Brass frame wear and tear

[echo89]

The first BP I bought was a used brass frame Pietta 1851 Navy, 44 cal. I went that route to see if I would enjoy BP w/o committing too much cash. I keep seeing warnings in various pubs that warn about brass frames loosening as time passes. I know I've run about 2000 loads through it, never hotter than 20g (even w/ the previous owner, who said he shot it every weekend for a year) and it still times/fits perfectly. Better than a lot of steel frames I've seen. Sorry if this has been beat down before, I searched and couldn't find anything on it.

 

[Hawkeye]

Echo,

You can very likley shoot your .44 brass framed revolver with those 20 gr loads of black powder forever with little chance of shooting the piece loose. I would however stay away from full house loads and things like T-7. Keep the pressure low and enjoy shooting it.

 

[Bear Rider]

Brass has two problems when used in a firearm.

The most obvious one is the lack of strength, compared to a similar steel construction.

The second problem is that of work hardening. Just as a brass case will eventually crack from being flexed during both the reloading process and firing, a brass frame will eventually work harden and crack. Of course, the less that you flex the frame, the longer it will last.

Keep in mind that the South's brass copies were a result of wartime shortages, and the weapons were intended for temporary use -- just long enough to shoot a Yankee and take HIS gun. ::

 

[gordy]

I don't disagree with You that brass that is put under severe stress would eventually work harden.
but a cartridge case has little mass and in smokeless weapons is stressed with from 20 to 60,000 psi.The frames are of considerble mass so the stress is absorbed and transfered through the mass putting less strain on any given area.With loads of 20 grs.it would take thousands of rounds to create enough stress to weaken the frame to a dangerous point.Also the greatest preasure is on the "steel" cylinder,on a brass framed Remington style revolver the chance of brass stretch with light loads is very unlikely.on Colts with no top strap,the point of attachment of the "steel" bbl. would be a possible problem with heavier loads.The other possible problem area would be where the rear of the cylinder recoils against the the frame,but the mass of brass should absorb many fireings .Unless the quality of the brass and the casting of it, were of very infieor quality,there would be a marked loosness before it reached the point of failure.It's my opinion that a brass framed revolver properly loaded and maintained will last a lifetime. :imo: :front:

 

[WV_Hillbilly]

I have to also agree that if good sense is used, moderate loads, and proper treatment is given ... that a brass framed cap-n-ball revolver should last about as long as the owner could ever want to use it.

About 25 years ago, I WORE OUT a Navy Arms Colt 1860 STEEL FRAMED revolver. This was the "4-screw" model, and I even had the shoulder stock with it! It got loosened to the point of "skipping" chambers--the timing was out and I no longer trusted the gun.

It was purely 110% my fault, as I ALWAYS shot maximum capacity loads in the gun. I did experimenting with heavyweight conicals--which were bullets for modern .45 caliber revolvers, and I used FFFFg powder sometimes as well. I never used Pyrodex. It was always GOEX black powder--I think that's all that was available to me at the time.

I doubt that I had fired even 600-700 rounds from that gun, before it started acting up. I sold it off to a sort of "collector type" of person--who didn't care about firing it, and just liked having a shoulder stocked 1860 for his case.

So I obviously learned my lesson very early on, about "overdoing" things with cap-n-ball guns. I've NEVER worn out a steel OR brass framed revolver since that time. Something like that tends to "stick in my mind".

I also know from experience that mild steel and "good" brass are very similar in their characteristics and strengths. It's still no reason to "overdo it" though.

I do think that if you're going to use a cap-n-ball gun very frequently that you should spend the difference and get the steel framed gun--especially if brass was NOT used in the originals.

The top-strap Remington guns are my first choice for ANY use, as they have proven to be the most accurate, but the long grip 1860 Colt fits my "bear paws" the best of these type of guns.

Have fun and shoot safely!
WV_Hillbilly

 

[echo89]

Thanks, ya'll. My revolvers since are all steel, since I found out I did like it w/ the brass one. I was concerned that I might have to retire it to the mantle, but it looks like the easy life will keep it on the line as long as I want to. It's still the slickest action in the case, almost as smooth as my Python, if you can believe that. One of the best purchases I ever made, great price, started me in BP, made a friend, etc...

 

[SCATTERSHOT]

I did experimenting with heavyweight conicals--which were bullets for modern .45 caliber revolvers,



WV Hillbilly, how did those cartridge pistol bullets shoot in your pistol?

 

[WV_Hillbilly]

I did experimenting with heavyweight conicals--which were bullets for modern .45 caliber revolvers,



WV Hillbilly, how did those cartridge pistol bullets shoot in your pistol?

They performed better as far as penetration on tough targets. I never used them on hunting animals though. They were pretty difficult to get seated easily. I recall that the soft, swaged lead, 200gr, semi-wadcutters from Speer worked about the best as far as getting them to "center" in the chamber. They actually shot fairly well, but I think it was because of these heavier bullets and my maxxing the powder charges every time that I managed to loosen up the gun (ruin it) so badly.

I also didn't have a chronograph or a pressure testing setup to see what was actually going on in the gun. They did recoil harder than the round balls--due to the bullets weighing about 59gr more than the round balls. I was too unaware, (or too stupid, remember this was my first cap-n-ball revolver), of what was happening to realize that they were beating the gun to death. I guess it was because they did shoot so well, that I just shot those bullets exclusively, and rarely shot round ball through it at all, especially after finding a modern pistol bullet that worked so well.

IF I were to do it all over again, I wouldn't even think of using them with maximum powder charges. I would be very cautious with ANY conical bullet. Of course, since that time, I have managed to acquire bullet moulds for the proper conical bullet which also happens to weigh approx 200gr.

The last time I had a .58 Remington (brass frame) out, I shot some conicals and Pyrodex P and they still did not shoot as accurately as the round balls with Pyrodex or BP. I used my head this time, and I also used a much lighter powder charge for the conicals. There really was a big difference between the loads. I am going to stick with the round balls. They are what the guns were intended to shoot most of the time anyway.

So if you do tty this, make sure you are using a soft lead bullet for accurate seating of the bullets, and back off on the powder charges. I would decrease the charge by 25-30% for the bullets. Make sure you test the loads on paper. If anything sounds unusual--STOP. Check your gun for tightness often and if you see anything unusual--STOP.

Make sure to keep the gun really clean too--because these bullets can lead up much easier than round balls. There is a lot more bearing surface riding the bore with the conicals, so it only makes sense that they would lead up the barrel quicker than if you just used the round ball.

Good luck if you decide to try it, and take even more time and care when loading. If you need any help I'll be around here some time tomorrow morning.

ALWAYS use a BIG enough gun, or get TWO smaller ones...
Shoot Safely,
WV_Hillbilly

 

[MikeChapin]

My second BP arm was an Excam brass frame .44 1851 Navy I picked up at a gun show about thirty years ago. I used the heck out of that gun with full loads for a long time. It was great for rabbit hunting. It finally did shoot loose. The cylinder pin had quite a bit of wobble in it. I was going to make it a wall hanger when I ran across an article on fixing the problem.

I tined the threads of the cylinder pin with silver solder and screwed it back in with flux on both surfaces. I then heated the pin area with a torch to solder the whole thing together. It worked fine and tightened everything up. Like you, I only use about 20 grains when I shoot it and the repair has held up for twenty five years or so.

With the light loads you are using, the gun should go forever.

 

[Bear Rider]

gordy,

I have heard of several instances of brass framed revolvers cracking. The one instance that I know of personally was a long barreled Remington 58. It cracked right across the top strap.

 

[pondoro]

Get a Colt. They will never crack across the top strap!

 

[gordy]

Bear Rider!Do You know what powder loads and type and weight of projectiles were being used in the revolver You saw?I wasn't implying that a brass frame wouldn't fail if subjected to severe and sustained use.What I said was that if common sense loading was the norm,it is highly unlikely that the brass would fail.As was said,all brass is not created equal,but with reasonable loads a problem should not develope.Over the years many modern cartridge weapons of steel construction have failed because or abusive overloading. :front:

 

[Bear Rider]

gordy,

I don't remember exactly what loads were being used, as that was ten or fifteen years ago, and they were nothing special. Also, I never saw the gun after it cracked, although I had handled it before to see how it balanced with the long barrel. I was told about it when it cracked and simply wasn't curious enough to wander down the line of shooting stations and look. My attitude then was that if you were foolish enough to buy a brass frame, you should expect that sort of thing. That's still pretty much what I believe. Of course, I'm one of those retro guys who understands that carbon steel is superior to stainless in every physical property except corrosion resistance. ::

The gun was one of those "buffalo specials"(?) that Cabellas stocked (and may still stock for all I know) -- brass '58 frame, 12"(?) barrel, and (possibly) an adjustable rear sight.