Mr. Walker,
I’m wondering where you got some of your information. I know where you got information in the book, we will discuss that later.
May we go down your list?
Here are some reasons the modern guns don't work as well as the originals:
1. Modern caps are made of thinner material than the 19th century items, and are subject to less stringent Quality controls. Original caps also had more prominent ridges to grip the cone better
Do you have some 19th century caps that you can show us the differences you are speaking of? I have found no references to cap material being thicker in the 19th century. I have a partial tin of Eley caps from the 1930s and they are basically the same thickness as current caps. There is a difference in caps from the 1860s and the current caps and that is the filler composition. Current caps have lead styphnate in them which is much more stable and reliable than the 19th century caps which used a priming filler of mercury fulminate with chlorate potash and ground glass.
The current crop actually have better quality control and manufacturing methodology than was available in the 19th century. For instance CCI caps have 100% machine vision inspection of the shape, filling material, height and diameter performed before they are put in the tins. I doubt seriously they had inspectors reviewing 100% of the caps leaving any factory pre-1980.
The “ridges” are not on the periphery to grip the cone. They are there for two reasons, the first is to provide a uniform thickness on the skirt of the formed cap, not by design but it also disguises the stretch marks from the forming operation. The blanks start out as round planchets and after forming are left with the vestigial petals as we see on the Remington caps or they are trimmed as we see on the CCI and RWS caps.
The second function of the” ridges” are to allow the cap to stretch radially as it is forced onto the tapered cone. The “ridges” (corrugations) actually attenuate the hoop strength and allow them to fit without splitting.
The most commonly available caps in the U.S. are currently Remington, CCI and RWS. Each of them have slightly different internal dimensions and have taken a different approach to assuring a correct fit to the current crop of percussion pistol cones. I am only going to discuss sizes #10 and #11 because the Italian manufacturers who make pistols germane to these discussions have settled their cones into those sizes.
These are the measure dimensions for those caps:
| CAP | I.D. | Height |
| Rem 10 | 0.166” | 0.175” |
| Rem 11 | 0.166” | 0.154” |
| CCI 10 | 0.161” | 0.163” |
| CCI 11 | 0.166” | 0.165” |
| RWS 1075 | 0.165” | 0.160” |
I’m going to show a series of magnified images of current caps.
Remington #10
CCI #10
RWS 1075 (actually falls between a Rem or CCI 10 and 11 in fit)
Remington #11
CCI #11
I could go into detail about the mechanism by which they fit, but right now I just want to show that the corrugations vary by manufacture in depth and as to whether or not they even carry through to the I.D. of the cap. The best fitting caps are currently Remingtons, by the nature of their “improved” skirt design and greater overall length.
2. The nipples were fitted to leave a .003-.004" gap between the hammer face and the nipple. If your hammer hits the nipple, likely that's one reason it's embedding itself in the cap and pulling it free from the gun.
This is not true on the three Colt’s pistols I own. I have two 1860s, SN 23XXX produced in 1861 and SN 25XXX manufactured in 1862 and an 1849 SN 70XXX manufactured in 1853. All three hammers contact the hammer even with the cylinder pushed forward to the face of the barrel. The two ‘60s have as much as .002” and .003” of interference in those positions. I say as much as because the cones are not nearly as uniform in length as even the factory Uberti or Pietta cones. They are definitely not as uniform as a Treso cone in either length, diameter or taper. Just for your reference sake I’ll tell you the two 1860s have .005” and .007” of cylinder gap with the cylinder pushed to the rear. I actually run .008”-.009” on my modern competition pistols for enhanced reliability.
For those who don’t know about the gaps and interference I am talking about please see the model illustrations below. These are the "ideal" dimensions I set my pistols to and how I instruct others to set theirs up for reliable performance :
3. Modern guns just don't get the attention the originals were given at the Colt factory. The 2nd and 3rd gen. Colts come close, but a Pietta compared to an original Colt is just a pretty sorry sight to behold.
I have to agree with you there. I prefer Uberti s but they have their own set of issues. However I own 3 pairs of Uberti ‘60s and two of them have been “blueprinted” and setup to run very well. I also currently have a pair of Pietta 1860s and have owned others in the past. The Italian guns have soft steel in the sense we are used to ordnance having today,
BUT they are metallurgically better than any of the Percussion Pistols produced by Colt’s in the 19th century.
The ’60 produced in 1861 is a family heirloom and is in NRA Very Good condition for an antique firearm, however the 1862 pistol is in a Fine to Excellent condition. It fails the Excellent classification because it only has 50% of the bluing and the case coloring has faded to about 25%. It was cased, fired very little and still had two spare cones with it. I extensively used the later Colt's 1860 as a baseline comparison as the models were being created of the 1860 revolver.
The 1849 is in Excellent + condition and looks like it hasn’t ever been fired. 1849s are ubiquitous and can be had in very good shape. They were often just squirreled away in a drawer and never used.
I now want to address Mr. Lake’s book. Thank you for going to the trouble to transcribe a perfect portion for me to point out the problem I have with Mr. Lake’s account. The text either betrays Earp’s lack of understanding or more likely Mr. Lake taking license with the interviews he had with Earp.
Look a the following portion:
"I have often been asked why five shots without reloading were all a top-notch gunfighter fired, when his guns were chambered for six cartridges. The answer is, merely, safety. To ensure against accidental discharge of the gun while in the holster, due to hair-trigger adjustment, the hammer rested upon an empty chamber…
Note the very last statement:
due to hair-trigger adjustment, the hammer rested upon an empty chamber due to hair-trigger adjustment, the hammer rested upon an empty chamber
Please explain to us how that a “hair-trigger” has any relevance to the safety of the pistol with the hammer down. This is typical of entire the biography. Since the book was published two years after Earp’s death, we have no idea of the latitude that might have been taken to make a more “interesting” tale.
As far the 1970 theory goes I don’t subscribe to that date. I know my grandfather had the belief that cowboys carried five. My grandfather was one of the best riflemen I have ever known but he was not a pistolero despite owning several family guns. We were at an antique dealer once and we were looking at a SAA that had hammer marks on the butt, he told me that this was “common” because they used their pistols to hammer fence staples. I don’t agree even though I still have nothing but respect for him even though he has been gone for many years. I don’t know where t started, but I know Colt’s didn’t advertise them as such and the order of arms for the cavalry had no mention of loading only five in any of their manuals.
And finally...As far as Samuel Clemens brother goes, the practice of carrying an uncapped pistol speaks for itself…
Regards,
Mako
