REALLY? We all know tonneau covers are not HC or OC!
lol NICE shooting/Gun. Brilliant grand daughter!
-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
Perfect revolver?
- Thread starter kh54
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
- Status
lol NICE shooting/Gun. Brilliant grand daughter!
Yes, good catch Bad Karma!!
That's exactly why I don't shoot 23k psi ammo out of ( or own any) brass framed open-tops!!!
( never even thought about it!! )Mike
I had those pistols when I was a teenager and never thought much of it other than I hope that the origionals worked better than those reproductions did. I loved how they handled but they both stopped functioning after a few thousand rounds. since then i only own remington copys... if you guys really feel that the open top colt repros are solid guns i might have to give another try at them.... just scored 31 lbs of scrap lead today 
I think it would be hard to judge the Colt design based on a brass reproduction fantasy model. Understanding that these are reproductions but a more apples to apples comparison may bring some changes in opinion.I had those pistols when I was a teenager and never thought much of it other than I hope that the origionals worked better than those reproductions did. I loved how they handled but they both stopped functioning after a few thousand rounds. since then i only own remington copys... if you guys really feel that the open top colt repros are solid guns i might have to give another try at them.... just scored 31 lbs of scrap lead today
I don't necessary think either Remington or Colt's design is better than the other but each with its pros and cons. My understanding is Colt's were way more popular out in the field then any other manufacturer and I think there is likely good reason for this.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 4,526
- Reaction score
- 8,028
I had those pistols when I was a teenager and never thought much of it other than I hope that the origionals worked better than those reproductions did. I loved how they handled but they both stopped functioning after a few thousand rounds. since then i only own remington copys... if you guys really feel that the open top colt repros are solid guns i might have to give another try at them.... just scored 31 lbs of scrap lead today
BTW, the "brass" guns made in the civil war era most likely used some sort of gun bronze which is supposed to be much stronger than the brass used in the replica and fantasy guns. Witloe made Remington copies using bronze alloys.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 4,526
- Reaction score
- 8,028
She is! When she started talking she pretty much moved directly to sentences and paragraphs (family joke, she hasn’t shut up since!) and yes, she knows what she wants. That 1860 and to be a Marine Aviator. Betcha a hundred she does it too… apple of my eye, can you tell?
Couldn't have done better! Your a lucky man.
- Joined
- May 6, 2014
- Messages
- 17,392
- Reaction score
- 16,319
More on supposedly "brass" frame reproductions of Colts and I will add other repro revolvers with supposedly "brass" frames.
2 pages ago in post 73, I wrote "Forget the bronze frame Colts, which in no way are representative of the original design,"
During the UnCivil War, the South not only did not have the quantity of manufacturing capabilities of the North, but also because of geography and the Northern Naval Blockade that hindered importation - did not have near the quantity of "strategic" ores and metals required to make the required quantity of arms and other supplies of war. (Some folks may remember or have read of the gigantic number of salvage and junk drives during the early part of WWII when the U.S. was in a somewhat similar situation.)
Also in the early days of the War, BOTH the North and South sent agents to Europe to buy up quality military arms as their preferred choice and then "almost anything that would shoot" to arm the huge numbers of troops of each side, until they could catch up on being able to manufacture the arms they needed.
So as the war progressed, the South found itself in the unenviable position of having to prioritize and even substitute less strategically important materials in the manufacture of arms, even when that made the arms less durable. In the case of Southron made revolvers; this at first meant that steel frames and some other parts normally made from steel, were made instead made from casehardened Iron. Many original Southron supposedly steel frame revolvers were actually made that way. Then as Southron strategic reserves of Iron dwindled, they resorted to making the frames out of "Gunmetal," which had been the common way of describing Bronze for at least a couple of centuries in Europe and North America. The South did not want to substitute inferior materials when they could, but they had no choice.
BTW, the supposedly "brass" barreled 12 pounder Field Artillery guns, so common to both sides in the war, were also made from "Gunmetal" or bronze. Bronze was just tough enough to make revolver frames, while brass was not.
Common "brass" in the original period and even for the most part today, was/is way too soft to even think of making revolver frames, as it would quickly stretch out of shape or crack. They knew it and modern manufacturers surely know it. So while I can't document what modern replica makers use by factory and revolver models, they surely are using BRONZE instead of brass.
I'm not sure if the mistaken habit of calling Gunmetal Frame Revolvers by the description of "brass" began in the period, but it may have. I doubt it was anywhere as commonly mentioned as it is today.
Part of the reason original cost of Colt revolvers were so expensive was because Colt used what they called "Silver Steel" or aka "Swiss" Spring Steel. This was some of the most expensive steel on the market in those days. I'm sure they did that to ensure their design would be durable. (The other part of the expense of Colts was because the factory got away with charging the government $25.00 per revolver when it only cost Colt about $15.00 to make them.)
Part of the reason Remington revolvers cost less was because they didn't have to buy the most expensive steel on the market for their frames, because their frames made of less expensive steel were hardened and annealed. Remington also sold their revolvers at a MUCH lower "mark up" than Colt, to get the government contracts and deny the business to Colt and other makers.
Gus
Oh, in some of their economy model "House" Revolvers made after the UnCivil War, Colt DID make bronze frame revolvers after the War.
2 pages ago in post 73, I wrote "Forget the bronze frame Colts, which in no way are representative of the original design,"
During the UnCivil War, the South not only did not have the quantity of manufacturing capabilities of the North, but also because of geography and the Northern Naval Blockade that hindered importation - did not have near the quantity of "strategic" ores and metals required to make the required quantity of arms and other supplies of war. (Some folks may remember or have read of the gigantic number of salvage and junk drives during the early part of WWII when the U.S. was in a somewhat similar situation.)
Also in the early days of the War, BOTH the North and South sent agents to Europe to buy up quality military arms as their preferred choice and then "almost anything that would shoot" to arm the huge numbers of troops of each side, until they could catch up on being able to manufacture the arms they needed.
So as the war progressed, the South found itself in the unenviable position of having to prioritize and even substitute less strategically important materials in the manufacture of arms, even when that made the arms less durable. In the case of Southron made revolvers; this at first meant that steel frames and some other parts normally made from steel, were made instead made from casehardened Iron. Many original Southron supposedly steel frame revolvers were actually made that way. Then as Southron strategic reserves of Iron dwindled, they resorted to making the frames out of "Gunmetal," which had been the common way of describing Bronze for at least a couple of centuries in Europe and North America. The South did not want to substitute inferior materials when they could, but they had no choice.
BTW, the supposedly "brass" barreled 12 pounder Field Artillery guns, so common to both sides in the war, were also made from "Gunmetal" or bronze. Bronze was just tough enough to make revolver frames, while brass was not.
Common "brass" in the original period and even for the most part today, was/is way too soft to even think of making revolver frames, as it would quickly stretch out of shape or crack. They knew it and modern manufacturers surely know it. So while I can't document what modern replica makers use by factory and revolver models, they surely are using BRONZE instead of brass.
I'm not sure if the mistaken habit of calling Gunmetal Frame Revolvers by the description of "brass" began in the period, but it may have. I doubt it was anywhere as commonly mentioned as it is today.
Part of the reason original cost of Colt revolvers were so expensive was because Colt used what they called "Silver Steel" or aka "Swiss" Spring Steel. This was some of the most expensive steel on the market in those days. I'm sure they did that to ensure their design would be durable. (The other part of the expense of Colts was because the factory got away with charging the government $25.00 per revolver when it only cost Colt about $15.00 to make them.)
Part of the reason Remington revolvers cost less was because they didn't have to buy the most expensive steel on the market for their frames, because their frames made of less expensive steel were hardened and annealed. Remington also sold their revolvers at a MUCH lower "mark up" than Colt, to get the government contracts and deny the business to Colt and other makers.
Gus
Oh, in some of their economy model "House" Revolvers made after the UnCivil War, Colt DID make bronze frame revolvers after the War.
Last edited:
SLOTHEAD
40 Cal
I really like the lines, shape and artistic look of my ‘62 pocket police, especially the cylinder! But I too have fairly large hands and that disqualifies it for me on the basis if freel. For the same reasons and the similarity of design (albeit “expanded”) I also like the 1860 Army. At the same time I like the looks of my brass framed ‘58 Remington (and the appearance that the top strap gives for reliability).
Tom
SLOTHEAD
40 Cal
What have you done to your 1860 to “dump cashola into it” If I may ask?
jimhallam
Pilgrim
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2018
- Messages
- 329
- Reaction score
- 367
Hi
I suppose that I am more of a traditionalist and want to use the contemporary terminology.... i.e., referring to how many "modes" (ways of shooting). As far as Tranter percussion revolvers the most interesting and most rare is the "treble action" which can be fired THREE ways (hence "treble action") --
(1) bring to full cock by using the thumb, the sear falling into the bent --- and fire using the trigger --- "cocked action" ? ---- similar to the M1851 Colts etc;
(2) pressure on the trigger raises the hammer but the internal "disconnector" allows it to fall before the full-cock bent is activated ---- "trigger action";
(3) the sales gimmick which failed ---- use the external "double trigger" to raise the hammer and fire with the trigger, enabling an aimed shot. In the middle of an engagement this added a further complication to confuse the user --- in the same way that the Starr DA revolver has a unique sliding switch on the rear of the trigger to set the mode -- - and if you get it wrong the revolver jams! The 54bore Treble Action is usable, but the smaller frame ones do not allow enough room for the second finger to be around the grip -- so the external "cocking lever" cannot be pullled far enough back without it being impeded -- - so no shot fired ;-)
I estimate that there were very few made -- - possibly 50 ? - and as with the majority of Tranters they went below the Mason-Dixon. I have one cased presentation T.A. to the OC of a NJ regiment.
I still find it hard to understand the term "double action ONLY" but accept that it is in common (mis)usage these days.
It simply means you can only shoot that thing by pulling the trigger! There's either no hammer spur to allow thumb cocking ( SA style) or no exposed hammer period. Trigger only = Double action only.
( Double action - trigger cocks the hammer AND drops the hammer. Two actions. Double action)
Not quite sure who is "misusing" these days.
Mike
Last edited:
Jim,
I understand the terms well, but they appear to be murky both sides of the pond.
I asked a question on another forum you are familiar with and got all sorts of answers from back home and Down Under.
Traditional names and meanings suit me best as well, but in this there seems no rhyme or reason to what is understood as a general rule.
JH Walsh (Stonehenge) called self cocking revolvers Singla action, which they were if understood with the right understanding!...all happened as a Single action, LOl.
It sounds like you do not like the double trigger Tranter-Adams Kerr Jim.
To me it is The most natural thing, and easiest to shoot, of all the hand-guns I have been acquainted with.
There is absolutely No thought of having to mechanically cock the revolver, it does it itself as it is presented.
I can understand the ham- fisted or tyro who never having seen or handled one before possibly getting confused, but for anyone in the least familiar with the action, it is so natural that all problems are academic or theoretical.
You call it a "The sales gimmick which failed".
How Tranter produced So many of these failures so successfully I cannot begin to understand.
Give me his failures any day Jim!
All the best,
Richard.
I understand the terms well, but they appear to be murky both sides of the pond.
I asked a question on another forum you are familiar with and got all sorts of answers from back home and Down Under.
Traditional names and meanings suit me best as well, but in this there seems no rhyme or reason to what is understood as a general rule.
JH Walsh (Stonehenge) called self cocking revolvers Singla action, which they were if understood with the right understanding!...all happened as a Single action, LOl.
It sounds like you do not like the double trigger Tranter-Adams Kerr Jim.
To me it is The most natural thing, and easiest to shoot, of all the hand-guns I have been acquainted with.
There is absolutely No thought of having to mechanically cock the revolver, it does it itself as it is presented.
I can understand the ham- fisted or tyro who never having seen or handled one before possibly getting confused, but for anyone in the least familiar with the action, it is so natural that all problems are academic or theoretical.
You call it a "The sales gimmick which failed".
How Tranter produced So many of these failures so successfully I cannot begin to understand.
Give me his failures any day Jim!
All the best,
Richard.
Pukka Sahib
36 Cl.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2019
- Messages
- 59
- Reaction score
- 47
Tonneau covers are only acceptable on MG-TD’s.
Comfortably_Numb
The Evil Mike Brooks
I used to shot Cowboy matches with percussion revolvers. Shot in the "gunfighter" matches, a gun in each hand. SOME FUN! I had a 1851 and an 1861 I used for one pair. Great accurate guns that functioned perfectly. Only problem was knocking down heavier targets, but usually I could get them down by shooting high and hitting the top 1/3rd of the target. The other pair I used was 1860's with navy sized grips. Great accurate guns that never failed. I need to get all of those out and play with them again.
I like the R&S too. Probably the most accurate percussion pistol I own.
I like the R&S too. Probably the most accurate percussion pistol I own.
I believe that the brass framed .36cal revolver was a product of early civil war manufacturer here in Georgia. The churches in Macon, Ga donated their bells that happened to be brass. Those were melted down and cast into frames and grip frames for revolvers as a stop gap to supply locally organized units with a few handguns.
Somewhere less than 200 to 500 copies.
They too probably shot loose and came out of time pretty quickly.
Both sides at the beginning of the Civil War were not prepared to supply the numbers of arms that were needed at the onset of hostilities. Pretty quickly both sides were buying about anything they could get their hands on.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2022
- Messages
- 558
- Reaction score
- 759
I have to agree with this. After slicking up the internals of my uberti 1860, shimming the arbor, and adding a taller front sight and slixshot nipples, it's my favorite revolver, by a bunch. It runs like a sewing machine.
jimhallam
Pilgrim
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2018
- Messages
- 329
- Reaction score
- 367
Hi Richard
I DO like Tranters --- probably my "favourite" revolvers - and an interesting array of developing designs. As my ring finger is knackered I find that the external cocking lever (i.e., the lower of the "Double Triggers") allows me a better "fore and aft" grip on the revolver, thus reducing the east & west errors caused by variations in pressure by the finger-tips. In the ooooold days I was an NRA (UK) Regional Pistol Coach and used to demonstrate lateral errors that way.
As for the "sales gimmick that failed" - that refers only to the TREBLE ACTION --- as far as I can see probably only 50 or so.
jimhallam
Pilgrim
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2018
- Messages
- 329
- Reaction score
- 367
- Status
