1849 Colt cylinder question

[phoenix511]

Nice find! The issue of a replacement cylinder (or any other modern replacement parts) is the value to many collectors would be compromised with a non-original component.

Do what you want to the pistol, but keep in mind nearly every modification/clean-up, etc will reduce the collector's value, even as it makes the pistol shootable. Most museums strive to stabilize the item, more than restore it to its original, new, condition, and or make it function as an original.

If the pistol's value to you is as a shooter, this Forum has several posts with guidance on doing this. If your interest is more the value as a relic than a shooter, stabilize it so no further rusting occurs, then display it.

Some restoration people would say don't do anything that can't be reversed: if replacing old worn parts, keep the old parts, and don't remove or add any wood or metal as this cannot be reversed.

If you want to shoot a 31 cal, there are several modern replicas that can serve your need, and may function better than the original, even when they were factory-new in 1860.

 

[azmntman]

Mine is one of then funnest guns to shoot!

 

[M. De Land]

This one was not set up very well from the factory.
In looking at the ratchet teeth you can see the hand nose only engaged the top of the tooth and buggered it off over time.
I like to fit them to engage the base of the tooth as much as possible initially so as it pivots around on the lift it has more purchase for better mechanical advantage and more area to wear.
Also as the cylinder gap gets larger the hand has to reach forward, if it can, to lift at a greater angle on the tooth thus loosing leverage. If it can't than it wears the top of the tooth off.
It looks to me like one or the other was present in your gun.

 

[Zonie]

Just for giggles I checked the sizes of the cylinder and cylinder pin on my Colt 1849 pistol.
(Maybe it's a 1848. It has a squareback trigger guard.)

This pistol was made by Armi San Marco in 1964 and it's in very good condition considering it's 50 years old.
Don't laugh. MSM went so far as to include the safety pins in the cylinder !! :shocked2:

(This is one of the few Cap & Ball revolvers the AH burglar didn't steal back in April.)

The cylinder hole for the barrel arbor is .352-.353 inches.

The outside diameter of the cylinder is 1.225 inches.

The overall length from the front face to the tops of the ratchet teeth is 1.547 inches.

The distance from the front face to the area just outside the ratchet that hits the recoil face on the frame is 1.450 inches.

The distance from the front face to the center of the cylinder bolt notches is 1.060 (approx).

The width of the cylinder bolt slots is .135-.136 inch.

The chambers measure .312 diameter at the mouth.

The distance from the center of the cylinder to the center of the chambers calculates to be (1.225/2) - .053 (wall thickness) - (.312/2)= .4035

I have nothing bad to say about replacing the existing cylinder on the pistol in the original post as long as the replacement cylinder is a direct fit that wouldn't involve modifying any of the existing parts. The only rule I would apply here is the owner must keep the original cylinder with the gun so it can be restored to its existing condition.

The little pistol is a neat find but it is far from being pristine so its value is only what someone is willing to pay for it.

 

[ToothPick]

Thank you for taking all those measurements.

I will check later and see how mine compares.

I appreciate everyone's input.

 

[Leatherbark]

I'd shoot it for sure. That is what it is made for. This might sound dumb but instead of welding and grinding I'd clean down to the bare metal, degrease and maybe some fine sandpaper and use JB weld on the worn notches and recut with a file. Keep the ratchet greased up good and it might last for while or not at all and no harm to the cylinder. Sometimes you try anything reasonable even if it is wrong. Or just rotate the bad chambers by hand just like a 49 er would have back in the day if his hand broke.


Bob

 

[ToothPick]

Or just rotate the bad chambers by hand just like a 49 er would have back in the day if his hand broke.


Bob

That seems like the most practical and least evasive solution, if I ever do decide to shoot it.

 

[crockett]

On repair work- you need a good pistol smith that has actually done that type of work. I'm just thinking here but I think the deal is that the top of the hand starts pushing against the racket tooth. About half way the hand slips off the tooth but rotation continues against the side of the hand. In any event, if someone "trues up" the ratchet teeth then a new hand would probably be needed.
On the value- see if you local bookstore stocks "Men at Arms" magazine. This is a gun collecting magazine published by the NRA and there are lots of ads of old revolvers and the various prices.

 

[denster]

That is the way it works in modern double action revolvers. In the Colt percussion with the one tooth hand it picks up the ratchet tooth at the 240 degree position and lifts it all the way to the 300 degree position.

 

[M. De Land]

Dennis has is right on the difference in hand/pawel function between the two types.
That is the reason the width is as important as is the length.
In percussion revolvers the hand nose pivots around to the right side of the tooth on the lift and is the reason the inside of the hand nose needs a bit of radius stoned in or it will eventually cut a ding in the tooth and will trip on it.
In modern revolvers the hand/pawel pivots left on the lift and acts as a cam at the top as it slides by.
Looks like perhaps the hand nose was harder than the ratchet teeth on this gun as well, along with shallow engagement.
This is the reason I prefer double hook hands like in the 73 SAA as the second hook picks up the next tooth on the lift and gives twice the lift power in six shooters.

 

[Wes/Tex]

From the new pictures, it's obvious it's a Model 1849 Pocket Revolver, successor to the Baby Dragoon and basically a baby brother to the 1851 Navy. My first thought would be to have a qualified gunsmith disassemble it and see what you're actually dealing with. There just might be other things going on than wear to the cylinder ratchet. I can see what appear to be the remains of the cylinder scene of the stage coach hold up, typical of the production.

It's hard to say if an Uberti cylinder can be fitted without costly tinkering or not...it's worth a try perhaps. Once or twice I've seen other cylinders or modern copies slide in place and index just fine. This is not to say one will, but the chance is there. If you just intended to shoot a round or two I'd say clean it and do so. If you intend to do extended shooting, the new cylinder might be necessary. Just remember, the '48 & '49 Colts were the stuff-in-your-pocket, 'belly gun' of their day. Modern ballistic tests have shown them to be the equivalent of a .22 LR fired from a handgun. No one wants to get doinked with any fired projectile, but this isn't a man-stopper caliber! :wink:

Whatever you do, remember you're playing with a 150 year old baby...and treat it with care. Just remember to have fun!

 

[cynthialee]

I am of the opinion that you should buy a reproduction and build a display case for the two guns.
The original should be for just looking at and if you and the folks you are showing it off to care to get a feel for the model 1849 in action, load up the reproduction and have fun at the range.

 

[pargent]

:applause: :applause: :applause: :hatsoff: :thumbsup:

 

[M. De Land]

Personally I'd much rather look at a gun that has been put back in functioning order with the original parts.
I want to see a gun used and taken care of not one that has been neglected and misused.

 

[desi23]

Have not tried a repro cylinder in my 49 but I have a Colt 1860 Army that came to me missing it's cylinder. I have a Uberti cylinder in it now and it works quite well. If I ever find a Colt cylinder at a price I'm willing to spend I'll probably buy it but continue to use the repro cylinder for shooting

 

[Tinker2]

If it where mine I'd make it function correctly as the ratchet teeth look to me like they could be cleaned up and salvaged to functionality without any TIG welding.
The original hand may need a bit of stretching and tuning up as well and the barrel set back but it looks repairable to me without changing any parts out.

I agree with this, without having it in our hands can’t be sure
More than half of the old cap & ball revolvers that comes through the shop have that issue
Maybe not that big of a deal. Take or send it to someone (with experience) that does that type of work


Good luck.
William Alexander

 

[crockett]

M.D.- this is important stuff and thanks for the insight. Could you be a little more specific? If what I understand is correct, if the top of the nose on the hand is sharp it will wear a ding in the tooth and it will in time "trip"- do you mean jam? When you say the right side of the tooth- if I am looking at the back of the cylinder, the hand comes up to contact the inside (toward the center of the cylinder)part of the tooth? I never thought about that but it makes sense because then the nose would seem to be in contact longer than if it hits the left/outside part of the tooth where it would slide off earlier.
All this goes back to the issue of repair. Years ago I was fast to use a file until some guy told me I was irreversibly removing metal. The problem was that metal was deformed and the solution was not to remove metal but knock/hammer it back into proper position.
On the value thing, not to bust any bubbles but those 1849's I think more of them were made than any other percussion model. That and the smaller size made them less popular with collectors and in one gun list I saw, I could get an original for maybe $900 while a good replica might be $300 and I thought GEEZZZZ only 3 times more for the real thing. Seemed like a good deal.

 

[crockett]

Just thinking here, I wonder if some sort of special tool could be made, a stamp. The idea is you held this stamp over the ratchet teeth and gently hammered- moving distorted metal back to it's original shape. That would exactly re-set all the teeth.

 

[M. De Land]

The hand nose needs radiused on the end and inside edge on the corner. All is needed is to get rid of any sharpness here with a slight rounding I use stones for this.
The nose should engage the tooth as close to the base as possible and as it lifts it rotates around the tooth to the right.
This is where the nose width is important. It needs the travel width on the tooth engagement in the rotation and it needs to closely fit the mortice width in the frame so that it cannot be deflected to the side in the lift.
Once a dent gets dinged or cut in the tooth then the nose inside corner catches in it and begins to trip and eventually bind if the nose corner and edges are left sharp.
I had to smooth these out as much as possible in the 62 with a fine cut Berrit file and leave enough tooth to function. The radiusing of the hand nose is what stopped the damage and allowed this to work. It should have been done at the factory and no damage would have occurred.
Most of the hands I have encountered were harder than the ratchet teeth as the teeth were what was buggered up on most of them.
That is why the radius on the nose end,corner and bit of inside edge is so important.
That inside corner if sharp and hard cuts into the tooth over time.
Looking at the nose from the top, the end and inside edge need a slight radius on both edges and the 90 degree corner.
I have not been specific enough when talking about this. All that is needed is for any sharpness to be broken and a bit of rounding on the corner without changing the basic profile unless damaged.
The same basic treatment given bolt noses and cylinder notches when slicking up an action.

 

[M. De Land]

I think usually a better repair is to clean up the teeth with a Barret file and restore as closely as possible to original profile then stretch the hand length a bit by peening it in the middle so it will pick up the tooth closer to the base were it should have from the beginning.
Never tried a stamp die to swage back metal to the original profile but it sure sounds like a good idea to try. Thanks for the suggestion, I'll chew on it some.