Experiment results: Crisco lube + storage.

[Pyro]

A few months back I started a thread about using Crisco to seal off the cylinders + storage.
After a range session I cleaned and loaded the thing using Crisco over the ball. It has sat on my father's mantle for display as I was away for school.
After 4 months, the Crisco has coagulated into a sort of soft plug.
To the touch, they are soft but do not smear off on your finger like Crisco would.
Some of the plugs actually shrunk a little smaller then the cylinder mouth.
I don't have pictures of it, but there is no rust present.
Next time at the range, I will let it sit in the sun before I shoot it and see if the plugs will goop up like Crisco normally does on a warm day.
I will leave another thread when that happens in the next few weeks.

(I also loaded a funny combo of [powder, farina, lubed wad, ball, crisco] just to see if farina will prevent the lubed wad from leaking onto the powder. I'm pessimistic about the results but will only know when I shoot it.)

 

[ZVP]

Pyro I have read several discussions about chainfires and it seems that the flash-over occurs both in the back of the cylinder (from Caps) as well as in the front
Just being new to BP shooting (about a year now...) I don't take chqances. I seal the powder charge and pinch my caps on best as possible to try and keep accidents away!
I use fillers in some revolvers to bring the ball closer to the forcing cone as it helps with accuracy with at least one gun. It also makes a quick referance to mark powder loaded chambers.
From what I have read, real Black Powder seems to have the best shelf-life when the gun is loaded. They say several Civil War pistols were stored for years and still fired! The Substitutes dont reportedly store as well when loaded.
For my own sake, I would not leave powder loaded in a gun more than a week as I want it to go off for sure! Daily reloads are even better to ensure fresh loads.
ZVP

 

[BHP FAN]

monthly is plenty, and in fact, probably over doing it. People back East are still killing family members when they find great-grandpa's old Civil War musket, and don't realize it's been stored loaded and capped for over a hundred and more years. That being said, however, I like the idea of ''freshing your loads'' in that it familiarizes the owner with his gun, and especially in the case of some of the subs, it's better to be safe than sorry. Besides, it don't cost much, and it's fun!

 

[Pyro]

ZVP, it is generally wise to lube over the ball. Not only does it help prevent chainfires it also keeps fouling down. I have witnessed a lube wad oozing the lube past the ball as I ram the ball into battery. If the lube can press by then so can a spark. But I load with fillers so never worry about it.
I usually get hangfires after storing one of these loaded. Next I will store it with just [powder, filler, ball, Crisco].

 

[45-70 Ranger]

Crisco and long term loading

Folks, I had loaded a Wells Fargo model several years ago and had sealed it off with crisco. That weapon sat up for three years when I found it in the back of the drawer. I thought, oh boy this is gonna be a mess....

The crisco had turned brown and shrivled up to little wads of almost nothing. Well, being an intrepid sort I shot the thing. Not only did all five go off without a hitch, it even hit the traget! A real feat for this stubby micro caliber wheelgun!

The powder was Pyrodex P and it went off pretty good. No delay in ignition and it went bang like it was supposed to. Now the weapon remained indoors and was, as said, in a drawer for three years undisturbed. So no extreme climate changes or anything like that occurred. But it did work. Funny thing was the tiny little ugly snot-balls of crisco all brown and shrivled up looked like rabbit droppings in the chambers

So I guess it's possible to leave 'em loaded for a bit....But beware the "Rabbit Pellets"

Wade

 

[Jaymo]

I think I'd have been tempted to apply more crisco before firing, since that which was in there has shriveled.
I guess you could apply straight melted beeswax on top of the balls when you load it. It should do a good job of sealing the chambers and lubing the bore.
Maybe add 10-20 percent bore butter. Or maybe a 50/50 mix of beeswax and carnauba wax.

 

[Bluehawk]

Personally I don't bother with lubing over the chamber mouths. Using lithium grease and greasing the bottom of an aluminum cake pan like I would if I were baking, (a very thin coating) I simply roll the balls around a bit untill they are coated. After the powder is loaded, next goes in a dry, felt wad, then the lightly lubed ball. Never had a chain fire!
Colt's never intended for the chamber mouths to be lubed, and they weren't when these pistols were in use before the popularity of centerfire cartridges. Samuel Colt himself demonstrated many times the watertight seal of the chambers and nipples by submerging a loaded and capped cylinder in a bucket of water during sales demonstrations and after about 10 minutes or so pulled it out, installed it on a pistol and fired all chambers w/o failure.

 

[GENTLEMAN OF THE CHARCOAL]

Bluehawk, I myself have read on here somewhere that he demonstrated that several times. I do use a little Crisco most of the time to smear over the balls but that is (or was I should say) mostly because many times I was out in the rain or blowing snow and so forth for hours or days at a time and had no particular reason to draw and fire my piece but wanted it handy and ready to go in case I did need it. (force of habit). Nowadays I am just as subject to use over the powder wads and leave it go at that. (change the caps every month or maybe two months just to be on the safe side. so far, every cap I replaced has alway's still been hot and good). I know from reading on here that some people seem to have a continuous stream of bad luck with their blackpowder revolvers. (everything from chainfires to they can't get the caps to fit properly). Many times I have had my revolvers and carbine fully loaded and laying here indoors with me all warm and dry and safe for literally months at a time. I'vd had the Crisco shrink a little and turn sort of brown looking. Didn't hurt anything. Seal was still there and the powder was still good. I know the poster didn't mention caps but I might as well go ahead and add here that I don't understand the cap problem either unless people are putting these aftermarket nipples in that are made and sold by people other than the people and company who made that particular revolver. Hell, I don't pinch caps. Never have pinched a single one in my whole life and am not about to start now. I use Remington # 10's and Remington #11's. The #10's go on my '49's, my '58's, and my Cattleman carbines. They fit perfectly just like they did right out of the box. The #11's go on my '47's, my 1st. Model, and my NAA .22 Mini Mags and fit perfectly just like they did right out of the box..I don't understand all I know about this s*** concerning people having chainfires and improperly fitting caps...Oh, I do know. I'm just trying to be polite here..But anyway I'm co-signing what you stated just above this post of mine because I have read that several times. (Well, seen it several times and read it once)....

 

[col.lemat]

bullet lube

Now sometimes I lube using crisco, sometimes I dont, I used to seal with bees wax if out in damp weather. I like the idea of lubed rabbit pellets. Will have to try that next time out. Biodegradeable

 

[ontarget]

I use the hell out of crisco, not to seal anything, the ball does that on it's own. I use it to keep the fouling soft for easier cleaning.

 

[Jaymo]

Pyro, I still wanna know how/why you stuffed Dennis Farina into your revolver cylinder?
What did he ever do to you?

 

[damoc]

just wait till that gooped up crisco finds its way into the mechanism then you will regrett using it

 

[Noz]

If you are pinching caps, you are using the wrong size for your gun.

Read the label on the "Crisco" can carefully. Some of the formulations contain a sizable portion of salt. Generally the cheapest "vegetable shortening" is the safest.

I see no need for it so I do not grease over the balls. I use a homemade lubed wad under the ball and the proper caps.

 

[Foto Joe]

The OP is doing something that everybody who leaves a Black Powder gun loaded should do (not everybody does and I'm not advocating it). If you're going to leave one loaded you had better know what to expect when you attempt to fire it.

I've left revolvers loaded for many months with Goex in the holes. As far as the lubed wads perking past the filler, that is going to depend upon how much filler you used. Personally, I've had issues with that particular experiment and no longer use lubed wads at all, that's just my preference, not a recommendation.

"When" I leave a revolver loaded, it gets powder, filler & ball, that's it. If it's going to be used for home/self defense then you are never going to have to clean it anyway because law enforcement will take it away after you use it and you will never see it again. The same reason that I would NEVER use a $2,000 1911 as a carry gun!!

I am a Crisco user but only because I'm cheap and live in an area where if your house has air-conditioning, folks will ask you "Why?" As far as leaving the Crisco in place for long periods of time, I'm not so sure that's a good idea. Crisco is a "food" product, it will eventually get rancid and you might find little critters living in the chambers of our gun. Maggots??

Since I changed pages I can't remember if the OP mentioned "Pinching Caps" but here goes on that topic. DON'T DO IT! :banghead:

Pinching caps is an excellent way to get a first hand demonstration of a chain-fire eventually. If one of those things does fall off at just the right/wrong moment you're gonna get a surprise. It probably won't hurt ya, but it might warrent a change of drawers. If you have to pinch those things then they don't match the nipples correctly. Either change caps or nipples to find the combination that fits.

As a side note: I was shooting with friends a week or so ago. Friends that have BP guns but pretty much only take them out to play when I show up. One was stating how dis-appointed he was that the new #10 nipples he bought would only hold a #11 cap on tightly and a #10 wouldn't fit at all. I pretty much gave up trying to explain that revolver nipples don't have sizes, caps do. Find the cap that fits the nipple.

 

[mykeal]

And cap sizes don't mean anything. CCI "No. 10's" are not the same size as Remington "No. 10's", nor are the "No. 11's".

 

[makos_goods]

And cap sizes don't mean anything. CCI "No. 10's" are not the same size as Remington "No. 10's", nor are the "No. 11's".

Mykeal,
While it is technically true that CCI and Remington caps are not the "same size" (that is as in how they measure), it isn't true they won't fit the same tubes by size. In other words, a tube that accepts a Rem #10 Cap will normally accept a CCI #10, and the same is true for #11 caps.

You should know this, Remington has chosen one Internal Diameter and affects the fit by changing the skirt length. CCI has chosen to primarily vary their Internal Diameter with minor changes to length (probably due entirely the manufacturing tolerances they will accept internally).

Since tubes are tapered either method will work, they just have to be pursuing some derived nominal tube they have adopted internally to manufacture their caps to. What I mean by adopted internally, is that there isn't an industry standard for either tubes or caps. Where we are today is the result of 181 years of production and a convergence of sorts as to the standard #10 and #11. We should also include the RWS 1075 and RWS 1081 caps in that group.

In addition there are European sized caps now available from Sellier-Bellot, they call them the 4.0 and 4.4. This can be confusing to many people who are used to European primers being sized by diameter the primers are listed by diameter:
4,4 (4.4mm) = .173" Which is close to the American nominal diameter of Ø.175 for small primers
5,3 (5.3mm) = .209" Which is close to the American nominal diameter of Ø.211 for small primers

Most of us know that European primers (including shotgun primers) tend to run small.

The (4,0 and 4,4) make sense for percussion caps if they are talking about height. If they are making a common internal diameter and then varying the skirt length 'a la Remington then it does make sense.

4,0 (4.0mm) = .157"
4,4 (4.4mm) = .173"

Those lengths are similar to the current (2010 production) Remington caps which measure:

2010 PRODUCTION
.CAP_....__I.D._....._Height_
Rem10.... 0.166" ....0.183”
Rem11 ... 0.166” ....0.154”

They are even closer to my 2007 Production measurements

2007 PRODUCTION
.CAP_....__I.D._....._Height_
Rem10.... 0.166" ....0.175”
Rem11 ... 0.166” ....0.154”

If you look at the petals that form the skirts on the Remington caps it is easy to see how these would vary from lot to lot. These are Remington caps:




For those of you who might be a bit confused about all of this let's consider a standard factory Uberti tube:



Now let's look at how Remington and CCI caps will fit on this tube. First the Remington caps.



You will note both caps have been placed on the tube until the I.D. of the skirt begins to have a light interference with the taper of the tube. This tube accepts Remington #11 caps. You could force a #10 Rem cap on, but a #11 fits.

These are CCI caps on the same tube.



Again both caps are paced on the tube until there is a light interference fit. Once again notice how the CCI # 11 cap fits but the CCI #10 is too tight and sits proud.

All of these models are derived from measured caps and measured tubes. From this one can see how a #11 Remington Cap will have the same relative fit as the CCI #11 even though they contact the tapered tube at different points and even though the priming compound is of different thickness on the two brands.

The thickness of the priming compound controls how high off of the face of the tube the cap will fit. This is a consideration for some people who have low clearance between their tubes and the recoil shield. In that case it would be wiser to choose Remington over CCI (RWS also has thicker priming compound and sits higher).

So while there is no "common size" by measured geometric shape, there is a common "size" for fitting purposes.

To add to the brouhaha, there are aftermarket tubes that are specifically targeted to certain sizes of caps. For instance the Treso tubes are designed to accept Remington #11 caps. The same is true for other manufactures.

Regards,
Mako

 

[mykeal]

So while there is no "common size" by measured geometric shape, there is a common "size" for fitting purposes.

I'm not so sure I agree with that.

You clearly show that the CCI and Remington 'No. 10' caps are remarkably different in major dimension, and that they fit quite differently as well. I think that refutes the 'common size for fitting purposes' thesis for 'No. 10's'.

As for CCI and Remington 'No. 11' caps, I agree the thesis is proven, at least for the data under analysis - your measurements show the difference in dimensions to be in overall height only: Remingtons are 0.154" and (from an earlier thread) CCI's are taller at 0.165". They both appear to fit the same nipple cone despite one being significantly taller, this thanks to the thicker combustion material in the CCI cap as you noted. The externally different caps are in fact the same in the important dimension of height inside the cap, a dimension I've not considered.

An interesting point is the wide variance in cap dimensions between your data and mine, and the variance over time in your data. Neither of us has sufficient data to say definitively what variation can be expected between batches, but I suspect from these small samples that it's quite considerable. This was discussed in an earlier thread:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=578412&highlight=Percussion+Cap+Dimensions
I'm going to go out on a bit of a limb here and suggest that this supposed variation from batch to batch lends considerable credence to my version of events: that the size designations are, if not meaningless (perhaps that's a bit too strong), at least unreliable over a reasonable period of time - unless one invests in a large inventory of caps from one production batch.

 

[makos_goods]

I'm not so sure I agree with that.

You clearly show that the CCI and Remington 'No. 10' caps are remarkably different in major dimension, and that they fit quite differently as well. I think that refutes the 'common size for fitting purposes' thesis for 'No. 10's'.

As for CCI and Remington 'No. 11' caps, I agree the thesis is proven, at least for the data under analysis - your measurements show the difference in dimensions to be in overall height only: Remingtons are 0.154" and (from an earlier thread) CCI's are taller at 0.165". They both appear to fit the same nipple cone despite one being significantly taller, this thanks to the thicker combustion material in the CCI cap as you noted. The externally different caps are in fact the same in the important dimension of height inside the cap, a dimension I've not considered.

An interesting point is the wide variance in cap dimensions between your data and mine, and the variance over time in your data. Neither of us has sufficient data to say definitively what variation can be expected between batches, but I suspect from these small samples that it's quite considerable. This was discussed in an earlier thread:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=578412&highlight=Percussion+Cap+Dimensions
I'm going to go out on a bit of a limb here and suggest that this supposed variation from batch to batch lends considerable credence to my version of events: that the size designations are, if not meaningless (perhaps that's a bit too strong), at least unreliable over a reasonable period of time - unless one invests in a large inventory of caps from one production batch.

Mykeal,
I'm not sure if you're just hard headed, high maintenance or both... Hmmm somehow that description sounds like a punch line for a joke, but I digress.

Fortunately for you (actually for me because I have already done the work) I was posting on another forum about Treso tubes. They are all that I use, and they are designed for and work best with #11 Caps (Remingtons to be specific), but because they have a shallow taper they will work with #10 Remington caps if you press them on hard. You and I had a similar discussion before about pushing caps on hard (actually it was about a friend of mine who lost a piece of his thumb). I don't like doing it because the caps split at the crotch. To make a long story short I have two sets of Treso tubes I have modified for Remington #10 caps that will fit Ubertis. I put them on if I have been reduced to Remington #10 caps because of availability.

So, I have a model of the modified tubes. I modified them all on a CNC lathe so they are pretty close. I made collet to accept the tubes and turned them. This is the new profile:





This is a Remington #10 and a CCI #10 on the tube.






So now I return to your statement:

You clearly show that the CCI and Remington 'No. 10' caps are remarkably different in major dimension, and that they fit quite differently as well. I think that refutes the 'common size for fitting purposes' thesis for 'No. 10's'.

It's there in "black and white" (actually color for your viewing pleasure). So yeah I guess you're right once again, the CCI #10 will be .001" tighter at the base of the skirt than the Rem #10. I mean we are talking about one thousandths of an inch here. I mean "HOW WILL IT EVER FIT??????) Oh the humanity!!!

It's all about ring contact on a tapered post... It's the only way that any of us get away with using anything we own with the the myriad of caps and tubes that are out there. It seems someone knew what they were doing when they decided tapered tubes were a good idea.

Let me guess... You're still not convinced.

Have a great evening,
Mako

 

[Gatofeo]

Frankly, I don't believe you can attribute one set of dimensions to a manufacturer's caps or nipples. They're made with too much variance, in my experience. If they were made to exacting tolerances, caps would fit exactly the same on one manufacturer's nipples.
I've been pinching caps, to give them a clinginess, for about 40 years. The out-of-round shape holds them on the cap better, via tension. Now, the caps I use will fit fine on the nipple, but I prefer to pinch them as well, as a little extra insurance. Placing the cap on the nipple forces it round again, but remove that same cap and it will spring back to a slight elliptical.
This tension keeps it affixed to the nipple.
Pinching the cap into an elliptical shape is a quick-fix for a cap that is very slightly too large, or a nipple that is very slightly too small -- when the next smaller or larger cap doesn't fit at all.
Yes, you can try caps from different manufacturers, but a Remington No. 11 might be so very close to a CCI No. 11 that pinching the cap into an elliptical is warranted.
Remington made No. 12 caps, chiefly used in Dragoons and the Walker, into the early 1980s. I know, because I still have a tin I bought about 1985 in my collection. It was newly manufactured, not something that sat on a shelf for decades.

I've used greased felt wads for decades. Never had a problem with contaminated powder, and I once left my Colt 2nd generation 1851 Navy cylinder thus loaded for about 6 months, in temperatures that ranged from nearly 100 to probably 20 degrees (northern Idaho). I could detect no ignition problems.
But hey, each firearm is an individual. The next guy may have all kinds of problems with caps or long-term loads.
Ultimately, it's the old Chevy vs. Ford vs. Dodge argument.

 

[makos_goods]

Gatofeo,
I have been reading your contributions for years and I deeply appreciate them.

However I will say that Treso tubes (I have 12 sets of them, 10 Uberti and 2 sets of Pietta) are very consistent. The only ones that are different are the one set I chronicled above.

I use a pair of cap pistols consistently 2 to 3 times a month in competition and if I am lucky a long practice session once every two months. I have lots of experience with Treso tubes. They are very consistent and I find Remington caps are now very consistent in diameter since the change to the common diameter a few years back. There seems to be a nominal shift in the skirt length of the #10 Remington cap I was unaware of for a couple of years because I prefer #11s. During another thread on another forum a couple of people submitted new dimensions causing me to remeasure 2010 vintage Remington caps.

If you have tubes that accept #12 caps still you need to replace them, because I can't remember the last time I saw a #12 cap. You should get some Treso tubes for your Dragoons and Walkers. They work great and take #11 caps.

I measured 12 factory fresh Uberti tubes last year to get the dimensions for the factory tubes. They were actually pretty consistent. It really doesn't matter though, the taper covers a "multitude of sins..."

Regards,
Mako

 

[mykeal]

Does this help? I hope you don't mind my borrowing and rearranging your graphics.
<edit>
It sure looks to me that the CCI No. 10 fits much differently (like, not at all) than the Remington No. 10 on the Uberti OEM nipple. But perhaps I'm wrong - it's your data, so help me understand how I'm misinterpreting your graphic.

It's there in "black and white" (actually color for your viewing pleasure). So yeah I guess you're right once again, the CCI #10 will be .001" tighter at the base of the skirt than the Rem #10.

I don't see that in your graphic - perhaps you'd show me. I believe the CCI No. 10 internal opening diameter is 0.160" (my data, from the referenced earlier thread), while the Remington No. 10 internal opening diameter is 0.166" (both your data and mine) - that's 6 thousandths, not 1. Is that the 'base of the skirt' dimension you're referring to?

As for repeatability - my point was that cap dimensions vary, not nipple dimensions. Gatofeo, I believe, although I can't speak for him, agrees with the part about cap dimensions. Can I ask you to speak to that, in the context of caps size designations being 'meaningless'?

 

[makos_goods]

Mykeal,
This is the last time, after this I will either start charging you at my consultant rate or you will have to enroll in an a class I happen to be teaching.

Think carefully... IT'S ALL ABOUT THE TAPER. That tube that you show will NOT accommodate a #10 cap. If you read carefully in my last post you will see I had to modify the Treso tube to allow it to fit #10 caps, this was both a diametral change and a change in the taper. IT'S ALL ABOUT THE TAPER. Changing the taper moves the diameters along the taper up and down.

Mykeal, let's talk about the previous drawing where you are drawing your .001" reference from. Do you see the two dimensions from the top of the Treso tube? The .110 dimension is where the CCI #10 would be bottomed out. At that vertical dimension the diameter of the tube is Ø.166. We will use my data since I have more data points and I have measured more since you first asked me about my numbers. I say the average ID of a CCI #10 is Ø.161 (if you want to proffer additional data you are free to do so, but I am doing all of the work here so we will use my data) That means there is an interference fit of .005" when the CCI #10 is fully seated. Now the line marked .129 from the top is the seating depth of the Remington #10 cap at that line the tube is Ø.170. The average ID of the Rem #10 is Ø.166 which gives you a .004" interference. There is a difference of only .001" in interference between the two caps fitting on the same tube. Both caps fully seat and have a tight but not extreme interference fit. That is the .001" you are looking for. The only way a tube correctly works is if there is a slight interference fit.

This is your home work, let's talk about the Uberti tubes you copied above. If you made the taper shallower but kept the diameter constant at the face (where the cap would seat) tell me the following:

1. what would each #10 cap in the case of that example do?
2. Would they move at the same rate as the taper is changed?

As far as borrowing the graphics, just keep in mind they are copyrighted, you do not have permission to copy, manipulate, to use portions of, or the material in it's entirety.

~Mako

 

[mykeal]

You start with Uberti OEM nipples and clearly demonstrate that the CCI 'No. 10' will not fit, whereas the Remington 'No. 10' will. Which was expressly my point. But then you ignore that and wander off to Treso nipples that have to be modified to make both caps fit. Fine. I'll concede that the nipple cones are tapered and one can modify the cones to make any particular cap fit. Why would one want to go to the trouble of modifying the nipples when all one needs to do is avoid the caps that won't fit and buy ones that do?

My original point, which you seem to have lost: Cap size numbers are meaningless. They do not tell us what nipples they will or will not fit. There is no relationship from brand to brand and even within a brand. Period, end of discussion. Your own data and graphics make the point better than I could.

As far as I can tell all you are saying is that one can modify the nipple cones to make caps fit better. Fine. I agree with that. Hope that makes you happy.

I note that you again choose to ignore comments on cap dimensions varying from batch to batch, even when expressly requested to address the idea. Why is that?

As for your 'homework' assignment, thanks for the thought, but you're not my teacher so I'll decline (note that I'm not just ignoring it, I'm expressly refusing to answer). This isn't a student-teacher relationship; it started as a reasoned discussion between individuals, but your condescending tone is insulting, and don't bother with the 'I didn't mean it that way' speech again. You know, the one in which you seek to establish superiority with claims of a highly successful history in business. We're all familiar with it by now. You're clearly an educated man, so your choice of language is not accidental and feigning lack of intent is thus just disingenuous.

Oh, regarding copyrights - were the photos of your family heirloom 1860 cylinder and the 1849 cylinder you bought 15 years ago copyrighted by you also? If so, you might want to pursue an infringement action; let me know and I'll PM the location of a site where I believe someone else has used them without attribute.

 

[makos_goods]

You start with Uberti OEM nipples and clearly demonstrate that the CCI 'No. 10' will not fit, whereas the Remington 'No. 10' will. Which was expressly my point. But then you ignore that and wander off to Treso nipples that have to be modified to make both caps fit. Fine. I'll concede that the nipple cones are tapered and one can modify the cones to make any particular cap fit. Why would one want to go to the trouble of modifying the nipples when all one needs to do is avoid the caps that won't fit and buy ones that do?

My original point, which you seem to have lost: Cap size numbers are meaningless. They do not tell us what nipples they will or will not fit. There is no relationship from brand to brand and even within a brand. Period, end of discussion. Your own data and graphics make the point better than I could.

As far as I can tell all you are saying is that one can modify the nipple cones to make caps fit better. Fine. I agree with that. Hope that makes you happy.

I note that you again choose to ignore comments on cap dimensions varying from batch to batch, even when expressly requested to address the idea. Why is that?

As for your 'homework' assignment, thanks for the thought, but you're not my teacher so I'll decline (note that I'm not just ignoring it, I'm expressly refusing to answer). This isn't a student-teacher relationship; it started as a reasoned discussion between individuals, but your condescending tone is insulting, and don't bother with the 'I didn't mean it that way' speech again. You know, the one in which you seek to establish superiority with claims of a highly successful history in business. We're all familiar with it by now. You're clearly an educated man, so your choice of language is not accidental and feigning lack of intent is thus just disingenuous.

Oh, regarding copyrights - were the photos of your family heirloom 1860 cylinder and the 1849 cylinder you bought 15 years ago copyrighted by you also? If so, you might want to pursue an infringement action; let me know and I'll PM the location of a site where I believe someone else has used them without attribute.

Mykeal,
In a word you can be exasperating. The Uberti illustrations explicitly show that the Remington #10 caps do NOT fit. That is why there is a side by side illustration of the the Remington caps side by side. Why is this so difficult for you? LOOK, LOOK, LOOK! There is a gap between the Uberti tube and the Remington #10 cap. If you look at the Remington #11 you will see a cap that is fully seated.

I do not ignore your noting that caps vary from batch to batch, in fact I documented it above where I show the difference in average length from a batch of 2007 Rem #10 caps and a 2010 Batch. There is just no need to dwell on a .008" difference on a feature that has the shape of the petal. The petal shape is one of the primary advantages the Remington Caps have in allowing a greater range of fit over a larger variety of tubes.

As for the modified tube, they are the only sets that I have that will reliably fit Remington #10s. You seem to look for the "disadvantage" in everything Mykeal, it reminds me of the PM conversation we had about a thumb. If I had a bunch of ASMs, Palmetto Arms, or Piettas I would probably have a bunch of weird size tubes and I could have used it. I used a known quantity Mykeal. Tubes that were modified not by hand but on one a CNC lathe, all 12 are very consistent. Furthermore when I modified them I didn't give a flip about CCI #10 caps the modification was an attempt to actually allow me to target Rem #10s with those two sets and use #11s in a pinch. It didn't work, not really that surprising , but a Rem #11 is a bit loose and is not what I look for in a cap fit. I don't pinch caps, that is probably the primary reason I don't have chainfires. So the modification of the Tresso tubes was not some clandestine attempt to put some thing over on you, it was merely reducing the diameter and changing the taper to allow a #10 Remington to fit.

You can howl all you want about them being "SUPER SECRET SPECIAL" tubes hand prepared by vestal virgins, they are not. They are just smaller than the standard Treso tubes. I'm sure there are many on this forum who have smaller tubes that fit Rem #10 caps fine, I just don't, I may have at one time and I may have some in some parts box some where. I know I have had them before because I have had to use #10 caps in the past for some pistols. I just didn't have them measured and documented.

As for the copyright infringement...You really need to educate yourself on the laws concerning Intellectual Property rights. When anything is created such as a photo, an illustration or a written piece it can (and I said can, not is) be construed as protected. The difference is when it is published in a public medium such as this forum. If it is published by the author and to remain protected in a public medium it has to be marked as protected. If someone infringes the author's rights to that property and copies, plagiarizes, reproduces or publishes (posts) them without the author's permission the author's rights are not abrogated or forfeit. So in short if the author publishes them without reserving the right by marking they have technically forfeited their right, if someone copies it and publishes it, it is not forfeit.

If you refer to the two illustrations you copied, you partially obscured the very obvious copyright marks and dates. That's why they are protected. As far as pictures go, you will note I never put copyright marks on them, look at the photos above or any others of mine on this or any other site. I do so out of choice because they are not a product of my education or labor. Some would argue that it took labor to create them. That is true, but I choose not to claim IP on them because thy could be reproduced by anyone with a camera. My models and illustrations on the other hand are not something someone could easily reproduce, nor the time equipment and effort to carefully measure a representative population of components to create those models and illustrations.

The copyrighted material issue is important Mykeal, look at your page heading on this forum every time you log on. This site has obviously either been warned about infringement, or the owners are aware of the issue and are trying to avoid. If you have the locations of some of my photos or illustrations that I didn't post, or that I wasn't given credit for please PM me as you said. I doubt seriously the "family heirloom" is on line, I don't have any precision shots of it other than photo documentation for the insurance. I have not had it professionally photographed like the other two were. It concerns me Mykeal that someone like you who is intelligent does not understand the meaning of copyright. That is not a slight against you, it just means that if you don't understand what a copyright mark is then there are hundreds or thousands of others who will just "willy nilly" purloin my copyrighted work.

If you don't understand that concept, I may quit posting any of my materials, because I have spent great amounts of time, resources and money and I plan on using the materials in future works.

School is out...

Regards,
Mako

 

[mr16ga]

Funny I been shooting BP since 1974 and never had any issue with caps. I never paid any attention to size at all 10, or 11 has made no difference on my .50 TC Hawken. I have tied several different nipples as well never seen much of a difference either other than the ones with the straight through holes seem to have more blow back. I even made my own caps with a "Tap-O-Cap" but stopped because I did not know what the primer is made of in toy caps.