'62 pocket (mini '51 navy) need some advice...

[tightgroups]

Hi everyone,

I'm new to the forum and have been a black powder shooter for about three years now. I remember a cool webpage that explained how to lighten the mainspring on a '62 pocket navy but I have forgotten the web address. Basically the site had excellent step by step pictures showing how to properly cut some metal off of the sides of the mainspring, thus lightening the action.

Anyone know of a website similar to what I have described? I'm sure there is more than on site out there that shows how to smith these revolvers.

Thanks guys.

TG.

 

[DrLaw]

Hmmmm, don't

Not a good idea to mess with the mainspring on a BP. Unless you want to risk more jams from the hammer not being able to hold the cap on when firing. Or maybe soft strikes that don't fire the gun, or breakage of the mainspring.

The Doc is out now.

 

[tightgroups]

Trust me, this is common for an over-sprung pocket navy. The hammer is so heavy it actually effects the sight picture when it is dropped.

 

[tightgroups]

Hi everyone,

Finally found a similar website that shows what I was looking for:

http://www.time-slice.com/mohave.gambler/favorites/Remington/Rem_pocket_pistol/Pocket_Pistol.htm

Here's a picture of the finished mainspring, polished and all!:

 

[Steve499]

I guess there's a range of strength within which things work properly. If yours was too strong I'm glad you got it tweaked back to a more acceptable level. On my pocket navy I had to increase the hammer spring strength to make the hammer stay down on the cap at firing. I was having cap jams about every other shot until I finally did that.

 

[tightgroups]

That's weird Steve, both at the opposite extremes. I wonder if they ever heard of quality control. This little pistol was imported by Navy Arms and is around 25 years old. I picked it up for less than $100.00 dollars because the cylinder wouldn't rotate. I ordered a new hand and it worked alright.

Now I have to smooth everything out and reduce the mainspring weight (already did it but I haven't tested the new pull as of yet.)

Where did you buy yours at and who made it? Mine is an Uberti.

The only thing I don't like about the pocket navy is it shoots way too high...from my limited experience all of the Colt designs shoot too high. I'm going to order a Remington dovetailed front sight and mill the top of the barrel so I can adjust the the vertical point of aim.

there is one other small problem with my particular revolver...The space where you load the bullet is too tight so I'm going to open it up a bit so loading isn't so difficult.

TG.

 

[Tommygunn]

C&B guns shoot high because they were regulated to shoot at @70 yards. They were cavalry arms and that was considered a realistic "cavalry" distance on the battlefield.

 

[scrat]

Hey Tight Groups welcome to THR

 

[tightgroups]

Thanks for the welcome Scrat!

My Remington shots to POI and is perfect. Same goes for my Ruger Old Armies. The Colts shoot high because it wasn't the greatest front & rear sight design, at least in my opinion. I love the look of the Colts but mostly all of them shoot high. Not all of the Colts were cavalry revolvers. The Walkers and the Dragoons were designed for the Cavalry but most of the others were for soldiers and civilians. I recall reading that 25 yards was the standard distance. Seventy yards is pretty extreme, especially for a cavalry soldier. The horse was for getting up close to the enemy and for maneuverability. If you really needed to reach out and touch someone then the rifle was the weapon of choice.

TG.

 

[Steve499]

Mine's Uberti from Dixie gun works. I have done quite a bit to it to get it functioning right and get it shooting where it looks.

I opened up the hammer notch in a slightly shortened hammer nose and made a taller front sight, which between them brought the point of impact down to point of aim. I cut a cap groove into the frame to assist capping, rounded off the frame corner at the right of the hammer cut to help fired caps roll on by, and also deepened the channel in the front of the frame between the hammer cut and capping groove, which also permits it to handle fired caps with a little less hanging up.

I have trouble with the small space available for loading, too, especially when trying to center the sprue on the ball in the chamber. I'm probably just going to have to live with that as one of the disadvantages to having the neatness of a little frame.

 

[Steve499]

One more picture showing the rounded frame corner.

 

[tightgroups]

Wow! Great job Steve! You've got some talent smithing these guns!

So far, today, I've opened up the loading area (there's plenty of meat in this area and it shouldn't compromise frame strength at all, not to mention that this area doesn't take the stress of firing in the first place).

I lightened the mainspring and have tested the new action and it is pretty sweet, if I do say so myself! I loaded up a cap to test the strength of the hammer dropping and it was perfect.

I'm about to stone and polish the hammer, trigger/sear engagement areas (the trigger is also the sear on these revolvers). I'll polish the inside channels where there is any friction from moving parts. I'm not going to touch the hammer hooks at all, no need to, they are very easy to mess up. I'd rather not have to order another hammer!

I also stoned the hand because the timing was slightly off (if I cocked the weapon to hard the cylinder would sometimes move a bit past the hammer channel and the bolt wouldn't engage the bottom of the cylinder). Since stoning the hand my little navy is running like a Swiss watch!

I really like what you did to the hammer sight notch and I think I'm going to follow in your footsteps (copying another's work is the highest form of praise!) I also want to do the same thing concerning the front sight. My idea was to use a Remington front sight...dovetailed version. I'll have to mill or cut a dovetail on the barrel by hand if I do this (and I will definitely be adding a taller front sight).

Did you say that you made your own front sight Steve? You did a really excellent job, I love the way the sight blade came out. Could you fill me in on how you did such a good job?

Thanks,

TG.

P.S.,

Nice pictures.

 

[Tommygunn]

Seventy yards is pretty extreme, especially for a cavalry soldier. The horse was for getting up close to the enemy and for maneuverability.

Yes, I think 25 is more reasonable. I was writing that "off the cuff," and while I recalled that the guns were regulated to shoot high, I didn't remember the correct distance.
It won't be the last time my memory goes south on me.

And yeah I was thinking about the .36 and .44 caliber revolvers, not the pocket guns.

 

[tightgroups]

I tend to make a lot of mistakes Tommy so don't feel bad. I like all of my guns to shoot POA/POI. What good is a gun if you can't hit what the sights are lined up on? Kentucky windage is over-rated!

 

[Steve499]

That front sight doesn't look so good up close, which is why I didn't show it that way.

I first cut a dovetail in the barrel, then filed a flat bar to fit into the dovetail, which became the base of the sight. I cut a slot in that base for the sight blade and used a wire welder to stick them together. You have to file everything back down afterward but you can't really tell it was ever two pieces. The real reason my pocket navy is antiqued is that sight. I had the end of the barrel so marked up doing the sight that I just about had to remove the bluing and brown the whole thing, because I couldn't stand to look at the mess I'd made of it.

On my to do list is making another one with a little thicker sight blade to give a more traditional sight picture with my modified rear sight.

The windage was right on with my pocket navy so the sight didn't need to be off center, but I fixed a windage problem on my Remington replica by building up the front sight post with the wire welder and then getting the blade over by filing more from one side than the other. It is the most accurate handgun I own and I couldn't bear having it shoot off to the side.

 

[tightgroups]

Yeah, I really love my Remington too, I'll pick a '58 Army over the Colt designs everytime. I have been looking at a very Nice Dragoon and it is a really nice pistol. I think I'm going to buy it if no one else grabs it up. the price is right. I had to drift the front sight on my '58 a tad, it was shooting an inch too much to the right.

Is there any reason why you didn't buy an Uberti '58 Army front sight for your '62 pocket? That way you wouldn't have had to fabricate one. Unless you wanted a thicker front sight blade? That's probably the reason you made your own, isn't it?

How much does a wire welder cost? How's the learning curve to operate/weld for a person who has never done any welding before? I couldn't tell you butchered anything on your pocket navy. I thought you did a pretty good job Steve.

TG.

 

[Steve499]

My wire welder ran a little over $600.00. They are as easily used as any welder could ever be but as in all things, some people seem to have more ability than others so it's hard to make blanket statements about equipment effectiveness without qualifying it to the skill of the operator.

I don't know how I ever got along without one. You have the ability to weld very small, thin stock without burning it up if you set it right and use it right, which makes it ideal for almost endless gun related applications.

As far as ordering a sight goes, I just never considered doing that. Not that it wouldn't have worked, it just didn't occur to me. When I started messing around with it I went ahead and finished the job the same day. Ordering stuff would have meant a long wait and I had all the stuff to make one so I did.