Cap and Ball revolver. Why not the old way?

Cheapshooter

New member
A recent thread on the general handgun forum about the "True Grit" Walker got my urge to shoot my BP revolvers again. I noticed now people are using a greased wad over the powder to prevent chain fire. The way I learned some 40 plus years ago was grease over the ball.
What brought about the wads? Is it something that was actually used in the black powder days, or something new to reduce the mess of flying grease. Part of the charm of BR revolvers to me. Smoke, grease, soot, and smell.:D
 
Wads were around because Colt advised against using them. Lube over the balls works but most people use way too much and it just blows all over the gun. Actually back in the day I doubt anybody used any lube at all. I use wads just because they're less messy. Some used wax for waterproofing which surely helped.
 
Grease or greased wads do not prevent chain fires, they're used to lube the barrel and from keeping the black powder residue from getting hard and tougher to clean out.

What prevents chain fires is ensuring that there is an interference fit with the projectile which perfectly seals the chamber and makes it airtight. As long as a ring of lead is shaved off the ball or bullet, you're not going to get a chainfire.

There's a small, small chance that a loose cap over a nipple may cause a chainfire, but the most common way a chainfire is going to occur is from a loose ball in the chamber not being an air tight fit.
 
Agree...95%

In addition to keeping the fouling soft the over powder wads give a little extra protection, that's just an opinion thing and sure not provable.
That ring of lead being shaved is why chain fires are not commonplace.
 
Wads are just so much easier and less messy. Like others have said a tight ball seal is the best chain fire prevention.
 
As long as a ring of lead is shaved off the ball or bullet, you're not going to get a chainfire.

I've got one that if you shot it you would recant that statement. :D They don't come from the nipple end either.
 
I have been using grease wads since the late 1960s and have found that putting a dry card between that and the ball keeps the wad from sticking to the ball. The prime reason for using the wads is to not collect dirt or make a mess in my holster. When I'm target shooting or plinking the grease over the ball is used to keep the fouling soft. Saving the work of making wads for carry or hunting. Back in the old days I believe that it was rare for the guns to be shot in the long strings we commonly do now.
 
Back in the old days I believe that it was rare for the guns to be shot in the long strings we commonly do now.

For the most part you're right. Guns for the average person were tools to be used when needed not for fun. Most couldn't afford to shoot that much anyway. It would be like going out with a hammer and just whacking stuff for no reason or taking a hand saw and just cutting up everything you saw for the heck of it.
 
Hawg, I think that some chain fires come from the nipple end but IMO only from brass framed guns whose recoil ring has become so battered-in that the cylinder starts whacking the recoil shield and the caps get set off when the cylinder recoils back and several chambers could go at once. Otherwise I think only a capless charged chamber could chain fire. So far, I've put over 30K roundballs downrange and not a single chain fire but I am anal about wads under or grease over the ball (sometimes both).
 
As long as we're talking "back in the day" - whatever the heck that is supposed to mean - than while not always the case, most used combustible cartridges which were readily available. And as stated, the revolvers were "utility" items - used for protection or putting meat on the table - not for taking to the range to shoot.

And for those who feel the need to completely strip their C & Bs down to cleqn them, I think you'd be surprised that when in the field during the war, after use, often times they were hung by the trigger guard on the eede of a bucket rim into lye soap water before scrubbing and cleaning the best they could - and that is from a "first person" account published in a privately published book on the 1851 Colt Navy - I have the book but it's back in MI and I'm in AZ at this time - it was written by a ex-Marine who was in WWII who knew many Civil War veterans when growing up and who shot C & B revolvers as a kid.
 
As long as we're talking "back in the day" - whatever the heck that is supposed to mean - than while not always the case, most used combustible cartridges which were readily available.

Yup. In period, people very often used combustible cartridges, with bullets that came with their own lube already on them, at least some of the time.

N-SSA competition requires lube over the ball, so I don't bother with the wad.

Steve
 
Hawg, I think that some chain fires come from the nipple end but IMO only from brass framed guns whose recoil ring has become so battered-in that the cylinder starts whacking the recoil shield and the caps get set off when the cylinder recoils back and several chambers could go at once. Otherwise I think only a capless charged chamber could chain fire. So far, I've put over 30K roundballs downrange and not a single chain fire but I am anal about wads under or grease over the ball (sometimes both).

I've got a 58 Remington I bought new in 69. It cuts a ring but if you don't use wads or lube it will chain and has since it was new. As long as you use wads or lube you can load it up full and leave off five caps and it will never chain. I've tried to make it chain from the nipple end and done everything except pack the nipples full of powder and it will not do it.
 
For the most part you're right. Guns for the average person were tools to be used when needed not for fun. Most couldn't afford to shoot that much anyway.

I'll agree with this.

It would be like going out with a hammer and just whacking stuff for no reason or taking a hand saw and just cutting up everything you saw for the heck of it.

I don't agree with this, because its not the same as a hammer or saw. A better comparison would be using a hammer to drive nails in every piece of wood you saw...because nails cost money. Just like caps, powder, and balls.

wacking things with a hammer, or cutting them with a saw costs only your effort. Shooting things costs the price of the ammo used up.

Also, "back in the day" people didn't GO to shooting ranges. The whole WORLD was the range, other than where there were buildings, people or livestock in the way.....

Hickock was famous, and people wrote about him, and his habits, one of which they considered unusual, that he fired his pistols (at least once) every day. According to what they tell, he would, after breakfast, step outside and shoot both his pistols empty (the whole world is a range), then go back inside, clean, and reload them, before setting out on the day's business.

Probably that habit of daily practice gave him an edge, but it wasn't something ordinary people did.

A lot of people did shoot some, weekly. Sundays, after church. It was part of the social scene. Picnic and shooting match (in good weather). There were even specialized guns developed just for that. It truly was a much different era.
 
My father was done a few years back and we went to the range with our BP revolvers. He had an ASM 1860 Army and loaded felt wads under the ball and got a chainfire. It was a steel framed pistol. There's no way it ignited from the front.
 
Colt believed that the cause of ignition was in the back of the cylinder, and the front of the cylinder.

Colonel Samuel Colt

Lecture at the London Institution of Civil Engineers, 25 Nov 1851
Fig 11, plate 1, represents a firearm made by the author, in 1836, to rotate and fire by the continued action of the lever, or by the use of a trigger.

The arms so constructed, consisting of a large number of pieces, and assemble in a complicated manner, were to found to possess many practical disadvantages, arising chiefly from the wish of the Author to construct compact and good looking weapons. His original experiments all been made on the skeleton arms, solely with a view to utility, and in them there was not the liability of premature explosion, from the escape of fire at the mouth of the chamber, or by inter-communication of the ignited detonating camps, but when he enclosed the rear, and the mouths of the rotating chambers, the fire, being confined beneath the shield and the cap, was communicated successfully to the percussion caps, and in front was conveyed into the chambers, so that premature and simultaneous explosion of the charges necessarily took place.

In consequence of these premature explosions it became necessary to remove the shield, from over the base of the chambers, and to introduce partitions, between the nipples, or cones, to prevent the fire from spreading to and exploding the adjoining caps; but this only partially accomplished the object There still remained risk of explosion from the spreading of the fire laterally between the base of the barrel and the face of the chamber. To meet this danger, the metal plate which was attached to the barrel, and projected over the chambers, was removed; this obviated to a certain extent, but did not altogether prevent the simultaneous explosion of the charges for during a trial of the arm, by order of the American Government, an accident occurred, from the simultaneous explosion of two chambers, which induced the Author, after much reflection to give a slight chamfer, or bevel to the orifice of each chamber, so as to deflect, or throw off at an outward angle, the fire which expanded laterally across their mouths. The reason for this alteration was, that when the lateral fire met the rectangular edge of the orifice of the chambers, the angle of incidence being equal to the angle of reflection, the fire was conducted downwards, or inwards to the charge’ but when the flame struck the chamfered edge, it was directed outward away from the charge. Unimportant as this alteration may appear, it has proved so effectual, that if loose powder is placed over the charge, in the adjoining chambers, it is not now ignited when the pistol is discharged. These and other improvements have brought the fire-arm to its present safe and effective condition and the Author believes, that no causality can occur, nor that more than on charge can be fired at one time, if the metal is sound and the arm is properly handled.

Grease does make the fouling moist, plus my hands, my face, my clothes. I think wads are a better solution.
 
I just watched 3-4 videos of BP chain fires. Always heard about them but never seen one. I was quite surprised they are usually not as dangerous as it sounds. Don't get me wrong it's seriously a bad thing happening but I was thinking more exploding guns, flying fingers and all. The one that exploded was a steel BP pistol the idiot owner put in newer smokeless powder. Blew the cylinder into 4 pieces and miraculously he still didn't get hurt.
 
Last edited:
There's a fellow who swears by grease cookies (he uses Gatofeo's #1 lube) and even with prolonged time periods it does not degrade his powder charge. I wondered about this too and figured an over powder card punched from cereal boxes would work fine if one wanted to do such.
 
Back
Top