Percussion Wheel Gun Accuracy

[45D]

Nope, I don’t feel strongly enough one way or another about it. The gun ran just fine for me before the fix. It works well now. I suspect it would have continued to serve me as long as I have left and beyond. (The oldest of my great-granddaughters has dibs on it.) I have others I haven’t fixed and they’re running well too.. I’m always loathe to jump into this one Mike. It’s like asking which cleaning solution is best.

I understand and my question to you was somewhat "tongue in cheek" since you made it a point.

I'll just reiterate what I posted just above, once the "fix" is done, no more problems.

Mike

 

[Malamute]

Shooting any handgun with open sights at 50 yards is nuts.

I'd like to see the any of the guys shooting 9mm Glocks do this.

Hat's off.

What would you expect the result to be?

I have a pic of said pistol (early gen 2 G19, which I often refer to as the early black powder frame) and the target used for a great deal of my personal shooting until we replaced the target, but dont know if its OK to post such things here. Item was somewhat of a novelty, purchased for the ex, which she didnt like. Loads were cheap, so started messing with it some for a few years. The conclusion i came to was most guns shoot better than most people can shoot them or believe they can be shot.

Many of us regularly shoot much farther than 50 yards with various handguns. Most people can produce passable results in a few minutes with a little instruction on how best to hold the sights in relation to the target. About 2/3 or 3/4 of my pistol shooting over the past 20 years had been 200-300 yards, one and two handed. I messed with it for 20 years before that but got more serious about getting more consistent and shooting more one handed about 20 years ago after seeing others doing very good work. Planning on doing it more with percussion pistols in the future.

Back on topic, target shot with Uberti 1860, one handed, 5 shots, I believe 15 yards. Dont recall the load, but is close to or a full charge, Crisco over the balls. Hold was 6:00 on the black.

 

[William O.]

I have a few of these now and my favorite is the Pietta 1858 Remington in .36.
I have been shooting with 15 and 20gr of FFFg, wonder wad, ball.
I am not too impressed with what I can do with it on paper so far. I have read of people shooting 2" groups at 25Y. I am shooting 2" groups at 10Y, sitting with the gun on a rest (bag).
Surely some of it is my eyes. And it's difficult to be completely consistent with powder charges because I often spill a bit of powder going in the cylinder. (I weigh powder charges for my rifle shooting which made a big difference at 100Y, like a 50% reduction in group size.)
Any tips for me other than practice?
P.S. I bought one of these

I never owned or shot the .36 but I've had quite a few Remingtons in .44 and used them for Cowboy Action Shooting events. I found that the round balls needed to shave off a ring of lead when loaded or accuracy went south. I also greatly favor using a lubed wad between powder and ball, this made things much easier and far less messy than grease on the end of the cylinder. The wad takes up enough space to preclude the use of breakfast cereal too. I found that using a powder measure with increments of one grain helped me find the most accurate load, which was 22 grains of 3f Goex. I also had two conversion cylinders that allowed me to shoot .45 Colt. For the .36 models the conversion cylinders where in .38 special.
Good luck, hope this helps.

 

[Dude]

It is harmonics transfer through the arbor solid against the barrel.

Mike - I understand your frustration. It can be difficult saying the same thing over and over again without getting angry. It's a tough thing to stand up and communicate, to be the focus of attention, when others heckle and throw rotten tomatoes. I admire you for that. Well done!

I had wondered about that very issue - the apparent force vectors attempt to separate the barrel from the arbor, so why should it make a difference if the arbor bottoms or not? I think your answer makes a lot of sense.

But even so - the evidence that bottoming the arbor has fixed countless customers' guns should be enough to say it's a good thing. Just because the exact reason isn't known shouldn't deter one from the fix.

 

[nkbj]

You know, sometimes they come at you in packs.

And that's when I reach for an 1851.

 

[45D]

Mike - I understand your frustration. It can be difficult saying the same thing over and over again without getting angry. It's a tough thing to stand up and communicate, to be the focus of attention, when others heckle and throw rotten tomatoes. I admire you for that. Well done!

I had wondered about that very issue - the apparent force vectors attempt to separate the barrel from the arbor, so why should it make a difference if the arbor bottoms or not? I think your answer makes a lot of sense.

But even so - the evidence that bottoming the arbor has fixed countless customers' guns should be enough to say it's a good thing. Just because the exact reason isn't known shouldn't deter one from the fix.

I thank you sir!! I'm glad you see through the mire.

Mike

 

[Bad Karma]

I would suspect it's the same "problem " they had with the picket bullets. The men loading them backwards tended to get a blown up cylinder!!
Likewise today, many Cowboy shooters put the wedge in " finger tight" for convenience. It may work with light loads but it definitely won't with max loads. Understand, these were a new item for soldiers back then and didn't fully understand ( even if they read the instructions).

I and many of my customers shoot nothing but top end loads ( which would be any unmentionable load with smokeless) and there are absolutely no problems with the destructive nature that comes with that type shooting. It most definitely is the "fix". Just as designed.

Mike

Maybe, maybe not. The directions were pretty clear. Hell, even an Officer could understand them.

 

[Bad Karma]

Mike - I understand your frustration. It can be difficult saying the same thing over and over again without getting angry. It's a tough thing to stand up and communicate, to be the focus of attention, when others heckle and throw rotten tomatoes. I admire you for that. Well done!

I had wondered about that very issue - the apparent force vectors attempt to separate the barrel from the arbor, so why should it make a difference if the arbor bottoms or not? I think your answer makes a lot of sense.

But even so - the evidence that bottoming the arbor has fixed countless customers' guns should be enough to say it's a good thing. Just because the exact reason isn't known shouldn't deter one from the fix.

Good lord @45D! I had no idea! I do hope I haven’t busted your last feeler and thanks for taking one for the team!

 

[45D]

Good lord @45D! I had no idea! I do hope I haven’t busted your last feeler!

Well, on a public forum it's anything goes so . . . I wondered if M DeLand would jump at the chance to say what he said so . . .
No big deal though.
When you shoot cap + ball you're shooting low low pressure. The horse pistols get enough energy generated to do pretty good damage if shooting max charges w/ heavy conicals.
My service is a "tuning" service which includes arbor correction because you can't set a designated endshake without it. Whether or not your particular revolver will self destruct, who knows? I know mine have done damage in the past and I know shooting them in "unmentionable" form with smokeless ammo will accelerate the possibilities for damage exponentially!! So, my whole service is based around making these revolvers the most indestructible revolvers they can be!! After many State and international championships won with revolvers tuned by me . . . I'm fine with what I've accomplished thus far. If others think differently, that's fine.
Timex's tell time and if that's your speed, more power to ya!! I take these revolvers and turn them into something special. That's been my goal and that's what I do!!
They don't break !!!

Mike

 

[M. De Land]

You're exactly right sir. My Walkers never beat the fool out of wedges, wedges never worked loose ( er) and allowed barrel material to upset behind the wedge, I lied !

My Dragoons didn't start doing the same thing, only right off the bat, as unmentionables either, more lies !

The hundreds of customers that have expressed the same experiences must have been lying as well!!

The FACT is, fixing the arbor situation CURED the problems . . . ACROSS THE BOARD!!!
The Fact is, it's Colt's design- not mine!!
The Fact is, Pietta saw fit to CORRECT what they had been doing wrong for decades!!!

I'm sure I've mentioned it before but I choose go with Colt's design, not Italys.
The design is such a good design the Italians can get away with building it wrong UNLESS, you shoot max loads as a norm.

It's funny how someone that commented about "civility" in this conversation decided to spout the same junk that's been talked about in several other discussions we've had. Imagine that.

As stated in some of my latest posts, the loads I shoot are not only a testament to Colt's design done right, but are proof of the durability of the design. I've shot more powerful loads than has ever been done before in the belt pistol platform. I'd definitely NOT shoot them in a revolver set up by your description sir!!

Seems to me it should be pretty clear what the results of your "experiment" is going to be lol!! You've "tainted" your own test at this point.

Mike

Not agreeing with your philosophy and explaining why isn't being uncivil to you. Getting angry because one cannot except reasoned counter thought is.
Also these guns were not designed for smokeless use and especially the originals which have inferior metal quality to modern guns.
You say all original Colts were end fitted , a statement I have my doubts about and one you could not possibly know for fact. If the wedges were deforming in original Colts as stated than as soon as it happens the end is not making contact any longer. That means the presumable factory Colt end fit guns were deforming the wedge with tight arbor end fit or they weren't actually end fit at all from the factory. You can't physically have it both ways.
I believe the reason modern open frame guns are holding up to smokeless pressure with convert- table cylinders is because of better steel and tightening of factory tolerance by tuning but attributing it all to arbor end fit and harmonics is nonsense in my opinion.
End fitting of the arbor is good practice in my view but to say that a gun cannot be accurate or will self destruct without it I don't believe is true.
The convertible cylinders allow smokeless use in pecussion guns because the pressure containment is in the cylinder itself but the design of open frame guns is not as well suited to high pressure as is solid frame designs .

 

[Stantheman86]

I really don't believe Sam Colt would design the revolvers the way he did and just happen to have an Arbor that fit into an Arbor Recess but not bother to have it fitted to said recess.....if for no other reason than to allow the wedge to stop and not bind the gun up.

It just wouldn't make sense, he wouldn't go through the effort of engineering this genius design of a revolver then half-a$$ the fitting. These were expensive guns for the period. I'm certain they were properly fitted in the arbor.

The 1858 Remington came to be , when Remington wanted a piece of the revolver market and Fordyce Beals designed a no-frills , simple, rugged service revolver that was cheaper than Colt. Just in time for the upcoming War and to sell to foreign militaries . It was not better, just cheaper to make and could be offered at a competitive price.

The Colts were heavily favored by US soldiers and Officers , were prized by Confederates and most all of the Confederate revolvers were copies of Colt Navies or Dragoons. Maybe because they looked cool? We'll never know.

I wonder if Bill Hickock's Navies had fitted arbors?

 

[M. De Land]

I really don't believe Sam Colt would design the revolvers the way he did and just happen to have an Arbor that fit into an Arbor Recess but not bother to have it fitted to said recess.....if for no other reason than to allow the wedge to stop and not bind the gun up.

It just wouldn't make sense, he wouldn't go through the effort of engineering this genius design of a revolver then half-a$$ the fitting. These were expensive guns for the period. I'm certain they were properly fitted in the arbor.

The 1858 Remington came to be , when Remington wanted a piece of the revolver market and Fordyce Beals designed a no-frills , simple, rugged service revolver that was cheaper than Colt. Just in time for the upcoming War and to sell to foreign militaries . It was not better, just cheaper to make and could be offered at a competitive price.

The Colts were heavily favored by US soldiers and Officers , were prized by Confederates and most all of the Confederate revolvers were copies of Colt Navies or Dragoons. Maybe because they looked cool? We'll never know.

I wonder if Bill Hickock's Navies had fitted arbors?

That's a well reasoned response and opinion !

 

[PaulF70]

Bad Karma, I love your pics of that revolver!
I dont think its the "long jump" to the rifling that's a detriment, i think its uneven powder compression. The loading rams don't go very deep, i think at some point it cant get even compression on the powder and some chambers squib. Thats why i don't drop below 25gr in my 58 remington. At 30-35grs, with a wad and round ball it chews up stuff and can shame a modern plastic gun. It won't do that with 20grs, and it gives a dull report.

More interesting info here. Good thoughts.

These things are not as simple to shoot accurately as I'd assumed. Obviously. But this is great fun.

Wheel Gun has been a common term for a revolver for my entire life

Thank you for validating my online existence.

I am with you brother, but i dont shoot that much anymore. I now sight in my weapons and once I have done that then they are cleaned, logged into my book, and go into the collection. Now the exception is my sheriff model '51 44 cal. That one stays loaded with 30 grns 3f Swiss and a .454 round ball. Excellent pest control round. It stays loaded no more than 2 weeks at a time.

"Pest control"? Exactly what "pests" are you shooting that require 300+ FPE?

(I use a .25 cal FX Wildcat PCP air rifle for "pests" up to coyotes. It puts out about 45 FPE at the muzzle. It also shoots 3/8" groups at 50 yards.)

Any intruder would high tail it out if some home defender started blasting Black Powder loads at him!

Most guys run when shot at by anything, hit or not. The BP guns have the sparks & smoke effect too - I've thought about this. I think it would add to the scare factor!

(Guys, admit it: How many of you BP revolver shooters have not fantasized about blasting a bad guy at some point? Ever shoot those round balls into ballistic gel? They expand beautifully! I haven't done it myself, just watched the vids.)

What would you expect the result to be?

I would not expect a modern semi-auto Glock or the like to be able to group better than 12" at 50Y. The barrel floats, it is short, high recoil makes it difficult to get consistency, etc.

I never owned or shot the .36 but I've had quite a few Remingtons in .44 and used them for Cowboy Action Shooting events. I found that the round balls needed to shave off a ring of lead when loaded or accuracy went south. I also greatly favor using a lubed wad between powder and ball, this made things much easier and far less messy than grease on the end of the cylinder. The wad takes up enough space to preclude the use of breakfast cereal too. I found that using a powder measure with increments of one grain helped me find the most accurate load, which was 22 grains of 3f Goex. I also had two conversion cylinders that allowed me to shoot .45 Colt. For the .36 models the conversion cylinders where in .38 special.
Good luck, hope this helps.

I use Wonder Wads and would sure hate to mess with malt-o-meal or the like.

I also realized that while I said 25 grains I haven't seriously target-shot that load. My paper-punching was with 15 and 20 grain loads.

If having the cylinder short-stuffed is bad because 1) the powder can't be compressed fully and/or 2) the bullet has to go through a long length of bad-diameter/unrifled cylinder, these loads may be less accurate.

Also, I have NOT been shaving a ring with the Hornady .375 balls. The .380s from Track of the Wolf are on the way.

I also now have my cool tiny funnels for loading with no spilling, and a capper for more consistent - capping.

I expect much better results next time I punch the paper.

 

[user 48702]

Yeah, right up there with “Smoke pole” and “Fire stick”

Smoke pole and Firestick doesn't gall me as much as "Smoothie", "Remmy" (for Remington), and "Whinny" (for Winchester). I guess some are trying to be cute or something, it just sounds like something a kid would say. I'll never be heard saying "hey guys, I'm hunting with my "Smoothie" today", or "Oh poot, I forgot my Binki".

 

[BadDaditood]

I'd like to see the any of the guys shooting 9mm Glocks do this.

Hat's off.

I routinely shoot pistols and wheel guns at 50, 75 and 100 yards.
I routinely miss too!!

 

[M. De Land]

Then tell me sir what the force is that beats wedges and upsets barrel material?
Since you can't figure it out, I'll tell you . . .
It is harmonics transfer through the arbor solid against the barrel.

If it isn't, why does it NOT happen to revolvers that have been corrected??

What changes when the arbor IS correct that stops these things from happening?

Why do auto engines have harmonic balancers on them?

You "engineers" are cracking me up!! Lol

Colt didn't supply a $200 wedge to be the backbone of his design - a correct length arbor is all that is needed. Just a 30 cent s.s. spacer is all one needs to fix Italys mistake . . . no wedge will correct it, that's for sure!!


Mike

Well it sure isn't recoil ! Dang, you really don't understand what is going on ! The pressure on the wedge from recoil inertia is miniscule compared to the explosive force trying to seperate the cylinder and barrel although it is present in the combined load !

 

[45D]

BTW, I wish the build process had been more clearly defined by the builders at the time. I’ve read some material which seems to indicate that the arbor and frame were case hardened before assembly with the barrel, meaning that any fitting would have to be done in the well. The end of the originals I’m familiar with are all domed, not flat like reproduction revolvers. Filing to that shape is an interesting choice…

The 4 originals I've worked on had the rounded arbor end as you say. Not sure their method of final fit.

Not agreeing with your philosophy and explaining why isn't being uncivil to you. Getting angry because one cannot except reasoned counter thought is.
Also these guns were not designed for smokeless use and especially the originals which have inferior metal quality to modern guns.
You say all original Colts were end fitted , a statement I have my doubts about and one you could not possibly know for fact. If the wedges were deforming in original Colts as stated than as soon as it happens the end is not making contact any longer. That means the presumable factory Colt end fit guns were deforming the wedge with tight arbor end fit or they weren't actually end fit at all from the factory. You can't physically have it both ways.
I believe the reason modern open frame guns are holding up to smokeless pressure with convert- table cylinders is because of better steel and tightening of factory tolerance by tuning but attributing it all to arbor end fit and harmonics is nonsense in my opinion.
End fitting of the arbor is good practice in my view but to say that a gun cannot be accurate or will self destruct without it I don't believe is true.
The convertible cylinders allow smokeless use in pecussion guns because the pressure containment is in the cylinder itself but the design of open frame guns is not as well suited to high pressure as is solid frame designs .

Not designed for smokeless . . . yours aren't but mine are. They work just as well as any modern S.A. and better than many!!

Nope, haven't inspected all of the originals (don't need to) but the 4 I've worked on were correct and others I've spoken with confirm the same.

The reason for fitting the arbor and understanding the importance of taking care of harmonics as being "nonsense" says a lot about your mechanical aptitude. IMO

I'm pretty sure I posted that accuracy may or may not be improved as far as a result in your "experiment".

The pressure is contained in the chamber and the case which backs up to the recoil shield/ plate. The bullet hits the forcing cone with roughly 21K psi which is considerably more than what yours is experiencing. My tests bring mine up to about 23K . . . like I said, mine seem to do rather well thank you.

Mike

 

[45D]

Well it sure isn't recoil ! Dang, you really don't understand what is going on ! The pressure on the wedge from recoil inertia is miniscule compared to the explosive force trying to seperate the cylinder and barrel although it is present in the combined load !

and when the wedge isn't under heavy tension, it's even worse!!!

Mike

 

[Bad Karma]

More interesting info here. Good thoughts.

These things are not as simple to shoot accurately as I'd assumed. Obviously. But this is great fun.



Thank you for validating my online existence.



"Pest control"? Exactly what "pests" are you shooting that require 300+ FPE?

(I use a .25 cal FX Wildcat PCP air rifle for "pests" up to coyotes. It puts out about 45 FPE at the muzzle. It also shoots 3/8" groups at 50 yards.)



Most guys run when shot at by anything, hit or not. The BP guns have the sparks & smoke effect too - I've thought about this. I think it would add to the scare factor!

(Guys, admit it: How many of you BP revolver shooters have not fantasized about blasting a bad guy at some point? Ever shoot those round balls into ballistic gel? They expand beautifully! I haven't done it myself, just watched the vids.)



I would not expect a modern semi-auto Glock or the like to be able to group better than 12" at 50Y. The barrel floats, it is short, high recoil makes it difficult to get consistency, etc.



I use Wonder Wads and would sure hate to mess with malt-o-meal or the like.

I also realized that while I said 25 grains I haven't seriously target-shot that load. My paper-punching was with 15 and 20 grain loads.

If having the cylinder short-stuffed is bad because 1) the powder can't be compressed fully and/or 2) the bullet has to go through a long length of bad-diameter/unrifled cylinder, these loads may be less accurate.

Also, I have NOT been shaving a ring with the Hornady .375 balls. The .380s from Track of the Wolf are on the way.

I also now have my cool tiny funnels for loading with no spilling, and a capper for more consistent - capping.

I expect much better results next time I punch the paper.

Keep it as simple as you can, mind your fundamentals, if you run into problems fix the cheapest stuff first. These guns are capable of much more than many folks give them credit for.

 

[Bad Karma]

The 4 originals I've worked on had the rounded arbor end as you say. Not sure their method of final fit..

The reason for fitting the arbor and understanding the importance of taking care of harmonics as being "nonsense" says a lot about your mechanical aptitude. IMO



Mike

Mike, I don’t know if you caught this thread restoring a cam on an 1860 hammer

and Mr. Leland certainly doesn’t need my defense but I’m not seeing any lack of mechanical aptitude here.