun whose steel frame cracked, there's been some improvement. Since I don't own any replica revolvers (I get my jollys with the Ruger Old Army), let's hear from the steel frame owners on this.
__________________
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt. Molon Labe! |
September 13, 2009, 09:56 PM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 8, 2007
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 16,190
|
I've got a steel frame 58 that was made in 69 and it's literally been through hell and high water and it's still a fine shooter. I've had several other steel frame guns with nary a problem and I don't shoot wussy loads.
|
September 13, 2009, 11:59 PM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 7, 2009
Posts: 433
|
steel colt army 1860 and 1845 2nd dragoon. brass looks good but its much softer material and will warp overtime and brass is a whole lot cheaper is bad enough to have a copy of a copy of a bad orginal but i dont think they got the brass compounds correct. They are a weaker gun then the steel. The modern steel is good quality ive only had springs crap out on me not the frames cylenders or barels.
|
September 14, 2009, 07:21 AM | #39 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 2, 2007
Location: Northern Orygun
Posts: 4,923
|
Quote:
Brass frames can not take the same load levels as the steel frames, use light to moderate loads and you should not have any problems. There are members here you have brassers that are eligible for senior citizen discounts and are still fine. There have been problems with "soft parts" wearing out, hands, sears, even hammers, but that is pretty much a thing of the past, and is fixable. I have machined many different brands and they are all mild steel and mild steel is more than adequate for black powder. One exception is the Belgian Colts, they use a very hard steel. Quote:
While it's possible for any manufacture to have a gun get past quality control that should not have, it rarely happens with the 2nd and 3rd gen Colts. The 3rd gens used the same part suppliers and in most cases the same workers as the 2nd gens. There are two major differences between 2nd and 3rd gens, the bluing and that ugly signature on the back strap. |
||
September 14, 2009, 08:39 AM | #40 |
Junior member
Join Date: November 28, 2001
Location: West Tennessee
Posts: 4,300
|
Both my Pietta 1860's are soft, or at least their cylinders are. Both exhibit "smearing" at the bolt notch leedes and both are no more than three or four years old. Neither have seen more than a fraction of the "action" that my cartridge guns have.
|
September 14, 2009, 11:17 AM | #41 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 2, 2007
Location: Northern Orygun
Posts: 4,923
|
[QUOTE]Both my Pietta 1860's are soft, or at least their cylinders are. Both exhibit "smearing" at the bolt notch leedes and both are no more than three or four years old. Neither have seen more than a fraction of the "action" that my cartridge guns have.[/QUOTE
Peening of the cylinder notches is a known issue and can be addresses with proper fitting and timing of the bolt. Some times the bolt spring is has much more tension than it needs. The common fix is the back the bolt spring screw off a turn or two. This may help. http://www.theopenrange.net/articles...a_Part_One.pdf http://www.theopenrange.net/articles...a_Part_Two.pdf |
December 18, 2010, 08:42 AM | #42 |
Junior Member
Join Date: December 18, 2010
Posts: 6
|
Italian brass
Hi,
have an Italian Colt Navy brass frame copy. Has a stamp C.O.M. underneath the barrel. Does anyone nhave a clue who made it? |
December 18, 2010, 10:44 AM | #43 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 8, 2007
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 16,190
|
Quote:
|
|
December 18, 2010, 10:53 AM | #44 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2009
Posts: 1,624
|
I think a brass one would look nice in a display case or hanging on the wall
|
December 18, 2010, 11:10 AM | #45 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Naples, Fl
Posts: 5,440
|
C.O.M.
Contrini Officine Meccaniche
__________________
Seek truth. Relax. Take a breath. |
December 18, 2010, 01:07 PM | #46 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 8, 2007
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 16,190
|
Quote:
|
|
December 19, 2010, 12:02 PM | #47 |
Junior Member
Join Date: July 18, 2010
Posts: 14
|
I own brass, and really like it's look. I would probably say, though, that I prefer steel, just so I don't have to worry about the brass limitation. (I just couldn't pass on the $129 price, which is why I have brass.
So, although I own brass, I voted steel. |
December 19, 2010, 02:56 PM | #48 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 23, 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 6,442
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|