1862 pocket arrived today

Status
Not open for further replies.
I like Blackie, but I'm a bit dubious about the idea of the hammer pulling the cap back, or the cap sticking to the hammer due to "burrs". If the cap was so lightly stuck to the hammer that it then falls off it while cocking, then just flipping the gun up and back would throw it off. He does address hammer bounce back, which is good.

Neither my 1860 Colt or Remington cap jam, ever. I do flip the Colt up and back when cocking. The Remington I just cock like any modern revolver. I believe that on the smaller pocket guns the small hammers just don't have the mass to prevent hammer blow-back. On the bigger revolvers one has both a stronger mainspring and more weight in the hammer working in one's favor.

That is my theory, and I'm sticking to it. (until the Goon or Jack set me straight)
 
Alright guys, I'm slow here. That photo that Dave44 posted is very nice and the rake install looks like it was part of the original gun when purchased!! :thumbup: but what happens to the spent cap once it hits the rake? It still seems to me that there is a remote possibility of it getting lodged in the action? Please set me straight if i am in error and thanks, Z
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ugly Sauce
Well, the revolving cylinder typically kicks it to the right and clear of the revolver. Some folks deepen the "spent cap relief" in the right recoil shield (or make one if non existent). It generally works very well if you cycle the revolver with force (as if in competition) rather than "easy cycling". Then again, the late timing of most out of the box revolvers makes them not a good candidate for " fast handling " so to speak . . .
Another reason for a cap post is that it allows for a reduced main spring which makes for an easier and faster handling revolver. Reduced main spring also lessens damage to the hammer face and nipples.

Mike
 
Last edited:
Well, the revolving cylinder typically kicks it to the right and clear of the revolver. Some folks deepen the "spent cap relief" in the right recoil shield (or make one if non existent). It generally works very well if you cycle the revolver with force (as if in competition) rather than "easy cycling". Then again, the late timing of most out of the box revolvers makes them not a good candidate for " fast handling " so to speak . . .
Another reason for a cap post is that it allows for a reduced main spring which makes for an easier and faster handling revolver. Reduced main spring also lessens damage to the hammer face and nipples.

Mike
Mike, thank you sir. On the Walker, the main spring seems to have rather easy action on the hammer whereas the 1851 seemingly has a strong spring. That makes sense that deepening of the recoil shield in that it allows an easy path for the spent cap to escape? I sure need a lot of work on these guns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 45 Dragoon
Alright guys, I'm slow here. That photo that Dave44 posted is very nice and the rake install looks like it was part of the original gun when purchased!! :thumbup: but what happens to the spent cap once it hits the rake? It still seems to me that there is a remote possibility of it getting lodged in the action? Please set me straight if i am in error and thanks, Z

There is always the remote possibility, but what works for me is to flip the gun up and back, and that will throw the cap off if fails to go it's way, or if it does not kick to the right, or out the spent cap cut. I know some don't approve of that, or think it's un-necessary, but again, works for me. "insurance" if you will.

Of course if you do that on a public range, the range Police are going to tell you to stop. I don't blame them, I can imagine some guy flipping the pistol back right out of his hand, which would be quite the hazard for anyone in range, a cocked and loaded pistol flying through the air!!!! Around and around and around she goes, where she lands, nobody knows.
 
The spent cap should follow the cylinder as it rotates. However it can flip over the cap post if it fragments enough. This why an action shield is installed on the hammer, it stops the pieces from slipping into that slot between the hammer and the frame and causing any jams followed by lots of dirty words.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zulch
Or getting bit by the wolf as one is trying to clear the jam. Or being sprayed by the skunk because your first shot missed. !!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zulch
I just got one from Larry a few days ago. It is so beautiful, I'm really excited to shoot it. I just rubbed it down with Renaissance wax as I can't seem to keep my paws off it. It's my first black powder arm. I scored a couple hundred #11 caps but can't find powder or projectiles, or even a Lee mold. Some things are harder to get delivered in my neck of the woods, so I'll probably have to wait a little while.
I've got a nipple wrench on the way so I'll lube them up as others have advised here.

Not to sideline the discussion, but assuming I find powder eventually and have the option of choosing: are either of the black powder substitutes better than the other? Should I hold out for real black powder, if that's ever available?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zulch
Well, I had a very bad experience with 777 in a revolver. Only time it ever chain-fired in 40 years, blew the loading lever latch-stud off and the front sight. It was only about shot number eight first time I tried it. The pistol has never chain fired since, using only black powder.

Lots of guys love it, but I'd use Pyrodex before 777 if I really could not get real black powder. Hold out if you can. I believe black powder is still available, (last time I checked) but you may have to buy a minimum quantity of it, which is a good thing as the future is uncertain. If you have friends that shoot black, you can do a group-buy. But again, a year from now you may wish that you got a few hundred bucks worth.

Also, black powder is not hard to make. Just takes some research, and lots of information on doing it out there. I hope to begin doing that this summer.
 
Roger that Ugly Sauce on making black powder. I never have but know this guy who does and his simplified intuitive explanations/post's (on another site) made me rethink the possibilities. Lot of good info here and there to help the newbie out. Priceless information and freely given by veterans of BP. Can't ask for more than that. :thumbup::thumbup:
 
There are some knowledgeable black powder makers in this site, and some recent conversations. Ben Hoffman's you tube channel has a very simple way of making it, four part video series I believe. His method does not produce as hot a powder as Goex or Swiss, but it's clean burning and you just up or adjust your powder charges to compensate. The price difference between making it and buying it is HUGE. GIGANTIC! HUGHMONGUS!!!!
 
Been making some in small quantities, results have not been great. My old friend Steve has been doing it as well with much better success. His goes bang with much better authority than mine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zulch
From what I understand if you do the "puck" thing that increases energy quite a bit. To begin with I think I'll just go with Hoffman's method, and then start improving on that.

So how not-so-great? Excessive fouling, or just low energy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zulch
I built this 1849 Pocket Model from a Dixie Kit many years ago. I made the walnut grips for it as the kit ones did not look too good. It's a .36cal shooting a .376 round ball with 15g of FFF black powder mostly. I have shot Pyrodex and Tripple Seven with no problems as I always used the revolver wads and seals with the load. I have found a little bolt anti seize compound on the nipples keeps them easy to remove. This size is easy to just stick in my belt. IMG_1809.JPG
 
Status
Not open for further replies.