Author Topic: I am trying  (Read 182 times)

Offline Bunk Stagnerg

  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 554
I am trying
« on: June 12, 2019, 12:09:06 pm »
I am trying to think (ouch) of something so controversial  or so irritating that it will get some conversations going.
But other than saying Pyrodex sux (and it does) or the Colt Open Top revolver is a superior design to the Remington closed top (and they are) I am bereft of an idea.
Really guys the forum is dead. Is it the weather or is everyone tied up by the "W" word (work)?
Coffinmaker, Professor Marvel, somebody, any body, please help me out here.
Yr' (trouble making) Obt' Svt'
Bunk

Offline Coffinmaker

  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 5194
Re: I am trying
« Reply #1 on: June 13, 2019, 10:48:23 am »

Well ..... OK .....  ::)

Offline 45 Dragoon

  • Very Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 87
Re: I am trying
« Reply #2 on: June 13, 2019, 05:01:03 pm »
I agree Bunk, the arbor system is superior (if you're talking strength), top straps are easier/cheaper to produce though. As best as I remember,  pyrodex was kinda  sucky but I was shooting trip7 when I .  .  .  bowed out .  .  . 
 When I was gonna "bow" back in, is when I had to go ca'tridge (which was the genesis of what I do now!!)
  Maybe folks could list the things they would like to see in the "Ultimate"  open top (cap or cart.) or Remington pattern revolver (cap or cart.)?.
 
 As of now, for open tops you can get a : cap post, bolt block, an action stop, action shield, flat springs converted to coil/coil torsion,  hardened screws and of course arbor correction/adjustment.
 Same with the Remington pattern (except the cap post and arbor correction).

Things that may be coming:
 - High power nipples (more power for the hunter, more shots per lb. for the cowboy shooter)
 - ROA gated conversion (capable of shooting "Ruger only" loads)
 - Wedge-less Dragoon for the hunter/target shooter in cap form and cartridge form (safe with Ruger onlys too)

    Just some thoughts .  .  .  . well some are further along than thought .  .  .  . 

Mike
   
www.goonsgunworks.com
Follow me on Instagram @goonsgunworks

Offline greenjoytj

  • Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: I am trying
« Reply #3 on: June 13, 2019, 05:59:24 pm »
I was thinking the the old style button pocket balloon head cases base had an advantage.
That is because the primer flash hole is above the base in a tower with powder lying below the flash hole.
This system reminds me of artillery shells that have a tube that transmits the primary flash up to near the base of the projectile, forcing the powder to burn backward towards the shell base.
That system is supposed increase muzzle velocity by making the powder burn more efficiently.
I say the old ballon head cases like those used in the 45 Colt may have received boost in velocity due to this design.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2019, 06:02:54 pm by greenjoytj »

Offline Bunk Stagnerg

  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 554
Re: I am trying
« Reply #4 on: June 13, 2019, 07:21:19 pm »
I had some of those almost rimless button head cases and found, much to my surprise, they did not hold significantly more weight of powder (FFFg GOEX) than a new Starline .45 Colt or even a .454 Casull case. Those old-style cases do not have that groove under the rim and will not fit in a modern shell holder.

I think they were lost in my upcoming move,I don't know because all my worldly goods are in boxes in storage.

The head of those old cases is quite thin but did not make a whole lot more room in the case.

At any rate the only way I could have reloaded them would require getting out my antique Ideal nut cracker tool and I didn?t  think it was worth the effort.
For what it is worth I posted those numbers a couple of months ago on this forum and my technique used.
 Yr' Obt' Svt'
Bunk

Offline greenjoytj

  • Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: I am trying
« Reply #5 on: June 14, 2019, 05:47:32 am »
How much powder would it take to level the powder flush with the top of the tower the holds the primer?
I would think it?s this ring of powder around the primer tower the sets the case volume apart from a modern case.
Unless the thickness of the tapering case wall in a modern case compensates for the space lost around the primer.

Offline Coffinmaker

  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 5194
Re: I am trying
« Reply #6 on: June 14, 2019, 06:52:54 am »

Almost a comparison of apples and .. well ... apples.  Almost but not quite.  The great leveler of playing field is the propellant.  The differences of velocity between the original 45 Colt cartridge and the modern 45 Colt cartridge when loaded with Black Powder is sufficient to be interesting.

The game changer comes in when we think about it with Smokeless.  The velocities that can be reached are enough to curl your hair.  The heavy base web of the 45 Colt allows velocities well above those of the 44 Mangelem.  Pressure levels that would blow out the base of the old balloon head cases.

But I digress.  My original intent was to bad mouth Remington,  Remington revolvers of the period suck.  Not necessarily from a strength point, but from an ergo naught  angle of the dangle.  Wrap your mits around a Remington and set it off and it hurts.  Bashes the signal finger something awful.  Horrible guns.  Simply horrible.  So There.

Offline Bunk Stagnerg

  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 554
Re: I am trying
« Reply #7 on: June 14, 2019, 07:53:07 am »
One thing that did not occur to me was to weigh the cases.
When I get unpacked and do still have those cases i will see if there s a big difference in weight.
Since that button,just holds the primer is not much taller than the primer cup .
Perhaps the case is thinner of that i am not sure, but I know a collector that has a box of brand new unfired cases.
Bunk