Excam 1858 Remington

[plinker]

I would like to get a spare cylinder for my Excam 1858 Remington. I understand that there are small but significant differences between the Pietta and Uberti cylinders. How can I tell which of these (if either) will fit my revolver?

 

[Smokin6Gun]

Measure the cylinder length. The Pietta cylinder is longer than the Uberti. I measure 1.975"-1.980" on a Uberti cylinder, and 2.018"-2.020" on a Pietta. Both will work in each Rev. but the Pietta needs to be lapped to fit the Uberti. The Uberti cylinder in a Pietta will have a greater gap between the cylinder and the forcing cone. ASP & EuroArms is a length between the two.
Hope that helps.
SG

 

[Rebel]

Do you know if the Pietta cylinder is longer than the EuroArms one? Seems like my Piettas held more powder than this EuroArms does.

 

[Smokin6Gun]

Error on the above posting: Pietta cylinder length is 2.180" - 2.200" my mistake in typing.


Yes the Pietta is longer than the Euroarms cylinder it measures 2.060" on my ASP(Euroarms)
But the Pietta could be easily lapped to the Euroarms dimension. Check for pricing at S&S Firearms first, unless you already have the Pietta cyninder to lap down. My Pietta holds 40gr of BP and the ASP holds 35gr of BP. The ASP/Euroarms may have thicker walls also...that's a guess.[url] http://www.ssfirearms.com[/url]/

 

[Rebel]

I can get 35 grs of Goex 3f, a Wonder Wad, and Just seat the ball, in my EuroArms '58. Guess there is no need for more powder since all i am doing with it is plinking and punching holes in paper. Thanks for the info though.

 

[Smokin6Gun]

Rebel I'd say that you're doin'' jus' fine. My standard .44 Rem load is .28gr of Goex fffg plenty of punchin' power and very accurate. Clangs a gong hard at 100 yards... and knocks down them big rams(metalic silouettes) at 100 yards.
I have shot 40gr in my Uberti(no pills jus' powder) ... a real blast..LoL!

 

[Rebel]

Yea, my normal load is 30 grs a wad and ball. But it shoots pretty good with the 35 gr load too. Take care.

 

[Lone Carabiner]

I got a Pietta Rem '58 Buffalo that I bought a SS cylinder for (these fine revolvers are made in stainless also), I had to lap it down (pane of glass with 150 grit covering) to 2.018 for .004" cylinder/barrell gap.
Figured the SS cylinder would have an edge in strength for the heavy loads I use - a .25 acp case full of 4f under 25 gr. 3f under wad under Lee mould slug. Don't have a chrono so no idea what velocity but is defivitely hotter than straight 3f load.
I once shot this load through a jack-pine that stopped a bud's .357 Smith. And killed a wild boar (not very big, 110 lbs. on the hoof) with a quartering away shot through the head from head/neck juncture exiting `forward out the jaw on opposite side. Never found the slug, but the hog drooped in it's tracks with brain pan busted.
I ain't screwed up enough nerve to try more 4f in my load - yet, but I think it will stand it.

 

[Smokin6Gun]

Your correct Lone Carabiner 2.018" on Pietta. I guess I just can't type it right... sorry folks.

 

[Smokin6Gun]

Pietta 2.018" cylinder length ... sorry folk for the remixup.

 

[Lone Carabiner]

If memory serves I bought SS spare cylnder and a set of spare nipples in SS from Bass Pro or Cabelas, knowing that SS has more strength than regular steel I figured it a good move as I wanted to shoot as hot a load as possible.
Had to spend awhile lapping to get a good fit, the pin id. is snug also, but I can coat with grease and it works fine. This is the 12" barrel 'Buffalo', shoots as good as any revolver I've ever shot. :thumbsup:

 

[OD#3]

Who told you stainless has more strength? All my reading suggests that the stainless used in firearms is neither harder than carbon steel nor does it have as high a tensile strength. Although, perhaps I was just thinking of the difference between stainless and the chrome-moly steel used in most modern cartridge firearms.
Come to think of it, I understand that most/all replica blackpowder revolvers are very soft due to their being made of mild steel. Even mild steel is stronger than the iron the originals were made of, and perhaps stainless is stronger still.

 

[Lone Carabiner]

"Who told you?" - "Chrome moly"? - "Replicas made of softer steel?" "Originals made of iron"?
Maybe you need to pick up a ASME book on metallurgy. And another on the history of gunmaking.
#1 - No one told me anything concerning metallurgy except a technical instructor in a machinist class, many years and hours behind a lathe and mill ago, more time than I like to think about. And books I read concerning the subject. Try this simple experiment. Get a peice of 1/4" round mild steel and another of mild SS.
Mount one after another in a vise and use a hacksaw withe the same TPI blade and amount of lube on each one and see what you get.
#2 "Chrome moly" Firearms made of that spec. steel are very difficult to blue. Some bolts are made of that superiour strength metal, then polished. Resists corrosion very well and stronger than mid-carbon steel used in barrels and receivers.
#3 "Replicas made of softer steel". The makers of the originals would wish that the steel used in the 'replicas' was available to them, and the cutting tools-taps&dies that were available 30 years ago also.
#4 "Originals made of Iron" Not a one of them. Steel was a scarce commodity and during the War of the Rebellion the South(may Almighty God Bless and Keep the Sacred Souls of Those Who Died For the Cause)was forced to use brass in the manufacture of small arms, frames in particular. It did well since it has considerable compressive strength.
I will say that with a max. powder charge my '58 Rem. Pietta Buffalo replica has near the punch of a .45 ACP which I have shot 1000's of rounds with. And my Ruger '58 replica with a max. charge is equal if not exceed. This is with a Lee mould cast slug. Both will last me the rest of my life.
:v

 

[Smokin6Gun]

Sounds like ya done good workin' that Cabelas Pietta SS cylinder to fit the Buffalo Rev...it's a Pietta correct?
Have you shot 40gr of Holy Black with it? It'll holdf just 40gr and a round ball with a good squeeze on the loading lever. I use a standard load of 28gr Goex fffg BP in my .44's Rem or Colt. But kick um up now and then to splat a water jug a little harder...LoL!

 

[Lone Carabiner]

Yeah, it is a Pietta. Well made except for the loading lever pivot pin which was weak steel, I drilled it one size over and used a piece of SS rod as a pin, no more problem.
I use a .25 acp caseful of 4f as a sort of 'starter' charge under a 7.63x39 mm. (SKS round)caseful of 3f under a card or wad, then a cast slug. It fills the chamber completely only about 15 thou. space from the slug tip to surface of the cylinder. I shot it through a jackpine that a .357 hollowpoint did not go through.
And took a smallish (100 lb.)wild hog with it, one shot in the back of the head went through and came out the jaw on yon side. And kept on going, I didn't find the slug.

 

[OD#3]

Didn't mean to ruffle your feathers over my stainless steel question. Its just that I spent days trying to get a definitive answer to a question about stainless' strength. I bought a Beretta 92 that had a blackened stainless slide and barrel, and I was curious as to how/if it was superior to the standard slides and barrels. I couldn't find one person who tell could me that it was any harder or tougher---quite the opposite. Other than its corrosion resistance, it appeared that the stainless steels used in most firearm applications is both slightly softer and of less tensile strength than its carbon steel counterparts. I know that many custom pistol-barrel makers use stainless, but I don't think it is because it is somehow stronger. Stainless is difficult to machine. And I would imagine that it wouldn't cut as easily with a hacksaw as carbon steel. I know it doesn't file as easily. The stuff is sort of "sticky"; clogs the teeth something awful. But I don't think that means it is stronger than carbon steel.

Your mention of your stainless steel cap and ball revolver's being of superior strength just surprised me at first. But then I considered that it was probably stronger than the soft steel used in most replicas--and they ARE soft. Of course, the original manufacturers would have been jealous of the steels used in the replicas today, but today's replicas are still quite soft when compared to cartridge-firing revolvers today.

And the South didn't have a steel shortage; they had an IRON shortage. That is why they used brass in most of their revolver frames. Colt used case-hardened IRON for frames. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that most firearm makers in those days used iron instead of steel.

As to chrome-moly steel, many, many firearm manufactures use that today and it blues just fine. 8620 is an example. "Nickel steel" is the one that is difficult to blue. I understand that the first Winchester rifles rated for smokeless used some nickel steel, and restoring them is more difficult because they don't blue easily with modern methods.

 

[Lone Carabiner]

Don't have time to go into a metallurgical discussion but just a few points to consider,
1- cast iron will not 'color case harden' it's a process for low-carbon steel (1010, 1020 and so in the 1000 series)after machining and polishing.
2- some frames may have been made of cast iron but I'm not aware of any brand that used it. Seems I've heard that some single and double shotguns had cast iron recievers in the past(has high compressive srength) but only Ruger uses castings (steel and stainless) rather than forgings today. Cast iron can't be forged, with the exception of malleable iron.
3- I have a Pietta '58 Rem replica that I will bet you uses the same grade of steel (most likely 1020)in the frame that 2 European made semi-autos I own use (a third I have is purported to be the best .380acp ever made and has an aluminum alloy frame).
4- no barrels were made of cast iron since around 1650 or so, the advent of mass produced steel. The Henry rifle first used brass frames before they went to steel, one reason being that brass is much easier to machine.
5-gun makers use free machining steel (or SS 300 series) in manufacturing and 4140 and 4340 (chrome-moly) steel is generally supplied hardened. Also it is corrosion resistant and takes a good polish but is a difficult to blue, particularly rust-blue due to the chrome and nickel content. 8620 chrome-moly is supplied as rolled and is hardenable by carburising, lower chrome and nickel content and may hot blue. I would not be sure in saying that it has much advantage over 1020- 1045 grade steel(can be hardened & heat treated & hot blues well) since it's more difficult to machine.
6- I installed a SS cylinder on a blue '58 Rem Pietta, I'm certain it has a higher bursting (tensile) strength than the original. SS is 'hot short' which means it is very difficult to bend when heated, it will crack out and some grades of the 300 series are known for tough machinability and 'galling'( got a bad reputation in semi-autos for this) but it still has higher tensile strength within the same considerations of use per dimensional similarity.
7- concerning hardness consider 440 series SS cutlery steel, generally regarded as one of the best, when it comes to pure edge retaining ability. Has some drawbacks however.
Thats all I got time for now, good shooting :thumbsup:

 

[OD#3]

So glad you replied. I don't have a background in metalwork of any kind save a little minor gunsmithing, so I have to read a lot. Most books about the subject confuse more than they help. If one wants to know a useful answer to the question "is a stainless steel firearm tougher than a carbon steel one?" he'll get a lot of "it depends" answers.

One quick observation though. When I mentioned iron's use in firearms, I wasn't speaking of cast iron. I know that cast iron is much too brittle. But I do know that steel was very hard to come by in any appreciable quantity before the mid 19th century--certainly not in enough quantity for the majority of a firearm to be made of it. Wrought iron was used extensively. It will caseharden, which was really the only way to harden it. By packing it in charcoal, bone, leather, etc. and heating it, enough carbon was diffused into the surface to allow the skin to be hardened. I know that springs and frizzens and such had to be made of steel, but the old rifle barrels were usually made by forge welding iron strips around a mandrel. As to revolvers....

Well I guess I really don't know for sure. I've "googled" every combination I could think of to no avail. But I am usually pretty good at remembering little details I've read before, and I remember reading about steel's widespread usage's not occuring until after the civil war. I have an English book on revolvers from 1818-1865 that deals mostly with Dean, Adams, Webley, etc. It mentioned that Adams used wrought iron for everything but the springs in preference to steel. But I just read that Colt used cast "blister steel" to forge its barrels from. This process produced steel that was often less than homogenous in its distribution of carbon, but it WAS considered steel.

So I guess I have to stand corrected on my earlier assertion that all the old revolvers were made of iron. And I haven't been able to find a thing of how Remingtons were made.

 

[Smokin6Gun]

Then where'd the term shootin' Iron come from? :hmm:

 

[Lone Carabiner]

Good question- but I bet U ain't shootin' anything made of it :bull: