1860 question

[fredrader]

I just bought a revolver today and it has a brass frame 3 screw like a 1851 Navy but it has a 1860 Army brl..It even has a navy scene ingraved on the cylinder :idunno:
I interchanged the brls and cylinders and seems like everything went together fine..My question is is an 1860 Army brl supposed to interchange with the 1851 Navys? I just want to check with the experts before I take it out back and shoot it..Click on the pic for larger view..

 

[Coot]

Well with the original and 2nd generation Colts, it would be impossible due to the caliber difference if nothing else. BUT, with the Italian repros, where they have used both brass as well as steel for the frames and have made .44 cal. 'Navy' models, I would almost expect that to save money, they would use as much of the same tooling as possible to make the steel & the brass frames and both the .44 Army & Navy models. If so, there would be a lot of interchange possible between models. You did not say which company made your guns - please post that info.. Someone like BP revolver likely has the answers for the various brands.

 

[fredrader]

The 1851 is a Pieta and the other just says made in Italy The date code on the 1860 1982. THe 1851 was 2009, just got it from Cabela's.

 

[Dave Rosenthal]

I'm not sure...For safety's sake I'm going to defer to the Experts! I don't own any brass framed revolvers.

I'm not "Mr. Mechanical", so I only clean one gun at a time, and wouldn't even think to interchange the parts. What you have here is a very interesting situation.

I just shoot 'em and clean 'em, so I don't know for sure, but those photos look like things match-up quite well...

Dave

 

[fredrader]

Dave,The serial numbers match between the brl and the frame and the cylinder has a navy scene but said patent 1860 so I guess it's not a parts gun..Oh,I took it out back and it shot..I counted all my body parts and everything is still intact :thumbsup:
I just couldn't figure out why the navy scene on the cyl and Army on the brl..

 

[Dave Rosenthal]

Maybe Luigi and Salvatore got their barrels/cylinders mixed-up with a little too much chianti at lunch time :haha: :shocked2: :idunno:

 

[mykeal]

The naval battle scene on Colt revolvers was standard regardless of model; Colt didn't identify revolvers as Army or Navy models, so the scene on the cylinder wasn't intended to be on 'Navy' models.

The other scene found on earlier models was the Ranger-Indian gunfight. I believe there was also a stagecoach holdup.

 

[Robert an saa fan]

The 1860 Army looks like a Euroarms brand since it has a somewhat typical stubby hammer tip or maybe an Armi San Marco (ASM)... not sure as am away from home on a library computer and keep getting thrown off your pictures account. If you look on the bottom of the barrel you may see some i.d. marks.

Euroarms and others probably used the same frames for their 1851 and 1860 brass frame revolvers. Just had to use different barrels and grip frames to make diffent models.

The 1851 naval battle scene is very common on many 1860 Army replicas. Edited to add: mykeal who posted the same time I did is correct about original Colts.

One sidebar: over the years I have encountered two diffent ratchet diameters on the back of cylinders where the cylinder goes into the frame's recoil shield. So some cylinder ratchets are too wide to fit into some revolvers.

 

[mykeal]

Ok, here's the history:

Colt used the Naval battle scene on both the 1851 and 1860 models; it commemorated the Texas victory over Mexico. The Ranger-Indian battle scene was on the horse pistols (we call them Dragoons). The small frame revolvers had a stage coach holdup scene.

The Italian replicas reproduce the above.

 

[Robert an saa fan]

Reading a bit more carefully above I see Coot also gave a very good answer to the original poster.

Am out of library 'puter time. Later. Robert

 

[fredrader]

Ok,I took it back out and shot it and the first shot I had a chain fire and it fired the top 3 chambers.. :shocked2:
It tore up one of my sand bags but no damage other than that.There is a bunch of lead on the screw over the wedge where one of the balls hit it...After that I shot the last 3 shots and they went off fine..There is a marking under the brl over the serial number,A circle with a D and GG in it..Here is a couple pics..

 

[Dave Rosenthal]

HOLY CRA$!

Were you using wads and were all of the caps on the nipples? Or were you using lube over the chambers Fred?

This is the most recent chain-fire from a member of the forum to be sure!

Glad that you're O-K! This is just one of the reasons that a kid shouldn't be unsupervised using one of these things (another thread).

Again, glad that you're O-K!

Dave

 

[fredrader]

Dave,I was using 20g FFFG a wonder wad and .454 ball and (no bore butter over the ball)and I had all 6 #10 caps on and I even pinched them so they would fit even tighter on the nipple..I did notice after it chain fired that the cap under the hammer was in place but the 2 chambers that fired on each site of it were gone but the caps on the unfired chambers were still in place.
I did notice something after I cleaned it and pit it back together though..I can push the cylinder back away from the brl a little bit on this one and I can't do that on any of my other revolvers..I don't know if that had any thing to do with the chain fire but I don't think it's supposed to move back that far..It feels like it is spring loaded :idunno:

 

[Dave Rosenthal]

Dave,I was using 20g FFFG a wonder wad and .454 ball and (no bore butter over the ball)and I had all 6 #10 caps on and I even pinched them so they would fit even tighter on the nipple..I did notice after it chain fired that the cap under the hammer was in place but the 2 chambers that fired on each site of it were gone but the caps on the unfired chambers were still in place.
I did notice something after I cleaned it and pit it back together though..I can push the cylinder back away from the brl a little bit on this one and I can't do that on any of my other revolvers..I don't know if that had any thing to do with the chain fire but I don't think it's supposed to move back that far..It feels like it is spring loaded :idunno:

Wow Fred! O-K, first the caps: I don't have to pinch caps to fit them onto my nipples. My #10's fit snug and stay there for the most part, even when using a 52 grain charge with the Walker! It might be possible that hot gas got under the pinched caps and they ignited causing the chain fire. The chambers that chain-fired caused the caps to blow-off of the nipples--that's normal under this circumstance. The hammer wasn't on the nipples to hold the spent caps in place.

As far as the movement of the cylinder: could it be that you may have inadvertantly re-assembled those guns of yours with the wrong cylinders? You're the same poster with the Army-Navy issue, right? Forgive me if I seem distracted, since I was on another thread dealing with the 15 year old. I can't explain the "spring-loaded thing" that you're describing without the revolver in my hands to feel and see it for myself. Perhaps somone who knows more than I about this will be able to read about this and help you.

I'm just glad to here that you're O-K!

Dave

 

[fredrader]

Dave,I have the original cylinder on the gun (At least the one that came with it)..The caps did fit good without pinching them but I was just trying to make them tight as possible (Which may have been a mistake though)..
As for the Spring Loaded Cyl thing,The cylinder sits nice and close to the brl but I can pull the cylinder back with my finger and have a gap between the cyl and the brl but as soon as I remove my finger the cyl goes back up close to the brl..I tried it with the hammer in the down ,Half Cock and full cock position and it was harder to pull the cyl back when the hammer was down because of the spring pressure of the hammer pushing the nipple/cylinder forward..The spring pressure I feel at halfcock and full cock is probably just the little thing that rotates the cylinder sticking out of the frame touching the rear of the cylinder :idunno:
Hope I described it better..I took a couple pics but you will have to click on the small pic to make it larger and then click the larger pic for the largest view..The pic with my finger on the cyl is me pulling back on the cyl to show the gap..I could go out in the garage and get a set of feeler gauges and measure the gap but I haven't done it yet..

 

[mykeal]

The DGG mark is the stamp for the manufacturer, Euroarms of Italy. Euroarms is the former Armi San Paolo.

I don't see a problem with the cylinder.

 

[Dave Rosenthal]

Fred,

The gap that you have in that photo with your finger is significantly more than what I would call normal. I just got my Uberti 3rd Model Dragoon and tried to do what you did, and the best I can manage is just a "hairline" gap where I can just see a sliver of light of the 'puter screen through as I look at my gun while doing what you're doing to yours.

I'd give mykeal a PT and see what he has to say. He knows more about these things than I do. I'd be safe and not shoot the revolver again until someone who knows more than I says it's O-K.

Good luck with it!

Dave

 

[fredrader]

The DGG mark is the stamp for the manufacturer, Euroarms of Italy. Euroarms is the former Armi San Paolo.

I don't see a problem with the cylinder.

Thanks for figuring out the mfg,I measured the gap and it is .028..

 

[Zonie]

IMO, although .028 is a noticable gap it isn't uncommon.
Often this gap can be decreased by tapping the barrel wedge in a bit further as that moves the barrel aft.

I don't believe the barrel/cylinder gap had anything to do with the chain firing.
That phenomenon requires a spark to somehow get into the adjacent chambers.

If you were using the correct caliber wonder wad I don't think the spark could have gotten past them so that leaves the caps, or lack of caps as the most likely cause.

Perhaps, by pinching the caps out of round they did not seat all the way down?
If the narrow part of the out of round cap started to bind up on the cone of the nipple too soon, the large part of the out of round cap would provide an open area for the flame to get thru. This coupled with the priming compound not resting against the top of the nipple would produce an open path into the neighboring chambers.

No proof, but just a thought. :hmm:

Now that I've thought a minute about it, perhaps I spoke too soon.

It is possible that the barrel/cylinder gap might have contributed to the chain firing.

If the cylinder was forward when the fired chamber ignited, the cylinder would have slammed rearward with a great amount of energy.
When it hit the frame it would have stopped.

The inertia of the caps in the aft direction could have dislodged them making them come off of the nipples. If this occurred while flames were coming out of the fired nipple, the flames could have entered the adjacent nipple holes. :hmm:

 

[Dave Rosenthal]

Zonie,

As far as the chain-fire, I was trying to say the same idea. That's where I was going, with the pinched caps letting in the hot gases.

When it comes to the cylinder gap, I have to defer to folks who know more than I. Thanks for being here!

Dave