I talked to a member on another forum who used to be in the industry and he confirmed my suspicion. While he never heard of it, Armi San Marco was the only one to put rear flip up sights on the Dragoon, so it's very likely one of theirs.
-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
3rd Model Dragoon Bored-Out to use .490 Balls!
- Thread starter Dave Rosenthal
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Yup. Looks like mine.
When I first read this topic I thought about the distance between the chambers but as you can see, that isn't the problem.
The distance from the chamber to the outside of the cylinder would get pretty thin though.
Mine measured about .077 so going .45 to a .50 would thin that down to less than a 1/16 inch.
Pretty thin for a full powder load. :hmm:
When I first read this topic I thought about the distance between the chambers but as you can see, that isn't the problem.
The distance from the chamber to the outside of the cylinder would get pretty thin though.
Mine measured about .077 so going .45 to a .50 would thin that down to less than a 1/16 inch.
Pretty thin for a full powder load. :hmm:
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Messages
- 12,721
- Reaction score
- 6,848
Yup, hence the comment about high strength steels. The Walker's design is walking the tight rope as is.
Poor Private
58 Cal.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2007
- Messages
- 2,073
- Reaction score
- 19
This thread brings to mind a posting I made a couple of years back. About a 2nd model dragoon I picked up. I am the 2nd owner of the pistol, the original sales slip was included in the box with the pistol. It was bought in 1968 for a whooping $82.43. It was never fired. It is a Replica Arms 2nd model colt dragoon S/N 1009. Being a person who thinks a gun is made for using and not just a safe queen, I took it out to my range. After starting with .451's and working up I found that a .457 is still to small a ball. It will seat but creaps up when the next chamber is fired. So what I have used it for is civil war reenacting- blank charges. A shame since a gun is made to be shot. I am still looking for a way to use the bugger.
measure the cylinders and have a mold made for it!
I wouldn't want a revolver over .490 because if you go much bigger than that then the pistol is going to be bigger than a Walker and that is as big a handgun I can handle. Even with the Walker I can only do a few cylinders and I am spent.
I wouldn't want a revolver over .490 because if you go much bigger than that then the pistol is going to be bigger than a Walker and that is as big a handgun I can handle. Even with the Walker I can only do a few cylinders and I am spent.
The Possibles Shop lists a .460" Lee mold available through them and would probably be the next step up. You should make an accurate measurement of the chamber diameters before spending money at this point. This is surprising since the old Replica Arms guns always seem to have had bores and chambers smaller than now available. Most of the old guns I've had in .44 had bores running about .445" or so, which is why your post caught my attention. Certainly isn't the norm compared to what I've seen over the last 40+ years.
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Messages
- 12,721
- Reaction score
- 6,848
Poor Private said:
Now that's intriguing. So the chambers are about .457? Do you know what the barrel mikes at?
I would suggest you measure the chambers and slug the bore to find the proper size ball. I have never seen a .44 Italian revolver in which a .457" is loose enough to move under recoil. While you can force a .457" ball into them it is larger than you need and shaves off a fair ring of lead. A ball that fits the chambers should be at least bore size or slightly larger and the revolver should be reasonably accurate then.
Does the box or any of the papers state this is a .44? Is it possible this is one of the .50's?
Does the box or any of the papers state this is a .44? Is it possible this is one of the .50's?
Dave Rosenthal
70 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2006
- Messages
- 4,470
- Reaction score
- 24
I'm really pleased to see all of the interest as well as the responses to my inquiry. In a few short weeks I'm hoping to meet-up with my friend and shoot his with .490's. I'm going to ask our League Chair to bring his Mike & measure both the barrel and the chambers.
It was eye-opening to watch the muzzle of that gun "swallow" a .457 with no issues and then fall back out! I had to do a double-take and read the hornady box myself, cause I couldn't believe it!
It was eye-opening to watch the muzzle of that gun "swallow" a .457 with no issues and then fall back out! I had to do a double-take and read the hornady box myself, cause I couldn't believe it!
Guest
Sure that wasn't David Clements doing his five-shot .50cal Ruger Old Armies?
curator
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2004
- Messages
- 685
- Reaction score
- 126
Some of the early ASM "Dragoons" had groove diameters of .462+" apparently rifled with muzzle loading rifle tooling. This may be one of them that its owner reamed the chambers to bore size or a bit larger so it would shoot accurately. I have an ASM "Walker" with a .468" groove diameter and had the chambers bored out to .470 for the same reason. The original chamber diameters were .447 and balls seated in them barely touched the rifling when fired. After the modification the gun shoots quite accurately.
Dave Rosenthal
70 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2006
- Messages
- 4,470
- Reaction score
- 24
Hopefully I'll get to see this Dragoon in action on this Sunday. He's going to load it with .490 balls, so I'll see first-hand how much lead gets shaved-off!
Well, now, my BIL, who was "in the business" once upon a time a couple of decades ago at the latest said he has, and used to shoot, a .50 Walker just to get back at the guys shooting .458 Win. Mag rifles at the range.
Now, he is an a-hole, doesn't know half he or I originally thought he did, and we don't talk anymore so I can't ask, but... Ya mean maybe that .50 Colt horse pistol isn't an example that shows he's nuts too?
Now, he is an a-hole, doesn't know half he or I originally thought he did, and we don't talk anymore so I can't ask, but... Ya mean maybe that .50 Colt horse pistol isn't an example that shows he's nuts too?
Stophel said:Wes/Tex said:
Have you seen a Dragoon cylinder???
:haha:
I'll post the photo one d--n way or another!!!
Yep they are fine as they are but when people start tinkering ...... I have a dragoon cylinder that someone tried to convert to 45 LC the reamer cut through 3 of the lock notches..... I hope that the 49 cal gun in question is a factory with a beefer cylinder and not someone's tinkering/grenade.....
As I mentioned before, the problem isn't the amount of material between the chambers, it's the wall thickness between the chamber and the outside diameter.
Changing the chamber diameter from a .449 diameter to a .492 diameter (.003 under a .495 roundball) will remove .022 from the wall thickness.
There's also the question of how deep and where are the cylinder notches.
Changing the chamber diameter from a .449 diameter to a .492 diameter (.003 under a .495 roundball) will remove .022 from the wall thickness.
There's also the question of how deep and where are the cylinder notches.
Similar threads
