I have to rethink the spare cylinder idea

[Trev]

did you not see the question mark?

 

[KingOfKindling]

Made a quick pepperbox adapter for an old 1860. Should work, all it needs to do is keep the cylinder in place so that the hammer can set off the cap. Can very quickly remove the adapter, and reinstall the barrel so I can load the cylinder.

If the weather is nice tomorrow, I'll drag out the chronograph and do some tests. I'm guessing that a chamber completely filled with 3F powder is probably the safest. I'll test different powder loads and see whats gets the most FPS. Maybe find some cornmeal to use as filler and see how far down the chamber I can still seat a ball against the powder. Might allow for some pretty light loads.

If my chronograph doesn't read as low as I'm imagining this will be, I'll see how well it penetrates cardboard.

Should be fun to see if my guesses are correct.

 

[Trev]

There's another question I have, not to derail the thread, but the old guy that got me started with my revolver years ago insisted I should use full chambers of FFG and I noticed that Kieth always refers to FFG in both the .36 and .44 C&B revolvers, yet almost everything I see on the internet says FFFG, why is that?

 

[KingOfKindling]

There's another question I have, not to derail the thread, but the old guy that got me started with my revolver years ago insisted I should use full chambers of FFG and I noticed that Kieth always refers to FFG in both the .36 and .44 C&B revolvers, yet almost everything I see on the internet says FFFG, why is that?

Because they all work just fine even 4F. You get a bit more velocity out of the finer grades, along with a bit more kick.

 

[SDSmlf]

did you not see the question mark?

I've read that the cones of those days were open tubes not the tiny holes that modern nipples have?

My mistake missing the question mark. Please just share the link where you read about the ‘cones of those days’ not having the ‘tiny holes that modern nipples have’. Should be an educational read.

 

[Trev]

So you are saying that they were similar to current stock? I have no idea where on the web I saw that, didn't bookmark it, sorry.

 

[KingOfKindling]

A lot of ‘interesting’ bits of information to read on the internet…. What are the actual measurements of the ‘tiny holes’ in the cones of original guns you have measured? It’s difficult to convert ‘tiny holes’ to a real number. The few original guns of ‘those days’ that I own plus some others that I have measured have ‘tiny holes’ in their cones that measure as small as .024”, actually smaller than the .028” to .030” found on contemporary guns. Also find it interesting to learn that original guns from ‘those days’ had cones while contemporary/modern guns have nipples.

Please share your actual measurements from some period guns.

I only have two originals to test at the moment, but neither are open tubes. They are drilled narrower at the base, and more open on the cap side.

Both guns have pretty worn nipples.

One is a 6 shot .31 cal 1849 Colt pocket, with the smallest opening measuring .039", and the largest .041".

The other is a .31 cal Whitney pocket with the smallest measuring .043" and the largest .047".

Dunno what they were new, but judging from the wear, I'd say it's safe to assume they were smaller.

 

[SDSmlf]

So you are saying that they were similar to current stock?

Did you not read my post about the measurements of the limited number of samples I checked? Kind of like not seeing the question mark.

did you not see the question mark?

The few original guns of ‘those days’ that I own plus some others that I have measured have ‘tiny holes’ in their cones that measure as small as .024”, actually smaller than the .028” to .030” found on contemporary guns.

 

[SDSmlf]

I only have two originals to test at the moment, but neither are open tubes. They are drilled narrower at the base, and more open on the cap side.

Both guns have pretty worn nipples.

One is a 6 shot .31 cal 1849 Colt pocket, with the smallest opening measuring .039", and the largest .041".

The other is a .31 cal Whitney pocket with the smallest measuring .043" and the largest .047".

Dunno what they were new, but judging from the wear, I'd say it's safe to assume they were smaller.

The two originals that I own and checked, along with three owned by others, are 1858s. One had nipples in the .024” range, another around .026”, while the rest measured up to .035”. Do not believe there is any debate, just a number data points from actual originals measuring not that much different from contemporary manufactured guns (if not smaller), though I am pretty sure well worn original examples with larger orifices can easily be found. No idea what OEM nipple orifice size initially started out at, but hard to believe the orifices got smaller after use over a 100 plus years.

My observation is I based on measurement of actual original guns, not something I think I remember reading in the internet.

 

[KingOfKindling]

Weather is nasty, been pouring rain. Finally let up a bit so I snuck out back and did a quick cardboard test. If the rain goes away completely, I'll make out to the shooting range and try to get some actual velocities.

I wanted to give this the best chance of penetrating the cardboard that I could, so I'm using 3F Swiss powder and some Johnson and Dow conicals sized to .457".



No filler for this first test, may not be any point. I loaded up 5 cylinders. Starting at 10 grains, I worked up by 5. So 10, 15, 20, 25, & 30 grains. Had to remove the plunger from the gun and gently tap on the 10 grain load to get it to seat on the powder. I also tried tapping on the 15, but I don't think it budged.



Here's the depths of the bullets in the chambers. Probably not a great way to measure things as this Rigarmi plunger while cut deeper than a Pietta, still flattens out the tips of the bullets.



Shots were basically point blank, about 3'. I was shooting down into a pit filled with brush and logs, and the box was braced on that.

Here's the front of the box:



And here's the rear of the box.




I think the 10 grain load barely made it out the back side. It was the quietest shot by far. The 15 grain load was a bit louder. 20 grains and on sounded more like normal gun shots.

So a cylinder without a barrel, held firmly in the hand, will penetrate two layers of cardboard with any reasonable charge. Will that break the skin? Possibly. Meat is tough though. At least It'l certainly leave a nasty bruise. Would a dropped cylinder that's free to move, launch a bullet at the same velocities as one held in the hand? Probably not, but there's always a possibility it could land perfectly.

I've got some things to refine in the future. I'm wondering if the 10 and 15 grain loads were way quieter because the powder was compressed differently, I tried to keep seating pressure consistent, but obviously failed as the bullets are smooshed at different rates. The 30 grain load also needed a good bit of force to get it seated below the chamber mouth.

I'll get the cylinder cleaned, load things up again, and wait for good weather to get chronograph results. Might bring out some cleaning stuff, and try round ball as well.

 

[nick_1]

I have zero doubt that a round from a loaded cylinder can either hurt or kill you but I also have zero worries that I will drop one in a way that it will fire. I actually like the pocket carry better than the leather pouch because its a bit tricky to get the cylinders out of the pouch. I do keep them in a pouch when I have an extra in the consol of the truck. Hunting its in a pouch on my belt. Plinking in the yard its in my pocket. Not dropping it and if I do as long as I am not in my garage on the concrete floor its a non issue.

 

[Smokerr]

This sure went places I had not expected!

I will chime in that I too wonder about a light off in a chamber not attached to a gun. You have two aspects missing from a mounted one. No barrel and no pressure but you also have the cylinder moving back to some degree. You have to guess its no much overall though I am looking forward to the Chrono results. I almost always Chrono. LabRadar being easy to setup and use as would the Garmin Unit. LabRadar seems to be easier to use. Mine is solid as I made a base out of a plate of 3/8 steel I had laying around. Tripod maybe less so. LabRadar takes a firm push of the button.

LabRadar is iffy under 400 fps, I think its the lack of a boom to trigger. I may get the separate trigger device as it misses a shot once in a while and reacts to someone with a muzzle brake next to me.

One of the other aspects I have wondered about. It evolves around the empty chamber as a safety measure. But, if you load from a flask, you then are at half cock and turning chambers under the hammer while you cap it with caps and loaded chambers under it. So you still are in a dangerous area with no safety other than half cock. I don't disagree at all with a carrying the gun on an empty chamber (if you don't have the safety slots) but if I am target shooting?

 

[Smokerr]

I put a mark on the Rammer on the first bullet seat and then use that as my gauge for the rest.

 

[Smokerr]

What is wrong to do is extrapolate what works for you from what works in general."

Smokerr. I think we're looking at the spare cylinder idea from two different perspectives. I do not have any reason to believe a cylinder swap was would have been done under fire, especially on an open top revolver. However I can see someone who lived outside carrying a spare cylinder carefully stored in their kit. Run into several days of rain and you start to question the loads in your percussion revolver. Once the rain stops, swap cylinders and deal with your potentially contaminated cylinder when you have time. Something like that is how I see the spare cylinder being carried and used. The archeological evidence is that some spare cylinders were being carried. I wish I knew how they were being carried and how they were used, but I don't.

Not sure you got what I intended (writing can do that). nick 1 seems to be a very capable pistol shooter and well versed in handling them and a determination and I believe capability most do not have. For him to extrapolate that would work for others? That is the rub. I will work for some, but they need to be equally capable and level headed under stress.

You did cite an case where a spare might be the right thing to do if you are counting on a pistol. Fair enough. From the pictures that was not the norm. Someone cited that Lee pistol when examined had wax over the chambers. Ok, not a Chain Fire avoidance, keep it dry from the front in the rain as he would be carrying it an rarely if ever firing it. His servant would have had a fun time clearing the wax out of the barrel if he did!

Now those guys that carried multiple guns? One semi protected and some kind of slicker or pouch for the rest more likely. Or they would have tested them enough to know they still functioned. Easy enough to test. If its in a holster you can be sure none is into the front of the chamber. Back is covered with your coat (which of course can get water onto the back). Have not come up with a test for that unless you wanted to cap a cylinder, leave it out in semi wet.

But the overall humidity you can load a cylinder (keeping in mind it has to be capped) and put it out under cover but raining period, leave it out a week and then see if it fires ok.

 

[Smokerr]

I do pre load and cap my cylinders when I use 4F.

4F comes out the Cones. I don't care for powder sprinkled around the gun and around as well as loss of charge.

 

[WalnutRed]

Maybe the FFG recommendation was because it's less likely to trickle out of the nipples. For me capping is the last step and I've never noticed FFFG trickling out. Maybe I just wasn't looking for powder escaping though. I'll watch closer next range day. .

 

[fireman1]

Regarding a loaded cap'ed cylinder going off, I would not worry about it hurting. Even modern cased ammo when ignited outside of a barrel, does nothing. Barely even feel it through turnout gear.

 

[nick_1]

modern ammo the case splits and it loses all its pressure. I suspect a capped cylinder would be more dangerous but you are still going to have a very hard time getting it to fire.

 

[fireman1]

modern ammo the case splits and it loses all its pressure. I suspect a capped cylinder would be more dangerous but you are still going to have a very hard time getting it to fire.

It does not always split. In fact it is uncommon.

 

[nick_1]

Interesting. When I was a kid we dug through the wreckage of a house fire that had hundreds of rifle rounds in it and most of them were split.