Chronographing 777 loads in revolvers.

[MCgunner]

Wow, the grip on it looks a bit Bisley. Cool. Maybe it's just my morning eyes, but it doesn't look like it quite has the standard ROA profile to it. Can't really tell on second look, though. I love the dove tail sight mounting, too, and the octagon barrel is nice.

 

[mykeal]

You keep expressing concern about 'open tops' and the use of 777 - I infer from that that you feel the Colt open top design is somehow weaker than the Remington (or Ruger) closed frame design. Is my inference correct, and if so, what leads you to that conclusion?

By the way, I completely agree that the ROA is significantly stronger than any of the current bp replicas, Italian or otherwise. But that's separate from the question of 'open top' vs closed frame design as asked above.

As far as 777's relative strength, there's no mystery about it. Hodgdon clearly states that 777 is 15% more powerful than Pyrodex, and thus real black powder. When you say it seems more like smokeless, if that's 15% more powerful, then you're correct. I don't understand how that's 'overpressure', or 'overly powerful for some old gun designs' but perhaps I don't use those terms in the same way you do.

 

[RyanM]

You keep expressing concern about 'open tops' and the use of 777 - I infer from that that you feel the Colt open top design is somehow weaker than the Remington (or Ruger) closed frame design. Is my inference correct, and if so, what leads you to that conclusion?

It's not the pressure in the cylinder that's the problem (although the rebated cylinder on Colts is probably weaker; I've heard of antique conversions where there was a hole all the way through the cylinder at the notch, leaving the brass case supported solely by the cylinder stop. The original cartridges were apparently so low pressure that it was never a problem).

The problem is the force that the bullet exerts on the barrel. The bullet goes forward, and tries to drag the barrel along with it. And the faster you drive a bullet, the harder it yanks on that barrel. A Remington barrel is attached at two places, top and bottom. But a Colt is attached only at the cylinder pin (which also means that, due to leverage, the bullet will flex the barrel downwards by a tiny fraction). That's why brass-framed guns stretch.

And with normal loads, a brass Colt will generally wear out faster than a brass Remington. Same principle with hot 777 loads in a steel gun. Of course, if the Italian replicas were built with the same metallurgy and heat treat as the Ruger, there would be no problem; for instance, the guys at Cimarron told me that the Uberti conversion revolver is made of the same materials as the Model P, and will easily handle the exact same ammunition despite being an open top.

 

[Oyeboten]

Well...for me, I feel "777" is very promising for various Metallic Cartridge in appropriate Arms, but, I have not felt any pull to use it in my Percussion Revolvers, where, the 3F BP they were made for gives such good FPS and all round good result.

If carrying a Dragoon or M1860 Colt for Self Defence, I'd still be happy with 3F BP.

For Metallic Cartridge Revolvers where I feel they can abide alright with a little more pressure and strain, "777" would be alright with me, to load as Full-House as one can...which, since it is bulkier than BP, it ( if memory serve? ) ends up being self limiting anyway, since one can not really put in much past the BP load-equivelent anyway, if it is a BP era Cartridge.


So...


My S&W Model 10 daily Carry, 3 Inch Barrel, clocked very nice Chronograph results with "777" and 158 Grain Lead...but, these preliminary tests were with a By-the-Book load for .38 Special, and, I still had a little bit o' room left for more....so, next round of Tests, I will use all that will fit to still end up with an OAL the Cylinder will accept, and, see what that does.

Plain 3F BP ( 19 grains, so, les than the original 1898 Loading) and a thin Lube-Wafer did very nicely also, equalling or bettering most present off the shelf 'saami' FPS for Standard Loading 158 Grain Lead.

 

[GENTLEMAN OF THE CHARCOAL]

Well....Well.. I have read ya'll say some things that sound good unless one know's better. I have fired 30 grains of Triple Seven 3fff through my '58's for many a year and before that it was 30 grains of BlackMag 3. Same thing with my carbines. Now, I have and am using a carbine with the Triple Seven load moved up to the exact equivelent of a 44-40, and I know that the '58's will carry and use the same load. Gentlemen, I have shot all of my life. I have put plenty of real hot rounds (BlackMag3/Triple Seven 3fff) through one of my Walkers and let me tell you straight out; that sonofab**** will carry the mail. I'm getting a little older now so I cut down on my Walker load. Now my standard load in a Walker is 48 grains of Triple Seven #fff. Incidentally, I have yet to find myself going downrange to look for a barrel or any other part that never came flying off of either my Walker or my .31....Hey, I know of lot's of people on this site, including me, who has tried to tell ya'll over and over, time and time again, that Triple Seven 3fff is some damn good powder. I fail to understand why some of ya'll act so surprised. It isn't like you never were told. I'm through with the subject....

 

[MCgunner]

.Hey, I know of lot's of people on this site, including me, who has tried to tell ya'll over and over, time and time again, that Triple Seven 3fff is some damn good powder. I fail to understand why some of ya'll act so surprised. It isn't like you never were told. I'm through with the subject....

Because I tend to believe it when I see it. Missou attitude, i guess. And, if anyone posted chronograph results, I never saw 'em.

You keep expressing concern about 'open tops' and the use of 777 - I infer from that that you feel the Colt open top design is somehow weaker than the Remington (or Ruger) closed frame design. Is my inference correct, and if so, what leads you to that conclusion?

Well, DUH, it doesn't have a top strap. The answer is rather obvious. And it's been common knowledge that the open tops are weaker designs for the 35 years I've been shooting black powder. But, I guess I and all the others that have said so in magazines are wrong. Even Sam Colt himself put a top strap frame on the gun in 1873 when Smith and Wesson's patent ran out on the cartridge concept.

Like I said, most of the BP guns don't hold anywhere close to the charge I was shooting. I doubt a dragoon would have a problem with 777 triple Fg. I don't care anyway since I don't have any open tops, just passing along opinions, not disin' any guns. If the stuff was unsafe for revolvers, why would they market it? But, it pays to be cautious when you're playing with something new and I've not tried the 777 til now. I don't shoot BP all THAT often, usually at the range with a .45, 9x19, .357 magnum or something, always with a .22, of course. I just kinda got in the mood lately to play with 'em. I guess the new super companion got me in the mood.

Next step, the Hawken with 777. Jim Shockey's Gold was a big time flop, more like Shockey's pot metal. It wasn't that it's weak, wasn't that it's hygroscopic, was that it's terribly inconsistent and inaccurate. Anybody need half a can? Everyone said it was crap. They were right. Now I know for sure since I tried it.

 

[Cowboy2]

My .50 T/C Hawken loves Triple 7 FFg. I use Triple 7 FFFg in my Colts, fwiw.

 

[Oyeboten]

Well...


I believe Gentleman of the Charcoal is relaying good info here.


I recall other experienced hands also affirming that "777" has behaved fine, or, that the Revolver did, or both, even when the loadings were max ( so long as the Revolver were a Steel Frame).


"15 percent" more pressure than regular BP, is not likely to be a deal breaker, or, a Widow Maker in any sound BP Arm...and, is still well below 'Proof' Loads, of 200 percent over standard Loading, to which the Arm is supposed to have been able to abide at least one of.


We have no idea what the story of the 'Barrel' flying down Range was about, or, if it would have done that with the next round, regardless of propellent or charge. Possibly the operative had not made sure the 'Wedge' was presnet and in place? Who knows...



The Bored Through Cylinder for use of a self-contained Metallic Cartridge, was a Rollin White Patent, not an S&W Patent, and, had nothing to do with whether a Revolver had a Top-Strap or not.


Reviewing the overall matter, my own acceptence, is that Open Tops are just as strong for abiding the stresses of right use, generally, as, any Top-Strap Revolver of the same size or Caliber-designation, and, that the legend or hear-say or superficial assay of Open Tops being less strong is not based on fact or sound enginnering evaluation, regardless of the sincerity and good intention of those holding or relaying the judgement.


Possibly, at least some of the Reason for Colt to go with a Top Strap for their then new Model P 1873 Metallic Cartridge Revolvers, was to present no ambiguity in recognition, of the departure from Percussion, in the Revolver's appearence...and, to reduce at least one variable for the operative to have to deal with, in eleminating the 'Wedge', and, how the Wedge holds the Barrel assembly to the Frame.

 

[MCgunner]

Well, owing to the old design, even with modern metals, I'll treat the open tops with a bit more respect and load them with reasonable loads. I don't know an open top other than the walker that holds enough powder to do any damage, though, why I went off on a walker tangent. But, like I say, I haven't lived with a Walker. They might well be strong enough, I don't know. If you think they are, go for it.

This FFFg stuff has recipes on it for rifles. They're HOT, too, 100 grain equi behind a 240 sabot type stuff. I think I'll try the stuff, but start out about 60 grains. I really don't care if it shoots harder, shoots hard enough with Pyrodex RS. I just want the cleaner burn for it, all I really want out of 777 for a rifle. I tried the APP stuff, but that was a dud. I've heard folks say it works fine for them, maybe it's just my rifle that doesn't like it. I won't go over 90 grains and I'm thinkin' 80 might be enough. I've fired 120 grains of Pyrodex RS in it, kicked harder than my 7 mag and accuracy suffered.

Unlike my revolvers, I occasionally hunt with the rifle. Sure wish we had an actual black powder season, though.

 

[unspellable]

Did you have any problems with this hot load blowing the caps off the nipples with the ROA? I've heard of hot loads blowing caps off and causing jams when they fall into the works.

 

[MCgunner]

It normally cracks the caps and they fall out as the cylinder rotates, anyway. No real difference. Caps used to fall into my Navy between the hammer and frame, but hard to do on the ROA. They just fall out as it rotates around.

 

[mykeal]

A Remington barrel is attached at two places, top and bottom. But a Colt is attached only at the cylinder pin (which also means that, due to leverage, the bullet will flex the barrel downwards by a tiny fraction).

Actually, a Colt barrel assembly is attached in two places. First of all, the Colt arbor is much, much larger in cross sectional area (modulus) than the flimsy Remington cylinder pin plus the cross section of the top strap. In addition, the moment arm on the Colt arbor is much less as it's axis is closer to the bore axis than the Remington top strap. Second, the Colt barrel assembly is attached to the frame at the bottom, adding additional area to the modulus. The urban myth about the Remington top strap just doesn't hold up to a rational loads analysis.

Well, DUH, it doesn't have a top strap. The answer is rather obvious. And it's been common knowledge that the open tops are weaker designs for the 35 years I've been shooting black powder. But, I guess I and all the others that have said so in magazines are wrong. Even Sam Colt himself put a top strap frame on the gun in 1873 when Smith and Wesson's patent ran out on the cartridge concept.

Your condescending attitude is insulting and has no place in this discussion. I don't believe I wrote anything that justifies such remarks.

"Common knowledge" is also known as "urban legend", especially when it has no basis in fact. Myths like the Remington top strap resulting in superior strength have a life of their own when people find it easier to listen rather than reason; I submit the beliefs in a flat earth or the earth as the center of the universe. And for all the adherents that accept the musings of the gun magazines as fact there is a larger group that knows there's nothing magic about them - just because they say so doesn't make it true. Finally, Sam Colt added the top strap because the government told him to, and of all the reasons for believing the top strap is better that has to be the weakest. Unless, of course, you believe the government actually does know what it's doing.

I'd be perfectly happy to discuss a rational loads analysis of the two designs if you'd care to submit one. As a start you could take a look at my thoughts in response to RyanM above and suggest where I'm mistaken.

 

[RyanM]

First of all, the Colt arbor is much, much larger in cross sectional area (modulus) than the flimsy Remington cylinder pin plus the cross section of the top strap.

That's not really relevant. It's the area where the arbor pin attaches to the frame that gives out first in a Colt, not the pin itself.

Second, the Colt barrel assembly is attached to the frame at the bottom, adding additional area to the modulus.

Only if "attached" means "touching." The 2 little pins down there do not actually physically attach to the barrel in any way shape or form that lets them absorb any of the tensile forces on the barrel. That contact area only limits the downward flex of the barrel, so the force the arbor pin receives is almost 100% tensile, with very little flex.

The Remington, on the other hand, has a 1 piece frame, with a strap on the top, and a strap on the bottom, and then the barrel threads into that (and the Remington's cylinder pin plays absolutely no part in preventing frame stretching). And the threads used there are much larger than the threading on the arbor pin of a Colt. With the Remington, the weak point is the top and bottom straps of the frame itself, not the threading, so the actual frame stretches out. So you are correct that a Colt arbor pin is stronger than a Remington frame, because a Colt's pin is never going to stretch. But that's not the failure Colts experience, it's the threading.

Which one is functionally stronger? That, I couldn't answer definitively.

Like I said, metallurgy is the defining factor with these guns. You could easily make an open top Colt stronger than a 1858 Remington just by using slightly better quality steel. In brass, Colts don't seem to last as long as Remingtons, but that's brass and not steel. If Uberti made their muzzleloading open tops as strong as their cartridge open tops, then they would probably be about as strong as a Ruger (but then they'd cost as much, too).

Also like I said, at least one Cimarron representative has said that Uberti Open Top and Conversion cartridge guns are just as strong as their 1873 topstrap models.

 

[madcratebuilder]

The problem is the force that the bullet exerts on the barrel. The bullet goes forward, and tries to drag the barrel along with it. And the faster you drive a bullet, the harder it yanks on that barrel. A Remington barrel is attached at two places, top and bottom. But a Colt is attached only at the cylinder pin (which also means that, due to leverage, the bullet will flex the barrel downwards by a tiny fraction). That's why brass-framed guns stretch.

I disagree sir. It takes little force to push a dead soft round ball down the barrel. Brass frames 'stretch' from the cylinder moving back and hitting the recoil shield. The ratchet, well over time, leave a indentation in the recoil shield. This increase the cylinder end play that just compounds the situation.

Well, DUH, it doesn't have a top strap. The answer is rather obvious. And it's been common knowledge that the open tops are weaker designs for the 35 years I've been shooting black powder. But, I guess I and all the others that have said so in magazines are wrong.

Urban legend IMHO. For years people have been shooting poorly fit open top revolvers. Arbors that do not bottom tight in the barrel lug and move at every discharge, peening both wedge and arbor slot. This is an assembly flaw not a design flaw.

Even Sam Colt himself put a top strap frame on the gun in 1873 when Smith and Wesson's patent ran out on the cartridge concept.

Revisionist history. Sam went with the SAA design only at the insistence of the US Army. His main goal was government contracts.

 

[MCgunner]

Well, I don't see any modern revolvers, magnum revolvers, X frames, etc, with open tops. Why is that? Well, I guess you could make a case for the impossibility of designing such a weapon with a swing out cylinder. Okay, but even the Blackhawks use top straps. Do ya think you could build an open top in, say, .460 S&W Mag that would be as light as a Smith X frame? Not prodding, just asking, would it be possible in your opinion? Single action guns do have the advantage of not having the crane assembly as a weakness. That's why I've always liked the Blackhawks for outdoor use among other reasons.

BTW, really didn't mean it to sound condescending. I just have been reading about the advantages of the full frame top strap revolvers for a long time.

 

[RyanM]

Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanM
Even Sam Colt himself put a top strap frame on the gun in 1873 when Smith and Wesson's patent ran out on the cartridge concept.

Revisionist history. Sam went with the SAA design only at the insistence of the US Army. His main goal was government contracts.

That wasn't me that said that.

I disagree sir. It takes little force to push a dead soft round ball down the barrel. Brass frames 'stretch' from the cylinder moving back and hitting the recoil shield. The ratchet, well over time, leave a indentation in the recoil shield. This increase the cylinder end play that just compounds the situation.

The cylinder moving back doesn't exert a particularly huge amount of force, either. It takes some work to make a BP gun kick. Sure, the cylinder would go flying if the frame wasn't holding it, but if you fire a Colt with the wedge out, the barrel will go a pretty good distance (I, uh... saw someone else do that once).

It's probably a combination of both. The bullet pushes the barrel forward, and at the exact same time, the cylinder pushes the frame backwards. Recoil alone can certainly squish the recoil shield, but it won't "stretch" the frame. Look at it this way, if you take a hammer to the inside of the frame of a revolver, will the top and bottom straps stretch if you're holding it by the grip? No, it'll get squashed in the back (enough of a squish, over time, will still increase endplay, but that's not the same as a genuine stretching). But if you hold it by the barrel instead of the grip, then it stretches.

In terms of resisting cylinder battering, there's no difference in strength whatsoever between an open top and a Remington, given equal quality materials and fitting.

--------

Well, I don't see any modern revolvers, magnum revolvers, X frames, etc, with open tops. Why is that? Well, I guess you could make a case for the impossibility of designing such a weapon with a swing out cylinder.

There's a huge difference between a cartridge gun and a C&B gun. As I'm reasonably sure you know, the back of a C&B cylinder is sealed. That means when the gun fires, all the rearward force of the explosion pushes on the cylinder. Then the cylinder pushes on the recoil shield, which means all the force is in the middle of the frame there.

With a cartridge gun, the explosion pushes the cartridge case back, and it pushes on the recoil shield directly. There's a little bit of force that gets transferred to the cylinder because the case expands and sticks, but the lion's share of the recoil force is on the cartridge case.

So for a given power round, a standard cartridge revolver experiences more severe forces due to the leverage.

But, if you look at the Mateba Unica autorevolver, you'll notice it has no topstrap, not even in .454 Casull! That's because the Unica fires from the bottom chamber instead of the top. The recoil force is at the bottom of the frame, the leverage works in the gun's favor instead of against it, and a topstrap is completely unnecessary. Someone needs to put Unicas back in production.

Anyway, though, I do agree with you that topstraps make normal top-chamber-firing cartridge revolvers stronger, because they reinforce the gun right where it's experiencing stress. But that doesn't translate back to C&Bs.

 

[MCgunner]

Well, it WAS a cartridge gun, but the top break Smith and Wessons went the way of the dinosaur, too, when the triple lock came out. The hinged, top lock frame was not as strong as a solid top strap and couldn't handle the loads a solid top revolver could and remain of reasonable size and weight. Yeah, they're cartridge guns, but it's just further evidence to ME of the weakness of not having a top strap.

I would relegate the open tops to fun gun status (hell, all my C and Bs are fun guns in that I don't carry or hunt with 'em) for another reason, the rudimentary rear notch in the hammer sight. That's pretty goofy IMHO. But, it did work for Bill Hickock who was a fair to middlin' shot with his navies, so I guess you can work around that, too. I just prefer a better sight system than that. I'm no Bill Hickock.

But, if I get another open top, I'll load it with loads that don't stress the gun much and play happy. I ain't gonna push one, no real need to. I may decide to hunt with that ROA considering what I'm getting out of it, but why? I mean, I don't even use my Blackhawks that often, prefer my TC contender with 2x scoped .30-30 barrel for hunting. I've killed a few hogs and a couple of deer with my 6.5" .357 Blackhawk, but the Contender is deadly accurate and powerful and my old eyes like the optics. As my eyes age, and they were never that great in the first place, I feel I owe the game a well placed shot of adequate power.

 

[mykeal]

But, if I get another open top, I'll load it with loads that don't stress the gun much and play happy. I ain't gonna push one, no real need to.

Excellent point. We should all do the same with all our guns.

 

[sundance44s]

Its a little cloudy I think it might rain today.
I can`t say for sure ..but it would be normal for a cloudy day ...just from the looks of it.

 

[ClemBert]

I was shooting 31.6 grains of it by weight.

Just wanted to be a second set of eyes and tell you that I also weighed my 777 3Fg (2.8cc or 40 grains by volume) and also noted the weight to be around 31.6 gains.

Just for grins I also did the same thing with my GOEX 3Fg (2.8cc or 40 grains by volume). Today my GOEX weighed around 38 grains or slightly less than the volumetric measurement in grains.

 

[BHP FAN]

I can't seriously believe that some of you guys think that open tops [beautiful, and gracefull though they be] are as strong as a Ruger,or even a Remington.

 

[sundance44s]

BHP FAN ....haha it does kind of make you take a step back and say ..WHAT !
Maybe they haven`t shot both enough to see the difference .
When I take just my Colt Open Tops to the range , I don`t leave home with out my tool box ........ that was a lesson learned the hard way .

 

[BHP FAN]

Yeah,I just got off an ASM .38 Richards last year.I STILL miss it! I love those open tops, and I seriously think they are graceful and beautiful,and they fit well in the hand...and the balance! But,they are what they are.They originally came out with the 1872 open top as a way to cash in on the new metallic cartridge fad....and as a way to use up some suddenly obsolescent parts.