Revolver shooting low, file?

[gtrgy888]

Unfortunately, comparing penetration of pine boards from the 1800s to the 2000s is equal evidence of the average pine boards being tougher to penetrate in the 2000's vrs 1800s and not necessarily any difference in the powder's oomph.

True, but proper tests should control for powder type. And there are significant differences across powders.

 

[woodnbow]

I picked up a pietta 36 belt revolver in 1858 pattern. I found an accurate load, but it is 6 inches low and 3 to the left. I can drift the front sight for windage,but elevation adjustment seems to require filing the front sight. Any tips on doing so? Don't want to screw up a nice revolver.

Perfect. Drift the sight and then start filing. A few strokes and then fire a few rounds to verify the change in impact. It won’t take a whole lot so be patient. If you’re tempted to take a bunch of strokes to hurry the process restrain yourself. It’s harder to replace metal than it is to remove it. (Ask me how I know)

It’s worth doing. I don’t have a pistol that doesn’t hit point of aim, and I own only Colts and Ruger Old Armies. Remington made by Uberti are simple to sight in...

 

[woodnbow]

For the Colt shooters, they all shoot high as they come from the factory. The 1860’s and any that have the half moon slot for the front sight can be remedied by using a sight blade from an 1872 open top or in drastic cases, the front sight blade from an 1873. The octagon barreled guns need a new one made from a brass wood screw.

 

[woodnbow]

That’s fair enough. The rock stuck in my shoe is the wrong idea that the .36 was always inadequate until the .44 became commonly available. That idea is based on modern powder (usually Goex) manufactured to weaker specifications. Navy caliber must not have been so bad historically if it could bust 6 boards loaded to 66% capacity! That should be the benchmark for evaluating the power of .36 pistols. When I have the money and time to get a good chrono, I intend to test out the .36 with different powders and finally determine minimal and maximal power ranges without common confounding variables (used Goex, ruined the powder by compressing lubricated wads onto it, loaded 15 grains). If everyone loads a .38 special with .38 long, that’s cool, it just doesn’t say anything about the capability of .38 special.

You know that there were many other powder manufacturers back in the day. Many more than the three or four we currently have. Swiss seems the most lively, clean and consistent of the available powders. Triple 7 is about as energetic, but a trifle more difficult to manage in muzzleloaders (ramming pressure, compression, etc) Olde Eynsford is close behind and everything else is roughly as powerful (and with similar fouling characteristics) as GOEX.

 

[.38 Special]

Is there any evidence to show that "historically" BP was more powerful than today's formulations?
At first glance I would consider that unlikely and expect "modern" manufacturing methods and an extra 150 years of knowledge to show an improvement.

I'd be interested in seeing some more specific BP data that supports the idea the BP was more powerful in the 1800s than the 2000s if it exists.

The closest thing to "objective" evidence I am aware of comes from the double rifle shooters. Apparently many of the British doubles were regulated for specific loads of Curtis and Harvey No. 6, which has not been available for a very long time. When loaded with same amount of Goex the rifles typically were about 200 FPS slower than originally claimed, and would "cross" which is an indication of decreased velocity and recoil. Enthusiasts ended up making smokeless "nitro for black" loads to get the barrels to regulate.

 

[351 WINCHESTER]

If it's already shooting high, filing down the front sight is only going to make it shoot higher.

He said it was shooting low.

 

[Hugger-4641]

His title originally said "hIgh" and he changed it. If you read all the posts you'll see that.

 

[Hugger-4641]

Don't know why this double posted? Read the prior post.