I am hooked on cap & ball

[Khufu]

actually, this proceedure does bring rhem in perfect alignment, I can usually see a barrel misalignment causing a windage error, and guns that shoot high are an obvious misalignment, you can see the crooked cylinder gap, more space on the top or bottom, when you over tighten the wedge the top or bottom of the forcing come will rub, not evenly. and I get outstanding accuracy without adding an oversized front sight to make up for a misaligned barrel. by cocking the revolver and laying it upsidedown on a flat surface its very easy to measure barrel alignment.
many italian replica revolvers that I have personally worked on were badly misaligned from the factory, and therefore do not shoot to point of aim. he sighted 1000s of colts, and I have done at least 25 and all of the ones I fired after sighting were deadly accurate. I have a 2nd model 1851 that I got for a song because some dremmel jockey changed the hammer **** position by modifying the trigger so full **** was 3/8" from where it should be in an effort to zero it. it shot ot poiny of aim, but setting it cocked upsidedown the cylinder to barrel alignment was off, a lot. I had to replace the tigger and remove a bunch of metal to realign it and get it to shoot to point of aim at true full ****, with standard sights.

 

[fraungie]

I am a little confused. If I remove metal from the right back side of the barrel would that not let the back of the barrel move closer to the cyl on the right side causing the front of the barrel to move farther to the right causing the point of impact to move to the right? What am I missing?

 

[Khufu]

I need to post pictures, and explain in better detail, rather than hijack the OPs thread I will start a new thread on sighting in colt c&b revolvers. I will strip down a few and take pics and mark up the pics so I can explain in better detail

 

[pinemarten]

I really enjoy it too... I shot a bunch today. My Pietta '58 seems to hit about 4-6 inches low and to left at 20 yards. I was shooting that distance to see if I could hit anything in a small game hunting situation with it. When I held front site high and right I could hit what I wanted. My biggest problem is it seems to take me too long to clean. I've always got so much going on at home taking care of family and other projects that it is hard to want to take the whole thing apart, scrub each nipple, etc I've begun to use the real hot water method and just toss the parts into it. Scrub with toothbrush every little angle of every piece still a time consuming process. I was trying to also make some dinner for the family and multitask but....burned it up in the oven..LOL!!

Daniel

 

[M. De Land]

The method I came up with of getting things concentric starts with putting the open frame barrel group between centers in my lathe and then removing the predetermined amount of steel from the lower barrel boss with the tool post cutter and finish dress with stone or diamond file.
This keeps the lower boss face perpendicular to the bore on both axis.
Most revolvers are not only out of concentric vertically but also horizontally. I see this all the time in solid frame guns as well.
And most of them (solid frame guns) also have some barrel thread choke that should be lapped out.
The best forcing cones are cut with a barrel spud mandrel and not on a lathe in my opinion.
Now if the arbor is tight and parallel to the bore good accuracy can be expected assuming the bore is level, well rifled and crown square.
Another thing I find regularly as well and has already been mentioned is chamber mouth diameter inconsistency.

 

[Khufu]

I completely agree, and the sights usually align pretty well when the barrel is mounted straight.
some I have found, have a bore diameter of .375 instead of .360 and as you mentioned variance cylinder to cylinder. if the revolver is cocked and placed on a flat surface the up/down variance of the barrel to sight and barrel to cylinder is very plain to see. most replicas I have encountered shoot high, and most have the barrel obviously oriented upward. correcting that usually zeros the weapon as well.

 

[M. De Land]

The 1860 pictured is a case in point.
I set it back, dressed the crown, made a new trigger and built a new wedge to get it squared up and tightened.
It is an accurate cap-n- ball revolver and yet after all that I had to put the blade up front to get it any where near close vertically at the 25 yards I set the sight for and still keep it concentric.
That little nubbin of a brass sliver front sight they come with is all but useless for accurate work, both in shape and height.

 

[nhmoose]

Very interesting thread Thanks great info.

 

[BeoBill]

I agree that the brass front sight is useless.

I think the rationale could be that it was a holdover from earlier primitive sight systems that were used on weapons primarily for close-in work where accuracy was not a real consideration. I'm thinking pistols meant for "in your face" defensive applications.

Just musing...

 

[1860 Army]

Took my Uberti 1860 Army out for a 50yd shoot.
I painted my front sight white. Easier to see.
It shot about 4" high but was able to get 5" group with a couple of flyers.
Was also able to hit a 12" steel plate 2 out of 5 times at 100yds. Aimed center.
Shooting from bench with a sandbag, two hands.
I'm enjoying my 1860. Have now shot it 55 times. :grin:

 

[smoothshooter]

I personally think the Navy Colt is the most attractive handgun ever made.

 

[1860 Army]

I agree. The 1860 Army is the second. I just like the 44 cal.

 

[John V.]

I think all the Colt B/P revolvers are just really neat.They have a certain look that one just does not get with modern day revolvers.That is just my opinion though. Wish I could afford one of all. Maybe that goal could become part of my bucket list?

 

[Jim C]

I personally think the Navy Colt is the most attractive handgun ever made.

Which one, the '51 or '61? I like the '61 myself. All steel version.

 

[John V.]

Man you guys are awesome. :bow: I never knew that there even was a Colt 1861? I knew of the 1860.This site just ceases to amaze me. Now I gotta look one up. Thanks.

 

[Jim C]

The '61 Navy model in .36 cal looks just like the '60 Army mod .44 except it's smaller and has a 7 1/2 inch barrel vs the 8 inch on the .44....I think it's the prettiest revolver ever made. Best handling by far.

 

[smoothshooter]

The 1851,and the Pocket Models.

 

[fistmil]

I also like the all steel version. For me it's the 1851 London model Navy.

 

[1860 Army]

I think the 1851 Navy is the best looking

 

[Treestalker]

Ditto, Jim.