Trev
32 Cal
did you not see the question mark?
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?
did you not see the question mark?
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.I've read that the cones of those days were open tubes not the tiny holes that modern nipples have?
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.
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.So you are saying that they were similar to current stock?
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.
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.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.
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.
It does not always split. In fact it is uncommon.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.
Enter your email address to join: