Brass vs. zamak (why can't you convert brass to fire ctg?)

W

w_houle

New member
I have an RG-63(single action/ double action) in .38 spl. that mostly looks like a Colt SAA, and am pretty sure the frame is made of that dreaded material, zamak. I brought it to the range and have fired my 500th round through it with no ill effects, and that got me to thinking: If this gun can survive being fired, then why not a Remington in .38?.. and because I like pics
imgp0003.jpg
 
I don't know anything about Zamak but I looked it up and there are different types.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZAMAK

Why do you think your frame is made of Zamak and not something else that is similar?
What you're asking might be a good question for a materials specialist.
Even if it's possible that brass could be used for the short term, maybe there are good reasons why it wouldn't be recommended.
If it's not about strength issues then what other reasons could there be? :rolleyes:
Maybe brass C&B revolvers should be made out of Zamak because some type of Zamak is better? ;)
 
Last edited:
I think they made all of their guns out of it, and it's too light to be steel
Note: I put superglue on the front sight as a preventative measure for keeping the front sight from flying off because it's plastic.
imgp0002.jpg
 
Because brass is softer and the factory loads are too heavy. Repeated firings will drive the cylinder back hard enough to eventually imprint the cylinder ratchet into the recoil shield.
 
I wonder why this gun is the only one that I know of that looks like a Colt SAA that fires in DA.
Would it make it any better on brass frames if you were to mount a steel plate to it? I think the Kirst has that plate, but wonder how the frame would hold up to having the loading gate cut out.
 
Brass frame 1851 36 Navy

I did a 38 Smith/Wesson con on an old CVA brass frame 51 Navy and shot the heck out of it. Maybe 500-600 rounds down range(got the ammo CHEEP). Heck the cylinder was only 49 bucks at the time sorta made like the gated modles buy no gate. Now if you keep your loads light (38 S&W light) brass frames should hold up ok. But as I cut a loading port I did find some small voids in the frame from casting.
 
I just don't think there's much good you can say about pot metal, which is exactly what ZAMAK is. It's cheap to procure and manipulate since its low melting point does not require a much more expensive foundry, which should be obvious looking at the guns constructed of it. RG's, HiPoints, Walther P22's, Cimarron's Plinkerton, 'new' Henries and the Heritage line of single actions.
 
I will reinnerate what Hawg said
Because brass is softer and the factory loads are too heavy. Repeated firings will drive the cylinder back hard enough to eventually imprint the cylinder ratchet into the recoil shield.
Click to expand...
Now what did I say I done? :cool:
 
I don't think you can weld magnesium; if that might pose an issue. One possible thing that might be positive about brass frames is they are softer than steel and the movement of your internal parts might not get worn as quick but then again if the brass softens then everything shifts. Ummm=just brainstormin on that thought. Maybe I'm asleep. Good beginners gun though and costs less. Brass in the day was probably much stronger than your new Pietta Reb Confederate.
 
My High Standard Confederate Brasser is stronger/harder than the Italian ones ... it's the Bronze content mixed with Brass that would make them stronger... in the War Against Northern Aggression the Confederacy Collected if more Bronze than Brass ... depending on the amount collected would determine the strength or tinsle or shear strength of the brass frame Revs, rifles, or Cannons...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top