Reproduction revolvers

[skeeterfogger]

Seems like just ranting and raving here. I have no idea what you are even on about for the most part.

Your one claim that 60 grains of Triple 7 not blowing up a Walker repro is proof that open top revolvers are stronger than solid frame revolvers is incorrect. It only proves that a beefier and heavier open top revolver made of modern steel is stronger than an original made of wrought iron. Original Walker revolvers were notorious for cylinders blowing up with 60 grain charges of BP. It's why Sam Colt was unable to produce a more compact .44 revolver than a Dragoon until having access to Bessemer steel in 1860.
Also, while a modern-made repro cylinder might withstand 60 grains of Triple 7 in a Walker repro, it doesn't prove that its open top arbor won't loosen up with a steady diet from such abuse. It also doesn't prove that a solid frame version the same size would not be stronger, if one existed.

I have no idea what your "P6 - Ugh,,,cheaper?!!!" comment even refers to. I made no reference to cost or prices.
The "two-fingered hand" comment baffles me. ??? Where is this discussed and how is it related to anything regarding the strength of a revolver?

And, you still haven't provided any proof, other than your own opinions, that open top revolvers are stronger than solid frames.

Because, obviously none exists.

Just ignore this guy. I believe trolling is his gig that makes him happy.
Open tops will never hold up to the pressures a full frame will. That's mechanically, engineering and scientifically obvious. Besides, I've seen the failures.

 

[CraigC]

Disagree all you want but .45 Dragoon is not a troll.

 

[45 Dragoon]

Thanks CraigC!!

Mike

 

[dickydalton]

Wow. Mike gets a gold star.

 

[45 Dragoon]

Thanks Dicky!!

Mike

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy Again

This is an antique Open Top Merwin Hulbert Pocket Army. Caliber is 44-40. Don't be fooled by the name 'Pocket Army', this is a big belt pistol as big as a Colt or Remington. This revolver was made sometime between 1880 and 1882. Can't pin it down any further than that because the factory records disappeared a long time ago. Anyway, in 1883 MH introduced an improved model that was the same except in had a Top Strap. I can tell you for a fact that the Open Top design was not as strong as the later top strap design because the barrel/cylinder gap on this old revolver is about .016. It sure did not leave the factory with a gap that big.






Here is the construction of this model.The barrel latches to the frame with the joint at the bottom of the barrel and front of the frame. That's it. The cylinder is actually free floating on the cylinder arbor, or what ever it is called. Yes, the arbor is screwed into the frame. But the asymmetrical aspect of fixing the barrel to the frame only at the bottom has allowed the barrel to 'point down' slightly over the years, opening up the b/c gap to what it is today. .016. My assumption has always been that the friction of the bullet running down the barrel exerted enough forward force on the barrel to deform something slightly. Yes, I shoot it this way, a .016 b/c gap does not really matter much with my Black Powder cartridges.

 

[Old Stumpy]

My assumption has always been that the friction of the bullet running down the barrel exerted enough forward force on the barrel to deform something slightly.

While this "pulling" by the bullet due to friction must exert considerable force forward, chamber pressure must also be considered. If there were no barrel, and only a cylinder as in a pepperbox, chamber pressure would be completely contained by the chambers, and the only forces would be the pushback of the cylinder against the recoil plate.
However, chamber pressure obviously follows the bullet into the barrel. Otherwise there would be no forces other than inertia to propel the bullet. The flash gap might cause pressures to be reduced slightly, but a considerable amount remains.
So, chamber pressure would act to push the cylinder rearward and the barrel forward.
In your M&H I would assume that the barrel and arbor are locked together when fired.
It stands to reason then that both bullet-pull and chamber pressure would act to stretch the arbor a bit over time.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

The arbor has no physical lock to the barrel when the gun is in battery. It is not like the wedge in a C&B Colt. The arbor is threaded to the frame, but the front end only rides in a hole in the barrel, they are not locked together. There is a guide slot on the arbor that engages the upper thumb lock to remove the barrel and cylinder from the frame, but it is a loose connection. Despite the myths you may have heard about Merwin Hulberts and how precisely manufactured they were, there is slop between the slot and the the thumb latch. So the arbor is not locked to the barrel during recoil.

This Merwin is a slightly later model, with a Top Strap. I have not noticed that the Barrel/Cylinder gap has opened on this one. The Top Strap has prevented the barrel from angling down.








Now, if you want to talk about stretched frames, or pulled arbors, here is my old Uberti 44 caliber brass framed 'Navy'. Yeah, I know there was no such thing as a 44 caliber Navy, but I did not know that when I bought this as a teenager in 1968. It only cost about $40 back then, which made it affordable to a teenager. Also, nobody was warning us back then not to put max loads in brass framed C&B revolvers. So I merrily loaded it with 30 grains of powder under a 44 caliber ball. Years later I noticed it was shooting really high. I noticed that when I snugged the wedge enough to bring the B/C gap down to a few thousandths, the barrel was pointing slightly Up, not Down. All those 30 grain loads had stretched something, I dunno what, and the barrel was now pointing slightly up, accounting for it shooting high. I could not keep it on paper when centering on a bullseye at about 10 or 15 paces. My old brass framed 'Navy' is now a wall hanger because too many 30 grain loads caused something to stretch and now the barrel points up.

 

[45 Dragoon]

Driftwood, I think you have a G&G copy from waaaay back or a "Rebel" model !!
Probably what happened is the short arbor allowed the cylinder to become a slide hammer and pound the arbor from its brass anchor. The originals were made from bronze which is a little stronger than just brass (what they use as a copy today).
The 30 gr. charges did their damage and probably pulled the arbor as well as imprinted the ratchet into the recoil ring. This just opens the door for more self destruction leading to "wall hanger" status!
That's exactly what happens to all repros (if shot enough and not corrected) except for the
contemporary Pietta's.

Thanks for sharing!
Mike