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

Mykeal,
Keep in mind you are dealing with a Neanderthal here. So, the Remington frame takes all the "hit" (both fore and aft) when the gun is fired whereas in the Colt both the frame (when the cylinder hits rearward) and the arbor threads (when the bullet passes down the barrel, pulling the barrel and arbor forward). Right? (sort of)
 
Mykeal

My thesis omits moments of torque because of two things:

1. They would be difficult to quantify accept to say that their total wants to send the recoil upward as well as backward. I say that because when I fire a pistol the barrel wants to rise a bit.

In the way of amplification, the barrel does not rise appreciably until the ball has left the barrel. The means that the force imparting acceleration to the muzzle of the barrel in the upward direction has not developed the moments of torgue until after essentially all of the acceleration has been imparted to the ball.


2. In the end moments matter little more than the acceleration of recoil because my point is not which direction the forces are directed but the members upon which they act. In a Remington there are two members and in the Colt there is one.

Further, Even if we consider only the moments, the stress imparted to the frame of the Remington would act mostly as a pulling force on the upper member of the frame. And depending upon the pivot point of the revolver when it is held in the shooter's hand and fired, the force on the lower part of the frame could be either push or more likely a bending force. Because of the shape of the grip in a revolver and the fact that our holding the revolver imparts a force which wants to hold it in a constant orientation, I think the pivot point would be below the center of the cylinder but I am not certain of that. I am relatively certain though, that the pivot point of a revolver fired in free space is different from the pivot point of a revolver that is fired while somoeone is holding onto it and trying to point a target.

In a Colt, all of the force is felt as either a pulling force on the arbor or a bending force on the arbor.

As was said, this force is evident on the recoil shield of the Remington or the recoil ring of the Colt. Absent the effect of the bullet in the barrel this force tries to accelerate the revolver rearward and upward at the muzzle. The explosion in the cylinder drives it back against the recoil shield and this act pulls on every part of the revolver which is connected to the recoil shield. So in a Remington that is two frame members, plus the barrel, plus the loading lever. In a Colt it is the arbor, plus the barrel, plus the loading lever.

What is the weight of a Colt barrel and loading lever in comparison with the weight of the Remington barrel and loading lever? (That is a rhetorical question.)
 
Last edited:
At this point, let me withdraw by just saying that one cannot dismiss the effects of moments in calculating (or characterizing) the stresses imparted to the structural members.
 
Well, I just learned something disturbing. I never dreamed that shooting C&B revolvers could wear them out like this. Had no idea.
 
^^^ Yeah and here I have been wanting a Gunnison and Griswold for a shooter! Ummmm maybe not seeing as how they are all brass. But I guess if they wear out they will just be display pieces.
 
You don't have to worry much about steel frames. I have yet to damage a steel frame Colt or Remington. I wouldn't mind having a G&G myself but it wont get used much and only with light loads.
 
You have to really work at it or abuse a brasser to wear it out.
Keep your loads light and you'll be fine.
That being said, for another $50.00-100.00 you can get a steel frame that WON'T wear out.
 
Oh I have a steelie that sees alot of use. I just look at this brass framed '58 Remmie hanging on my mantle everyday, So I want the SHOOSTING to begin at least once :D
 
Back
Top