Best first C&B revolver

[ssb73q]

Hi, a video on the best first C&B revolver:



I don't agree about the brass framed revolver not being recommended for a newbie. He may have stretched his brass frame revolver, but I bet as a kid he loaded it up max. A brass framed revolver gets a newbie into BP shooting for the lowest cost possible. I also don't agree with the Remington 1858 comment. An 1858 will run over 100 rds if using a BP sub like T7 or Black Mz.

Also, no cap jams? Amazing. Fact is that I know Mike does hammer work on his Colts to minimize cap sucking.

Regards,
Richard

[Hawg]

I haven't seen the vid yet but I wouldn't recommend a brass frame to anybody. I would recommend the Remington for a first but Black MZ and T7 are just cheats for lazy people. I don't get many cap jams with my untouched Colts. I get just as many with Remingtons which isn't many.

[G Dog]

As Mike B. mentions, trying to save a little money by getting a brasser is a “false economy”.  I’ve talked some young guys out of getting brass frames and it turns out they are all very glad that I did. 

Reproductions of brass Confederate guns are highly cool, but inherently limited and if a particular piece is neither steel frame nor historically accurate I fail to see its attraction.

I, like ssb, get way better mileage out of my Remingtons that Mike B. seems to get.

[ssb73q]

Hi G Dog, I would bet you all the free items of the Free Stuff section of this message board that for every one serious BP revolver, there are nine that bought one revolver, shot it once, and then put it away forever. My argument is that for the nine with brass is they got to try BP revolver shooting for the minimal cost. The one that stays interested will soon own many more BP revolvers where he can justify his hobby. Brass revolvers make for great wall hangers.

While Mike's video talks about the 1851 being the best first BP revolver, I am finding the 1851s my best last BP revolvers. There is a lot going for them. Efficiency in powder and lead, low recoil, excellent accuracy, and just damn good looks and feel are a few of the 1851's appeal.

BTW, my last four BP revolvers purchased for .22 conversions have been brass framed. Brass framed revolvers have slicker actions than steel right out of the box. They also look more attractive than their steel framed counterpart.

I know I am working against the tide recommending a brass framed first revolver, but never shy to present an opposing opinion that makes some sense.

Regards,
Richard

[G Dog]

Brass framed revolvers have slicker actions than steel right out of the box.
Regards,
Richard

Other knowledgeable members have made the same observation and I have wondered why brass would produce that effect (?).  Why would that be?

My steel frames come with really rough & burry hand channel walls, mama mio.  I wonder if the Italian bros find it easier to smooth out the channel when they only have brass to buff out.  I have used oiled stone to deal with the ones on my guns and now they are a real a'smooth-a, which seems to greatly improve the overall action. 

Might that be a partial basis for your opinion?

[Hawg]

My G&G didn't. It had a definite drag when you let the hammer down from full cock and eventually broke the hand spring from dragging across a ridge. It's slick now but it's still brass. I'm glad I have it but don't want another brass anything.

[sourdough]

My Pietta G&G was the same, Hawg. The G&G trigger has about 1/32" creep before letoff, and being a brasser, I see no advantage insofar as being smoother whereas the action is concerned. I find that the Pietta steels have a better action. My newest is a Pietta 1851 steel [CP] .36 and the action and trigger are much better than the brasser, and even better than my favorite Pietta Navy Second Model [CM] which I favor for aesthetics.

Everyone else: YMMV.

[Hawg]

My G&G has more creep than my navy does but the G&G is smoother, not that my navy isn't smooth. To me tho the navy just has a more solid feeling action. Maybe it's just me. My navy is a CN.

[ssb73q]

Hi G Dog, the coefficient of friction is lower for dissimilar metals (steel rubbing on brass). Of course the brass frame doesn't effect trigger sear creep or any other steel to steel contact surface. As to machining the internal part of the frame, it would be much easier working the brass compared to steel.

IMO frame stretching with brass Colts is nonsense. If the arbor stays put in the brass frame, the only loading is on the steel arbor, wedge, and barrel. Of course there could be coining from the cylinder recoiling back in to the brass recoil shield. Maintaining a narrow barrel/cylinder gap minimizes the acceleration of the cylinder backward, reducing impact energy.

Ain't science fun?

Regards,
Richard

[sourdough]

Just my $.02 worth:

I would go with a steel-framed 1951 Navy repro, to wit: I am very enamored of the Pietta 1851 Navy Second Model .36 Squareback trigger guard, if nothing else but for aesthetics. Mine came about using a Pietta 1851 Navy Round TG [CM] 2014, the last year of the "tail" grip profile, with a SB TG ordered from Taylors for $25 to fit that profile. Anything Pietta manufactured from 2015 [CN] on has a different grip profile.

Dixie Gun works still carries a Pietta 1851 Navy steel Second Model SB for a "relatively" decent price of $250 (I say that because when Cabela's gets absorbed by Bass Pro, one will probably never see sales like we have seen in the past: I just purchased a Pietta 1851 Navy steel .36 from Cabela's for $180 plus free shipping). Don't expect to see anything other than straight-grained, quarter-sawed wood on any pistol date coded [CN] or later (if you are lucky you may get some figured hardwood, as in my example below).

https://www.dixiegunworks.com/product_info.php?cPath=22_92_187_189&products_id=14047&osCsid=pq1m45r54l1240thmea193pa87

Here is mine:



IMO, if you are like me and only intend to shoot it occasionally, a brasser is OK. If you want to shoot the crap out of it, steel is the only way to go.

I chose to go with Pietta because of my wish to build a 6-pistol .36 cal collection (using 3 pistols): 1851 Navy Second Model, 1851 Navy Third Model, Griswold & Gunnison, Schneider & Glassick, Leech & Rigdon, and a fantasy 1851 Navy Dragoon .36.

I have them and am in the process of taking photos and posting them here in the near (?) future. 

One more thought: Piettas have a much more correct arbor length than Ubertis insofar as longer shooting life. Piettas are less expensive but Ubertis seem to have a better fit/finish with more cost.

Your call. Best of luck to you!

Jim

[LonesomePigeon]

Sourdough, you can build a fantasy squareback Schnieder & Glassick too.

[Hawg]

Sourdough, you can build a fantasy squareback Schnieder & Glassick too.

Oh puhleeze, don't give him any ideas. 

[sourdough]

Sourdough, you can build a fantasy squareback Schneider & Glassick, too.

I can also build a fantasy Leech and Rigdon with a SB TG just by installing the G&G barrel (part octagon/part round) and plain cylinder on the Navy Second Model, which is my favorite as a pistol that I feel that Colt should have produced: the 1851 Navy Dragoon .36.

Well, I guess that is plausible if one can find a SB TG to fit the newer Pietta grip configuration for the G&G, and I know of no source. My Pietta 1851 Navy Second Model is based on the 2014 [CM] frame with the older "tail" grip configuration, the SB TG was a special order from Taylor's, and it took over two months to get it through Customs and other hoops. Other than that, one would have to use the backstrap, wood, and the SB TG from that (as a 3-piece "unit") to use with the G&G, OR find an older (pre-2015 [CN]) Pietta 1851 Navy .36 brasser with a plain cylinder for more "authenticity". My plain cylinder is from the G&G, used for both my S&G and L&R.

My intent for the project was to use only 3 pistols to create 5 somewhat historically correct 1851 Navy style .36 pistols (and 8 more fantasy pistols) by just swapping frames, barrels, and cylinders (no screws/screwdrivers needed).

I just took pics yesterday of my "motley" collection using my wife's phone camera (as my nice 10-year-old Olympus digital cam seems to have gone south a couple of weeks ago), and they are not of the best quality, but passable. I will post them here on a new thread in the next couple of days.

Oh puhleeze, don't give him any ideas. 

Hawg, nothing like that. As next year's finances allow, I want to purchase a Pietta Dance & Brothers .44 pistol (which has no cut water-table and no rebated cylinder) and adapt it to a Pietta 1851 Navy .36 caliber barrel and cylinder. Kind of iffy, but it might just work with a bit of judicious attention to parts fit.

To the OP: sorry to have somewhat hijacked this thread. Some of us old-farts have a tendency to do that, all the while meaning to show options insofar as pistol choices are concerned.

Apologies, sir.

Jim