Crazy $'s on BP revolvers, tips for deals, ideas for bolts & chainfire prevention

hickstick 10 wrote:
that 1892 in 30-30 get sold for transmission work to? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No. A few years ago I gave the 30-30 Winchester to my son and some years before that I traded the 45-70 Marlin for a stainless, long slide, target sights, 1911 .45 pistol, because I got tired of the 45-70's recoil kicking like a Missouri mule.

But what does what I did or didn't do with the 30-30 have to do with the price of eggs other than for your question along with your rolling eyes smiley alluding that I'm a liar? Perhaps instead of giving it to my son, I should have sold it to help fund a research study on why people want to argue about insignificant things just for the sake of arguing. Another one for my ignore list. Rapidly weeding out who I want to correspond with and who just want to argue and are a waste of my time.
 
Last edited:
Bill Akins wrote:
Over the years I've also bought a new Marlin mdl 1895 in 45-70 caliber as well as a new 30-30 mdl 1892 Winchester.
Click to expand...
This guy is blowing smoke. The Winchester M1892 was NEVER chambered in .30-30 (.30WCF) because that round is too long for the '92 action. :eek:
 
Bill I dont want to hinder your enjoyment of this forum, but your not going to get positive responses by blocking others for criticizing your "thorough" style of posting or question some of your information or methods. The condescending style of writing (at least to me but I'm no expert on writing), doesn't exactly garner a favorable response to your posts either.

Just cause some disagree with you, doesn't mean its an argument. It should be no surprise others question your opinions and methods as strongly as you express them.

And if your going to speak of your 40 years of experience, then be sure your facts are straight so fewer people will question you. Like claiming you own an 1892 in 30-30

This is a forum after all, and a discussion gets mighty boring if everyone agrees with each other.
 
Thanks very much for your post Model P. Your post and that picture was very informative and helpful. I was unaware that Colt had experimented with cylinder shields before he produced the Paterson. I've never gone past the stage of just making a wooden mockup. But Colt (obviously by your picture) made and experimented with tight fitting steel versions of cylinder shields. Your post convinces me that further experimentation of this on my part would be fruitless. Your post is the kind of helpful, sharing, educational post that is germane to the subject of my original post. Thanks again I much appreciated the information and enjoyed looking at the picture.
 
My pleasure. When I first read about your idea, I had this nagging thought that I had seen it somewhere before. Then a mental image of an old revolver with an enclosed front and rear, and having a spike dagger on its front kept coming to mind. Well, I finally dug out one of my books on Colt's development where I thought I had seen it, and there it was. Thanks for helping knock some rust off my aging gears:). I posted the other photo because I felt the image was clearer, but here's the earlier one with the dagger.
DSCF6264.jpg
 
Thanks for that second photo Model P.

Like you said in the first Colt cylinder shields photo, since the shield completely covered the front of the cylinder, that would make reloading a chore to have to remove the cylinder each time to reload. The second photo shows the same thing. Also obviously I am sure Colt thought about leaving the bottom cylinder open for reloading just like I did on my wooden mockup. If it had worked I'm sure Colt would have kept it. It must not have worked or Colt would have. I suspect Colt's experiments showed him the same things I was afraid of. That on first thought the shield would preclude cylinder front chainfire, but after he experimented he must have found out that the flame still would get through to the other cylinders, and perhaps the flame even be more directed behind the plate sideways into another cylinder front. The only question I have is since they didn't have non metallic heat & explosion resistant materials sufficient to make a shield out of, that could destroy itself in the event it failed so the cylinder wouldn't blow up, and the photos don't show any kind of heat resistant material backing that could be greased on the back of the shields, this makes me wonder if using modern materials if the idea might be able to work nowdays. But I recognize that even using modern materials (Colt didn't have) that the idea still may not work. Just an academic exercise in theory.

The problem ultimately is sealing the barrel to cylinder gap. The Russian Nagant revolver did this very effectively. As the Nagant's cylinder came into alignment with the barrel, the cylinder was forced forward and telescoped over the barrel's forcing cone. The cartridge's projectile was seated below the mouth of the case so that the case itself was force wedged into the forcing cone when the brass case expanded upon firing, creating an effective gas seal which precluded any cylinder to barrel gap flash.

Of course the Nagant came out decades after percussion revolvers became obsolete. But I wonder if the same basic principles of the Nagant could be used in a percussion revolver. Instead of a cartridge case head being wedged into the forcing cone, a projection could be made onto the front of the cylinder that was like that case head. So that when the cylinder came into alignment with the barrel, the cylinder was shoved forward (just like the Nagant) and that projection wedged into the forcing cone. Which could help prevent cylinder front chainfires. Maybe not as well as the brass cases expanding because there would be no malleable brass case expanding in this instance, but better than the normal barrel to cylinder gap. Just a thought. I wonder if any experimenters during the percussion era experimented with that. Do you have any knowledge if anyone did Model P?
 
Last edited:
Pohill wrote:
Colt found out very early on that it's a bad idea to encase the ignition of the cylinders - his first revolvers had shrouds over the nipples which actually caused chainfiring. Then he chamferred or beveled the chamber mouths to direct the gasses/flames/nuclear waste away from the other chambers.
Click to expand...

Yes I did see your post on that Pohill. It was just much easier to visualize and understand it with the pictures Model P provided. Plus the pictures showed not only a shroud over the nipples, but also a shield over the front of the cylinder. But I still owe you a belated thanks for that #6 post as well Pohill. Sorry, I didn't mean to overlook your helpful and informative contribution. There was this ridiculous internet phenomenon I call...."the pile on wolfpack frenzied shark attack because they can"....going on at that time that was diverting my attention from the subject matter of my original post and I neglected to give proper attention to your post #6. So please forgive me if I overlooked and neglected to acknowledge your post. You were after all, the first one to mention Colt doing any kind of shrouding of the cylinders.

I would like to hear more from you about how you were saying that Colt chamferred or beveled the chamber mouths to direct the gases away from the fronts of other chambers. Could you help explain how that chamferring and or beveling was done, and exactly how well it worked?
 
Last edited:
I'm just busting them on ya. I wasn't looking for an apology, just wondering if you read that post.
The chamferring is pretty basic - Colt figured out that deflecting the gasses outward from the chamber mouths would keep those gasses from entering the other chambers.
As far as the "attacks" - keep in mind that anyone who owns a BP revolver is basically a "tabletop gunsmith", and we all have our ideas of how things are done or should be done or were done. When a new guy shows up with some differing opinions, well, we all pee in the corners to mark our territory and snap at him. But that will pass and then we'll settle in with some informative "discussions".
 
I made a mistake on the model type of my Winchester 30-30 rifle I was talking about earlier that I gave to my son. It wasn't a model 1892, it was a model 1894. I went back and posted that correction in my relevant post. I just wanted to set the record straight because I was impolitely called a liar over a simple type of model typing mistake. Also I just discovered that unfortunately, even though you put someone on your ignore list, if you read a thread without first logging in, you still see the posts of those you placed on your ignore list unless you do log in first. I'll have to remember that and always log in before I read so I won't have to be subjected to impolite individual's posts.

I gave the Winchester MODEL 1894 30-30 to my son because I wasn't crazy about its straight upward ejection system dropping the cases back down onto the rifle and several times in shooting it I got spent cases falling in front of my bolt trying to jam the rifle. Not all the time, but often enough that it bothered me and I didn't like the hot cases hitting my hands either. I bought my side ejection Marlin model 1895 in 45-70 which was a great rifle and ejected to the side like I like. But after a few boxes of rounds I got so sick of the mule kicking recoil of the 45-70 coupled with the design of the buttstock of the Marlin, that I traded it for a 1911 pistol. So although I did buy and own Winchester and Marlin lever action rifles in the past, I don't currently own any of them today.

Anyway, it would be nice if some people here could be polite enough to not call someone a liar simply because of a Winchester model type date typing error. It's pretty easy to make a typing mistake and type model 1892 instead of model 1894, especially so because Winchester also made a model 1892.
Hell, I just now caught myself typing 1992 and 1994 in my above sentence and had to change it twice.

Otherwise I guess I could be just like them and scour their posts like a snake in the grass just waiting for them to make an honest mistake or typing error and then pounce and accuse them of "blowing smoke" (accusation of lying) like was done to me. Yeah I could do that, but then I'm not a jerk and that wouldn't be a productive use of my time nor would it be an exercise in fun at this forum. Not the kind of fun I and any normal person considers fun anyway.
 
Last edited:
Belatedly I'd like to add that there is no good reason for the common assumption that having a Dremel at hand is an invitation to shoddy work. I think most gunsmiths have and use a Dremel on occasion. Anyone who would produce cruddy work with a Dremel would produce cruddy work with a Foredom, and frankly I find the Foredom to be far less convenient than a Dremel. The correct uses for a Dremel are almost endless.
I have close to 1/2 million bucks worth of tools in my shop, and still find the Dremel handy at times, in fact, at times it is the correct tool for the job at hand.

As far as rude people goes, yes, there does exist a "piling on" effect in a forum like this, I've seen it many times. If anyone wants to see how bad it can be, start reading the comments under Youtube videos, that's where you will see that a large percentage of people cannot make a point without using disgusting language and saying things about others that certainly don't reflect any understanding of the Golden rule.
 
An interesting discussion, guys!;) One point I would question is that Cimarron and others "cherry pick" their guns from Uberti. I have seen this posted often before but I do not believe it to be true. I have visited the Uberti factory and there was no evidence of any special treatment for the various US importers. I doubt that anyone there had the time to check every gun that came off the line to pick out the "good ones".

Frontier
 
I kind of lost track of the issues of this controversal thread but I like Frontier's Doc Hoy's comments regarding Uberti. Have been to that company twice recently and can confirm it is worth more than one visit when you happen to be in the Milano or Venice area.
Very friendly and helpful people there although they are now part of the Beretta group. Actually Beretta helped a lot to improving their quality standards and investing into state of the art machinery.
If you have a problem with one of their guns no matter if it is a cartridge pistol or muzzle loader tell them. They solve it right there ... on the spot. They will even let you talk to their gun smiths on the production floor. If you happen to be at the factory during the right time of the year you might have the chance to see a few of Uberti's exquisite, selected exhibition guns and also prototypes. They have a museum area there near the conference room where you can have a look at all the guns you always wanted to own and then some.
Let my know if you are in need of Uberti contact information.
Bootsie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top