Russ T Frizzen
70 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,007
- Reaction score
- 424
The stress is mainly on the arbor. The little pins just locate or align the barrel/frame assembly. Bending the arbor while loading is nigh impossible for mere mortals. I use a 25 grain charge in my Navys, because that's all I can get in there and still seat A .380 ball. This constitutes a maximum load. Don't have a target load per se; I use the full load for everything, including rabbits.
My Remington is a nice piece of workmanship. I understand it's limitations and factor them into the equation when I use it. I do the same with my Colts. Uberti did a fine job on my gun. A tiny bit of tuning was all it took to make the lock work crisp as can be. I have fired smokeless .45 Colt cartridges in it with no modification save an R&D conversion cylinder. The gun handled it with no problems. But my old wear silvered Colt New Model Army of 1860 also survived such usage. Both are now used exclusively with black powder, but that is a choice, not a necessity. To me the best feature of the Remington is the rapid changing of pre-loaded cylinders--an advantage somewhat diminished by the piece's tendency to foul itself to a stop all too quickly.
It's not the loading notch that I am talking about. Not the cut-out where the ball is rotated to before seating it. At the base of the cut out where it meets the bottom of the frame, the connection is actually two small metal legs. I have seen this area fractured on older guns. On my revolver, the area is quite thin (actually graceful and even elegant) and Uberti polished it up nicely. While I concede that chain-fires are rare--I admit that I've never had one--I do wonder what would happen to this area if one occurred. Perhaps that is what cracked those others frames?
Realizing that this is a purely subjective observation, I find the Colts to be much more handome in appearance. Their design surely must be the epitome of Victorian elegance. For pure grace, it is, to my eye, impossible to beat a square-back Navy. The early 1851 Model is truly a lovely little handgun. The Remington, while certainly far from ugly is perhaps more business like in looks, but not as pretty. As I look at the two of them side by side, and allowing for the fact that the Remington is pretty much denuded of finish, it is no contest. But the battered old bulldog of a Remington, with it's bobbed barrel and silvery metal, still rides in my holster very often.
So, how about those Starrs? Single or double action? Anybody got one? Or maybe a Rogers and Spencer?
My Remington is a nice piece of workmanship. I understand it's limitations and factor them into the equation when I use it. I do the same with my Colts. Uberti did a fine job on my gun. A tiny bit of tuning was all it took to make the lock work crisp as can be. I have fired smokeless .45 Colt cartridges in it with no modification save an R&D conversion cylinder. The gun handled it with no problems. But my old wear silvered Colt New Model Army of 1860 also survived such usage. Both are now used exclusively with black powder, but that is a choice, not a necessity. To me the best feature of the Remington is the rapid changing of pre-loaded cylinders--an advantage somewhat diminished by the piece's tendency to foul itself to a stop all too quickly.
It's not the loading notch that I am talking about. Not the cut-out where the ball is rotated to before seating it. At the base of the cut out where it meets the bottom of the frame, the connection is actually two small metal legs. I have seen this area fractured on older guns. On my revolver, the area is quite thin (actually graceful and even elegant) and Uberti polished it up nicely. While I concede that chain-fires are rare--I admit that I've never had one--I do wonder what would happen to this area if one occurred. Perhaps that is what cracked those others frames?
Realizing that this is a purely subjective observation, I find the Colts to be much more handome in appearance. Their design surely must be the epitome of Victorian elegance. For pure grace, it is, to my eye, impossible to beat a square-back Navy. The early 1851 Model is truly a lovely little handgun. The Remington, while certainly far from ugly is perhaps more business like in looks, but not as pretty. As I look at the two of them side by side, and allowing for the fact that the Remington is pretty much denuded of finish, it is no contest. But the battered old bulldog of a Remington, with it's bobbed barrel and silvery metal, still rides in my holster very often.
So, how about those Starrs? Single or double action? Anybody got one? Or maybe a Rogers and Spencer?
