1858 Remington locking up
- Thread starter mrappe
- Start date
The reason that I shoot BP and not the other stuff is because of history. I don't shoot a c&b revolver because it is the most efficient way to propel a bullet. I would just shoot my HK if that was what motivated me. That is why I personally would not put target sights on my BP revolver event though I would be able to shoot better. Please forgive me but I am some what finatical about historical accuracy. If I could invent a time machine I would go into the past an not the future. That is why I am now looking for mutton fat to make tallow for lube. I want to understand what things were like back then. I got into Cowboy Action Shooting not because I love to shoot as much as I love the history. Some people are more interested in the shooting that the history and I respect that also. To each his own.
Thank You,
Mike
Thank You,
Mike
A lot of folks tout historical correctness, but how many would actually want to use fulminate of mercury percussion caps if they were available today?
And no, I don't think if someone chose to use those corrosive caps that they should be considered to be ignorant.
But wouldn't hardly anyone actually chose to?
And no, I don't think if someone chose to use those corrosive caps that they should be considered to be ignorant.
But wouldn't hardly anyone actually chose to?
Last edited:
From what I'm reading, potassium chlorate was mixed in with the fulminate of mercury which leaves corrosive salts as a byproduct.
Also, according to Mike Irwin on THR it's errosive:
The potassium chloride byproduct is reported to affect some steels adversely, including 416 stainless and carbon steel:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-corrosion-resistance-d_491.html
Also, according to Mike Irwin on THR it's errosive:
The potassium chloride byproduct is reported to affect some steels adversely, including 416 stainless and carbon steel:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-corrosion-resistance-d_491.html
These revolvers seem to have faired well, and they are all original. Most C&B guns I see in museums have nipples that reflect the overall condition of the revolver. I have seen rifles and pistols that saw heavy use in the Civil War, that didn't look all that bad. I have also seen civilian guns that look like hell. Again I will say it depends on how well you clean them.
HisSoldier
New member
I think that the argument that since better powders weren't available in the early 1800's they shouldn't be used now is silly. But I suppose to carry the argument farther we should all shoot flintlocks or matchlocks, I mean, who's to say they aren't superior? Those of you who got on my case about using what I consider to be a vastly superior powder might want to carry your philosophy farther and get into matchlocks.
The only revolver I own is my 1858 stainless. Stainless! They didn't have stainless steel in 1858, so that's totally bogus, right?
Well, I don't like to deal with corrosion, at all, period, so I shoot my stainless gun, then clean it well and oil it. Some guys are so "traditional" they should shoot guns made only with the same tools they had in 1858, and of the same crappy materials. Better yet just shoot originals, with poorly preserved powder and hit or miss caps.
No ones shooting back right?
I don't want to go back in time and I don't want to replicate the problems they had in 1858, they all jumped on smokeless powder when it became available, they all jumped on stronger steels and better priming systems.
I assume those who make a big deal of "real" black powder ride a horse to the range?
The only revolver I own is my 1858 stainless. Stainless! They didn't have stainless steel in 1858, so that's totally bogus, right?
Well, I don't like to deal with corrosion, at all, period, so I shoot my stainless gun, then clean it well and oil it. Some guys are so "traditional" they should shoot guns made only with the same tools they had in 1858, and of the same crappy materials. Better yet just shoot originals, with poorly preserved powder and hit or miss caps.
No ones shooting back right?
I don't want to go back in time and I don't want to replicate the problems they had in 1858, they all jumped on smokeless powder when it became available, they all jumped on stronger steels and better priming systems.
I assume those who make a big deal of "real" black powder ride a horse to the range?
HisSoldier, why are you whining about people thinking differently than you? I don't know why you have a burr up your a$$, but you were the one that came to the BLACK POWDER forum and made generalizations that it was stupid to use real BP because YOU don't like it. Most of the long time BP shooters on here have used every kind of BP and BP substitutes made, and a lot chose to stick with the real stuff. I have been shooting BP for 15 years and own several different BP guns, and I have tried all of the powders. I like BP best. If you don't like it don't use it. Nothing wrong with that, but if some of us choose to use real BP, that's OUR business. You are welcome to take your attitude elsewhere or stop acting like an ignorant jackass and grow up, so as to have an adult conversation, it's up to you. But to attack other shooters that like real BP for whatever reason, is down right arrogant.
No one "got on your case", we just presented differing opinions. If you took it that way, that was not the intent but it's on you. Get a thicker skin. Some of us just don't agree that subs are "vastly superior". That is YOUR OPINION. I have never had a hangfire or ftf (failure to fire) with real BP but I have with subs because they have a higher ignition temp. Also, flintlocks will not work reliably with subs for the same reason. In my experience, neither will a percussion sharps.(so much for vast superiority) You said yourself that you have little experience with BP and only own one type of BP gun. People don't agree on everything. Some of that comes from experience. YOU are the one that went on the offensive with your pissy little tirade. I say again, if you don't like real BP fine, but don't tell others they are stupid because they do!
P.S. Real BP isn't as corrosive as your "vastly superior" BP subs.
P.S.S. Your "1858" is actually an 1863 new model army
No one "got on your case", we just presented differing opinions. If you took it that way, that was not the intent but it's on you. Get a thicker skin. Some of us just don't agree that subs are "vastly superior". That is YOUR OPINION. I have never had a hangfire or ftf (failure to fire) with real BP but I have with subs because they have a higher ignition temp. Also, flintlocks will not work reliably with subs for the same reason. In my experience, neither will a percussion sharps.(so much for vast superiority) You said yourself that you have little experience with BP and only own one type of BP gun. People don't agree on everything. Some of that comes from experience. YOU are the one that went on the offensive with your pissy little tirade. I say again, if you don't like real BP fine, but don't tell others they are stupid because they do!
P.S. Real BP isn't as corrosive as your "vastly superior" BP subs.
P.S.S. Your "1858" is actually an 1863 new model army
Last edited:
I hope that you do not consider me as one of those. I just shoot BP for my own historical intrests. I completely respect anyones decision to do otherwise. It is about having fun. The way you choose to have fun is up to you. Don't let anyone make you feel like you are doing it wrong. That attitude is bore out of people who want to feel superior. I personally enjoy shooting all kinds of modern guns with smokeless powder.
Mike