Beveling cylinders


PDA






Tinpan58
April 25, 2012, 03:34 PM
I have a lot of extra cylinders for my 1858s, And I have been experimenting with them and find some shoot better than others, and some shave a better ring than others, some shave a complete ring and others shave a partial one, so I took one and using a cone shape grinding stone put a little bevel in the top of the chambers, so instead of shaving a ring it compresses the ball into the chamber. I was surprised at the improvement in accuracy, in my 8” remmie it shot a very tight group, it also worked quite well in the 5.5 remmie although the groups wern't quite as tight as in the 8”. It also was nicer on the loading side especially loading on the gun not having all the lead shavings to deal with. I know that beveling a cylinder is nothing new but am interested in what you have to say about doing this, good or bad?

If you enjoyed reading about "Beveling cylinders" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
junkman_01
April 25, 2012, 04:25 PM
Good. I do it to all my C&B revolvers, though I call it chamfering. :D

Lunie
April 25, 2012, 05:35 PM
Good. I do it to all my C&B revolvers, though I call it chamfering. :D
Well what if I wanna cut a radius instead of a chamfer? :neener:

Tinpan58
April 25, 2012, 06:01 PM
Thanks junkman I knew, there was a term for it that started with a ch, i’ll have to write that one down.

junkman_01
April 25, 2012, 06:07 PM
Well what if I wanna cut a radius instead of a chamfer? :neener:
It would be a LOT harder to do.

Busyhands94
April 25, 2012, 06:12 PM
I do it to all my BP revolvers. It seems to make them easier to load!

Hellgate
April 26, 2012, 01:26 AM
All the eight Euroarms Remingtons (36 and 44 cals) I have had are/were well chamfered, maybe 1/10 of an inch.

Berkley
April 26, 2012, 08:16 AM
Sam Colt claimed that chamfering the chambers eliminated chain-fires:

http://i49.tinypic.com/2mcsfub.jpg
-"On the Application of Machinery to the manufacture of Rotating Chambered-Breech Firearms and Their Peculiarities" by Colonel Samuel Colt; Excerpt Minutes of the Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, London, 1855.
Although he used the term "chamfer", he also called it a "bevil" - typically for him, his spelling was a little idiosyncratic.:)

oldcodger
April 26, 2012, 08:39 AM
If my memory serves me (from four years of high school
industrial arts) - and it may not;

my own recollection, NOT from any other source:

Bevel - angled cut between and adjoining two surfaces which are 90 degrees (plus or minus) apart--i.e., as above, said surfaces being the cylinder face and chamber wall

Chamfer- angled cut between and adjoining two parallel (or approximately parallel) surfaces-- i.e., the sharpened edge of a wood chisel

I hope this clarifies, rather than just making me look like a know-it-all. I ain't, and don't. :D

oc

chicharrones
April 26, 2012, 08:48 AM
Thanks for the post, Berkley. :cool:

arcticap
April 26, 2012, 11:09 AM
Sam Colt claimed that chamfering the chambers eliminated chain-fires:

There was a thread discussing whether the "exaggerated" beveling in the illustration, or other chamfering was ever used in any of the Colt designs, or ever used on a regular basis or on which models and when.
There's more details about it on page 2, as well as about some of the pluses and minuses of chamfering.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=583952&highlight=bevel

Berkley
April 26, 2012, 12:48 PM
Interesting thread. Since I don't have any original Colts, I can't comment on whether or to what extent the chamber mouths were in fact chamfered. Later in the same publication, in response to a question, Colt certainly claimed that it was done.

http://i48.tinypic.com/3465pwl.jpg

Noz
April 26, 2012, 03:36 PM
I have an 1862 produced Colt 1851 that has chamfered chambers.

The easiest way to do this is with a case mouth beveling tool, Lee makes a very inexpensive one. 4 or 5 turns in each chamber mouth and you are done. It is most noticable in allowing much easier loading.

All of my 1860s are chamfered. Seven shootable at the moment.

arcticap
April 26, 2012, 04:31 PM
I know that beveling a cylinder is nothing new
but am interested in what you have to say about doing this, good or bad?

Are the Ruger Old Army chambers chamfered, or chamfered
so much to not be able to cut rings off the balls?
If they aren't chamfered at the factory then I wouldn't do it. :)

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=108571&d=1257405957

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=108572&d=1257406026

fdf
April 26, 2012, 05:18 PM
Why do folks modify, bevel or chamfer, cylinders? Your warranty is gone by doing so.

If there was such an advantage, why does the manufacturer not do do?????

Are folks smarter than the engineers who design safe products???

junkman_01
April 26, 2012, 05:26 PM
Sometimes.

kwhi43@kc.rr.com
April 26, 2012, 05:55 PM
This is how mine look on my custom target revolver. I think that you shoud
not shave a ring of lead when you seat the ball. You will get much better
accuracy if the ball is swegged in.
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o127/prizzel/ThePerfectOneCylinder.jpg

junkman_01
April 26, 2012, 06:22 PM
....and here is what my Colt types look like.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=163481&stc=1&d=1335478923

fdf
April 26, 2012, 07:41 PM
Would any of the Masters from Friendship or Phonenix like to comment on accuracy methods to improve revolvers and this discussion, we might all learn something.

Busyhands94
April 26, 2012, 08:33 PM
This is how mine look on my custom target revolver. I think that you shoud
not shave a ring of lead when you seat the ball. You will get much better
accuracy if the ball is swegged in.
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o127/prizzel/ThePerfectOneCylinder.jpg

Not to mention if it shaves a ring you might lose a couple grains, even a precisely weighed ball would be useless if you end up cutting two grains off one, three off another, etc. and I would assume a professional like yourself would want them to all weigh exactly the same. And of course each chamber might do it slightly different, so it would (at least in theory) improve consistency on the ball going into the chamber.

Any thoughts on this?

chicharrones
April 27, 2012, 09:15 AM
Why do folks modify, bevel or chamfer, cylinders? Your warranty is gone by doing so.

If there was such an advantage, why does the manufacturer not do do?????

Are folks smarter than the engineers who design safe products???

Manufacturers in many cases will not add a cost increasing step in their firearms meant for general use. If a manufacturer has a custom shop, they can do additional modifications for extra money that many "shade tree gunsmiths" can easily do themselves.

As far as any warranty is concerned, after I've fired a firearm enough times to prove it works as issued by the factory I don't mind taking some risk upon myself by altering trigger pull, chamfered cylinder bores, etc.

Not all warranties last indefinitely anyway. :cool:

kBob
April 28, 2012, 08:07 AM
SO from this thread and the referenced one we know that chamfering may allow easier seating of the ball with the rammer, it might make such harder, it makes a revolver more accurate, it ruins accuracy, it must be done with precission tools and a Lee Case trimmer by hand works fine. It might also increase the incidence of chainfire while lessing the chance of chain fire. A skilled machinist has told us to not do this and a skilled machinist has told us to go ahead.

Man I love the web and the infernal net!

My guess is that it's whatever blows your skirts up.

WHen I was shooting three position rimfire I noted that scores improved when what folks THOGHT should work for them was tried and mysteriously when someone who did not believe such a change would be useful tried it it was not. This in reference only to accuracy. I believe that for most of us shooter skill and CONFIDENCE are the keys to accuracy more than the little tweeks we try. As far as accuracy goes I wonder if the difference between sharp chamber mouths and chamfered ones might not be how the shooter feels about them.

As to mechanical advantages in ramming force, that would seem to be straight forward as to measuring it. It is either harder or easier.....ecept it may be dependednt on ball hardness, how over sized the ball is, the angle of the chamfer, the qualities of the steel, how smooth the chamfer is, the prescence or abscence of some sort of lub, and local weather conditions.

DOes it cause or prevent chain fires? Is that with over ball soft lube or bare ball? Is that with wonder wad or equivilant or ball on powder? Is that with filler or with out? and in combinations? Is it an increase of 1 more chainfires per 2000 shots or a decrease of 1 less in 2000 shots?

I am interested in these discussions but sometimes it seems to come down to modifying Master Yoda's advice and "Do or Do not but for the Force's sake don't depend on the infernal net!"

-kBob

junkman_01
April 28, 2012, 08:46 AM
kBob,

I'm SURE your keen insight was enjoyed by all! :what:

Tinpan58
April 28, 2012, 09:36 AM
Thanks every one for the great response I am currently in tombstone AZ for a few days and y ft didn't work hear great place got hear Thursday be home Sunday using phone to type. This Big pain thanks again

kwhi43@kc.rr.com
April 28, 2012, 10:42 AM
The guy who built my revolver does it for a living. He puts a bevel on it.

arcticap
April 29, 2012, 11:02 PM
Not to mention if it shaves a ring you might lose a couple grains, even a precisely weighed ball would be useless if you end up cutting two grains off one, three off another, etc. and I would assume a professional like yourself would want them to all weigh exactly the same. And of course each chamber might do it slightly different, so it would (at least in theory) improve consistency on the ball going into the chamber.

Any thoughts on this?

I'm not going to say that chamfering is necessarily a problem because it doesn't have to be a problem. But how well the chamfering is performed could be a problem.
For instance, if the chamfering isn't done concentric to the center of each chamber, then chamfering may not be advantageous.
Locating the center of the chamber and then being able to execute the perfect chamfer is not unlike making a perfect crown. Since an imperfect crown can affect accuracy, then perhaps an imperfect chamfer can make for a less perfectly loaded ball compared to a non-chamfered chamber.
Folks can have their opinions for and against chamfering just as they can have opinions about certain types of crowns.
Another example would be coning a barrel. Some folks claim that coning a barrel using a coning kit does not negatively affect accuracy and only makes loading easier. While others may not be absolutely convinced about the accuracy results after a muzzle is coned. While a coning job may not necessarily come out badly, I think that there's the potential for it to come out badly.
A small amount of chamfering to eliminate burrs may be a positive change, but at what point if any, does excessive chamfering negatively affect the angle of the ball while being loaded and negatively impact its shape? :rolleyes:

Tinpan58
May 1, 2012, 12:00 AM
Back from Tombstone, had a great time, highly recommend it. Hear are pics of the cylinder I beveled and the tool I used, a dremal drill press, the cone shaped grinder was something I had lying around, I placed the dremal on the lowest speed. I fill the cone self centered its self on the chambers I went slow lightly taping the cylinder and used a ball to sit on the top checking until I got the desired effect. I used the most worn cylinder I had to do this with, and have 12 extra so if I messed it up no big deal, I am out 50 bucks, The result was more than “I think it shoots a little better” it was a dramatic change for the better, I suppose there could have ben burs or some other defect that may have been solved by the process, just don’t know, but I have been spending individual time with my cylinders, and they do very in how they shoot, and I know you could have 2 guns come off the line one right after the other and fit by the same person, and one might shoot great and the other not so good, it is just one of the mysteries of mass production, and for $200.00 retail no one is spending all day on them, they are test fired to make sure they function safely and that is it. It seams this like many other technique, used in the quest for the perfect shooter has more than one path and opinion,and to me that is why I love it so much, keeps me thinking, great fun, great forum, I keep tabs on some of the other forums but this one I check several times a day, Thank you all.

BHP FAN
May 1, 2012, 02:08 AM
so did Colt. Chicharonnes is absolutely right, and got it in one.

If you enjoyed reading about "Beveling cylinders" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!