Arbor Problem?

[JimCunn]

I've been thinking about converting a Uberti 1862 Police to .380acp, but would have to do an 0.008" thick chrome electroplate on the interior of the barrel and front of the chambers to reduce the diameter (round headspaces on the case mouth) and would most likely need to scratchbuild a cylinder instead due to the thin chamber walls in the step. I've bought an extra cylinder to cut down as an experiment, but do expect it to fail by rupture.

 

[M. De Land]

I've been thinking about converting a Uberti 1862 Police to .380acp, but would have to do an 0.008" thick chrome electroplate on the interior of the barrel and front of the chambers to reduce the diameter (round headspaces on the case mouth) and would most likely need to scratchbuild a cylinder instead due to the thin chamber walls in the step. I've bought an extra cylinder to cut down as an experiment, but do expect it to fail by rupture.

Why not look around for a Ruger single action in 9mm,357 convertible, lathe shorten the front of the 9mm cylinder for the .380 and set the barrel back to the proper barrel/cylinder gap, rather than ruin a percussion gun not designed for smokeless cartridges.
Probably have to come up with some half moon clips for not being able to head space on the 9mm case mouth chamber. Better yet leave the cylinder alone and just shoot reduced loads in 9mm.

 

[45D]

Why not look around for a Ruger single action in 9mm,357 convertible, lathe shorten the front of the 9mm cylinder for the .380 and set the barrel back to the proper barrel/cylinder gap, rather than ruin a percussion gun not designed for smokeless cartridges.
Probably have to come up with some half moon clips for not being able to head space on the 9mm case mouth chamber. Better yet leave the cylinder alone and just shoot reduced loads in 9mm.

Let's not forget that the '73 Mod.P was designed in the BP era but has been in the "smokeless era" since 1905. The only difference is the materials ( they really don't know "what" they're "designed" for).

Mike

 

[JimCunn]

Why not do what I want to do ?
For one thing, a .357 Ruger SSA is much larger and does not in the least resemble an 1862 Colt Police.
For another, as you know, rupturing a modified replacement cylinder does no damage to the original Uberti. Also, it is both possible and feasible to modify the 1862 Police to accept .380 acp. It is not possible to modify one to accept 9x19 or 9x23. Once done, it takes about 45 seconds to convert back to C&B.
If I just wanted to modify a random small pistol to accept 9mm, I would ream a .357 Mag titanium J-frame cylinder to accept 9mm and moon clips and install it in an 12 ounce Airweight 637-2...
Oh wait, I've already done that to three of them.
My favorite carry pieces, but I have no sentmental attachment to them.

 

[Smokerr]

Me thinks we have wandered into the fields of non muzzle loaders.

 

[JimCunn]

Oops, sorry bout that.

 

[M. De Land]

Let's not forget that the '73 Mod.P was designed in the BP era but has been in the "smokeless era" since 1905. The only difference is the materials ( they really don't know "what" they're "designed" for).

Mike

I can't go along with the notion that a percussion cylinder modified for smokeless cartridges is in any way a good idea or safe for the operator or the little open top five shooter!

 

[45D]

I can't go along with the notion that a percussion cylinder modified for smokeless cartridges is in any way a good idea or safe for the operator or the little open top five shooter!

He mentioned making a new cylinder instead of moding a perc. cyl. A "modern" cyl would be the only way to go.

 

[JimCunn]

Yes, my intention with the extra percussion cylinder was to use it as a test piece for fit and mechanical operation with the thought that it would probably rupture if fired. I will probably rupture it on purpose by deliberate overload both to see what it will take and to keep anyone else from using it after I'm gone. Speaking as an 82 year old with cancer who has recently had a stroke, that latter may not be all that far into the future - but in the meantime, I'm going to continue to live as if I will be here forever.

The handbuilt followup cylinder for the 1862 would be larger in diameter aft of the rebate step, and stronger than stock. Frame strength isn't an issue, as Uberti is already making .380 acp revolvers on the 1849 frame. I just don't like the esthetics of their barrel choice.

That said, I can go along with the notion that the modern large frame open top replicas like the 1860 are as strong as the 1858 Remington or 1873 Colts. It would be easy enough to run the numbers to see for myself, but I'm not going to waste my time doing that. My Uberti 1860 has no problem with .45 acp +P and is showing no signs of stress, so why waste time doing a structural analysis.

 

[CyrusP]

OK, time for a confessions. I have no idea what a short arbor problem is. My wife assures me I have that problem though. So how do I know if I have a short arbor, a long arbor or a just right arbor? In fact what's an arbor?

I bought a new in box Cimmeron .36 5 shot from a member and the wedge is SUPER tight. To tell the truth I have not shot or fondled it since getting back home with it so I don't know if I could force it in further or not but I am not a guy that forces stuff for the most part.

Are the above symptoms a description of an arbor issue?

Our wives might be sisters separated at birth!

 

[Bad Karma]

Yeah, I get it. These things were brand new then and I'm sure many wedges were installed "thumb tight" so it would be easier to take down the "next" time. Hey, if ya don't know, ya don't know. There's proof all over the forums that it's not understood!! .

Mike

If anything, I bet the Army Noncoms in 1858 where more anal than those of the current “be all you can be, even if you need to change your sex to get there crowd.”
“Colonel Colt said DRIVE the wedge home, goddamn it! DRIVE it like you mean it maggots!” Maybe they were battered by enthusiastic Sergeants?

Boy that sure is the truth as only a GI can know ! They can show up with PHDs or be drop outs and all get treated exactly the same ! Even growing up as a pretty rough farm boy I was shocked at the treatment in boot camp and that was the Air Force which I assumed would be much milder than the rest of the services my buddies were in and talking about.
Drilling all day every day, marching in formation every where and being treated like dogs in between KP duty and standing guard at night.
I remember the only time to write a letter home was after lights out,under the dust cover with a flash light.
The TI's were all meaner than snakes and went out of their way to make life as miserable as they could ! I thought now how can this treatment be used to train any one but in six weeks time we were a pretty tight and cohesive out fit thinking as a unit before being sent off to our respective tech schools.
Now why does an Airmen need to learn how to disassemble and reassemble an M-16 blind folded you might ask? Didn't make any more sense to me then the gas house or the belly crawl through the constantina wire obstetrical course and those dang noisy bomb-lets going off in the pits. At least they didn't make us crawl under live fire like in the Marines or Army. Whew, finally a break for being in the AF!
I liked the AF way of thinking though as all the non coms were trained to support the officer pilots who were the ones getting their butts shot off or winding up as a POW while we stayed back on base safe and sound.
I was told the Tet Offensive didn't quite work out that way for our guys on base though !

Hear that…


Army, Air Force and the Corps have a joint field exercise. Night comes and they each find a scorpion in their shelter halves. Soldier smashes it with his boot, crawls into his fart sack and goes to sleep. Marine grabs it, snaps the stinger off, eats it and thinks, “that’s pretty good, I wonder if I can find more of these?”
The Airman looks at the shelter half, calls room service and says, “what is this thing and what’s it doing in my hotel room?”