junkman_01
member
I think that the original question was truly and honestly answered. You and others may not like the answers received, but they answered the question. So no ranting is warranted.
Why do some scare people away from Brass Frames?
- Thread starter Rogue Coder
- Start date
- Status
I don't like brass frames on revolvers. I also don't like Chevrolets. However, if you happen to like them, more power to you. I'll shoot alongside you, not say a word and enjoy it just as much. I don't own one myself, but my brother-in-law, a fine, intelligent fellow, does, and he likes it. In fact, I restored it for him several years ago; it was dirty, scratched and rusty when he bought it out of a garage sale and now it's pretty (in his eyes) and shoots as well as any 1851 pattern gun I know. Up to now this is all a matter of personal choice, and I cannot imagine how either way that choice goes could be thought to be 'wrong'.
The disagreements come about when people say brass frames are, or are not, more susceptible to damage than steel frames. The answer to that is found in simple mettalurgy - yes, they are. But, they don't just fall apart; it takes some pretty serious abuse to inflict significant damage. And you know, come to think of it, steel frames can be damaged when subjected to serious abuse (like consistent overloading) also.
So treat all your guns with respect and learn to live with the other guy's choice.
The disagreements come about when people say brass frames are, or are not, more susceptible to damage than steel frames. The answer to that is found in simple mettalurgy - yes, they are. But, they don't just fall apart; it takes some pretty serious abuse to inflict significant damage. And you know, come to think of it, steel frames can be damaged when subjected to serious abuse (like consistent overloading) also.
So treat all your guns with respect and learn to live with the other guy's choice.
Driftwood Johnson
Member
Foto Joe
No question a brass framed C&B revolver is a more affordable way to get into Cap & Ball shooting. That's why I originally bought my brass framed 44 cal 'Navy' a bazillion years ago. If I recall correctly, it only cost $40. A sizable amount for a teenager in 1968, but you are completely correct, it allowed me to start shooting C&B and I probably would not have if I had to wait to save the additional scratch for a steel frame.
Also, make note that my 'Navy' is 44 caliber. We all know that the real Navies were never made in 44 caliber, but what did I know as a teenager. To me, 44 caliber naturally seemed better than 36. Probably a significant factor in why my gun is now a wall hanger. A kid is naturally going to put more powder in a 44 cal chamber than a 36 caliber chamber.
Mind you, back then I read all the gun magazines, and I don't remember anybody cautioning about not overloading a brass framed gun. They may have been, but I sure don't remember it. Don't forget, Val Forgett had only been producing his Navy revolvers for about 10 years at that point. We were pretty much blazing new territory back then. Or rediscovering old territory anyway. So I settled on 30 grains as a reasonable load.
All I am saying is if you put a lot of powder in a brass framed gun, particularly a heavier caliber than the original guns were, eventually something has to give. Whether it is the frame stretching, the arbor moving, or the wedge pounding the slot out of shape, put in too much powder over time and something is going to give.
Brass frames are pretty, but I will take a steel frame every time. My Henry has an iron (actually steel) frame. I don't doubt the brass framed Henry rifles will hold up over time if they are not fed overly hot ammo, but personally, I prefer blue to yellow guns. Probably at least partially because of my experience with my brass framed 'Navy'.
No question a brass framed C&B revolver is a more affordable way to get into Cap & Ball shooting. That's why I originally bought my brass framed 44 cal 'Navy' a bazillion years ago. If I recall correctly, it only cost $40. A sizable amount for a teenager in 1968, but you are completely correct, it allowed me to start shooting C&B and I probably would not have if I had to wait to save the additional scratch for a steel frame.
Also, make note that my 'Navy' is 44 caliber. We all know that the real Navies were never made in 44 caliber, but what did I know as a teenager. To me, 44 caliber naturally seemed better than 36. Probably a significant factor in why my gun is now a wall hanger. A kid is naturally going to put more powder in a 44 cal chamber than a 36 caliber chamber.
Mind you, back then I read all the gun magazines, and I don't remember anybody cautioning about not overloading a brass framed gun. They may have been, but I sure don't remember it. Don't forget, Val Forgett had only been producing his Navy revolvers for about 10 years at that point. We were pretty much blazing new territory back then. Or rediscovering old territory anyway. So I settled on 30 grains as a reasonable load.
All I am saying is if you put a lot of powder in a brass framed gun, particularly a heavier caliber than the original guns were, eventually something has to give. Whether it is the frame stretching, the arbor moving, or the wedge pounding the slot out of shape, put in too much powder over time and something is going to give.
Brass frames are pretty, but I will take a steel frame every time. My Henry has an iron (actually steel) frame. I don't doubt the brass framed Henry rifles will hold up over time if they are not fed overly hot ammo, but personally, I prefer blue to yellow guns. Probably at least partially because of my experience with my brass framed 'Navy'.
Last edited:
I want to shoot my virgin mid '70s CVA brassie ASM '51. It is in perfect condition, the only problem I found was two stuck nipples when I was checking it out & studying up/learning about it.
Short of not shooting it (not) -or- keeping my loads somewhere in the 13-15 gr. limit for a .36 caliber, what should I be doing?
I have a pair of ROAs, so the temptation to abuse it is non-existant.
I'm considering getting a cylinder loading press for my C&B cylinders since light loads are supposedly problematic with unmodified rammers, and it could only lengthen the life of the gun frames.
Could someone point me to an instruction set for remounting the arbor?
Short of not shooting it (not) -or- keeping my loads somewhere in the 13-15 gr. limit for a .36 caliber, what should I be doing?
I have a pair of ROAs, so the temptation to abuse it is non-existant.
I'm considering getting a cylinder loading press for my C&B cylinders since light loads are supposedly problematic with unmodified rammers, and it could only lengthen the life of the gun frames.
Could someone point me to an instruction set for remounting the arbor?
True, the frame won't rust on a brass framed gun. But the cylinder and barrel will, and I'm pretty sure that's what rusted on your steel framed gun, not the frame. If your friend doesn't clean his brass framed gun it will also be ruined. They have to be cleaned, too.
unknwn = you can shoot that gun with 20 grains of real black powder for many years without fear of loosening the arbor, and you don't need a cylinder loading stand to charge with 20 grains.
unknwn = you can shoot that gun with 20 grains of real black powder for many years without fear of loosening the arbor, and you don't need a cylinder loading stand to charge with 20 grains.
mykeal said:
If you're afraid that you won't be able to seat the ball all the way down with a light load, simply add some filler on top of the powder i.e. cornmeal, cream-of-wheat or (and this one still has me scratching my head as to why somebody would do this) cocoa-puffs.
As far as a cylinder loading stand is concerned, since I don't have any Remmies I've never considered it. Pulling the barrel on a Colt's pattern gun to get the cylinder off to load it is more fiddling around than I want to do. I typically can re-load on the gun in less than two minutes, less if I'm using paper cartridges of course.
Driftwood Johnson said:
You will get absolutely NO arguement from me on this, physics works and nobody can violate the laws of physics without consequences. My issue is with folks being so vocal in their protests that brass frames are a bad idea that they actually scare off the people like you and I that started out with brass frame guns simply because of the inexpensive investment. Personally I wouldn't want to dump $300 on a '60 Army not knowing a thing about Black Powder revolver shooting, but $129 on a brass Fantasy Gun, now that I could take a risk on.
The High Road forum is without a doubt the best Black Powder forum that I have ever found, here's why I think so...The majority of the folks on this forum are truly interested in helping those with absolutely NO experience in what we do. They realize that by helping others to discover the pasttime they are helping ensure that they themselves will continue to have access to the guns we've chosen to shoot because the manufacturers need NEW customers!! On the other hand, from time to time some folks will tend to get on "Their High Horse" and forget why most of us are here. I'm not saying I'm immune from this by the way. There are certain topics which lend themselves to this, Brass Frames, Black Powder for Self Defense and even the dreaded Crisco threads.
All I'm saying is that if a particular practice isn't dangerous and it will help get somebody interested then let's try to help instead of berating each other when we happen to disagree.
Last edited:
arcticap
Member
Rogue Coder said:
The lively debate does amplify the reasons about why people want to warn other folks about the potential pitfalls concerning buying brass frame C&B guns.
Some folks have read enough to have learned about some of the problems with buying them while others haven't.
If someone buys a brass frame gun without knowing much about it in advance, then that can turn them off to C&B shooting entirely as being a waste of money, or by not truly meeting their expectations.
Folks here don't want to scare anyone away but I believe that they do want them to be as honestly informed as possible.
If someone asks about whether they should buy a used 20 year old brass frame .44 Colt that's for sale on Gunbroker, then folks here will tend to let him know that it's "buyer beware". Obtaining practical advice would often be the reason for a person to post that question to begin with.
Not everyone realizes before they visit here that a brass frame gun shouldn't always be loaded to 100% capacity if they care about how long that it's going to last.
The new brassers have become more expensive too which relates to the difference in their frame strength, longevity and the safest loads for it.
If a brass gun loses it timing because of frame issues then that's not good for the promotion of the C&B shooting sports.
No one is saying that they're junk or trying to "scare" anyone away from buying them. I think that most folks are trying to let folks know that while new ones may cost 22% less than a steel frame model, they should only be loaded to 62% - 75% capacity or else they may have an even disproportionately shorter lifespan.
I don't think that the reason for mentioning it is primarily to "scare" potential buyers, but to simply let the buyer be made aware.
Alot of folks enjoy the brassers and have fun with them, but they should be aware of their potential limitations before buying one.
Each gun is different and some brassers will last longer than others and will be able to withstand more abuse and heavier loads.
It's mostly an economics issue but IMO, mentioning all of the other legitimate reasons to warn folks isn't the same as trying to "scare" them off. Warn them yes but to "scare" them no.
Asking Why do some scare people away from Brass Frames? is really a loaded question because it asserts that some folks are scaring other people away from them when I don't think that's the case at all. By and large everyone here takes the high road by simply posting honest reports to the best of their ability, and the threads are usually always quite balanced. Lively debate is how all of the competing and contradictory information can be transmitted so that folks can make up their own mind and form their own opinion based on facts and the informed opinions of others, and not fictions.
Last edited:
Zerstoerer
Member
15 to 20 grs of FFFg is plenty for accuracy in a .36 Cal.
Why push it?
If you really need the energy, shoot nitro.
Why push it?
If you really need the energy, shoot nitro.
SleazyRider
Member
Being raised on traditional revolvers with a top strap, I accepted this as the "standard" for revolver design, the straps being akin to a chain link that encompasses the cylinder---seems like a sturdy, time-proven design to me. So when I fell in love with the Spiller and Burr and its history, I felt that the use of brass was forgivable because of its "chain link" design:
My first exposure to the Colt design came much later, and I thought it at a large disadvantage design-wise because it was missing the top strap that completes the "link," in fact, I was somewhat taken aback by what seemed to me a poor structural design. But who am I to second guess Colt's designers? I couldn't resist the deal I got on this Sheriff's model, however. It's a brass frame but plated in nickel (or possibly chrome?). I find the plating garish to say the least, but I haven't got the stones---not to mention the time or inclination---to defarb it. I'll probably sell it and buy a "proper" 1851 Navy some day. (By the way, in the Evil Empire State of New York, these are listed on my concealed carry permit just like a Glock.)
My first exposure to the Colt design came much later, and I thought it at a large disadvantage design-wise because it was missing the top strap that completes the "link," in fact, I was somewhat taken aback by what seemed to me a poor structural design. But who am I to second guess Colt's designers? I couldn't resist the deal I got on this Sheriff's model, however. It's a brass frame but plated in nickel (or possibly chrome?). I find the plating garish to say the least, but I haven't got the stones---not to mention the time or inclination---to defarb it. I'll probably sell it and buy a "proper" 1851 Navy some day. (By the way, in the Evil Empire State of New York, these are listed on my concealed carry permit just like a Glock.)
arcticap
Member
Zerstoerer said:
Or simply buy a steel frame .36 C&B to begin with and enjoy loading it up to its full potential.
This thread has plenty of velocity figures for a variety of loads:
Questions about .36 cal revolvers
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=5665565#post5665565
Last edited:
Gatofeo
Member
Frame stretching, metallurgy and related topics aside; I have almost always found brass-framed revolvers to be poorer fit and finished than their steel-framed counterparts.
There's a reason they sell for less than steel-framed guns: they are made to a lesser degree of quality.
Not all, mind you, and in 40-plus years of shooting cap and ball revolvers I've seen a few brass-framed cap and ball revolvers that were very finely made. But these are not the norm.
I know, I started with an Italian-made 1851 Navy .44 with a brass frame, about 1970. It was okay as a starter gun, but didn't last long. After the third incidence of multiple ignition ("chainfire"), it was damaged beyond repair.
In retrospect, I wish I'd purchased a steel-framed revolver to begin with. The quality would have been better. My brass-framed gun was never very accurate, because the bore was not polished before the rifling was cut, so it had a bore rougher than a corn cob.
It gathered lead like a bureaucrat's butt.
The Confederates manufactured some brass-framed revolvers during the Civil War, but only out of necessity not preference. The South lacked iron ore and the technology of modern gun making.
Buy a brass-framed revolver if you wish, but be aware that you will likely get a revolver of poorer quality and certainly less strength. If these factors don't bother you, have at it.
There's a reason they sell for less than steel-framed guns: they are made to a lesser degree of quality.
Not all, mind you, and in 40-plus years of shooting cap and ball revolvers I've seen a few brass-framed cap and ball revolvers that were very finely made. But these are not the norm.
I know, I started with an Italian-made 1851 Navy .44 with a brass frame, about 1970. It was okay as a starter gun, but didn't last long. After the third incidence of multiple ignition ("chainfire"), it was damaged beyond repair.
In retrospect, I wish I'd purchased a steel-framed revolver to begin with. The quality would have been better. My brass-framed gun was never very accurate, because the bore was not polished before the rifling was cut, so it had a bore rougher than a corn cob.
It gathered lead like a bureaucrat's butt.
The Confederates manufactured some brass-framed revolvers during the Civil War, but only out of necessity not preference. The South lacked iron ore and the technology of modern gun making.
Buy a brass-framed revolver if you wish, but be aware that you will likely get a revolver of poorer quality and certainly less strength. If these factors don't bother you, have at it.
BHP FAN
Member
Plenty of Southern revolvers were made with iron frames, and the south had enough iron ore to make cannons. The main reason for the brass frames is that they could be cast, rather than milled, saving a lot of milling and speeding the whole manufacturing process along.Not saying they weren't being carefull with thier strategic metals, but the idea that all Confederate revolvers were made from the melted church bells of Macon Georgia has been a bit over stated.
Donny
Stay away from the Starr. The design was a POS in 1860 and still is today. Beautiful gun but does not hold up under fire.
A US ARmy officer during the CW said this:
Whoever forced the Starr Revolver on the US Army should be tried for treason!!!
Stay away from the Starr. The design was a POS in 1860 and still is today. Beautiful gun but does not hold up under fire.
A US ARmy officer during the CW said this:
Whoever forced the Starr Revolver on the US Army should be tried for treason!!!
I have a brass framed 1858 Pietta and a steel framed 1858 Uberti. I use 28 gr of Pyrodex in the brass gun and I have not had any problems over the five years of shooting. There is still good power with that load and lots of smoke and it is accurate. I actually shoot the brass framed gun more because it is my "beater" gun. I take it when I go camping because I don't worry about it so much. I don't abuse it but I don't over worry about it because it was bought on sale cheap. I love it. The Uberti is too nice to be treated with such comfortable disrespect. LOL.
brushhippie
Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2011
- Messages
- 384
Now THAT is a battered recoil shield.
Rogue Coder
Member
Holy crap that's a lot of abuse!
Hawkeye,
I've heard bad things about the Starr too. Duelist1954 has a video on youtube on the Starr and he admits he's had nothing but trouble with the double action but his single action Starr has faired well. The single action has its issues as well but they seem more manageable. The Starr is something I'll probably never end up buying. Its cool and I like it but they are also high priced and I don't want to lay down a pile of money on something that isn't trouble free out of the box. The Spiller and Burr is just as cool as the Starr and has a lower price tag and fewer mechanical issues. Yes its brass but I'll treat it right so it lasts.
Don
I've heard bad things about the Starr too. Duelist1954 has a video on youtube on the Starr and he admits he's had nothing but trouble with the double action but his single action Starr has faired well. The single action has its issues as well but they seem more manageable. The Starr is something I'll probably never end up buying. Its cool and I like it but they are also high priced and I don't want to lay down a pile of money on something that isn't trouble free out of the box. The Spiller and Burr is just as cool as the Starr and has a lower price tag and fewer mechanical issues. Yes its brass but I'll treat it right so it lasts.
Don
I bought the abused Spiller & Burr that way. There's no way to tell how old it is, or who made it. The only markings on it are CSA on the right side of the frame and the number 82 in several places (including handwritten on the inside of the grips).
I'd say someone used loads that were a little stout.
I'd say someone used loads that were a little stout.
Donny and Hellgate,
Actually, the primary problem is the basic design so it is both single and double action, though it appears worse in the Double action. One problem is the cylinder consistently falls out of alignment with the forcing cone. This leads to lead being shaved off and embedding in people next to you.
Because of my personal experience, I refuse to be on the line if a Starr is close by. Occasionally, I still get a piece of lead working its way to the surface on my arms neck and face. At first, I thought it was powder spray, then the blood appeared.
That was over 2 years ago.
There are other problems but that is my personal experience with a Starr single action.
Two pistol smiths who I respect now refuse to work on Starr's. They both guarantee their work and they have not found a permanent solution to the Starr's design so they just don't work on them.
As to which the officer was refering to, I don't know. The source book is in storage after a recent move. I'll try to find out as soon as I get the books out of storage.
Actually, the primary problem is the basic design so it is both single and double action, though it appears worse in the Double action. One problem is the cylinder consistently falls out of alignment with the forcing cone. This leads to lead being shaved off and embedding in people next to you.
Because of my personal experience, I refuse to be on the line if a Starr is close by. Occasionally, I still get a piece of lead working its way to the surface on my arms neck and face. At first, I thought it was powder spray, then the blood appeared.
That was over 2 years ago.There are other problems but that is my personal experience with a Starr single action.
Two pistol smiths who I respect now refuse to work on Starr's. They both guarantee their work and they have not found a permanent solution to the Starr's design so they just don't work on them.
As to which the officer was refering to, I don't know. The source book is in storage after a recent move. I'll try to find out as soon as I get the books out of storage.
- Status
