1862 Woes

[NorthFork]

I bought a spring kit for my 1860 army, it came with a lightened main spring.
I doubled it atop the Pietta spring. No cap bunce that Ive seen yet.
I called the company I got the spring kit from and they told me they have stiffer springs and if I wanted to send mine back they would send me a stiffy.
Id already redesigned the one I had, so it was too late for that.

https://www.emf-company.com/store/pc/-26-1851-60-61-Trigger-Bolt-Spring-p1729.htm

@Andreas Jager

Mr. Tremain's post also contains a link to a supplier for the same 'fix'

 

[Bunk]

@Andreas Jager

Duelist1954 on utube has a video but for the life of me I can't find it. But here is an equally competent fellow that runs Era's Gone molds. His fix is cheap and worthy of consideration. The extra spring can be bought from Taylors and Co. Here's the video.

The lock work and construction of all the open top Colts is the same. Any of the videos Beliveau does on tuning the Colt will work. The only difference is frame size. Those little frames can't digest fragments and keep working. I took a friends Walker apart after shooting it and when the frame was stripped we found a whole mashed flat cap in it and it had worked perfectly.
Size does matter.
Respectfully
Bunk

 

[rusticbob]

Wow! All these posts make me glad I bought the Remington clone

 

[Griff093]

More expensive than adding a cap rake is to do a "Manhattan Conversion". My hammers also have the hammer slots filled.

The "Cap Rake" is simply a hole drilled in the top of the recoil shield with a bit of drill stock inserted (soldered or epoxied), and a slot in the hammer face to keep spent caps out of the action. If you're shooting timed events, the time wasted in flicking your wrist to eject spent caps out of the action will be costly! I can see the value of the action shield simply by keeping fouling and other debris out of the lockwork.

Both fixes are super efficient and not difficult. The rake probably less intrusive and not requiring as much skill. The Manhattan Conversion is so named after the Manhattan Firearms Co. and of the time period.

 

[45D]

More expensive than adding a cap rake is to do a "Manhattan Conversion". My hammers also have the hammer slots filled.
View attachment 226698

The "Cap Rake" is simply a hole drilled in the top of the recoil shield with a bit of drill stock inserted (soldered or epoxied), and a slot in the hammer face to keep spent caps out of the action. If you're shooting timed events, the time wasted in flicking your wrist to eject spent caps out of the action will be costly! I can see the value of the action shield simply by keeping fouling and other debris out of the lockwork.

View attachment 226699

Both fixes are super efficient and not difficult. The rake probably less intrusive and not requiring as much skill. The Manhattan Conversion is so named after the Manhattan Firearms Co. and of the time period.

Well, I can tell you that SOME cap posts (rakes) are installed by drilling and tapping a hole and screwing in a stainless post. Much better than epoxy or soldering. Quality matters . . .

Mike

 

[David Y. Snellen]

So, my Uberti 1862 Pocket Police finally arrived. I replaced the nipples with SlixShots and did the Duelist tune up. I took it to the range and loaded up the same load I shoot in my 1861 Navies, which is 25 grains of FFFg black powder, a lubricated wad, and a round ball. It seemed pretty accurate at 25 yards. The problem is the spent caps are ending up under the hammer and in the action. I believe the mainspring is too weak and the hammer is being lifted up by the pressure of the load going off. I would expect this with factory nipples, but not SlixShots. How do I solve this issue? Should I use some other brand of nipples? Replace the main spring?

Dear Sir,
Your pistol is a .36, personally I think 25 grains is a heavy load. I shoot 25 in my .44s and 17 in my .36s. I figure the easier the load, the longer the gun will last.
Just my opinion- not trying to 'tell you what to do'.
I hope you get the cap issue resolved.
David

 

[springfield art]

So, my Uberti 1862 Pocket Police finally arrived. I replaced the nipples with SlixShots and did the Duelist tune up. I took it to the range and loaded up the same load I shoot in my 1861 Navies, which is 25 grains of FFFg black powder, a lubricated wad, and a round ball. It seemed pretty accurate at 25 yards. The problem is the spent caps are ending up under the hammer and in the action. I believe the mainspring is too weak and the hammer is being lifted up by the pressure of the load going off. I would expect this with factory nipples, but not SlixShots. How do I solve this issue? Should I use some other brand of nipples? Replace the main spring?

I gotta look into those Slix Shots.

 

[rusticbob]

I love the look and feel of the Colts, but this issue with cap jams is why I shoot Remingtons.

 

[Griff093]

I love the look and feel of the Colts, but this issue with cap jams is why I shoot Remingtons.

IMNSHO, the issue of cap jams happens with folks overcharging chambers, especially .36 caliber guns, anything more than ~15 grains is really not needed. I've never had any volunteers to see if the RB out of my 1851s bounces off anyone's chest! They may not make a 25-30lb piece of ½" steel wiggle like a .44, but they make a satisfying "ding", or punch holes in paper just fine. Plus, at 25 yards, the holes seem to appear right where the sights are regulated right from the factory! The roughness of imports in most areas and in particular to to this discussion, the hammer face, often burred around the safety slot, plus poor fitting of caps to nipple. While out of the box it may function, cock the hammer & the cylinder rotates, pull the trigger and the hammer falls... it probably is VERY unlikely to do those things properly or with the minimum of interference from other parts of the gun. The originals weren't magnums by any stretch of the imagination, yet newbies seem to have this need for pushing the envelope. If I've found anything consistent in my more than 50 years of competitive shooting, higher velocities seldom reap the finest accuracy. There's the anomaly, sure... but in general, well off maximum is the most accurate.

As a well known CAS gunsmith used to say, (paraphrasing), you can take the folks' station wagon to race at NASCAR... While it may have a big V-8 engine, 4 tires and wheels... it lacks certain other refinements to keep up with the pack! Your new imported C & B revolver lacks certain refinements to be as reliable as it can! BTW, so does your rifle, shotgun or even your suppository revolver!

 

[Tyler L]

*I hope no one minds I resurrected this thread

I tried to shoot my 1862 for the first time today, and I quickly discovered the hammer would not set off the caps. Comparing to my 1849, the hammer is about .030" to .040" farther away from the cylinder/nipples. As a quick fix so I could empty the cylinder, I super-glued some shim stock to the hammer face. The frustrating thing is I can't find any obvious dimensional differences between the two gun's hammers, cylinders, or frames.

The question for the forum then is what is the best fix?
1) Remove material from the frame inside the hammer notch
2) Remove material from the hammer so it travels farther before hitting the frame
3) Add material to the hammer face (O1 steel pinned, and soldered or epoxied)

I'm kind of leaning toward #3 although it's more work.

EDIT: Seeing this thread: 1860 Colt Hammer Redo I definitely prefer option #3

 

[Ed C.]

*I hope no one minds I resurrected this thread

I tried to shoot my 1862 for the first time today, and I quickly discovered the hammer would not set off the caps. Comparing to my 1849, the hammer is about .030" to .040" farther away from the cylinder/nipples. As a quick fix so I could empty the cylinder, I super-glued some shim stock to the hammer face. The frustrating thing is I can't find any obvious dimensional differences between the two gun's hammers, cylinders, or frames.

The question for the forum then is what is the best fix?
1) Remove material from the frame inside the hammer notch
2) Remove material from the hammer so it travels farther before hitting the frame
3) Add material to the hammer face (O1 steel pinned, and soldered or epoxied)

I'm kind of leaning toward #3 although it's more work.

EDIT: Seeing this thread: 1860 Colt Hammer Redo I definitely prefer option #3

Do you have room to use a taller nipple without it binding against the recoil shield?

 

[45D]

The question for the forum then is what is the best fix?
1) Remove material from the frame inside the hammer notch
2) Remove material from the hammer so it travels farther before hitting the frame
3) Add material to the hammer face (O1 steel pinned, and soldered or epoxied)

I'm kind of leaning toward #3 although it's more work.

Actually, #2 is best and easiest. You get 2 benefits. You'll get your primary problem taken care of and you'll get a little earlier "bolt reset".

Mike

 

[Tyler L]

Do you have room to use a taller nipple without it binding against the recoil shield?

No, I actually had the first cap dragging on the recoil shield because I didn't seat it far enough. That would've been an easy fix if I had room

 

[Tyler L]

Actually, #2 is best and easiest. You get 2 benefits. You'll get your primary problem taken care of and you'll get a little earlier "bolt reset".

Mike

Ah, I see. And if I add too much material I run the risk of the action not resetting, yes?

 

[45D]

Ah, I see. And if I add too much material I run the risk of the action not resetting, yes?

Yessir!

 

[Bunk]

*I hope no one minds I resurrected this thread

I tried to shoot my 1862 for the first time today, and I quickly discovered the hammer would not set off the caps. Comparing to my 1849, the hammer is about .030" to .040" farther away from the cylinder/nipples. As a quick fix so I could empty the cylinder, I super-glued some shim stock to the hammer face. The frustrating thing is I can't find any obvious dimensional differences between the two gun's hammers, cylinders, or frames.

The question for the forum then is what is the best fix?
1) Remove material from the frame inside the hammer notch
2) Remove material from the hammer so it travels farther before hitting the frame
3) Add material to the hammer face (O1 steel pinned, and soldered or epoxied)

I'm kind of leaning toward #3 although it's more work.

EDIT: Seeing this thread: 1860 Colt Hammer Redo I definitely prefer option #3

I was told by a good gunsmith the spark plug gasket for a model plane engine.
Good luck
Bunk

 

[Tyler L]

I was told by a good gunsmith the spark plug gasket for a model plane engine.
Good luck
Bunk

Believe me, I was wishing I had some!

 

[Jappo]

Push the hammer forward manually. If it travels further, your spring is too weak. Short of drilling and tapping it for a set screw like the 58 Remingtons, try to bend the spring. I just got through doing this to my 1863 pocket Remington.

 

[Ed C.]

Push the hammer forward manually. If it travels further, your spring is too weak. Short of drilling and tapping it for a set screw like the 58 Remingtons, try to bend the spring. I just got through doing this to my 1863 pocket Remington.

I did the same thing as well on a 1851 Navy. But I did order another spring just in case the bend ends up in a breakage down the road.

 

[Tyler L]

Actually, #2 is best and easiest. You get 2 benefits. You'll get your primary problem taken care of and you'll get a little earlier "bolt reset".

Mike

You were right as usual, Mike! Thanks! This worked well; it now sets off the caps reliably.

I should take apart and measure my 1849's hammer, because I suspect this gun's hammer has the pivot hole shifted up and over slightly making it sit differently in the frame.