There are those that are NOT fans of the brass cap&ballers. There are those that are. I've noticed there are misconceptions about the brassers.
There are,or have been, soft brass framed revolvers. ASM manufactured some real soft brass revolvers back in time. The Confederates during the Civil made what I think were fairly good hard brass framed guns. There are specimans still shootable after all these years. The Henry rifle was made of brass but I've read the first ones were iron framed then bronze then brass. I imagine the brass wasn't a pure soft brass in the Henry rifles since there are specimans still working. Anyway....I guess I'm getting around to stating there are different alloys of brass. Brass is an alloy of copper and zinc. I believe some brass is harder than other brass. I know there is,what is called yellow brass which is the softer type and the red brass that is harder than the yellow.
I think cap&ballers were made in both types of brass. The yellow being the most prone to deform against the stresses of being made into a gun frame and being subjected to that stress repeatedly each shot fired. The red brass,or a rendition of it, made into gun frames last much longer against the rigors of gun stress.
The Piettas of today must be made of a hard brass alloy of some kind. The Piettas seem to take more strain without deforming compared to the older ASM that were made of ,what hat to be, soft yellow brass.
People I've questioned have reported firing thousands of rounds of standard loads in the Pietta brass framers without deforming the guns frame. The standard load I'm referring to is 25gr. FFFg powder under a 44 cal. ball. That isn't really a weak load by cap&baller standards. The pistol sevice load for the Army back in the day using the 1860 Colt was 28gr. fine powder,I've read. That would mean a standard max. load for a 44 cal. brass framer of 25gr. FFFg powder isn't a weak load by cap&baller standards. Reportedly the guns,Colts included, stand the strain of the load without deforming. The brass framed Remington and the design that destributes the force of the cylinder recoiling against the frame out into a wide area stands the strain better than the Colts. The Colts with the ring on the recoil shield that the cylinder recoils against take the strain with less longevity since the ring(there to keep the caps from recoiling against the frame and chain firing) can be deformed because the force of the cylinder recoil being destributed to a smaller(smaller than with a Remington) area on that ring in six places. Those six places on the ring eventually compress and deform and open the cylinder gap to a larger than nominal amount when the gun is in the "battery" ready to fire position.
Anyway, I believe the cap&ballers made by Pietta have a much better longevity to them compared to the brass framers of the past due to the manufacturer addressing the composition of the brass alloy. The brass is harder with those made by Pietta today compared to the brass used in the past by some manufacturers. Brass is work hardened. The recoil shields of the Remingtons and the Colts may actually work harden with continued firing use.
Anyway, from my little survey of reports from people that use and fire the brass framers of today I have concluded that they are made better and with harder brass than most of the cheapie brass framers of days gone by. Also I believe that the Confederate revolvers made from the "Bells" off the churches would have been made of a hardened brass alloy coming from the bells. I mean a soft brass bell wouldn't "ring" too well right? The brass of the bells must have been hardened with extra tin or zinc or copper to get a good ring to them. Some of the bells may have been a bronze alloy too.
Anyway.....using the cap&ball revolvers made of brass according to the manufacturers or the retailers directions and staying with the max. of 25gr. FFFg powder for the loads seems to "NOT" wreck the guns too soon.
Myself being a gunsmith of the cap&baller revolvers I've seen many Remingtons that don't show very deep compressions into the recoil shield from the cylinders recoil. I see more Colts types with the depressions in the "ring" the cylinder recoils into that results in a larger than nominal cylinder gap when the gun is locked into battery ready to fire. The owners usually report the guns have been fired thousands of times.
We can't fault the Colt types and the brass they are made of and put the entire blame for failure in the brass(or even the steel) they are made of.
One thing not mentioned much is the lack of mechanical inclination of a lot of the owners of the guns,brass or steel, and the resulting lessening of the guns longevity. A Colt type cap&ball revolver has to have an owner mechanically inclined enough to manipulate the assembly and maintainance of the gun properly or the gun will fail whether it's steel or brass. I may add that some fault has to be put on the softness of the steel and brass the guns are made of and that fault dictates that the maintainance of the guns need more attention than if the brass or the steel were actually a proper hardness. he originals had to be made harder than the guns of today and the rumor or myth that the steel in the guns of today is better is untrue. One look at the cylinders of the originals and the lack of deformation around the cylinder notches from the bolt tells a different story and rebukes the myth. The originals were made harder than the cap&ballers of today.
Anyway...the point I want to make is that I believe a lot of the failures of the Colts revolvers are due to improper maintainance and assembly practices. A loose wedge in a Colt and firing the gun in that condition magnifies the forces applied to cetain parts. I always say...if you shoot a Colt when it's loose it will get even more loose "fast". That is a mechanical trait of a Colt cap&baller. Shot it loose and you are begging for trouble. Trouble with loosened arbors,deformed wedges and recoil shileds ect.ect. One thing that I know.....there are many people that can't explain "how" they know the wedge in their Colt is correctly seated. They can't tell you how they figure the wedge may be too tight or too loose. That ability is learned from experience and attention to the traits of a Colt Open Top design and learned by only those people with a mechanical inclination. I'm not faulting anyone either. Being mechanically inclined doesn't make one person more intelligent than another that is inclined in a different area. The person that is mechanically inclined can understand the mechanics of the gun better though. If a person isn't mechanically inclined they should pick the Remington type revolver to shoot.
Conversely and naturally, if a Colt revolver is assembled and maintained correctly it will withstand the rigors of firing with more longevity to the parts.
I believe there are more loosened arbors and deformed recoil shields of the Colts from improper care than from soft steel or brass(which I do believe is too soft). One known fact is that a wedge can cause immense force applied to parts affected by it.
The force of a wedge in a Colt that is driven in "too" far probably loosens more arbors than the soft brass or steel and the firing of the gun. The gun owners wreck their own guns because of a lack of mechanical inclination. Admittedly the margin of error with the soft steel or brass guns is very small if not non-exsistant.
Anywhoooo......I believe the brass framers of today get a bad rap from the brassers of yesteryear and their quality or lack of it. Also that bad rap is irritated by the lack of mechanical inclination of so many gun owners especially when it comes to the venerable Colt Open Top design.
I wouldn't be afraid to purchase a Colt brass framer or a Remington brass framer today. They ain't as bad as some claim. The condemnation of the brassers is usually made by people that don't know of the better quality of todays brass framers. They condemn on the record of inferior soft brass guns of yesteryear.
There are,or have been, soft brass framed revolvers. ASM manufactured some real soft brass revolvers back in time. The Confederates during the Civil made what I think were fairly good hard brass framed guns. There are specimans still shootable after all these years. The Henry rifle was made of brass but I've read the first ones were iron framed then bronze then brass. I imagine the brass wasn't a pure soft brass in the Henry rifles since there are specimans still working. Anyway....I guess I'm getting around to stating there are different alloys of brass. Brass is an alloy of copper and zinc. I believe some brass is harder than other brass. I know there is,what is called yellow brass which is the softer type and the red brass that is harder than the yellow.
I think cap&ballers were made in both types of brass. The yellow being the most prone to deform against the stresses of being made into a gun frame and being subjected to that stress repeatedly each shot fired. The red brass,or a rendition of it, made into gun frames last much longer against the rigors of gun stress.
The Piettas of today must be made of a hard brass alloy of some kind. The Piettas seem to take more strain without deforming compared to the older ASM that were made of ,what hat to be, soft yellow brass.
People I've questioned have reported firing thousands of rounds of standard loads in the Pietta brass framers without deforming the guns frame. The standard load I'm referring to is 25gr. FFFg powder under a 44 cal. ball. That isn't really a weak load by cap&baller standards. The pistol sevice load for the Army back in the day using the 1860 Colt was 28gr. fine powder,I've read. That would mean a standard max. load for a 44 cal. brass framer of 25gr. FFFg powder isn't a weak load by cap&baller standards. Reportedly the guns,Colts included, stand the strain of the load without deforming. The brass framed Remington and the design that destributes the force of the cylinder recoiling against the frame out into a wide area stands the strain better than the Colts. The Colts with the ring on the recoil shield that the cylinder recoils against take the strain with less longevity since the ring(there to keep the caps from recoiling against the frame and chain firing) can be deformed because the force of the cylinder recoil being destributed to a smaller(smaller than with a Remington) area on that ring in six places. Those six places on the ring eventually compress and deform and open the cylinder gap to a larger than nominal amount when the gun is in the "battery" ready to fire position.
Anyway, I believe the cap&ballers made by Pietta have a much better longevity to them compared to the brass framers of the past due to the manufacturer addressing the composition of the brass alloy. The brass is harder with those made by Pietta today compared to the brass used in the past by some manufacturers. Brass is work hardened. The recoil shields of the Remingtons and the Colts may actually work harden with continued firing use.
Anyway, from my little survey of reports from people that use and fire the brass framers of today I have concluded that they are made better and with harder brass than most of the cheapie brass framers of days gone by. Also I believe that the Confederate revolvers made from the "Bells" off the churches would have been made of a hardened brass alloy coming from the bells. I mean a soft brass bell wouldn't "ring" too well right? The brass of the bells must have been hardened with extra tin or zinc or copper to get a good ring to them. Some of the bells may have been a bronze alloy too.
Anyway.....using the cap&ball revolvers made of brass according to the manufacturers or the retailers directions and staying with the max. of 25gr. FFFg powder for the loads seems to "NOT" wreck the guns too soon.
Myself being a gunsmith of the cap&baller revolvers I've seen many Remingtons that don't show very deep compressions into the recoil shield from the cylinders recoil. I see more Colts types with the depressions in the "ring" the cylinder recoils into that results in a larger than nominal cylinder gap when the gun is locked into battery ready to fire. The owners usually report the guns have been fired thousands of times.
We can't fault the Colt types and the brass they are made of and put the entire blame for failure in the brass(or even the steel) they are made of.
One thing not mentioned much is the lack of mechanical inclination of a lot of the owners of the guns,brass or steel, and the resulting lessening of the guns longevity. A Colt type cap&ball revolver has to have an owner mechanically inclined enough to manipulate the assembly and maintainance of the gun properly or the gun will fail whether it's steel or brass. I may add that some fault has to be put on the softness of the steel and brass the guns are made of and that fault dictates that the maintainance of the guns need more attention than if the brass or the steel were actually a proper hardness. he originals had to be made harder than the guns of today and the rumor or myth that the steel in the guns of today is better is untrue. One look at the cylinders of the originals and the lack of deformation around the cylinder notches from the bolt tells a different story and rebukes the myth. The originals were made harder than the cap&ballers of today.
Anyway...the point I want to make is that I believe a lot of the failures of the Colts revolvers are due to improper maintainance and assembly practices. A loose wedge in a Colt and firing the gun in that condition magnifies the forces applied to cetain parts. I always say...if you shoot a Colt when it's loose it will get even more loose "fast". That is a mechanical trait of a Colt cap&baller. Shot it loose and you are begging for trouble. Trouble with loosened arbors,deformed wedges and recoil shileds ect.ect. One thing that I know.....there are many people that can't explain "how" they know the wedge in their Colt is correctly seated. They can't tell you how they figure the wedge may be too tight or too loose. That ability is learned from experience and attention to the traits of a Colt Open Top design and learned by only those people with a mechanical inclination. I'm not faulting anyone either. Being mechanically inclined doesn't make one person more intelligent than another that is inclined in a different area. The person that is mechanically inclined can understand the mechanics of the gun better though. If a person isn't mechanically inclined they should pick the Remington type revolver to shoot.
Conversely and naturally, if a Colt revolver is assembled and maintained correctly it will withstand the rigors of firing with more longevity to the parts.
I believe there are more loosened arbors and deformed recoil shields of the Colts from improper care than from soft steel or brass(which I do believe is too soft). One known fact is that a wedge can cause immense force applied to parts affected by it.
The force of a wedge in a Colt that is driven in "too" far probably loosens more arbors than the soft brass or steel and the firing of the gun. The gun owners wreck their own guns because of a lack of mechanical inclination. Admittedly the margin of error with the soft steel or brass guns is very small if not non-exsistant.
Anywhoooo......I believe the brass framers of today get a bad rap from the brassers of yesteryear and their quality or lack of it. Also that bad rap is irritated by the lack of mechanical inclination of so many gun owners especially when it comes to the venerable Colt Open Top design.
I wouldn't be afraid to purchase a Colt brass framer or a Remington brass framer today. They ain't as bad as some claim. The condemnation of the brassers is usually made by people that don't know of the better quality of todays brass framers. They condemn on the record of inferior soft brass guns of yesteryear.
Last edited:
; so which (readily available) brassers are "kinda" historically accurate?
