Hammer/nipple connection

[Dude]

I've read that one of the steps of tuning a pistol is to prevent the hammer contacting the nipple. The solution presented was to file the hammer nose till it just barely touches.

I don't like the idea of filing down the hammer. Is this really necessary?

I'd much rather turn down the nipples if there's enough length to do so. But I have no caps to see if that's possible.

If filing the hammer nose is truly the solution, then so be it.

 

[bang]

Best thing is to never dry fire. With the correct nipples should be able to place a piece of paper over the nipple and set the hammer down. The paper should pull out without tearing.

 

[Dude]

I put a slip of paper under the hammer and could just barely pull it out without tearing the paper.

My Ruger Old Army doesn't push the cylinder forward with the hammer down. There's fore and aft play in the cylinder obviously, but the paper trick wouldn't work there with the nipples sitting lower than the surrounding metal.

It appears the best condition is one where the hammer doesn't contact the nipple. Perhaps I should shoot it and see how it does, though I'd like to make sure everything is right first.

One of the cylinders wasn't locking up - with moderate pressure I could get the cylinder to rotate. Deburring the notch fixed that. This one last issue should find it ready to go.

 

[hawkeye2]

I wouldn't file the hammer as it's casehardened and probably not too deep. It would be OK to deburr and smooth the hammer face but not take much off. You could shorten the nipples and do it with a file or stone but if you can pull a piece of paper out I would leave it as is. It won't affect accuracy and it'll bust a cap every time and shouldn't have any effect on the life of the gun. The average Italian revolver isn't held to very tight tolerances and trying for perfection between the hammer and nipples could lead to ignition problems. Once metal is removed it can't be replaced. Do not dryfire it.

 

[Dude]

Thanks hawkeye and bang. For sure, no dry fires! Even if it was safe, I don't feel good doing it.

Like I said, I don't feel good about removing material from the hammer. Yes, it's most likely hardened, but a dremel cut-off wheel would touch it. It's one of those things that would need to be done properly and I'm not sure I'm up to it. It would require removing something like ten thousandths of an inch evenly. But if it's not going to affect accuracy or longevity I won't worry about it. Hopefully it doesn't shatter the caps - but if your rule-of-thumb with the paper is true, then that shouldn't be a problem.

 

[leadhoarder]

I wouldn't file the hammer as it's casehardened and probably not too deep. It would be OK to deburr and smooth the hammer face but not take much off. You could shorten the nipples and do it with a file or stone but if you can pull a piece of paper out I would leave it as is. It won't affect accuracy and it'll bust a cap every time and shouldn't have any effect on the life of the gun. The average Italian revolver isn't held to very tight tolerances and trying for perfection between the hammer and nipples could lead to ignition problems. Once metal is removed it can't be replaced. Do not dryfire it.

I could be wrong but isn't most of the "case hardening" on the mass produced guns these days just a cosmetic treatment?

My understanding is that modern guns manufacturers use heat treatment to harden the parts. This is superior to the old school case hardening. The chemical etching that is used to cosmetically emulate the old case hardening does not really harden the surface.

 

[JHB]

I work on the cheapest and easiest part to replace. That would be the nipple. Screw out the old screw in the new. A hammer requires some one that knows what he is doing.

 

[ZUG]

I've read that one of the steps of tuning a pistol is to prevent the hammer contacting the nipple. The solution presented was to file the hammer nose till it just barely touches. I don't like the idea of filing down the hammer. Is this really necessary? I'd much rather turn down the nipples if there's enough length to do so. But I have no caps to see if that's possible. If filing the hammer nose is truly the solution, then so be it.

How about just leaving it be and shoot it? Replace the nipples when needed and continue shooting-- I know there are folks out there that like to tinker and that's all well and good. I only fix things when something stops working

 

[Dude]

I've heard the reproduction guns are actually made from good steel. The hammer looks like it's case hardened, and not with chemicals. This is a Pietta built in 2019, so it's a recent build. And yes, replacing the nipples seems like a better idea than a hammer. In fact, it's recommended the nipples be replaced.

One of my thoughts goes like this: If the hammer hits the nipple and slams the cylinder forward up against the barrel, then the powder and recoil slams the cylinder backwards, that can't be good for the gun. It seems the best situation is where the cylinder remains positioned against the back of the arbor. But perhaps I'm over-thinking this and the cylinder will slam forward no matter what when the hammer hits the cap.

 

[Dude]

Zug - I hear you. I guess it would help if I had some caps and could go shoot this thing.

I'm totally new to BP and still getting my wits about me. There's a lot to learn and to figure out what's important and what isn't.

 

[Bad Karma]

I put a slip of paper under the hammer and could just barely pull it out without tearing the paper.

My Ruger Old Army doesn't push the cylinder forward with the hammer down. There's fore and aft play in the cylinder obviously, but the paper trick wouldn't work there with the nipples sitting lower than the surrounding metal.

It appears the best condition is one where the hammer doesn't contact the nipple. Perhaps I should shoot it and see how it does...

As long as the timing is good with good positive engagement of the bolt, (cylinder latch in Rugerspeak) go ahead and shoot it for a while. Watch the nipples for signs of battering and unless that shows up, (unlikely in my experience with the ROA) go on shooting and enjoying that fine revolver!

Oh yes, by the way, if you do need to work on the hammer/nipple interface, do so on the nipple. It’s easier and cheaper to replace.

 

[Dude]

Woodnbow - I only mentioned the ROA because I checked it out for hammer/nipple clearance. The hammer doesn't seem to contack the nipple.

The gun in question is a Pietta Navy 44 built last year. And, yes, the cylinder locks up nicely and everything seems to be working well. I had to do some fitting on the wedge - it was really jammed tight! Now I can push it in and out by hand -not easy to push out but I can do it without tools. It's got enough gap between the cylinder and barrel. I've de-burred the cylinder notches and any other burrs I've found. Had the gun all apart last night and checked everything. Getting the backstrap to fit properly took the longest of everything, and even still it's not perfect. There's still some tension on the backstrap preventing it meeting the front strap at the bottom without a gap. I had to remove all the flashing and burrs from the front and back straps, plus remove a little material from the bottom of the grips on the inside of the channel.

It sounds like I'm getting deeper into this thing than most guys. Since I'm the FNG I could be making mountains of molehills.

 

[FishDFly]

"But perhaps I'm over-thinking this"

Yep, go shoot it.

Many pistols are ruined by folks fixing what is not broke.

 

[SDSmlf]

would require removing something like ten thousandths of an inch evenly.

Would not count on the effective case hardening depth to be more than .010” to .015” deep.

 

[Phil Coffins]

The case hardening is very thin. A file will easily cut threw it, but don’t! These pistols always have fore and aft play to the cylinder and a bit is to be expected. The hand, is due to it’s spring, is loading the cylinder forward. Not to worry. There’s a lot going on in these old pistols and until you understand how each part interacts with the whole machine then take a step back and study all these parts and their functions.

 

[M. De Land]

I could be wrong but isn't most of the "case hardening" on the mass produced guns these days just a cosmetic treatment?

My understanding is that modern guns manufacturers use heat treatment to harden the parts. This is superior to the old school case hardening. The chemical etching that is used to cosmetically emulate the old case hardening does not really harden the surface.

Original guns did not have steel that could be hardened all the way through and then have the temper drawn to leave them tough as well. The only way to put a hard surface for wear resistance in low carbon steel is to infuse carbon into the surface and that is accomplished by casehardening. It leaves the core malleable so it won't fracture. I have found some of the parts on Pietta revolvers to be soft enough not to hold a competition edge for trigger pull. I had to make another trigger of tool steel that has held for many years. They work OK for full sear engagement but that is not a competition trigger.

 

[M. De Land]

I've read that one of the steps of tuning a pistol is to prevent the hammer contacting the nipple. The solution presented was to file the hammer nose till it just barely touches.

I don't like the idea of filing down the hammer. Is this really necessary?

I'd much rather turn down the nipples if there's enough length to do so. But I have no caps to see if that's possible.

If filing the hammer nose is truly the solution, then so be it.

If you want to dry fire practice get some 1/8th thick neoprene setting blocks for insulated glass (local glass shop) and cut out a rectangular piece that will fit your hammer slot snugly the length of the web in it's arch. Place in the slot against the web. This will allow the hammer to come forward far enough to cycle and still keep the nose from impacting the nipple. I use them on solid and rigid frame guns. Most guns need to let the hammer drop to go far enough forward into the pad to complete the cycle or they will lock up not allowing the hammer lug clearing the finger on the bolt .

 

[Dude]

I have some of that foam you're talking about - little squares, sticky on one side. They were stuck to a window to protect it, so when it went in I saved them thinking they could come in handy some time. It might take a bit to get over my reluctance to dry fire - it's really ingrained in me not to.

 

[M. De Land]

It's not the foam pads that come stuck to the glass to keep it from scratching by contact with other panes. It is the neoprene setting blocks that the glass sets on at the bottom in the frame at instillation. You will have to ask for them as usually only the installers carry them in their glass trucks. They come in 1/8 th and 1/4 thickness and are 1 inch wide by 3-4 inches long black neoprene. You want the 1/8th thickness ones. It is very tough in compression but is perfect for arresting hammer fall in the frame notch over the web. In some revolvers you may have to thin (sand down) a bit but the hammer nose will never touch the nipple when dry firing and still drop far enough for the gun to fully cycle.
You do of course need to remove them before you fire the pistol. It is simple and takes a second with medical forceps . The trick is to fit them snuggly on the width so they stay in the hammer slot in the frame by themselves. Only make them long enough to cover the web in the hammer slot that the arbor is threaded into. They work equally well in a ROA, or 58 Rem .

 

[Dude]

Ok - I get what you're talking about. This isn't something that cushions the hammer hitting the nipple, but instead, prevents the hammer ever touching the nipple.