I've been shooting my '58 Remy (Pietta) for sometime now without any problems. But I saw mention of ball creep in another thread and got to wondering if it's possible to have enough in a revolver to cause a problem. I don't think I have this problem, but perhaps I should check the next time I fire it. I've noticed that the condition of the ring shaved while loading is a bit ragged, but I thought that since my chambers are chamfered could cause this. Could this be the cause of the condition of the ring? I've been loading 30 gr. of Goex 3f and .454 Speer round balls.
If you enjoyed reading about "ball creep" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
August 3, 2010, 12:27 PM
Do you mean movement of the ball after it's loaded? The only gun I've owned where the ball moved after being rammed was my Walker. The shape of the rammer's tip caused suction and pulled the ball out (might have been lubed too much). I'd say that if a ring is shaved, the ball probably isn't moving. As far as the shape of the ring, I've never paid much attention to it. If the chamber is chamferred, the ring should sit further down (on my guns it does).
August 3, 2010, 02:12 PM
I meant ball movement in the cylinder due to recoil of previously fired rounds. I was wondering if this could create enough air space between ball and powder to cause the cylinder or barrel to rupture. If this happened, I don't think I would like it.:uhoh: :eek:
August 3, 2010, 03:06 PM
Yes, it can happen. Cylinder failure is the issue, barrel failure is not. Barrel 'failure' (actually, bulging) is caused by a round becoming lodged in the barrel and another round being fired into it. This can happen, for instance, when a chamber is underpowered and expels the round with just enough energy to get it into the barrel. Any time you think you've had a 'squib' load, be sure and check the barrel for an obstruction (with both black powder and smokeless cartridge rounds as well).
August 3, 2010, 04:49 PM
Your chamfered Pietta cylinder along with using the .454 balls probably is responsible for shaving the larger & more ragged lead ring. But the size of the ring also reflects the amount of force that they're being swagged into the chamber with.
So the larger the ball, the better that the ball will be held in place.
Since many folks use .451 balls in thier Pietta Remington without issues, why should there be any problem with the .454 balls being held in place?
I wonder if the self performed chamfering of the chamber mouths was not done smoothly or satisfactorily enough, therefore the larger & more ragged rings?
Have the .451 balls been tried? :rolleyes:
August 3, 2010, 07:30 PM
I've never tried .451 balls. The .454 balls are quiet hard to start with the loading lever. That's why I use a bench top loader. The chambers were chamfered at the Pietta factory as are the ones on my 1851 Navy, also a Pietta.
Just mesured the cylinders on Both guns The Remy measures .445 for the .454 ball and the Navy measures .366 for the .375. I hope that is tight enough to hold the balls in place.
August 3, 2010, 08:14 PM
The chambers were chamfered at the Pietta factory as are the ones on my 1851 Navy, also a Pietta.
I've never once heard before that the Pietta Remingtons were chamfered at the factory, but only that the Euroarms Remingtons were.
Any chance of posting a photo of the chamfering?
I bought my stainless Euroarms 1858 from Dixie. It was a great gun, I thoroughly regret selling it. As I understand it, Euroarms are the most accurate '58 replicas with regard to size. As for being 'painful' to shoot, I have big hands and it was never a problem. Then again I don't think .44 mag recoil is much either.:)
The other great thing about them is the chamber mouths are chamfered, therefore swaging the ball to size instead of shaving a ring of lead. This gives a better seal and a heavier projectile. I don't understand why the other manufacturers don't do this.
Sorry this took so long. Thought I knew how to do this, but I was wrong. Don't know how this will turn out or if you'll get the pic I want to send. And also the quality might not be up to par.http://s871.photobucket.com/home/dadschoice/recentuploads
August 3, 2010, 09:37 PM
I tried but as you can see nothing happened. I uploaded the pic to Photobucket, but can't get it to THR
August 4, 2010, 01:06 AM
To my knowledge only the Euroarms Remmies are chamfered. The five I own certainly are. The Ubertis and Piettas I have or have had were not. The Piettas seem to have the smallest chambers. I use .454 balls for every .44 I own and they work fine.
Most likely what'll happen if you get ball creep (sounds like a VD) is you will get no ignition (powder not up against the flash hole), a delayed ignition, or the ball will protrude and jam the rotation of the cylinder and that chamber won't even come into battery.
Regarding ball creep in the Walker: I had the same experience of the rammer/plunger pulling the balls up. I slightly reamed the inner edge of the cupped portion and that stopped it. I think there was an overhang or ring that grabbed the ball.
August 4, 2010, 08:27 AM
If I load my ROA to the gills with 777 under a 220 grain conical, I get a little bit of pulling such that the last two rounds will contact the forcing cone as I cock the hammer. With normal loads this doesn't happen, but 777 is some HOT stuff. I'm getting over 1300 fps from that bullet. I'll load that for hunting, but normally, I either use pyrodex or preferably load 25 grains of 777 with a filler. It goes bang just fine, is accurate, and saves powder. :D
If you're having problems with the pullets or ball creeping on you, I suggest a lighter load.
August 4, 2010, 11:39 AM
Below are photos from NCWanderer. I added "auto correct" to brighten both photos up a little bit.
There does seem to be chamfering that I never noticed my late 90's Pietta Remington to have. For comparison, see the chamfering done on Kwi43's .36 custom target in the next photo link.
I wish that we had a photo of the Euroarms chamfering for further comparison.
NCWanderer, what year is your Pietta proof code?
Thank you for taking the photos. :)
August 4, 2010, 12:19 PM
The chamfering you show is quite short compared to how it is performed on the Euroarms Remingtons. The Euro chamfering is at a shallower angle and goes into the chamber about 1/8". The ball actually drops deeper into the chamber. Your chamfering looks about a 45 degree angle whereas the Euro is about a 15 degree angle. What the short chamfering does is to eliminate any overhang of the edges of the chamber mouths from machining that can shear away the lead rather than swage it as the ball is seated. The shearing can create a smaller diameter ball that can lead to ball creep or chain firing. So, that little bit of chamfering is good. The deeper Euro chamfering swages the ball so you don't get the ring of lead when seating it but no ball creep either. I'm not sure what amount of blow by one gets in the Euros as the ball jumps the gap into the forcing cone. I use lube wads anyway so it is probably not an issue with the wads.
August 4, 2010, 07:55 PM
The only proof codes are on the right side of the barrel. One is a horizontal diamond with FAP inside it. Another is a box with a anvil in it with a star over it and the last one is the same star with the letters PN under it. I think this only indicates that it was manufactured bi Pietta since 1950. I built this gun from a kit I bought from Dixie around Jan. or Feb. 2009
August 5, 2010, 10:15 AM
Ball creep can be a problem, especially on long rides, I prefer Monkey Butt powder for those long days in the saddle.