1851@100.

[Stantheman86]

Knowledge for knowledge sake, Stan. Testing limits. Just like building a car to test a speed theory. Sometimes just proving to yourself it can be done, for your own edification and amusement. Does there really need to be any more reason than that?

Whatever floats peoples boats

 

[Stantheman86]

Oh, I get it . You got rid of the "cheap" $200.00 cylinder (crescent wrench) which turned your Walker into a 45C and replaced it with $550.00 Ruger 45C .
Whatever floats yer boat . . .
( maybe a better conversion cylinder would have made the difference).

Mike

Well yeah. Who doesn't love a Vaquero?

I purchased an American made Ruger semi-repro of a Colt to bang away with .45 LC instead of converting an Italian Walker reproduction to do so. The Walkers are there to shoot as percussion revolvers.

If I need or want a gun for a specific purpose, I just buy it .

I've bought and sold more guns than I can even remember. Who cares. I have some in calibers that haven't existed in 100+ years. It's a hobby, it's supposed to be fun.

I'm simply trying to pick some brains here as to why there is a need to shoot smokeless cartridges through Italian repro percussion revolvers just for the sake of doing it . If that's what you want to do then whatever, it's your time and money

I recall my experiments with shooting Nessler Balls through .69 muskets a few years back and made it work just to do it. I think 2 people cared when I actually got them to work, well, maybe 3, and I actually had a guy threaten my life on YouTube over my videos on it so I get the "doing things to say it can be done " thing . I did get cited on a Wikipedia article so theres that. Follow your dreams

 

[M. De Land]

Well yeah. Who doesn't love a Vaquero?

I purchased an American made Ruger semi-repro of a Colt to bang away with .45 LC instead of converting an Italian Walker reproduction to do so. The Walkers are there to shoot as percussion revolvers.

If I need or want a gun for a specific purpose, I just buy it .

I've bought and sold more guns than I can even remember. Who cares. I have some in calibers that haven't existed in 100+ years. It's a hobby, it's supposed to be fun.

I'm simply trying to pick some brains here as to why there is a need to shoot smokeless cartridges through Italian repro percussion revolvers just for the sake of doing it . If that's what you want to do then whatever, it's your time and money

I recall my experiments with shooting Nessler Balls through .69 muskets a few years back and made it work just to do it. I think 2 people cared when I actually got them to work, well, maybe 3, and I actually had a guy threaten my life on YouTube over my videos on it so I get the "doing things to say it can be done " thing . I did get cited on a Wikipedia article so theres that. Follow your dreams

Well it is wise to remember that these designs were not made to handle high smokeless pressure and even with modern steel the design limits are being pushed out side of the safety parameters, should very heavy 45 Colt loads be inadvertently fired. My Bisely .45 Colt loads shooting a 280 grain Kieth bullet to over 1300 FPS would not be a safe fit for any convertible in my opinion as this is truly a very accurate magnum load but the Ruger handles it with ease.

 

[45D]

I purchased an American made Ruger semi-repro of a Colt to bang away with .45 LC instead of converting an Italian Walker reproduction to do so. The Walkers are there to shoot as percussion revolvers.
I'm simply trying to pick some brains here as to why there is a need to shoot smokeless cartridges through Italian repro percussion revolvers just for the sake of doing it . If that's what you want to do then whatever, it's your time and money
Follow your dreams

Yeah, it's "what I do and enjoy". I tune SA revolvers, mostly open-top platform but Remington and Ruger ( 3-screw) as well.

I've got 5 Rugers (ROA's) with Kirst conversion cylinders (all American made). They can handle extreme loads (well, not quite sure about the one "fixed sighted" SS version yet but it's the equal to the original Vaquero) . . .

Much of the conversion "interest" is because it's historical, Colt did it, Remington did it so I do it but all of my examples are made of much more modern materials than the originals. That allows me to take a modern "path". Since I have to shoot at indoor ranges, it has to be smokeless, so conversions allow me to still shoot MY favorite revolvers.

Well it is wise to remember that these designs were not made to handle high smokeless pressure and even with modern steel the design limits are being pushed out side of the safety parameters, should very heavy 45 Colt loads be inadvertently fired. My Bisely .45 Colt loads shooting a 280 grain Kieth bullet to over 1300 FPS would not be a safe fit for any convertible in my opinion as this is truly a very accurate magnum load but the Ruger handles it with ease.

Well, the "designers" would have to have known the future for that to be true . . . the revolvers were designed to work with what they had ( not to mention it was fairly new "ground " still. They had no idea how far their design could go!). Just as the original SAA can't handle smokeless rounds, the modern copies can be had in modern mag. calibers.

So, what is being learned in my instance is where the limits actually are for the modern open-top revolver. The tensile strength of the arbor in a belt pistol is in the 50K psi range, the horse pistols are a bit more.
So, it's not a "materials" thing, it's not a "design" thing, it's definitely not an "inadequate cylinder" thing. It's actually the "build quality / fit" that is the limiting factor for the open-top platform. I'm already in the +p range with 2 loadings.

My ROA's can do the same as your Ruger Bisely . . .

Mike

 

[M. De Land]

Yeah, it's "what I do and enjoy". I tune SA revolvers, mostly open-top platform but Remington and Ruger ( 3-screw) as well.

I've got 5 Rugers (ROA's) with Kirst conversion cylinders (all American made). They can handle extreme loads (well, not quite sure about the one "fixed sighted" SS version yet but it's the equal to the original Vaquero) . . .

Much of the conversion "interest" is because it's historical, Colt did it, Remington did it so I do it but all of my examples are made of much more modern materials than the originals. That allows me to take a modern "path". Since I have to shoot at indoor ranges, it has to be smokeless, so conversions allow me to still shoot MY favorite revolvers.



Well, the "designers" would have to have known the future for that to be true . . . the revolvers were designed to work with what they had ( not to mention it was fairly new "ground " still. They had no idea how far their design could go!). Just as the original SAA can't handle smokeless rounds, the modern copies can be had in modern mag. calibers.

So, what is being learned in my instance is where the limits actually are for the modern open-top revolver. The tensile strength of the arbor in a belt pistol is in the 50K psi range, the horse pistols are a bit more.
So, it's not a "materials" thing, it's not a "design" thing, it's definitely not an "inadequate cylinder" thing. It's actually the "build quality / fit" that is the limiting factor for the open-top platform. I'm already in the +p range with 2 loadings.

My ROA's can do the same as your Ruger Bisely . . .

Mike

The design limit is two fold Mike. First, the thrust vector load check (key and arbor slot) are out of line with the bore which loads the frame, arbor and lug pins both radially ( bullet torque) as well as forward thrust ( powder burn and bullet pull) off center. This is the main reason open frame guns flex, both from assembly clearance as well as metal compression and contraction.
Secondly, the total area of the thrust and torque check (cross section of key and arbor slot contact) is a fraction of that of a barrel thread length and cross section in a solid frame design that both se-rounds and is coaxial with the two main stress loads to the frame.
Better steel alloys do give greater safety margins but do not negate design weakness which is the reason these manufactures of convertible cylinders caution against heavy loads.
There is no way on earth open frame designs are even close to as strong in resisting the stress loads mentioned of magnum pressure as is a Ruger Blackhawk, Redhawk or Biesly.
I agree about your ROA as it has essetially become a Blackhawk with the addition of a convertible cylinder.

 

[M. De Land]

Well it is wise to remember that these designs were not made to handle high smokeless pressure and even with modern steel the design limits are being pushed out side of the safety parameters, should very heavy 45 Colt loads be inadvertently fired. My Bisely .45 Colt loads shooting a 280 grain Kieth bullet to over 1300 FPS would not be a safe fit for any convertible in my opinion as this is truly a very accurate magnum load but the Ruger handles it with ease.

I was speaking of open frame designs here ( Colt Walker) being compared to the Ruger Vaquero.

 

[45D]

The design limit is two fold Mike. First, the thrust vector load check (key and arbor slot) are out of line with the bore which loads the frame, arbor and lug pins both radially ( bullet torque) as well as forward thrust ( powder burn and bullet pull) off center. This is the main reason open frame guns flex, both from assembly clearance as well as metal compression and contraction.
Secondly, the total area of the thrust and torque check (cross section of key and arbor slot contact) is a fraction of that of a barrel thread length and cross section in a solid frame design that both se-rounds and is coaxial with the two main stress loads to the frame.
Better steel alloys do give greater safety margins but do not negate design weakness which is the reason these manufactures of convertible cylinders caution against heavy loads.
There is no way on earth open frame designs are even close to as strong in resisting the stress loads mentioned of magnum pressure as is a Ruger Blackhawk, Redhawk or Biesly.
I agree about your ROA as it has essetially become a Blackhawk with the addition of a convertible cylinder.

Ok, the top member of the frame (top strap) is "out of line" just as much if not more so ( depending on the model) as the arbor. One is above, one is below ( the bore line). Their frame shapes are the same but one is spread out, the other is more compact making it more robust. The arbor is supported by a robust barrel lug utilizing the shear strength of the locating pins. The force at firing is linear with minimal downward force for the pins to deal with. The rotational force imparted to the barrel assy is mitigated by the contact (butt joint) at the frame. The force at the wedge is dispersed through the arbor because of contact under TENSION ( if it IS under tension rather that just holding a "position" under some bit of friction). This particular part of the design is exactly WHY +p loads can be sustained by the design. And of course TENSION can only be applied if the wedge is imparting it and it can't do that if there's no "foundation" to allow it to exist (arbor end contacting the bottom of the arbor hole).
The second point is mitigated because of tension imparted by the setup of the design. ( done correctly, it can't "rattle" and cause destruction).

If there's no way on earth the open-top can "come close" to stress loads of " whatever ", then I screwed up because I'm already in the Ruger Only territory and showing no signs of pressure problems.
I definitely wouldn't be where I am with an original ( way too soft) but we have what we have to work with . . . which is why the testing.

The only way to make a Top strap stronger is a bigger/ thicker /wider top strap to contain the force ( not to mention boutique materials / heat treating). Compare a SAA frame to Ruger, Freedom Arms, BFR.

So I'll enjoy my testing with what I have and keep reporting. I don't mind helping but I can't help folks if they say I can't do what I'm already doing . . .

Mike

BTW, my comparison is belt pistols, the horse pistols (Walkers / Dragoons ) are a whole nuther beast!

 

[M. De Land]

Ok, the top member of the frame (top strap) is "out of line" just as much if not more so ( depending on the model) as the arbor. One is above, one is below ( the bore line). Their frame shapes are the same but one is spread out, the other is more compact making it more robust. The arbor is supported by a robust barrel lug utilizing the shear strength of the locating pins. The force at firing is linear with minimal downward force for the pins to deal with. The rotational force imparted to the barrel assy is mitigated by the contact (butt joint) at the frame. The force at the wedge is dispersed through the arbor because of contact under TENSION ( if it IS under tension rather that just holding a "position" under some bit of friction). This particular part of the design is exactly WHY +p loads can be sustained by the design. And of course TENSION can only be applied if the wedge is imparting it and it can't do that if there's no "foundation" to allow it to exist (arbor end contacting the bottom of the arbor hole).
The second point is mitigated because of tension imparted by the setup of the design. ( done correctly, it can't "rattle" and cause destruction).

If there's no way on earth the open-top can "come close" to stress loads of " whatever ", then I screwed up because I'm already in the Ruger Only territory and showing no signs of pressure problems.
I definitely wouldn't be where I am with an original ( way too soft) but we have what we have to work with . . . which is why the testing.

The only way to make a Top strap stronger is a bigger/ thicker /wider top strap to contain the force ( not to mention boutique materials / heat treating). Compare a SAA frame to Ruger, Freedom Arms, BFR.

So I'll enjoy my testing with what I have and keep reporting. I don't mind helping but I can't help folks if they say I can't do what I'm already doing . . .

Mike

BTW, my comparison is belt pistols, the horse pistols (Walkers / Dragoons ) are a whole nuther beast!

First point, in open frame guns the thrust vector is only supported on one side below center line (arbor and key) where as in a solid frame the thrust is supported above and below on two sides (top strap and lower frame).
Point two, torque is coaxial supported by threads around the barrel root and frame/ barrel shoulder compressed fit. Some threads can be counter to bullet torque depending on right or left hand twist and some are pinned to maintain index support ( Smith and Wesson for example), either way the thrust vector is supported coaxially by two sides opposite each other as opposed to one side. The only movement possible is in steel elasticity not assembly tolerance and cantilever stress from one sided barrel support as in open frame design.

 

[snakebit]

I hope someone is courteous enough to send Dr Balasz Nemeth a message that he's not maintaining his gun properly

I have some tips on Double Action revolver shooting for Jerry Miculek too , I'm sure he could use some advice

 

[45D]

First point, in open frame guns the thrust vector is only supported on one side below center line (arbor and key) where as in a solid frame the thrust is supported above and below on two sides (top strap and lower frame).
Point two, torque is coaxial supported by threads around the barrel root and frame/ barrel shoulder compressed fit. Some threads can be counter to bullet torque depending on right or left hand twist and some are pinned to maintain index support ( Smith and Wesson for example), either way the thrust vector is supported coaxially by two sides opposite each other as opposed to one side. The only movement possible is in steel elasticity not assembly tolerance and cantilever stress from one sided barrel support as in open frame design.

The problem with your "point one" is :
You don't seem to understand that the "open-top" design isn't an "open frame". The arbor is anchored (screwed and pinned) to the frame and secured to the barrel assembly with a wedge under heavy tension. The barrel lug locates on pins at the front of the frame and is also under tension because of the wedge. The force of the bullet hitting the f.c. is linear. The bore being above the arbor naturally imparts a downward rotational force which is negated by the lug/frame butt joint.

The bullet torque is checked by the locating pins at the lug / frame joint. This works perfectly even with the faster twist (1 / 18") and speed imparted on a heavy 250gr ( or 230gr ) bullet.

Mike

 

[M. De Land]

The problem with your "point one" is :
You don't seem to understand that the "open-top" design isn't an "open frame". The arbor is anchored (screwed and pinned) to the frame and secured to the barrel assembly with a wedge under heavy tension. The barrel lug locates on pins at the front of the frame and is also under tension because of the wedge. The force of the bullet hitting the f.c. is linear. The bore being above the arbor naturally imparts a downward rotational force which is negated by the lug/frame butt joint.

The bullet torque is checked by the locating pins at the lug / frame joint. This works perfectly even with the faster twist (1 / 18") and speed imparted on a heavy 250gr ( or 230gr ) bullet.

Mike

As an example of thrust support think of the difference between one sided thrust support at the bottom of the thrust vector as in a Krag Rifle bolt with one forward lug as opposed to a two sided thrust support as in a Springfield rifle ( above and below). The two lugged bolt support rifle will stand much more linear pressure and will flex less than will a one lugged bolt. The same support leverage is at work in solid frame revolvers as opposed to one side support in open frame guns. The thread on the arbor is still on one side below the thrust vector of the bore. One of the reasons arbor threads loosen in brass frame guns is from the bore thrust cantilever pressure and flex forward and downward which the lower lug is designed to check. Both thrust checks ( arbor and lug) are on one side below the thrust vector (bore).
The other thing I keep talking about is the clearance that remains for the arbor to be able slide into the well. This is not removed by end pressure which is on a different axis or how well the key is fit into it's slots. Couple that with metal elasticity and we have flex at firing. Rifle actions flex at firing and are far more rigid than any revolver frame so I can assure you open top revolvers do as well.

 

[45D]

The reason for the arbor thread loosening in brass frames is a rampant cylinder with too much headspace that beats them to pieces ( no matter how Perfect the wedge is).

As far as anything else, I'll just keep moving forward with my testing and you do what you do . . .

Mike

 

[M. De Land]

The reason for the arbor thread loosening in brass frames is a rampant cylinder with too much headspace that beats them to pieces ( no matter how Perfect the wedge is).

As far as anything else, I'll just keep moving forward with my testing and you do what you do . . .

Mike

It is a good discussion just different views on how they work. I learn from the exchange and love testing what I think against other opinion. Appreciate you taking the time to say what you believe is correct!

 

[45D]

It is a good discussion just different views on how they work. I learn from the exchange and love testing what I think against other opinion. Appreciate you taking the time to say what you believe is correct!

Likewise Mr. De Land !!

Just like the action in the single action is "simple" so is the open-top design. The problem comes when explaining either of them as neither of them are really "intuitive".

Mike

 

[M. De Land]

I wonder what Britsmoothy thinks about how this thread has gone. He's probably glad we left in 1776.

He probably appreciates the discussion and is thinking about and perhaps learning new things he's never thought about before. If you don't actually work on these machines to the level we are discussing then there is much nuance about them one would not encounter or have need to know.
The probable loose key and floppy loading lever indicate to me that he is most likely not a gun mechanic but his shooting skills and historical knowledge are unquestionable and much appreciated.

 

[Bad Karma]

He probably appreciates the discussion and is thinking about and perhaps learning new things he's never thought about before. If you don't actually work on these machines to the level we are discussing then there is much nuance about them one would not encounter or have need to know.
The probable loose key and floppy loading lever indicate to me that he is most likely not a gun mechanic but his shooting skills and historical knowledge are unquestionable and much appreciated.

He’s just happy that some of us are using 4f powder in these guns…

 

[Bad Karma]

Well yeah. Who doesn't love a Vaquero?

I purchased an American made Ruger semi-repro of a Colt to bang away with .45 LC instead of converting an Italian Walker reproduction to do so. The Walkers are there to shoot as percussion revolvers.

If I need or want a gun for a specific purpose, I just buy it .

I've bought and sold more guns than I can even remember. Who cares. I have some in calibers that haven't existed in 100+ years. It's a hobby, it's supposed to be fun.

I'm simply trying to pick some brains here as to why there is a need to shoot smokeless cartridges through Italian repro percussion revolvers just for the sake of doing it . If that's what you want to do then whatever, it's your time and money

I recall my experiments with shooting Nessler Balls through .69 muskets a few years back and made it work just to do it. I think 2 people cared when I actually got them to work, well, maybe 3, and I actually had a guy threaten my life on YouTube over my videos on it so I get the "doing things to say it can be done " thing . I did get cited on a Wikipedia article so theres that. Follow your dreams

Doggone it Stan, where did you go?!

 

[oncewas]

Well since this is an incredibly interesting hijacked thread I’d like to add that I don’t like the fact that the moderators use subjective moderation. There I’ve said it. It’s unfair.

 

[French Colonial]

Well since this is an incredibly interesting hijacked thread I’d like to add that I don’t like the fact that the moderators use subjective moderation. There I’ve said it. It’s unfair.

Once your in their sights they watch you pretty close, ask me how I know

 

[M. De Land]

This kid can shoot!
Great video.

Yeah, and with an old, well used short arbor gun !