Steel vs Brass frame differences?

[nick_1]

what is that?
back in the 70s i shot out two brassers. totally non functional from stretching. 1851 navy and spillier and Burr. swore i would never get another one. Then the folks on here seemed to believe that modern brass is better than what was used in the 70's and heck its not an open top so somehow I ended up with this..

I just noticed that after about 1k rounds that the cylinder gap on the brasser is .035.. sometimes I am a slow learner...

 

[ZUG]

My first BP revolver was a HAWES 1860 Colt clone brass frame that I purchased used in 1970. It was shot a LOT when I bought it and was "loose as a goose". I shot it for a short time and sold it then bought a steel framed 1851 Colt clone. I never purchased a brass framed revolver after that - always steel. You do see a lot of brass frame revolvers at reenactments, but they are only shooting blanks, so it doesn't matter to them how many shots they fire.

 

[M. De Land]

what is that?
back in the 70s i shot out two brassers. totally non functional from stretching. 1851 navy and spillier and Burr. swore i would never get another one. Then the folks on here seemed to believe that modern brass is better than what was used in the 70's and heck its not an open top so somehow I ended up with this..View attachment 261069
I just noticed that after about 1k rounds that the cylinder gap on the brasser is .035.. sometimes I am a slow learner...

It might happen with heavy load use but as of yet I've not seen or heard of solid frame brass guns stretching , only open frame designs . What usually happens I believe is the steel arbor threads distort their rather short brass seats in the frame and loosen to one side or the other from uneven arbor pull pressure. The reason I think this is because the arbors tend to loosen in their receiver threads and the nipple ports imprint into the recoil shield unevenly to one portion/side of the surface or the other leaving no indication of contact on the opposite side which probably would not happen if the back of the cylinder were evenly supported circumferentially.
The greater the batter of thread and recoil shield the more this increases barrel gap and wedge slop until the revolver is unsafe to fire.
In the 58 Rem one finds a very long barrel shank and thread into an equally long receiver hole and thread causing it to be much more rigid and able to stand the pull pressure of the barrel in the receiver from bullet travel up barrel
The additional thread length plus the barrel support either side of the pressure vector in solid frame designs would discourage stretch .

 

[nick_1]

Unfortunately i did not measure my Bison cylinder gap when it was new but I do recall it seeming to be a nice tight revolver. Cylinder gap is now .035 and there is a noticable slop from cylinder getting slammed back at every shot. also a noticable imprint of the cylinder in the brass at the back of the frame . not heavy loads. i swhot one cylinder with 30g of t7 and deemed that to be unnecessary. my standard load is 25g T7 with .454 rb

 

[45D]

Actually, maintaining a tight endshake setting on brass framed open-top revolvers will allow one to use "normal" loads. Shooting them with a loose wedge (not driven in) allows too much slop and will eventually cause damage.
A brass Remington will be stressed by loading/shooting heavy loads. Pure lead balls should be the only projectile.

Mike

 

[nick_1]

Mike. I only loaded it in the gun once. Rest of the time I loaded it on the bench.

 

[M. De Land]

Unfortunately i did not measure my Bison cylinder gap when it was new but I do recall it seeming to be a nice tight revolver. Cylinder gap is now .035 and there is a noticable slop from cylinder getting slammed back at every shot. also a noticable imprint of the cylinder in the brass at the back of the frame . not heavy loads. i swhot one cylinder with 30g of t7 and deemed that to be unnecessary. my standard load is 25g T7 with .454 rb

Did you mean .035 and not .0035? The former is outrageous and the later fairly tight/ normal. If it's imprinting in the recoil shield than it must have had plenty of gap to begin with.
The worst gap I have had to correct was in a steel frame 60 an it had .027 which required a new wedge and lower lug reduction to close and level/parallel the gap to the barrel breech .
I don't care for or use adjustable wedge screws in the ends of arbors.

 

[nick_1]

this is a an 1858 and I got my spark plug gauge in there if your wonder how big the gap is. It's more than my 1971 ford tractor. yes.. .035. plug gap on tractor is .020. she still shoots fine and straight but cylinder pin needs lube between each cylinder or she won't slide out to put the new cylinder in..

 

[45D]

The worst gap I have had to correct was in a steel frame 60 an it had .027 which required a new wedge and lower lug reduction to close and level/parallel the gap to the barrel breech .
I don't care for or use adjustable wedge screws in the ends of arbors.

Sounds like the cylinder was out of spec. or maybe "Bubba" filed a little too much forcing cone. If the revolver is an Uberti, a Pietta cylinder would make for an easy fix.
I use Kirst cylinders that fit Piettas in Ubertis for 45C because of the extra length and adjust the forcing cone accordingly.

As far as wedge bearings go, it's a whole lot easier to install one than to make a wedge. If you do install one, you'll never need a new wedge.

Mike

 

[Jappo]

I got these as parts or gunsmith special. They were not Uberti, Pietta or ASM. Don't remember what they were. I smoothed the recoil shield and used a Pietta cylinder on the 58. The Colt I filed the forcing cone and the frame. They both worked good.
Don't know what caused the damage on the recoil shields. But my grandson has a Pietta brass 58 and he's probably put over 100 rounds of 30gr 3f through it with no problems. He did cut back to about 25gr trying to improve accuracy.
As for the dates and make on the others I don't remember. They were early manufacturing though. I never came to any conclusion. And have yet to see another 58 like that. I have seen three Colts with beat up recoil shields.

 

[45D]

Don't know what caused the damage on the recoil shields.

Endshake. The more of it you have, the faster the damage.

The same happens with Colt open-top revolvers to their "recoil ring" ( not the shield). It happens mainly from shooting with a loose wedge.

Mike

 

[Jappo]

Endshake. The more of it you have, the faster the damage.

The same happens with Colt open-top revolvers to their "recoil ring" ( not the shield). It happens mainly from shooting with a loose wedge.

Mike

Yes sir, I'm aware of that. And especially the Colt. I guess even small loads with a lot of end shake would do that. But that's the only Remington I've seen like that. Maybe it was alreadt like that? Came with too much end shake I mean. Being a cheaper version of an Italian made Remington.

 

[M. De Land]

I got these as parts or gunsmith special. They were not Uberti, Pietta or ASM. Don't remember what they were. I smoothed the recoil shield and used a Pietta cylinder on the 58. The Colt I filed the forcing cone and the frame. They both worked good.
Don't know what caused the damage on the recoil shields. But my grandson has a Pietta brass 58 and he's probably put over 100 rounds of 30gr 3f through it with no problems. He did cut back to about 25gr trying to improve accuracy.
As for the dates and make on the others I don't remember. They were early manufacturing though. I never came to any conclusion. And have yet to see another 58 like that. I have seen three Colts with beat up recoil shields.

Thanks for the picture as I have never before seen imprinting in a solid frame brass gun although it is rather common in open frame guns using full power loads.. I would suspect the brass alloy may be much softer than what is commonly used in currently made repro's.
I also believe (while not having actually tested the modification) that a steel bushing of approximately .050 could be silver soldered to the leveled face of the recoil shield, cylinder refit and one would have the same imprint resistance of a steel frame gun.
I don't think the brass frames actually "stretch" as the description implys but the imprinting increases the barrel/cylinder gap and causes the same effect.

 

[RB POWELL]

I keep hearing uberti vs pietta.
What does everyone prefer?

Also I might ne interested in 1860 army as well. I hear pretty has a worse looking finish but is a better mechanically built.fun.

And the uberti looks nicer but needs some fine tuning to work well

P.s. any reason not to get black powder pellets vs the powder itself?

I've got both. Both are fine. If needed, tune em' up, but usually not necessary in my opinion. Aren't we fortunate to have these companies reproducing classics?

 

[M. De Land]

I've got both. Both are fine. If needed, tune em' up, but usually not necessary in my opinion. Aren't we fortunate to have these companies reproducing classics?

Yeah, for normal casual use they are quite good from the factory. If one competes with them then the mods become more desirable and even necessary to some extent .
I have come to realize some modifications are really a solution in search of any real problem as Colt pretty well had the basics figured out before production and bugs worked out over time with improved models and improvements in design from competitors.
The Remington model 58 closed frame design changed the whole landscape though with in a few years and made open frame guns pretty much obsolete over night as all revolver makers (even Colt) followed suit in short order from then on until the Italians brought back the open frame nostalgia guns in the 1960's black powder resurgence.
Colt did hang on for the 62's after the 58 Rem showed up but the hand writing was on the wall for open frame design until the 1960's.

 

[Sir Boniface Harrison]

I've often considered buying a 'brasser' simply because they look (in my opinion) really nice. Earlier this year I bought a Colt advertised as a Brass frame... only to find when I received it, that it was in fact a steel one! For about 100 Euros less than I should have paid. Nice surprise! But, that still leaves room for a Brasser in my - well, lets face facts - growing collection. Having thought about this, I don't think there is any mileage in getting a brass Remington or Colt when there are historical examples of Brass revolvers one could buy. I therefore have my eyes on one of these. In addition to gaining a 'Brasser', I would have a .36 which I currently don't have. Anyone had good experiences with these?

 

[nick_1]

don't do it unless you just want to hang it on the wall. I shot two open top brass .36colts loose when i was a kid but thought that a closed top 58 would be fine. its not. still shoots straight but showing obvious signs of wear.

she shoots great but she is wearing out rapidly.

 

[DementedMindOfJac]

I've often considered buying a 'brasser' simply because they look (in my opinion) really nice. Earlier this year I bought a Colt advertised as a Brass frame... only to find when I received it, that it was in fact a steel one! For about 100 Euros less than I should have paid. Nice surprise! But, that still leaves room for a Brasser in my - well, lets face facts - growing collection. Having thought about this, I don't think there is any mileage in getting a brass Remington or Colt when there are historical examples of Brass revolvers one could buy. I therefore have my eyes on one of these. In addition to gaining a 'Brasser', I would have a .36 which I currently don't have. Anyone had good experiences with these?

In my humble opinion, if you get a .36, get a '51 steel frame. They (again, IMHO) have the finest balance, which will make you want to shoot it more. In fact, I'd advise you to buy 2. Saves time buying another later on. You'll see what I mean.

 

[Sir Boniface Harrison]

don't do it unless you just want to hang it on the wall. I shot two open top brass .36colts loose when i was a kid but thought that a closed top 58 would be fine. its not. still shoots straight but showing obvious signs of wear. View attachment 271245
View attachment 271246View attachment 271247
she shoots great but she is wearing out rapidly.

That is sad to see with what seems otherwise a fine gun. Would it be possible to place a very thin steel plate on the worn surface to extend its life? Seems like the issue with brassers is wear rather than stretching.

 

[Hiverano]

As stated by Phil "Get the 1851 of your choice and a cartridge gun separately."