Recoil is moving my balls ...


PDA






SleazyRider
March 28, 2011, 10:52 AM
I've noticed that the balls in the cylinder of my 1858 Remmy move a bit forward under recoil, especially if I use a filler over the 24 grains of FFF black powder to bring the ball closer to the front of the cylinder. I've even had a ball work its way out and fall to the ground. :o I use a loading press to load the cylinder out of the gun, and a nice lead ring gets sheared off the .454 Hornady balls, so I believe they are sized correctly for the gun.

Specifically, here's my question: Can the use of Crisco or other lubricant over the ball contribute to the balls moving in the cylinder under recoil? Some folks, I've heard, seal up the chamber with a drop of motor oil over the ball. Perhaps more importantly, if the balls move forward, could this gap cause an unsafe condition?

As always, I appreciate your thoughts on this!

If you enjoyed reading about "Recoil is moving my balls ..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Busyhands94
March 28, 2011, 02:04 PM
that happens to me when i shoot big shotguns. it is rather uncomfortable :p oh wait, your talking about a revolver. lol

arcticap
March 28, 2011, 02:26 PM
Specifically, here's my question: Can the use of Crisco or other lubricant over the ball contribute to the balls moving in the cylinder under recoil?

Yes, that's been reported to happen due to lubrication on the chamber walls.
The lubrication probably migrates due to the heat, especially if the chambers are not swabbed dry in between loading each cylinder full.
Hopefully if the chamber walls are wiped dry then the balls will stop creeping forward.
Dry wads, over powder cards or lube pills can be used instead of lube over the ball.
Or try swabbing the chambers dry between each loading.
In your case the thicker and waxier the ball lube is the better, that is if any lube and/or filler is going to be used at all. And lube pills or "lube cookies" are placed under the ball instead of over it.

Phantom Captain
March 28, 2011, 02:31 PM
Let me ask you this SleazyRider, is your Remmy stainless or the blued version?

I own and shoot 10 different cap and ball revolvers and the only one I have that I've encountered this happening with is my stainless remmy.

dprice3844444
March 28, 2011, 03:42 PM
hold your balls tighter

ROAshooter
March 28, 2011, 04:10 PM
Here is something for you to check... experince with a brand new Ruger Old Army...when the 5.5 barrels hit the market. Like you I was having bullet creep to the point it would lock up the cyclinder. And like you I got a very even lead ring...shaved..when I pressed the balls into the cyclinder. What I discovered..buy using my dial caliper...that the face of the cyclinder had been milled with a slight burr...so the shaved ball....was now smaller...not by much..but enough...so it really did not get full contact with the inner walls of the cylinder. I used my RCBS case trimmer....the little hand model...to very lightly ream each chamber opening....the bullet creep disappeared..

mykeal
March 28, 2011, 04:35 PM
Can the use of Crisco or other lubricant over the ball contribute to the balls moving in the cylinder under recoil?
Yes, it can.
if the balls move forward, could this gap cause an unsafe condition?
Yes, it can.

My first thought was tapered chamber walls; it wouldn't be the first time. ROAshooter came up with another possibility, which I think is more likely the case. Check that out first. If that doesn't pan out, or if correcting it is outside the budget for now, change to a dry lubed wad under the ball and leave out the Crisco or grease.

Black Toe Knives
March 28, 2011, 06:18 PM
Get bigger balls. This will make the surface area on lead and wall wider.

Oyeboten
March 28, 2011, 06:31 PM
I have an older Stainless Steel 'UBERTI' Remington New Model .44 Cap & Ball Revolver, and, I have not seen any Ball creep with it, and, I have so far only shot full house Loads.

Examine the Cylinder Bores, and, Mike them if possible, looking carefully to see if they get larger or smaller or deviate however so, as they go in from the front edge.

SleazyRider
March 28, 2011, 08:16 PM
Some very good suggestions here, several of which sent me scurrying out to the garage to break out my old set of small-hole gauges and mics, which haven't been used since I rebuilt my old small-block back in high school. I checked out all the holes, and the bores are parallel with no burr. It's not stainless, either. And the reason I hate to go to a larger diameter bore is because my loading press is really maxed out in terms of strength, I think, and a larger bullet might bend the loading lever. I haven't used the loading level on the gun simply because I don't want to stress it unnecessarily.

I would, however, like to see a little bit more of a chamfer on the front edge of the cylinder bores, and may consider putting one in if other remedies fail. Maybe that would compress the lead a bit more rather than shave it off.

I'm going to dry some "dry" loads tomorrow, that is, Wonder Wads over powder with no Crisco. Quite frankly, I'm not quite sure exactly how these wads lubricate since they go through the barrel after the bullet, but lots of folks swear by them.

Thanks for your suggestions folks; I'll report back.

mykeal
March 28, 2011, 10:10 PM
The 'lubrication' is to soften fouling, not ease the bullet's passage through the bore.

scrat
March 28, 2011, 10:15 PM
i would try .457

Hellgate
March 29, 2011, 01:14 AM
I vote for ROAshooter's suggestion. If you are shaving a ring and the balls still migrate forward then the balls are too small of a diameter which can only happen if they are being shaved smaller. Put a little bit of taper or chamfer on the mouths of the chambers. Also ramming the balls a little harder may swell them enough to grip the walls better as well as getting larger diameter balls for a longer bearing surface. Basically, you want to just slightly "crown" the chambers. Also Cream of Wheat has very little sponginess compared to corn meal that might expand after compressing with the ball and push them a bit forward.

Black Toe Knives
March 29, 2011, 03:50 AM
If you are maxing out you loading press. You lead is way to hard. Even with .457 ball it should be an ease. Lead just isn't that hard. Are you making you own bullets?
Please don't chamfer your cylinders. This will cause you nothing but problems. The sharp edges on cylinder are there to size the bullet. It makes the seal and sizes the bullet to go down the barrel. Forcing an oversize bullet down a cylinder or the barrel is bad news. The chamfer cylinder will also cause an expansion area for the over size bullet, so it is even more oversize as it leaves the cylinder and enters the barrel.

SleazyRider
March 29, 2011, 07:45 AM
Those .457 bullets sound like a good idea and no, I don't cast my own ... yet. That's good to know, Mykeal, and I thank you for that information. Removing the black powder residue has been very easy with hot soapy water, and I usually follow up with some Hoppes, which gets everything spotless.

mykeal
March 29, 2011, 08:06 AM
Please don't chamfer your cylinders. This will cause you nothing but problems. The sharp edges on cylinder are there to size the bullet. It makes the seal and sizes the bullet to go down the barrel. Forcing an oversize bullet down a cylinder or the barrel is bad news. The chamfer cylinder will also cause an expansion area for the over size bullet, so it is even more oversize as it leaves the cylinder and enters the barrel.
I don't understand. You say it causes 'nothing but problems' - what problems? Why is forcing an oversize bullet into a chamber or barrel 'bad news'? Many people (including Sam'l Colt and F.LL.Pietta) have chamfered their chamber mouths and report no problems or 'bad news' - what are they missing?

An 'expansion area'? Are you saying the ball increases in diameter as it transits the chamfer area? I might agree that a round ball obdurates from the expanding gas if it's at rest, but not if it's moving - how is that possible? And isn't it desirable to have the ball oversize to the groove diameter when it enters the bore, so that the ball engages the rifling and prevents blow-by? Isn't that why people ream their chambers to be oversize?

Hellgate
March 29, 2011, 11:08 AM
All of my Euroarms Remingtons have fairly large but shallow bevels on the chambers that extend almost 1/8" into the mouth. They came that way from the factory. No ball creep. If there is an overhang of metal from milling the cylinder face, chamfering is gonna be the fix. He only needs to make .01"-.02" of bevel. That isn't gonna cause any problem. It'll eliminate the problem. If it doesn't fix it, no real harm is done.

kwhi43@kc.rr.com
March 29, 2011, 11:20 AM
The mouth of the cylinder chambers should be beveled. This for accurate
shooting and no ball creep. This is fact, not armchair "experts" opion.

J-Bar
March 29, 2011, 05:25 PM
Does this occur only when you load into clean chambers? Are you popping a cap on each chamber before loading it after the last shooting/cleaning session? There should not be any lube in the chamber in the first place, but that should dry out any lube that might have been overlooked. After the first cylinder full has been fired, there should be enough fouling inside the chambers to discourage ball creep for subsequent loadings. Hornady balls should be pure lead, but if you are loading any projectiles other than pure lead balls or conicals, they may not mush out as much during seating, and therefore have less friction with the chamber walls. I would not normally think that 24 grains is too heavy a charge, but you might experiment with smaller charges and see how low you have to go to reduce recoil sufficiently to eliminate the problem.

I think the .457 ball will probably solve your problems, but if it doesn't, you might start checking to see if the chamber diameters are uniform all the way down. You might also check to see if it is just one troublesome chamber, or are all of them creeping.

Jaymo
March 29, 2011, 07:49 PM
I've been using 35 grains of FFFg, lubed felt wads, .454 balls, and sometimes Bore Butter on top of all that in my 5.5" Remmie Sheriff.
I quit using the BB after a couple of cylinders, due to mess. Never had problems with ball creep.
I was thinking about deburring my chamber mouths. I need to find my snap gauges and mic the chambers and barrels (I have 2 58 Rems, a 5.5" and an 8").
I'd like to get the chambers reamed. Can't decide if I want to do it myself or find someone to send it to.

Haven't had any ball creep. Those 35 grain loads scare the balls into submission. ;)

kbbailey
March 30, 2011, 10:38 AM
My Uberti '58 has beveled chamber mouth. It doesn't shave a nice ring like my straight chambered Pietta's.
I recently cast some .454 balls out of what I thought was soft lead. As it turned out....the balls were pretty hard. I thought I was going to break my loading rod trying to load the Uberti, but they went into the Pietta's OK. I feel like thois was because of the chamfered cyl mouth on the Uberti (trying to swage the hard lead).

I admit that I am no expert, but for my $.02.....I wouldn't bevel the chamber mouths.

Hellgate
March 30, 2011, 01:48 PM
kbbailey,
If you are not getting ball creep then there's no ned to chamfer the chamber mouths. Also, using soft lead would have been no problem with the beveled Uberti. I have shot .457 balls in my beveled chambers and no problems as they were soft lead.

makos_goods
March 30, 2011, 02:31 PM
The mouth of the cylinder chambers should be beveled. This for accurate
shooting and no ball creep. This is fact, not armchair "experts" opion.

kwhi43,

Fact? You have test data to proffer?

You realize of course this flies in the face of 175 years of experience don't you? Mykeal is wrong about what Samuel Colt did, I have 3 original Colt's and none of them are chamfered. I will post the pics if you like, I've had this discussion before.

Hellgate and I usually agree on matters concerning cap guns, but on this one I have to disagree. Black Toe Knives is correct, the best fit will always be a cut fit. That is unless there is a burr like ROAshooter first talked about.

My experience is not just from data about revolvers, I had to deal with a problem much like this with a high speed production tool dispensing lead balls and I wished I could have shaved a ring, it would have solved our positioning problems.

ROAshooter started this discussion about chamfering by telling us how he fixed an existing problem with a mouth, not adding chamfers for any other reason.

Swaging balls contrary to what would seem "intuitively obvious" does not necessarily give you an "interference fit." This is what we found with the equipment, there is actually a bit of spring back. In addition if there is any lubricant or chamber residue it creates a film between the chamber wall and the ball when swaging it. This is why lubricant is used during swaging, it creates a film. If you cut the ball the interface is clean and the oil film or debris is pushed in front of the peripheral contact patch as the ball is pushed in.

But a burr or rolled edge into the diameter of the chamber will cause you a problem. If there is one then it needs to be removed and avoid adding a chamfer if possible. A very small 45° or steeper chamfer that remains smaller or about at the ball diameter will still work most of the time. Steeper, not shallower, you don't want a gentle lead in. I have a question for those of you that "swage," if it doesn't shave lead how do you know if it has fully engaged the walls?

I suspect tapered chambers is your problem. This happens as the reamer gets worn. On cartridge guns it makes the throat in front of the bullet get tighter because the reamer is introduced from the rear, on a C&B cylinder it makes it smaller the deeper you go in from the cylinder face because the reamer is obviously introduced into a blind hole from the front. Get my drift? It fits "tightly" where it is but even a thousandths of forward movement makes it looser, you tell me where it will go.

The good news it can be reamed again. It might not even be larger at the mouth when you are finished, but you need to ream it to at least the seating depth with a constant straight sided wall . Find someone with a pin gage set to determine what the current diameter is for each chamber and how deep the pins will go. Then you can ream all of your chambers dead on to size, choose the largest diameter mouth, or .0005" (1/2 thousandths) larger.

Check these people out, they have tools at a good price and free shipping if it's ground. I just pulled up a Ø.451 reamer to show you.

http://www.atlascuttingtools.com/products/0.451-DIAMETER-%252d-A52262.html


Regards,
Mako

kwhi43@kc.rr.com
March 30, 2011, 03:49 PM
kwhi43,

Fact? You have test data to proffer?

You realize of course this flies in the face of 175 years of experience don't you? Mykeal is wrong about what Samuel Colt did, I have 3 original Colt's and none of them are chamfered. I will post the pics if you like, I've had this discussion before.

Hellgate and I usually agree on matters concerning cap guns, but on this one I have to disagree. Black Toe Knives is correct, the best fit will always be a cut fit. That is unless there is a burr like ROAshooter first talked about.

My experience is not just from data about revolvers, I had to deal with a problem much like this with a high speed production tool dispensing lead balls and I wished I could have shaved a ring, it would have solved our positioning problems.

ROAshooter started this discussion about chamfering by telling us how he fixed an existing problem with a mouth, not adding chamfers for any other reason.

Swaging balls contrary to what would seem "intuitively obvious" does not necessarily give you an "interference fit." This is what we found with the equipment, there is actually a bit of spring back. In addition if there is any lubricant or chamber residue it creates a film between the chamber wall and the ball when swaging it. This is why lubricant is used during swaging, it creates a film. If you cut the ball the interface is clean and the oil film or debris is pushed in front of the peripheral contact patch as the ball is pushed in.

But a burr or rolled edge into the diameter of the chamber will cause you a problem. If there is one then it needs to be removed and avoid adding a chamfer if possible. A very small 45° or steeper chamfer that remains smaller or about at the ball diameter will still work most of the time. Steeper, not shallower, you don't want a gentle lead in. I have a question for those of you that "swage," if it doesn't shave lead how do you know if it has fully engaged the walls?

I suspect tapered chambers is your problem. This happens as the reamer gets worn. On cartridge guns it makes the throat in front of the bullet get tighter because the reamer is introduced from the rear, on a C&B cylinder it makes it smaller the deeper you go in from the cylinder face because the reamer is obviously introduced into a blind hole from the front. Get my drift? It fits "tightly" where it is but even a thousandths of forward movement makes it looser, you tell me where it will go.

The good news it can be reamed again. It might not even be larger at the mouth when you are finished, but you need to ream it to at least the seating depth with a constant straight sided wall . Find someone with a pin gage set to determine what the current diameter is for each chamber and how deep the pins will go. Then you can ream all of your chambers dead on to size, choose the largest diameter mouth, or .0005" (1/2 thousandths) larger.

Check these people out, they have tools at a good price and free shipping if it's ground. I just pulled up a Ø.451 reamer to show you.

http://www.atlascuttingtools.com/products/0.451-DIAMETER-%252d-A52262.html


Regards,
Mako
I have a question for those of you that "swage," if it doesn't shave lead how do you know if it has fully engaged the walls?

Because the balls I use measure .360 dia. and the walls in the chambers measure .357
The .003 has to go somewhere.

Hellgate
March 30, 2011, 04:20 PM
Mako,
I don't think we disagree at all. Note my last post: "If you are not getting ball creep then there's no ned [sic] to chamfer the chamber mouths." I'm of the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" camp due to having "fixed" many an item only to end up like Brer Rabbit and the tar baby. The only cylinders I've done any chamfering on were having ball creep issues and I just barely took the edge off to resolve the situation.

makos_goods
March 30, 2011, 04:25 PM
I have a question for those of you that "swage," if it doesn't shave lead how do you know if it has fully engaged the walls?

Because the balls I use measure .360 dia. and the walls in the chambers measure .357
The .003 has to go somewhere.
Uhhhhhhhh, first of all what do you have that has Ø.357 chambers?

Secondly, if you do have Ø.357 chamber and if you extract your ball using pressure through the flash hole you will measure it smaller than Ø.3570. You don't have to believe me, just try it, you'll be amazed.

The difference (whatever it is you have in your case) is squeezed down with space between the ball and the chamber diameter. The space is occupied with whatever was at the swaging interface between the ball and the bore. It might be grease, lube, fouling or even smeared lead which acts as a boundary film.

If you buy swaging tools they will ask you several things, materials, material condition, lubricant to be used, etc. You don't call them up and say "hey I need a XXX diameter die." You call them up and say, "hey I need the material to be XXX diameter after forming."

If you measure the die using precision tooling you will find it is larger in diameter that the finished part.

The reason the cut surface doesn't get smaller is that you didn't have the displacing forces compressing the ball on the diameter. Instead you had shearing loads which relieves the pressure and allows a full ring contact patch around the periphery.

You can demonstrate that as well, by blowing a ball back out of the chamber. Be careful and stop it literally a full diameter away as it leaves the bore. Pop it into some modeling clay. Compare the contact patch between the two and you will find two things. The cut patch is wider and also larger in diameter and it will have a torn or cut looking surface as compared to a burnished and slicker surface the swaged ball will have.

Regards,
Mako

makos_goods
March 30, 2011, 04:27 PM
Mako,
I don't think we disagree at all. Note my last post: "If you are not getting ball creep then there's no ned [sic] to chamfer the chamber mouths." I'm of the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" camp due to having "fixed" many an item only to end up like Brer Rabbit and the tar baby. The only cylinders I've done any chamfering on were having ball creep issues and I just barely took the edge off to resolve the situation.
Hellgate,
Good, I read it in haste. Then our record stands...

Later,
Mako

kwhi43@kc.rr.com
March 30, 2011, 07:03 PM
Well, Well, First yes I have a .36 caliber Remmy that takes a .360 ball.
The chambers do indeed measure .357. I was a machinest for 20 years in
a tool & die shop. I do know how to measure things with calipers, dial indicator, ect. Yes I have measured the ball after it has been pressed into
the chamber and pushed back out, and it measures .357. Before you quiz me
on what barrel I could possible shoot this .357 ball thru, it is one that measures .355 across the grooves. Here is the cylinder

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o127/prizzel/ThePerfectOneCylinder.jpg

Phil
Here is the whole gun

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o127/prizzel/ThePerfectOne.jpg

Jaymo
March 30, 2011, 07:38 PM
Well, I guess I won't chamfer my cyl mouths. I may ream the chambers out, depending on current ID and uniformity.
I just wish I could swap cyls like Clint Eastwood. My Remmie sheriff's model 58 is easy to remove the cyl, but a PITA to get the cyl pin to line up with the cyl and slide it in.

SleazyRider
March 30, 2011, 08:49 PM
This has been an extremely interesting discussion, gentlemen, and I thank you for your contributions. As a novice I've learned a great deal.

I fired 24 rounds through the Remmy today, using 35 grains of black powder, but this time leaving the Crisco behind in the kitchen. I used no filler, even though there's plenty of room for it, and used Wonder Wads only. Not a bit of bullet creep that I could detect, though I didn't actually measure it with a depth gauge.

I don't know what I was doing wrong, but I suspect it had to do with stuffing the cylinder with excess filler, then a Wonder Wad, and compressing it too much to make it all fit. The Crisco, I believe, contributed to the problem. In any event, my 35 grains loads, using a Wonder Wad, set the bullet back about 3/8 of an inch from the front of the cylinder, and all is well. I have much to learn.

Interesting that you should mention the "Clint Eastwood cylinder change," Jaymo. I've tried and tried and still can't get the hang of changing cylinders while walking with my eyes straight ahead. But I've never been much at multi-tasking.

25cschaefer
March 30, 2011, 08:53 PM
noise deleted

Jaymo
March 30, 2011, 09:45 PM
Is that why gangsters grap their crotch?


Dunno about that.
BUT, you know why they shoot their pistols sideways, don't you?
Well, that's how they are in the box.

Sleazyrider, I can't even swap the cyl out quickly while sitting down and looking at it.

mykeal
March 30, 2011, 11:06 PM
Makos goods - your 3 original Colt guns lacking chamfered chamber mouths does not constitute proof, or even evidence, that Sam'l Colt did not incorporate that feature on at least some of his guns.

makos_goods
March 31, 2011, 10:57 AM
Makos goods - your 3 original Colt guns lacking chamfered chamber mouths does not constitute proof, or even evidence, that Sam'l Colt did not incorporate that feature on at least some of his guns.
Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa....

So Mykeal are you now a philosopher or a practitioner of negative argumentation theory? Using modus tollens logic on us won't fly...

If I were to adopt your tack I could claim Samuel Colt had a stable of Unicorns and upon his death they mysteriously disappeared. You know that there was always a conspiracy against Colt and his unicorn breeding operations don't you? And there have been pictures of his breeding horses (not unicorns) offered to prove he NEVER raised a unicorn. But, " pictures of Colt horses lacking horns does not constitute proof, or even evidence, that Sam'l Colt did not raise Unicorns."

As I tell my students, "Prove it Mykeal... " Show me a picture, show me a reference (besides some conjecture by a magazine writer). Show me a respected firearms historian that will back your claim. But don't look at the evidence and then scoff that it proves nothing. I can show you many, many photos from original Colt's revolvers and I have yet to see one that had a "chamfered" mouth. There are old pistols that have mouth wear and I am not talking about a deburred edge. Look at Kwhi43's cylinder or this one on a Centaur 1860 cylinder.

http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Cap%20N%20Ball%20Questions/CIMG0376.jpghttp://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o127/prizzel/ThePerfectOneCylinder.jpg

I am not trying to be harsh or contrary, but as you can see I bristle a bit at some suggestions...

Regards,
Mako

mykeal
March 31, 2011, 12:22 PM
I make no offer of proof, only a claim. You are free to accept it, to simply disagree or to scoff, laugh, point fingers and call names as is your wont. At least I don't offer limited, scant examples with no provenance and claim it as proof of a historical population's characteristics.

One time: I'll ask, with little hope of success, that you refrain from personal attacks in the future, and from assuming the mantle of representing the rest of the world; you are simply you, not 'us'.

dlon21
March 31, 2011, 12:48 PM
I have very nice original 1851 Navy that has chamfered chamber mouths. Then that must be a one of a kind gun if Mako is correct. Unfortunately, my 1861 and 1849 seems to have chamfers too.

makos_goods
March 31, 2011, 01:03 PM
I make no offer of proof, only a claim. You are free to accept it, to simply disagree or to scoff, laugh, point fingers and call names as is your wont. At least I don't offer limited, scant examples with no provenance and claim it as proof of a historical population's characteristics.

One time: I'll ask, with little hope of success, that you refrain from personal attacks in the future, and from assuming the mantle of representing the rest of the world; you are simply you, not 'us'.



Mykeal,
Did you not see this at the end of my post?



...I am not trying to be harsh or contrary, but as you can see I bristle a bit at some suggestions...

Regards,
Mako

As for scant proof, I offer a population of three as hard physical proof, how many do you offer? I believe the sum you are offering is zero.

I can also proffer photos of other Colt's percussion pistols as evidence. Would you like me to produce them? Don't ask me to do so unless you will concede the point once I produce them. Of course that that condition doesn't apply if you have more than a representative sample of zero to offer as evidence.

You obviously understand representative populations for samples. I'm assuming you did something in your career involving them. Would your audience have accepted a sample size of zero as proof of anything?

Once again to you are making a negative argument. You are asking me to disprove the existence of the possibility of chamfers based on nothing more than your "claim." Where is your provenance Mykeal, is it more than a self held belief? What is the provenance of your belief? I'm serious, what is the origin of this held belief? Do you have samples? Have you pictorial proof? Have you a reference to a credible historical reference or text?

I don't "assume the mantle of representing the rest of the world." I assume the mantle of simple logic and hard evidence. I ask you what is it that you "assume?"

This is not a contest Mykeal, I was challenging the dissemination of information that is not supportable by evidence as being historical. You at any time may say it is your opinion, but that is not what you said is it?

I'm sorry you take my posts as personal attacks, they were not intended as such. I was dealing with the information, not the individual. I apologize for any slight or attack to your person or character.

Regards,
Mako

makos_goods
March 31, 2011, 01:27 PM
I have very nice original 1851 Navy that has chamfered chamber mouths. Then that must be a one of a kind gun if Mako is correct. Unfortunately, my 1861 and 1849 seems to have chamfers too.
Pictures please...

These are two of my cylinders (I don't seem to have the one of my other 1860 on Photobucket right now)

The 1860 cylinder is from a family heirloom and was produced in 1861, the 1849 is from a pistol I bought 15 years ago, it was produced in 1853.

Note that neither has any evidence of chamfering, There is some wear but no machined or hand cut chamfers to the cylinders. The third cylinder is even better shape than these two and it is as crisp and clean at the mouth as my many Ubertis and Pietta 1860s.

http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Odds%20and%20Ends/1860Cylinder.jpghttp://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Odds%20and%20Ends/1849Cylinder.jpg

Regards,
Mako

makos_goods
March 31, 2011, 01:37 PM
kwhi43,
Okay, if you say so. But it flies in the face of current swaging practice and die sizing and everything we have measured to date.

I wasn't questioning whether or not you had a chamber that size, I was just wondering what manufacturer made them so small. My experience is limited to standard Piettas and Ubertis when it comes to Remington reproductions. I know that Pietta specifies Ø.375 balls for their .36 caliber revolvers.

I believe yours looks like one of those 1858 Target Models that were temporarily imported by a very few from Pietta. I've never seen one with that level of finish or that logo before. I'm assuming it is a Pietta based on the sight style and position as well as the grip screw location. The grip screw location seems to vary among all of the manufactures and not just Uberti and Pietta. If it is a Pietta, it's the first I've heard of one with that barrel bore and chamber size. I know that Pedersoli and at least one Swiss manufacturer made oddball sized bores, but I believe those were the .44s.

Back to the balls in bores discussion… The follow is based on nine months of engineering and troubleshooting to solve a problem with a lead ball dispensing system.

It takes more force to expel a ball from a tube or chamber if it was sheared to diameter upon insertion than one which is swaged during insertion. That was the conclusion resulting from tests using Instron force testing equipment and other apparatus to determine the force necessary to move the ball once lodged in the tube. The force was recorded from the instant the load was applied to the moment it finally left the bore. As you would expect the force was greatest as the friction component was first being overcome, then with the sheared balls it dropped and then rose slightly until the moment the first edge of the periphery hit the bore mouth.

Balls that were swaged or pressed into the tube instead of shearing a ring upon insertion had less of an initial resistance and the force either stayed steady or decreased as it was pushed towards the bore mouth.

I understand some people would chamfer their chamber mouths based on the appearance that it “works better,” for instance they have heard for years that a shallower forcing cone is better, so why not a gentle lead-in? They might also reason that you are “distorting” the ball less because you are not cutting part of it away. Others still might add they postulate the swaging actually creates a radial force caused by the hoop stress between the walls and the ball. It is reasonable to assume a lot of these things, the problem is that they are not always supported by the empirical evidence. To correct myself I should rightly be calling what you are doing drawing instead of swaging. Swaging requires resistance of the operation in the along the axis of the operation which will limit the decrease in the diameter. Done correctly swaging will either increase the diameter or maintain the diameter within a range. Drawing on the other hand will always result in a reduction of the diameter through the orifice. Drawing may be accomplished as the name implies by pulling (or drawing) the material through the orifice or in the case of a slug (ball) it is pushed through. The lack of resistance along the axis causes the material grain structure to align itself along the axial vector and then contracts towards the axis center as it forms. The slug distorts in the axial vector and creates internal forces that causes it to contract rather than expand.

Now I will make one concession towards swaging. I believe it was Hellgate that pointed out you can swage the ball diametrically a bit if you use considerable force on the rammer. Unfortunately most of that force goes into deforming the ball end and not expanding the ball diameter. There is some and you can get more if you are using an off pistol cylinder loader. The problem is that you are resting on a bed of granular powder which will absorb most of the force that you are transmitting via the rammer. There is till the problem of the film between the wall and the projectile.

I would be happy to review your data or even a theoretical argument to the contrary.

Best regards,
Mako

dlon21
March 31, 2011, 01:53 PM
Sorry mako, unable to produce any pics right now. My camera has giving me nothing but trouble recently. However, if it wasn't chamfered at the Colt factory that doesn't prove anyone right anyway. And all the factory workers are probably dead by now.

arcticap
March 31, 2011, 03:57 PM
Pohill had previously posted the Colt patent info. pertaining to why Sam Colt chamfered or beveled the chamber mouths of some of his revolvers. But that patent information is now missing from his post.
I sent Pohill a PM asking him to repost it in this thread. :)

If you want to go back in time a little, Sam Colt explains why he beveled the chamber mouths - to prevent chainfires (I can post a larger copy).

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=520784&highlight=bevel

Sam Colt chamferred or bevelled the mouths of the chambers to deflect gasses and prevent chainfires. A few of mine have chamferred cylinders, mostly (I think) Ubertis. The ring of lead is shaved deeper into the cylinder.
Is that what you mean by not perfectly shaped?

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=490963&highlight=mouths

makos_goods
April 1, 2011, 02:09 AM
Articap,
That’s okay, we have all of Colt’s patents and the one you are talking about was his second dated August 29, 1839.

That’s’ true Colt did make a claim concerning chamfered chambers in his “Improvements” patent, but as Paul Harvey says, now for the rest of the story…

First let’s look at the claims and illustrations that are part of the patent.

http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Odds%20and%20Ends/1304-2.jpg
http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Odds%20and%20Ends/1304-2enlarged2.jpg

What Colt is describing is not the little chamfer that Kwhi43 shows or like any edge break I have ever seen anyone attempt on a modern reproduction. The chamfer would have to be very large to even attempt to do what the claim proposes. Note how that the chamfer is literally as large as the forcing cone opening on the barrel. Below is the claim.

http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Odds%20and%20Ends/1304-4Chamfersection.jpg


What most people don’t know is that early Colt pistols had major problems with chain firing. Colt had been trying to sell his revolvers to the United States government, but during a trial he had a chainfire and two chambers fired, it ruined his chances for a contract. His major problem was his enclosed breech face and in some cases the enclosed front of the cylinder face of his rifle designs. He actually tried to encapsulate it. Colt had been pushing the “water proof” qualities of his design much to the detriment of safe shooting. On his reissue patent of October 24, 1848 he removed the sections concerning the covered areas. Otherwise the patent which was called the Reissue patent #124 was just the same as his original patent issued as #138 February 25, 1836. His claims for the chainfire reducing and redirection capability of the chamfers were not borne out by testing, it was an attempt to get around the Leavitt patent and was the first of years of competition and confrontation between Colt and Leavitt.

A Smithsonian firearms historian in 1966 spoke of the Colt failure in his government trials and how he used the Daniel Leavitt patent of April 29, 1837 as a reference in documents to the government in an attempt to get a second trial. His patent was an attempt to address the problem. Unfortunately for Colt he went out of business before he could get a second trial. The reality of the chainfire problem is the exact problem we have today. It was his closed breech that was causing his problem. In fact the chamfers caused increased flash and gas release at the barrel to cylinder interface. This was a phenomenon also present with the Leavitt convex cylinder face which directed the firing gases escaping the gap up and out from the cylinder gap.

http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Odds%20and%20Ends/182-1Cut.jpg

http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Odds%20and%20Ends/182-2.jpg


Colt abandoned or didn’t put his chamfers on his production rifles, shotguns and pistols. There was no actual advantage and the revolving pistols, rifles and shotguns produced from 1839 to 1842 (1847 for Ehlkers) don’t have the chamfers as shown in the 1839 patent incorporating the chamfer “improvement.” By the time he re-entered business with the Walker revolver it was obvious had realized that redirecting gases at the breech end had solved the majority of his problems and his later patent illustrations and manufacturing documents never made mention of his claims for chamfered chambers in 1839. He submitted a request for patent reissue on his original 1836 patent and was granted that in October of 1848, but he made no attempt to extend or get a reissue of his “improvements” in the patent #1,304 of 1839.

So that is the rest of the story...

You never hear about his failure with the trials or the major problem with Paterson chainfires. Not all of Colt’s ideas or granted patent claims were desirable or even good ideas. It’s too bad the tooling room and pattern shops were destroyed in the fire of 1864, it would be a treasure trove of models that didn’t work out and what “almost was…”

Later in his career with Colt’s he will be involved in several lawsuits with Leavitt and Leavitt& Wesson.

Regards,
Mako

arcticap
April 1, 2011, 02:47 AM
Thank you kindly for such detailed information.
One question that I'm curious about is whether most of your original Colt chambers are straight walled and parallel or are they tapered?
Particularly at the top half or one third of their chambers, are the walls generally parallel or does it seem that are they tapered at all by design or during manufacture?
If they were manufactured to be tapered even slightly, then it could be that Colt was making an attempt to incorporate a shape to expel the gases outward. And the balls would be getting swagged while being rammed deeper into the chamber.
But if the chambers are not tapered but are parallel, then it would seem that Colt was being as consistent as you are were referring to with your chamber testing reference.
Do you have any sampling dimensions for any of your original Colt chambers?
There's not much of anything that can be seen in your photos by the naked eye that can in any way be considered evidence. How straight walled were the original Colt chambers made? The photo angle and level of magnification as they were posted doesn't allow any visual analysis. I tried to magnify them but they're too dark, have small files and were not photographed from enough angles.
Thanks again Mako for the very clear explanation about the Colt patent. :)

pohill
May 14, 2011, 09:02 AM
I have an 1851 .36 Colt , made in 1862, with beveled or chamferred chambers.
The info that was deleted from one of my older posts was this: (check down to page 14 or 15 on the viewing page).
http://www.archive.org/stream/onapplicationma00coltgoog#page/n17/mode/1up

If the page reader doesn't work well, this is the section that I was quoting: (as far as arguing over patents - no thanks. Doesn't work. But I know what I read, then I look at my original 1851 with the chamferred chambers, and I come up with the theory that, hey, maybe Sam Colt chamferred his chambers.)
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m217/pohill/ColtChamferonapplicationma00coltgoog_0015.jpg

So...how can you tell from a photo that a chamber has a chamferred mouth? If it had been reamed out at the mouth after production, sure (you could see the markings), but if it were reamed wider at the mouth and tapered as it went down, during production, the only way to tell would be to measure it in hand, not from a photo. Correct? Educate me.
I would think that chamferring the mouths would lead to loss of power through escaping gasses, but how would you measure that in any particular gun?

junkman_01
May 14, 2011, 11:14 AM
pohill,

How can you bore a tapered hole that is larger where it starts and gets smaller the deeper it goes? I don't think that is possible with a revolver cylinder that is basically closed on one end (discounting the nipple hole as a reamer would not fit in that end).

pohill
May 14, 2011, 11:41 AM
That is the question I have. How would they, back in the day (1860s or so) have chamferred the mouths? I know that it was done, 'cause I see it in my 1851, but would it have been done after production, during...or what? Do they (or did they) make boring tools that are tapered?

Hobie
May 14, 2011, 12:10 PM
Well I guess you learn something new every day. EVERY other .36 "Navy" type cap and ball revolver I ever shot needed .375" ball. I have heard of some that needed the .380" swaged/cast RB. My .36 rifle and all those I shot used .350" ball. I guess that things have changed...

Black Butte
May 14, 2011, 12:15 PM
Recoil is moving my balls ...

I would suggest a jock strap or less powder. :)

tpelle
May 14, 2011, 12:34 PM
Well, I guess I won't chamfer my cyl mouths. I may ream the chambers out, depending on current ID and uniformity.
I just wish I could swap cyls like Clint Eastwood. My Remmie sheriff's model 58 is easy to remove the cyl, but a PITA to get the cyl pin to line up with the cyl and slide it in.
Something I've found with my Remington clone:

To remove the cylinder, do not, as the instructions show, place the hammer on half cock. Simply, with the hammer down, lower the loading lever partially and withdraw the cylinder pin, then place your left hand (presuming you're right-handed) beneath the cylinder while holding the pistol right side down, and begin to ease the hammer back. The nose of the hammer will clear the cylinder as will the bolt, and the cylinder will drop out into your left hand.

To replace the cylinder, simply reverse this process, drawing the hammer back to lower the bolt, slip the cylinder in, ease the hammer down until the bolt begins to raise so that you can "hook" the bolt into a locking notch, then align the cylinder so that a nipple is under the hammer, then let the hammer the rest of the way down. The cylinder will now be held in alignment by means of the bolt and by the hammer, which should align it well enough with the cylinder pin so that it can be easily slipped right in.

Harder to describe than it is to do it. Works for me, anyway.

BHP FAN
May 14, 2011, 05:14 PM
...nevermind.

junkman_01
May 14, 2011, 06:35 PM
That is the question I have. How would they, back in the day (1860s or so) have chamfered the mouths? I know that it was done, 'cause I see it in my 1851, but would it have been done after production, during...or what? Do they (or did they) make boring tools that are tapered?
pohill,

Chamfering the cylinder chamber mouths is easily accomplished with a chamfering tool. What you were describing was tapering the chambers. I suppose it could have been done, but I really doubt it was done that way.

I have chamfered all the chambers on my C&B revolvers to ease the loading of hard alloy round balls. I see no drawback to it, and, according to the quote you posted, it may be very beneficial and correct!

Guns and more
May 14, 2011, 08:14 PM
Recoil is moving my balls ...

Maybe you're holding it wrong.

AJumbo
May 15, 2011, 08:14 PM
Wear briefs instead of boxers.

pohill
May 16, 2011, 12:10 AM
What you were describing was tapering the chambers.

Yeah, maybe - I'm not sure what I meant. I was thinking that maybe they used a tool that widened as it bored into the cylinder (if you can picture what I mean). So, they bored the chambers into the cylinder, then went back and chamferred it?

junkman_01
May 16, 2011, 08:16 AM
It was probably done in one step with a boring tool that also had a chamfering cutter on it.

andrewstorm
May 16, 2011, 10:00 AM
and i just switched bullets , the hornady 255 gr.454 cowboy bullet in my r o a never creeps as long as i seal the chamber with cva grease patch,also the lee 220 grain tapered bullet works too,when i bought my grease patch from meiers the check out girl asked what the stuff was for,and everyone cracked up when i told her i needed to lube my balls:eek:

CharlesK80
May 29, 2011, 08:31 PM
Junkman 01, I have such a drill bit. It is common and not at all unique. It is cone shaped with a point where it first contacts and enters the work, at one end, and a wide base at the other. When the bit is removed from the work the entrance is now wider than the end of the hole. Actually I have two. One has a continuous expansion. The other has stepped enlargements. I cannot imagine a revolver chamber designed with a continuously expanding hole as a good idea.

As to the original question, I too lightly cambered the chamber mouths but in an effort to dispense with the aggravation of the shaved lead rings. Still have them. They are still a nuisance. But according to Makos, a needed one. I think he is correct, but I would do it again.

If you enjoyed reading about "Recoil is moving my balls ..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!