Pressures are hard to measure in a revolver...

Status
Not open for further replies.

darkerx

Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
151
I have had interesting discussions with some 'experts' on the forum regarding the easiest way to measure pressures in a black powder revolver during a shoot... I'm sorry to have to share with you that it is quite hard to do without destroying a revolver (to insert sensors).

For instance, I contacted RSI about the "Pressure traceII" solution (which is nice for round barrels with centered chambers), and here is the answer:
"
You are correct to assume pressures are rarely if ever
measured directly from a revolver cylinder.

Since the barrel/cylinder gap*varies with wear, production*
and make*of gun; ammo pressure is always measured in a solid*
barrel. *

The shape of the cylinder*does not produce even radial*
expansion that can be translated*to pressure.

Many cylinders are forged and will have unknown*properties
and it is not practical to operate*a revolver with wires, etc.*
because the gage will not clear*the back strap of the frame.

Most would use a platform like the Thompson Center to
measure pressure. *As long as the chambers are similar,
results in a revolver should be lower due to the gap.

As long as the barrel is of known properties (Chrome Moly
4041) and round, actual pressures can be measured. The barrel*
dimensions must be correct and the strain gage must
be properly glued, etc.


Another option is to build a test bed for different
barrels with a simple firing mechanism.
"
Then I will have to contact a proofhouse.
 
Well... I contacted the french proofhouse... And they don't have testing tools to measure the pressure of black powder loads.(they have it for every cartridge... But not for black powder, and it would cost me 1500$ to have one made for me).
They confirmed being able to measure pressures within my guns... By drilling many hole within it to insert sensors... Well.. I said no...

Last... I asked the Italian proofhouse to detail their own process for proofing. I'll post the results, if any.
 
darkerx,
It seems strange that Oehler has been able to do it for years with basically the same equipment, but RSI seems to be clueless according to you.

http://www.oehler-research.com/wizard.html

"The darkerx doth protest too much, methinks." You seem adamant to assert that it is just impossible, which always makes me suspicious.

A proof house is not the best place to get that data anyhow. Do you think they are in business to destroy firearms, or to 100% test every production piece from a company using pass or fail proof loads? I gave you links to testing facilities, don't you have any in Europe? Or are you the expert now?
SM
 
The Lyman Black Powder Handbook from the early 80's had a section on pressure testing. They had pictures of drilling a small hole in the top of a "open-top" Colt-type revolver then silver-soldering a crusher chamber in the cylinder above it. They used the "lead-crusher" scale and made no attempt to convert it to CUP or PSI. The highest LUP measurement was the Colt .36 with 28 grains of FFFg and a round ball at 10,200 LUP.
 
@Robert Garner: I haven't developed anything... I just measured the energies of some loads used routinely by some shooters. And I'm quite amazed to observe that 524ft.lbs can be achieved with a rem58 8" and only black powder and round balls (same were available 150 years ago...).
Now, I'm trying to determine the remaining 'safety factor' (if any) when developing this kind of energy...

@SwampMouse: I'm no expert, and don't intend to become one... But I try to gather informations and post it here. If Jim Ristow from RSI is not expert enough for you, it's not my problem. The new link you posted is interesting BTW... But it seems to me they don't sell this system anymore...why? If you think proofhouses are not expert enough, go tell them.

@Curator: thank you for this input... It is hard to compare all those bars/psi(transducer)/psi(cup)/psi(lup)/saami way/cip way... ;)
 
I just tried an other approach: the most thin part of the chambers are the inner walls... They are about 1.29mm thick. The gun will start blowing here when pressure will be too great. Then, I observed that full loads can be compared, in terms of performance, to 44-40 ammunition (.44 caliber, lead bullet, 40 grains of Black powder)... As a matter of fact, CIP rates 44-40 cartridges as a "below 1100 bars" ammunition.
Then, I made some structural analysis of the cylinder walls under 1100bars... If I'm not wrong, the cylinder walls have to be made of steels having an elasticity limit greater than 264N/mm2 to withstand this kind of pressure...
Which means that there is probably not much 'safety factor' left at these loads... We can even find 185N/mm2 steels on the market...

I'll ask Pietta and Uberti what are the limits of elasticity of the steels they use for those cylinders...
 
I did similar calculations on my Pietta revolver.

The web thickness for it is 0.050" =1.39mm same as yours.

Using Quickload, 576 foot-lbs = 18,000 psi or 1200 bar.

Using the Lame formula this pressure requires steel with a yield
strength of 90,000 PSI.

Mild steel (or unhardened chrome-molly yields at ~40,000)
Steel for modern guns (hardened chrom-molly at 160,000)
Maximum strength for steel is 250,000.

I read somewhere on the Pietta website that their parts are case hardened.
Since the web is so thin, it could be case hardened all the way through
in which case its yield strength could be over 200,000 psi (but very brittle).
 
darkerx,

I think that the .45 Colt is more analogous to a ".44" cap and ball than .44-40 WCF.

The .44-40 WCF used a ~.427" (10.85mm) lead projectile.
My ".44" C&B cylinders have an inside diameter of ~.447" (11.35mm), and I load them with .451" (11.46mm) or .454" (11.53mm) balls.
.45 Colt typically uses a ~.454" (11.53mm) lead projectile.

Both the .45 and the .44 used a similar load of black powder. Nominally, 40 grains. But the Colt is much closer in diameter.

MAX pressure on the .45 Colt (for antique or reproduction revolvers) is 14,000 psi. (~965 bar).


Even at that, cartridge firearms aren't going to be directly comparable.
 
@lunie: I agree with you, the 45 colt is closer to C&B 44 than 44-40. But on the CIP website I only find data about the 44-40 (recommended thickness and max pressure=1100 bars...). That's why I based my approach on it.
 
Guys, I think all of this is interesting, but meaningless.

The maximum charge of powder ("real" black powder or a recognized substitute) is determined by the length of the cylinder, and therefore the chamber. If you add a bullet or ball, you can't get in an overload that will unduely stress the cylinder. In addition the European-made replicas are made of modern steel and proof-tested by the governments in the country where they were made. Even the least expensive reproductions are made of better materials then were available during the mid-later 19th century.

Of course if you use smokeless powder, or metalic cartridges loaded with smokeless powder in cartridge-converted revolvers you're on your own.
 
Hum... Seems that you are right.. Whatever the load, the guns will do fine...
This is what I received from Pietta, after having told them about chambers full of swiss 1:
"
Dear Sir,
thank you for your explanation.
30 grains of black powder: this is the maximum capacity of the cylinder and there's no problem if you shoot loading the revolver with this high quantity.
Personally, I suggest 22/25 grains of FFFG: really nice load and a lot of fun.
Best regards,
F.lli Pietta
"

Thanks a lot for every contributors (lunie, grxy, etc.).

Those 1858 are guns are in the 440/530 ft.lbs range... Definitely (and the carbine <>700ft.lbs).

BTW here is a picture of my toys (brass and stainless 1858 8", blue walker 9", 1858 carbine 18", Swiss 1 can, Ob tube, Chrony...)


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
 
Last edited:
darkerx,
Thank you for the picture, it explains a lot. You have been posting you had a brass framed '58 and then told us of the incredible loads you have been shooting through it. Unless I am blind both of those '58 clones are stainless steel frames, not brass as you told us from the beginning.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=7457585&postcount=12
By the way (bis ), my rem is of the brass kind... And it doesn't stretch. My gunsmith is quite confident with my loads, as every weapon has been proofed by authorities before selling.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=7483277&postcount=1

Even the title of the thread you started is misleading
443 ft-lbs for a brass rem58 8" barrel. Am I crazy?
I think this is where you lost most of us, you don't seem to understand what a brass frame is.

You may have wondered why I asked for the pictures, I suspected you would post either a carbon steel frame or stainless steel frame '58 and not a brass frame as you told us.

Thanks for the pics.
SM
 

Attachments

  • darkerx pistols.jpg
    darkerx pistols.jpg
    18.8 KB · Views: 14
@SwampMouse: The 'non-target' 1858 is a PIRBN44/PT-RBN44 (http://www.marstar.ca/gf-pietta/Pietta-1858-New-Model.shtm) which means Pietta/nickel plated/red-brass 1858. The barrel and cylinder are made of steel, the structure is made of red-brass (I removed some plating to check).

By the way, when Pietta told me it was OK to use full loads of black powder in my guns, it was after I told them I had a brass 1858.
 
Last edited:
30gr is all that fits in a chamber???

I don't have a Remington. What I have is an 1860 Colt Army .44 cal Pietta clone.

I can tell you that no less than 45gr of FFFg will "fit" beneath a round ball, and there is still some room to spare, as the balls are below flush after ramming. (Supposing that my volumetric measure is calibrated correctly. I have one of the commercial adjustable tube measures. Marked in 5gr increments from 5-100gr.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top