Brass frame 1858 Remington

[ssb73q]

Hi, yesterday I ordered an on sale brass frame Pietta 1858 Remington with free shipping, see:
http://www.cabelas.com/product/pietta-model-1858-new-army-brass-frame-44-caliber-black-powder-revolver/705020.uts?Ntk=AllProducts&searchPath=%2Fcatalog%2Fsearch.cmd%3Fform_state%3DsearchForm%26N%3D0%26fsch%3Dtrue%26Ntk%3DAllProducts%26Ntt%3Dpietta%26x%3D10%26y%3D6%26WTz_l%3DHeader%253BSearch-All%252BProducts&Ntt=pietta

Having seven steel frame 1858 Remingtons, you may think I'm nuts buying that revolver?

My intention is to use this revolver with the Kirst .22 conversion cylinder. Having seeing on how accurate the steel frame 1858 with the Kirst .22 conversion cylinder and my own full length barrel, I had to buy this revolver. Not long ago I purchased a brass framed 1851 and equipped it with the Kirst conversion cylinder. The brass frame action is much smoother than the steel frame by far and I expect the same for the 1858. The Wolff reduced power spring should produce a 2lb trigger pull. This is a target showing what a 1858 with .22 conversion cylinder can do, 6 shots from 15yds:



The .44 C&B cylinder will be added to my extra Pietta 1858 cylinder inventory. Brass frame revolvers with the .22 conversion cylinder are nice in that the brass framed revolver doesn't even need a wipe down after .22 shooting like a steel frame revolver.

Regards,
Richard

[mike116]

Nice to see you enjoying all the variations in .22 conversions you have put together Richard.   Even though they are not historical I like the appearance of the brass Remingtons.   The brasser .22 conversion is good addition to your arsenal.

[Captainkirk]

Call me crazy, but I like the brasser Remmies just the way they are. Stronger than the open tops and slick as a greased pig once the internals are cleaned and polished. Brass on steel acts as a natural lubricating surface. My brassers are the smoothest, slickest actions I have.

[45 Dragoon]

OK Cap,
 I fell for it. What makes a brass Remie stronger than a brass open top? A steel Remie isn't stronger than a steel open top. I know it is almost sacrilegious to say something like that (we've been told over and over and over how strong the Remie is) but I remember from many many years ago an explanation of why the arbor is stronger. As far as "shapes" go, the box or square is a weak structure. Three corners don't support the one corner that is receiving force (ie , from firing). Likewise, the same force is trying to overcome the tensile strength of the arbor .  .  .  .   ain't gonna happen. Both are subjected to the same linear force but its the arbor design that deals with it the best. Of course, this would be comparing a "correctly" manufactured opentop since the Remie is "correctly" manufactured.

I have personally bent a brass Remie (.44) during the act of loading ,  but have never been able to loosen an open tops arbor while loading (Shooting is where the "correct" manuf. would come into play).

I'm not trying to be a smart a$$, just trying to set a long "tale" straight.

Mike
www.goonsgunworks.com
Follow me on Instagram

[Captainkirk]

The arbor threads in the brass frame get beat up under heavy loads and deform, beginning an ever-worsening cycle of fatigue. You eventually will wind up with a loose arbor. Simply replacing the staking pin with a set screw (a common fix on our steel framed Colts) doesn't last because the threads on the steel arbor and brass frame no longer mate properly. The only way to fix this malady properly is: a) replace the frame with a new one, or b) avoid the situation in the first place by shooting reduced loads (25gr max in a .44 Colt and 18-20 max in a .36 Colt)
While the box framed Remmy is still subject and vulnerable to frame hammering (cylinder beating grooves into the front of the recoil shield) and consequent widening of the cylinder gap, there is no issue with a loose arbor as there IS no arbor to loosen.

[Hawg]

While the box framed Remmy is still subject and vulnerable to frame hammering (cylinder beating grooves into the front of the recoil shield) and consequent widening of the cylinder gap, there is no issue with a loose arbor as there IS no arbor to loosen.

No but the frame will eventually get tweaked enough you can't get the cylinder pin out with a hammer.

[ssb73q]

Hi, IMO the weakness of the Colt design is the shear stress on the arbor thread. I think that most all guns can be shot loose if abused with overly heavy loadings. Want strength, get a .357 or .44 Magnum, but then be prepared for the excessive muzzle blast and recoil. One of the nice things about BP firearms is that you can get shooting enjoyment without bruising yourself.

Both the Colts and Remingtons have special attributes that endear them to shooters. I very much enjoy both of them.

Regards,
Richard

[45 Dragoon]

Thanks Cap.,
  I understand the "problem" with the open top, but that is my point. You are comparing your experience with an open top that has the ability to destroy itself and a revolver that (because of manufacturing) IS pretty much built correctly.  In order to compare the two designs, you need two examples of "like" build quality.
  The reason the open tops fail has to do with the ability of the cylinder to slide back and forth on the arbor, much like a slide hammer used in a body shop. With that ability removed, it can't and won't. If you try to hammer a nail without the ability to "move" the hammer,  you won't be able to. The same holds true with the open top design. I know it works with the steel framed open tops, I am part of a two gun test (by two different people) with brass framed (identical) open tops to see if it will hold true with them as well (using full strength loads).  So, to recap, it's the sloppy build technique, not the design, that allows self destruction for open tops.
 When you hold the clearance to a very tight tolerance, allowing the cyl the smallest "hammering" ability, the strength of the material itself is enough to withstand the minute amount of "hammering allowed".           That, is the key.
Now that you have removed the " ability ", the design takes over and the comparison is the tensile strength of the arbor vs the strength  of an open square. The arbor is a natural for the linear forces , the square - not so much.
The square is the design that won simply because of the manufacturing process and as time has proven, the ability to have a more " powerful " weapon was to incorporate newer steels and/ or thicker top straps to deal with the design.

So, again, I'm not trying to be a smart a$$, just trying to show that just because you hear something over and over and over doesn't make it true. If the S.A. revolvers of today were all still of the open top design, they would be far and away more expensive than what we pay for  the ones we DO get (thank you Italians!!!!).   We just gotta finish the job on these "assembled kits". Lol

Mike
www.goonsgunworks.com
Follow me on Instagram

[ssb73q]

Hi, a quick calculation of a .44 caliber handgun with a maximum pressure of 14,000psi is 2129lbs trying to separate the cylinder from the barrel. IMO that gives a lot of loading on the arbor.  However, as Mike suggests, the effect of cylinder hammering probably produces more instantaneous force than the pressure loading. I have noticed coining on the recoil shield of the steel 1858 Remingtons when the shield plate isn't perfectly flat using mild .45 Colt loads with conversion cylinders.  IMO while the Italian manufactured replicas are probably stronger than the original revolvers, maximum loading in both steel and brass framed revolvers are at the limit of mechanical design. Shooting lighter than maximum loads should allow the replicas to last for generations.

Regards,
Richard

[45 Dragoon]

Richard,
 What kind of gap or clearance does the Remie have with the conversion cyl?

Mike
www.goonsgunworks.com
Follow me on Instagram

[ssb73q]

Hi Mike, my new Uberti steel frame 1858 Remington with the Taylor .45 Colt conversion barrel/cylinder gap is 0.004". The Pietta 1858s with .45 Colt conversion cylinders very from 0.004 - 0.007". I have two Pietta 1858 Taylor 6-shot conversion cylinders and one Uberti 1858 Taylor 6-shot. The Uberti combo is much better fitted than the Pietta's, but that's a newer manufactured combo than the Pietta's.

Most of my Pietta 1858s had the dreaded backward rotation on hammer fall with the Pietta conversion cylinders. I needed to modify the Pietta bolt arm to eliminate that bolt unlocking on hammer fall. The Uberti combo timing was perfect where no modification was required. All my Taylor (Howell, R&D, etc.) conversion cylinder have the bolt drop early compared to the C&B cylinders. The diameter of the .45 Colt conversion cylinders are larger than the C&B cylinders. The ordnance steel of the conversion cylinder minimizes wear from the bolt drag at the bolt slot leading edge. I also install the Wolff reduced power hammer spring to minimize firing pin mushrooming. That produces a nice ~2lb trigger for steel target shooting.

Regards,
Richard

[Captainkirk]

Mike, your experiment has piqued my curiosity. Anxious to know if your tests concluded that a properly clearanced brasser with a stabilized barrel will nor beat itself to failure using full house loads.
In a recent experiment, my son had a loose arbor on his brasser '51 in .44. I removed the loose roll pin and tapped for 4-40 set screw, and reassembled the arbor and set screw using red loctite. Oughta hold 'er for a bit, right?
Don't you believe it. Shot that sucker wobbly-loose in less than 12 shots. I found him a new brass frame on eBay and fixed that issue permanent.
But if you can show hundreds of full-power loads with no loosening and battering/imprinting of the recoil shield? You'll have a believer.

[45 Dragoon]

Captain,
 I just got the two brassers last Friday. They will be set up accordingly and sent back and testing will begin. I will report as "news" comes in !! As I said, one will be set up as a full time fanner, the other will be just a normally serviced shooter. This test isn't a proving ground for the open top design (that has already been established), but a test to see if a brass framed open top can retain a precision fit and tune. And again, if it fails, it will be proof that light loads are the "norm" for brass frames. It may also show, that steel inserts (for the recoil bearing) may in fact be all that is needed to make these guns " long lifers".  The same things can be transferred to the brass framed Remie as a cure for "self destruction" (care still must be taken when loading!).
  It should be an interesting test to say the least!!

Mike
www.goonsgunworks.com
Follow me on Instagram

[ssb73q]

Hi Mike, the amount of hammering work produced is directly proportional to the actual cylinder movement distance. Double the distance the cylinder can move back doubles the work potential to coin the recoil shield. Minimizing endshake minimizes coining potential. The coining work potential is also directly proportional the the pressure pushing the cylinder back.

Regards,
Richard

[45 Dragoon]

Richard,
Yap, that is the reason I settled on .002" barrel/cyl clearance for my service. The "fanner" I just finished has 2 cyls and 2 barrels and with any combination of them, the clearance is .0015".  It is also capable of dry firing.

Mike
www.goonsgunworks.com
Follow me on Instagram