Chamber/Bore Size on Pietta 1860 "Snubbie"

[Alexei]

I was browsing thru a Dixie Gunworks catalog, and they show and describe an 1860 "snubbie", a gun I guess, that never really existed, or perhaps only as a one-off field modification. Anyway, the appropriate ball diameter is listed at .451. I've owned more than one Pietta, and they ALL seemed to be .454. Does anybody know if this stated difference is valid ?

 

[user 48679]

IDK...…. I've always seated .457" balls in both my Pietta 1860 & Ruger ROA, to leave/shave off a thin ring of lead as it seats (with little/no extra effort).

That seals the chamber mouth reliably/completely......

 

[nkbj]

Historically Pietta's chambers are generally running .446 or so, hence calling for .451 ball.
And yeah, lots of people use a little bigger diameter.

 

[Sparkitoff]

I have 4 Pietta's and I use .454 in all of them.

 

[Grenadier1758]

I was browsing thru a Dixie Gunworks catalog, and they show and describe an 1860 "snubbie", a gun I guess, that never really existed, or perhaps only as a one-off field modification. Anyway, the appropriate ball diameter is listed at .451. I've owned more than one Pietta, and they ALL seemed to be .454. Does anybody know if this stated difference is valid ?

These statements are one of the reasons I strongly advocate that we should all have one of the inexpensive digital calipers. With the calipers we can measure the diameter of the chamber mouth, the barrel diameter by land and by groove. Then we can select a proper sized ball. Many years ago I had a 36 caliber Navy Arms "Reb" revolver. All the documentation called for the use of a 0.375" ball. When such a ball was loaded, there was no resistance on seating the ball. Firing a round and the balls not covered by the frame would fall out. That's when I measured the bore mouth and it was 0.375". I ordered the 0.380" ball mold and I now get the ring of lead.

So, yes @Alexei, the difference is valid. I have learned to verify measurements when selecting ball diameter for my percussion revolvers. Dixie (Gun Works) should not be treated as the only verifiable source for selection of round ball for revolver application. Manufacturing tolerances can result in the measurements of specific items to be different than the advertised recommendations. The only verifiable source for a required ball size is the item itself.

 

[Pukka Sahib]

These statements are one of the reasons I strongly advocate that we should all have one of the inexpensive digital calipers. With the calipers we can measure the diameter of the chamber mouth, the barrel diameter by land and by groove. Then we can select a proper sized ball. Many years ago I had a 36 caliber Navy Arms "Reb" revolver. All the documentation called for the use of a 0.375" ball. When such a ball was loaded, there was no resistance on seating the ball. Firing a round and the balls not covered by the frame would fall out. That's when I measured the bore mouth and it was 0.375". I ordered the 0.380" ball mold and I now get the ring of lead.

So, yes @Alexei, the difference is valid. I have learned to verify measurements when selecting ball diameter for my percussion revolvers. Dixie (Gun Works) should not be treated as the only verifiable source for selection of round ball for revolver application. Manufacturing tolerances can result in the measurements of specific items to be different than the advertised recommendations. The only verifiable source for a required ball size is the item itself.

Well. that makes quite a bit of sense !

 

[nkbj]

Middle 70's my first was a Navy Arms 1861. The rack and pinion type loading lever provided sufficient compression to swage a bullet and form fit it to the interior of the chambers, making for extremely accurate shooting. I certainly do wish that 1858's had such robust loading lever linkages.

 

[nkbj]

By the way, one other quirk in all these chamber related discussions.
It isn't unusual to have differences from one chamber to another. By example if you take a .446" diameter swaged bullet and try it in the chambers of a cylinder you might find that it'll insert into four of the six without resistance but not the other two. Did that with a Pietta 1858 this afternoon.
That can occur from the chamber reamer or from the deburring bit, any tool they touched to the steel.

 

[M. De Land]

By the way, one other quirk in all these chamber related discussions.
It isn't unusual to have differences from one chamber to another. By example if you take a .446" diameter swaged bullet and try it in the chambers of a cylinder you might find that it'll insert into four of the six without resistance but not the other two. Did that with a Pietta 1858 this afternoon.
That can occur from the chamber reamer or from the deburring bit, any tool they touched to the steel.

A couple of points for informational accuracy: Caliper blades are a poor "inaccurate "way do measure hole diameters precisely. A ball gauge or driven slug, both measured using the caliper jaws will be far more accurate. Second thing is the loading ram on a 58 Remington or similar design is far more rugged and has just as much mechanical advantage (if not more) than does the creeping rack and pinion style on the 60 Colts. I've seen a few of the creeping rams stripped out of the holes and or teeth broken/worn off. Never seen a 58 Rem out of commission. I own models of both.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

By the way, one other quirk in all these chamber related discussions.

Here's another.

I was told that one chamber is always a little "off" when it comes to accuracy.

Years ago I did a magazine article on starting out in CAS for the lowest amount of cash, and I got some Pietta "Confederate Navy" revolvers, which were dirt cheap compared to all the rest offered out there. Which meant they were brass framed, .44, with octagon barrels... "fantasy revolvers". So there was a special on them from Cabela's and I got three revolvers and an extra cylinder a piece. Since in CAS you only shoot 5 of the 6 chambers, I did some testing.

Sure enough, when I marked the chambers, I found that the same one out of the six, from a locked mechanical rest, always shot a bit out of the group... otherwise the grouping was pretty darn good. The extra cylinders did the same. So I yanked the nipple from the "off" chamber, and used that as my unloaded/safe chamber (I couldn't load with the nipple removed HA)

Before I concluded my test and pulled the single nipple from each cylinder, I cut down the barrel on one of the three revolvers, to make a pocket-pistol, side match revolver. The barrel was squared off, and a crown was done on the inner edge of the barrel. No front sight was installed as this was an up close, point shooting revolver. So I put it into the rest, and tried all of the cylinders through it..., and the "off" chambers remained "off" even with the modified barrel.

The revolvers shot rather well considering their inexpensive origin.

I have no idea if Colt brand, or Pedersoli/Armi San Marco/Uberti or any other revolvers have the same chamber-quirk..., or even if other models of Piettas have that quirk, but it was there for my Confederate Navy revolvers, stock barrel or short.

LD

 

[zimmerstutzen]

About 8 years ago, I got a new Pietta Remington repro. I measured the chamber mouths and they all ran about .449. 2 were slightly out of round going to .450 at the widest. I was concerned about the ball filling the groove of the bore and so I loaded a ball in the chamber and then forced it into the bore. There was not even a hint of light coming passed the ball in the grooves.

 

[nkbj]

A couple of points for informational accuracy: Caliper blades are a poor "inaccurate "way do measure hole diameters precisely. A ball gauge or driven slug, both measured using the caliper jaws will be far more accurate. Second thing is the loading ram on a 58 Remington or similar design is far more rugged and has just as much mechanical advantage (if not more) than does the creeping rack and pinion style on the 60 Colts. I've seen a few of the creeping rams stripped out of the holes and or teeth broken/worn off. Never seen a 58 Rem out of commission. I own models of both.

And I've seen 1858 linkages yield before a 1860 would.