Cas City Forum Hall & CAS-L
CAS TOPICS => The Darksider's Den => The Dark Arts => Topic started by: Mako on December 21, 2010, 04:45:13 PM
-
All:
This is in response to sincere individuals who post on this board seeking advice with of Cap and Ball revolvers. I am beginning a compilation of things I have been taught and developed through experimentation and experience over the years. I would be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge the expertise of fellow cap gun pistoleros and aficionados on this forum, I won’t list them for fear I would slight someone by forgetting them.
I will be posting in segments. This first submission will be about correct cone length and I will follow with a more in-depth look at the caps themselves. I posted pictures and illustrations on an earlier thread, much of that was ad hoc and on the fly so I will make a more workman attempt and clean up what I have shown. Please note I may modify these posts as I find errors in typing or need to further expand a remark.
Please don’t reuse the illustrations without my explicit written consent. Just write me.
Regards,
Mako
“Self promoting” Frontier Gunfighter and shooter of Colt’s pattern 1860s
-
The first thing that shooters have to realize about unmodified Colt and Remington pattern cap pistols is that the cylinder gap is relatively uncontrolled as compared to modern revolvers or the Colt revolvers after 1871. I am speaking in generalities because there were some designs that addressed this situation, but that is not the subject of this discourse. The advent of the “gas ring” (gas shield) at the front of the cylinder changed the nature of head spacing and cylinder gap. Before this device the end shake of the cylinder literally allowed the gap to change from zero to whatever we normally describe as the working cylinder gap.
You will see some of our board members like Flint and Pettifoger modifying cap pistols with the addition of a gas ring , if you pursue those modifications the following techniques should apply, but they need to be reviewed accordingly.
Note that there is basically no difference in the way you set up any of the Colt's pattern cap guns. In fact the Army and Navy models share a common frame geometry. There are differences, but the primary difference is the relief cut on the Army frame to facilitate the larger diameter forward portion of the cylinder. The cylinder lengths change, but the relationships between the relevant components remains the same. So anything from a Paterson to an 1862 reproduction can apply these concepts. The same is true with the Remington reproductions, it is the relative positions of each of the components that determines the viability of the set up.
I personally run my cap guns with .008” to .009” of cylinder gap when the cylinder is pushed to the rear. I run my cartridge guns closer. Others may have valid arguments for running them at some other number, but I find .008” works very well on a Colt’s pattern pistol. I have less experience with Remington pattern pistols, but run them at .008” as well.
In this post I will illustrate the cones, cylinders, hammers and the barrel face to acquaint everyone with my terminology, the relative positions and the dimensions I will be speaking about. In following posts I will expand on the explanations and later address how to get your pistol properly set up as shown.
The first two images below show the relative positions of the cones, cylinder, hammer face and the barrel face. Note I am using Treso cones for my illustrations. You can accomplish the same relationships with original or other aftermarket cones, but I find Treso cones to be extremely uniform and durable as well as aiding in the attenuation of back blast through the flash hole. The Aluminum Bronze alloy is that Treso manufactures their cones from is one of the best if not the best choice possible for a wear resistant, flash hole erosion resisting, corrosion resistant material available. As the measurement from 2 pairs of heavily used competition pistols attest, the cones hold their dimensions and form over the long haul. The cones on my pistols are frequently removed and rigorously cleaned with little change dimensionally.
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/ArmyFrameAssy1-1.jpg)
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/ArmyFrameAssy2-1.jpg)
~Mako
-
Additional Images to go with the previous text. The headings should be self explanatory.
The hammer is shown overlapping the cone on the models. This of course won't happen in reality, they are shown in this orientation for illustration purposes.
~Mako
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/ArmyFrameAssy15.jpg)
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/ArmyFrameAssy14.jpg)
-
Here are a few more close ups showing both the relationship between the hammer face/cone and the cylinder/barrel face in the same view.
~Mako
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/ArmyFrameAssy9-1.jpg)
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/ArmyFrameAssy8-1.jpg)
-
Now for views with caps on the cones...
All illustrations show Remington #10 caps on properly fit Treso cones.
Note the priming compound the bursting disk ("paper" in the cap in the case of the Remington) and the copper cup on the Remington caps add about .037" to .040" of height to the top of the cone. even with this additional height it has been my experience and probably the experience of most seasoned C&B shooters reading this that it is not enough to just have the cap sit proud, you need to have it at this height with Remington caps for reliability. Different brands will have different heights because of the priming compound thickness and the covering disk and sealant. RWS and CCI both sit higher above the cone face because of their increased priming compound.
~Mako
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/ArmyFrameAssy10.jpg)
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/ArmyFrameAssy13-1.jpg)
-
These are some illustrations of caps on a Uberti 1860, The models were generated from basic reverse engineering. All computer models were generated from dimensions of the subject pistols. The models are thorough and accurate representations from dimensions taken from a population of 6 pistols.
One new in the box Uberti 1860 of manufacture some time before 2007 was used as the primary base pistol, the mate (also unfired) to that pistol was used as a second measurement for some critical dimensions.
Measurements of setup cones and their relative positions were taken on two more working pairs of Uberti 1860s. One set is pre 2002 and the second is pre 2005. In addition an 1860 Colt produced in 1861 was used as a control for general positions and overall look, all of the Italian pistols have taken liberties or departed from the original on some features. The Colt acts as a control. The dimensions were averaged for the purposes of this exercise. Note that all of the 4 working pistols used for the cone measurements all had cylinder gaps between .008" and .009", the gaps were measured with feeler gages. All 4 pistols had maximum hammer to cone interference of of .007" to .012". The minimum on any pistol was a gap determined to be .002" by extrapolating dimension from the hammer face and the cone height. These pistols have seen quite a few seasons and have held up well. It is much less likely that the cone to hammer face distance for six cones per pistol will be identical than the likelihood the cylinder gap will be similar with groups of pistols. Overall the average ran .009" for cylinder gap and .008" for the hammer to cone interference (with the cylinder to the rear).
Just for grins I measured the cylinder gaps on the NIB 1860s and they were .006" and .004" with a definite out of parallel gap between the cylinder and the barrel. These haven't been corrected on the arbor-to-barrel-to-wedge relationship.
Since I was on a roll I also measured an unfired pair of Pietta 5 1/2" barreled 1860s, one cylinder gap ran .012" and the other right at .008". The cylinder gaps were much more parallel in relationship. The arbor bottomed out on the one that measured .012" , a slight gap was evident at the barrel to frame interface. This barrel is definitely bottoming out on the arbor and should be easy to correctly set up.
When viewing the illustrations note the relative positions of the caps, their relationship to the recoil shield and also the clearances.
~Mako
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/ArmyFrameAssy5.jpg)
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/ArmyFrameAssy4.jpg)
-
These illustrations show the overall shape caused by the forming operation of the Remington cap from the flat blank. Remington leaves their formed cap cups untrimmed, I have also included the illustration of CCI #11 and RWS 1075 caps which have their edges trimmed after the cups has been drawn.
Note how the Remington caps have four "petals," this is often the exact shape the fired cap will take. In a future post I will provide photographs of the forming "cracks" where the petals come together on the Remington caps. While not as apparent, there are stress cracks which are much harder to see on the CCI and RWS cups. Since these two companies trim their formed cups they end up removing the forming crack or seam that remains in the crotch of the Remington caps.
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/CapGun5.jpg)
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/CapAssy2b-1.jpg) (http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/CapAssy1-1.jpg)
The ribbing on the outside of the CCI caps carries through the material and shows up on the inside of the cup. I will show this ribbed feature carry through on some later microscopy images. The ribbing on the RWS cups shows as a ghost image on the I.D. just like the Remington caps, it is basically unmeasurable. The CCI bottom edge is "square," The RWS has a "saw tooth" edge because there is an internal chamfer which creates the effect.
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/CCI11v12c-1.jpg) (http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/RWS1075Capc-1.jpg)
~Mako
-
Your mastery of the illustrative art is enviable. Many of us have intimate knowledge of our well used guns but few can put it into a cohesive and clear presentation. I eagerly anticipate further installments and possibly a contribution or two of my own experience. I am unable to figure out how to take pictures and display them to others let alone do CGI. I stand in awe. In other words, "Rat own brutha!"
-
I think where he is going is to show that the nipple/cap/hammer relationship is the soul of of a cap 'n ball revolver and once this is solved then 95% of the battle is won. The rest being a good action, a good load & finally sights well regulated to POA. It is then that the shooter will know the true joy that a cap 'n ball revolver can be. Mako, your graphics are simply stunning. ;)
-
Hey Mako, Good Day to Ya. Don't know where you were for so long, not needed information, but glad to have ya back. Thanks much for the info and pictures you've posted on this topic and the ones on another subject in the 'Darksider Den' re: 'Capin' Ball Capping Questions', replies 30&32. Also recently in the STORM section ref 44 caliber vs 45 colt rims, cylinders, etc. Very usefull and interesting info there, never seen some of that in 38 years of shooting cap an balls and reading about it. Not a fananic fan of the Batman movies made in the last 20 or so years, although I've seen them all. In one of the early ones the Joker who has been outdone by some of Batmans high tech weapons and gizmo's states "Where does he get all of those wonderfull toys". Thats what I wonder when you post all of the 'wonderfull' pictures, cross sections, etc of nipples, guns, etc. Thanks much, keep em coming. Yers, Crow Choker
-
Hey Mako, Good Day to Ya. Don't know where you where for so long, not needed information, but glad to have ya back…
Hey Crow Choker,
I was out looking for Bruce of course...
As far as the toys go, just like the Batman, I make them. The reason I started the models was for exactly the reason you stated. I’ve never seen anything like them either. We have some wonderful information from people like Mr. Larson E. Pettifogger with some very good pictures. But, I think that having detailed solid CAD models will help answer questions like Aggie Desperado posed.
You can thank Flint for getting me thinking about it. He had modeled some Navy parts to help him with his conversions and the aftermarket cylinder hands he makes. It just sort of happened after Aggie asked his question and I realized there wasn’t any good material out there to illustrate the relationships. Then yesterday it just took a few minutes to modify a cylinder I already had as a model and then make a couple of cartridges to show the problems with rim size you saw on the STORM forum. Once you have done the hard work it literally takes minutes to modify it as I did. It becomes a method to demonstrate what I and others have learned from experience and experimentation.
I need to continue on with what I started, I’ll get back to it this week. I’m not attempting to retell what is already available, but to add to where the information is lacking.
Regards,
Mako
-
All:
Some microscopy images of Remington and CCI caps.
First I will show the Remington #10 and the CCI #10. Note the petals that appear in the CAD models of the Remington caps.
~Mako
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/Rem10d-1.jpg) (http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/CCI10c-1-1.jpg)
-
Now the Rem #11 and the CCI #11...
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/Rem11a-1.jpg) (http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/CCI11c-1.jpg)
-
This is the fold seam ("split") that appears at the petal crotch on many of the Remington caps. Please note it usually appears on on the inside and outside, from this we know it passes entirely through the cup. Some splits only show on the inside and either do not pass through, or more likely have been smeared over by the corrugation operation.
Look at the interior of the Remington Caps. You can see the superficial marking made by the roll tool that made the corrugations, and notice the relatively smooth walls. As you can see, the burnished inner walls are smooth enough to show reflections.
~Mako
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/Rem10b-1.jpg) (http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/Rem11c-1.jpg)
-
These are CCI # 10 caps. Notice the corrugations show through but are very shallow making them un-measurable without using an optical measuring system. To help you get a concept of scale and relative comparison in size of the ribs, the measured cup thickness is .008"
~Mako
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/CCI10a-1.jpg) (http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/CCI10b-1.jpg)
-
And these are the interiors and bottom edges of the CCI #11 caps. You can tell the 10s from the 11s by the bursting disk color. The material covering the priming compound does not appear to be a paper disk as you find in the Remingtons and RWS caps. looking at it through the sealer it appears to be more of a polymer or glue based composite. Perhaps it is mixture with polymer or cellulose fibers, in reality a lot of a the products we call "paper" or "cardboard" are in fact synthetic composites. There is also an overcoat of material to seal it in protect the priming compound. You can see it on the interior walls of the second image.
The serrations are a bit deeper on the #11 caps. The resulting edge is part of the O.D. corrugation forming process. The edges were most probably square and perpendicular to the axis of the cap until the corrugation operation deformed the material and makes the edge ridged. If you look at the side views of the CCI caps in previous posts you can see the external edge break (radius) created by the the form tooling. The undulations of the edge is only apparent when looking at the edge at an oblique orientation.
~Mako
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/CCI11c2-1.jpg) (http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/CCI11b-1.jpg)
-
Here is the RWS 1075 cap. It appears to have a paper cover on the priming compound and is then sealed to keep the paper in place and protect the compound from moisture.
As you can see the interior walls are smooth and there is a lead chamfer on the inside edge. The corrugations stop short of running to the top of the cap which gives it a slight "mushroom" head.
The edges which were probably cut square after the cup drawing operation are now ridged as a result of the O.D. rib forming process and the I.D. chamfer. Unlike the CCI caps the edge of the RWS caps have a "saw tooth" appearance. Looking at the CCI caps from the side you can see an external edge break added by the tooling. Now look at the oblique view of the RWS cap and you will see an internal chamfer on the edge. This feature is large enough that it creates the saw tooth effect when meeting the rib depressions.
This is purely conjecture, but the mushroom shape of the head may be to facilitate the thick priming compound of the RWS caps. Stopping the corrugation short of the top creates a neck. It may aid in uniform dispensing of the priming compound or to allow the paper disk on top of the compound to get a mechanical grip in the undercut. This can potentially aid in keeping the compound in place and sealed.
Regards,
Mako
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/RWS1075-1.jpg) (http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/RWS1075b-1.jpg)
-
Mako, I've been trolling this thread. Just want to say Thanks! Great information and really learned a lot
-
You've changed my whole out look on engineers! Dandy work, thank you!
-
Mako good job and well done 8)
-
This is in answer to a question I got from an individual the other day about modifying a Treso tube to optimize it for a #10 Remington or #10 CCI cap. The Treso tubes were designed for #11 caps but as many shooters have found they can use #10 caps if they use a seating stick and additional force to fully seat the cap. In most cases a Remington #10 cap will work because the cap will relieve itself at one or more of the petal junctions or "crotches." Even with the beginnings of a split the Remington cap will usually have the integrity to provide the grasping force necessary to keep it on the tube.
The reason this is possible with a Treso tube is primarily because the taper on the Treso tube is very slight and over the years the cap manufacturers have actually converged the cap sizes to the point there is not a large separation in the apparent sizes of the #10 and #11 Caps. Even with this convergence, standard factory tubes will rarely accept both #10 and #11 caps, this includes the Remington caps which use the skirt length to engage the taper at different points.
I have mentioned before that even though I normally use unmodified Treso tubes with Remington #11 caps I have two sets of Treso tubes I can move between my different cap guns that I have specifically modified to be optimized for #10 caps instead of the #11s they were designed for. The fit I wanted was the light press fit you would get with a Remington #11 on an unmodified Treso cone. In the past I was unable to get Remington #11 caps and I temporarily switched to Remington #10 caps using these modified Treso tubes.
First I'll recap the dimensions of the currently available caps. Since I last posted measurements I now have measurements from an additional sample of 100 Remington #10 and 100 #11 caps. These are from three different new lots of #10 caps (and one old one) and 4 lots of #11s (and one old one). 20 caps were measured from each tin.
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/CapChart7_8_11.png)
And now the diameters the Treso tubes need to me changed to to optimally fit #10 caps:
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/ModifiedTresoTubefor10s.png)
Note the two sets of dimensions and compare them to the Internal Height on the chart of the Remington and CCi #10 caps. Note the diameters are about .003" and .004" larger in diameter than the cap I.D.s which give you a light interference fit.
This is how the caps look on the modified tubes:
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/10capsonModifiedTreso.png)
These tubes were modified using a CNC lathe which allowed precise profiling to the taper but the fit could be created with even a file and a tube chucked up in a drill motor. The secret is to work slowly and measure the diameter at the correct gauge distance from the face of the tube. If manually modifying tubes it would be best to choose one cap that is readily available and then work the tube until the diameter matches at the gauge height for that cap.
Regards,
Mako
-
That is exactly what I did. I chucked my Treso's in a drill press and worked slowly with a fine file till the #10 CCI's fit. Forget using any kind of sand paper. I tried that first and it barely polished it. No measurable change had been made. File it or forget it.
Blomqusit and Treso seem to work with no issues using RWS 1075+ or Remington #11's. They will not fit CCI #10's. I've hardly ever been able to find Remington #11's . I just bought a 1000 RWS's so I'm good there.
I have a bunch of different nipples I use, depending what caps I'm using.
One thing I have noticed is that that the RWS 1075 +'s are significantly hotter than either Remington or CCI/Winchester. A definitively noticeable increase in KABOOM vs the others. I noticed this while shooting caps only....so there was no powder charge to mask it.
I want to use my CED chrono and test my 5-1/2" ROA with 45 grains of Triple 7 (I had Clements deepen the chambers) , a 210 grain BigLube Bullet that I hollow pointed in a jig I bought (works great!) and an RWS 1075+.
I use a BigLube Tower of Power to load everything as equally possible.
1) Stock Ruger
2) Treso's
3) Uncle Mike's
4) Blomquist.
My 5-1/2" ROA is anything but stock and I'm proud of it, yet just mortified what I've spent on it. I've run out of things to do to it....although a 5-1/2" octagon and cool front sight from Clement is somehow starting to make sense. I don't know....maybe it's caused by the Japanese radiation leaks.
-
ROAnutz,
I read your post about the caps the other day and it got me thinking about RWS 1075s again.
The caps you have are the "plus" variety which are called "magnum" primers by other manufacturers, that's why they are louder. If you get the CCI magnum caps they are louder as well.
Do me a favor, if you have any means of measuring them, I'm going to ask you for the same dimensions I asked Hellgate to give me for his RWS #55 caps. If you don't have a caliper then don't worry about it, sooner or later I'll bum some from someone locally, or buy some.
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/RWSCAP.png)
I'm really interested in the internal dimension. I want to see how much priming compound they have in them compared to the plain 1075s. One more thing tell me what color the sealer on the priming compound is, the plain 1075s are green.
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/RWS1075b-1.jpg)
I have RWS 1075 caps but I haven't seen them for sale in a while. As I told Hellgate this came up a few weeks ago talking among other cap gun shooters and none of us have seen anything other than the "Plus" variety for a while. I'm sure they will work fine and if cartridge primers are any indication I can't tell any difference in performance with a black powder pistol cartridge. Magnum primers are manufactured to help muzzleloading rifle shooters get good ignition. Personally I've never had a problem, this is also why they make those "Hot Shot" tubes which are the antithesis of the Treso Tubes we use to attenuate the back blast. The Hot Shots actually have a larger flash hole in them. I've never had a problem setting BP off, it's much easier than smokeless powder.
If they work, then use them is my motto...
Best of luck,
Mako
-
ROAnutz,
I read your post about the caps the other day and it got me thinking about RWS 1075s again.
The caps you have are the "plus" variety which are called "magnum" primers by other manufacturers, that's why they are louder. If you get the CCI magnum caps they are louder as well.
. Personally I've never had a problem, this is also why they make those "Hot Shot" tubes which are the antithesis of the Treso Tubes we use to attenuate the back blast. The Hot Shots actually have a larger flash hole in them. I've never had a problem setting BP off, it's much easier than smokeless powder.
Are you trying to say that you should not use magnum primers with small hole nipples, like the Treso's?
-
Are you trying to say that you should not use magnum primers with small hole nipples, like the Treso's?
Not at all. I'm saying two things:
- We don't really need magnum primers for our pistols. Black Powder is easy to set off.
- We don't need large flash holes like you find on tubes marketed by TC commonly known as "Hot Shot" tubes. For the same reason as above. In addition it is detrimental to revolver shooting because the large hole allows more back blast to come back through and the blast plays havoc with the caps. We don't need more debris.
Magnum primers (not caps) are sold for three reasons.
- Large cartridges of smokeless powder use slow burning large grain powders which are harder to ignite. The higher brisance of the magnum primers help assure consistent ignition.
- In Cold weather which is a common season for hunting in North America the higher brisance helps with the lower pressures and burn rates caused by lower temperatures.
- The primer cups are thicker and actually a harder copper (they roll it to work harden it). This prevents flow back around the firing pin into the firing pin hole we normally call "cratering".
On some magnum pistol primers the brisance is actually the same as standard primers, the difference is the primer cup thickness and hardness to prevent flowing of the primer back around the firing pin. This is borne out by primer brisance tests where you can see the increased fountain on some and the same as regular primers on other brands. Some people had resorted to rifle primers for the stronger cups, but the primers are dimensionally different in height and the primer pockets are different depths between rifle and pistol primers.
Magnum Caps are manufactured for the first two reasons the magnum rifle primers are marketed. They are aimed at the muzzleloading hunting market. They will work fine on revolvers, the majority of the splitting and fragmenting is not from the priming compound, but from the back blast coming from the primary charge in the chamber venting back through the hole.
Large flash hole tubes are aimed at the single shot muzzleloading hunters market. Personally I believe it is more hype than reality. They accentuate the amount of primer charge getting to the powder charge. There is considerable back blast coming back through the flash hole, but with a single shot weapon a fragmented or dislodged cap is not really a problem. The rifles also have heavier mainsprings and will not be pushed back by the blast. A lot of modern reproduction revolvers have wimpy mainsprings and we don't need more blast pushing on them.
Treso tubes are the perfect tube for the revolver, I have found nothing better. They will work fine with magnum caps. I also have Treso tubes on my Enfield and a .36 caliber long rifle and I find they work very well.
Sound good?
~Mako
-
Mako, I would disagree with you on one thing here. I have a Traditions 50 cal Pa rifle and their nipple (cone) hole is so small that it allows almost no blowback, I agree with you on smaller hole less blowback, what I take issue with is your use of the term "hype" in relation to whether or not ya need a large flash hole. I used ta shoot matches with that rifle and would get fouling so bad the rifle would not fire. The fouling was in the breech plug between the nipple and the powder chamber. I removed the nipple, drilled it out and solved the problem. Yes, I did get blowback, depending on the charge it would sometimes blow the hammer to halfcock. But it also kept the breech plug hole clear. WM
-
Sounds like a problem with the spark path within the breech plug itself being too small. I may just be a nervous nelly but I worry about pieces of hot copper flying everywhere because the hole in the nipple is too big.
-
Ever shoot a flintlock? WM
-
Mako, I would disagree with you on one thing here. I have a Traditions 50 cal Pa rifle and their nipple (cone) hole is so small that it allows almost no blowback, I agree with you on smaller hole less blowback, what I take issue with is your use of the term "hype" in relation to whether or not ya need a large flash hole. I used ta shoot matches with that rifle and would get fouling so bad the rifle would not fire. The fouling was in the breech plug between the nipple and the powder chamber. I removed the nipple, drilled it out and solved the problem. Yes, I did get blowback, depending on the charge it would sometimes blow the hammer to halfcock. But it also kept the breech plug hole clear. WM
Wildman,
I had a reason for saying hype, read on...
You actually explain the problem and have the corrective actions all in your post. Look at what you wrote...
I have a Traditions 50 cal Pa rifle and their nipple (cone) hole is so small...
I removed the nipple, drilled it out and solved the problem.
If you had started with a normal tube (with a normal flash hole) then you would not have ever made that statement. By your own discovery you state the Traditions flash hole was too small for the tube interior geometry. I know it's not your intention but don't confuse standard tubes with the "oversize" cross drilled Hot Shot aftermarket tubes. You are mixing cherries and watermelons there. You found the problem and you corrected it, but you have noted the correction now causes the hammer to be blown back to half cock.
As I said you can get away with oversize flash holes on single shots, but they are anathema for revolvers. You can also use Treso tubes very effectively on muzzlestuffers. The Treso design is conducive to directing the combustiing priming compound into the breech. You may have see this illustration before but is is a direct reverse engineered model of the 12-28 threaded Treso tubes for the Uberti pistols and the very recent production Uberti tubes.
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/sidebysidecones2.jpg)
I even went to the trouble to show the two step drilling for the major diameter on the Uberti tubes. Uberti tubes didn't always look like this, they used to have a larger flash hole. They made changes to their design when people began installing aftermarket tubes on their products. I'm assuming they didn't go as small on the flash hole as Treso because Uberti makes their tubes from carbon steel and they would have problems with a lot of shooters who would let them get a bit of corrosion in the small opening. Probably a good assumption though since that is sort of my area of specialty.
Back to your original problem and how does that undersized flash hole differ from a Treso tube? The Treso tubes have a large primary chamber and gives the primer compound gas stream an area to initially expand into, once gas has a vector it will continue in that direction, it really doesn't like to change direction. You might try a Treso tube on that Traditions rifle of yours. I have been happy with mine and I don't have a fouling or ignition problem. I've suggested them to others as replacements if they have buggered up threads, they make oversize threaded tubes in .005" increments in five or six steps up in the 1:28 pitch. You have to tap those breech plugs but you can save an old rifle. I have had reports they worked better than ever after replacement and they had no issues with cold weather usage. I'd venture to say your original tube had a small primary as well as exit hole.
The Treso tubes are unique in the depth of the primary chambers, I have several other brands of aftermarket tubes and none of them have the short necked down section that Treso does. Some are necked down, but not as much or having such a short section of being necked down. Treso remains unique not only because they are constructed of Aluminum Bronze alloy, but because of the the interior dimensions. A lot of steel tubes would have erosion problems with the Treso Geometry. I use two other Ampco alloys which are very similar the Treso alloy because they resist high temperature erosion of nozzles in an extreme environment better than any material we have tried to date.
As far as the hype goes check this out:
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/DisplayPicaspx.jpg)
This is a TCA Hot Shot, the cross drilled holes seem like a good idea until you think about the gas flow under normal firing. Is it really a good idea, or just a "different" idea? People could reply and make the same claim about the Treso tubes. But, there is a difference...The Treso tubes don't allow more back blast and they don't blow the hammer back to half cock. Hot Shot shooters accept that as the consequence of having a "hotter" (translate that as higher, faster, sexier, cooler) tube.
This thread was started as a primer for about revolver cones and cutting through the misconceptions, and remains that today. Let's not get too far off of the subject or we just make what was a nice tidy thread into an unwieldy series of posts going in and out of being on topic.
Regards,
Mako
-
As soon as I drilled out the nipple I made a flash deflector that is held on by the nipple. most of the blowback is contained by the cup shape of the hammer, as a matter of fact if you don't pay attention you will actually get a buildup of expended caps in the hammer recess. I can honestly say I've never had a problem with that rifle and flying pieces of cap. WM
-
Most people don't realize it, but There is a significant amount of gas that comes back through the flash hole on a standard percussion cap revolver. The entire pistol is enveloped by a burning "cloud" of gas coming from the cylinder gap and the flash hole.
This sequence is from a high speed study done with an original Colt 1860. Full attribution is given to Arthur Tobias in his excellent study. Notice the initial flash from the cap as part of the charge escape around the periphery of the cap in the second and third photos in the sequence. In the fourth photo it is evident the gas is being blown to the rear through the flash hole. In fact there is burning gunpowder that has now passed around the sides of the hammer and is moving back towards the shooter before the bullet has left the barrel.
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/1860sequence-1-2.jpg)
This is another shot of the Colt enveloped with a burning cloud of gas and smoke. Once again the burning powder is seen shooting back over the hand of the shooter.
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/44backblast-1-1.jpg)
Treso tubes help attenuate this back blast.
~Mako
-
As always, Mako your post are great and very educational .
Thank you so much.
-
Wonderful, Mako. My hat is off to you and your great explanations and illustrations.
I need some clarification, if possible. I couldn't find an real definition of "Brisiance." From what little I found, it seems that my own definition I've been working under is wrong. My definition is similar and perhaps serves to be "close enough for government work" but I like to be correct.
Also, weren't the Magnum caps created primarily aimed at the Pyrodex shooters? In my own experience, real BP ignites easily and with about any cap/primer. Pyrodex, which IS a real BP, but not like the newer subs (which I believe are citrus oriented) is somewhat harder to ignite. As to the Magnum primers, what has been mentioned is right on, especially about cold temperature ignition.
Thanks again!
-
Just shot my Uberti Cattleman Carbine for the first time yesterday and I will tell you those pictures are right on the button. I had much more debris flying back and around than I ever had with my long rifles, percussion or flintlocks. Nice pics Mako enjoyed as usual, especially now that I can see em. WM
-
"This is a TCA Hot Shot, the cross drilled holes seem like a good idea until you think about the gas flow under normal firing."
What is the purpose of the cross drilled holes? It baffles me.
-
"This is a TCA Hot Shot, the cross drilled holes seem like a good idea until you think about the gas flow under normal firing."
What is the purpose of the cross drilled holes? It baffles me.
I've often wondered about that myself. I don't get a mental visualization that justifies cross-drilled holes, unless it is supposed to allow more oxygen into the mix.
-
Hey Steel Horse,
If you’ll bear with my lengthy explanations I can make it plain for all. Brisance actually has two meanings that we would be interested in. The first is the common meaning used with explosives, propellants or other pyrotechnics. Brisance is basically a “rate” metric. It is the rate at which a combustion reaction reaches maximum pressure. If an explosive charge has a sufficiently “high” brisance rate (lower time) then it can create a shock wave which is what you want from a “high explosive” a “low” explosive like BP doesn’t have the shattering effect of a faster explosive because it has a shallow pressure curve and takes longer to make maximum pressure.
As an aside BP also has a lower final pressure and expansion velocity than other industrial or common explosives. This makes it a better propellant than an explosive, just like nitrocellulose powder is a better propellant than an explosive.
The shattering effect is what the first commercial and military applications were looking for, brisance comes from the French word “briser” which means to break or shatter.
We also use the term when it comes to detonation trains, primers, initiators and in our case percussion caps. In this sense it applies to two elements of the combustion process, the amount of burning gas generated and the distance it will travel. So, it is volume and the distance which are usually, but not always interrelated. You can add more of the base priming compound to increase the brisance of a cap or primer, or you can add an extender or booster. The extender or booster may increase the velocity or the time it will burn (in some cases both). If you have an extender in a cartridge primer it may just allow the burning gas to project out further while it is still at the maximum temperature it will attain.
With an initiator train for a warhead we really don’t care if we create excess pressure or debris because we’re getting ready to make a big bang anyway. In the case of precision shooting we usually want to minimize the effects of the primer and control our pressures and gas volumes with the propellant instead of the primer. If you consult a common loading manual you will see differences in pressures with identical loads except for the primers and a warning you will see increased pressures if using certain magnum primers.
I am attaching a portion of a great article German Salazar wrote for the June 2008 issue of Precision Shooting. These shooters are looking to control the most arcane aspect of each and every cartridge so the search for the primers that have the least amount of pressure deviation at the lowest brisance rate that will effectively ignite their powder. I’m including it because the pictures illustrate the differences better than I can explain them. Note these are Bench Rest primers, and look at the ignition and carry differences between these precision primers by manufacturer alone.
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/AMatchPrimerStudyinthe6BRCartridge-1.png)
Now to address your astute comment about the common usage of “magnum” caps. You are very correct!
The problem powders are not so much Pyrodex but the other modern substitutes. They are more difficult to ignite. Now that being said the Pyrodex pellets are candidates for magnum caps. I have sample cans of the substitutes but I really don’t use them. I get excited when I read about them and upon trying them it’s sort of like “kissing your sister.” So I tend to relay information about ammunition and loads using Gunpowder and not substitutes.
Real Gunpowder is very forgiving and really doesn’t need the “new fangled” inventions, magnum caps or primers to set it off. In fact attenuating the effects back through the flash hole is more of an issue with those of us that want to be competitive in timed shooting events. I will literally use whatever components I have on hand when loading BP cartridges, it’s really not picky. But, I am very picky about my cones and how the caps I have on hand fit on those cones. As I have written, I have had good success with Treso tubes on even muzzleloaders which probably lets the same amount of gas through the flash hole from the cap side (because of the internal geometry) as a standard primer, but then limits the gas flow coming back through the hole from the chamber.
Look at the sequence in my post above, look specifically at frame 2. There is excess gas which can’t make it through the flash hole on even that 138+ year old Colt’s original tube. If it is given a larger primary chamber in the tube to start down then it can still have a sufficient volume to make it into the chamber and set off the powder with gobs of excess gas to spare. There is obviously a lot of extra gas volume from the cap that continues into frame 3. So a smaller hole with a lead in on the cap side will assure enough getting through for ignition while at the same time limiting the orifice size to let gas flow back through the hole.
This is how we are similar to the Bench Rest shooters, we want just enough gas into the chamber to assure consistent ignition. But then the BR shooter are then concerned about it affecting their pressures, we are just concerned about that pressure having a large hole to get back out of. If I get the time I may conduct some photo tests with caps and different tubes. It would be interesting to see the difference in brisance coming out the chamber end of a cylinder with different flash hole sizes and primary tube chamber geometry. Ideally I would take an old or damaged cylinder and face it off leaving only 1/8” or so of chamber to see the gas shape right at the flash hole exit instead of out at the end of the chamber. If you look at the photos above you can see some of the primers have a nice gas head right at the exit, yet they don’t project very far (they have “lower brisance”).
Regards,
Mako
P.S.
On the cross drilling comment: priming compound already has it's own oxidizer and it couldn't entrain any air into the mix quickly enough to have any effect. Primers, propellants and explosives all carry their own oxidizers and contrary to what you see in movies, TV and read in books they will go off in total vacuum sealed or unsealed, also underwater (or in any other environment) if the items which can be affected by moisture don't get wet.
-
The Treso tubes were designed for #11 caps but as many shooters have found they can use #10 caps if they use a seating stick and additional force to fully seat the cap.
The thought of using extra force to seat caps makes me a mite nervous. Far better to handfit your nipples to the more commonly available caps.
These tubes were modified using a CNC lathe which allowed precise profiling to the taper but the fit could be created with even a file and a tube chucked up in a drill motor. The secret is to work slowly and measure the diameter at the correct gauge distance from the face of the tube. If manually modifying tubes it would be best to choose one cap that is readily available and then work the tube until the diameter matches at the gauge height for that cap.
While I agree on the use of a drill to handfit nipples, I would suggest that one would have an easier time using a fine grit knife sharpening stone lubricated with dishsoap or water base machinist oil, rather than be bothered with constantly having to stop and clean the file, which will fast become clogged with filings, especially when handfitting bronze nipples. Plus, use of the stone will give a better finish.
For gauging the right fit, I deaden a cap with penetrating oil, waiting a day to pick out the insides with a wooden toothpick. Using a second toothpick, I mark off the depth of the cap. Using the marked toothpick and the deaden cap, I can now guage my work. Remembering that I want a somewhat tight fit, so the caps don't jump off during recoil.
Great pictures mako, what program are you using for them?
Claypipe, the GunGnome
-
Said by an old comic on a long gone TV show: Ver-ry Int-er-es-tink!
Thanks for the interesting display and clarification. My definition of brisiance was the "soft vs. hard" one, but way less technical ... and not entirely correct, it seems. That was not a term used in my Master Gunner training, which is where I did learn enough to see where your explanation clears up my misconceptions.
My experience with Mag percussion caps was from shooting a LOT of Pyrodex "back in the day" before I had a dependable supply of real Gunpowder. I have some Trip 7 powder but have not yet used it, and have exactly ZERO experience with ANY of the other subs. However, as you pointed out, some of the "new fangled" stuff needs more "oompfh" to ignite. I got around that once with an experience in max loads in my (then) new 2nd Gen. Colt 1st Mod. Dragoon. I put in around 20 grs. of KIK in the chamber, then topped it off with a 30 gr. Pyro Pellet, a lubed wad and a round ball. Since the KIK was the initial powder ignited by the cap, no special percussion cap was used ... or needed ... and the pellet had NO problem igniting right along with the loose 3f KIK powder. It was FUN, 'tho a bit wasteful. It was VERY "energetic" - even more so than ANY other C&B I've ever fired or been around. Not for the faint-of-heart!! I was pleasantly surprised at #1 -- the accuracy, #2 - the recoil (MUCH more than any other BP load I've fired, 'tho still "nada" compared to some smokeyless loads), and since I fired over snow, #3 how little powder was unburned and was sent out the barrel to be thoroughly wasted. The snow was surprisingly clean after these loads. (If some of the other readers don't know what I'm referring to, if you fire over snow [like the oldtimers did when testing some of their loads] you'll probably be surprised at how much black residue will be on the snow in front of your firing position, which shows how much unburned powder is wasted upon firing. I've HEARD tell that up to 50% of a load can be blown out the barrel either unburned or ignited & burning AFTER it has left the gun, therefore adding NOTHING to the fired round. Simply wasted. This applies primarily to handguns.)
Again, thanks.
-
Cross drilled percussion nipples have been around since the late 1970s call "Hot Shot Nipples" by Michaels of Oregon. Designed by Dan Pawlak, the inventor of Pyrodex. Claims were " laboratory tests found that these nipples give more consistent muzzle velocity and better accuracy." Also prevents hammer blow back. This info is from an old "Gun Digest". I've used them on rifles but can't say I found them better or worse then any other good quality nipple.
-
...Also prevents hammer blow back. This info is from an old "Gun Digest". I've used them on rifles but can't say I found them better or worse then any other good quality nipple.
Kent,
That would make sense because the back blast could also vent out the cross drilled holes instead of just straight back towards the hammer face. Since the Hot Shot tubes have larger flash holes there is going to be significant back blast coming back through that cone.
But, It's like I said before, you can get away with a lot on a single shot rifle. With a single shot you don't have to worry about blasting your caps into the action, the hammer channel or even shredding the caps because there are no quick follow up shots. From the experience I have had with muzzleloaders I find a reduced flash hole on the Treso works well and with all of the other advantages it offers such as strength, precision fit to the caps, erosion resistance I would tell anyone to try it for the small price it is for one tube.
For a revolver, Treso tubes are the very first thing I recommend as a purchase to a new shooter on their path to making a reliable percussion revolver. There are many other things to do to a revolver on that path but this is the first one that involves a purchase.
~Mako
-
This is getting really complicated, wonder how the heck the boys in USA or CSA managed without engineering degrees.
But then only their lives depended on the cap making the pistol go boom, not like the pressure to shoot a 15 second clean stage.
-
This is getting really complicated, wonder how the heck the boys in USA or CSA managed without engineering degrees.
But then only their lives depended on the cap making the pistol go boom, not like the pressure to shoot a 15 second clean stage.
Then we must re-examine your premise.
Actually it isn't hard to explain... There was one source for tubes, and they were expressly designed for the pistols they were putting them on. No question of which materials, which hole size, how much clearance, etc. There were some very intelligent and clever I might add engineers, mechanics and machinists who had it all figured out and delivered a pistol ready to shoot.
In addition there really wasn't any question as to which caps to use...No arguing over size 10, size 11 or 1075s.
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/Colt20Dark-1.jpg) (http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/1_d112fe1ed61b6b90c23c05a46d530d98-1.jpg)
In fact there was little to ferret out as to what the correct loads should be...
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/IMG_4277_op_640x480-1.jpg)
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/x0269-1.jpg)
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/x0266-1.jpg)
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/u0915-1.jpg)
They weren't trying to make a bunch of Italian clones run.
Pretty clever bunch if you ask me...
~Mako