Fingers McGee
New member
Where's the dead horse smiley when you need it
Had a chain fire today
- Thread starter the rifleer
- Start date
Where's the dead horse smiley when you need it
I am curious on how you can say” Clearly visible. Nothing on top of them.” With a photo that is so poor. I could also say the opposite from the photo since the chamber closest to the top of the photo is not perfectly round and has an oblong shape to what’s in it proves that there is grease.
Also the paper cartridges from what I heard were covered in a light coating of wax to keep moisture out.
And the photo that you call typical CW cartridge looks to me to be a Burnsides cartridge which was again sealed in wax and only a single shooter which they also made with brass cartridges. I know this since I have a Burnsides and several of the brass cartridges.
Arguing on who is right and wrong it not the point. If you shoot without any type of grease or patch thats your decision. But to tell new shooters that have been having chain fires that it’s not needed again in my humble opinion and the black powder group that I have been shooting with for the past 30 years will say that it’s dangerous.
Also the paper cartridges from what I heard were covered in a light coating of wax to keep moisture out.
And the photo that you call typical CW cartridge looks to me to be a Burnsides cartridge which was again sealed in wax and only a single shooter which they also made with brass cartridges. I know this since I have a Burnsides and several of the brass cartridges.
Arguing on who is right and wrong it not the point. If you shoot without any type of grease or patch thats your decision. But to tell new shooters that have been having chain fires that it’s not needed again in my humble opinion and the black powder group that I have been shooting with for the past 30 years will say that it’s dangerous.
Last edited:
To Grease or Not to Grease???
The Colt combustible cartidges came with grease grooves BECAUSE a lube was in the grooves!
IF you shoot your replica percussion revolver WITHOUT ANY LUBE you are going to get a LEADED BARREL. It is that simple.
IF you don't believe me, shoot your replica with naked lead bullets and then look at your bore.
The Colt combustible cartidges came with grease grooves BECAUSE a lube was in the grooves!
IF you shoot your replica percussion revolver WITHOUT ANY LUBE you are going to get a LEADED BARREL. It is that simple.
IF you don't believe me, shoot your replica with naked lead bullets and then look at your bore.
We do not have a time machine to go back there. All letters posted by my ancestors from the civil war never spoke of their firearms. I did see on an earlier post about HOW did those guys care and fix their guns. What I do know is that there were gunsmiths on every corner. They were as popular as blacksmiths etc. All general stores sold guns like they sold bags of sugar. No FFL etc! There is no mention that I know of in the history of that era of talks about chain fires. Or how they talked about how to prevent them. And too; no mention of any problems of these! Maybe(Period info and advise from old letters/ manuals/ etc.) 150+/- years ago about fixing/caring/ problems for percussion revolvers might be enlightening and fascinating. As I said before--never owning one, I bought an old brass gun made in Augusta Ga supposedly during the war. I think it was Gunnison. it chain fired and came out of my hand. Um I think it did. I thought the gun was broke until someone from the country of S/E Georgia told me to grease it. Anyway, maybe the balls were too small. I don't know. I haven't had a chain fire since. A round ring of lead after loading should prevent it. NOW ---caps are the problem with most new shooters. The possible shop told me that Amco caps will solve 97% of problems of caps falling off or misfiring. Chain fires can come from nipples too. I ordered some for a 58 44--hadn't come yet but anxious to see how they do..
WBH
WBH
.....And I could say the moon is made out of cheese. That doesn't mean I'm right. Your eyes must be worse than mine, buddy. You seriously can't tell, of the three chambers shown, that the top and bottom chambers are loaded with conical bullets (note the points of the bullet tips) and the middle chamber has a round ball in it? Looks pretty clear to me. Also, you're only seeing half of the top chamber. The 1863 NM Remington he is holding, (I have three, two replicas and one original) has the hammer in the safety notch (between the caps) of the cylinder. Kind of explains why it's not "perfectly round" don't it?
Apparently you don't know what a combustable revolver cartridge looks like. By all means, look it up for yourself. Also I am well aware of what a Burnside carbine is. I have studied the ACW for over twenty years. I was even a reenactor, many years ago.
Yeah, I mentioned that. The point of contention was grease over the ball, or lubed wads under the ball.
Not in sixteen years I haven't.
I never said I didn't lube the bullets/balls, just that I do not use grease or lube over/under the projectile. Pay attention.
Never said they couldn't.
Look at old, original cased revolvers. They have a place for the revolver, balls/bullets, cap tin, powder flask, ball mould, oil bottle and maybe a cleaning rod. Everything you need to load and shoot your gun. Usually when you see these guns, the cases contain all the accessories. Ever notice there isn't a space for grease?
http://colt-revolvers.com/list.htm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ctarchives/4522702309/
Just do a google search for cased percussion revolvers.
You all can argue that if you don't use grease, the gun will chain fire, or will lead your barrel, or damage the rain forrest, or whatever else you can think of. The fact is, not everyone used/uses grease over/under the ball. Also, I don't recall ever telling anybody not to use grease or anything else. I said,
and
Some of you folks are the ones that got a bit incredulous that someone doesn't do as the "gun experts" say. I don't give two squirts how you or your black powder group that you've been shooting with for the past 30 years or anyone else loads their gun. I know what works, and has worked for me for almost twenty years, and that's all that matters. I just gave my $0.02, same as everyone else. If that bothers you, I'll sit down and have myself a good cry over it, I assure you.
P.S. Mark Twain wrote about witnessing a pepperbox revolver chain firing. In fact, pepperboxes were known for that. I have also read accounts from CW soldiers about loading revolvers, and rifles, and about chain fires. They wrote about just about everything.
Last edited:
Whether anyone greased over the bullets or balls is probably not going to be determined with any certainty from the records. Grease in the bullet groove of the combustible cartridges was probably enough for what the guns were used for. We need to think of the mind set of the 1840s-60s era. The revolving pistols were SIX SHOOTERS! A huge improvement over the single shots only recently abandoned. If one ever needed more than 6 shots they either carried a big fighting knife (e.g. Bowie) or another loaded revolver. The idea of shooting a C&B revolver more than 6 shots was never a consideration to the designers until after cartridges were developed. They were basically shot dry, holstered, and a different weapon was used. After the fray they were cleaned and reloaded for another 6 rounds at the next incident. There were no powder bushings on the cylinders to stop fouling because, geeze, who needs to shoot it more than 6 times in a row? Maybe the Rogers & Spencer revolvers had a bushing to handle the fouling but nothing from the Patterson & Walker on up did until after the Civil War was over. So, lubrication was not really needed if you were only going to shoot it 6 times anyway. That was not enough to badly foul the gun or lead up the barrel. Going 30 rounds in a row for a CAS match is an application that was never imagined.
Actually, I have read extensively about Mosby's rangers in the ACW. There are more than a few accounts of reloading revolvers in combat. Even in the Mexican war, I have read about Texas rangers reloading their revolvers in a fight. In one account, "Jack" Hay's men reloaded their Walkers and Patersons on the run, on horseback, after emptying them into an overwhelming group of Mexican lancers that surprised them near Izucar de Matamoros. After reloading, the rangers then turned, charged the lancers and emptied them again, before repeating the scene a few more times. So it was done. Probably more often than you or I will ever know.
I seriously doubt, that in any of the above mentioned fights, that any of the participants, took the time to put a wad under, or a nice little dab of grease on top of the balls. Nowadays, BP shooting is a game, a hobby, a sport. Everything revolves around safety. Use grease over the balls, only load five in your six shooter. This is the way a lot of modern folks learn about BP shooting. The most dangerous thing most of us will ever shoot at are steel targets. Our lives will probably never depend on a C&B revolver. In the 1840s-50s-60s-70s, things were altogether different. Their C&B revolvers, often literally, meant life or death. So, as I said before, I will do as I have learned from the oldtimers, the folks that had to fire their guns at other flesh and blood human beings that were shooting back, through their first hand writings and other sources, not from "gun experts" that have been "cowboy shootin" at steel or paper targets for 30 years. You all will do as you wish. I never understood why some folks get so worked up about other people's opinions/way of doing things. Anyway, this has gotten way off subject, so I'm done.
Then why did companies bother to manufacture packaged, combustable cartridges at all? If you didn't have to reload in a hurry, wouldn't loose powder and ball be good enough? At the battle of Walker creek, in June 1844, the first time Texas rangers used the Paterson revolver in a large engagement, "Jack" Hays, as well as other participants of the fight, wrote of reloading those Patersons during that encounter with Comanches. The fight lasted for over an hour, and "tumbled over two miles". In the Mexican war (1846-1848), the very first war that revolvers were used in, there are accounts of Texas rangers having to reload under fire. I gave one example above. Others are, Monterey, San Juan Teotihuacan, and Zacualtipan, not to mention countless fights with Mexican guerrillas. That's probably why combustable revolver cartridges have been around since at least the late 1840s or early 1850s. You are right, that it was easier to just pull another loaded revolver in a fight. That's what the Missouri guerrillas/bushwhackers did during the ACW. But, regular cavalrymen, and average civilians, either weren't allowed by regulations, or couldn't afford to buy six, or eight revolvers like Quantrill, or "Bloody" Bill Anderson carried. Hence, the pre packaged, paper/skin/foil cartridges.
How long do you think Mexican war, or Civil war battles lasted? Do you think that after the rangers, or cavalry emptied their guns, they just went home? What about battles in wars, and fights with indians that lasted for hours? Did everyone empty their guns in the first few seconds and then scream insults at each other? Bushings don't matter much, as long as the cylinder axle pin is greased, or even oiled. Ever wonder why the axle pin on a Colt C&B revolver had those grooves cut in it? Now you know. And, they could always give the cylinder face a wipe when needed. These guns were weapons, not wall hangers. They were meant to be used in long drawn out battles. Battles don't just last five or ten minutes.
I seriously doubt, that in any of the above mentioned fights, that any of the participants, took the time to put a wad under, or a nice little dab of grease on top of the balls. Nowadays, BP shooting is a game, a hobby, a sport. Everything revolves around safety. Use grease over the balls, only load five in your six shooter. This is the way a lot of modern folks learn about BP shooting. The most dangerous thing most of us will ever shoot at are steel targets. Our lives will probably never depend on a C&B revolver. In the 1840s-50s-60s-70s, things were altogether different. Their C&B revolvers, often literally, meant life or death. So, as I said before, I will do as I have learned from the oldtimers, the folks that had to fire their guns at other flesh and blood human beings that were shooting back, through their first hand writings and other sources, not from "gun experts" that have been "cowboy shootin" at steel or paper targets for 30 years. You all will do as you wish. I never understood why some folks get so worked up about other people's opinions/way of doing things. Anyway, this has gotten way off subject, so I'm done.
Last edited:
Hhmmm....Good for you MJN77; I was talking with my spouse earlier in the evening & discussing the "traditional" blackpowder shooters' penchant for using reduced loads, in conjunction with traditional cream of wheat filler, patches, and traditional Crisco as a part of their traditional loading procedures. []
I've seen copies of mid-19th century loading instructions...can't remember seeing anything recommended other that powder, ball, & caps. Folks re-loaded during battles....I'm pretty sure they didn't waste cylinder space with filler & wads between powder & ball, and equally certain they didn't mess with lard or axle grease during the heat of a battle.--Patrice
]I've seen copies of mid-19th century loading instructions...can't remember seeing anything recommended other that powder, ball, & caps. Folks re-loaded during battles....I'm pretty sure they didn't waste cylinder space with filler & wads between powder & ball, and equally certain they didn't mess with lard or axle grease during the heat of a battle.--Patrice
Last edited:
MJN77,
Obviously I am not a student of the Texas Rangers/Mexican war. Thanks for educating me on those incidents. It is my understanding (although on more shakey ground) that the revolver was considered a cavalry weapon but the sword was considered the primary arm i.e. shoot the gun dry, then draw the sword for the rest of the battle, reload during a lull.
Obviously I am not a student of the Texas Rangers/Mexican war. Thanks for educating me on those incidents. It is my understanding (although on more shakey ground) that the revolver was considered a cavalry weapon but the sword was considered the primary arm i.e. shoot the gun dry, then draw the sword for the rest of the battle, reload during a lull.
Patrice,
I agree 100%. Not a lot of folks these days really know what the word traditional means Doing things the way you want to is fine. But to argue that it must've been done this way 150 years ago because that's how you learned it 25 or 30 years ago is just naive. Where is your historical evidence? I don't care how "experts" load thier guns, and it isn't any of their business how I load mine.
Correct, mostly. The sabre, in theory, would've been employed before the revolver. The U.S. military, even after the civil war, considered the sabre to be the primary sidearm of the cavalryman, and the revolver as a secondary weapon. In the army, just like today, handguns weren't really fired much. The great cavalry charges, where hundreds or thousands of men on horses rushed headlong at their enemies, guns a blazin' were few and far between. They did happen, but not often. Most of the fighting was done dismounted with carbines. Some union cavalry regiments weren't even issued revolvers. Also, one union officer, Major Leonidas Scranton of the 2nd Michigan cavalry, wrote "Pistols are useless. I have known regiments that have been in the field over two years that have never used their pistols in action. At a charge, the sabre is the weapon."
You see, the main users of revolvers in the battles of the nineteenth century weren't the regular military, it was the irregular soldiers. The Texans in the Mexican war, the partisan rangers in Virginia in the civil war, like the men under Col. John S. Mosby, or the "bushwhakers" of Missouri, like "Bloody" Bill Anderson, and William Quantrill, who didn't even carry sabres. Even the confederate cavalry largly discarded their sabres in favor of another revolver. Confederate General John Hunt Morgan's men, threw away their sabres, and replaced them with sawed off shotguns. The tactics of the partisan/bushwhacker, was to suddenly ambush a group of enemy soldiers on the road, rushing suddenly into the enemy flank shooting their revolvers at close range as fast as possible. In that way, they were able to beat groups of soldiers 2 or 3 times their own size. Sometimes, weather their attack worked or failed, a running gun battle developed. Sometimes these running fights would last for many miles. Like I said, it wasn't the cavalry that really used the revolver to it's full potential. The military never was great about embracing the newest technology, but everyday people were. But as far as reloading, even the military had a cartridge box specifically for revolver cartridges.
http://www.cowanauctions.com/auctions/past-item.aspx?ItemId=90346
I agree 100%. Not a lot of folks these days really know what the word traditional means
Doing things the way you want to is fine. But to argue that it must've been done this way 150 years ago because that's how you learned it 25 or 30 years ago is just naive. Where is your historical evidence? I don't care how "experts" load thier guns, and it isn't any of their business how I load mine.Correct, mostly. The sabre, in theory, would've been employed before the revolver. The U.S. military, even after the civil war, considered the sabre to be the primary sidearm of the cavalryman, and the revolver as a secondary weapon. In the army, just like today, handguns weren't really fired much. The great cavalry charges, where hundreds or thousands of men on horses rushed headlong at their enemies, guns a blazin' were few and far between. They did happen, but not often. Most of the fighting was done dismounted with carbines. Some union cavalry regiments weren't even issued revolvers. Also, one union officer, Major Leonidas Scranton of the 2nd Michigan cavalry, wrote "Pistols are useless. I have known regiments that have been in the field over two years that have never used their pistols in action. At a charge, the sabre is the weapon."
You see, the main users of revolvers in the battles of the nineteenth century weren't the regular military, it was the irregular soldiers. The Texans in the Mexican war, the partisan rangers in Virginia in the civil war, like the men under Col. John S. Mosby, or the "bushwhakers" of Missouri, like "Bloody" Bill Anderson, and William Quantrill, who didn't even carry sabres. Even the confederate cavalry largly discarded their sabres in favor of another revolver. Confederate General John Hunt Morgan's men, threw away their sabres, and replaced them with sawed off shotguns. The tactics of the partisan/bushwhacker, was to suddenly ambush a group of enemy soldiers on the road, rushing suddenly into the enemy flank shooting their revolvers at close range as fast as possible. In that way, they were able to beat groups of soldiers 2 or 3 times their own size. Sometimes, weather their attack worked or failed, a running gun battle developed. Sometimes these running fights would last for many miles. Like I said, it wasn't the cavalry that really used the revolver to it's full potential. The military never was great about embracing the newest technology, but everyday people were. But as far as reloading, even the military had a cartridge box specifically for revolver cartridges.
http://www.cowanauctions.com/auctions/past-item.aspx?ItemId=90346
Last edited: