brass frame 1860 Colt Army "replica" concerns

Yes, I know that Colt never actually made 1860 Army revolvers with brass frames, but the Italian one I bought 45 years ago is brass. My question is how does one know when a brass frame gun is "shot loose" and what is the max gap that should be considered safe between the cylinder and the barrel? My gun still feels as tight as the day I bought it. I have never measured the gap so I don't know if it has changed any. The gun has been shot probably 50 or 60 times. I saw a video somewhere that discussed possibly having a spacer ring made to be put in behind the cylinder in a brass frame gun to solve the problem. Anyone been there and done that? Thanks for any advice.

The cylinder axle is usually the culprit to a loose brass framed revolver. I would say ,010 or less would be safe between cylinder and barrel. These old brass frames were usually loaded with the loading lever and created stress on the axle where it enters the frame. The wedge can also wear because of loading lever. Not to tell one there business, but I would invest in a loading block and not use the loading lever for anything, but emergency field loading. I haven't seen the newer brass frames work loose , yet, by using the lever, but these older models just didn't have the metallurgy in them.
I have had the machinery to resolve the frame problem and have, if the frame doesn't have cracks extending around the axle shaft, although it worked, I was never really satisfied with the results. I over bored and rethreaded the axle bore in the frame and turned the axle to the cylinder size. As far as wedging behind the cylinder, remember the hand has to operate the cylinder, and here is another weak point in the old colts pertaining to the hand spring. A loose cylinder will effect timing, and the farther away from the frame will do the same. I may be full of it, but it stands to reason to me if the cylinder is farther away from the frame will slow timing. Yes, it may shoot, but the cylinder lock will probably scrape the bottom of the cylinder and the hammer will have to be operated with a quick pull back to kick the cylinder into lock position. I would say the pistol is still safe to shoot, if it's only loaded 40-50 rounds , but I would go the loading block method for loading. windy, ain't I. 2 cents

Sawyer
You are correct. The cylinder axle pin is the problem. I have fixed a couple brass frames before by silver soldering the pin back but i know it will not hold forever. If a man had a good machine shop then reboreing, rethreading, and making a new axle pin would work best.
DL

I got good deal on an 185. 44cal, brass frame. Don't really like brass much. What I did was to put the brass frame on a 36cal and the steel frame on the 44cal. 36 will hold up much better than the 44.

As far as actual shooting is concerned, it would take a lot more than 60 shots to stretch the frame. Get a bench cylinder loader and remove the cylinder for loading. These little presses are not expensive and will enable your revolver to last a long time.

Brass frames: Load a ball with no more shear than needed and don't use amounts of powder where you have to compress the charges.

I agree, a press either homemade or a good store bought one is the only way to go on a brass frame. It's the loading that does the stretching.

I love the look of a brass framed revolver, I had a .36 Pietta Griswold and Gunnison semi repro that I fired a lot. I kept the loads very light. Never had a problem. I went through a "phase change" and sold all my cap and ballers.

Are the new ones made with better brass than the older repros?

That said , I'd like to pick up a Spiller & Burr to go with my CS Richmond repro.

I do believe they are, and little less expensive, I called it a loading block, but Hanshi is more correct by calling it a bench cylinder loader

Stantheman86 said:

Are the new ones made with better brass than the older repros?

Click to expand...