Interesting 1860 on GB

original 1850 Colt patent

what's that under the barrel/frame on the first picture at left, in this 1850 Colt patent ? looks like Sam Colt was doing the same thing, 160 years ago. so how bad can the "hot rod" pistol on GB be ?

but I already know what you fellas are gonna say, Sam Colt, what did he know, a real dummy, wasn't he, I'm suspicious, that drawing sounds a lot like someone else, blah blah, woof woof, nothing he could design or make, could ever match one of your authentic Italian $129 repro brassers, that topstrap would make it stronger but peen the frame, etc., etc., right ?:rolleyes:]

notice the added TOPSTRAP on the Colt pistol, patented by Sam Colt himself.

notice the screws facing rearward, where the dowel pins used to be in the bottom of frame, to hold barrel on

notice the text "and that by the means of connection the barrel is firmly secured"-Sam Colt wasn't too concerned about frame being peened- he was concerned with holding the barrel on the gun, so it could be loaded for bear, and change out the cylinder

attachment.php


attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • Colt topstrap.jpg
    Colt topstrap.jpg
    52.2 KB · Views: 210
  • colt topstrap text.jpg
    colt topstrap text.jpg
    102.5 KB · Views: 209
Last edited:
Here is a question

I understand that the forces released when a revolver discharges are complex and profound. Any logical person would conclude that these forces are the primary contributor to pistol wear and ultimate failure. I agree with that, not because I am smart about the physics but because it just makes sense.

Just for a second can we consider the force required to load a revolver?

I am thinking now only of the arbor on an open top revolver. Isn't it true that the vast majority of the force required to seat the bullet is applied against the arbor in a direction that would pull against the threads and other features which hold the arbor in place?

I don't know how much pressure I routinely apply to the end of the loading lever to get a ball to seat, but depending upon the specific application I would not be surprized to find that it is thirty to forty pounds. Multiply that by the mechanical advantage of the loading lever and the tensile force on the arbor could be 300 pounds..about the weight of a moderate sized engine block.

A couple of you may remember a discussion a couple of months ago in which I described a chain fire event that loosened the arbor on a brass framed .36 Pietta Sheriff's model. I no longer shoot that pistol because I am reluctant to load it for fear of further damaging the arbor. (I keep the pistol because it isn't worth anything to sell and I like the looks of it).

Every mechanical device is designed with the end of its wear cycle in mind. Pistols that are used, wear out. I am not trying to convince anyone that we break our revolvers during the loading process. I am not that smart about it.

But what is the common knowledge on the forces involved in loading the pistol?
 
Loading a bp revolver puts most of the pressure against the recoil shield. The arbor in an open top is not a weak link and is strengthened against what little lateral pressure there is by the barrel assembly.
 
I simply have to comment

Folks,

I have read several references to pistols that were manufactured during the civil war which are still in shootable condition. The logic is that the pistol has withstood the rigors of a long life of hard use.

I don't know that I agree that this is a logical inference.

I am not well informed on the history of military practice during the civil war. Others in the group will, I hope, have some responses.

I think the instances in which a given pistol would be loaded and fired fall into three categories:

1. During battle
2. During specified training exercises
3. At other times determined by the custodian of the weapon (plinking and playing)

Regarding the first category, what percentage of pistols were issued to soldiers who never saw action?

Regarding the second question, how much training was conducted that actually involved firing the weapon? I went three days learning about the .45 before I ever saw a cartridge, but then Navy folks generally need a lot of training on small arms.

Regarding the third category, what restrictions might have impacted a soldier's decision to just go out and do some shooting?

I have about twenty pistols and six of them have never been fired. Some are 35 years old. I am pushing sixty and hope to live another 25 years and I will never part with any of my pistols. (I just keep buying more) So some of these revolvers may never be fired.

My point is this. If you don't consider the deterioration of the metal that comes with the corrosion and aging process, the age of a pistol is less important than the number of rounds that have gone through it. And in many cases, we have no way of knowing how much the pistol was actually used.
 
The age of a pistol is less important than the number of rounds that have gone through it. And in many cases, we have no way of knowing how much the pistol was actually used.
Click to expand...

That's true but there's no way to know how much a particular pistol has been used or abused as the case may be and C&B pistols when they were new were pretty well abused, especially military pistols. During the first year of the C.W. all U.S. troops including infantry were issued pistols. Most of these were either sent home or discarded by the roadside. Cavalry were the ones that used them the most in battle.
 
I think I did not explain myself right

Hawg,

You said, "Loading a bp revolver puts most of the pressure against the recoil shield."

Yes...because the cylinder must bear against the recoil shield as the bullet is forced into it.

But the force that seats the ball is exerted by the loading lever which has only the arbor to pull on. When we are field stripping the pistol, if a barrel is a little stubborn we use the loading lever to pull it off of the arbor. Same as loading the pistol.

Does that make more sense?
 
Yup! I think you and I are in agreement. Doesn't say much for you

Hawg,

You said, That's true but there's no way to know how much a particular pistol has been used or abused". You seem to agree, which is probably not to your credit since I am horribly under-informed as I have said.

My family were hunters and shooters as long as I can remember. I have been around weapons all my life. When I reported to the Navy at 19 and saw the poor condition of the .45s I was appalled. I simpy could not believe that something so important as a firearm, could be mistreated so recklessly.

I am allowing my imagination to run wild here but consider this:

1862 and Private Murphy, age 18, reports for duty attached to an infantry company. Among other things he is issued a revolver.

1862 and Private Murphy is killed in the first moments of battle before he ever gets a chance to fire a shot.

Private Murphy's body is buried in a military cemetary near the battlefield. His personal effects including the pistol are sent home to his mother. She puts his uniform with the hole in the jacket and his belt and hat in a trunk along with the revolver. Ms. Murphy is 46 years old. She dies in 1901 in a bed in the same house that Private Murphy was born in.

Her great nephew inherits the house and belongings including the trunk. He opens it to find the uniform, the belt, the hat and the pistol. The pistol may still be loaded with the first rounds that were ever seated. He is not a "gun person" so to him the pistol is nothing more than a relic. So he stores it away for most of is life.

At what point in the tenure of this pistol does it come into the hands of someone who knows anything about civil war weapons? Knows how to handle it, get the nipples off or to somehow unload the chambers? How badly is it rusted or pitted?

Probably the pistol is still shootable.

I am no historian, but I would be willing to bet that this scenario was repeated quite often. This or other scenarios which resulted in a weapon surviving the war which was not really used that much.
 
Does that make more sense?
Click to expand...
Yes it does but an open top arbor is still not that weak. IMHO you'd have to do some major puttin out on it to damage even a brass frame from loading and I'd think you'd break the loading lever or link pin first.
 
Couple of things wrong with your scenario. Guns would not have been shipped to a dead soldiers home. They would be reissued. Early in the war a soldier would have been buried in his uniform unless he died in a hospital and somebody actually came to claim the body(highly unlikely). Later in the war any usable equipment or clothing would be distributed among the living. Now some privates were issued revolvers at the outset of the war and some of them did ship those guns home. Others simply discarded them to lessen their load along with anything else they were issued and didn't feel like they needed.
 
I agree

Hawg,

Yes...I hope I did not leave you with the impression that I think the arbor is weak or is a weak link. The design, as many have said, has stood the test of time.

My only point was to mention that significant force is applied to the pistol, not only during firing but during loading as well.

As regards the Private Murphy scenario, as I said I am no historian, consequently there are probably a lot more things wrong than you pointed out. I thought about the uniform after I hit the "submit" button and I do agree.

You have to admit, Dear old Mom, examining the hole in the jacket makes for a good story.

My scenario was meant to present my reason for believing that there may be a great percent of originals in existence that did not see a lot of rounds.

My regret is that I am not smart enough about historical fact to back up my belief, nor do I have a good idea of what I think the percent might be.

The most I was hoping for was to have you agree that the scenario is, at least, credible.
 
It's credible if you say he sent the gun home or left it after being on leave. I found an original 58 Remington in an old barn once. Fully loaded and capped. Rusted and pitted pretty bad but once I got it freed up it was a very tight action. Timing was perfect and lockup was rock solid. I don't think that gun saw much use but 100 or so years hanging in a barn really took it's toll.
 
Skiddly wow wow

An original Remington?! Found?!

Yowsa!

Closest I can think of is when a friend bought a 73 Corvette used and found a nickel PPK in a holster behind the driver's seat. Loaded clip and one in the chamber.

How did you unload the Remington?

Tnx,
 
Wood screw and a pair of vice grips after I got the cylinder out. I fired the powder out of a repro, worked fine.
 
58

Had a customer bring a 58 that he had dug from a battlefield (back when that was still legal). I looked it over and I thinks with new springs, screws, a new bolt, trigger and hammer it would be a shooter. He and his family had played with the gun for years and most of the screws were wood screws.
 
Yup!

Hawg,

That is about what I figured. Surprised the powder was still hot.

Hawg and Noz,

Do you have photos?

Tnx,

Barry
 
No photos, but it looked as you would expect a child's "toy" to look. One side was pitted. All parts were present (broken trigger bolt spring) but very rough on the outside. Bore was surprisingly good, all parts moved when they should.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top