Loading technique critique requested

SB, I think the hot gases ignite the powder in the adjoining cylinder as heat and fire are drawn to ignitable materials. A perfectly round unshaven ball will enable a impenetrable seal that will not require filling in the empty space of the chamber in order to prevent a chain fire.
Most Italian reproductions have a sharp edge at the entrance of the chamber that cuts into the ball leaving it misshapen. A chamfered cylinder has a tapered outer edge that allows the ball to be pressed in retaining more (preferably all) of its roundness, therefore eliminating the possibility of a chain fire in the front of the cylinder......which is what I would like to achieve.
I have never read or heard of any accounts of the practice of filling in the empty portion of the chambers in the civil war or the Old West, but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
 
Last edited:
There is much in that article I don't agree with, especially using corn meal to reduce fouling (first time I've ever heard that one - his entire treatise on reducing fouling is just plain bizzare!), but on balance I agree with some of his recommendations. I would agree that chamfering is an improvement worth adding to your revolver's chamber mouths for two reasons: swaging the ball to fit the chamber is better than cutting it (although his hyperbole about making the ball undersize is just nuts, unless the chamber is cone shaped) and to a lesser extent the idea about controlling the flame makes some sense.

Reshaping the ball from a sphere to an oblate spheroid by swaging it into the chamber is actually a good thing for accuracy. The spheroid is easier to stabilize by rotating it as the inertia about the axis of rotation is greater than that about the radial axis. The relatively short barrel of a revolver makes this less important but every little bit helps.

And you're right - it's the gas that causes chain fires, not sparks or hot grains of powder. And a hot gas can easily make it through the convoluted path from chamber to chamber from either the front or the back of the cylinder.
 
With a properly chamfered cylinder, the ball seat sealed with crisco and a lubricated ball, is it necessary to fill the empty space of the chamber with crisco or wax? Or would it be overkill? I usually shoot 1 cylinder at a time, clean and reload so fouling is a secondary concern.
 
Last edited:
There is, in my opinion, no need for grease or lube of any sort to prevent a chain fire if you have a properly fitting ball AND properly fitting caps. Period.

Lubrication is, again my opinion, to reduce fouling buildup. It softens the fouling and prevents it from caking. It is well worth using, but it's value in preventing a chain fire is secondary.

And the bit about fouling filling up the rifling in the bore and making the bullet unstable is, well, just stunning.:rolleyes::barf:
 
I guess I keep wanting to hear that the chamber filling is unnecessary if you only shoot 1 cylinder at a time. If it is necessary, I will, of course resume the practice. I would like for my 5th and 6th shot to be pretty much as accurate as possible. I carry my guns loaded,, so I am concerned about leakage in the summer months, so wax as a lubricant would be acceptable for me, but I prefer to look of the cylinder chambers without the lube. If I find the need to show someone the action end of the gun, I want them to see what is about to hit them. No pun or humor intended by that statement.
 
Just personal preference here, but it's never been anything but good for me. I chamfer the chamber mouths, not for Sam Colts reason (but I like that alot), but because those little slivers that get cut off the ball sometimes get caught between the cylinder and the forcing cone. Also, I use a lubed felt wad under my 454 RB to avoid cookin' off the round in the next chamber. I punchout blanks from old felt hats and soak them I warm Bore Butter. I've got a lube recipe using wax, tallow and oil that I want to play with in the future, but even with merely Bore Butter, I've never had the powder contaminate enough to notice a difference in trajectory, or performance and having to not clean my barrel for 75 or more rounds is a nice extra.
 
What tool would be best for punching out your own wads for 44 cal( uberti remmy- doubt it matters..)??
 
Last edited:
so instead of filing the cylinder to chamfer it would it be better to use a 1/2 in drill bit on slow slow speed to make it uniform all the way around?

in my bison all i did was fill completely with powder, compress wad and powder, press in ball, remove ring, cap and fire...
 
Last edited:
I will have to get some hole punches and try making some wads myself. I can't see paying the price of commercial ones.
 
I might try agri supply first since it is local, if not I'll get me some at Harbor Freight. Never used wads. If all you guys do, then I guess I should try them out.
 
It's true than hard fouling can fill the grooves of the rifling in a cap&baller. Seen it many times when the revolver isn't loaded properly or is not cleaned between shots.
If the wax/lube used for lube pills(grease cookies) is made of paraffin wax,bees wax,lube it doesn't cause trouble in the summer heat. If there is a little trouble then a little more paraffin wax in the recipie can solve any softness from heat problems. The pills go under the balls and atop the powder.
There's really no need to chamber chamber mouths. Sam Colt and his explanation for the chamfers makes sense but the chamfers use would be negligible as the benefit would be minimal. Gas expands equally in all directions so the lateral gas ring shooting from the cylinder gap goes other than just laterally anyway. The gas also hits the arbor and bounces into chambers.
Chamfered chambers aren't a "no-no" but their benifit is minimal also. Why? Most people don't realize that a ring is shaved from the balls circumference even with the chamfer or bevel on the opening of the chamber. The ring is not noticed since with a chamfer the ring isn't shaved at the beginning and is pushed into the chamber by the plunger that almost always is a close fit to the chambers walls.
The concave to the end of the plunger isn't there to be pretty or to not flatten the face of the ball but...is there to swag lead of the balls front part "against the chamber walls to seal the chamber". Look inside the chamber when a ball has been pressed in by a loading lever plunger and see it for yourself.
If you want a chamber to truely not shave a ring from the ball ,whether it's seen as it comes off at the beginning of a sharp edged chamber or is shaved off while lower inside while it stays in the chamber and can't be seen as the plunger presses it in under it, the chamfers have to be "multible". The top edge of the chamber that is put lower inside the chamber,and still shaves a ring of lead, by the top edge being chamfered creates another edge. It's just lower in the chamber. That lowered edge created by the first top edge chamfer has to also be chamfered by a different angle chamfer tool that has less angle to it. Then another angle chamfer tool to smooth that new edge is used. The resulting new smaller edges can then be chamfered or smoothed with sandpaper to create a funneled opening to the chamber.
The funneled opening is the only opening to a chamber that doesn't shave a ring of lead from the ball. Lead would still be swagged upwards as the plunger seats the ball but it isn't cut from the balls and remains intact to the ball and is swagged against the chamber walls by the concaves edge that's on the front of the plunger.
A ring shaved from the ball from a lowered chamfered edge is not really intact to the ball and is just pushed out by the ball that still has a shaved edge. You just don't see the shaved ring since it's pushed in under the plungers edge. That's better than having the shaved rings cluttering the cylinders face as you load though. I've always wondered why people think a sharp edge that's lower in the chamber can't shave a ring from the ball when that edge can be just as sharp as the top unchamfered edge of a chamber. I guess because the ring isn't seen since the plunger pushes it in.
Anyway if you don't want a ring shaved from the ball and want the lead to stay intact and all part of the ball then a "funneled" chamber opening is needed.
Of course if you don't mind the little rings of lead cluttering the cylinder face as you load the unchamferd chamber is as efficient as the chamfered chamber. The plunger doing it's job of not only pushing the balls in the chambers but also pushing lead of the ball against the chamber walls.
If the concave isn't the right shape or size to do it's job of poushing lead of the ball against the chamber walls then you have to shape the concave on the front of the plunger to do it's job well. Some cheaper made guns don't have a proper concave on the front of the plunger. Some plungers have the front edge too thin and actually imbed into the lead and pull the balls back out after they have been pushed in the chambers. That is a case for stoning the face of the plunger so the edge is more wide. Also making the edge of the plunger face less sharp with sand paper helps. That can round off the sharp off the edge of the plunger face.
Anyway if your lead balls are the right size they can't be plungered intomthe chambers and made any other shape than the shape of the front ofmthe chamber. If the chamber is out of round then the ball is out of round. Since the chambers are so often tappered in a cap&baller that then shapes the balls when they are pushed into the tapered part of the chamber. Often the very beginning of the chamber is not tapered and the taper starts a little into the chamber.
I guess since when a chamber is chamfered the lead is still pressed into the chamber by the plunger it could help guard against chain fire so that's good. I'd rather use at least the double chamfer to help keep the lead ring of the ball pressed in around the outside edge of the balls with the ring still intact to the ball,so to speak. If I were to want "no lead shaved" off the ball I'd go to the multiple chamfer and then sand paper that to a funneled opening. I guess if a chamfer tool were made that had the right angle to it that that tool could cut or ream or lap a funneled opening to the chamber. That wouldn't be a chamfer though but would be a funneled opening.
Anyway, the tappered chambers the Italian guns have must be there to insure the balls are sealed in the chamber and guard against chain fire. The deeper you put the balls in the chambers the smaller it gets and the fit to the bore is worsened. That must be why they say the balls seated to the top of the chambers are more accurate. Those balls would be larger in diameter than the ones pushed in further.
 
Thanks guys. I desired no lead shaved in order to retain a rounder ball not to enhance appearance. Of course, I don't care to have the ends of the chambers white, but proper technique is much more important. I think I'l probably choose to wmel wax over my balls from now on.
 
From what I've read...bigger balls are better because they have more contact with the rifling, making the pistol more accurate, along with sealing better.

Cream of wheat is used as a filler so there are no airspaces between the powder and ball. Felt wads (lubed or dry) are used as fillers and they scrub the bore. Corn meal is used as a filler and it also scrubs the bore clean. Corn meal compresses, cream of wheat doesn't.
 
crushed glass is just evil... kinda like that old man that shot me in the ass with rock salt when i was 13 for walking in his yard... that reminds me i gotta call grandad...
 
Code: 
kinda like that old man that shot me in the ass with rock salt when i was 13 for walking in his yard...
A man can get in serious trouble for actions such as that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top