Continued saga of the Sixty-Two.

[Ugly Sauce]

I made my own "slixshot" vented nipples, and found that the pistol works "okay" with the CCI magnum #11 caps, of all things. I can get through five rounds without jamming if I flick the pistol up and back when cocking it. There is still some hammer blow-back.

I bought this pistol to serve as a smaller, lighter, small game gun/wilderness survival gun. I have some buyer's remorse, as it just does not feel "good in the hand". But, it is light, and I sure can't argue with the accuracy. It shoots about like this with ball or bullet. It seems to be very consistent. I'll be packing it with the bullet, as it's much more easy to re-load it with a lubed slug, in the field. I had planned to use it with ball, as I could carry more ball for the same amount of weight. Using a ball requires fiddle-fidgiting a wad into the chamber, which also requires carrying the wads somewhere.

Anyhow, I think we are good to go. It's not a "bad" pistol. Sure is pretty. Powder capacity is limited, using 15 grains is about it under a 130 grain slug. I suppose one could fit 20 grains under a ball, with a very thin wad. This group I loaded the Outlaw Kid style wad(s) just for fun, and I barely got the bullets to seat deep enough. Not sure why I did that, the LEE bullet has two lube grooves, and carries enough lube. But you can see it didn't hurt accuracy.

Well I might try 15 grains of 4fg to boost velocity a bit, in case of Wolf attack, but the 3fg load should punch a hole in a wolf, and again it's a small game gun, not a wolf gun, as is my Remington Navy. Or Remington New Model Army in Navy caliber, or whatever it is. !!! Thanks for listening.

 

[rodwha]

View attachment 990936
I made my own "slixshot" vented nipples, and found that the pistol works "okay" with the CCI magnum #11 caps, of all things. I can get through five rounds without jamming if I flick the pistol up and back when cocking it. There is still some hammer blow-back.

I bought this pistol to serve as a smaller, lighter, small game gun/wilderness survival gun. I have some buyer's remorse, as it just does not feel "good in the hand". But, it is light, and I sure can't argue with the accuracy. It shoots about like this with ball or bullet. It seems to be very consistent. I'll be packing it with the bullet, as it's much more easy to re-load it with a lubed slug, in the field. I had planned to use it with ball, as I could carry more ball for the same amount of weight. Using a ball requires fiddle-fidgiting a wad into the chamber, which also requires carrying the wads somewhere.

Anyhow, I think we are good to go. It's not a "bad" pistol. Sure is pretty. Powder capacity is limited, using 15 grains is about it under a 130 grain slug. I suppose one could fit 20 grains under a ball, with a very thin wad. This group I loaded the Outlaw Kid style wad(s) just for fun, and I barely got the bullets to seat deep enough. Not sure why I did that, the LEE bullet has two lube grooves, and carries enough lube. But you can see it didn't hurt accuracy.

Well I might try 15 grains of 4fg to boost velocity a bit, in case of Wolf attack, but the 3fg load should punch a hole in a wolf, and again it's a small game gun, not a wolf gun, as is my Remington Navy. Or Remington New Model Army in Navy caliber, or whatever it is. !!! Thanks for listening.

Since this is something you intend on carrying I’d suggest creating a bullet for it. A ball or a RN bullet will just create a caliber sized hole. Use a wide meplat and even at very low velocities it creates much larger permanent wound tracks.

I, too, have felt this would make a nice carry piece when you want/need something lighter and/or smaller. I created a short bullet with a wide meplat that would even increase the powder charge. A fellow on another forum also dabbles with bullet creations and found that with 20 grns and a short bullet you’ll achieve low end .380 ACP performance. It will absolutely penetrate fairly deep.

Knowing what I know now I’d find what the pistol’s more accurate but powerful enough powder charge is and then fill in the excess with lead leaving about 3/16” from the mouth of the chamber as gas cutting will eat the noses, plus this gives a little wiggle room in case it’s overfilled a little and also gives room for a cardboard over powder card if you want one. Regardless this is what I had come up with despite not having a .36 (yet):

http://accuratemolds.com/bullet_detail.php?bullet=38-100B

The two bullets following mine were designed by the fellow on the other forum.

Here’s Beartooth’s data on wide meplats and their permanent wound hole:




*EDIT*

What powder(s) are you using? I use 3F Olde Eynsford and Triple 7. One day I’d like to try Swiss. And one day I might try both 2F and 4F just to see if I get better accuracy, though I would prefer to use one powder in my two .44/.45 pistols and .50 cal rifle. I wouldn’t ever bother with 2F in a .36 anything, much less one with less powder capacity.

 

[ThomasT]

Thats a nice looking gun. And I like that it has a real front sight on it and not just a too short brass post. I like the fluted cylinder too.

Have you tried any triple 7 to see if you could get a little more power out of it?

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Since this is something you intend on carrying I’d suggest creating a bullet for it. A ball or a RN bullet will just create a caliber sized hole. Use a wide meplat and even at very low velocities it creates much larger permanent wound tracks.

I, too, have felt this would make a nice carry piece when you want/need something lighter and/or smaller. I created a short bullet with a wide meplat that would even increase the powder charge. A fellow on another forum also dabbles with bullet creations and found that with 20 grns and a short bullet you’ll achieve low end .380 ACP performance. It will absolutely penetrate fairly deep.

Knowing what I know now I’d find what the pistol’s more accurate but powerful enough powder charge is and then fill in the excess with lead leaving about 3/16” from the mouth of the chamber as gas cutting will eat the noses, plus this gives a little wiggle room in case it’s overfilled a little and also gives room for a cardboard over powder card if you want one. Regardless this is what I had come up with despite not having a .36 (yet):

http://accuratemolds.com/bullet_detail.php?bullet=38-100B

The two bullets following mine were designed by the fellow on the other forum.

Here’s Beartooth’s data on wide meplats and their permanent wound hole:

View attachment 990944


*EDIT*

What powder(s) are you using? I use 3F Olde Eynsford and Triple 7. One day I’d like to try Swiss. And one day I might try both 2F and 4F just to see if I get better accuracy, though I would prefer to use one powder in my two .44/.45 pistols and .50 cal rifle. I wouldn’t ever bother with 2F in a .36 anything, much less one with less powder capacity.

That's a very interesting bullet, certainly would have some smackdown to it. I've been using some of the Outlaw Kid's bullets in my Remington with very good results. The Remington is my "wolf gun", or La Pistola por Lobos. The '62 is more of my "Pistola por Wabbits" gun. That's why I'm using a round nose bullet in it, to minimize meat damage on small game, rabbits and grouse.

I like Swiss powder the best, but at the moment I'm out, so I've been using Goex. I agree, 2fg is too coarse for pistols, unless you want the bulk for a light load. I'm beginning to think that 4fg is actually the best powder for pistols. I'm not sure I'd use it in the '62, being such a small gun, with small parts, but it seems to be working well in the Uberti Remington Navy, which as you know is actually the Remington New model Army, but in Navy caliber. So that gun is quite "beefy".

Yes one needs wiggle room when the bullets are seated, would be a bad situation in the wilderness if you had a bullet stuck and sticking up out of the chamber, and were trying to reload in a hurry!

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Thats a nice looking gun. And I like that it has a real front sight on it and not just a too short brass post. I like the fluted cylinder too.

Have you tried any triple 7 to see if you could get a little more power out of it?

Thank you. The front sight was a must, I sure didn't want to be aiming a foot underneath small game in order to hit it. Could be a bit disappointing when lost and hungry in the wilderness. The '62 is a very good looking pistol. I may try some 4fg and if it doesn't seem to be beating the gun, changing POI, or decreasing accuracy I'll use it. It sure is cleaner burning in my Remington, and that thing can take a beating for sure. I'm sure the full size Colts can too, but this '62 is kind of a delicate little thing. ! Or seems like it to me. I've had very bad luck with 777, just don't trust it. The one time I tried it in my 1860 it chain fired and blew off the front sight, and the loading lever latch. !!!! Never chain fired before or after, and I've been shooting it since the mid or late 1970's.

 

[arcticap]

View attachment 990936
I made my own "slixshot" vented nipples, and found that the pistol works "okay" with the CCI magnum #11 caps, of all things. I can get through five rounds without jamming if I flick the pistol up and back when cocking it. There is still some hammer blow-back.

I bought this pistol to serve as a smaller, lighter, small game gun/wilderness survival gun. I have some buyer's remorse, as it just does not feel "good in the hand". But, it is light, and I sure can't argue with the accuracy. It shoots about like this with ball or bullet. It seems to be very consistent.

I wanted to ask you, in your earlier thread, you mentioned that you had done some work on the internals to smooth it out before even test firing the 1862.

Absolutely stunning.

There are some people who really dislike this gun. I really don't know why. These things are a gem when they are in working order.

The one I handled, a current production model had timing problems and a loose wedge as well as cylinder binding against the forcing cone when the wedge was pushed all the way in. The fit of the arbor and cylinder was a little more loose than other cap and ball guns but in my opinion still within acceptable tolerances. The timing problems most likely was fixed by shortening the hand a small bit with a file, but in order to fix the loose wedge and cylinder binding problem, the arbor needed bottoming out after which all the problems went away and everything improved. A little work was done on the hammer mounted locking latch cam and the leg of the locking latch to smooth things out a little more. Now it all looks, works, and feels normal.

Fixing the arbor first before moving on to anything else is in my opinion the way to go. I have not fired it so I can't comment on whether it's prone to cap jams or not.

I think these represent Colt's vision of what his goals were in making cap and ball revolvers. That was to make a small, lightweight, practical and useful revolver. I would guess due to the booming sales of his earlier anemic pocket .31 that the boat anchor guns were not the first choice of most people.

--->>> https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/the-62-is-a-tiny-gun.881020/

I'm not familiar with your description about smoothing it out, but was wondering if reducing the friction could have reduced the amount of back pressure required for the hammer to blow back?
Could doing work on it before test firing it contribute to the hammer blow back problem at all?
If not then do you think that it's a main spring problem?
After altering the nipples, what's the next step to try to resolve the hammer blow back?

 

[Ugly Sauce]

On the internals I really only polished all the moving parts, pretty much the same as Mike Belivue (sp?) video demonstrates. I also increased main spring pressure by installing a stud underneath the spring, much like a "strain screw" on a S&W revolver, and others. The stud is not adjustable of course, so it was install, then file down until I got the spring pressure I wanted. Which was, more than the factory spring, but still reasonable to me.

The nipples did make a noticeable difference. What I'll do now is get some actual slixshots, and turn them down to fit the '62 cylinder. As far as I know, they still do not make them for the '62 or '49. On mine, I only drilled a hole in one side. I found drilling the cones to be somewhat difficult.

Here's what I think/believe, although people who know more about it than me, like Mike or the Kid, and JackRabbit, may/will/might disagree is that the mass of the hammer just is not enough to hold the pressure. If you compare the hammer on a '62, to one on a '51, '60, or the full size Remingtons, there is a great difference in mass or weight. Then consider the same amount of back-pressure is coming back out of that nipple, as it is on the bigger guns. (of the same caliber)

I think that functioning is acceptable right now, if I flick the revolver up and back when cocking, it throws the spent caps out of the way, whether they are still on the nipple, or have fallen under the hammer. One observation is that they do not fall as deeply under the hammer now, as they did before drilling the holes in the nipples, and increasing main spring tension. Also, I'm not getting any partial rotation of the cylinder after firing, due to the hammer coming so far back that the hand would start to engage the cylinder. Having said that, I do realize my bolt needs a little more attention.

I do like the gun, and the accuracy is superb. I'll probably carry it when I'm packing a breech loading long gun. When out with the muzzle loading rifles, I think the Remington or the 1860 will be my better choice. So she'll get used, won't be no "safe queen" or "plinker".

So...that is my story, and I'm sticking to it. For now!

 

[arcticap]

They make all kinds of different shaped hammer extensions that fit on to or over the tip of the hammer.
Many of them are for a specific model but may have general applications.
I Googled - hammer extensions for a gun - and clicked on images and a lot of designs are shown.
Some just have a slot that slips over the tip of the hammer.
I wonder if any could work for your gun, maybe a slotted piece of brass or any other metal would add some weight and not interfere with carrying it in a holster.
I would consider trying that before going with the Slixshots.
Some hammer extensions may be inexpensive and screw adjustable, like for a H&R single shot rifle.
May even be able to find some different used extensions on eBay.
Or fashion one out of wood in order to perfect a design.
Or stick a small lead ball or bullet on the tip of the hammer just to see if the concept of adding weight works.
For instance, fashion a slotted piece of wood that extends out from the right side of the hammer, then attach a small lead or brass weight to the piece of wood, just as a prototype.
Maybe you can stuff a .22 lead bullet into the wood or something.
Or wrap the tip of the hammer or the wood with some lead solder, wire or even a fishing sinker.
Attach it with tape or something.
It probably doesn't need very much additional weight.
Can you slip a small brass cartridge case over the tip of the hammer?
Do some testing. 1,2,3, check, check, test, test, test.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

That's funny, the thought crossed my mind to take a .50" ball, drill a hole in it, stick in on the hammer spur and then see what happened!

I think the most unobtrusive thing would be, but I'm not going to do it, is take the hammer and drill a bunch of holes in it, then plug those holes with lead. !

Anyhow, got a kick out of that, we both thinking along the same lines on that. !!

 

[rodwha]

Have you seen the cap post/rake? This is said to be a very good fix for the cap pulling off issue with Colts. Also I’ve read that using a dremel tool to give a better indenture for the spent caps to slide along (as one larger models IIRC?) helps too, that the Pockets just don’t have them like their bigger brothers.

 

[rodwha]

I forgot to ask if you’ve tried Olde Eynsford by Goex. It gives the same level of performance. It’s much cleaner than standard Goex from what I read, though those who like Swiss sometimes still prefer Swiss as far as accuracy and/or consistency in some granulations. I’ve been quite pleased with it through both of my pistols. I haven’t found what works well in my rifle but I also haven’t tried many variations to get a better idea.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

I've burned a lot of Swiss, so I'll stick with that. I've gone through two bulk-buys of Swiss. Between my .58's, my Jeager, and my Bess, they can consume a little bit of powder!! It is noticeably cleaner than Goex, and allows more shots between wiping in both my rifles and smoothbores. I came into four or five pounds of recent manufacture Goex lately, (free) and I really think the quality of Goex has come up a lot from say ten years ago. Anyhow, the Goex I have right now is working good, but I need to lay in another supply of Swiss soon. $$$$$$$$$$$

I've never seen the Olde Eynsford in my area, in a store, "on the shelf". Used to be able to find Swiss. No one has it now.

I had kind of a "funny" experience just the other day, I substituted 23 grains of 4fg Goex in my Remington, which I had been burning 3fg. The difference in fouling was dramatic. Whereas wiping the bore after six shots would give me that first gritty black patch with 3fg, and would require about three more patches to get the barrel clean, the 4f only produced a "grey" patch, and by the second patch the barrel was clean. ?? Never expected that.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Have you seen the cap post/rake? This is said to be a very good fix for the cap pulling off issue with Colts. Also I’ve read that using a dremel tool to give a better indenture for the spent caps to slide along (as one larger models IIRC?) helps too, that the Pockets just don’t have them like their bigger brothers.

I am familiar with the cap-rakes. I don't think the hammers "pull" the caps off or back, I believe the rake blocks the cap from blowing back, or traveling with the hammer as it blows back. However it works, yes that would probably take care of the situation. I may have that done eventually, but for small game I think she's working "good enough" now.

I watched some super slow motion video lately of cap and ball revolvers firing. It was really interesting. On some of the guns, you could see a lot of hammer blow back, on some just a little, but on others none. ?

 

[TheOutlawKid]

A cap post should solve your issue as it takes most of the force from back pressure escaping the nipple...it acts as a barrier/sheild. Back pressure will hit the post instead of the hammer face. I highly recommend it.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Yep, one of these days, don't be surprised when a '62 with a tall silver front sight arrives at your door. !!!

 

[sigwally]

Actually, at this moment The Outlaw Kid is looking over my Uberti 1862 Police to determine if he will start accepting work on this design. He is evaluating if this design ( small frame ) will respond to his tuning teniques and if there is ample room for his improvements in this type of percussion revolver. From what I understand the older small frame percussion revolvers from all makers were a mess and difficult to near impossible to tune. Parts too tiny, interior dimensions too tight , and lousey manufacturing in general has led to practically every one of our "Top Tier" gunsmiths to shy away and refuse to work on them. Thankfully, the last year or two of production have seen improvements in quality across the board. So it is possible some gunsmiths will start tuning them. I hope so, they are a joy to carry and shoot.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

I'd not be surprised, sometimes the best designs run into functional problems when they are just scaled up or down without any re-design. Be they guns, engines, swords or musical instruments. Along those lines, I still think the hammer on the '62 just does not have the mass or weight to function perfectly. That's my theory anyhow. However, just getting the gun perfectly tuned, and vented nipples on it, not to mention a cap-post would certainly go a long way to making the gun's functioning to be "acceptable", for plinking and small game at least. Don't know about yours, but mine sure is accurate. If I miss a grouse or rabbit with it, can't blame it on the pistol. Being able to now get through a cylinder full, "most of the time" with it, and considering it's accuracy, it's a keeper.

I won't be betting any money against the Kid figuring it out though. That would not be a safe bet.

 

[sigwally]

The one I sent The Kid was NIB and unfired. But I shot a friends , plus all who own them seem to always mention how accurate they are. If he decides to work on mine I will do a report on it. He is also doing a Uberti Dragoon for me. But I am sure that will turn out great.

 

[45 Dragoon]

Just saw this, and contrary to popular (?) belief, I've been tuning pocket guns since I started (over 7 yrs. ago). They, too, get coil torsion springs just like their big brothers. The difference is a torsion spring for the hand instead of the coil and pushrod (because of location). Also, arbor correction with the adjustable wedge bearing, a bolt block, action stop and a cap post . . . they can be excellent and robust shooters.

As far as the hammer having enough mass . . . it only needs enough mass with sufficient energy from the mainspring to crush a cap. Since we don't have caps like the originals, it creates different problems for us. The answer seems to be a cap post (as far as the blow back problem is concerned). With it installed, it will solve any hammer blow back issues with todays revolvers . . . no matter if the cap is being blown back to the post or the post is pulling the cap out of the safety notch in the hammer face. Just for some info . . .

Mike

 

[sigwally]

45 Dragoon: Mike, I was not sure if you worked on the 1862 or not. That is why I stated " practically all of out top tier gunsmiths " because I was not positive. I am glad to hear you do. These are great little guns.

 

[45 Dragoon]

Sigwally, no harm no foul, I just wanted some newer folks to know that the same fixes apply pretty much across the range of revolvers . . . from horse pistol to pocket. (5 shot pockets can be quite the pain though!!!)

Mike

 

[dickydalton]

1862cappost2

• dickydalton
• Mar 1, 2021

Goonerized 1862 Pocket Navy 2nd gen Colt.

 

[TheOutlawKid]

Yeah the older ones i have tried were a mess...ive seen some where they were just mangled on the inside..parts chewed up and hammer cam ground flat and marred. This new one mr.sigwally sent me is a great template and i WILL be able to tune it. And guess what mr.sigwally? Im done with your first gun and am starting your 62' today. Mr.mike, I too thought you didn't tune 62's?...atleast that's what i think i remembered when we spoke some time back...probably on one of the many phone calls when i would poke your brain and i would try to keep up lol. But maybe its a case by case? But mike is definately right about the 62' having enough mass. I did tune one 62 but the owner had gotten me an all new rebuild kit for it as he knew the shape of the parts inside and hammers cam....and also he ground down too much off the bolt legs and hand trying to troubleshoot the timing. I think im going to start doing 62's depending on how this one goes...but with the disclaimer that it can take about 5-7 days for completion. I can usually do a gun in 1-2 days average but for now it may take a little longer for the pocket guns.

 

[sigwally]

Just saw this, and contrary to popular (?) belief, I've been tuning pocket guns since I started (over 7 yrs. ago). They, too, get coil torsion springs just like their big brothers. The difference is a torsion spring for the hand instead of the coil and pushrod (because of location). Also, arbor correction with the adjustable wedge bearing, a bolt block, action stop and a cap post . . . they can be excellent and robust shooters.

As far as the hammer having enough mass . . . it only needs enough mass with sufficient energy from the mainspring to crush a cap. Since we don't have caps like the originals, it creates different problems for us. The answer seems to be a cap post (as far as the blow back problem is concerned). With it installed, it will solve any hammer blow back issues with todays revolvers . . . no matter if the cap is being blown back to the post or the post is pulling the cap out of the safety notch in the hammer face. Just for some info . . .

Mike

Mike: Can you please explain " a torsion spring for the hand instead of a coil and pushrod (because of location) . What exactly is a torsion spring set up? I am trying to learn about these firearms, but that is new to me. Thanks!

 

[45 Dragoon]

Sigwally, I'll try. The correct location for the compression spring hand spring is the left screw hole for the backstrap. I did some that way by reducing the length of the screw which is obviously what kept tension on the spring as well as attaching the backstrap. Because of the restricted space available, it was more aggravating to set up than it needed to be.
Ultimately, the answer was to revert to a torsion setup similar to my hand spring for Remingtons.
In this particular instance, one drills a hole "back to front" (with a downward angle back to front). A shallow guide groove should be made above this hole (on the backside) for the spring leg to lay in which will maintain the "attitude" (keep it from twisting /rotating). Another groove should be made around the bottom of the hand which the spring will lay in. I use some .025" music wire for the spring and with a section bent appropriately to rest in the upper groove, you insert the wire from back to front, then down and around in the bottom groove and up as far as the top of the hand. I then bend the wire back down to about 3/4 of the length and cut. With needle nose pliers you can shape the upper tip of the spring with a "ski tip" end and shape appropriately .

I'll try and get a photo sometime today for you folks.

Mike