makos_goods
Member
Dear Doc,
I wish to address your last post, I don’t presume to divine measurements by merely looking at your photographs. You will note that earlier I used pictures of a similar model to your 1851 in an attempt to determine what you are showing us. I usually turn to pistols I have here when confirming what you are telling us. I have a bunch of them in all flavors, makes and ages.
Please don’t take this as an attempt to disparage you or show disrespect because you obviously have experience in some of the industrial arts. The picture of the project vehicle is interesting, but not necessarily germane to our discussion unless you wish to establish your “bona fides” as someone knowledgeable in engineering. If you have a terminal degree in one of the sciences or an engineering discipline then I apologize profusely and will remain quiet from now on.
It is statements like this that have me concerned,
Please don't run down the rabbit trail concerning the hardness of your arbor. I will for the purposes of our discussion stipulate your arbor is harder than an equivalent Uberti arbor. I will even go further than that and point out I actually knew that the surface hardness was probably harder from the onset. My whole point above was about the concept of gas erosion on materials. The reality is that many materials are hardfaced, coated or surface hardened to limit the initial penetration into the substrate. Once it breaks through the superstrate erosion will accelerate. There is a direct correlation between hardness and erosion rates with the same material.
I have not said much on some posts because we all mis-state things, for instance in my last post I spoke of cones instead of caps, an easy mistake to make because I was looking at the cones in your picture.
Doesn’t something seen amiss to you Doc? Consider the fact you had to remove over .02” (you said .028” in another post) from your cones to make it work correctly? I read your posts last fall about the older 1970s Remington caps and even thought about asking you to send me some because we had a discussion about cap and cone fitting going on a different forum about the same time period. Just like one of the other posters on this forum who also posts on the other forum I also have empty tins, but used the caps in them years ago. There has always been differences in the amount of priming compound in the caps between the manufacturers.
There are several posters on this forum who have Gen 2 Colt's percussion pistols as well and several who have original Colt's pistols and they can tell you from practical experience and measurement that the cone relationship to the recoil shield and hammer face have not changed appreciably in a century and a half.
I can tell you right now there is a range of .037” to .053” in the height the cap will sit proud above the face of the cone. The current crop (last five years) of Remington, CCI and RWS caps (#10, #11 and 1075) have anywhere from .030” to .045” of priming compound/bursting disk/sealer . One of the reasons you were noticing a big difference in height was because there is a delta of .016” between the seating height of CCI and Remington caps. There is also more than .004” of variation in seating height from a simple sample of 10 CCI #10 caps of the type you now use. If you are attempting .002” of clearance you will have binding issues.
Looking at photos you have posted, your cones have obviously been very high at one time. You provided two photographs that show impact damage to the hammer face which shows the direct outline of the cone face:
I’m not sure if you are correctly assigning the cause to the effect in the case of your cap problems.
Doc, you need to put yourself in our shoes. You show up and tell us one thing, for instance how you are having a second birth into the world of BP shooting after a 32 year hiatus, and then protest when we point this out to you. We have lived your journey of discovery and the current proselytizing that is the result of it on this very forum.
This is the post where you tell us you really haven’t been trying this for 39 years was posted on 12 Nov 2010:
So, on this current date (7 Mar 2011) you have roughly been shooting in this fashion for only 7 to 8 months. By your own estimates you shoot anywhere from 30 to 40 rounds per month, but we will apply “arcticap’s” number of 100 per month and we still only get 800 shots in this scenario.
Doc, my point is this…I really don’t care what claims people want to make. I normally just overlook any inconsistencies and especially as we relive or glory days of past. But please don’t expect me to accept anyone’s answer that is cloaked in the mantle of authority and experience based on such limited testing and data.
We all enjoy your posts for a multitude of reasons, just don't expect us to have amnesia.
Thank you and regards,
Mako
I wish to address your last post, I don’t presume to divine measurements by merely looking at your photographs. You will note that earlier I used pictures of a similar model to your 1851 in an attempt to determine what you are showing us. I usually turn to pistols I have here when confirming what you are telling us. I have a bunch of them in all flavors, makes and ages.
Please don’t take this as an attempt to disparage you or show disrespect because you obviously have experience in some of the industrial arts. The picture of the project vehicle is interesting, but not necessarily germane to our discussion unless you wish to establish your “bona fides” as someone knowledgeable in engineering. If you have a terminal degree in one of the sciences or an engineering discipline then I apologize profusely and will remain quiet from now on.
It is statements like this that have me concerned,
The neophyte reading that might not investigate that statement any further and accept it at face value. However, some of us are intimately familiar with gas jet erosion, most could cite you the ASTM standard G76-07 which is the test we use to determine the erosion by gas particles. If you think that the material hardness is a minor factor in that process then I would respectfully submit that you have not ever performed that test or evaluated the data from that test.
Please don't run down the rabbit trail concerning the hardness of your arbor. I will for the purposes of our discussion stipulate your arbor is harder than an equivalent Uberti arbor. I will even go further than that and point out I actually knew that the surface hardness was probably harder from the onset. My whole point above was about the concept of gas erosion on materials. The reality is that many materials are hardfaced, coated or surface hardened to limit the initial penetration into the substrate. Once it breaks through the superstrate erosion will accelerate. There is a direct correlation between hardness and erosion rates with the same material.
I have not said much on some posts because we all mis-state things, for instance in my last post I spoke of cones instead of caps, an easy mistake to make because I was looking at the cones in your picture.
Doesn’t something seen amiss to you Doc? Consider the fact you had to remove over .02” (you said .028” in another post) from your cones to make it work correctly? I read your posts last fall about the older 1970s Remington caps and even thought about asking you to send me some because we had a discussion about cap and cone fitting going on a different forum about the same time period. Just like one of the other posters on this forum who also posts on the other forum I also have empty tins, but used the caps in them years ago. There has always been differences in the amount of priming compound in the caps between the manufacturers.
There are several posters on this forum who have Gen 2 Colt's percussion pistols as well and several who have original Colt's pistols and they can tell you from practical experience and measurement that the cone relationship to the recoil shield and hammer face have not changed appreciably in a century and a half.
I can tell you right now there is a range of .037” to .053” in the height the cap will sit proud above the face of the cone. The current crop (last five years) of Remington, CCI and RWS caps (#10, #11 and 1075) have anywhere from .030” to .045” of priming compound/bursting disk/sealer . One of the reasons you were noticing a big difference in height was because there is a delta of .016” between the seating height of CCI and Remington caps. There is also more than .004” of variation in seating height from a simple sample of 10 CCI #10 caps of the type you now use. If you are attempting .002” of clearance you will have binding issues.
Looking at photos you have posted, your cones have obviously been very high at one time. You provided two photographs that show impact damage to the hammer face which shows the direct outline of the cone face:
I’m not sure if you are correctly assigning the cause to the effect in the case of your cap problems.
Doc, you need to put yourself in our shoes. You show up and tell us one thing, for instance how you are having a second birth into the world of BP shooting after a 32 year hiatus, and then protest when we point this out to you. We have lived your journey of discovery and the current proselytizing that is the result of it on this very forum.
This is the post where you tell us you really haven’t been trying this for 39 years was posted on 12 Nov 2010:
So, on this current date (7 Mar 2011) you have roughly been shooting in this fashion for only 7 to 8 months. By your own estimates you shoot anywhere from 30 to 40 rounds per month, but we will apply “arcticap’s” number of 100 per month and we still only get 800 shots in this scenario.
Doc, my point is this…I really don’t care what claims people want to make. I normally just overlook any inconsistencies and especially as we relive or glory days of past. But please don’t expect me to accept anyone’s answer that is cloaked in the mantle of authority and experience based on such limited testing and data.
We all enjoy your posts for a multitude of reasons, just don't expect us to have amnesia.
Thank you and regards,
Mako
