Increasing Accuracy

[mkpatrick]

I have a FilliPieta 44 1861 Navy, it is about 22 years old.
Recently I had some gunsmithing done to it and the result was very nice. It had to be re-blued.
Looks great now.

I'm curious as to what can a gunsmith do to make this pistol more accurate?

Not sure a trigger can be lightened on it but if so, I'd like it a bit less and also a bit more crisp.
But just looking for suggestions from some out there that are more experienced than I with Colt Navy's.

Thanks so much,

M

 

[.36Rooster]

Something that is pretty popular to do is to slug the bore and ream the cylinders, if needed.

The idea behind doing so is that on uberties and piettas, the chambers in each cylinder are slightly smaller in diameter than the bore, such when loading, the ball gets shaved down to a size slightly smaller than the bore. Making the ball bounce minutely as it goes down the barrel. In reality, this leads to gas escaping around the ball on firing. And we all know this has the effect of putting a random english on a roundball similar to a cueball in pool (we patch our roundballs in rifles to eliminate gas exchange, and prevent this effect).

You can also recrown the muzzle,

You can tune the timing of the cylinder if the bolt stop is leaving a ring, making sure the ball is entering the forcing cone more efficiently, and/or widen the forcing cone. Ive heard the optimum angle is 11 degrees, but you might want to check on that...

Also, although i havent mic'd a chamber and measured myself, a lot of guys say the cylinder chambers actually taper down the throat toward the nipple (getting narrower), and rather than reaming, they just add enough oatmeal between powder charge and wad, to get those balls sitting as close to the very end of each chamber as possible, keeps the balls from getting compressed to a size smaller than the bore. This works only if the cylinder mouths are the right size. If the mouths are too too narrow, adding oatmeal wont help though, so technically you'd still want to mic the chamber mouths and compare them to the bore diameter. Supposedly they're at least close.

The trigger on my pietta breaks at just about a pound and a quarter. I havent done any work to it. So you might measure yours with an archery scale that measures peak weight (where it breaks). I squirrel hunt with my pietta (.36), however, and i don't want a trigger lighter than this because it gets tricky using thick gloves in the winter time.

 

[Grenadier1758]

Corn meal or Cream of Wheat is a better choice for the filler than coarse oatmeal flakes.

 

[Artificer]

Something that is pretty popular to do is to slug the bore and ream the cylinders, if needed.

The idea behind doing so is that on uberties and piettas, the chambers in each cylinder are slightly smaller in diameter than the bore, such when loading, the ball gets shaved down to a size slightly smaller than the bore. Making the ball bounce minutely as it goes down the barrel. In reality, this leads to gas escaping around the ball on firing. And we all know this has the effect of putting a random english on a roundball similar to a cueball in pool (we patch our roundballs in rifles to eliminate gas exchange, and prevent this effect).

Are you referring to reaming the ENTIRE cylinder holes (not counting the threaded hole for the nipple) or just the throats of the cylinder holes? What is the current going cost for either or both?

Gus

 

[.36Rooster]

Really you dont have to ream the entire hole. You just have to go down as far as the lightest load you shoot. The ball doesnt go all the way back to the nipple because of the powder and wads.

As for cost. Roughly the same price as buying a t-handle and reamer bit. I have looked into it myself in the past. I cant give you any advice on what sizes you need, dimensions, or technique, however as i havent done it myself. But it is a process you can HAVE done that improves accuracy.

 

[Artificer]

Really you dont have to ream the entire hole. You just have to go down as far as the lightest load you shoot. The ball doesnt go all the way back to the nipple because of the powder and wads.

As for cost. Roughly the same price as buying a t-handle and reamer bit. I have looked into it myself in the past. I cant give you any advice on what sizes you need, dimensions, or technique, however as i havent done it myself. But it is a process you can HAVE done that improves accuracy.

Thank you. The reamers I see for sale go about $96.00 and that doesn't count the T handle.

Not sure if that is worth the cost on a revolver where the rear sight disappears when you pull the trigger?

Gus

 

[.36Rooster]

I have held off buying the tool, because, when would i ever use it again? Plus, after the bolt stop notch on my hammer wore out and i replaced it with a new one, my windage has been off, so right now, i have to file a dovetail in place of my brass bead and then fit a new front sight (im thinking totally brass even right down to the dovetail base of the sight will make it look sharp), and so that i can adjust the windage...but ive put that down for the time being.

I wouldnt worry about the consistency of the rear sight. Those hammers are made of good steel, and fit well. They are really not that inconsistent from shot to shot; and you'll have to make the revolver way more accurate and also practice your shooting before such a minute amount of hammer wobble even becomes a factor at all.

 

[hawkeye2]

I've had Charlie Hahn ream a number of cylinders for me, .456" to take a .457" ball. I seem to remember the last one was $35. Ream all the way down but stop short of the bolt locking notches as that is the thinnest point on any cylinder. I cut an 11 deg. forcing cone, factory bore, works well.

Doing a trigger job isn't much different from any other gun.

 

[Artificer]

I wouldnt worry about the consistency of the rear sight. Those hammers are made of good steel, and fit well. They are really not that inconsistent from shot to shot; and you'll have to make the revolver way more accurate and also practice your shooting before such a minute amount of hammer wobble even becomes a factor at all.

I'm not concerned with the wobble in the hammer so much as the fact the rear sight disappears before you are done with follow through.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

I've had Charlie Hahn ream a number of cylinders for me, .456" to take a .457" ball. I seem to remember the last one was $35. Ream all the way down but stop short of the bolt locking notches as that is the thinnest point on any cylinder. I cut an 11 deg. forcing cone, factory bore, works well.

Doing a trigger job isn't much different from any other gun.

Your emboldened text is an excellent tip, WELL worth heeding.

Did Charlie sort of take over working revolvers for the NSSA after T.F. "Mulie" Ball ?

Gus

 

[hawkeye2]

Charlie and Tri L and possibly some others too. I'm still partial to Tom Ball's guns.

 

[.36Rooster]

Oh, i see what you mean. But i dont think it is a problem. The hammer is so fast, that the gun basically goes off and recoils at the same instant the hammer drops and disappears. Its not as if you have to consciously keep sighting as it goes down. The sear slips, and then BOOM, without any realistic sort of delay to worry about.

 

[Artificer]

Oh, i see what you mean. But i dont think it is a problem. The hammer is so fast, that the gun basically goes off and recoils at the same instant the hammer drops and disappears. Its not as if you have to consciously keep sighting as it goes down. The sear slips, and then BOOM, without any realistic sort of delay to worry about.

With sincere respect, I have to politely disagree.

From years of shooting modern revolvers and pistols and being around those who compete and win in national and international competition, both modern and muzzleloading (including many years supporting NSSA shooters using BP revolvers and two World Championships of the latter), there is a definite accuracy loss from not getting as much sighting follow-through on open top BP revolver compared to solid frame BP revolvers, let alone modern guns where there is even less "lock time" than any BP pistol/revolver. This is why those who are at least competitive, let alone the winners in these national and international events; almost no one uses open top BP revolvers like the 1851 or 61 Navy or 1860 Army Colts. Those who are competitive and those who win almost always have Remington or Rogers and Spencer original or reproduction revolvers.

That's not to say one can't shoot well with the open top Colts, but they just don't hold up in accuracy to the levels of solid frame BP revolvers, because the follow-through is so much shorter with open top Colts.

Gus

 

[hawkeye2]

The hammer spurs on the Uberti Remingtons are low enough that you can maintain the sight picture as it falls, not so with a Pietta, a R&S and the colts.

 

[Artificer]

The hammer spurs on the Uberti Remingtons are low enough that you can maintain the sight picture as it falls, not so with a Pietta, a R&S and the colts.

Thank you. I never noticed that on the R&S revolvers, either repro or originals. Maybe it was the original ones that allow the sight picture to be maintained or maybe not.

Still, if one wants the best accuracy in a BP revolver, the solid frames are the way to go for this and other reasons.

Gus

 

[mkpatrick]

Well one thing is for sure, I would not trust myself in doing the work, I just had these guns worked on by a gunsmith. The cylinder I had re blued and on my 1847 Walker, the action was smoothed up and the arbor was also set to match better with the cylinder. So it didn't tighten up when I put the barrel wedge in. Its a CVA.
He did a wonderful job. Now I can put the wedge in on that Walker and the action does not bind up. Its super smooth now! So after that, it emboldened me to have maybe more done to the 1860 Colt.
I have really thought about getting a solid frame Army type BP gun. I looked at the Rugers but they aren't made anymore. They had an adjustable site.
I'm a sucker for the stainless ones. They just look good. Hard to find those in stock in any brand. I want to stay with 44.