But I'm not a suck up Dicky my lad, I can, actually do and share photos of the work on the guns I speak of !You guys are being trolled by an empty gumball machine...
Ah, admit it, you guys love a good gun argument !will you guys just shoot some damn bears with your walkers and 73s and see who lives to talk about it.. Pretty sure the bear Bill Hickock pissed off he shot it with a 36 cal 51 navy.
Well would you rather have every one nod in sycophant agreement on all thoughts and ideas ?I can't believe this site let me say Damn!
Your projecting!
His about face on the short arbor not being an issue is baffling as well. I do like the "empty gumball machine machine" remark, that one is unique.
What I have never agreed on though is equal design strength between open and closed frame guns and that the arbor has to be end fit for a gun to be accurate or for it's ability to function for decades without end fitting or tuning above what is factory provided.
My your a windy fellow and apparently a therapist to boot ! I just want to see proof of the equal strength contention I don't believe is true.Be still my wounded heart and inner child. Sheese, been a 5 year old long?
Actually its the norm for that personality type. When absolutely cornered, then goes onto the next load of bull.
With all dues respect to the ladies of WWII (bless them and a all too little recognized group) who were taught how to machine parts, they were not machinists. They were taught to do an operation and repeat it accurately (withing tolerances). It was impossible to teach them how to be machinists in the time needed for the parts. Some were able, but they worked in a system for max results.
We can only take that so far, they went on to be wives for the most part after the war (my mom was one of them, phone operator in her case while my dad was out fighting in the Pacific). When my dad died she was forced to get a profession and she proved what many of us know, yep, highly capable, just never given a chance to show it. . We did get glimpses of that, the Women Air Delivery pilots, they knew how to fly. The ones that were taken into code breaking made some of the most spectacular breaks of the war (some good books on those now)
Now we get to the last manager the company I worked for had. He was what we called a one trick pony. Other people had taught him a series of "tricks". If something did not go right, his MO was to, Just Replace the whole thing! That is because he did not understand nor could, closed mind.
The funny one was a conveyors power turn (90 deg, 4 ft wide) that kept failing. Ok, replaced the whole power turn, and that one kept breaking.
Our foreman who was focused on the conveyors, worked for a couple of years before he sorted out all the problems. Which is all the other one needed, was someone who was willing to put the time and work in and understand the mechanics of it and why it had problems. Nothing wrong with the unit, it was an odd install where it was tilted 30 deg and that caused forces the flat 90 deg units did not have.
The foreman was not a series of one trick ponies. He was the conveyor guy and while I contributed in other areas, that was his baby and he figured it out while I took care of things he did not know (technically I was the designated engineer but did HVAC, power generation switch gear, fire systems) while he ensured the conveyors were working (or fixing them when they did not).
I was asked by a manager one time, if facility knowledge better than fundamentals? The answer to that is no. If you can grasp the fundamentals, you can figure out any of the oddities.
Ideally you had both but fundamentals is the core. Now after something failed a 2nd time, you could drop the fundamentals, confirm it was the same failure as previous and fix it. You did not have to break the circuit in half and start working from there. I could teach someone those symptoms and the fix if they were smart enough and willing (rare)
In this case, 45D is our conveyor guy. He has the top strap figured out (and a hat tip to D Yager, I get he is doing that kind of work, I just knew Mike first). Could I have done that? I suspect not, just because it is an area I have little background in.
What I can do is follow what he has done and explained and see the logic of it before Bad Karma posted his definitive text. Logic knows no boundaries. You want to destroy and engine have too small a bearing size or too much end play. It will take a while if its closer to right but pound itself into destruction it will.
We have people like Mike and D Yager and we have people you could not convince with a tactical nuke.
so why not to Magnum levels in the .45 Colt case? Seems like the next logical step especially since the apparent goal is to prove equal strength of design.
He is the one that introduced and pushed the concept of over pressure loading on this forum in open frame guns and contending they are of equal strength ! All I'm saying is I don't believe the contention and want him to prove it ! I can change my mind if the proof is there but not from hot air conjecture.I am beginning to think we have found the desist matter in the Universe.
Mike has explained his methodology. If you want to go jump over that cliff, go ahead. Mike is far smarter than that.
the Italian copies of the weak designed Colt SAA handle the 44K PSI of the 357 some are chambered in. Mike is not firing 44K PSI loads in his open topsNo inference needed there - he's already proven it's much stronger. He's shooting more powerful loads than the peacemaker (1873 Colt) can handle, which is a comparable comparison.
However, that's not good enough for you, since the only proof you'll accept is if the open top doesn't disintegrate with 44 Magnum loads. We've been around and around with this, and logic doesn't get through.
Just as the top strap models needed beefing up to handle stronger ammo, I'm sure the 1860 Colt is no different.
Now answer this - if the Walker can stand up to 44 Mag loads, will you agree the open top is as strong as the top strap pistols?
yes they want to match the strongest revolver made the Walker to the weakest SA made the Colt SAA which still can handle 357 loads at 44 PSI. a walker should be compared a Ruger super redhawkYou have a flat earth mentality and logic does not inter into your thinking. Beef the solid frame Colt to Ruger levels and it will handle magnum pressure just as easily but the Walker or Dragoon won't which are already beefed up.
Actually there are several Colt 73 clones chambered for magnum (I've fired one) cartridges proving the design strength superiority !
First of all, I never claimed any of them had "magnum" capability ( that remains to be seen). I DID say i believed the open-top (belt pistol) was a stronger platform than the Remington platform. Turns out, by testing, I was right about the Remington . . . as well as several other top- strap revolvers. The open-top platform (belt pistol- specifically 1860 Army) made by Uberti with a Kirst conversion cylinder can handle hotter loads than all of the revolvers I've previously listed many times. So, statement made - statement proven. If you don't believe it, I can't help it.He is the one that introduced and pushed the concept of over pressure loading on this forum in open frame guns and contending they are of equal strength ! All I'm saying is I don't believe the contention and want him to prove it ! I can change my mind if the proof is there but not from hot air conjecture.
Magnum level pressure over a good round count and gun inspection after testing would prove the contention as it apparently does with plus P loading.
Nope, because I'm shooting 45C ammo, not 357Mag or 44Mag.the Italian copies of the weak designed Colt SAA handle the 44K PSI of the 357 some are chambered in. Mike is not firing 44K PSI loads in his open tops
You don't read much do you?This is such a silly conversation. The sky is in fact blue. The revolver design evolved and left the open tops behind. the fact that modern closed top revolvers shoot crazy rounds like th .454 casual, 50 S&W, 460 Ruger etc is what it is.. yes open tops are stronger that we thought they were. No they are not as strong as the modern closed tops.. is what it is. the writing was on the wall and thats the direction it went and now we have Rugers that last a lifetime with zero modifications and zero malfunctions regardless of how hot and how many rounds you stuff through them.
I think that's what your buddy M DeLand dreamed up!! you're just part of his dream !!yes they want to match the strongest revolver made the Walker to the weakest SA made the Colt SAA which still can handle 357 loads at 44 PSI. a walker should be compared a Ruger super redhawk
That would only be "logical" to you !! You don't do "ladder testing " by starting at the top of the ladder.45-D apparently didn't have any qualms about doing so with the ACP to plus P loads above cylinder manufacturer guarantee pressure levels so why not to Magnum levels in the .45 Colt case? Seems like the next logical step especially since the apparent goal is to prove equal strength of design.
Enter your email address to join: