never knew 1861 Navy was such a pain!
- Thread starter Magwa45
- Start date
- Status
arcticap
Member
makos_goods said:
You've created some wonderful illustrations that must have required some special software to make.
What kind of software is it?
About how long does it take to make each of them?
makos_goods
Member
Mykeal,
I just want to make sure we are on the same page...
The formula you related is right, but the .04" inches you state isn't going to happen with just a hammer and cone. The last illustration shows a cone which has a theoretical "zero" interference because the cylinder is in the forward "firing" position.
The hammer always pushes the cylinder forward as it falls, or even when just sitting in the forward position. Look at your percussion revolver sometime. This is only true with Cap Guns and those without "gas rings." The originals didn't have gas rings, some smiths add them, especially to Remington pattern pistols because the arbors foul much worse than a Colt's pattern pistol. Cartridge gun cylinders have nothing for the hammer to push on without a cartridge in the chamber and then the forward progress is stopped by the gas ring, so you will always have a cylinder gap, unlike a percussion revolver.
Back to the illustration, the .04" of displacement in that case is solely the result of the cap sitting proud on the face of the cone.
I think you understand but I don't want anyone else reading your formula to think is applies to the last image before your post.
Regards,
Mako
makos_goods
Member
Most of the images are from Solidworks models. The first two section views of the frame/cylinder/barrel I showed are actually PRO/Engineer models. I use both CAD packages.
I have migrated almost everything over to Solidworks.
The original modeling of the major components took several days. I can generate a new view and make a snapshot image of it in as little as ten minutes. I may have to manipulate an assembly to position a hammer for instance which will take a bit longer.
As an example I can make a cap model in about 30 minutes, it is a relatively simple form and has features which can be patterned which saves a lot of time. It takes much longer to measure them than anything else.
I tend to take modeling for granted, I've been doing advanced solid modeling, thermal and FEA analysis since the '80s. For the last Colt's model I did I actually used a CMM and imported a point cloud which allowed me to match it to the reverse engineered measurements I had. Some of the features are sculpted forms and it makes it a easy way to compare the geometry I create with the measured 3D points.
For the 1860 model I used two NIB Ubertis and an original Colt's as the benchmark to verify the measurements.
Regards,
Mako
great posts makos_goods!!!
The two 1860's I have is the modern Pietta version and a 1974 Euroarms... The Euroarm is sweet and built a little different than the Pietta, I wish I had an original 1860 to compare, the Euroarm is a bit smaller than the Pietta, and the Euroarm striking hammer area is flat with the slit in the middle. Caps hardly ever frag into that gun.
I had cap frag probs with the Pietta and solved it by filing the nipples, I filed the cones down so that the caps fit tight, it seems the Remington caps spread better on the nipples than CCI that I've used as well... No fragment problem since I filed them down or being stuck in the hammer.
The two 1860's I have is the modern Pietta version and a 1974 Euroarms... The Euroarm is sweet and built a little different than the Pietta, I wish I had an original 1860 to compare, the Euroarm is a bit smaller than the Pietta, and the Euroarm striking hammer area is flat with the slit in the middle. Caps hardly ever frag into that gun.
I had cap frag probs with the Pietta and solved it by filing the nipples, I filed the cones down so that the caps fit tight, it seems the Remington caps spread better on the nipples than CCI that I've used as well... No fragment problem since I filed them down or being stuck in the hammer.
makos_goods
Member
Doc,
I don't know what to say. I've never heard of anyone running a .002" cylinder gap. That's tighter than a modern revolver with a gas ring to control the end shake and shooting the cleanest smokeless powder you can get.
Can you run an entire match with it not fouling out? What kind of lube do you use with your balls? And what do you lubricate your arbor with?
Regards,
Mako
I don't shoot match, But as I posted before I shot 278 rounds in a row loading as fast as i could with no lube in gun at all. The same as I have always loaded it. It never even trys to tighten up at all.
For one thing the gap can't foul shut. The escaping gasses will always keep some clearence.
What I found with the Uberti I just got is that the hand spring ia waaay to stiff. it pushes the cyl. ahead causing the cyl. to drag on the forcing cone. With some fouling on the cyl. face it is like putting the brakes on. I fixed it to be like my 51. Neither hand spring now will slide the cyl ahead at all. not even when gun is pointing level. So now the cyl. face never drages on forcing gone on either gun.
Here is photos of gun after the 278 rounds.
2nd is of the bore so bore shy people don't open to look. It stayed smooth with no buildup. Easy to clean. Since there is no grease of any kind most of it just rinses away/ These shots are right after bringing it in. No need to even wipe offany grease from the outside.
View attachment 137545
View attachment 137548
View attachment 137546
For one thing the gap can't foul shut. The escaping gasses will always keep some clearence.
What I found with the Uberti I just got is that the hand spring ia waaay to stiff. it pushes the cyl. ahead causing the cyl. to drag on the forcing cone. With some fouling on the cyl. face it is like putting the brakes on. I fixed it to be like my 51. Neither hand spring now will slide the cyl ahead at all. not even when gun is pointing level. So now the cyl. face never drages on forcing gone on either gun.
Here is photos of gun after the 278 rounds.
2nd is of the bore so bore shy people don't open to look. It stayed smooth with no buildup. Easy to clean. Since there is no grease of any kind most of it just rinses away/ These shots are right after bringing it in. No need to even wipe offany grease from the outside.
View attachment 137545
View attachment 137548
View attachment 137546
Last edited:
Smokin'Joe
Member
Doc, I am jealous at how clean your Colt is after shooting. How do you explain it? Is it just from lack of grease? What power do you shoot?
Noz
Member
Mako, I don't have your experience or knowledge but I set my hammer/nipple interface at 0.
With the hammer down, I push the cylinder as far to the rear as possible. If the hammer lifts, I remove metal from the hammer face. I do this a couple of strokes with a file at a time until I reach the interface I want. No damage to the nipples now and none to the hammer. goes bang everytime.
With the hammer down, I push the cylinder as far to the rear as possible. If the hammer lifts, I remove metal from the hammer face. I do this a couple of strokes with a file at a time until I reach the interface I want. No damage to the nipples now and none to the hammer. goes bang everytime.
I have been working on my new Uberti trying to get it to shoot dry too. So far this is what I have found. Hand spring to stiff. Fixed that.
Arbor poorly made-- Rough machining and not round.
Looks like it might have been an investment cast part that was not quite centered in the lathe when cut. Not enough cut to make round. One side is very smooth from the casting and the other is rough and not very smooth from the cutting tool.
Cyl. is bored to large (or arbor dia. to small) Leaving to much Clarence. Lets the fouling into the arbor area. Jams the cyl. If I pack the arbor full of grease it works. But not near as long as being able to shoot with it dry. (about 20 shots then needs cleaned and re greased). That is with no grease in chambers.
I'm not sure how to fix it. Been considering taking it out and having it chrome plated then ground to a slip fit in cyl. But that might be more work then it is worth.
Next thing wrong is that the relief in the arbor that directs blast away from the gap is in the wrong place. It should start right at the face of the cyl. when it is to the rear. It is instead around 1/8" inside the cyl. bore. Also the cyl. bore has been chamfered. Shouldn't be. These two things are directing the fouling right into the loose fitting cyl. bore. jamming the cyl. which happens within 6 shots without grease.
in my 1851 these things are right on the button.
Relief is in the right place, no chamfer on cyl. bore and slip fit on arbor. Plus the arbor is very smooth. probably ground. Also an extremly light hand spring.
I would say these are the main reasons the 51 preforms so well. (been using GEOX powder. 20 grains. fffg or ffg. tried both with about the same results. My favorite seems to be the ffg).
Arbor poorly made-- Rough machining and not round.
Looks like it might have been an investment cast part that was not quite centered in the lathe when cut. Not enough cut to make round. One side is very smooth from the casting and the other is rough and not very smooth from the cutting tool.
Cyl. is bored to large (or arbor dia. to small) Leaving to much Clarence. Lets the fouling into the arbor area. Jams the cyl. If I pack the arbor full of grease it works. But not near as long as being able to shoot with it dry. (about 20 shots then needs cleaned and re greased). That is with no grease in chambers.
I'm not sure how to fix it. Been considering taking it out and having it chrome plated then ground to a slip fit in cyl. But that might be more work then it is worth.
Next thing wrong is that the relief in the arbor that directs blast away from the gap is in the wrong place. It should start right at the face of the cyl. when it is to the rear. It is instead around 1/8" inside the cyl. bore. Also the cyl. bore has been chamfered. Shouldn't be. These two things are directing the fouling right into the loose fitting cyl. bore. jamming the cyl. which happens within 6 shots without grease.
in my 1851 these things are right on the button.
Relief is in the right place, no chamfer on cyl. bore and slip fit on arbor. Plus the arbor is very smooth. probably ground. Also an extremly light hand spring.
I would say these are the main reasons the 51 preforms so well. (been using GEOX powder. 20 grains. fffg or ffg. tried both with about the same results. My favorite seems to be the ffg).
junkman_01
member
Who's Clarence?
BHP FAN
Member
Clarence the Black Powder Angel.Every time you hit the gong, and angel gets it's wings...
junkman_01
member
Doh! I should have known.
BHP FAN
Member
Spell Check, the legendary Wizard of the INTERNET!
makos_goods
Member
Doc,
You do realize the angular force vector as you rotate the cylinder by the lifting action of the hand is greater than the force of the hand spring don't you?
If you are static (not moving the hammer) there is no force, but as you rotate the hammer the hand is engaging the ratchet beginning at a 22° angle. It will push the cylinder forward.
It looks like this:
You can't rotate the cylinder without any forward force through the pivot point of the hand. The only way to cancel that vector would be to have the pivot point directly under the point the hand engages the ratchet. "You can't get there from here..."
It's simple physics at this point. The reason you're not noticing it is that you can easily see the cylinder being pushed forward by the spring, as you attenuate the springs force the friction of the cylinder on the arbor is sufficient to keep it from moving forward. If you remove the spring totally and then rotated the cylinder while holding it level you would see it push forward. If you stopped then it could be pushed back because there isn't an angular moment unless it is moving.
Some of us remove the flat spring and use a plunger and helical spring running through the back of the frame per the Ruger design to provide the return force on the hand. With that arrangement you can totally remove the spring and actually observe what I am describing.
Regards,
Mako
makos_goods
Member
Doc,
I must say I am extremely envious of your ability to reliably run such a close cylinder gap.
To make sure I am not misunderstanding you is it possible for you to describe how you are measuring the cylinder gap and the clearance between the hammer face and the cones? What gauges are you using for each measurement?
Always the student,
Mako
I know the hand starts out at a slight angle but that angle gets less as the hammer moves. plus the fact that the cyl. is turning on a set of threads which on my gun must be enough to keep the cyl. to the rear as it turns, for it really does stay there. (Cocking slowly and smoothly and gun level)
I measure gaps with a standard set of starrett feeler gages. Clean gun.
Tight gaps are better as long as the cylinder doesn't drag when it warms up from expansion. fouling at the gap won't stop it from turning. The closer the gap the cleaner the face stays. The blast from each shot seems to peel the fouling off. I have all the cylinder faces on my guns highly polished. All machine marks, scratches or whatever gone.
I have done the same with my uberti 1860 also. .002" gap and very light hand spring It to now stays cleaner at gap.
I measure gaps with a standard set of starrett feeler gages. Clean gun.
Tight gaps are better as long as the cylinder doesn't drag when it warms up from expansion. fouling at the gap won't stop it from turning. The closer the gap the cleaner the face stays. The blast from each shot seems to peel the fouling off. I have all the cylinder faces on my guns highly polished. All machine marks, scratches or whatever gone.
I have done the same with my uberti 1860 also. .002" gap and very light hand spring It to now stays cleaner at gap.
Last edited:
I guess I didn't answer you question fully. I measure the space between nipple and hammer with a wire gage. there is room to put one in just under the hammer shield and between the hammer and recoil shield. I place a feeler gage in the cylinder gap to hold it back and hold the hammer forward to check it.
I do know how to measure. I own a complete machine shop. Been a machinist for many years. Also a sheet metal shaper able to build complete car bodies or whatever from sheets of metal. And use both to build custom hand built cars.
I do know how to measure. I own a complete machine shop. Been a machinist for many years. Also a sheet metal shaper able to build complete car bodies or whatever from sheets of metal. And use both to build custom hand built cars.
Last edited:
makos_goods
Member
Doc,
You are correct, the angle does change, but do you know by how much? The angular force doesn't go away as the hammer rotates and the hand pivot point translates up. Have you made some other modifications we are not privy to?
Your theory about the arbor relief groove acting to keep the cylinder back is interesting. If you have the inclination, pull the cylinder on your '51 sometime and tell us which direction your "thread" (the relief groove) runs. What I mean is tell us if it is a right hand or left hand helix.
Your statement about tight gaps being better as long as it doesn't drag due to expansion is also testimony to the special nature of your pistols. You have told us a couple of times:
Most percussion revolver shooters experience is that the pistol becomes very warm (VERY "WARM") very quickly. Even taking into account the cool down you get between reloading most of us would get an incremental rise in the temperature as the day wore on. To make sure I am not misconstruing this, how long did 278 shots as fast as possible take?
The CTE of steel alone along with the negligible cylinder clearance with makes your feat very laudable and something very new for most of us. I for one want to be able to emulate your success.
Regards,
Mako
makos_goods
Member
Doc,
I have been shooting Cap Guns for a very long time and I regularly compete (sometimes three times a month) with pairs of them. I have never met anyone with the ability to run a Colt's pattern percussion pistol with the close gaps and lack of fouling you have.
I could never get my “wire gages” in the Ø.003” to Ø.004” range into that space without ruining them. It’s hard enough to use a flat .002” thick feeler gage without destroying it when trying to measure a clearance on a surface as large as the cylinder to barrel face interface. Well it is for me at least… Who’s “wire” gage set do you have that goes down to Ø.003? I didn’t realize Starrett had round thickness gages that small. I know they have plug gages in those ranges and definitely a slew of different kinds of flat feeler gages. We normally use micro pin gage sets for anything Ø.010 and below.
I remain duly impressed, it seems I have a lot to learn from you. I am always the student.
Regards,
Mako
You must also know that the arbor is heating too. The blast from the gap is blowing directly on it. So as the cylinder expands so does the arbor. A little more in length then dia. I have three guns with that gap now. All work fine. 1862 police, 1851 and the 1860 army. The first 2 use no lube at all.
The last i'm working on.
It takes me a long afternoon to shoot 278 shots.
If you look at the pic of the arbor in above post, you will see that the as the cyl turns the threads move it back.
Wire gage - pin gage
The last i'm working on.
It takes me a long afternoon to shoot 278 shots.
If you look at the pic of the arbor in above post, you will see that the as the cyl turns the threads move it back.
Wire gage - pin gage
Last edited:
Smokin'Joe
Member
I have made several shims for my Colt clone cylinder. I made them in .003, .004 & .005” thicknesses. The cylinder to barrel gap can be adjusted as tight as I want. As fouling builds I can move to a thinner shim or no shim at all and keep on shooting. If the idea of a shim on your cylinder is distasteful it at least can be used to determine the gap you want before machining the components.
makos_goods
Member
Joe,
Your experience with having to remove shims is consistent with most of our experience to date.
TheRodDoc is currently schooling me in phenomenon I have to date been ignorant of.
Regards,
Mako
Your experience with having to remove shims is consistent with most of our experience to date.
TheRodDoc is currently schooling me in phenomenon I have to date been ignorant of.
Regards,
Mako
- Status
Similar threads
