One last, I hope, observation with the 1862. Hammer blow back.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ugly Sauce

Ugly Sauce

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2020
Messages
6,203
I have discovered, when testing caps with the gun unloaded, that the hammer will indeed blow back when firing just a cap.

With the Uberti nipples it's a "sometimes" thing. Last night I thought I'd try the Tresco's one last time. With magnum caps the hammer almost came back to half cock one time, hammer wound up on one of the safety pegs. The cylinder turned that much. The other try, the cylinder turned a bit, kind of an "over rotation". Yes, before I fired the cap I had made sure it was "in battery" and locked up. That ended my interest in using the Tresco's, on this gun. Although, they did go off well, which was something I was having trouble trying to achieve.

No it's not a "cap thing", although obviously a magnum cap is going to increase the effect.

The Uberti nipples do not do that even with magnum caps, or only once in a while will the hammer blow back, even with Remington caps. Certainly will not blow back far enough to rotate the cylinder. But enough to deposit a spent cap where you don't want it.

Testing caps, and shooting the gun seems to result in the same amount, and frequency of hammer blow back. I'm thinking that hammer blow back, on this gun, and probably all the small .36 caliber guns is resulting from the cap, or "cap blow back" rather than enough pressure coming back through that tiny flash hole, from 15 grains of powder under a ball, when the powder ignites. ???

So, I have come to the conclusion that there is probably a fine line between how small one wants the flash hole in the nipple, or how big. Too big and the ignition of the powder will blow the hammer back, too small and the cap will blow it back. !! ???? The Uberti nipples have a slightly bigger flash hole than the Tresco's, as you all know. Thoughts.?? Again, this may only be true with very small frame guns.

I also conclude that the reason the '62 is doing this, and not my 1860 or Remington Navy, regardless of flash-hole size, type of nipple or cap, is that the mass or weight of the hammer is so much less on the '62, or much greater on the bigger pistols. But at the same time, pressures are about or are the same as the bigger .36 caliber guns. Increasing mainspring poundage, which I did helped, but I don't think it makes much difference on this small gun, with it's small light hammer. ?

Thoughts?
 
That's not a "blow back" thing, that's a hammer "bounce " thing. It happens because the bolt spring tension is lacking or the bolt head / notch engagement is lacking or a combination of both. Where is the bolt riding on the cylinder? If it's to the rear of the approach, it's definitely an engagement problem.
Mike
 
So, would the hammer still bounce on a bare/uncapped nipple? As much as I hate, deplore, gag dry-firing, I just tried it and didn't detect any bounce. ??
 
In my 1851 Uberti, I get no issues with CCI #10’s on the stock cones, but I get terrible hammer bounce using CCI #11 magnums and cap jams. Modern cap designs, especially magnums and Remingtons with lead styphnate are loaded way hotter than the historical fulminate of mercury caps. They’re also stiffer, so they more easily bind up the action. Originals would have been more like aluminum foil in thickness, so they’d blow off cleaner and be crushable. But I suppose the modern caps beat making our own.
 
That has crossed my mind, getting into cap-making, and trying a weaker cap than what is on the market today. I don't use the magnums on this pistol, but used them in the "test" as kind of an "acid test". As mentioned, even the Uberti cones will have a little bounce-back even with the Remington caps, and work "okay" with the magnums in live fire.

So Mike, I believe you more than know what you are talking about, but I'm not seeing how the hammer could bounce back hard enough to rotate the cylinder halfway to the next chamber. ??? That would be almost to half cock. ? And again, dropping the hammer on a bare nipple, I couldn't detect any bounce. ?
 
Because it doesn't "lockup" from the get-go, it moves on because of hammering and hand pressure et al. , so, it (the cylinder) can/will drift on an end up wherever. You need to look at the bolt head / locking notch engagement more than anything.

Mike
 
Will do. How many times do I have to take this thing apart, before I get a prize? I did look at the bolt head yesterday, and did notice it did not have "the bevel".
 
Fingers McGee said:
I've had similar trouble with Uberti Pocket Models. Changing extremely weak main springs to stop the bounce back. Have you tried Slixshot nipples yet?
Click to expand...

Have not tried them yet, have not found any to fit the '62. I keep hearing that you can turn the shoulder down and make them fit, but not ready to go there yet. The gun is working "okay" right now. As a small game gun, I don't need 100% reliability. Would be nice, both my other pistols are VERY reliable. My Remington Navy has never jammed or failed to fire. And I may get there, with the Dragoons and Outlaw Kids to call on. !!! And that pistol is so dang accurate. Kind of amazes me.

I've made a lot of progress with the gun so far, and did increase the mainspring. However, the spring is right where I want it now, it's more on the heavy side than weak, but I wouldn't go stronger. Feels just right to me, and my shooting style, or how I use the pistol(s) does not require really light feeling actions. Just don't require that, but appreciate when a good smith can achieve that, and understand why many like it. I surely don't have the skill to make a pistol reliable, and have a light mainspring, both at once!
 
Last edited:
I don't doubt that he holds the secrets to this great mystery. If I had it to do over again, I'd have had that gun sent straight to Mike or the Kid, and then on to me when the magic was done.

Yes, I'm sure it is sweet, and it must be more difficult to get the small frame/pocket guns to work well. I'm having trouble just wrapping my head around the cylinder turning just by popping a cap, and it being the fault of the bolt, when the cylinder was locked up tight when I pulled the trigger. !!

But again, I believe the guy knows what he's talking about. I have no doubts about that. !!! I get the impression though, that he didn't like my idea of a 12 pound hammer spring, and a detachable cheater bar to cock it. But I do know the bolt is not shaped right, and will address that next time I take it apart. By next Christmas, I'll have it working great.
 
45 Dragoon said:
Because it doesn't "lockup" from the get-go, it moves on because of hammering and hand pressure et al. , so, it (the cylinder) can/will drift on an end up wherever. You need to look at the bolt head / locking notch engagement more than anything.

Mike
Click to expand...

So, if I'm understanding, the bolt head not only lockes the cylinder in rotation motion, but also exerts some upwards and backwards pressure on the cylinder?

I just bought a pair of Pietta 1860s at a gunshop in December, 2020. Made in 1996 but unfired. The bolt on one was dropping early so I stretched the hand a little. The bolt on both started to show drag in wear on the rear edge of the lead-in cut. So I took a file stroke off the back edge of the bolt head and stoned. Now the cylinders have a little end thrush. They seem to shoot fine.

Is there a way to make and install an arbor bushing between the cylinder and barrel assembly to maintain constant cylinder gap?

 
Good questions Bibbyman.
Ideally, the bolt should track in the middle of the approach. If it tracks more towards the front, it should still work fine. If it tracks more towards the rear, the bolt will have less engagement of the notch (which I think is the problem on Mr. Sauces' '62). The force exerted on the cylinder should be just enough to maintain engagement ( about 3 lbs. Is plenty). The overly tensioned bolt springs will usually cause damage to the cam.

As far as barrel/cylinder clearance, the arbor bottoming out in the barrel assy is what defines that clearance or endshake (I like .0025" - .003"). Typically, there isn't enough space between the barrel and the arbor to fit a bushing or gas ring and besides, one of the "nice" attributes of the open top platform is that the cylinder "kissing" the forcing cone with each cycle allows them to be somewhat "self cleaning". Polishing the face of the cyl and the f.c. will help keep them cleaner as well.
With the arbor length corrected, you can install the wedge with force (as per Colts instructions) and not lock up the cyl. . . . and you'll have the same revolver every time you assemble it! It's really an excellent system.

Mike
 
45 Dragoon said:
Good questions Bibbyman.
Ideally, the bolt should track in the middle of the approach. If it tracks more towards the front, it should still work fine. If it tracks more towards the rear, the bolt will have less engagement of the notch (which I think is the problem on Mr. Sauces' '62). The force exerted on the cylinder should be just enough to maintain engagement ( about 3 lbs. Is plenty). The overly tensioned bolt springs will usually cause damage to the cam.

As far as barrel/cylinder clearance, the arbor bottoming out in the barrel assy is what defines that clearance or endshake (I like .0025" - .003"). Typically, there isn't enough space between the barrel and the arbor to fit a bushing or gas ring and besides, one of the "nice" attributes of the open top platform is that the cylinder "kissing" the forcing cone with each cycle allows them to be somewhat "self cleaning". Polishing the face of the cyl and the f.c. will help keep them cleaner as well.
With the arbor length corrected, you can install the wedge with force (as per Colts instructions) and not lock up the cyl. . . . and you'll have the same revolver every time you assemble it! It's really an excellent system.

Mike
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation.

I'm reminded, If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
 
Just as an aside, or point of interest, I googled some slow motion videos of cap and ball revolvers firing. On some of them, (especially the Forgotten Weapons one) you can't see any bounce back or blow back of the hammer at all. On others, the hammer(s) is/are bouncing around like a basket ball. !!! I found it very interesting, although it didn't tell me anything. !
 
Ugly Sauce said:
Just as an aside, or point of interest, I googled some slow motion videos of cap and ball revolvers firing. On some of them, (especially the Forgotten Weapons one) you can't see any bounce back or blow back of the hammer at all. On others, the hammer(s) is/are bouncing around like a basket ball. !!! I found it very interesting, although it didn't tell me anything. !
Click to expand...

I recall seeing a video showing how to score one edge of the nipple cone to prevent cap jams from blowback.
Have you ever seen that video?
It was recommended to file a little V notch on the lip of the nipple cone.
It's supposed to act like a pressure release valve.

I only mention it in passing since .45 Dragoon knows the most about how the mechanics of the gun affects the hammer rebound.
But if someone had a spare nipple to experiment with, they can try making increasingly larger size V notches to see if it would help with the blow back and hammer rebound.
Less gas containment might create less rebound.
 
Last edited:
It also occurred to me that if a person installed a cap rake or cap post, there would be less of the flat surface of the hammer making contact with the nipple.
The lesser amount of surface area may not contain or capture as much of the gases that are causing the blowback.

However, there's also the possibility that the cap could puncture by having too deep of a hammer well which Dave Markowitz experienced with his new Dance.
--->>> https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/rws-cap-test.881884/#post-11805807
However, his full size Pietta Colt probably has a stronger main spring than the 1862.

index.php
 
Last edited:
I've seen that, was a Blackie Thomas video. I'd be a little desperate before doing that, although in theory I don't see where it would really hurt anything and nipples can be replaced.

Someone like Mike or the Kid knows/understands in depth the dynamics of these things. That there, along with experience, is the key to their expertise, talent, and "magic". I have a good mechanical mind, I build motorcycles, old cars, used to bracket race and do engines, but it's the dynamics of these revolvers that escapes me. Perhaps the dynamics of cam timing, valve lift, and main jet sizing, and how they all work together would escape them! :) But my point is that the mind of the Dragoon, and the Kid, have transcended the mechanics!

Was just looking at my '62, and there are no drag marks/wear marks or track marks on my cylinder, at all. ?
 
How deep is your hammer well [or hammer notch] from the factory?
Some guns and makes have deeper ones than others, some are problematic and some aren't.
Some grab onto cap fragements and pull them back while others don't.
My point is that the hammer can also be made to be a gas release valve if you can design it to be that way by shaping the notch.

I'm looking at easy external fixes because I don't have any 1st hand knowledge about the dynamics.
I trust Mike's opinion, but I don't know how to modify that part.
There's a principle to always ruin the cheapest part first, or look for the alteration that causes the least amount of potential damage.
 
Ugly Sauce (you can do this! Lol) I was raised in a garage !! Lol

Arcticap, cheapest part is definitely the way to go!! To me, the easiest thing is to install a cap post. It, by default, is a pressure relief since it stops the cap hull /frag and blow back from ignition. Of course with pocket guns, there's the problem of "not enough meat" to drill and tap and install a post. But it can still be done. You just drill further back and at a (roughly) 45° angle. This also puts the cap post screwing into the arbor (think insurance) but that's OK. Since your cap post is made from a stainless steel #6 machine screw (with the threads ground off of the "post" part), you can bend it forward where it would normally be. Do the bending after red locktite-ing it in place. See? That's how you do that.

Mike
 
My Uberti '62 Police is quite reliable with Mike's style cap rake and arbor issues dealt with. Have heard of tuning these clones referred to as "alchemy" , it is a part of the hobby that takes some wizardry like Mike has.
 
Mike aka 45 Dragon,

Asking for details on the "cap post" you install. You have left a good many clues and pictures but there are a few specific details left out. Would you please elaborate? I'm considering installing them on my Pietta 1860s.

You said somewhere you use a stainless steel screw. What thread size? Does head style matter?

Do you "profile" the post before installing?

Loctite?

Thanks in advance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

whughett
  • Locked
1862 Police Hammer Blowback Uberti
Replies
15
Views
1K
Mike 56
M
F
  • Locked
Nipple size for 1862 Uberti Police
Replies
11
Views
2K
arcticap
arcticap
Ugly Sauce
  • Locked
Hope for the 1862, I seemed to have done something right.
Replies
13
Views
888
Ugly Sauce
Ugly Sauce
T
  • Locked
Uberti 1862 police blowback problem?
Replies
10
Views
1K
rodwha
R
C
  • Locked
Nipples on Uberti Dragoon
Replies
2
Views
649
Bad Flynch
B
Back
Top