Damaged 1860 barrel

[Columbus]

I recently picked up a Pietta 1860 with a damaged muzzle. The arbor is a tad short and it appears to me that a previous owner must have been trying to seat the barrel with a spacer in the arbor hole and the ^*#! used a metal hammer. The damage isn't bad but it looks like it may have impacted the rifling in one spot and the end of the muzzle needs to be dressed/crowned. I live in a city with over a million residents, numerous gun stores and large machine shops. Can't find anyone to fix this and am hoping someone here might know where I could send it.

 

[Phil Coffins]

I’d do it for you.

 

[Columbus]

PM sent

 

[springfield art]

I recently picked up a Pietta 1860 with a damaged muzzle. The arbor is a tad short and it appears to me that a previous owner must have been trying to seat the barrel with a spacer in the arbor hole and the ^*#! used a metal hammer. The damage isn't bad but it looks like it may have impacted the rifling in one spot and the end of the muzzle needs to be dressed/crowned. I live in a city with over a million residents, numerous gun stores and large machine shops. Can't find anyone to fix this and am hoping someone here might know where I could send it.

Could have the barrel 'shortened' by a third of an inch. I never caught onto this "arbor" stuff, and I have a couple Piettas. I don't know why something would be marketed with such a simple-to-fix issue as making it right in the first place. Again, I haven't studied the "arbor issues" so I'm mostly lost on it.

 

[M. De Land]

Could have the barrel 'shortened' by a third of an inch. I never caught onto this "arbor" stuff, and I have a couple Piettas. I don't know why something would be marketed with such a simple-to-fix issue as making it right in the first place. Again, I haven't studied the "arbor issues" so I'm mostly lost on it.

It's much to do about nothing in reality if the barrel and cylinder are good ! Fit the key, slots and lower lug correctly and the gun will shoot and never give a hoot about wither or not the arbor fits the well to the bottom. When the light comes on the barrel is forced away from the arbor and only even pressure on the key and it's fit in the three slots and the lower barrel lug fit matter.

 

[45D]

It's much to do about nothing in reality if the barrel and cylinder are good ! Fit the key, slots and lower lug correctly and the gun will shoot and never give a hoot about wither or not the arbor fits the well to the bottom. When the light comes on the barrel is forced away from the arbor and only even pressure on the key and it's fit in the three slots and the lower barrel lug fit matter.

This is how "equine fertilizer" gets spread and ignorance abounds!!
Springfield Art doesn't "get the arbor thing " so it's apparently not a problem . . . but he has Piettas , which if they are of recent make, doesn't have short arbors!!!
Then he's told there's no problem as long as the barrel and cylinder and wedge "fit"! THEY DON'T!!! The wedge isn't a BARREL ADJUSTER!!!! The ARBOR is the "limiting factor" as to how far the wedge can influence the further encroachment of the barrel!!! That's what makes the endshake (barrel/cylinder clearance) a repeatable, known number instead of a "moving target" or guessing game!! It's the only way to have the exact same revolver every time you reassemble it!!
If the wedge isn't installed with good force, it can/ will move even shot to shot especially when shooting max loads in Belt and Horse pistols.
Smokeless rounds are brutal in converted open top revolvers and they will "self-destruct" the wedge, break the arbor (in time) and mutilate the wedge slot in the barrel UNLESS, the arbor is correct!!

You don't have to correct the arbor in those that need it ( which is all but the originals and Piettas of the last dozen yrs) but if you care so much about your reproduction being so "close to the originals " youd be even closer if it actually FUNCTIONED as designed!!

You can shoot any gun that isn't perfect but it's more fun to shoot one that is . . .

Mike

 

[Phil Coffins]

Mike , you’ll have better luck getting some folks to change their boot size then to understand a mechanical device that they have closed their mind about.

 

[leadhoarder]

I’d do it for you.

The irony is Bad Karma liked your post which IMO should bring good karma.

 

[M. De Land]

This is how "equine fertilizer" gets spread and ignorance abounds!!
Springfield Art doesn't "get the arbor thing " so it's apparently not a problem . . . but he has Piettas , which if they are of recent make, doesn't have short arbors!!!
Then he's told there's no problem as long as the barrel and cylinder and wedge "fit"! THEY DON'T!!! The wedge isn't a BARREL ADJUSTER!!!! The ARBOR is the "limiting factor" as to how far the wedge can influence the further encroachment of the barrel!!! That's what makes the endshake (barrel/cylinder clearance) a repeatable, known number instead of a "moving target" or guessing game!! It's the only way to have the exact same revolver every time you reassemble it!!
If the wedge isn't installed with good force, it can/ will move even shot to shot especially when shooting max loads in Belt and Horse pistols.
Smokeless rounds are brutal in converted open top revolvers and they will "self-destruct" the wedge, break the arbor (in time) and mutilate the wedge slot in the barrel UNLESS, the arbor is correct!!

You don't have to correct the arbor in those that need it ( which is all but the originals and Piettas of the last dozen yrs) but if you care so much about your reproduction being so "close to the originals " youd be even closer if it actually FUNCTIONED as designed!!

You can shoot any gun that isn't perfect but it's more fun to shoot one that is . . .

Mike

If you ever actually get around to testing wither or not what you think you know about arbor fit is correct, I'm pretty sure you'll quietly have a change of mind ! Theories are great until experience shows up and indicates otherwise. A short arbor gun will be equally accurate with one that fits to the bottom of the well, all else being the same.
If those with short arbors feel they must bush , glass bed or install an adjustment screw to make it fit to the bottom of the well then do so, but to say it must be so for the gun to shoot well is not true, in my experience, Colt design or not.
You could weld the arbor into the well of an open frame gun and it would still be a flex designed gun which is why key,slot and lower lug fit are predominate.
A difference in opinion .

 

[45D]

No sir. No change of mind. In fact I can drive my wedges in as hard as I can and the endshake will still be the same.
My personal proof is whole reason I do what I do and freely explain what the problem is and how to solve it. My converted revolvers were beating themselves up each range trip but after understanding and fixing the problem they come home from the range with the same tolerances they went with. That never happened before and as I explained above, smokeless is much more demanding than bp. Groups are tighter and consistent as well. So, open top cap guns will tear themselves up slower than cartridge open tops will . . . unless they're set up correctly.
Experience is what it's all about, ignorance is bliss!!

Flex design - that's a new one!! Lol. Must be Italian? ( certainly not Colts)
I guess Pietta decided the "flex design " wasn't what it should be so they "fixed" it !!

And no, not a difference in opinion, facts are facts.

Mike

 

[M. De Land]

No sir. No change of mind. In fact I can drive my wedges in as hard as I can and the endshake will still be the same.
My personal proof is whole reason I do what I do and freely explain what the problem is and how to solve it. My converted revolvers were beating themselves up each range trip but after understanding and fixing the problem they come home from the range with the same tolerances they went with. That never happened before and as I explained above, smokeless is much more demanding than bp. Groups are tighter and consistent as well. So, open top cap guns will tear themselves up slower than cartridge open tops will . . . unless they're set up correctly.
Experience is what it's all about, ignorance is bliss!!

Flex design - that's a new one!! Lol. Must be Italian? ( certainly not Colts)
I guess Pietta decided the "flex design " wasn't what it should be so they "fixed" it !!

And no, not a difference in opinion, facts are facts.

Mike

Open frame guns were designed to operate with flex movement in mind. They will never be a rigid, solid frame design no matter how hard you fit the arbor into the well bottom . This is the very reason key, wedge and bottom lug load fit are so important. The arbor being below the axis of bore is entirely dependent of it's base threads, arbor well diameter fit, key and slot fit and the lower lug cantilever pressure to keep the bore in line when firing occurs. These various parts all have joint and seat tolerances that have a certain amount of flex movement in them at firing that a solid frame design does not have to deal with. Open frame guns are made accurate at firing when all the joint and seat load points are working together in balance and the joint movements "flex" are uniform and consistent.
A simple analogy is the design difference in how a suspension bridge works as opposed to a rigid bridge. They both do the same work but one is designed around movement the other is much more rigid.

 

[bang]

Could have the barrel 'shortened' by a third of an inch. I never caught onto this "arbor" stuff, and I have a couple Piettas. I don't know why something would be marketed with such a simple-to-fix issue as making it right in the first place. Again, I haven't studied the "arbor issues" so I'm mostly lost on it.

I have contacted manufacturers inquiring about the arbor issue. Trust me they don't much care.

 

[45D]

I have contacted manufacturers inquiring about the arbor issue. Trust me they don't much care.

Well, there's only two manufacturers today. About 12 or so years ago Pietta corrected their production of the open top revolvers to copy Colt's. So, we know Pietta's response, what did Uberti say?

Mike

 

[bang]

Well, there's only two manufacturers today. About 12 or so years ago Pietta corrected their production of the open top revolvers to copy Colt's. So, we know Pietta's response, what did Uberti say?

Mike

Conversation never got beyond them saying they are just reproductions.

 

[45D]

Open frame guns were designed to operate with flex movement in mind. They will never be a rigid, solid frame design no matter how hard you fit the arbor into the well bottom . This is the very reason key, wedge and bottom lug load fit are so important. The arbor being below the axis of bore is entirely dependent of it's base threads, arbor well diameter fity

Well, I don't think Charles Richards, William Mason or Sam Colt would go along with anything you said there but if that's your thinking, that's fine with me.

I first learned about the problem when I read through the writings of Larson Pettifogger about 12 years ago. That's when it finally made sense why my Walker and Dragoons had such a big appetite for wedges so many yrs ago and why my brand new Dragoons with cartridge conversions kept wanting to go down the same road!! At the same time I was being taught by Mr. Jim Martin how tune the Colt action and set them up as "tough as nails" race guns. After mapping out my strategy for the arbor fix, I did the same to some Pietta Army's and Navy's I had. I traded one to a fellow forum member at the time and he wouldn't shut up about how easy it was to cycle and how smooth and reliable it was. That's how this whole thing started for me. About 5 yrs ago I did some work for a local and he said he had 2 original Colts that had been "worked on" in the past and 1 '60 (1863 build) Army that was unmolested and he gave me permission to take it apart to see and photograph. He himself hadn't ever taken it apart, had owned it for 28 years. I was honored and told him I'd put all the screws back exactly where they cam from. I did do two things to it though ( with his permission!!). I made a bolt block for it ( it's non invasive and every S.A. should have one!!) and I rounded the intersection of the left bolt arm where it meets the body of the bolt. That removes the 90° cut and spreads the stress to avoid a common break for bolt arms.
Anyway, the reason for bringing this up us all 3 of these original Colts had arbors that dead ended in the arbor holes. Driving the wedge in didn't change the endshake or lock up the cylinder. This proved even more to me Larson Pettifogger was exactly right and that basically every copy ever made had missed this most important piece of the open top design (even Pietta until a dozen or so yrs ago). The arbor does exactly the same thing the top strap does on a top strap revolver. Colt had a top strap revolver ( Root) but discontinued it in favor of the solid open top design. He even experimented with a top strap Dragoon (allowing the cylinder to rotate on a "stub" arbor so the arbor hole wouldn't extend through the front of the cyl. No fouling!!!!)

Anyway, that's the design and whatever anybody dreams up from wherever that's OK . But, Colt had it right ( obviously!!) all the copies had/ have it wrong . . . except for Piet . . . well, you know . . .

Mike

 

[M. De Land]

I have contacted manufacturers inquiring about the arbor issue. Trust me they don't much care.

Well, I don't think Charles Richards, William Mason or Sam Colt would go along with anything you said there but if that's your thinking, that's fine with me.

I first learned about the problem when I read through the writings of Larson Pettifogger about 12 years ago. That's when it finally made sense why my Walker and Dragoons had such a big appetite for wedges so many yrs ago and why my brand new Dragoons with cartridge conversions kept wanting to go down the same road!! At the same time I was being taught by Mr. Jim Martin how tune the Colt action and set them up as "tough as nails" race guns. After mapping out my strategy for the arbor fix, I did the same to some Pietta Army's and Navy's I had. I traded one to a fellow forum member at the time and he wouldn't shut up about how easy it was to cycle and how smooth and reliable it was. That's how this whole thing started for me. About 5 yrs ago I did some work for a local and he said he had 2 original Colts that had been "worked on" in the past and 1 '60 (1863 build) Army that was unmolested and he gave me permission to take it apart to see and photograph. He himself hadn't ever taken it apart, had owned it for 28 years. I was honored and told him I'd put all the screws back exactly where they cam from. I did do two things to it though ( with his permission!!). I made a bolt block for it ( it's non invasive and every S.A. should have one!!) and I rounded the intersection of the left bolt arm where it meets the body of the bolt. That removes the 90° cut and spreads the stress to avoid a common break for bolt arms.
Anyway, the reason for bringing this up us all 3 of these original Colts had arbors that dead ended in the arbor holes. Driving the wedge in didn't change the endshake or lock up the cylinder. This proved even more to me Larson Pettifogger was exactly right and that basically every copy ever made had missed this most important piece of the open top design (even Pietta until a dozen or so yrs ago). The arbor does exactly the same thing the top strap does on a top strap revolver. Colt had a top strap revolver ( Root) but discontinued it in favor of the solid open top design. He even experimented with a top strap Dragoon (allowing the cylinder to rotate on a "stub" arbor so the arbor hole wouldn't extend through the front of the cyl. No fouling!!!!)

Anyway, that's the design and whatever anybody dreams up from wherever that's OK . But, Colt had it right ( obviously!!) all the copies had/ have it wrong . . . except for Piet . . . well, you know . . .

Mike
[/QUOTE
A good, informative , civil post !

 

[TrapperDude]

@M. De Land and @45D

Your debate has been very educational! I've been following it since you started it and hang on the words each of you post. Having been exposed to some very basic mechanical engineering concepts during my undergrad years a couple of decades ago, there are merits to both of your respective positions.

The ultimate key to a good revolver is consistent positioning of its components when it is assembled, as well as an effective distribution of force against the components when the weapon is fired. Both of you have articulated these concepts within your posts. From what I have observed with my Pietta Colt 1860 Army, there is a consistent lock-up when I seat the barrel assembly onto the arbor, even before I seat the wedge. This lock-up comes from both tight tolerances on the lug and its pins and also from the tight radial tolerances between the arbor and the arbor hole in the lug. When I seat the barrel assembly onto the arbor and press it home over the pins on the frame, there is zero movement.

Even if the arbor were a bit short, the tight radial tolerances between the arbor and arbor hole would prevent rotational force from being translated from the barrel, around the arbor and down to the lug/pins, when viewing the revolver from the side and drawing out the rotational force as an arc going from the forcing cone, out in front of the arbor, and down to the lug and pins.

What an exact arbor length appears to do, however, is perhaps to alleviate the stress against the muzzle side of the arbor as the lug flexes (ever so slightly) forward over the top of the arbor and then rapidly returns to its original position. When the lug flexes forward as the weapon is fired, it presses against the rear, hammer end of the wedge, snapping back and pressing against the muzzle side of the wedge after firing is complete. An exact arbor length will absorb some of that force after firing is complete, rather than the wedge absorbing all of that force.

It must be said, of course, that the movements are microscopic and the forces achieved would be minimal each time. In the aggregate over extended use is where the effects would be noticeable.

In the end, it appears that an exact arbor length plays a role in extending the life of a revolver's wedge--so long as the arbor fits tightly in the arbor hole, and the lug seats in the pins tightly as well, all with proper cylinder gap before the wedge is even inserted, and where the cylinder gap stays the same after the wedge is inserted.

This is what I have ascertained after reading both of your posts:
If the cylinder gap is proper and the same before and after barrel wedge insertion, then a revolver will be set up for good accuracy and function. If that is also the case when the arbor is of a length matching the arbor hole depth, then the wedge will last longer.

 

[sportster73hp]

I have two ASM open tops, one brass one steel. I now understand the function of the wedge just not how to correct things if worn or made wrong. A spacer in the well to ensure the wedge makes things tight??

 

[M. De Land]

@M. De Land and @45D

Your debate has been very educational! I've been following it since you started it and hang on the words each of you post. Having been exposed to some very basic mechanical engineering concepts during my undergrad years a couple of decades ago, there are merits to both of your respective positions.

The ultimate key to a good revolver is consistent positioning of its components when it is assembled, as well as an effective distribution of force against the components when the weapon is fired. Both of you have articulated these concepts within your posts. From what I have observed with my Pietta Colt 1860 Army, there is a consistent lock-up when I seat the barrel assembly onto the arbor, even before I seat the wedge. This lock-up comes from both tight tolerances on the lug and its pins and also from the tight radial tolerances between the arbor and the arbor hole in the lug. When I seat the barrel assembly onto the arbor and press it home over the pins on the frame, there is zero movement.

Even if the arbor were a bit short, the tight radial tolerances between the arbor and arbor hole would prevent rotational force from being translated from the barrel, around the arbor and down to the lug/pins, when viewing the revolver from the side and drawing out the rotational force as an arc going from the forcing cone, out in front of the arbor, and down to the lug and pins.

What an exact arbor length appears to do, however, is perhaps to alleviate the stress against the muzzle side of the arbor as the lug flexes (ever so slightly) forward over the top of the arbor and then rapidly returns to its original position. When the lug flexes forward as the weapon is fired, it presses against the rear, hammer end of the wedge, snapping back and pressing against the muzzle side of the wedge after firing is complete. An exact arbor length will absorb some of that force after firing is complete, rather than the wedge absorbing all of that force.

It must be said, of course, that the movements are microscopic and the forces achieved would be minimal each time. In the aggregate over extended use is where the effects would be noticeable.

In the end, it appears that an exact arbor length plays a role in extending the life of a revolver's wedge--so long as the arbor fits tightly in the arbor hole, and the lug seats in the pins tightly as well, all with proper cylinder gap before the wedge is even inserted, and where the cylinder gap stays the same after the wedge is inserted.

This is what I have ascertained after reading both of your posts:
If the cylinder gap is proper and the same before and after barrel wedge insertion, then a revolver will be set up for good accuracy and function. If that is also the case when the arbor is of a length matching the arbor hole depth, then the wedge will last longer.

A couple of other thoughts to consider: The barrel group and it's components are moving forward at ignition, the frame , it's components and cylinder are moving to the rear, the end of the arbor is trying to separate from from the well end wither seated against it or not. The wedge is preventing the separation movement with the pressure load on the rear side of the key and two barrel slots which are perpendicular to the bore axis. The front of the key is tapered against the slot in the end of the arbor stopping the separation . The load at firing is on the muzzle side of the slot in the arbor and the rear of the two slots in the barrel group. Not only is there movement in each joint there is also elongation movement in the steel it self (elasticity). In order for accuracy to occur the movement loads on their respective seats must be balanced for the barrel group to consistently respond in the same manor each time.
About the only service I can envision of arbor end fit into the well is ease of getting approximate key depth each time, , depending on how hard it is forced into place. The key fit to it's respective slots , consistent seating depth and under lug should be the real arbiters of barrel gap and its square to the chamber ends, not the arbors end. This barrel/cylinder gap by the way is not the same at firing as it is at rest (flex and steel elasticity) !
The fitting of the key in it's seats and under lug fitting can and will change both accuracy and point of impact. It's good to know in correcting both of these problems as most open frame guns come from the factory shooting high and to one side or the other a bit.
In my 60 Pietta, to get to full potential, I've had to make a new trigger, key, adjust all three key slots and cut the lower lug down to close the gap and square it up. I reamed the chamber mouths , hand lapped the barrel and made and seated a new front blade sight. Never felt the need to adjust the arbor to meet the end of the well.
I've always felt that any of these reproduction guns are really just basic kits that need a bit of informed mechanical help and can be transformed into some real accuracy machines.

 

[45D]

The reason for the arbor to be held with tension against the barrel assy. is for the transmission of harmonics. Their world was of mechanics and they well understood the importance of unwanted vibration and its destructive force ( hello). This is what allows the 2 assys to act and respond as a single unit. Now you should be able to understand how the assemblies held loosely together beat themselves up as apposed to working together. Auto mechanics understand, engine builders/ designers . .
Those folks of the 19th century understood mechanics quite well.

Mike