- Joined
- Dec 25, 2011
- Messages
- 9,520
- Reaction score
- 4,671
Well, one can at least expect to be challenged when making claims that are controversial. Isn't that one of the points of having chat forums ?
Load for Uberti Walker Revolver
- Thread starter nightwolf1974
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
My apologies Mike. I was going off memory and obviously that is imperfect.
The 1860 and 45ACP+P is even more impressive.
And I did get the 45 LC (yea I am old school, my old Hornady calls it that and the newer ones say, that is flat wrong!). I figured the length might help accuracy as it gets closer to the barrel. It does pretty good if I have the wedge set tight as I should (the small mallet is a recent addition per your recommendation, I figure its more consistent than add hoc wood chunk or screwdriver handle) - that is the setup I got the 1 inch group with (6 shots). Better than the 41 Mag groups when I was much younger though those were free hand 1.5 inch)
Nothing controversial about it. Mike laid it out, the logic and anyone with any mechanical background can see what his Logic was and why.
Bad Karma did a fantastic research to post exactly what Mike has said and tested to and for. You don't want play in the setup of an Open Top, period.
That is for historian and non mechanical minds though most can follow what Mike stated.
No different that valve lash adjustments, bearing tolerances or end play on an engine. It is not an exact comparison as all those have accepted tolerances. What they do share is if you have a loose Open Top or a too loose aspects in your engine, it will pound itself to death.
And in fact modern engines have hydraulic lifters that close that gap completely. Why? Valve lash does beat the surfaces. More better not to beat the surfaces and it gets you longevity benefits as well as avoiding a HAVE TO maint item (because too loose and it beats itself to failure)
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2011
- Messages
- 9,520
- Reaction score
- 4,671
You think mallet strikes are any more uniform than a screw driver handle end held in your finger tips? It takes about two seconds of reading your stuff to know how much gun work experience you actually have ? And what's with the valve lash bull crap comparison? Other than using a feeler gauge it has about as much relevance as how you hold your mouth while doing a milling or lathe operation.
Last edited:
Well for me, it's easier because THAT'S what I do. For the loose powder and ball crowd, when it feels solid (when the wedge doesn't move), you're "there". It's as "accurate" a measurement as is "pouring powder" and "compressing a load (revolver or rifle)". It's "good enough".
For shooting what I shoot and set up, there's a "captured wedge" aspect which IS specific to "how far" and the user will KNOW when the wedge is where it should be. So the "wedge placement" is definitely suitable for the desired outcome.
It takes away the "how hard do you hit the wedge . . . How many times . . . Do you use a feeler gauge . . . " . I have a "constant" for that . . .
Mike
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2011
- Messages
- 9,520
- Reaction score
- 4,671
So, when you shoot it, the wedge moves because it's not under tension . . . every single time!
Mike
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2011
- Messages
- 9,520
- Reaction score
- 4,671
My wedges don't seem to move at all and I think that is from the thickness friction I build into them on the vertical slot plane. I also believe the A-2 hardened tool steel used in the wedges makes a big difference in their performance. It's very tough alloy ! I do agree though that the end fit arbor is a better over all fix against factory wedge movement and rebound but when you employ both remedies you end up with a better mouse trap.
One mans opinion .
A couple different wedge making and fitting pictures along side of factory offerings. I don't use keep springs but rather a dead end keep trough. Note the tight vertical wedge slot fit.
Attachments
Last edited:
I guess they don't teach logic anymore - when someone can jump to the conclusion that the top-strap design is stronger than open tops because open-tops haven't been manufactured (in modern ammo) since 1873. That's taking an assumption and putting it out there as fact.
The Tucker auto and Citroens had headlights that turned with the steering wheel. Since we don't have those currently, it's obviously a bad design per your logic? Right?
So, if you got us statements from engineers and gun designers stating that they had done tests and discovered the open top was a weak design, therefore put their attention on the top-strap, I'd like to see them. Otherwise the statement has the validity of a fart.
The Tucker auto and Citroens had headlights that turned with the steering wheel. Since we don't have those currently, it's obviously a bad design per your logic? Right?
So, if you got us statements from engineers and gun designers stating that they had done tests and discovered the open top was a weak design, therefore put their attention on the top-strap, I'd like to see them. Otherwise the statement has the validity of a fart.
I understand what you're saying and describing but at 23Kpsi I'm pretty sure the linear force is dominant over vertical. The flat bearing surface for the back side of the wedge ( barrel slot) and single point front keeps the wedge "in place" (vertically). Not sure the "wedge alone" is the answer. So far, the "wedge under tension" has proven to be enough for the ammo I'm using.
Mike
Last edited:
Sweet. All I have to do is read Mikes responses and ignore DeLand. Kind of following Bad Karma point, but I understand the need to stomp down Urban Legends as some are legends at least in their own minds.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2011
- Messages
- 9,520
- Reaction score
- 4,671
Awh, did you get your widdow fewings hurt ? Stand your ground with actual gun work knowledge, act like a man on your own and defend your belief, good grief , Mike does and I can respect him for it even though we disagree on some points ! If he lived next door I bet we would have the same arguments and still be fast friends !
I would ask to inspect his plus P loaded open frame guns though !
Last edited:
As an addendum to my post concerning your wedge, my understanding is that the wedge is used to impart tension fore and aft which continuously imposes pressure to keep the barrel assy pulled to the rear against the end of the arbor (which is why the end of the arbor can't go anywhere). The rear of the slot in the barrel is square and the fore end of the slot in the arbor is square or rounded ( top to bottom) for the conversions. This setup keeps the critical position of the wedge located (front to back). Therefore, the top and bottom fitment isn't necessarily critical (even though i can appreciate your thought process). Under tension, the wedge isn't going to move.
I like the "trough" type wedges for cap guns but I take advantage of the spring mounted from the opposite end to use in my "captured wedge" setup to ensure the wedge CAN'T become loose.
The spring being behind the screw head locks the wedge in position, guaranteeing it's position won't move until you turn the screw to allow it's removal.
Mike
Last edited:
So if I am getting this right you are basically doing a press fit on the wedge in thickness? And using a feeler gauge each time you assemble the revolver? This is the same B.S. that Uberti tried with a "fix" for the arbor problem by making the arbor fit so tight you needed a mallet to get the two pieces to separate. It solved nothing, Walkers were still beating themselves into 4lb paperweights. If you want to believe that making a thicker wedge is gonna fix a short arbor rock on brother. With a corrected arbor you don't need feeler gauges because the arbor length is already set and determines barrel/cylinder gap simply by seating the wedge...as it was originally designed to do. So why is this so hard to understand? Short arbor equals not having the same gun each time it's assembled. Properly seated and fitted arbor equals same gun each time it's put together. Simple. The pistols that you need a feeler gauge to set the barrel/cylinder gap on are not set up correctly plain and simple. That spring on the wedge is a simple solution to loss prevention when taking the gun apart and that is it;s only function. Mike's screw with a flat ground on it is another one. Actual fit of the wedge should be from front to back rather than top to bottom. A wedge bearing can be fitted to the end of the arbor to compensate for wear to wedge as well.
So when you get the arbor set to the correct length does it hold that correct position for tens of thousands of rounds? I don't build them, I don't fix them . I just shoot them and break them. Coming from that perspective the open top system always seemed seriously hokey to me.
Yes it does. Once the pistol is set up properly it will last you a lifetime. When the flat combination spring is replaced with torsion springs the reliability goes way up. The open top platform is a very strong and solid system when it's done right.
that last a lifetime thing has different meanings''
I had this 1911 built in 1987 with the economical parkerized finish.
this is what the pistol looked like in 1988.
the original compensator vaporized at about 10k rnds
redesigned compensator that lasted about 30k rounds before it lost a plate. various other things broke and were fixed along the way. My gunsmith started using me for R&D because it was the best way to have things tested for free. Eventually it ended up looking like this
Its been like this since the 90s and nothing has broken because I quit competing with it. since 93 its only had about 1k rounds through it. Between 87 and 93 it had about 250,000 rounds through it.. still shoots ok at 25yrds but occasionally keyholes at 50yrds. My point being that lifetime is very subjective...
I had this 1911 built in 1987 with the economical parkerized finish.
this is what the pistol looked like in 1988.
the original compensator vaporized at about 10k rnds
redesigned compensator that lasted about 30k rounds before it lost a plate. various other things broke and were fixed along the way. My gunsmith started using me for R&D because it was the best way to have things tested for free. Eventually it ended up looking like this
Its been like this since the 90s and nothing has broken because I quit competing with it. since 93 its only had about 1k rounds through it. Between 87 and 93 it had about 250,000 rounds through it.. still shoots ok at 25yrds but occasionally keyholes at 50yrds. My point being that lifetime is very subjective...
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2012
- Messages
- 645
- Reaction score
- 518
a
Last edited:
I feel your pain (well I felt your pain). Prior to my 1858 introduction into BP and a life of shooting Top Strap, I looked down on the crude Colts Open Top.
But, as I sorted out what I wanted to shoot, the 47 Walker kept whispering in my ear, you know I was the biggest baddest gun of all time (well when things are whispering in your ear and no one is there, well it could be exaggeration as the S&W 500 is probably that now).
So as I sorted my way through my addiction of BP, I decided I had to have a 47 Walker. I drove some big Machinery like Euks, Cat Wagons and Cat 988 loaders. Something about that just was fun. BP was fun, so, I joined the Open Top of the force.
Then I paid attention to Mike aka 45D. It was, hmmm, I even argued with him, I mean I was a mechanical/technician and non lettered engineer. I knew better, that 2nd Colt Open top was just a crude first beginning, had nothing on a Top Strap, but it was cool in a crude sort of way (I started out as basically a ditch digger though it was holes to put Campground stuff in).
Mike kept discussing it with me and I have to go hat in hand and admit, man was I wrong. Ok, first aspect I had to check was the Arbor, I was planning on shooting high velocity BP loads. Yep, it was short. Hmmm. And what is this about 45ACP+ and 45LC + in an unmentionable.
Ok, it makes complete sense mechanically, you just have to think about it a bit (well I did, some won't think at all). You don't want your head bolts loose and you sure don't want your barrel frame hammering itself to pieces, BP loads or not. Why does anyone thing you torque down head bolts, con rod bolts, main bearing bolts? Yea, you don't want those parts loose.
I saw the result of that on a Cumming 855. Kicked the rod out the side of the block, started a fire. Ungh.
Somewhere in the past I cam across the phrase, Elegance of Design. It does not mean complicated, it means a perfect solution to a mechanical goal.
I had a bearing in a 40,000 CFM fan east its way into the shaft (well greased and the other 3 Units never did that, some failure). Said fans were 45 feet up in the air. You would need the mother of all forklifts to get one out and you can't take those apart, impossible.
Ok, what if I build up a bracket outboard of the current mounting. Plenty of shaft out there (and no you can't move those fans once on a shaft, they become part of the shaft - well you can, cut it, drill it out, nope, take out the whole thing if you can and replace it)
So, I built a bearing support platform outboard, got a new bearing, installed it and it was working perfecly as good as the rest of the fan bearings (4 now) 10 years latter. Simple solution to a problem. In theory inboard would have been better (support) but impossible to work in that gap and this was close enough that it did not violate any support and load aspects.
I have come to deeply admire the Colt design and the work Mike has done using modern replica's to find out what its capabilities are. Yes its more than an original Open Top, the steels are vastly different now.
You can use an unmentionable cylinder and hit pressures a lot higher than anyone ever thought. It also tells you how strong that basic design was. Elegant Design. Obviously as time has gone on, there were designs that were more economical and the reason to remove cyclinders was overcome.
Most people think the Wright Brothers had Aircraft design right. They did not. This is not an exact comparison. Their wing warping system was limited by wing structure needs (ailerons were the answer and latter spoilers on jets). The tail belongs in the rear not out front (though there are still out front evlevator types).
The elegance was the wing was RIGHT. The Curve was key (they built their own Wind Tunnel to test it). The engine (that thye built themselve) was light enough to allow flight with one and latter two people. It got us off the ground as the Open Top got us multi shot in a fully functional gun and ruled the roost for 20 some years.
So think as the Top Strap as the Ailerons of a gun. They were created to get around the Wright patent. They were the better solution for higher speed and higher loading aircraft. But without the Wrights elegant desing, none of that was going forward.
But you'll argue with someone that DOES do that on a daily basis!!!
D Yager is correct. Unless you shoot with a loose wedge, drop it, beat it . . . . abuse it, there's no reason to "fix" the arbor length again.
Mike
