Break over, the Uberti 1862 is back.

[Ugly Sauce]

Is that minute of grouse, or what? Fifteen yards, average grouse range. That's the good news. The bad news is that my hammer is still blowing back. I just put a mainspring out of a 1851 in it, which is noticeably stronger, and it helped. Flipping the gun up and back on cocking gave me five shots in a row when shooting this group.

I used a ball this time instead of a slug, thinking that there would be a little less pressure with the lighter projectile. Also decided that I'd try shooting without wads for a while, taking my chances with the dreaded chain-fire. Without a wad, the ball actually loads faster than the slug. I think the lighter ball, compared to the slug, heavier main spring (I don't have a weak thumb) and the slightly less "energetic" 3fg instead of 4fg helped. But, that hammer is still blowing back.

I loaded up again with 2fg and it didn't group near as well, and I had one cap that did not fall out when doing a flip-back, so I had one miss-fire when the hammer came down on the spent cap which was between the hammer and frame.

If you could still go into any LGS and pick up a bunch of different brand caps, and try them all, that might help. But not these days. I suppose I should get a kit and start making caps, and perhaps make a thinner cap that fragments better, and maybe is not as hot...? I don't know. But I'll need a little more confidence in the pistol before taking it up the mountain.

Any ideas? I'm running out.

 

[LaneP]

I admit I probably won't be much help but are the cone orifices too large? I haven't experienced hammer blow back in many years, and I think then it was on a CVA rifle.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

They are Slix-Shot nipples. This is the only pistol that I've ever experienced hammer blow-back on, which leads me to believe that a lot of the problem lies in the the very small, light weight hammer compared to the bigger pistols.

I've seen some slow-motion/high speed camera footage of revolvers being fired. On some, you see no blow back (sometimes referred to as "bounce back") and on others you can see some, in one film I could see the hammer blow back on firing, and then actually bouncing back again. Perhaps a very weak main spring.

I've had blow back on rifles, all the way to half cock, but those were cases of over loads. or overly large orifices in musket nipples.

 

[1KPerDay]

Looks like a shooter! Do you have the OEM nipples to try?

 

[J-Bar]

Your experience with Slix Shot nipples parallels mine. I had much more luck reducing blowback with Treso/Ampco nipples. A quick inexpensive fix.

 

[44 Dave]

I have a cap post in my Uberti '62, cap jams are history. Adding a cap post to a pocket pistol is trickier than a belt pistol because the recoil shield (frame) is thinner and must be angled to hit enough metal.

 

[crstrode]

I've got one just like that, and it also blows back.

(Just guessing, but judging from the photo perhaps if you shot right-side-up it would work better . . .).

 

[Blackpowderwarrior]

The small frame is probably what's causing the blowback.
I've seen many complaints on the 1862 police and 1849 having blowback issues.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Looks like a shooter! Do you have the OEM nipples to try?

Yep, I have the OEM and another set I got with a nipple wrench. Blow back has been a problem with all of them.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

The small frame is probably what's causing the blowback.
I've seen many complaints on the 1862 police and 1849 having blowback issues.

I think it's the small light hammer. Not enough mass to overcome the pressure.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

I have a cap post in my Uberti '62, cap jams are history. Adding a cap post to a pocket pistol is trickier than a belt pistol because the recoil shield (frame) is thinner and must be angled to hit enough metal.

Yes, I agree, a cap post would fix it I'm sure. I may have to go that route. But...more $$$$$!! But...worth it in the long run I guess.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

I've got one just like that, and it also blows back.

(Just guessing, but judging from the photo perhaps if you shot right-side-up it would work better . . .).

Actually, if the thing was shot upside down the caps might fall out instead of falling under the hammer. !!!!

 

[5whiskey]

I have an Uberti 1862 via Taylors. I have very little hammer bounce, certainly not enough to hit half cock or even close. Main spring is STRONG on mine though. My thumb is quite sore from cocking during a 10 cylinder range session. I have not found the load that mine likes quite that well yet though. Good shooting!

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Wow, that's more shots that I've ever fired at one time, through a BP revolver. !!! I have my main spring about as strong as I want to get it. I think much more and the nipples might not like it. Right now, with the new spring I just put in, the blow-back of the hammer has been reduced for sure. I got through one cylinder with no caps under the hammer. On some shots, the hammer had not come back at all, cap was still on the nipple.

On the second cylinder, when I switched to 2fg, then I got a cap under the hammer and a miss-fire. And the group opened up quite a bit.

You would think, less pressure with the 2fg, and that's why I tried it.

Next I'll try 15 grains of 3fg, but I hate to de-power the gun too much. And, with 15 grains and a ball, the ball really goes deep. I'd hate to run out of rammer, and have the ball sitting above the powder.

Do you get cap-jams?

 

[swg1]

Very good, while mine shoots decent groups, it hits about three feet high at 25 yards.

 

[webrx]

I was gonna say starting at 15 grains and work up, to where it settles in, with a wad over the ball you should be fine, but it looks like you thought of that already.

d

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Very good, while mine shoots decent groups, it hits about three feet high at 25 yards.

Yes, if you want them to hit POA, a taller front sight is required. Aiming three feet low does not make for a good small game gun!!

 

[swg1]

Yes, if you want them to hit POI, a taller front sight is required. Aiming three feet low does not make for a good small game gun!!

yes, it’s on the to-do list

 

[Ugly Sauce]

I was gonna say starting at 15 grains and work up, to where it settles in, with a wad over the ball you should be fine, but it looks like you thought of that already.

d

Correct. I did/do have it dialed in with the LEE 130 grain bullet, and 15 grains of 4fg. But that still produced blow back and cap jams. I was hoping the stronger main spring would cure the blow back but it didn't. It did make a difference, but, "not enough difference to make a difference". My main reason for using a lubed slug was for faster reloads in the field, not having to mess with the extra step of using a wad.

So, I went back to the ball, no wad, thinking that the lighter weight of it would create less pressure. It may have (I have a bad habit of changing more than one variable at a time) but again I'm slightly concerned as to how far the ball goes down with only 15 grains in the chamber. I'm not sure if it's completely seating, or if I'm running out of rammer travel. That is also why I went back to 3fg, (more bulky) and even 2fg. It held it's accuracy with 3fg, equal to 4fg as far as I could tell, but the group really opened up with 2fg.

Perhaps I should work up from 15, until I'm sure the ball is seating on the powder, and then go back to the drawing board from there. I think what brand of cap may be the key, but again, can't go into the LGS these days and choose from a variety of caps. !!

 

[webrx]

Did you try with the factory nipples? Do they have a smaller hole? I also assume you are using real BP and not a sub like triple 7.

just throwing stuff against the wall here.

She sure shoots nice with that 20g load though, might be worth it to put a post on it.

d

 

[Ugly Sauce]

I tried 777 once, eight times. On shot number eight my 1860 chain fired and blew the front sight and lever latch stud off the barrel. Only chain fire I've ever had I am now "black powder only" 'till death do us part.

Yes, thank you for brain-storming. I was looking for brain-stormers! I'm afraid you are most likely right, a post/rake might be the best in the long run. More $$$, but I can't really feel confident taking it into the mountains. If it's just a gun I can take to the back yard once in a while and pop it off at a target...that does not make it real useful to me, so that wastes all the time and effort and $$$ I've got into it already. My 1860 and New Model Remington of Navy caliber NEVER cap jam, so it's not something I can just put up with. It's not like: "hey, they all do that".

It does shoot nice with 20 grains and a ball, or 15 and a slug. And it's a beautiful pistol. So yeah.....!! Dagnabbit.

 

[Dirty Bob]

I read about one owner who suggested 2 mainsprings in an 1862! Have you tried that? I agree hammer weight would probably help more than anything.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

I have as much mainspring tension now as I dare, or want. Using a '51 spring gave it plenty, and I have a strain-screw in mine that gives it a bit more. Any more and I'm afraid I might be bashing the cones a little too much. Even so, the action still feels fine to me. The weak-thumbed shooters might find it objectionable.

 

[dickydalton]

The 1862 Navy that Mike Goonerized for me has way less hammer pull/mainspring strength than my other 1862s and I have zero problems. He did install a cap post also. I have Treso nipples and use Remington #10 caps.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

I have tried Remington #10's, in fact that's the last caps I just used. They do seem to work better, but I changed a lot of variables at once. The trouble there is that I have lots of CCI #11's, which fit perfectly, and only about 40 Remington caps left. Yeah, need to start making them.

Dang, I hate to buy another set of cones!

I think, with the cap-post one can get away with a lighter main spring. My own, possibly wrong belief is that the cap post does not rake the cap off the hammer, but rather blocks the cap when the hammer blows back.

Yeah, I'll probably wind up sending it to the Jackrabbit or the Goon for a cap-post. More $$$! YAY! Maybe Mike could make my arbor shorter, and close up that 1/4" barrel to cylinder gap. But I'm not at that point yet. And that's not a big yet. !