Brass Frame 1851s

[bpalbee]

Wow! Already learned something new. Thanks, I'll try the 2F instead of the 3F.

I'm not an expert, but thats what works for me. I keep my one bottle of 3f for priming flintlocks, 2f seems easier for me to find around here

 

[Smokerr]

As there is not a standard for powder, they can edge into the actual rating area, ie 2F and be close to 3F and visa versa. You can use 4F, though you need to watch the trickle out the rear aka the Cones as its so fine.

.454 is the recommended size for the Replica and no need to go to .457 and the hard push needed (well one reason, a larger chamber size but unlikely to be found these days)

Conicals can be a serious issue, the JD I buy are .460 and take a serious amount of work, so you want a gun with a sturdy rammer system (Dragoon, 47 Walker, ROA)

 

[D Yager]

You make a great point about the chamfered chambers. I was honestly toying with the idea after I made the switch to steel frame.

Who do you recommend to do the machine work?
It would also be awesome to inlet the frame to allow for paper cartridges.

I don't believe Mike doe's the chamber chamfer. I offer it in addition to other services. The loading port can be opened up as well depending on the manufacturer and how material is there to work with.

 

[Ceddie]

I don't believe Mike doe's the chamber chamfer. I offer it in addition to other services. The loading port can be opened up as well depending on the manufacturer and how material is there to work with.

Far out.

 

[45D]

If you want to shoot heavier loads, as others will surely chime in- a Ruger old army, or Italian 1858 clone is a little more stout than the Colt style, excepting maybe the dragoons of you want to tote that much gun.

Well, you're partially right.
A ROA is definitely more stout but the Remington is not. Tests on the Remington are yet to be done (even though you can bend one loading/shooting hard balls/ conicals) but the open-top platform tests prove their capability of handling +p smokeless ammo.
As far as the Dragoon size, you get used to it . . .

Mike

 

[Frontstuffer070]

For my Brass Frame Pietta in .36cal. I like to load the cylinder off the gun on a cylinder loading press. I figure its less stress on the frame. As far as loads go, the manual that came with my Pietta Griswold and Gunnison stated a max charge for that revolver. Due to the frame being brass. So I don't see why there isn't something in there for your brass frame 44 Cal. I agree the Brass Framed Open tops sure are PRETTY! And I shoot the crap out of mine too. IF it shoots loose I'll shine it up and hang it on the wall and buy another one.

 

[Dark Angel]

I'm sure we've had a million threads on this topic, so I figure one more won't break the camel's back. I recently got into BP shooting, and got myself a Colt 1851 Navy Reb Deluxe because it looked cool. I'm aware that the general opinion is that the brass frame is liable to shoot loose, as opposed to the steel frame. But I figure I'd get a second third millionth opinion on the topic. In the manuals I got (one from Pietta, the other from Cimarron? Maybe Traditions?) they listed two different powder loads to use. I've heard of people using powder loads as low as 7g, and one person saying that you can shoot full 30g loads so long as the cylinder has almost no wiggle room between itself and the frame. What loads do you guys recommend? Do you guys think the quality of brass used improved? Another question, how do you grip one of these revolvers? One hand? Two? Any details to pay attention to with finger placement? Finally, what size ball do you guys use for these? I got .457 because I figured bigger ball makes for a tighter seal.

Thanks for any help.

View attachment 372401

Had an 'original' brass frame Confederate .36 cal. that I actually found in a pawn shop many years ago. Even at the time, in the mid 1970s, it was over 100 yrs. old. Had a competent gunsmith check it out for safety. It was a shooter, so I shot it. Don't know how many rounds had been fired through it, so I kept my loads to about 15-17 g of powder. At 25 yards, it was accurate enough to give any would-be assailants pause. When it got to where it needed repair, modern parts wouldn't fit it, so I gave it to the Chief of Police where I lived for a wall hanger. Don't remember the size of the ball I loaded, if i ever knew. That was some 50 years ago.

 

[Cornwellkidd]

I have been shooting brass frames for years I just don't load them to 44Mag loads If you want to hurt your hand then buy a 44Mag. I shoot cowboy action for years now and my .36 cal just as tight as the day I bought them. I have 7 44 cals 5 are brass 2 steel frames. There is a lot of good advice spilled out here.

 

[LostInSauce]

Had an 'original' brass frame Confederate .36 cal. that I actually found in a pawn shop many years ago. Even at the time, in the mid 1970s, it was over 100 yrs. old. Had a competent gunsmith check it out for safety. It was a shooter, so I shot it. Don't know how many rounds had been fired through it, so I kept my loads to about 15-17 g of powder. At 25 yards, it was accurate enough to give any would-be assailants pause. When it got to where it needed repair, modern parts wouldn't fit it, so I gave it to the Chief of Police where I lived for a wall hanger. Don't remember the size of the ball I loaded, if i ever knew. That was some 50 years ago.

Wow! So the Confederates did actually make brass frame revolvers? I heard a lot of back and forth on the matter with some people insisting it's an anachronism. Very interesting. Really regret not getting some Civil War memorabilia before moving. Still keep my rebel flag in the garage, though. Oh well, you can get used Panzerfaust tubes out here for cheap.

 

[Ed C.]

Is there a benefit to using 3F instead? I thought of getting a Walker, initially, since I have experience shooting a proper .357. But it's quite expensive. Maybe one day.

Walkers are a lot of fun for fire, smoke, and noise and they are very accurate but in my experience do not run as smooth as an 1851 or '58 Remington. Problem being the spent caps have more of a tendency to jam between the recoil shield and cylinder requiring some fiddling around between shots or drops into the internals which requires disassembly to clear. A shield can be installed on the hammer which will keep the internals clear, but they are not designed to shed spent caps as efficiently as the 1851 Navy or '58 Remington.

 

[davidmc62]

Griswold & Gunnison and Spiller & Burr were two of the larger Confederate gun makers and the only ones to my knowledge that did use brass frames for many of their guns. I think G & G only produced around 3,700 revolvers before stopping production. Spiller & Burr even less. compare that to Colt which probably produced over 121,000+ during the War years.

 

[M. De Land]

I'm sure we've had a million threads on this topic, so I figure one more won't break the camel's back. I recently got into BP shooting, and got myself a Colt 1851 Navy Reb Deluxe because it looked cool. I'm aware that the general opinion is that the brass frame is liable to shoot loose, as opposed to the steel frame. But I figure I'd get a second third millionth opinion on the topic. In the manuals I got (one from Pietta, the other from Cimarron? Maybe Traditions?) they listed two different powder loads to use. I've heard of people using powder loads as low as 7g, and one person saying that you can shoot full 30g loads so long as the cylinder has almost no wiggle room between itself and the frame. What loads do you guys recommend? Do you guys think the quality of brass used improved? Another question, how do you grip one of these revolvers? One hand? Two? Any details to pay attention to with finger placement? Finally, what size ball do you guys use for these? I got .457 because I figured bigger ball makes for a tighter seal.

Thanks for any help.

View attachment 372401

The 51 was not designed in ,44 cal even with steel frames and so I would not go above mid level loads say around 15 grain and would recommend balls rather than conical bullets as they produce less pressure and back thrust to the cylinder against the recoil flange that will eventually imprint and increase barrel/cylinder gap.. Click on to enlarge.

 

[wiscoaster]

..... Finally, what size ball do you guys use for these? I got .457 because I figured bigger ball makes for a tighter seal.

0.457 is too large for all the of .44 cal revolvers I've tried them with. But, go ahead and give it a try. You might want to have a supply of 0.454 balls on hand though, in case 0.457 is too large to load in yours.

 

[wiscoaster]

..... Another question, how do you grip one of these revolvers? One hand?

I prefer to shoot them single-handed. I think that's how they were designed to be shot, and seems go me to be the most comfortable grip technique. They don't really produce all that much felt recoil, so with a firm one-handed grip, the gun isn't going to go flying off somewhere.

 

[M. De Land]

The 51 was not designed in ,44 cal even with steel frames and so I would not go above mid level loads say around 15 grain and would recommend balls rather than conical bullets as they produce less pressure and back thrust to the cylinder against the recoil flange that will eventually imprint and increase barrel/cylinder gap.. Click on to enlarge.

I'm beginning to wonder if some of this cylinder imprinting and arbor thread loosening in brass framed guns isn't being helped along by the loading pressure.

 

[oldschoolhunter55]

The 51 was not designed in ,44 cal even with steel frames and so I would not go above mid level loads say around 15 grain and would recommend balls rather than conical bullets as they produce less pressure and back thrust to the cylinder against the recoil flange that will eventually imprint and increase barrel/cylinder gap.. Click on to enlarge.

Dang i see the impression it made. Wow

 

[Frontstuffer070]

I'm beginning to wonder if some of this cylinder imprinting and arbor thread loosening in brass framed guns isn't being helped along by the loading pressure.

I'm inclined to agree, I just avoid loading the cylinder on the gun, well with the brass frame that is. Even with the .36 Cal and .375 RB, you are exerting and good amount of force and that Force is multiplied at the ball due to it being a lever and all.

 

[D Yager]

It's happening because of improper set up, too much barrel/cylinder gap and a short arbor on the Ubertis. The cylinder is acting like a slide hammer and beating up the recoil shield and pulling the arbor out of the frame.

Walkers are a lot of fun for fire, smoke, and noise and they are very accurate but in my experience do not run as smooth as an 1851 or '58 Remington. Problem being the spent caps have more of a tendency to jam between the recoil shield and cylinder requiring some fiddling around between shots or drops into the internals which requires disassembly to clear. A shield can be installed on the hammer which will keep the internals clear, but they are not designed to shed spent caps as efficiently as the 1851 Navy or '58 Remington.

Agreed the Walkers are lots of fun. A cap post along with an action shield will solve 99% of cap jam problems.

 

[M. De Land]

It's happening because of improper set up, too much barrel/cylinder gap and a short arbor on the Ubertis. The cylinder is acting like a slide hammer and beating up the recoil shield and pulling the arbor out of the frame.

Agreed the Walkers are lots of fun. A cap post along with an action shield will solve 99% of cap jam problems.

I like and have installed my version of the action shield on the Walker but never could warm up to the cap post idea especially when a good de-barbing of the hammer safety notch accomplishes the same goal of stopping cap sucking without altering the gun any more than necessary.
The front sight and loading lever catch are the real problem areas on the Walkers that need help in my opinion.
Some photos of the action shield install, milling the front blade and cutting the dovetails in the barrel for both the loading lever catch and front blade sight.
I'm giving some thought to a cap escape groove on the right recoil lug shoulder like the 60's have to better expel the spent caps as it rotates to the next shot.

 

[D Yager]

I have personally run across a few Walkers that no matter what you did to the hammer face it pulled caps. A cap post was the only answer.