Pietta Pepperbox

I know you folks are fans of the Pietta .36 "Pepperbox" (which it is not as it has no barrels), but I think it is an answer to a question that should never have been asked.

How is it that long cylinder could not be overloaded beyond metal tolerances?

I have eight Pietta Navy .36 "type" pistols and because they are like the Legos of the replica BP revolver world. I have created a few .36 pistols that Pietta does not currently offer, and could easily create and have a market for, and have nearly all parts in stock or could create from their CNC software:

1851 Navy 2nd model

1851 Navy 3rd Model (currently produced)

Griswold and Gunnison (scarce at best)

Leech & Rigdon (steel frame with the smooth cylinder and the part-round barrel from the G&G)

Schneider & Glassick (smooth cylinder and octagonal barrel, brass frame)

Rigdon & Ansley (steel frame, part-round barrel and a 12-stop slot smooth cylinder, which would only take a bit more machining for the stop slots, as opposed to manufacturing the huge cylinder on the "pepperbox")

Augusta Machine Works with the 12-stop slot smooth cylinder

Columbus Firearms Manufacturing Company

If Pietta has almost all of these parts in inventory, why do they not know that there would be a demand for these guns and instead produce Frankenguns with no historical significance?

Your call, folks.

Regards,

Jim
 
Yeah, it looks better with that style grip. Was that simple replacement for the existing grip or a different frame?
Click to expand...

Simple replacement. Swapped the grips and trigger guard off a Pietta 1851 navy yank snubnose. I prefer the snubnose with the standard grip that came on the pepperbox. I knew I was going to make that swap before I ordered the pepperbox.

If Pietta has almost all of these parts in inventory, why do they not know that there would be a demand for these guns and instead produce Frankenguns with no historical significance
Click to expand...

To each his own. I got it as a novelty. Why is it that some people don't understand that other people aren't as interested in historical accuracy, all the time? :rolleyes: ... My bet is that Pietta knows there is just as much a niche market in frankenguns as there is in "somewhat" close to historical guns.
 
Last edited:
It can’t be overloaded with black powder, because as the powder charge increases the barrel length decreases. Velocity with even a 30 grain charge would struggle to achieve 4-500 FPS... with smokeless, as mentioned above, you’re building a hand grenade and anyone who tries such a stunt, let alone posts about it on a public forum is foolish in the best case. All it takes is some knothead kid reading the post and acting upon it and poof, no fingers... I’m not concerned with any Navy Vets trying this, they should be old enough and wise enough to know better and if they aren’t, well, at least he’s lived a full life with all of his digits. He could learn to live the rest of it without them...
 
woodnbow said:
It can’t be overloaded with black powder, because as the powder charge increases the barrel length decreases. Velocity with even a 30 grain charge would struggle to achieve 4-500 FPS... with smokeless, as mentioned above, you’re building a hand grenade and anyone who tries such a stunt, let alone posts about it on a public forum is foolish in the best case. All it takes is some knothead kid reading the post and acting upon it and poof, no fingers... I’m not concerned with any Navy Vets trying this, they should be old enough and wise enough to know better and if they aren’t, well, at least he’s lived a full life with all of his digits. He could learn to live the rest of it without them...
Click to expand...

Whether you are using smokeless or blackpowder, you are in fact a reloader and you should be careful of what you are doing. You wouldn't just put any powder in a modern firearm at any quantity and expect it to work, right? What would happen if you took a 220 gr jacketed bullet and put it on top of a case full of Bullseye in a .30-06? Probably a safe bet that it is not going to end up that well for the firearm. On the other hand, what would happen if you replaced that Bullseye with a .50 BMG or 20mm powder like W872? Unless you duplex the load to account for / simulate the hotter arsenal primer that the .50 BMG uses, you're probably going to get a bit less velocity than a more optimal powder for this caliber. And, if you are using a straight walled case, it's even more difficult for W872 to generate excessive pressures if you are not adding a duplex "kicker" on top of the primer. It burns so slow that you are more likely to just get a bunch of unburnt powder out the barrel. I tried using W872 in a 10mm handgun once to prove this and it didn't even produce enough force to cycle the action enough to eject the brass. The slide came back slightly with the brass still in it and then went back, still holding the brass. Pretty quiet load though. Very little recoil. Very low pressure.

Maybe someone with QuickLoad would be interested in running the numbers for us on these two scenarios?

A blackpowder firearm is no different. It is designed to withstand a certain pressure and whether that pressure is from blackpowder, a blackpowder substitute, or smokeless powder, it doesn't matter. If you exceed that pressure (regardless of what type of powder you are using), bad things might happen to you. If you stay within the design pressure limits, you should be safe. Where people get in trouble with blackpowder is not seating the bullet all the way down on top of the powder. With blackpowder, this allows it to generate more pressure so that you get more of a mini-explosion instead of a controlled burn. With smokeless, you get in trouble by *decreasing* the distance from the powder to the bullet since this increases the pressure and then there is the issue with many smokeless powders having different burn rates at different pressures. Whereas when we are reloading cartridge ammunition, we have a high degree of control over the OAL of the loaded cartridges, we just don't have that sort of level of control over it with a muzzleloader. It's easier to just tell the BP shooter to just ram the ball down the muzzle / cylinder on top of the blackpowder until it won't go any further vs to tell the potential smokeless-in-BP shooter to ram the bullet down until there is a 1" space between the powder and the bullet. Of course, where inexperienced reloaders would get in trouble would be if they made the mistake of using smokeless, but with the same charge weights as was specified for blackpowder.

I'm an engineer and as such, I like to experiment with things and gain knowledge. Blanket statements of things like, "you can NEVER use smokeless in a BP firearm" just makes me want to test it out. I'm pretty sure that 8" of concrete will protect me if my initial hypothesis is incorrect.
 
noelf2 said:
If Howell's would make a cylinder for these in either .32 or .38, rifled, I imagine I'd need one of those. :D
Click to expand...

With no front sight, I'm not so sure a rifled barrel would make much of a difference. To me, this seems like an "up close and personal" type of weapon. Load it with 2 or 3 round balls or wadcutters that were the same length as their diameter and you might have something that could be an effective SD weapon for places that restrict our 2nd Amendment rights. Especially if the cylinder was made from a strong enough steel to accept .357 mag pressures.
 
With no front sight, I'm not so sure a rifled barrel would make much of a difference. To me, this seems like an "up close and personal" type of weapon.
Click to expand...

The rifling wouldn't be for accuracy. It's a belly gun for sure. Rifling would keep it from falling into the NFA category (a smooth barreled pistol).
 
noelf2 said:
The rifling wouldn't be for accuracy. It's a belly gun for sure. Rifling would keep it from falling into the NFA category (a smooth barreled pistol).
Click to expand...

So you are actually wanting a cartridge gun. OK... I see... I would be more interested from an engineering perspective in something that could take magnum level smokeless pressures while at the same time being able to be classified as a replica with respect to the NFA. Something where we could basically thumb our noses at the ATF and their unconstitutional rules. Besides, here in Texas, the areas where we are prohibited from carrying firearms do not apply if you are carrying one of the pre-1890 replicas as long as they do not fire centerfire or rimfire cartridges.

Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 46.01. Definitions said:
(3) “Firearm” means any device designed, made, or adapted to expel a projectile through a barrel by using the energy generated by an explosion or burning substance or any device readily convertible to that use.  Firearm does not include a firearm that may have, as an integral part, a folding knife blade or other characteristics of weapons made illegal by this chapter and that is:

(A) an antique or curio firearm manufactured before 1899;  or

(B) a replica of an antique or curio firearm manufactured before 1899, but only if the replica does not use rim fire or center fire ammunition.
Click to expand...

As much as I would like to have a Texas Walker, I'm not really willing to carry something that large on my belt. :)

This Pepperbox is small enough that I would not mind carrying it when going to places that have a 30.06 or 30.07 sign.
 
From the engineering perspective, you will have to figure out what you will need to use, instead of nipples and caps, to ignite a magnum(ish) charge. There's that pesky little hole in the nipple that will allow hot gasses to backflow. 209 primers perhaps?
 
noelf2 said:
From the engineering perspective, you will have to figure out what you will need to use, instead of nipples and caps, to ignite a magnum(ish) charge. There's that pesky little hole in the nipple that will allow hot gasses to backflow. 209 primers perhaps?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that would probably be a good choice. Considering how difficult it is to put the percussion caps on the cylinder when the cylinder is installed on the gun, I don't foresee it being a good choice if you anticipate needing a quick reload. But, I guess it is small enough that you could carry two (one on each side) if you were concerned with that. Personally, I wouldn't even mind it if you needed to use a tool to be inserted through the muzzle end of the cylinder in order to remove the spent primers.


pietta-pepperbox-01-320w.jpg


pietta-pepperbox-02-320w.jpg


pietta-pepperbox-03-320w.jpg


Not a perfect fit for the holster, but it still feels snug.

And the obligatory cute puppy photo (blame it on my wife).

pietta-pepperbox-04-320w.jpg
 
Last edited:
NavyVet1959 said:
Whether you are using smokeless or blackpowder, you are in fact a reloader and you should be careful of what you are doing. You wouldn't just put any powder in a modern firearm at any quantity and expect it to work, right? What would happen if you took a 220 gr jacketed bullet and put it on top of a case full of Bullseye in a .30-06? Probably a safe bet that it is not going to end up that well for the firearm. On the other hand, what would happen if you replaced that Bullseye with a .50 BMG or 20mm powder like W872? Unless you duplex the load to account for / simulate the hotter arsenal primer that the .50 BMG uses, you're probably going to get a bit less velocity than a more optimal powder for this caliber. And, if you are using a straight walled case, it's even more difficult for W872 to generate excessive pressures if you are not adding a duplex "kicker" on top of the primer. It burns so slow that you are more likely to just get a bunch of unburnt powder out the barrel. I tried using W872 in a 10mm handgun once to prove this and it didn't even produce enough force to cycle the action enough to eject the brass. The slide came back slightly with the brass still in it and then went back, still holding the brass. Pretty quiet load though. Very little recoil. Very low pressure.

Maybe someone with QuickLoad would be interested in running the numbers for us on these two scenarios?

A blackpowder firearm is no different. It is designed to withstand a certain pressure and whether that pressure is from blackpowder, a blackpowder substitute, or smokeless powder, it doesn't matter. If you exceed that pressure (regardless of what type of powder you are using), bad things might happen to you. If you stay within the design pressure limits, you should be safe. Where people get in trouble with blackpowder is not seating the bullet all the way down on top of the powder. With blackpowder, this allows it to generate more pressure so that you get more of a mini-explosion instead of a controlled burn. With smokeless, you get in trouble by *decreasing* the distance from the powder to the bullet since this increases the pressure and then there is the issue with many smokeless powders having different burn rates at different pressures. Whereas when we are reloading cartridge ammunition, we have a high degree of control over the OAL of the loaded cartridges, we just don't have that sort of level of control over it with a muzzleloader. It's easier to just tell the BP shooter to just ram the ball down the muzzle / cylinder on top of the blackpowder until it won't go any further vs to tell the potential smokeless-in-BP shooter to ram the bullet down until there is a 1" space between the powder and the bullet. Of course, where inexperienced reloaders would get in trouble would be if they made the mistake of using smokeless, but with the same charge weights as was specified for blackpowder.

I'm an engineer and as such, I like to experiment with things and gain knowledge. Blanket statements of things like, "you can NEVER use smokeless in a BP firearm" just makes me want to test it out. I'm pretty sure that 8" of concrete will protect me if my initial hypothesis is incorrect.
Click to expand...
Best of luck in all your endeavors then...
 
Initial measurements of cylinder.
Diameter: 1.571"
Chamber depth to edge of wall: 2.405"
Distance from muzzle to base of percussion cap cutout: 2.768"

Test #3:
0.360" round ball, knurled to increase diameter, set 0.78" from muzzle end of chamber
1.0 gr Alliant Promo powder
Very quiet load
No effect on cylinder dimensions
 
Last edited:
I am having difficulty removing the cylinder on the Pepperbox that I bought. Not wanting to mess up the head of the screw, I have not used extreme pressure on it yet. Is it a standard right-hand screw and I need to turn it counterclockwise in order to remove it? Does the hammer or some other part need to be in a certain position or some sort on incantation performed in order to be able to unscrew it? I've looked in the manual that came with mine and it does not even mention anything about the Pepperbox models.
 
44 Dave said:
Just a guess, but should turn opposite of cylinder rotation so anti-clockwise.
Click to expand...
Looking at it from the screw head end, the cylinder rotates counterclockwise.

It's a fairly wide screw head, but the slot is pretty thin. Any screwdriver that I have that fits in the slot is also so narrow that if I put any sort of torque to it, I'll mung up the head of the screw.

pietta-pepperbox-02-320w.jpg


I suspect that I'm going to have to make a custom screwdriver head to fit it. Either by starting with an oversize screwdriver and then making the tip a lot thinner or by making more of a wrench that has a flat blade in it. I'm more inclined to do the latter. Any commercial screwdriver that I've seen that is wide enough to fully engage the slot in the screw head would be close to 18" long. A custom slot headed wrench sounds better...
 
Considering how thin the screw slot is, I wondered if a cartridge with the mouth hammered flat might be the right thickness, so I took one of the steel .300 AAC pieces to see how it might work out for a fit. Turns out that it is basically exactly the right width and thickness after it is hammered flat. Just needed to file the end flat and then grip the extended flat part with a pair of pliers to turn it while holding one finger on the primer end of the cartridge. First attempt was to hold the round body of the cartridge in the pliers, but that just resulted in the flat portion twisting and my needing to flatten it again.

Now, to create a more readily useable tool, I think flattening the entire cartridge and then mounting it inside of a handle with only 1/16"-1/8" sticking out would be about right. I tried laying a 1/16" drill bit inside of the slot on the screw and it was too thick, so the thickness of this "blade" needs to be less than 1/16" -- pretty thin screwdriver needed. It would have been nice if they had made the screw head a little thicker and then put a curved slot that would fit the profile of a quarter.

And yeah, the screw was threaded with normal right hand threads (i.e. clockwise to tighten, counterclockwise to loosen).

pietta-pepperbox-tool-640w.jpg
 
Last edited:
I suspect that I'm going to have to make a custom screwdriver head to fit it.
Click to expand...

Sorry I came into this issue so late. I use a piece of thin metal (like the back of a box cutter blade) gripped in a pair of pliers and turn the screw with that until I can turn it by hand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top