question is the brass revolvers worth having fixed up?

What is wrong with it?

The brass frame revolvers are usually intended for display, with modest or no shooting. Thus they are made to a lower price point and less attention to internal lockwork with this under consideration.

That said, most of them are not junk, and the Remington and Whitney replicas are the better choice for shooting for reasons I won't go into here.

While sending them to a professional gunsmith for tuning and adjustment may cost too much, considering what they are starting with, they make an economical project-piece for someone who wants to learn how to do their own work.

If given a choice, .36 caliber is often more recommended then .44 - if you chose the larger bore reduce the powder charge and fill the additional space in the chamber with a wad. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES LOAD THE CHAMBERS WHILE LEAVING ANY AIR SPACE BETWEEN THE POWDER CHARGE AND BALL OR PROJECTILE!

Quote; "The brass frame revolvers are usually intended for display, with modest or no shooting. Thus they are made to a lower price point and less attention to internal lockwork with this under consideration."

Is this a fact? Thought these were reproductions of Confederate pieces. Don't have one but am still in process of adding to collection. (Does that ever end)

The griswold and gunnison, spiller and burr, and whitney revolvers were the only brass framed black powder revolvers ever made during the black powder revolver era. These were made by the confederacy.
I think that's all the brass framed C&B revolvers made in the 19th century, probably missed one though.

Blackpowdershooter44 said:

The griswold and gunnison, spiller and burr, and whitney revolvers were the only brass framed black powder revolvers ever made during the black powder revolver era. These were made by the confederacy.
I think that's all the brass framed C&B revolvers made in the 19th century, probably missed one though.

Click to expand...

Spiller & Burrs were Confederate copies of the Whitney and were brass framed. Whitneys are -- or were -- steel (or iron) framed. Did Whitney ever make brass framed Whitneys?
They say Remington never made brass framed guns but there are repros made in brass. But the Remington '63, the tiny .31 caliber fiveshot was made in four variations and two of them were brass frame.
The larger Remmies were all iron (or steel) framed.
Brass framed Whitneys?

If it's a Pietta made gun, then I believe the internals and cylinder are going to be out of the same bin that the steel framed guns use, so no reason for it to be any less of a properly operating gun. Now, if you buy enough Pietta's you'll likely run into one that just doesn't work right...I've had about 12 Colt and Remington Pietta's and one Colt had to go back because the cylinder stop wasn't located properly in the (steel) frame. This could, of course, happen on the brass framed ones but I don't think the people at the factory treat them any differently depending on the frame material.

I have one of their 'Buffalo' 12" Remingtons and it's a hoot! Timed very nicely and it compares well to the other steel Remington revolvers it lives with, though the advice about light loading them probably a good suggestion if you plan to shoot them a lot. The brass just isn't as strong as steel...so treat them accordingly. If you are going to hunt with one...by all means load that sucker up! Just realize that it's going to shoot looser faster than a steel one.

The actual historical brass framed guns weren't really brass. They were bronze, and from my understanding were a harder metal alloy than the brass frames of replicas today.

Spiller & Burrs were Confederate copies of the Whitney and were brass framed. Whitneys are -- or were -- steel (or iron) framed. Did Whitney ever make brass framed Whitneys?

Click to expand...

Historically you are correct in that the larger frame Whitney's were steel, not brass/bronze framed. But the Italians have created a number of revolvers that were never made during the 19th century. I could have said Spiller & Burr, but many of those new to C&B revolvers might not have understood what they were.

If it's a Pietta made gun, then I believe the internals and cylinder are going to be out of the same bin that the steel framed guns use,

Click to expand...

You are probably right, but the time used to fit those parts is generally less. It depends on what the U.S. importer is willing to pay, and when it comes to brass frame guns that's generally the very least.

Howdy

Back in 1968 when I bought my 44 caliber, brass framed, 'Navy', nobody was talking about they were reproductions of anything other than a Colt. As a matter of fact, the Navy Arms catalog called this one the 'Army 60'. It was very plain that these guns were being produced because they were cheap. Period. I seem to recall I paid $40 for this one.

Of course as a youngster I did not know there was no such thing as a brass framed Navy, much less a 44 caliber one. Like many other shooters, I made the mistake of firing too many 30 grain loads out of it and eventually stretched the frame. Now it is only good as a wall hanger, I do not shoot it anymore, and it certainly is not worth trying to fix it.



The bronze alloy used during the Civil War in the 1860 Henry and other firearms of the period was known as Gunmetal. Brass is an alloy mainly consisting of copper and zinc. Bronze is an alloy mainly consisting of copper and tin. Gunmetal was an alloy consisting of 80-88% copper, 10-15% tin, 2-5% zinc, and a small amount of lead was sometimes added to improve fluidity in casting. An 1866 Winchester frame that was chemically tested was found to contain 80% copper, 14.5% tin, 2% zinc, and .05% lead.

Interestingly enough a few years ago I had some shavings from an Uberti brass frame chemically tested. The result was 56% copper and 44% zinc. There was no tin. That means it was it was brass, not any form of bronze.

I would not put the money into any brass frame.
Denis

Sorry my bad! :banghead:

I also forgot about the .31 pocket remington you mentioned Tommygunn

Now it is only good as a wall hanger, I do not shoot it anymore, and it certainly is not worth trying to fix it.

Click to expand...

I would not put the money into any brass frame.

Click to expand...

Well, i disagree. You can fix it up by buying a stripped metal receiver for it... that's cheaper than replacing it by buying a whole new gun. As noted up thread, the barrels, grips, grip frames, hammer, small parts, etc, etc are all interchangeable.... and i seriously doubt that some assembly line worker is going to spend an extra second more time on assembling a gun based on the frame material.

In which case you would not be putting money into custom action work on a brass frame.
Denis

I like mine, I dont think I would spend the money to have it slicked up

I cut off the barrel and made a 3" snubby out of it. It is the BP gun I shoot the most and everyone that goes with us wants to shoot it.

I load ~19 grains (.40 cal brass full of powder) of 777 in it, a cardboard spacer, a lubed wad and a 454 ball. Have some grits to put in if I want to fill the chambers more.

If you load it light then it should last a long time.

JMO

d

Used Pietta brass frames for years!

Got my first brass framed Pietta probably 15 to 18 years ago.
Currently have 4 of them and they all get a pretty darn good workout! I load the 44s moderately with 26G of 3F and have never had a problem with any of them. The only one that has needed work was the 12 Inch Pietta Buffalo version, after literally thousands of rounds, the hand wore enough that it needed replacement. I replaced it myself in a couple of hours and It's functioning beautifully again. Its one of my most accurate handguns period. It will shoot as accurately as my Blackhawk in 45 Colt!
Yes, the steel framed units are probably stronger but I personally dont feel the need to load with the maximum amount of powder. I keep the loads warn enough to be fun and after lots of testing found that between 24 and 26 grains is the most accurate load for all of my BP handguns.
TO say that these brass framed units are wall hangers is pretty harsh. I bet there are a lot more shooters out there like me, that have used these brass framed units successfully, safely and with a high round count!

Brass frame revolvers were made in the C.S. during the Civil War because the small shops didn't have the technology to cast or forge a complex shape from iron. In the reproduction era, there are two schools of thought - they were intended to evoke the C.S. revolvers and they were cheaper. Which is correct? Actually, both are. Originally, they gave C.S. "re-enactors" guns that were associated with the South. But when makers realized that they could make brass framed guns cheaper than steel frame and sell them for the same price, we began to see a lot of brass-frame "guns that never were" hit the market.

As to durability, brass or bronze ("gun metal") was not considered greatly inferior to the common iron. Most artillerymen thought that bronze, being less brittle than iron, would tend to stretch under an overload, while an iron cannon would burst.

As for frame strength of both brass frames and revolvers with no top-straps, it is worthwhile remembering that when a percussion revolver is fired, the whole cylinder recoils, and the force is applied into the center of the frame boss, a heavy part of the frame regardless of material. With a cartridge gun, the cartridge case recoils back against the top of the frame, which is generally thinner and where more leverage is applied to tend to bend the frame away from the cylinder and barrel. So few makers of "serious" guns or ones using higher power cartridges have chosen to forego a top strap, or to divide it (as in a break-top revolver).

Jim

I don't believe anybody said the brass frames are either inherently or ONLY wallhangers, just those that have stretched & become un-shootable are wallhangers.
I've seen it happen, as I've said several times.
I've retired mine because it has great sentimental value & I want to keep it functional, even if it never fires another shot.
Denis

I have repaired and tuned a number of brassers, both Colt and Remington replicas. If you stick with the max loads as follows you will be fine:
.36 cal, 15-18gr 3F
.44 cal, 20-22gr 3F
Every Colt style I've seen 'shot loose' has been from max loads exceeding 25gr of 3F, Every Remington with battering on the recoil shield or frame stretch has been likewise.

I wish that I had kept mine and made the repairs to it that were needed. Looking back now it would have been worth it in the long run even though the repairs were extensive, but at the time I felt differently and did not appreciate what I had really had.
COL LeMat

Slight sideline here.

Bronze has a vastly different color from brass. So it's a shame that the current replicas use brass instead of something closer to the proper bronze "gunmetal" alloy. I think the look of such a gun would be quite amazing. And at least in a .36 size chambering would not need to be limited to lighter powder loads.

They're two ways to look at this.

Most of the brass framed revolvers, excluding commemoratives, reflect lower quality parts and workmanship because they are deliberately made to sell at the lowest possible price points.

So it's questionable if one should spend the money to have one professionally retrofitted and tuned. It can be done of course if the "pro" is willing to take it on, but ultimately the investment will be lost if the revolver is shot very much - even with light loads. I know - been there and done that.

However if the owners wants to learn how, and needs something to practice on, they can learn a lot with (usually) little additional expense. A lot of the work can be done with inexpensive hand tools. One hint: Use different files on brass then the ones you use on steel.

So by all means, if you own a "brasser" consider having at it.