Revolvers that load through a channel - weakness?

OK guys you all have some interesting stuff, but I would like to know if there has been any frame failures in side-loading SAA type guns due to the recoil shield channel and if this feature weakens the frame in any way.

Interesting fat about the .38 Long Colt. Really interesting. I never played around with .36/.38s so I had no idea that these two were literally twins.
 
Rachen, I think that the general consensus is "no".

If you look at the direction and location of the force from the recoil, you'll see that it is back against the center part of the recoil shield. Now, the outer part of the recoil shield certainly adds some beef to the frame, but almost all of the force is exerted against the middle of the frame. I don't have any insight into the minds of Samuel Colt, et al, but it seems to me that the primary purpose of the "wings" of the recoil shield is to keep the loaded rounds from exiting the rear of the cylinder.
 
The only frame failures in a SAA that I have ever read/heard about were from over/under loaded hand loads. I saw pics, years ago of a 1st gen Colt SAA that was fired with an underloaded .45 round. Blew the cylinder apart, and the frame let go at the rear of the top strap at the top of the recoil sheild, not the loading channel. These failures were caused by bad ammo, not a weakness in the gun. I believe your fears are unfounded.
 
The only frame failures in a SAA that I have ever read/heard about were from over/under loaded hand loads. I saw pics, years ago of a 1st gen Colt SAA that was fired with an underloaded .45 round. Blew the cylinder apart, and the frame let go at the rear of the top strap at the top of the recoil sheild, not the loading channel. These failures were caused by bad ammo, not a weakness in the gun. I believe your fears are unfounded.
Click to expand...

Underloaded? Was it an airspace in the case? How could an underloaded case cause such a catastrophic failure?
 
Regarding the 38 Colt v 38Spc. The 38 Colt uses a heeled bullet and the driving band is .375 which is correct for the barrel of the reproduction guns. The 38Spc bullet is .357 diameter and won't give any accuracy out of a .375 barrel unless you use hollow base wadcutters that will expand into the rifling or line the barrel to .357.
 
Rachen, I think that the general consensus is "no".

If you look at the direction and location of the force from the recoil, you'll see that it is back against the center part of the recoil shield. Now, the outer part of the recoil shield certainly adds some beef to the frame, but almost all of the force is exerted against the middle of the frame. I don't have any insight into the minds of Samuel Colt, et al, but it seems to me that the primary purpose of the "wings" of the recoil shield is to keep the loaded rounds from exiting the rear of the cylinder.
Click to expand...

In the earlier percussion revolvers, it may be to prevent a possible chainfire from blowing the cap off of the nipple and spraying the operator with hot gas from the ignition channel.
 
In the earlier percussion revolvers, it may be to prevent a possible chainfire from blowing the cap off of the nipple and spraying the operator with hot gas from the ignition channel.
Click to expand...

That seems pretty reasonable, too.
 
How could an underloaded case cause such a catastrophic failure
Click to expand...
I really wish I could recall. It was an article in a gun mag (I believe it was G&A?) back in the early 90s. I remember that it was an UNDER loaded round, and said that the powder detonated instead of ignited because of being under loaded. Could've been an air pocket. I'm sure the fellows that reload can answer that.
 
I really wish I could recall. It was an article in a gun mag (I believe it was G&A?) back in the early 90s. I remember that it was an UNDER loaded round, and said that the powder detonated instead of ignited because of being under loaded. Could've been an air pocket. I'm sure the fellows that reload can answer that.
Click to expand...

Detonated = Burned all at once:eek: WOW

Solid particulates can detonate when they are evenly suspended in air, but inside a cartridge casing is what is really disturbing here. Maybe it was bad powder, I mean really bad powder that has been exposed to some chemical or heat, causing polymerization which transformed the powder into a plastic explosive-like material. Damn, someone oughtta run some experiments in a lab with this.

Another reason why I don't play with smokeless. Black powder only and full capacity only. (With .45 Schofield, there is no reason to underload with BP anyway) Maybe smokeless is indeed a passing fad:)
 
Rachen said:
I was going to channel the right recoil shield of my 1858 to accept the Kirst .45LC cylinder, but I think I am going to stick with the ungated cylinder so the gun can last through years of work and attain heirloom status (even though I am going to be using .45 Schofields for target and defense loads)
Click to expand...

If the ungated Kirst is anything like the R&D cylinders, then the individual firing pins are the weakest links that would be much more prone to prematurely breaking and needing replacement.
I don't know if they weaken before they suddenly fail or not which could lead to a misfire, but it would seem that it could be a cause for concern if using the gun for self defense and/or desiring the utmost in reliability. More so than any perceived frame weakness would ever matter anyway. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top