A cure for cap sucking Colt C&Bs

[duelist1954]

One question I get asked all the time is, "If modern made Colt replicas suck off spent caps into the action, why don't you read about that happening with the originals?"

That is a great question, and I never really had a good answer. I wondered if 19th century cones were different...just didn't know.

I think now I do know why.

Once again it comes down to polishing and de-burring.

I used to fill the hammer safety slot with J-B Weld to stop cap sucking, though it didn't fix every gun, but there's a better way.

On the Dance and Brothers revolver, I de-fanged the safety slot. I de-burred it inside and out. I broke the razor sharp edges and I slightly rounded the two points at the bottom face of the slot.

The result, zero cap sucking without installing Slix Shot nipples.

Why didn't original Colts suck caps? Because there weren't a bunch of rough, sharp edges on the safety slot.

I'm going to apply this fix to a few other C&Bs and see if it works on them, but I think this is the solution.
I'll do a video on the subject when I'm done testing.

 

[Sandan027]

Already noted, I'm going to give this a shot tonight.

 

[DOUBLEDEUCE 1]

Never thought of that being the cause. Certainly is something to think about. Waiting for your video too.. :hmm:

 

[Zonie]

One question I get asked all the time is, "If modern made Colt replicas suck off spent caps into the action, why don't you read about that happening with the originals?"
...

You may be on to something. The Colts were tuned and assembled by hand and things like deburring the sharp edges came with the territory.

Then, their might be other reasons we don't read about the problem.

IMO, the main reason we don't see anyone writing about the problem back in the mid 1800's is because there were no magazines that would publish the problem.

Paper cost money and writing about the problem took time and there was no internet for people to write about their gripes.

Back in those days, a person had their choice.
Put up with a few problems and own a repeating pistol or carry a single shot pistol.

The benefits of having multiple shots available far outweighed the few niggles the old Colts had so learning how to deal with the problems just came with owning a Colt.

 

[Grumpa]

Another reason might be that the mainsprings on original Colts were much heavier those that are found on the modern repros.

 

[coloradoclyde]

Sounds like it would make a great video tutorial.... :wink:

 

[rodwha]

Very interesting! Can't wait to see what you find.

 

[Liver eatin’ Johnson]

Interesting experiment. I've wondered about the mechanics of the cap being sucked into the action...

 

[smoothshooter]

Agree with Grumpa.
My personal experience is that a weak mainspring is a major cause of cap in the hammer slot jams.
Nipples with overly large flash holes are another major cause.

It also seems to me that all the antique caps I have seen were made of thicker material than modern Remington and CCI caps are.
I still have a few old Italian caps made in the 1960's that are made of heavier materials like the antique ones from the mid-1800's I have seen.

 

[Mean Gene]

Thanks for information duelist 1954, nice to see you on the forum.

 

[Billnpatti]

Thanks for the info. Am waiting anxiously for your video. :hatsoff: :thumbsup:

 

[RonRC]

I'll try that. It can't hurt and might help.
Thank you for pointing it out.
How is the shoulder?
Ron

 

[Mean Gene]

I can't say in my case it's because of a week main spring, mine is plenty strong and it sacked caps consistently.

 

[duelist1954]

Pretty good, I think the phys therapist is going to cut me loose at the end of next week. I'm about 90% back to normal.

 

[wicket]

Caps 150 years ago were made from heavier copper, about twice as thick as modern caps if my math is correct.

"The copper for making the caps is obtained in sheets 4 feet long and 14 inches wide weighing three pounds: a variation of four ounces more or less is allowed. The copper should be pure, free from seams, holes or blisters, well annealed, and as evenly rolled as possible with straight and smooth edges."
From: A Practical Treatise On The Fabrication Of Matches, Gun Cotton, Colored Fires And Fulminating Powders by H. Dussance. Philadelphia, 1864

 

[Zonie]

Knowing the aversion many of you folks have to mathematics I thought I shouldn't post this.
Then, I had another thought so you might want to skip this post. :grin:

Using wickets numbers of a 4 foot long X 14 inch wide copper plate weighing 3 pounds and looking up the weight of pure copper I could calculate the thickness of the copper sheet Mr Dussance was talking about.

Copper weighs .323 pounds per cubic inch.

3 pounds of copper divided by .323 lb/in³ = 9.288 cubic inches of copper.

4 feet = 48 inches so we have

T (the unknown thickness) X 14 X 48 = 9.288

T X 672 = 9.288

T = 9.288/672 = .0138 or about .014 or just under 1/64" thick.

To get a comparison I measured three different pistol/rifle percussion caps I have on hand.

The first caps are pretty old. How old? I would guess they were made back in the 1950's or earlier.
They are genuine Foil Lined caps. Copper bodies with a silver colored foil lining covering the priming compound. The tin they are in says they are:

Goldmark's Percussion Caps
F.L.Center fire STAYNLESS
Winchester Repeating Arms Co.
They measure .008" thick



Next, I have a few Navy Arms, Italian made caps from the 1970's. They are brass and measure .009" thick.

Some CCI #11 copper caps. They measure .006" thick.

Dynamit Nobel RWS "No. 1075 Plus" #11 caps are copper and measure .005 thick.

Dynamit Nobel RWS "No 1081" Musket caps are brass and measure .007 thick.

All of this says that yes, modern caps are not as thick as at least some caps MAY have been 150 years ago. (We have the written instructions but we don't have any caps to actually measure).

OK. We're done with the numbers. Wheeeee! :rotf:

 

[AZbpBurner]

I doubt the community of original Colt C&B shooters is large enough to complain about cap problems.

All my Colts fitted with Ampco nipples don't seem to have much of a problem, compared to those I'm still using the OEM nipples in.

 

[don hepler]

I thought Colt shooters, flip the gun backwards after firing, to eject any spent cap material, in order to help prevent this situation. I also wonder if the original shooters had powder with the energy of todays powder... or as suggested, the possibility of thicker caps. Hard to compare then and now. My guess is they.....dealt with it.

 

[jaxenro]

It was common enough practice to have been commented on to raise the muzzle while cocking so the spent cap fell clear so I think they did have the problem back then. Wasn't it Manhatten Fire Arms, or Metropolitan, that designed a shield between the cylinder and the frame that stopped this? The were a contemporary to Colt maker that made Colt clones

On one of my 1862's I had a small T dovetailed in to stop the cap from jamming and the hammer fits over it works perfectly

 

[Zonie]

Although most of you folks who are having cap fragment problems are talking about the pieces falling down into the hammer slot, the original Walker also had other problems with caps.

The actions taken by Colt indicate that fired caps or fragments of them would fall off of the nipple, even back in those days.

Those of you who own a Walker reproduction might notice that there is no cap clearance cut on the front face of the receivers recoil shield on the right side (aft looking forward).

I can't find out exactly when Colt made the change but fragments lodging between the rear of the cylinder and the front of the recoil shield was recognized as a problem so Colt added a circular notch or groove which was milled into the face of the recoil shield.

This cutout is intended to allow the spent pieces of the caps to escape when the gun is cocked for the next shot.

I notice that my reproduction of a 3rd Model Dragoon pistol has the cutout and the 1851 Navy's do as well.

This would seem to indicate Colt added the slot sometime between 1848 and 1851.