Brass revolvers no good???

[Russ T Frizzen]

You'll often read that someone has had a brass framed revolver for many years and has shot it with light loads without it loosening up. If you press them, many times you find that they only fire a few cylinderfuls each year using a 15 grain charge. This goes a long towards explaining the longevity of their revolvers.

 

[bob308]

well i have seen and shot a few brass frame guns i can say this i saw 2 that losened up the first the fool was putting some smokeless so it would shoot cleaner the other the threads were not machined right in the frame. i even had a steel frame get lose because the threads were not cut right.

if brass frames are so bad how come the henery and 66 winchester repros. are not falling apart?

if and this is a big if the pistol is machined right and loaded right you should not have a problem.

 

[madcratebuilder]

I have a Spiller and Burr that has well over 1k rounds, still a nice tight revolver. A 69 Uberti .36 open top that I am converting to a belly gun has an indentation on the recoil shield after a few hundred 20 gr loads. I'm going to soldered a steel ring on the recoil shield. I've seen this mod before and it should eliminate most of the deforming you see on the Colt's. Brass frames are easier to damage by misuse than their steel counterparts.
If you want to shoot a lot of full loads buy a steel frame revolver

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

Well, Bob, the Henry and Winchester 1866 frames are supposed to be made of a type of bronze rather than soft brass. There's a big difference in the alloy and in the strength. The originals were made of an alloy called gun metal which was also a member of the bronze family. You may have noted that when more potent cartridges arrived, the switch was quickly made to iron and steel frames. Yellow metal wasn't considered strong enough even way back then.

You seem to have been both unlucky and lucky. You got a bad steel frame gun--that's unlucky but it does happen. You have my deepest sympathy. On the other hand you survived being around that brass framed gun when some moron loaded it with smokeless powder and it blew up and sent shards of hot metal zipping through the immediate area. You are truly blessed to have survived such a traumatic event and I'm sure I speak for all who read this when I say that it is a miracle and we, too, are blessed for now you are here among us!

As to your last point, I agree. Sort of. If the gun is properly made, lightly loaded, properly maintained, AND not shot all that often, it will last for a while. Lotta ifs there, though, Bob. They are built to a low price--corners are cut. Interiors are not properly machined and fitted. Burrs are left everywhere. Anyone who buys a brass framed gun when they don't have to and limits themself to pop gun loads is just not thinking clearly.

Please offer my heartfelt condolences to your buddy that lit off a cylinder full of smokeless powder in his brass framed revolver, or if he passed on to the big shooting range in the sky, to his family. Should he still be among the living, they can do wonders with prosthetics and cosmetic surgery these days. :thumbsup:

 

[bob308]

no i did not say it blew up in fact it held just shot lose started to pull the cylinder arbor out of the frame. and no one was hurt. in fact i fixed the gun had to heicoil the frame.
the problem is in the manufacturing not the brass it self. when you run a tap in to brass if the speed or feed is too fast or the cutting fluid is not the right type you get bad threads. same thing with steel.

i said i had a bad steel pistol but i did not condem all steel pistols because of it. it was a a.s.m. walker colt.


i have an idea to put this to bed. i will buy a 51 in .36 with brass frame take it a part check it out. then start shooting it with full loads. i will supply the pistol and ball you supply the powder. every 500 rounds i will take it apart and check it out.

 

[Zonie]

Not the dreaded Helicoil! :shocked2:

 

[fowlonthebrain]

I have a brass framed 1860 Army that I got twenty years ago. I'm unsure how many hundreds of shots I've fired, but I wore out the first trigger, replaced it, and have shot it a lot since. All the time with 25grs of fffg. Mine is still as tight as ever. It may depend on being lucky enough to get a good one.

 

[Pork Chop]

Not the dreaded Helicoil! :shocked2:

:rotf: :rotf:

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

You've convinced me, Bob! All I need to know is the brand of that pistol and I will run right out and buy one! Any C&B revolver that can stand up to smokeless powder is O.K. by me. It's got to be a special brand though. All the others blow up when fired with smokeless. Does it come with a guardian angel that sits on the shooter's shoulder or is that optional? The fact that you wasted time repairing this mechanical miracle is as astonishing as the fact that there was anything left to repair to begin with! Your method of repair using God's own gift to Humanity--the Heli-Coil-- is utterly ingenious and leads me to believe that you either are an engineer at Green Mountain Barrel Co., could easily find employment with the afore-mentioned barrel company as an engineer, or perhaps were recently fired by G.M.B.C. for improper use of Heli-Coils while repairing screwed up barrels. Doesn't matter--you're O.K. in my book, just be careful with those little buggers. A Heli-Coil in the wrong place could leave you bound up for life! I'm told they last forever and can stand up to an awful lot of pressure! Just a word to the wise, Bob.

Now Bob, I carefully reread my previous post and in no way did I imply that you condemned all steel framed revolvers. I simply sympathized with you over the fact that you had a bad steel framed gun. I sensed that you were downhearted and feeling a bit glum about it and I wanted you to know that someone understood. Just trying to be a pal, Bob. Now you tell me that it was an Armi San Marco revolver and everyone knows they're clunkers. I've just got one question, Bob. An A.S.M.? What the Hell were you thinking, man? Just kidding Bob. Everybody screws up now and then. You couldn't fix it with a Heli-Coil? No wonder they canned you from G.M.B.C.! :rotf:

I'm not sure about this bed thing, Bob. I'm happily married and while I'm sure you're a nice fellow and all--despite that Heli-Coil thing at G.M.B.C.--I don't swing that way. Maybe you're thinking of that Truman Crapote fella or Michael Jackson--though I wouldn't expect too much enthusiasm from him--I hear he's slowed down a lot recently. Maybe because he's 50 years old or not feeling well? Crapote is probably not a good bet either. Anyway count me out.

About that brass framed '51 you want to buy and take apart and then shoot with full loads. It's a swell idea Bob and will keep you occupied for months--maybe years if you don't run out of Heli-Coils or fingers. I'm not sure how much powder you think you'll need or whether you want smokeless or black powder, but I think I'll pass on this one anyway. Fifty plus years fooling around with muzzleloaders has taught me that brass framed C&B revolvers are weaker than their steel framed brethren and will not stand up as well. That's all I need to know about them. You have fun though. Let us know how it turns out and how many fingers you are typing with.

In closing, Bob, let me just say that I am pleased to hear that you were not killed by an exploding brass framed revolver full of smokeless powder! If you had been, you probably would not be posting here and we would not have learned yet another use for Heli-Coils and brass framed revolvers would have lost their staunchest supporter. I'm sure that somewhere in Italy, at this very moment, the makers of cheap, brass framed percussion revolvers are toasting your good health with a heaping plate of spaghetti and marinara sauce and a glass of fine (but cheap) wine! It's been good talking to you Bob, but I've got to go feed my ferrets now, so take care. Sorry the job at Green Mountain didn't work out.

 

[bob308]

spoken like a true know it all a real empty barrel that does not know any thing when you don't have the facts or want to get the facts. you make fun of or talk down to the other person.

 

[Aggie85]

Totally agree with you Bob. For what it is worth I have long stopped reading any posts from that poster. Only went back to read this one after your comment. The sarcasm is totally out of line. I will continue to avoid reading his post as they have very little to offer in an open discussion format in my opinion.

Anyway back on the subject at hand. I faced this question just the other day. When I was looking at buying a 1860 Army Revolver. I went with the steel frame based on the logic steel is more durable than brass. As for your proposed test, it would be interesting to see the results of the amount of wear to expect from a brass frame receiver under a controled test documenting the number of firings, powder charge, and any changes over an extended amount of time. Sure the expectation would be that a steel frame receiver would perform better, but it would be great to know actual limits instead of someone's perceived limits.

 

[Poor Private]

I agree RussT seems(ed) to be on a mission since the get go of this thread. I asked for facts, and he tossed out the snide remark about paperweights, and also he had no facts to back anything he proclaimed. I get the impression he doesn't like brass framed revolvers, and anyone who happens to own or like one. Sounds like he got taken on one to me.
The brass frames that I have, in the short time I have had them both the .36 and to one .44 shot nice and actually my wife who is 5 foot nothing like to shoot the .44 brass frame. it is a reb sheriffs model(never made, not period correct) with a short barrel. I havn't shot hundreds of live rounds through them but I have used them in my Reb artillery impression in reenacting.

 

[bob308]

thanks some one is reading what i am writing.

i am bidding on a 51 in .36 brass frame right now. it will take me about 4lb. powder to get 1000 rounds through it. i have a range right here at the farm. so i can recycle the lead. i was even looking at the cap making thing to do my own caps for this test. i can make caps at work as long as the mill is running.

 

[bob308]

i had a high standard g&g in .36 shot it a lot with 22gr 3f. it was as tight as the day i bought it when i sold it. wish i had it back but at the time i wanted to buy a house so a lot fo guns went down the road. i still try to get it back the guy that bought it never shot it.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

I've never gotten taken on a brass framed revolver, but I do know plenty of folks who have.

Others have voiced the same opinions of these guns but you refuse to listen to experienced people. After a while when the truth fails to penetrate it's time to have a bit of fun. If you don't want to read my posts, put me on your "ignore list". Won't bother me in the slightest and I won't have listen to you whine about my posts because the content thereof is too intellectually challenging for you.

Before you run away and hide in a hissy fit, do any of you lads have a Dixie catalogue handy? The reason I ask is that they sell a few brass framed revolvers. At the bottom of page 71 in the 2008 catalogue they offer this caveat--that means caution:
PLEASE NOTE: Brass framed revolvers will eventually shoot "loose" and get out of time after several years of use, or an extreme number of rounds has been fired. These guns are not guaranteed with regard to these conditions.

Note the terms "several years of use" and "extreme number of rounds". These non-specific terms are used because it is impossible to know how long the guns will last and how many rounds it will take to ruin them. Thus with no guarantee in place, it can be assumed by the seller that either several years have passed or too many rounds have been fired, and so the seller is free and clear. This and similar warnings have been in Dixie's catalogue for many years. You may also note that the disclaimer does not say may shoot loose, it flat out says they WILL shoot loose. This in fact is the only guarantee they make regarding these guns. THEY WILL SHOOT LOOSE!!! Just like the more experienced members here have been saying all along, relying on personal experience and empirical proof. Not surprisingly, a similar disclaimer is not needed for the steel framed revolvers.

The remark regarding brass framed revolvers making fine paper weights was not snide in the slightest. It was a simple statement of the truth. I have never had a document blown away by the wind since I began using my brass framed revolver as a paper weight. It does a wonderful job. And so far as I can tell the old gun hasn't loosened up a bit in all the time it has used in this fashion! And it's nearly forty years old! Told ya I never got taken on a brass framed gun--mine is as tight as new. :v

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

Bob-that would be a new revolver you are bidding on, right? And you really should use factory made caps to keep things honest and consistent since the caps do contribute to the potency of the shot. Are you going to use full power loads-say 25+ grains of FFFg or the mildest loads necessary to get the ball to fall out of the muzzle?

Now Bob, I don't want you to get your knickers in a knot here, but who is going to be the impartial, unbiased and known to us all observer of all this scientific "testing"? We all know you to be an honest, true blue and fair minded individual--um, well actually we have no idea who you are, do we? To make this a valid test, it must be observed. Who do you have in mind? After all, you and your buds have refused to accept the word of experienced shooters on this subject and my veracity has been called into question when I have over a half century of black powder experience an have been completely truthful, it is only fair that you be required to present utterly unquestionable proof of every aspect of your "test" process. Right Bob? I mean you are the same fellow who claimed that a C & B revolver fired with smokeless powder didn't blow up. No offense Bob, but that is a little hard to believe.

How about color film, with sound, of every shot fired to include close ups of the loading procedure and amount of powder used, with measurements of critical dimensions taken after each cylinderful. Seems reasonable. Witnesses, who must not be related to you, or your friends and willing to certify to this. I'm certain, reasonable and honest fellow that you are that you will want this "test" to be as untainted as possible. Oh, none of your little band of cheerleaders would be acceptable as witnesses. Do let us know how things are going. Thanks Bob.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

Totally agree with you Bob. For what it is worth I have long stopped reading any posts from that poster. Only went back to read this one after your comment. The sarcasm is totally out of line. I will continue to avoid reading his post as they have very little to offer in an open discussion format in my opinion.

Anyway back on the subject at hand. I faced this question just the other day. When I was looking at buying a 1860 Army Revolver. I went with the steel frame based on the logic steel is more durable than brass. As for your proposed test, it would be interesting to see the results of the amount of wear to expect from a brass frame receiver under a controled test documenting the number of firings, powder charge, and any changes over an extended amount of time. Sure the expectation would be that a steel frame receiver would perform better, but it would be great to know actual limits instead of someone's perceived limits.

Hi Aggie. You've posted seven times including the above important report that you don't read my posts unless you feel you have a reason to. You then go on to agree with me that steel framed revolvers are stronger and better than brass framed ones. This has long been known and proven. I'm happy that someone has learned from the experience and hard work of others.

Then you go on to encourage Bob in his attempt to prove what ever it is he's trying to prove. That is a sign of an open mind. That's a good thing. Anyhow, the next time you're not reading one of my posts, I hope you'll feel free to agree or disagree with me. Dan

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

...... i saw 2 that losened up the first the fool was putting some smokeless so it would shoot cleaner

I have to agree with Russ on the entire subject of brass vs. steel frames and even Bob308 has made some good points about the quality of the work on lower grade revolvers of all frame materials BUT... the above quote is unbelievable, or pure :bull: . I'd like to see that - from a distance.

if brass frames are so bad how come the henery and 66 winchester repros. are not falling apart?

You're talking apples and oranges here as far as design, but you'll notice that historically the brass framed Henry was a short-lived design and that the cartridges shot in the repops are not very intense power-wise. There are also no cheap knock offs sold at a cheaper price.

if and this is a big if the pistol is machined right and loaded right you should not have a problem.

True, it will keep you amused for a relatively short time when compared to a well made steel framed revolver, you will get what you pay for.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

I went to a civil war reenactment this weekend(got home 3 hours ago). A Confederate Lt. who professes to be the armourer of his unit stated "500-1000 rounds of live fire and blanks renders a brass revolver no good. Never buy a brass revolver. Look what it says in the Dixie gun book about them." Nothing I could say about personal experience would sway him. I need some actual facts if there is any out there to brace this feller with. Does anyone have any kind of firing record to dispute this guy? I have 3 brass frame revolvers 2 in .36 and 1 in .44 but I havn't yet put that many rounds through any of them. I have owned one since May, one for about a year and the other a couple of years.
Or (gulp) is what this feller says, true?

Poor Private, what the "Confederate Lieutenant" said was true in my experience. My first BP revolver back in 1972 was a brass framed Navy Colt. It cost me $35, about half what a Navy Arms steel framed '51 Colt was selling for at the time and I ran maybe 350 or so full power rounds through it before it became too loose to be safe. I have owned quality steel framed revolvers by Navy since, a '51 in .36 cal. a .44 Remington and still have a .36 Colt M1862 Police as well as a .36 cal. Dixie Whitney revolver kit that I assembled and all are still shooting fine after many more rounds through them than I could have gotten through the brass framed pistol.

Now, use what you want for reenacting, as long as your unit regulations and those of the reenactments that you attend allow the brass framed "reproduction", that's fine, they probably won't start to fail when using blanks. But at least use reproductions of revolvers that actually existed if anyone makes them anymore. The Griswold and Gunnison or the solid framed Spiller and Burr (both once made by Navy Arms and better than average for brass frames). Brass framed Colts didn't exist and really shouldn't be at reenactments where historical accuracy is important anyway. And keep in mind that Confederate troops and armorers had problems keeping the G&G and S&B revolvers working since the quality of the materials was low (relatively soft brass and casehardened iron instead of steel) and interchangeability of spare parts, when available, was limited to nill - they had to be hand fitted. Good Yankee, steel framed Colts, Remingtons and Whitneys (the later widely issued by the Commonwealth of Virginia to cavalry and officers at the beginning of the War) were available and were predominant in Confederate use. But to each his own, I guess they pass the 25 foot rule if you are nearsighted. Sorry, just the facts, no offense intended. As I said in my previous post, I fully agree with Russ and further, I think that offense was taken where none was intended.

 

[R.M.]

The brass framers serve a purpose. They are relatively inexpensive, and stand up to moderate use. For the guy that just wants to hang it on the wall, or plink with it occasionally, it certainly fits the bill. There's no doubt that a steel framed gun will be stronger. It just depends on what you want.