I'm gonna shoot this here brasser, safe load?

D

deerslayer303

New member
Alright I wanna shoot this wall hanger (1858 NMA Brasser). I know you can't put a steel frame load in these. What should be a safe load? The owners manual really don't break it down for brass vs steel frames. 20grs real black too much? My measure only goes by 10's. And how much corn meal filler will bring the ball to the right level in the chamber? Sorry if I asked this before but I have forgotten. I think all my years of climbing in Aircraft fuel tanks have burnt up some memory cells :D
 
20 should be good....

...and maybe a little more. Remington brass frames are stronger than Colt (IMO). I am assuming .44.

I don't think filler is needed.
 
Usually they say keep it about 20 or so at the most. I use Wonder Wads, which I seat gently with a wooden dowel.
dc
 
I wouldn't go over 15 in brass and what Doc said about Remingtons being stronger is not right. Sorry Doc. Here's the first sign of a revolver soon to be a paperweight and yes Doc it is a Remington .36

000_0095.jpg
 
Ouch Hawg! How many rounds fired done that? I won't shoot the brasser that much I have never shot it. I didn't really buy it to shoot. But I look at it everyday and I just gotta.
 
20 grains in a 44 ought to last a real long time. What eventually happens is the back of the cylinder dents into the frame and opens up the cylinder gap. I looked at a brasser 44 Remmie at a shoot once that was for sale with a "make offer" tag on it. The gap had to be about .015 and there was a perfect footprint of the back of the cylinder in the frame. I'm not sure how much stretching there was (had to be some) but the indentation of the recoil shield was obvious. Once the gap opens up a bit the cylinder has longer to travel before it slams into the frame so it hits harder and harder each time. I'm guessing the bolt held the cylinder close enough to fire the cap but then the cylinder is knocked forward a bit (closing the gap) but then slides back under recoil. So once the loosening begins it progresses faster.
 
18 rounds and IIRC they were 25 grains. Its been a pretty good while but I know they weren't over 25.
 
Hawg,

I didn't say "immune to stretching", only said "stronger" which I continue to believe.

Not disagreeing here. I think we are saying two different things.

On the other hand...

I am surprised that eighteen rounds at 25 gr did that. So my advice to go over 20 in a .44 should be modified downward.
 
Doc,

Why do you believe that 'Remington brass' is stronger than 'Colt brass'? What is it about the Remington design that changes the metallurgy?
 
The brass is not necessarily stronger....

I wouldn't know that.

I have no scientific proof of my opinion. I have only the musings of one who has a slightly more than casual familiarity with forces and materials.

Here is my logic:

In the case of the Remington, the forces that are applied as the ball travels down the barrel push forward on the barrel with a force that is roughly (and maybe exactly) equal to the force applied to the recoil shield. The force stresses the tensile strength of the frame top and bottom as it tries to stretch the frame. So you have force trying to stretch the brass at the top of the frame over the cylinder and the bottom of the frame just above the trigger. Hawg's photo is clear evidence of the force applied to the recoil shield. (Though I truly did not realize that 25 grains would do that after 18 shots)

In a Colt open top revolver, the only member of the revolver upon which this stress can be exerted is the arbor. And more correctly, the mating between the arbor and the frame. So we have a steel rod that is threaded into a brass hole. And all of the force pulls on that rod.

It is the same or (I think) nearly the same during loading when one loads with the cylinder in the revolver

I imagine, it would not be hard to determine to tensile strength of the cross-sectional area of brass we are taking about and compare it to the sheer strength of the threads in brass.

Machinery's Handbook probably has that data. I have never compared it or researched it. To me it seems intuitively obvious, but there are plenty of things that are obvious to me but are still quite wrong.

I call upon someone to describe the forces in a way that is different from my understanding. I also call upon someone to dispute my opinion about the relative strength of open top and full frame revolvers.

I am not saying I am right. I am saying I think I am right.
 
There is yet another consideration which may be more pertinent...

What we are really talking about is changes in the individual revolvers which in the opinion of the shooter make the revolver less than optimal for one reason or another. These changes would be the result of shooting the revolver with loads that are above what would be prudent. Other things may contribute to the changes as well. This is my own interpretation and others may disagree.

But those changes might include:

Dents in the recoil ring of a Colt revolver as we have all witnessed.
The damage to the recoil shield of a Remington like that in Hawg's photo.
Loose arbors in Colts
Elongation of the top and bottom member of the frame in a Remington. (Never witnessed and perhaps never occurring)

The effects of these changes are both cosmetic and operational. But in the end, the shooter gets to determine what is okay and what is not okay.

I did a little reading on sheer and tensile strength as applied to these revolvers and after the reading and a little cursory calculation, I THINK I have arrived at the conclusion that the frame of a Remington Brass revolver will fail at a pull of about 1.5 times what it takes to make the threads on a Colt arbor to fail. Please understand that I am not citing this as evidence that Remingtons are stronger than Colts in a practical sense because we are not stressing our revolvers in such a way that they fly apart into two pieces because of the loads we use. I am merely stating my supposition that the force vectors are similar.

FURTHER

That calculation is very general and involves many assumptions and therefore could be terribly wrong in either direction.

I can say this: In an engineering treatise I read that it is recommended that the thread engagement length should be at least the same as or longer than the major diameter of the threads. I have four arbors from Colts in my parts box and I can say that none of them have a thread engagement length that is equal to the major diameter of the threads. They are all roughly 75% of the minimum recommended length. This is a function of the geometry of the revolver. Even this fact alone does not make Remington frames stronger than Colt frames.

I just think they are.
 
Last edited:
I think Doc is right too. Not considering the threads and arbors and such, or the properties of the brass in the recoil shields between one run of frames and another, but by the fact that the evolution of the revolver to withstand ever increasing pressures and recoils has favored the top strap design. Probably, but not certainly, because it is a stronger design.
 
In the case of the Remington, the forces that are applied as the ball travels down the barrel push forward on the barrel with a force that is roughly (and maybe exactly) equal to the force applied to the recoil shield. The force stresses the tensile strength of the frame top and bottom as it tries to stretch the frame. So you have force trying to stretch the brass at the top of the frame over the cylinder and the bottom of the frame just above the trigger. Hawg's photo is clear evidence of the force applied to the recoil shield. (Though I truly did not realize that 25 grains would do that after 18 shots)

In a Colt open top revolver, the only member of the revolver upon which this stress can be exerted is the arbor. And more correctly, the mating between the arbor and the frame. So we have a steel rod that is threaded into a brass hole. And all of the force pulls on that rod.
Click to expand...

The only force pushing forward on the barrel, if any, is the friction between the ball and the bore. That is certainly not equal, or even close, to the recoil force exerted on the cylinder. And in both designs that recoil force is fully reacted by the recoil shield; the cylinders in both cases are free to move on their respective arbors, constrained only by the recoil shield at the back.

Your thesis omits any mention of moments, which are certainly significant. The recoil force vector is along the centerline of the fired chamber and the bore; this axis is offset from the arbor and necessarily creates a bending moment in the Colt arbor and frame. It's this bending moment that causes the thread loosening in the Colt design. The frame reacts all the moments in the Remington design.
 
Mykeal,
Sincerely, pardon my ignorance, but I don't know what a "moment" is. You said,
"The frame reacts all the moments in the Remington design." I don't know what you mean by this. My training is medical not physics or mechanical. Could you translate into a language understandible by a neanderthal?
 
A 'moment' is a force that tries to bend the structure to which it applies. When you pull (or push) on a wrench you're actually imposing a bending moment in the wrench. Think of a torque wrench - you pull on it with a force of, say 20 lbs, and the wrench is, for example, a foot long, you're applying a bending moment of 20x12 or 140 inch-lbs to the handle of the wrench, which results in a torque of 140 inch-lbs to the bolt or nut the wrench is attached to.

Another example: walking out on a diving board. If you weigh 100 lbs (well, not you specifically, just an example), when you first stand on the fixed end of the board you're exerting a force of 100 lbs on the board, but no bending moment as you are directly over the fixed end. As you walk out on the board your weight doesn't change, so the force you exert on the board doesn't change, but the board starts to bend. What's happening is that as you move away from that fixed end you are exerting two forces, one being your weight and the other being a bending moment that is the product of your weight times the distance you've walked away from the fixed end. Both forces cause stress in the board and both must be considered in any structural analysis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top