Old vs. new brass frame reproductions

[G Dog]

In their videos both Mike Beliveau and Blackie Thomas make much of the idea that brass frame reproduction revolvers are now much harder and more durable than the mods that were manufactured in the 60s, 70s and 80s.  Neither of them cite any source nor supporting evidence for that.  Both state that the older reproduction brass framed revolvers were a response to the flurry of attention over the CW centennial period and were intended  to be mere ‘noise makers’ for the commemorative events of that time ; pretty much jumped-up larpy
kazoos that spit lead but were never intended as serious to almost
serious shooting instruments and were made out of cheap shit brass with a price point to reflect it. Accordingly, the warning labels of that period concerning max powder loads were generally in the 10-12-15 grain zone. They are still  in that range.  Recent EMF and Pietta instruction materials say just  that.  Beliveau and Thomas say that the recommended powder limits were never updated to reflect a modern harder charge-capable alloy.  I would have liked to have heard the basis of their opinions but they had nothing to say about any of that.

In one Beliveau vid he shoots 30 grains in a brass .44 Pietta Remington.   In the comments section I asked wheather that might be a bit on the heavy side.  I don’t think the question was well received.  His response was a terse “It’ll handle it”.  I almost responded with “Yes, but for how long?” -  but I refrained.  He seemed not to have appreciated such an imputant interrogatory.

So, my dog in this is that I have one brasser - a .36 Pietta G&G (2017).  The others are seven steel Pietta ‘working guns’ - Colt Army, Navy and Remingtons.  I do not shoot no damn 15 grains in any of those.  No sir, that’s not  part my life, I don’t do it. 

For the past hundred-fifty or so shots on my Griswold I have used 15 grains of Triple 7 which by applying advanced principles of higher mathematics and the (Hodgdon) 15% advisory I determine to be the BP equivalent of 17.25 grains.  I’ve also shot about 300 rounds total worth of Pyro P, Swiss and Black MZ at 15 grains.  Really haven’t shot it that much for having had
it six years but so far there are no ratchet ‘teeth marks’ on the recoil shield/ring.  Nothing to see even with a glass; end-shake /  cylinder gap is still as it was when new, .003 (about ideal according to authority) and has held even and constant all around.  You see where I’m going with this - don’t need a max load but 20-22 grains would be nice yet not at the risk of jacking up the piece.

[ShotgunDave]

I have never had any interaction with Blackie, so I cannot comment. But I have with Mr. Beliveau. He does not like comments that are even remotely contrary to his statements. He feels himself the utmost expert in all things BP. I quit giving him the time of day. Anyone that can't have a civil debate about a subject, loses all credibility with me.

We know from actual experience that if a brass framed revolver is fed a steady diet of max or near max charges, the gun will get loose. Some call it frame stretch, others recoil shield battery. Either way, the gun will be useless. Load and shoot max loads in a brasser at your own risk.

I don't care what "The Experts" have to say about it.

[Captainkirk]

My take on it...brass is brass. Don't give a rat's ass what any interwebs guru opined, a brass frame will still stretch the receiver female threads to the point the steel arbor will loosen up. Game over at that point. My solution is to keep max loads at 18 on a .36 and 22-25 on a .44 or better yet, buy a steel frame on eBay and chuck the brass frame in the gravel as I did on my 51 brasser. In fact, I just got a notification the other day on a .36 steel Pietta frame that would likely be a bolt-on for you. You can always hang on to the steel frame if you decide to sell the brasser.

[Hawg]

I have never heard of hardened brass being used in anything but Henry rifles. You would think if anybody was using it in revolvers they would be advertising it. Beliveau shouldn't be making bp videos. I don't think I've ever seen a Blackie Thomas video.

[Dellbert]

I have two brass frame Colts and have never went over 18grs of Triple7 3F.I bought the five pack of loading brass loading tubes. They start out at 18gr and go up to 100grs in it. and, They shorted me one, so I had to ordered the one that they shorted me and it turned out to be just the right one for using Triple 7 in a brass frame Colt. The 20gr is grate for Pyrodex or any other Black powder with the still frame revolvers  you want to use. As No one can teach you better than your self. or just ask the question here on the forum. I'm sure you'll get the answer you need.

[Navy Six]

I have two brass frame Colts and have never went over 18grs of Triple7 3F.I bought the five pack of loading brass loading tubes. They start out at 18gr and go up to 100grs in it. and, They shorted me one, so I had to ordered the one that they shorted me and it turned out to be just the right one for using Triple 7 in a brass frame Colt. The 20gr is grate for Pyrodex or any other Black powder with the still frame revolvers  you want to use. As No one can teach you better than your self. or just ask the question here on the forum. I'm sure you'll get the answer you need.

"As no one can teach you better than yourself....." You nailed that one Delbert! I am not commenting on Mike Beliveau, but I remember starting out with black powder by following advise in the usual gun magazines more than 50 years ago. Every author seemed to offer similar information and I couldn't understand why my results weren't what I expected. It took lots of shooting and experimenting to discover what worked best for me, and a lot of it doesn't reflect the "wisdom from the experts" I ran across so long ago.

[45 Dragoon]

Welp, not claiming any "expert" status,  my experience with drilling into brass frames/ trigger guards  I would  say the old brass is definitely more brittle  ( which typically translates to harder) than any of the new stuff!! The Colt 2nd Gens and older ASM's  seem to be much harder to drill than anything since 2000.
  Personally,  Blackie  strikes me as "I'm so smart I can figure it out myself" and will actually tell you in a video exactly what Colt (or "they") had in mind by doing this that or the other .  .  . as if he was "there" listening or explaining to "them" why they should do "this, that or the other" .  .  .  Most of what he gets "right" is what you would pick up from a Kuhnhausen book but the rest makes me giggle sometimes.
  Mr. Beliveau seems to be more into the operation of the revolvers and obviously the historical side of each variation of each model which is fine but he also seems to have an "air" of "I'm THE last word" and this is how it is .  .  .   
That said,  both are tolerable to listen to and one can learn  things ( camping with tweezers from Blackie and history from Mike).  When it comes to setting up cap guns though, neither  offer much more than "band aid " "fixes", never a mention of the importance of arbor length ( which is actually THE most important aspect of the open-top platform) which alludes to their actual " overall" knowledge  of the revolvers  .  .  .  which definitely sways may perception of their videos.  All the years of being on forums that Mike is also a member of,  he's never offered to do a review  of any of my or other members offerings ( that I've seen) to compare  vs " out of the box" factory offerings  but hey, if you think they can't  be improved on then why would you?  On the other hand, I haven't asked  either but my work is actually working on the revolvers in question rather than the revolvers being video material.  I guess we both have plenty  .  .  .

As far as the brass revolvers themselves,  the open-top platform with  a close tolerance setup ( with correct build) can be used just as its steel sibling  .  .  .  The Remington on the other hand  is the "animal" it is. If you happen to get one with no perceived endshake, you are probably fine with the same treatment as with a steel version.  The more  endshake,  the lighter the loads need to be.
 Just as with cartridge guns,  endshake is the detriment of the arm itself  (other than a reloading incident!!!).

So, tighten them brassers up and have at it!!!



Mike

[BOOMSTICK BRUCE]

My first BP gun was a traditions/pietta brass frame 58 "buffalo" circa 2005, with a 12" barrel. The guy at the counter called it the "buntline special" lol... Anyway, I would just pour powder into the chambers until the were full, scrape any extra off the face of the cylinder with a credit card, and just press a ball in. No measuring, no wads, no grease, just powder, cap and ball. I shot that thing until it was so loose you would have to point it to the sky to get the cylinder to engage the hand. so don't try and tell me, Mr. Beliveau, that brassers "will handle it" as they surely will not "handle it" for very long...

Luckily when I bought it, it was on sale for $199 at bass pro, I sold it to a gun shop for $200 three years later...

[Steamburn]

So much talk about brassers, that I pulled the trigger on a Taylor 1858 in .36.
This is going to hurt my budget big time, but as Marylin Monroe said "What the hell, is always the right decision".
Next one (in a distant future), will be a 1851 Navy brasser.

[Steamburn]

Today I got my 1858 Navy from Taylor (it is a Pietta).

It had this dirty ugly looking black grease, more like a mix of grease and polishing compound in most of the mechanism, so I  disassembled it completely and literally washed it with water and soap.

Barrel and barrel forcing cone were perfect.  The cylinder had inside one of the chambers a metal shaving, otherwise it was fine and all the chambers measured a consistent .3550" diameter.

The steel parts inside the frame were also of very good quality (trigger, bolt, spring, trigger, etc.).
.
The brass frame is second rate.  Very nice in the outside, but the inside would make a tool and die man cry.  The interior surfaces that need to be smooth, were not, showing the original surface left from the sand in the casting. 

The fit of the grips was bad, specially the one on the right side because they over filed the frame, leaving a step where the flat surface of the wood grip needed to match.

After some filing and polishing where needed, everything seems to be working fine.

Also, the fit of the cylinder to the frame and the timing are perfect.

Thursday I'm going to the range to test it.

[Captainkirk]

Best of luck! Keep those loads at no more than 18gr 3F MAX.

[Zulch]

Steamburn, nice purchase, at least you shouldn't have to worry about the short arbor issue being a new Pietta. 

[AntiqueSledMan]

all the chambers measured a consistent .3550" diameter.

Hello Steamburn,

That cylinder chamber seams very small to me, you going to shave 0.020" of lead while loading?

I purchased two .36 caliber cylinders from Cabela's back when they closed out all of their .36 caliber Remington stuff,
the chambers on both measured between .367 & .368" making them .007" to .008" under size for a 0.375" ball.

AntiqueSledMan.

[Navy Six]

all the chambers measured a consistent .3550" diameter.

Hello Steamburn,

That cylinder chamber seams very small to me, you going to shave 0.020" of lead while loading?

I purchased two .36 caliber cylinders from Cabela's back when they closed out all of their .36 caliber Remington stuff,
the chambers on both measured between .367 & .368" making them .007" to .008" under size for a 0.375" ball.

AntiqueSledMan.

I agree those chamber dimensions seem a little small. I know this is apples to oranges, but using pin gauges all my Uberti 36s closely measure .372 at the chamber mouth and .366 at the bottom of the chamber.

[G Dog]

[quote author=Zulch link=topic=5326.msg67630#msg67630 date=16855341 at least you shouldn't have to worry about the short arbor issue being a new Pietta. 


It being a Remington mod helps with that too.