Is this normal

[Freetrapper]

I bought a new Pietta1858 new model army stainless .44 last week. After cleaning the packing grease I loaded the cylinder and fired six shots to try it. When cleaning it I noticed this mark on the hammer.

 

[Gun Tramp]

Does the hammer contact the nipple without a cap in place? It should not. This post explains how to check:
https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/threads/how-to-dry-fire-a-revolver.106890/#post-1430620

 

[Kansas Jake]

I went and grabbed two of my C&B revolvers that I had handy and looked at the hammers. Both showed similar patterns from where the hammer hits the cap. One was a 1851 Pietta Navy with a brass frame. It showed some pattern on one side of the grove in the hammer. I assume this gun has not been shot much but I am the second owner. The other is a Navy Arms 1858 kit gun I built 35 years ago and it has been shot a lot. It is also marked Pietta. I showed a more pronounced pattern than your gun. It has not been dry fired unless by accident. Both guns function fine and the pattern on the hammer does not appear to be the smaller size of a nipple, but the size of the cap. I hope this helps.

 

[Freetrapper]

Thanks for the tips. I have to run some errands and when I get back home I'll test it to see if it's hitting the nipples. I wish I had looked at the hammer closer the first time I cleaned it.

 

[rodwha]

Mine is a blued version from 2013 and shot a lot. It looks like that as well.

 

[Bad Karma]

All of mine show a mark similar to this one. None of my hammers make contact with the cones at all. Of course they contact the cap and squish (tech term here) it between the cone and hammer face so there’s bound to be some evidence of this. As long as the cones and the hammer surfaces are unchanged by this I think all is good. A bit of clay and a micrometer will tell you what’s up.

 

[Freetrapper]

I think it's OK. The putty squeezed so thin on the top edge of the nipple that I can see the nipple through it but there is still a layer of putty covering it.

 

[Gun Tramp]

Great photo and great detective work. Thank you for the illustration!

 

[BeoBill]

Looks like you're good to go. I hope you can get that putty mess cleaned out.

 

[William P Sepessy]

I have several Euroarms Rogers & Spencers that have a similar hammer configuration as your Remington. All have been lightly used and all show the same type of markings on the hammer face. As mentioned, there is bound to be some evidence of the hammer striking the caps upon ignition. Unless you have an unusual situation, the indent will reach a certain depth and go no further.

 

[TFoley]

AFAIK, the only replication or near-replication made where the hammer does not actually make contact with the nipples is the Ruger Old Army. The cap makes up the slight difference between the face of the hammer and the zone of impact of the cap. This is why the ROA is the ONLY BP revolver that can be safely dry-fired without fear of damaging either the nipples or the hammer.

 

[Zonie]

Back before most of them were stolen, I owned a lot of cap & ball revolvers. Colt, Remington, Whitney, Rogers & Spencer plus reproductions of several Confederate pistols.

They are all Italian made reproductions and not one of them had a hammer that actually hit the uncapped nipple when they were fired.
That made all of them safe to dry fire without causing harm to either the nipple or the hammer.
(Yes, I personally checked them all.)

 

[Gun Tramp]

I had three in a row third generation pieces of junk in which every single nipple was contacted by the hammer. That's why I feel Zonie's 2017 post on the subject is so valuable.

 

[M. De Land]

I have noticed on my Rem 58 that the hammer shoulders over time with some dry firing, have battered their frame seats which is what keeps the hammer nose from impacting the cones. As a consequence I developed a thin neoprene pad I insert in the hammer frame mortise where it curves around behind the base pin rear. Now it can be dry fired with perfect safety.