Brass frame revolver wear

[Treestalker]

Looking at the brass frame C&B revolvers in brass frame it appears the Colt's design is much more likely to suffer damage from heavy loads/ repeated firings than the Remington, this being because the Colt's has a raised ring on the frame that the cylinder contacts in small areas whereas the Remington has a flatter contact surface between the cylinder and the frame. If anyone has information about this relationship or favorite loads or experience, I'd like to hear from you. Thanks in advance.

 

[Thunder14]

For what its worth for the few extra dollars get the Steele frame why worry about maybe my frame will stretch if i use to heavy a load,I have all Steele frame revolvers and never have an issue but I know guys that have brass frame and never load heavy and they have no issues.SO its one of those personal choices I think follow the manufacturer load recommendation you shouldn’t have trouble.

 

[Billy Boy]

A common problem with brass framed Colt replicas is that the arbor loosens up in it’s attachment in the standing breech. Heavy loads, seating significantly oversized balls both pitch in and aggravate the situation. Brass is fine, shoot light loads, there more fun anyway.

 

[nkbj]

Found a brass frame Pietta 1860 to plink with.
It has the standard .446 Pietta chambers.
Haven't found a target load for it yet.
I expect it will out last me even if I was to cram it full of FFFg and force heavy bullets into it.
But, my plans for it are the smallest balls that shoot well, most accurate charges and a chance to experiment with a sheet of wool felt, corn meal, egg cartons, a half inch diameter gasket punch and whatever else grabs my fancy. Still though, there's that .443 diameter sizer I've found to be handy for making the rear ends of bullets fit Pietta chambers so maybe so. Too bad Lyman and Ohaus didn't make their .445 diameter minie molds any lighter than 250 grains but it might be fun to experiment with how to fill the hollow base with powder.
Oh well, any how I have the chambers beveled and polished to make loading round ball a little easier on the brass frame, just 'cause every little bit helps.

About the brass frames based upon the 1851, I do know of a .44 that was shot until it became loose after years of lots of chambers filled with FFFg and .454 ball. My brother bought it in the middle 70's and finally did retire it after about ten years of much use.

 

[bang]

My neighbor showed me an older brass frame 1858 with shoulder stock. He mainly bought it for a wall hanger. The top strap has a very noticeable droop. Yes they can deform. I've seen plenty of them deformed in my 46 years of shooting bp. IMO 36 call and under fair better. All the ones I've seen were 44 in 1858 and Colt style. One 1858 the top strap was very near touching the cylinder.

 

[Pete G]

36 cal works well in brass frame, 44 cal not so much.

 

[TNGhost]

I have a couple of brass frame pistols, a CVA '58 Remy(Pietta) and a CVA Colt 1862 New Police(ASM). Having steel frame versions, I don't shoot them much, but when I do the load are on the light end of the spectrum. No need to tempt fate punching paper.

I did have a brass framed .44 but picked up a steel frame for it. Not because it was worn, but because I really like the way the gun handled and wanted to shoot it more without worry.

So bottom line, I haven't had any wear issues, but I shoot light loads and default to my steel frame guns most of the time

Although I find the "brassers" have a more elegant appearance. Perhaps the contrast of bright brass and blued steel?

 

[oldsalt444]

Stay away from Triple 7 in a brass frame revolver, unless you use only light loads (20 gr.). A typical 30 gr. load will stretch the frame. Don't ask me how I know.

 

[Zonie]

Looking at the brass frame C&B revolvers in brass frame it appears the Colt's design is much more likely to suffer damage from heavy loads/ repeated firings than the Remington, this being because the Colt's has a raised ring on the frame that the cylinder contacts in small areas whereas the Remington has a flatter contact surface between the cylinder and the frame. If anyone has information about this relationship or favorite loads or experience, I'd like to hear from you. Thanks in advance.

Your thoughts on the recoil ring at the rear of the cylinder is a good one.
Over the years on the MLF I've seen cases of the cylinder bashing that ring hard because the owner used heavy powder loads rather than the light loads most people recommend for a brass framed pistol.

In at least one case with a Colt style revolver that deformed ring allowed the cylinder to move so far aft when the gun fired that other caps on the other chambers fired causing repeated "chain fires" as the cylinder slammed them into the recoil shield.
The Remington brass framed reproductions can also develop slop in the cylinder because their cylinder support was damaged but because the Remington's have their nipples at an angle there is less chance of a cap being crushed as the cylinder moves aft during recoil. That is not to say chain fires won't happen with a Remington but it is less likely because the cap was crushed.

 

[sawyer04]

I have been very tempted to get the 36 caliber brass frame colt. In the past I had a 31 caliber pocket pistol that was a total joke. Arbor loose and beat to pieces. I think the new ones are fairly solid and if shot light along with using a bench loader would produce much service.
I agree to spend more and get a steel frame, but the price difference is tempting.

 

[Stophel]

The price difference isn't worth it. I would not even consider a brass frame gun. Of course, I simply do not like brass anyway. And it's a weak, soft metal, that is much heavier than steel. Easy to bend and damage. Plus, Pietta's particular brass formula does not seem to like me, as it reacts with my hands, creating a very unpleasant metallic smell that's hard to wash off.

 

[sawyer04]

The Remington... well, it's a tiny pin that can lock up tight fairly quickly.

The price difference isn't worth it. I would not even consider a brass frame gun. Of course, I simply do not like brass anyway. And it's a weak, soft metal, that is much heavier than steel. Easy to bend and damage. Plus, Pietta's particular brass formula does not seem to like me, as it reacts with my hands, creating a very unpleasant metallic smell that's hard to wash off.

Glad you posted, as I have been on the fence of buying a brass frame, I guess just to spend the money. I'm out, would like to have a 36 caliber, it will be a steel frame, thanks.

I take a three way file or a fine tooth hack saw and score grooves around the cylinder arbor, helps with that tight pin issue

 

[mooman76]

I bought a used 36 from a friend with a brass frame. It had worked loose and I thought I could fix it. asked him how much he loaded in it? He said he didn't know, he just filled up the cyl and fired it. I didn't fix it so now it's a wall hanger. It would have cost all most as much as a new gun to fix it.

 

[bang]

Glad you posted, as I have been on the fence of buying a brass frame, I guess just to spend the money. I'm out, would like to have a 36 caliber, it will be a steel frame, thanks.

I take a three way file or a fine tooth hack saw and score grooves around the cylinder arbor, helps with that tight pin issue

Use an adiquate charge a fouling issues fade away. I've shot as many as 8 cylinders in my 58 at 21grains and no fouling problems. Heavy loads just create crud.

 

[Treestalker]

For what its worth for the few extra dollars get the Steele frame why worry about maybe my frame will stretch if i use to heavy a load,I have all Steele frame revolvers and never have an issue but I know guys that have brass frame and never load heavy and they have no issues.SO its one of those personal choices I think follow the manufacturer load recommendation you shouldn’t have trouble.

Thank you for your reply. I already own several revolvers in brass and steel, so buying a steel frame job is a moot point. What I really wanted to know was what experience different people have had with different loads in both Colt's and Remington revolvers; a more detailed analysis of wear differentiation associated with pressure and use/time vectors. I'm merely seeking input to substantiate my theory that Remington's cylinder/frame interface has the considerable advantage in regards to wear and subsequent looseness over time with reasonable loads; several people, including Zonie, (who I highly respect) have pointed out that the Rems can develop slop too. Several things come to mind; heavy loads, the increase in quality of the brass/bronze frames offered in later production revolvers, and the effect of fouling and cleaning. Also the choice of projectile, loose vs. tight round ball vs. various elongated bullet designs. I have used and not abused BP revolvers since 1972, but only owned one brasser, a Spiller and Burr .36 cal. that I bought new and did not keep long, a friend 'Had' to have it, LOL! Be safe, and keep your powder dry, George.

 

[Treestalker]

Found a brass frame Pietta 1860 to plink with.
It has the standard .446 Pietta chambers.
Haven't found a target load for it yet.
I expect it will out last me even if I was to cram it full of FFFg and force heavy bullets into it.
But, my plans for it are the smallest balls that shoot well, most accurate charges and a chance to experiment with a sheet of wool felt, corn meal, egg cartons, a half inch diameter gasket punch and whatever else grabs my fancy. Still though, there's that .443 diameter sizer I've found to be handy for making the rear ends of bullets fit Pietta chambers so maybe so. Too bad Lyman and Ohaus didn't make their .445 diameter minie molds any lighter than 250 grains but it might be fun to experiment with how to fill the hollow base with powder.
Oh well, any how I have the chambers beveled and polished to make loading round ball a little easier on the brass frame, just 'cause every little bit helps.

About the brass frames based upon the 1851, I do know of a .44 that was shot until it became loose after years of lots of chambers filled with FFFg and .454 ball. My brother bought it in the middle 70's and finally did retire it after about ten years of much use.

Thank you for your report, NKBJ! I too prefer the beveled chambers and using a smaller but adequate ball to make things easier on the gun. Geo.

 

[Treestalker]

Your thoughts on the recoil ring at the rear of the cylinder is a good one.
Over the years on the MLF I've seen cases of the cylinder bashing that ring hard because the owner used heavy powder loads rather than the light loads most people recommend for a brass framed pistol.

In at least one case with a Colt style revolver that deformed ring allowed the cylinder to move so far aft when the gun fired that other caps on the other chambers fired causing repeated "chain fires" as the cylinder slammed them into the recoil shield.
The Remington brass framed reproductions can also develop slop in the cylinder because their cylinder support was damaged but because the Remington's have their nipples at an angle there is less chance of a cap being crushed as the cylinder moves aft during recoil. That is not to say chain fires won't happen with a Remington but it is less likely because the cap was crushed.

Good point about the chain fires, I had forgotten about Remington's angled nipple arrangement. Hard to believe someone would let their gun get in such a shape, much less try to fire it. I hope I never have to find out, LOL!

 

[Treestalker]

The price difference isn't worth it. I would not even consider a brass frame gun. Of course, I simply do not like brass anyway. And it's a weak, soft metal, that is much heavier than steel. Easy to bend and damage. Plus, Pietta's particular brass formula does not seem to like me, as it reacts with my hands, creating a very unpleasant metallic smell that's hard to wash off.

Thank you for your post Stophel, I agree that the price difference is not impressive on a new gun; I too find the brass to be noticeably heavier in the hand, especially the Remingtons. I do believe the brass frames have improved over the years, If one does not use abusive charges. The metallic fragrance on your hands is a new observation to me, I have not had a problem with it. I am drawn to the brass framed guns used by the Confederacy because my Great Grandfather was a cavalryman for Arkansas and I understand the mounted troops carried as many revolvers as they could get ahold of. I just like shooting and tinkering with them, too. I think a lot of people expect too much of the old C&B revolvers and try to load them too hot, shoot them too far and so on. Be safe and aim tor the belt buckle, LOL.

 

[Desperate Lee]

Guys i will say this so all can hear me, IF YOU ARE WORRIED ABOUT YOUR BRASS FRAME REVOLVERS THEN BOX THEM UP, PM ME, THEN SHIP THEM TO ME AND I WILL DISPOSE OF THEM FOR YOU AT NO CHARGE! That way the burden is removed from you and you can rest at night in peace and comfort.
DL

 

[RB POWELL]

I would like to have a 36 cal. brassie some day. They simply look so darned sharp. And, there is a historical factor that adds to the charm.