Some observations on ASM 1860 Army

D

Doc Hoy

New member
Pistol is an ASM brass frame with the Date Code for 1985. When I got it the pistol was outwardly in like new condition accept that the barrel gap was pretty wide.

This is the pistol that I milled a couple thousandth off the barrel lug to tighten up the gap. That worked very well. Gap is now .004 to .006.

Shot the pistol for the first time today. Got some good groups at 25 yards. About four inches on a steady rest (not a bench rest). I like this pistol. It is one of four ASM pistols I own and I like them all. Two others are a brass and a steel frame Remington, both of which really shoot pretty good.

Anyway, I made an observation on the 1860 that troubles me. The contour of the barrel makes it a bit finnicky to load. The barrel was manufactured in such a way that the area of the barrel above the lug but below the breach, just under and behind the arbor hole, sticks out and interferes with the movement of the cylinder because it contacts the ball that the shooter is about to load.

Specifically, with the muzzle up, looking at the right side of the pistol, if I put the ball onto the chamber (of course it rests on top of the chamber awaiting the rotation of the cylinder until the chamber is under the loading lever) I can't move the cylinder without knocking the ball out of the chamber.

The only fix for this appears to be to knock off the corner of the barrel which I absolutley will not do. The finish on this pistol is very good and I simply won't take a file to it. The work around is to load the ball into the chamber only after the chamber is more or less in line with the plunger. This is fine unless the bullet accidently falls in place with the sprew in the wrong position. This happened often enough this morning that I am whining about it in this thread.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

Tnx,
 
Not the precise problem

Naw Hawg, the problem is not the sprew.

I initially thought that I might try using a smaller ball. The pistol is a .44 and I was using .454s (smallest ones I have and as it turns out the only ones I had along.). Generally the balls in that bin run as small as .453. or as large as .456. But in this case, the interference appears to be enough to prevent even a .451 from passing the barrel. The balls I used produce a nice lead ring when going into the cylinder. Maybe the .451s will work. I'll try that next.

Tnx,
 
The work around is to load the ball into the chamber only after the chamber is more or less in line with the plunger. This is fine unless the bullet accidently falls in place with the sprew in the wrong position. This happened often enough this morning that I am whining about it in this thread.
Click to expand...

Swaged balls will work in the work around then, no?
 
Yup

Yes.

I guess I didn't understand your recommendation.

Swagged balls will work and when I use a swagged ball, I don't need to worry where the sprew is. (No sprew.)

I got it now.
 
If you have reloading equipment you can take the chamfer device that chamfers the inside and outside of your cartridges and rotate it once or twice in the mouth of the chamber. This creates a slight chamfer in the mouth of the chamber and allows the ball to seat a little deeper. Before anyone runs screaming it should be noted that a lot of the Colts made in the 1850s and 60s had chamfered chambers.
 
Yup

I have a coupla replicas with a chamfered opening on the chambers. I am going to see how I do with .451s before I change anything on the pistol.

Tnx,
 
Noz's idea is an excellent one. I highly recommend you proceed with it. Chamfered chamber mouths are not uncommon on original guns (done aftermarket, of course). It's one improvement that has no down side.
 
The verdict is in.

Mykeal and NOZ,

Got it. I think I have a ream that will do the trick. I am going to try it on a junk cylinder. (The one from the FIE Navy I am working on.) I think I will make a jig to hold the work piece from the plastic stuff I was telling y'all
about.

Just as a point of curiosity, has anyone else seen this situation? I am talking about the contour of the barrel. I have four other 1860s and none act this way. To me, it seems unlikely that the barrel would be designed with this interference. (BTW: I tried a .451 ball and it still will not pass the barrel.) It is possible that a step was inadvertently skipped in the manufacturing process.

Tnx,
 
Jig for holding cylinder

Here's an idea for a simple, cheap jig to hold the cylinder while reaming the chamber mouths:

Remove the nipples and place dowels in two nipple holes opposite each other. Turn the cylinder over so the chamber mouths are up. Place the ends of the dowels that stick out of the back of the cylinder in a vise and tighten it down. You'll have the cylinder held upright and constrained from turning.

I have 3 1860 Army revolvers, one Pietta, one Euroarms and one Belgian FAUL; none exhibit the characteristic you describe.

741.jpg


1639.jpg


431.jpg
 
Last edited:
I had an 1860 some time ago (many,many moons) that had the same problem. IIRC it was a CVA (made by ASM??). You had to force the ball past the offending edge of the barrel to get it to start in the chamber. I finally got a file out and contoured the edge of the barrel to eliminate the protrusion. Since there was a line between the flat side of the barrel & the area I filed, it wasn't as noticeable when cold blued.

Also had the same situation with a CVA 62 pocket navy (also an ASM Made??)

FM
 
Yup!

Fingers,

Your plan was my only option that involved work on the pistol until NOZ suggested the chamfer on the chamber trick.

I had originally thought I'd use a reamer but I was poking around in my shop last night and found a box of die caster's burrs my Granddad left me. One is a half inch round stone. I did not try the fit but I think it may work.

That'd be three ASMs w/ the same problem (and I am reluctant to call it a problem) and one in a different caliber. Sounds like a design issue.

It has always been my assumption that the loading sequence involves placing the ball in the chamber BEFORE advancing the cylinder from the four o'clock to the six o'clock position. I still think that is the right way to do it.

Tnx,
 
Last edited:
It has always been my assumption that the loading sequence involves placing the ball in the chamber BEFORE advancing the cylinder from the four o'clock to the six o'clock position. I still think that is the right way to do it.
Click to expand...

Doc, that's the way I have always loaded my revolvers. I checked my 1860's, two Colts, a Centaure and a Uberti, they all are very close to hitting the frame like your revolver. In fact if I have the spure directed toward the frame it well hit it and knock the ball out of the chamber. So there is only a .010+/- clearance their.

I would file the frame for clearance myself. Chamfering the chambers well lower the ball, but not much.
Use a tool like these. You can use your mill or a wood handle.

Anyone know what angle most chamfers on chambers is done at? 90, 82 or 78 are the common tool bit angles.

Another question, with the chamfer you are not going to shave a ring, but swag to ball into the chamber. How much more stress does this put on the loading lever, particularly the creeping type on the 1860 & 61's?
 
The chamfer is very slight but lowers the ball a significant amount. The chambers on my Armys still cut a ring so the chamfer is not enough to cause the ball to swage.
 
It has always been my assumption that the loading sequence involves placing the ball in the chamber BEFORE advancing the cylinder from the four o'clock to the six o'clock position. I still think that is the right way to do it.
Click to expand...

That's the way I do it on all my shooters, .36s and .44s.

Ya know, I got to thinkin about which of my pistols I had to fix, so I went and checked all of them. It may not have been a CVA/ASM 1860 that I filed the barrel on so the ball would clear - I don't have the gun anymore to check. But, I did have to file/contour the barrel on a 1994 vintage Pietta Lawman model (Half fluted cylinder, Faux ivory grips). I also have a matching 1991 vintage Lawman that did not need the barrel filed for ball clearance.

I checked all my shooters, and none of my 10 .36 cal 51 & 61 Navies; neither of the pair of .44 Cal 51 Navies; only one of the five 1860 Armies; and one 1862 Pocket Police has/had a clearance problem

I don't think it's a design issue as much as it's a QC issue with individual pieces.
 
Okay. I am not crazy. Well at least not this time

Folks,

When I saw that the bullet would not go past the barrel I made the same comment that Danny Glover made in "Silverado." "That ain't right!".

For Fingers,

Yup. I'll buy QC. Doesn't sem like they could purposely design a pistol to act this way.


For MCB,

The angle is supposed to be 35.8 degrees. Just kidding, I don't have a clue but I am thinking it should be a fairly large angle, somewhere between 30 and 45 degrees. I will check my others to see what it is. (Or maybe somebody knows). I acknowledge that NOZ said it is "very slight" and I don't know enough to even try to contradict that. It just seems that I might want to leave as much of the interior surface of the chamber untouched.

Also to Fingers,

You listed eighteen pistols and of those, two had this feature (I am still not calling it a flaw). I have fifteen and only one is this way. I built a total of nine kits back in the early seventies and none of them had the issue (but probably three were Remingtons and one of them I never loaded). Anyway, with a low confidence we might say that somewhere approaching 6 or 7 percent of pistols we have encountered have the issue. (Very unscientific, I admit.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top