1851 Uberti London Navy

[r5868]

Sheer arse!! Cut a disc out of 1.5mm brass sheet and dropped it into the arbor hole, slipped the barrel back on and the frame and barrel lined up perfectly. Reassembled the gun and the gap between the cylinder and barrel is between .002 &.004". Haven't attached the disc at the moment as I will see if, when I get some balls, the settings are still the same.

Kerry

[Hawg]

Have you tried to tap the wedge in a little deeper to see if it locks the cylinder up?

[45 Dragoon]

Yap, tapping in and out is a must if your serious about "the same gun every time. You won't have the same gun if you're a " "thumb pressure only" kinda guy. You can't "load" the assemblies with just thumb pressure.

Good job! I noticed you said brass and I know there are folks that use brass but I don't want, at some time in the future, to redo  hundreds because I didn't use steel.  Folks seem to like the steel guns more so than the brass ones of the same make for a reason. Therefore, I don't see the reason for fixing steel guns with brass. It's just as easy to use steel. Even with brassers, the arbor is steel and the barrel assy is steel.  Therefore, I use steel. For now, it's still a free country and the advice I'm giving is free as well so good luck with whatever you decide.
Have fun.

Mike
www.goonsgunworks.com
Follow me on Instagram @ goonsgunworks

[ssb73q]

Hi Mike, IMO a workaround for an Uberti Colt without fixing the arbor length issue is possible. Get some 0.002-0.004" shim stock. Put the shim stock in between the forcing cone and cylinder. Hammer in the wedge until you can just remove the shim stock. IMO this would give one the same gun with a correct gap every time.

In fact, as a scientist/engineer for many years, the Uberti short arbor design may be a better functional engineering design than the Colt correct arbor length method for barrel/cylinder gap.

Regards,
Richard

[r5868]

Mike, the only reason I used brass was because I have a stack of it but no sheet steel. Another reason for not fixing it in place is that I can change it if things move out of alignment.

[45 Dragoon]

Richard,  then why do you even take the time to "correct" yours then?
  The fact is, every time you shoot the "work around", it moves. That's why the wedge gets battered.  Since the fix, I've never had a wedge even move. I have also had no reports from any of my customers either. You'd think a Scientist would be able to figure that out. The force of the " shot ", cartridge or C&B cyl., will move anything that isn't "fixed"  ( not stable) which would include any thing held together with a wedge that wasn't secure. Scares me that I know that but a Scientist/ engineer can't  figure it out..
 Have you ever seen ultra slow motion of a barrel when a rifle is fired? Have you ever heard of "barrel whip"?  I'm talking about one piece,  A barrel,  it moves.  Now you're telling everyone that a two piece revolver , held together with a wedge, will be fine with just the wedge tapped in just " so so" to give you the proper clearance?!!  With that thought process, I doubt you would have had the chance to tell Mr.Colt of his .  .  .  "short comings"!
                    (Btw, it's a clearance not a gap. In arms parlance, a gap is created with a bushing so the cylinder face and the forcing cone area of the barrel will NOT have contact. With the open tops we are discussing, they DO make contact and thus a clearance is SET. What we should be discussing is how to MAINTAIN a clearance that has been set.)

r5868,
 Sorry about that !! I think you did fine, I just wanted to point out that I use what the " makers " use in the making of the open tops. I've always thought it a little backwards to use a lesser material to correct or maintain a product than that used to make the product with. It's just me .  .  . 

We'll find out soon when some tests come in from my lug locks if they help "hold things together" better than just a tight wedge.

Mike.
www.goonsgunworks.com
Follow me on Instagram @ goonsgunworks

[Captainkirk]

We'll find out soon when some tests come in from my lug locks if they help "hold things together" better than just a tight wedge.

Hoping to find out soon (hint, hint) 

[45 Dragoon]

Gottcha covered Cap!!

Mike
www.goonsgunworks.com
Follow me on Instagram @ goonsgunworks

[Hawg]

What about the force of the ball hitting the forcing cone? I would think it negligible but still would have some effect on the lifespan of a wedge.

[45 Dragoon]

Hey Hawg,
 It definitely has an effect on the wedge. The cyl is exerting force against the recoil shield to the rear, which is the same as driving the arbor rearward. The bullet/ball is hitting the f.c. /lands (which is hardly negligible) with like force moving forward which is also putting force on the wedge. These two forces are squeezing the wedge with slightly different frequencies / time intervals which is why it's so important to have the arbor "in touch" with the barrel assy so the transmission of the harmonics can have an unbroken path and allow the revolver to respond as a" whole "rather than two assemblies vibrating against each other. This is what " protects " the wedge and why a solid wedge placement is important.

  If you think of a man holding a drill bit with both hands while another hits the bit with a sledge hammer (as in drilling for blasting rock in the 19th century). As long as the holder keeps a firm grip on the bit, the force passes through the bit and delivers the force to the rock. If the holder slacks off his grip, some of that force will rattle his hands like an electric shock!!! I'm sure most of us have experienced this same type "shock" at some point in our lives.

As long as the two assys. can transmit the forces as a single unit rather than two, there will be no "fighting" between the two.

As far as the bullet/ball hitting the f.c., that will depend on the powder charge used, the chamber/ bore alignment, weight of projectile and the length of the contact area of the sides of the projectile which will determine the friction coefficient imparted to the barrel assy. All these ( and I'm sure there are others such as firmness of grip and such) are variables that play a roll in the force exerted as a whole when firing an open top revolver. The design of these revolvers was as modern then as today's computers are now and were built in a way to allow them to last  without destroying themselves.
To sell these gentlemen short with their design abilities just because our copies today are set up for "units produced" and then proclaim that our modern rendition is superior is a slap in the face!!! Pietta seems to have pretty much tackled the problem and it would be nice if Uberti would follow suit.

Mike
www.goonsgunworks.com
Follow me on Instagram @ goonsgunworks

[Hawg]

Thanks Mike. This came up on another forum and since I'd never seen it addressed before I figured it didn't amount to much. Now I can take your response back over there and eat some crow. Anybody got any BBQ sauce? 

[45 Dragoon]

Aw man!!  (Sorry Hawg!!! Got some hot sauce !    )



Mike
www.goonsgunworks.com
Follow me on Instagram @ goonsgunworks

[ssb73q]

Hi Mike, ok, here we go. What you seem to be describing is an example of the issue of a fail to cycle with a 1911 using a limp wrist?

When the C&B revolver is fired, all the forces generated are trying to separate the barrel from the frame. Those forces may vary as a function of time, but all the force is attempting to separate the barrel from the frame. The holding force of the wedge with a revolver like the Pietta Colt or arbor corrected Uberti Colt is high because of the force necessary to seat the barrel. The holding force of the unmodified Uberti Colt is just the same for the firing forces trying to separate the barrel from the frame. I maintain that as long as the wedge doesn't change position, there is zero difference in the wedge holding force between the two.

Ok, you can now throw rocks.

Regards,
Richard

[45 Dragoon]

No need to throw rocks Richard .  .  .  .  . 

Ok,  the problem is that you can't pick and choose what is relevant in a particular set of actions and reactions. They all play a part in the "whole" (you can" maintain " anything you want). I agree with your summation about equal force on the wedge. The problem is the vibrations/harmonics involved which do move the wedge apply the force at differing intervals which is why the unsupported wedge (work around/ factory setup) gets battered (a long understood problem with " modern" open top revolvers). If this didn't happen, we've all been complaining about  . .  .  .  .  .  a mirage!!!  Since the arbor correction alleviates this problem, it must not be a mirage after all. (The old designers of the mechanical age had it right)

  The wedge itself isn't strong enough to be the only connection (to deal with the force) in an open top. First of all, they get beat up. Secondly, efforts to make a HARD wedge just punishes the arbor / barrel contacts even more (arbor ends have been known to break off!).   So, it's not as simple as you describe.

As far as you assuming that I'm describing a fail to fire situation with a 1911, well  (how did you do that? focus man focus).  .  .  .   I wasnt.
I literally was exposing the idea that even the support of the revolver would play some roll in the forces applied to the revolver as a whole.

Mike
www.goonsgunworks.com
Follow me on Instagram @ goonsgunworks

[ssb73q]

Hi Mike, you were the one bringing a jackhammer drill into the discussion. I just brought it more gun oriented with the 1911 comment. IMO from an engineering perspective, the only advantage for a correct arbor length is to set barrel/cylinder gap the same every time with no effort. IMO a workaround is to use a leaf gauge to set that gap. The downside of doing that is that it must be done every time the barrel is removed, or wedge changed.

Having gone through this intellectual exercise, you know I do the arbor length mod on all my Ubertis because I'm lazy and want the gap to be easily set without any screwing around. I wouldn't want a newbie to think he shouldn't shoot his new Uberti until the arbor length mod is done. I do agree with you that Uberti should follow Pietta's lead.

Regards,
Richard