Damaged 1860 barrel

[45D]

Don't all of these guns say "black powder only" on the barrel? Even with a cartridge conversion cylinder, this is going against warranty and manufacturer's instruction. If the gun is doing this, use BP only in cartridges and/or find a BP revolver gunsmith.

Yessir they do say "Black Powder Only" and mine still do but guess what. I don't care about a warranty ( I make um like I want um anyway), Kirst is still in business and makes an excellent product (whichever you pick), and fortunately I have found someone that works on them ! Lol!!

Mike

 

[M. De Land]

Below is my synopsis of what you have described just to make sure I am interpreting everything the same way you are.

Basically, as the ball enters the barrel and transfers force forward, the barrel begins to pull forward on the arbor by way of the wedge. When that happens, the wedge pushes the forward end of the arbor, which creates the force which could break the arbor as shown in your pictures.

The question as to whether an arbor being seated against the base of the arbor hole can keep it from breaking will hinge on the relative properties of the materials involved.

If the material in the arbor achieves a breaking point after being stretched a certain amount over a certain number of rounds fired, then having the arbor seated against the base of the arbor hole could keep that arbor from breaking if the material the barrel lug is made of keeps the arbor from stretching to that point at which microscopic fissures begin to form. Under those circumstances, the arbor will be unable to stretch enough for those fissures to occur.

If, however, the barrel lug flexes enough to allow the arbor to stretch to that breaking point, then having the arbor seated against the base of the arbor hole may not help prolong the life of the arbor because the lug will move forward far enough that it won't support the end of the arbor when the weapon is fired.

Ultimately, a strong arbor is the most important requirement if the strength of the barrel lug varies significantly from one weapon to another, moreso than having the arbor seat against the base of the arbor hole.

I will, however, stand by the idea that having the arbor seat against the base of the arbor hole keeps the barrel from snapping back against the wedge excessively after the bullet exits the muzzle. This is where the benefit of a fully seated arbor seems to best come about.

Only a metallurgical analysis can answer the aforementioned question, and that analysis would only apply to a given revolver or specific run of revolvers where manufacturing standards are very specific.

I'm curious why you think the barrel group has any "snap back" against the wedge after bullet exit? I presume you are talking about the steel in the end of the arbor( in the slot area) is contracting out of tension after the pressure of firing has concluded.
Lets think about the train of compression and contraction in the various parts involved at firing. The barrel group at firing is trying to pull off the end of the arbor via the key from the muzzle end of the arbor slot. Assuming the wedge is of proper width, thickness and hardness and is correctly fit in all three slots the key and end of the arbor slot go into compression. The arbor slot area goes into tension. Only the arbor tension strength can arrest the departure of the barrel group. Wither the end of the arbor is in contact or not the tension and contraction of all related parts is precisely the same because of pressure direction and inertia . If the end of the arbor and barrel well were mechanically connected it would have a different effect on this train of compression and tension movement being essentially one piece. The joint negates this mechanical influence. The reason again is because the pressure and inertia is going the other way. The movement of tension at pressure peak and contraction at ball exit is occurring in train sequence at peak pressure and pressure/tension unloading. There is no more movement in contraction than there was in compression in properly hardened and fit parts.
There is no blocking or supporting of tension or contraction because of the joint and the two separate parts (arbor and barrel ) trying to move in opposite directions . A properly sized, hardened and fit wedge is the only common link in compression or tension of all related parts trying to move apart.
When the wedge and end of arbor slot go into compression then the slot area of the arbor goes into tension. At load release the reverse occurs. Unless the wedge gets a run at the end of the arbor slot from improper fit or hardness then a state of stasis or equilibrium should be achieved in which case battering should be no more of a problem one way or the other.

 

[45D]

Come on folks, it's really not that hard.
There can only be movement if the barrel assy isn't held against the arbor under tension . . . end of story.
Once the wedge is PULLING the barrel assy Against the end of the arbor (which is when the wedge is installed . . . it's a constant . . . ) the arbor and barrel assy are as one. The end of the arbor can't break because the barrel assy is being pulled against it!!!! Under a lot of tension!!!
The arbor itself torqued into the frame is the only thing keeping everything forward of the frame -attached to the frame!! I don't know how to make it any clearer than that.

The barrel and the end of the arbor ARE mechanically connected !!!! The WEDGE driven in . . . under tension is pulling the barrel and the arbor TOGETHER !!!

Maybe you don't understand the function of the wedge?

- The forward edge pushes against the forward side of the slot in the arbor.
- The rear edge pushes against the rear side of the slot in the barrel (Of which there are two of. One on each side of the barrel).

Because the end of the arbor hole is being pulled against the end of the arbor (under tension!!), the arbor can't break (like in the photo) because it is BEING HELD AGAINST THE ARBOR UNDER GREAT TENSION!!
That's purely and simply how it works!!! It's a MECHANICAL CONNECTION!!

Mike (mind you all, I'm not yelling, I'm EMPHASIZING!! LOL!)

 

[TrapperDude]

I'm curious why you think the barrel group has any "snap back" against the wedge after bullet exit? I presume you are talking about the steel in the end of the arbor( in the slot area) is contracting out of tension after the pressure of firing has concluded.

Negative. The portion of the barrel lug, which contains the arbor hole, is stretching forward at the same time the arbor is stretching forward.

Lets think about the train of compression and contraction in the various parts involved at firing. The barrel group at firing is trying to pull off the end of the arbor via the key from the muzzle end of the arbor slot. Assuming the wedge is of proper width, thickness and hardness and is correctly fit in all three slots the key and end of the arbor slot go into compression. The arbor slot area goes into tension. Only the arbor tension strength can arrest the departure of the barrel group. Wither the end of the arbor is in contact or not the tension and contraction of all related parts is precisely the same because of pressure direction and inertia.

The inertia is going to be different because the respective masses of the barrel lug and arbor will be different if they don't have the same mass. Therefore, there will be some microscopic differences in the rate at which the arbor and barrel lug return to their original states after being stretched as the weapon fires. If the arbor is short, then only the forward edge of the wedge will arrest the return force of the barrel lug if the arbor is short. If the arbor is bottomed out in the arbor hole, then the end of the arbor and the forward edge of the wedge will arrest that force, together.

If the end of the arbor and barrel well were mechanically connected it would have a different effect on this train of compression and tension movement being essentially one piece. The joint negates this mechanical influence. The reason again is because the pressure and inertia is going the other way. The movement of tension at pressure peak and contraction at ball exit is occurring in train sequence at peak pressure and pressure/tension unloading. There is no more movement in contraction than there was in compression in properly hardened and fit parts.
There is no blocking or supporting of tension or contraction because of the joint and the two separate parts (arbor and barrel ) trying to move in opposite directions . A properly sized, hardened and fit wedge is the only common link in compression or tension of all related parts trying to move apart.
When the wedge and end of arbor slot go into compression then the slot area of the arbor goes into tension. At load release the reverse occurs. Unless the wedge gets a run at the end of the arbor slot from improper fit or hardness then a state of stasis or equilibrium should be achieved in which case battering should be no more of a problem one way or the other.

Ideally, properly hardened and fitted parts should prevent that battering effect, but wedges do wear out over time from things I've read hear. It seems that repeated compression of the wedge has a cumulative effect for that to happen. While a properly fitted arbor won't mitigate stress on the rear edge of the wedge as the weapon fires, it could mitigate the stress on the forward edge of the wedge after the weapon is fired. Instead of stress both sides of the wedge, only one side of the wedge wod be stressed.

 

[Bad Karma]

As Mike (45D) has noted previously, the open tops give up nothing in strength compared with the Remington and others… however, the Defense Department and Colt himself surely knew that wedges were wear items. It was probably the most important complaint against the design. Wedges were beaten up and became unserviceable regularly. It’s also curious that the Defense Department ordered and took delivery of barrel assemblies only. No frames. No mention of the fitting of these barrels to frames by the factory certainly, and the information in Pates’ book makes no mention of their disposition by the Department of Defense.

do you think you are hickok or lee?

Neither… I’m just a guy who recognizes that even though Samuel Colts engineers produced the most aesthetically pleasing and strongest percussion revolver, a thing of singular grace and beauty and the true high water mark of the percussion age. it still was, as any mechanical device is, not without flaws. Now, of course the Remington is fine for those poor souls cursed with Donald Trump sized hands who don’t mind a clunky, graceless lump of metal swinging from their belt… but then the Remington isn’t the subject of the thread so maybe it should have its own thread. Maybe titled, “Okay, okay! It’s not a Colt but it’s not the end of the world.”

 

[SPQR70AD]

As Mike (45D) has noted previously, the open tops give up nothing in strength compared with the Remington and others… however, the Defense Department and Colt himself surely knew that wedges were wear items. It was probably the most important complaint against the design. Wedges were beaten up and became unserviceable regularly. It’s also curious that the Defense Department ordered and took delivery of barrel assemblies only. No frames. No mention of the fitting of these barrels to frames by the factory certainly, and the information in Pates’ book makes no mention of their disposition by the Department of Defense.



Neither… I’m just a guy who recognizes that even though Samuel Colts engineers produced the most aesthetically pleasing and strongest percussion revolver, a thing of singular grace and beauty and the true high water mark of the percussion age. it still was, as any mechanical device is, not without flaws. Now, of course the Remington is fine for those poor souls cursed with Donald Trump sized hands who don’t mind a clunky, graceless lump of metal swinging from their belt… but then the Remington isn’t the subject of the thread so maybe it should have its own thread. Maybe titled, “Okay, okay! It’s not a Colt but it’s not the end of the world.”

strongest design? why didnt colt keep the open top design when they made the SAA in 45? how can anybody thing the open top is stronger then the 1858 with its one piece frame including the grip design with a top strap tying it all together? if you like the open top more power to you but to say it is stronger is silly. the cylinder on a Remmy is supported with a big lug under the barrel and the recoil shield in the rear. Colt has none of that and the cylinder moves to and fro getting sloppier with use. I fired countless rounds in a brass 1858 and the cylinder play back and forth is non existent

 

[45D]

strongest design? why didnt colt keep the open top design when they made the SAA in 45? how can anybody thing the open top is stronger then the 1858 with its one piece frame including the grip design with a top strap tying it all together? if you like the open top more power to you but to say it is stronger is silly. the cylinder on a Remmy is supported with a big lug under the barrel and the recoil shield in the rear. Colt has none of that and the cylinder moves to and fro getting sloppier with use. I fired countless rounds in a brass 1858 and the cylinder play back and forth is non existent

Yep, well SPQR, the Uber strong Remington is the only revolver I've had actually bend while shooting it !! Whether it was too hard lead, too big ah balls . . . whatever - a combination of loading/shooting it, the top strap finally collapsed onto the cylinder . . .

As far as Colt and the '73? Well, the previous "top strap" (Root which preceded the Remington) didn't make the cut so the O.T. lived on. After the war, the Military dictated the top strap be the design so the brand new 72/73 Open Top was rejected and the '73 made the cut. The top strap design is definitely cheaper to make - cast/forge a frame, drill a hole, screw in a barrel . . . that's why we still have it today!! Lo!. Cheaper to produce doesn't necessarily mean better . . . just cheaper!! To make the top strap stronger, the "top strap" has to be wider or thicker or both so . . . compared to the Remington, the Remie is on the "slight" side!

I like the Remington a lot and it's one of my favorites to carry (converted of course!!! Lol) but the perimeter frame around the whole cylinder is a weaker design than a bulkier, more compact frame of the open top (the arbor IS the top strap!! Lol). So, think what you want but I'll be the "silly" one with the "unbent" revolver while you're scratching your head wondering what happened to your "strapping top strap" revolver!! Lol

Mike

BTW, my cylinders have a .0015"- .002" endshake with a "zero" barrel/cylinder gap! Lol!!!

 

[TrapperDude]

Yep, well SPQR, the Uber strong Remington is the only revolver I've had actually bend while shooting it !! Whether it was too hard lead, too big ah balls . . . whatever - a combination of loading/shooting it, the top strap finally collapsed onto the cylinder . . .

As far as Colt and the '73? Well, the previous "top strap" (Root which preceded the Remington) didn't make the cut so the O.T. lived on. After the war, the Military dictated the top strap be the design so the brand new 72/73 Open Top was rejected and the '73 made the cut. The top strap design is definitely cheaper to make - cast/forge a frame, drill a hole, screw in a barrel . . . that's why we still have it today!! Lo!. Cheaper to produce doesn't necessarily mean better . . . just cheaper!! To make the top strap stronger, the "top strap" has to be wider or thicker or both so . . . compared to the Remington, the Remie is on the "slight" side!

I like the Remington a lot and it's one of my favorites to carry (converted of course!!! Lol) but the perimeter frame around the whole cylinder is a weaker design than a bulkier, more compact frame of the open top (the arbor IS the top strap!! Lol). So, think what you want but I'll be the "silly" one with the "unbent" revolver while you're scratching your head wondering what happened to your "strapping top strap" revolver!! Lol

Mike

BTW, my cylinders have a .0015"- .002" endshake with a "zero" barrel/cylinder gap! Lol!!!

Well, the question about the strength of a design has to look at the nature of the structures being compared--not specific examples of revolvers using the different structural designs.

A revolver with a very heavy arbor will be stronger than a revolver with a top strap if the revolver with the top strap has an entire frame that is very thin. A revolver with a top strap will be stronger than a revolver with an arbor if the revolver with the top strap has a heavy frame and the revolver with the arbor has a thin arbor. For these reasons, the designs must be compared from a structural perspective, rather than from comparison of specific revolvers.

Structurally, a full-frame revolver is a stronger design because the barrel is held in place from two directions--from the top strap above and from the frame below. An open-top revolver, however has its barrel held in place only from below. Think of it as measuring the strength of structural member held up at both ends vs. the same structural member when it is cantilevered.

To illustrate, imagine placing a chopstick so that each end is on a separate cinder block. If you were to press down on the middle of the chopstick, it would take more force to break that chopstick than it would take to break the chopstick if it only had one end epoxied to a single cinder block.

A discussion of the relative strength of open top vs. full-frame revolvers can't be addressed in general terms. It must address the relative strength of specific revolvers if the discussion is to bear fruit. Otherwise, the discussion must address the relative strength of the two structures if specific revolvers are to be left out of the debate.

Until someone brings up actual stress tests conducted to compare Remington revolvers to various open-top revolvers, there is no way to definitively state that any open-top revolver is stronger than a Remington with its full-frame design--not unless a mechanical engineer does the math to calculate force vectors and accounts for the material thicknesses involved.

 

[45D]

Well, the question about the strength of a design has to look at the nature of the structures being compared--not specific examples of revolvers using the different structural designs.

A revolver with a very heavy arbor will be stronger than a revolver with a top strap if the revolver with the top strap has an entire frame that is very thin. A revolver with a top strap will be stronger than a revolver with an arbor if the revolver with the top strap has a heavy frame and the revolver with the arbor has a thin arbor. For these reasons, the designs must be compared from a structural perspective, rather than from comparison of specific revolvers.

Structurally, a full-frame revolver is a stronger design because the barrel is held in place from two directions--from the top strap above and from the frame below. An open-top revolver, however has its barrel held in place only from below. Think of it as measuring the strength of structural member held up at both ends vs. the same structural member when it is cantilevered.

To illustrate, imagine placing a chopstick so that each end is on a separate cinder block. If you were to press down on the middle of the chopstick, it would take more force to break that chopstick than it would take to break the chopstick if it only had one end epoxied to a single cinder block.

A discussion of the relative strength of open top vs. full-frame revolvers can't be addressed in general terms. It must address the relative strength of specific revolvers if the discussion is to bear fruit. Otherwise, the discussion must address the relative strength of the two structures if specific revolvers are to be left out of the debate.

Until someone brings up actual stress tests conducted to compare Remington revolvers to various open-top revolvers, there is no way to definitively state that any open-top revolver is stronger than a Remington with its full-frame design--not unless a mechanical engineer does the math to calculate force vectors and accounts for the material thicknesses involved.

TrapperDude!!! While what you say has some merit, I was specifically comparing the Colt open top with the Remington offering. I'm sure you understand that the four sided structure givs up strength the larger you make it when comparing it to a smaller structure - both using roughly the same amount of material. The Remie has a very thin wall construction for the front which is mostly comprised of a hole for the barrel, a hole for the base pin and a hole for the plunger and a somewhat lacking attachment at the bottom where it joins the frame proper. Back at the top, the top strap is fairly thin with a decent groove running the length of it for a sight relief, still though it is a sturdy structure. The recoil shield and lower frame portion of both revolvers is similar yet the Remington frame is more narrow and tapers toward the front more sharply than the Colt frame (Army or Navy). The load at firing is delivered to an inside corner at the frames extremity.

In the Colt O.T.structure, the barrel assembly is a solid structure of which the lug contains considerably more material where it meets the frame proper. Also, the barrel itself is a substantial addition of rigidity since it isn't a separate "add on" ( not screwed in). The material mentioned in the barrel lug offers a substantial support structure for the arbor as well as a locking system for joining the arbor to the barrel assembly. Since the arbor is torqued in the frame at the center of the breech, it too is well supported and serves the same structural purpose as the top strap as well as an axis for the cylinder. So, the rectangular structure in this case is heavier and more compact. The load at firing is delivered immediately above (literally an 1/8 inch above) the support structure.

As previously stated in my post above this one, my personal experience is all I need to convince myself of the strength capabilities of these examples. The Remington frame ultimately bent and I noticed it while I was loading it. Of the many open top revolvers I've owned over 40+ yrs of shooting them I've actually sheared the loading leaver screw while loading a Walker but I've never bent one.
The main point is these two designs serve their purpose and with mine being cartridge converted examples they perform extremely well with amazing accuracy!! I'll be "testing the limits" with the horse pistols this summer and possibly a really nice surprise announcement.

Mike

 

[Robby]

Okay, I'll ask again. Typically, how thick is this arbor washer we are talking about?
Robby

 

[TrapperDude]

TrapperDude!!! While what you say has some merit, I was specifically comparing the Colt open top with the Remington offering. I'm sure you understand that the four sided structure givs up strength the larger you make it when comparing it to a smaller structure - both using roughly the same amount of material. The Remie has a very thin wall construction for the front which is mostly comprised of a hole for the barrel, a hole for the base pin and a hole for the plunger and a somewhat lacking attachment at the bottom where it joins the frame proper. Back at the top, the top strap is fairly thin with a decent groove running the length of it for a sight relief, still though it is a sturdy structure. The recoil shield and lower frame portion of both revolvers is similar yet the Remington frame is more narrow and tapers toward the front more sharply than the Colt frame (Army or Navy). The load at firing is delivered to an inside corner at the frames extremity.

In the Colt O.T.structure, the barrel assembly is a solid structure of which the lug contains considerably more material where it meets the frame proper. Also, the barrel itself is a substantial addition of rigidity since it isn't a separate "add on" ( not screwed in). The material mentioned in the barrel lug offers a substantial support structure for the arbor as well as a locking system for joining the arbor to the barrel assembly. Since the arbor is torqued in the frame at the center of the breech, it too is well supported and serves the same structural purpose as the top strap as well as an axis for the cylinder. So, the rectangular structure in this case is heavier and more compact. The load at firing is delivered immediately above (literally an 1/8 inch above) the support structure.

As previously stated in my post above this one, my personal experience is all I need to convince myself of the strength capabilities of these examples. The Remington frame ultimately bent and I noticed it while I was loading it. Of the many open top revolvers I've owned over 40+ yrs of shooting them I've actually sheared the loading leaver screw while loading a Walker but I've never bent one.
The main point is these two designs serve their purpose and with mine being cartridge converted examples they perform extremely well with amazing accuracy!! I'll be "testing the limits" with the horse pistols this summer and possibly a really nice surprise announcement.

Mike

So, what you're saying, then, is that the Remington has a sleeker look because it does what it does in a thinner package? I'll definitely agree with that.

Don't get me wrong. I think the 1860 Army is the best looking of the open-top revolvers (it's why I bought one to go with my Remington), but when comparing the 1860 to the Remington, it's kind of like comparing Ana Nichole Smith to the Trinity character from the *Matrix* movies. The Remington has a more athletic and lean appearance to it.

 

[45D]

Okay, I'll ask again. Typically, how thick is this arbor washer we are talking about?
Robby

Haaaaaaa!!! Sorry Robby!
Honestly I don't know! I've never measured because it's not a "standard measurement" and it's a "file to fit" type thing (I use the head of a # 14 Pan Head SS screw for horse pistols, #12 for belts). For me it's easier to start by bringing the barrel lug and frame together. Once they meet, you can keep reducing until you reach your target endshake (barrel / cylinder clearance).
The nice thing about the pan head screw is the rounded head sits in the drilled end of the arbor hole and will "self level" as you go through the fitting process. The flat side (where the shaft was) will butt up flush against the end of the arbor.

Mike