1862 Pocket Navy -- hammer not flat?

[45 Dragoon]

mh2000, when you're pulling on a hammer, it's not just the mainspring giving resistance. You have to add in hand, trigger and bolt spring tension. The gun with the lightest main can still have the heaviest hammer draw. That's why you check hammer draw weight AFTER your done with the action.
(Just trying to help you with your "scientific" tests!! Lol!!)

I understand keeping a Colt (orig.) in stock configuration, but these guns we enjoy are built with parts pulled out of a parts bin, many of which are vendor supplied, assembled and function tested. Not a lot of "love" (the "special " ingredient!). Though a very heavy mainspring may help keep a cap on the nipple, a post is a limiting device that keeps them out of the action. Not only does it pull caps out that are blown into the slot, it also stops them from going any further than the post. Also, a very heavy main masks a lot of things that will go undetected and later replaced rather than fixed.

An 8lb.hammer x 6 shots = 48 lbs. moved.
A 4lb. hammer x 6 shots = 24 lbs. moved. (This thumb will still smile after a hundred rounds or so!!)

Mike

 

[mh2000]

Yeah, the gun would barely fire when i got it, the burrs and tight fitting parts! The action is all pretty smooth now... given all the "love" i've had to put into the gun already!

 

[44 Dave]

Not directed at you Jim, I've heard of (or seen on other forums) the "Colt wave" or quick flick of the wrist to throw spent caps away from the revolver. I know that works for the casual shooter but in a fast shooting game (CASS comes to mind lol) it's not conducive to quick times or maintaining a sight line . . . not to mention, it's a motion that a cartridge shooter doesn't have to do so why should the cap gun shooter?! You definitely won't do any "slip thumbing" if you have to rotate the gun to the side. In my situation and thought process, I have to think the user is going (and expecting) to shoot the revolver "normally" without any "special" handling. Some folks don't mind putting up with the "problems" or occasional problems and that's perfectly fine but I find it a huge distraction.

The cap post is really easy to install. All you need is a drill motor, a #6 - 32 tap and appropriate drill bit (H.Depot or Lowe's sells them as a set) , a 6 - 32 S.S. machine screw (1-1/2" to 3" ( plenty to work with)) and some red locktite.

With the grips removed, mount the gun in a vice ( sorry, you need a vice! ). Mark and drill through the floor of the hammer slot ( or top of the recoil ring) just forward of the ratchet cutout. Thread the hole. Cut the head of the screw off and with the screw mounted in the drill motor, remove the threads of the screw down to the shaft for about 3/4 of an inch using a file, belt sander, grinder or dremel (oh yeah, one of these items will be needed! ). Cut the threadless portion of the screw off along with about 3 remaining threads, which is what you'll use to mount the post with. Using some red locktite, install the post in the proper place but don't allow it to protrude into the ratchet cutout. Let the locktite set and file the height of the post even with the nipple when the cyl is installed. Now file the sides of the post to fit in the existing notch in the hammer face. Don't enlarge the safety notch!!
Lastly, well, I clearance the hammer for the post with a cutoff wheel on a dremel. So, if you have a Dremel, great!! Otherwise, this is a really good reason to get yourself a Dremel!! It'll make all the other stuff you did with a file a whole lot easier!! .
At least now you know how you can make and install a cap post. It's a lot easier than it looks typed out!!

Mike

mh2000, when you're pulling on a hammer, it's not just the mainspring giving resistance. You have to add in hand, trigger and bolt spring tension. The gun with the lightest main can still have the heaviest hammer draw. That's why you check hammer draw weight AFTER your done with the action.
(Just trying to help you with your "scientific" tests!! Lol!!)

I understand keeping a Colt (orig.) in stock configuration, but these guns we enjoy are built with parts pulled out of a parts bin, many of which are vendor supplied, assembled and function tested. Not a lot of "love" (the "special " ingredient!). Though a very heavy mainspring may help keep a cap on the nipple, a post is a limiting device that keeps them out of the action. Not only does it pull caps out that are blown into the slot, it also stops them from going any further than the post. Also, a very heavy main masks a lot of things that will go undetected and later replaced rather than fixed.

An 8lb.hammer x 6 shots = 48 lbs. moved.
A 4lb. hammer x 6 shots = 24 lbs. moved. (This thumb will still smile after a hundred rounds or so!!)

Mike

Mine got a post before it ever had a cap fired on it, Thanks for your help to us Mike!

 

[45 Dragoon]

Dave!! You are more than welcome!! Thank you for all your help over the years (here and other places!)!!

Mike

 

[mh2000]

So using the "advanced search" feature to find further reading on my problem, I ran into a bunch of people noting that their pocket Ubertis had a very soft hammer pull for the first 1/4" and then it got stiffer. I checked and mine does too! My Pietta 1851 doesn't! The hammer pull/resistance is very smooth in its transition from first movement to being fully cocked. I was puzzling over this and pulled the grips off both guns to see what was going on. The spring in the pocket has hump in the spring and at the beginning of a cock, the follower is almost flat (tangent to) the spring and then it starts pushing the spring down bending it around the hump! The 1851 is closer to the frame and starts engaging the whole length of the spring from the get go! I'm thinking that shortening the pocket spring and bending to be closer to the 1851 may be a solution to stiffening up that first 1/4" of deflection which is probably when the caps blow-back under the hammer. Anyone else try to tune their spring like this? Thoughts?

 

[TheOutlawKid]

Tresos are real good, so are track of the wolf stainless steel...but my favorite and go to nipples for performance are slixshot nipples. Id go that route if i were u

 

[arcticap]

So using the "advanced search" feature to find further reading on my problem, I ran into a bunch of people noting that their pocket Ubertis had a very soft hammer pull for the first 1/4" and then it got stiffer. I checked and mine does too! My Pietta 1851 doesn't! The hammer pull/resistance is very smooth in its transition from first movement to being fully cocked. I was puzzling over this and pulled the grips off both guns to see what was going on. The spring in the pocket has hump in the spring and at the beginning of a cock, the follower is almost flat (tangent to) the spring and then it starts pushing the spring down bending it around the hump! The 1851 is closer to the frame and starts engaging the whole length of the spring from the get go! I'm thinking that shortening the pocket spring and bending to be closer to the 1851 may be a solution to stiffening up that first 1/4" of deflection which is probably when the caps blow-back under the hammer. Anyone else try to tune their spring like this? Thoughts?

View attachment 813253 View attachment 813254

Only because you asked:

rcflint posted: "To strengthen a spring, Pettifogger took another spring and cut it short, then put it under the mainspring in the Colt. By adjusting the length of the "helper" spring, he could adjust the tension of the hammer. Of course, the helper spring could only be adjusted by shortening it, so start longer than you think you need.

Pietta's Remingtons have always had too strong a spring, they are thick, and the angle of the slot in the frame is such that it pre-loads the spring too much." [See Post #9]--->>> https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/main-springs-on-colts-and-remi-repos.461228/

Here's some threads with photos of examples that may reflect what he's describing:

1.[See Post #13]--->>> https://thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/another-51-navy-question.350268/#post-4328923


2.[See Post #17]--->>> https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/caps.420549/

Some folks only use a leather wedge:[See Post #13]--->>> https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/army-1860-purchase.389220/

 

[mh2000]

Thanks for those, arcticap.

I was asking about modifying the geometry of the existing spring in the 1862 pocket (not adding anything) so it acted more like the spring in my 1851. That's something different I think.

Worst comes to worst, i ruin my existing spring, buy a new one and use the old one as the material for a helper (like others have).

 

[arcticap]

From what I've read, there's 3 factors that affect the strength of a spring, the width, the thickness and the amount that it bends.

People can also try to harden and temper a spring of their own making for which there's an inexpensive book and spring making material that are both sold by Dixie Gun Works or Track of the Wolf.
[Or reharden & retemper an old/weak spring as the case may be]
The book is "Simplified V Springs" by Kit Ravenshear for $5.99.

I'm really not sure what shortening the spring would accomplish.
But there's actual formulas that apply to widening and/or making a thicker spring and how it affects strength.
Widening a spring is reportedly a 1 to 1 ratio, increasing width by 10% increases its strength by 10%.
Making a spring thicker involves a cubed formula which means that thickening it can increase the strength at a much more rapid rate than by simply widening it.

It's also recommended to lubricate where the spring contacts the hammer and eliminate any friction that the hammer may encounter coming into contact with the frame, remove burrs from parts etc...

 

[45 Dragoon]

arcticap is right! Folks used to put leather washers between the mainspring and the frame. The problem is, they dry out, crack, degrade and ultimately need constant replacement. The reason I posted against using leather is exactly for that reason. Steel washers do the same thing but they don't dry out, crack and degrade. My mentor taught me the same thing.

So, since this is a public forum, do as you like. Some try to educate and give personal experience, others would rather repeat history. Take your pick.

Mike

 

[mh2000]

So here's the result after filing 3mm off the end of the spring and straightening it. I have taken out the dramatic bend in the spring and there is an increase in initial stiffness (that first 1/4" of hammer travel) and the overall transitional force is smoother than before, so im I happy with those outcomes. Whether the increase in initial force is enough to solve to blow-back cap-jams, i don't know. Also, if I were to do it again, I'd probably start taking off 2-2.5mm since as bent here, the spring is barely long enough, but it's a delicate balance! Too long and the spring binds against the hammer, too short and it could pop off. All in all, my gun handles better after this little mod. (And I'd be super stoked if this helps reduce cap jams too!)

 

[Stormson]

The answer is pretty simple really...

You set up an entire factory in your bedroom. You take each and every piece of the raw metals sent to you by Uberti (which they gleefully charged you $100-$200 more then Pietta did) and then you simply manufacture the firearm that the factory was too incompetent to manufacture!

At wich point all the fanboys come rushing in to tell you what a WONDERFUL weapon you received from Uberti, and thank the black powder gods that they where able to do such an AWESOME job for you...

See? SIMPLE!

Yeah.. and IM the troll.. Not UBERTI, theyre the greatest thing since sliced bread... ME, Im the crazy one LOL...

Shaking my head... Good luck bro.. I hope ya get ot worked, I really do... But damn if Id do their job for them. Ill just do without until Pietta expands the product line...

 

[mh2000]

Haha! It doesn't look like I have to re-bore the barrel! <whew!>

Seriously, I would have liked to get a Wells Fargo and 1862 Police, but with all the problems I'm having with this gun and all the examples of bad manufacturing in it, I won't buy another Uberti. Too bad really, since they're the only one making these pocket models. I'll be happy when i finally get this one working. It is a sweet little gun (thanks Colt!).

 

[LonesomePigeon]

I've seen a picture of an original 1848 or 1849 Pocket and it had the same slanted angle to the hammer face that the Uberti's have. I would guess Mike is right that the slanted face was to make the caps go off better and Uberti just copied the original design.

I have a Uberti Pocket Police .36 which has a slanted hammer face. It has been worked on by Mike and it has a cap post. The cap post works very well. It still occasionally get a flayed out cap wedged between the recoil shield and the back of the cylinder that needs to be helped by manually rotating the cylinder but it does not get any caps blowing down the hammer channel.

 

[expat_alaska]

But damn if I'd do their job for them. I'll just do without until Pietta expands the product line...

Good luck with Pietta expanding their product line, unless you are looking for such things as a non-historically correct interpretation of a Dance .44 or the monstrosity like the Pepperbox.

I have 7 various Pietta 1851 Navy .36 type pistols which all function very well, but I am about to take the Uberti plunge with a Whitneyville Dragoon. I am off topic so I will stop here.

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1...evolver-44-caliber-75-barrel-steel-frame-blue

Jim

 

[mh2000]

Update! Had a chance to go out shooting my 1862 Pocket after modding the main spring and even though cocking feels better, the blow-by cap jams weren't significantly reduced. Maybe a little, but nothing huge.

On the other hand, my second son went shooting it for the first time and loved the whole BP experience a lot more than shooting my conceal/carry .380 ACP... especially the huge flames coming out of the gun in all directions!

 

[robhof]

Update! Had a chance to go out shooting my 1862 Pocket after modding the main spring and even though cocking feels better, the blow-by cap jams weren't significantly reduced. Maybe a little, but nothing huge.

On the other hand, my second son went shooting it for the first time and loved the whole BP experience a lot more than shooting my conceal/carry .380 ACP... especially the huge flames coming out of the gun in all directions!

Kids and B/P are a great fit, my brother and I got into it as young teens with a 22 cal, B/P cannon, followed quickly by a kit pistol and a .75 cal. barrel from DGW in 1966 and the rest is history, the boom and smoke as well as less felt recoil makes them ideal for young ones to start in shooting. We built the carriage as a Scout project and actually fired it at camping trips, imagine doing that today!!!

 

[mh2000]

That is so awesome! My dad was strictly anti-guns and anti-anything that went boom! (He meant well.)

So now, getting into BP, is kind of me rediscovering something that I was always passionate about as a kid. Took out books from the library and we'd go to all the history museums and my dad would have to drag me out of the weapons rooms.

My kids love that we do this together!

Regarding the recoil etc., my boys really like the more relaxing nature of the BP guns. One said it seemed a lot more refined. I totally agree!

 

[robhof]

That is so awesome! My dad was strictly anti-guns and anti-anything that went boom! (He meant well.)

So now, getting into BP, is kind of me rediscovering something that I was always passionate about as a kid. Took out books from the library and we'd go to all the history museums and my dad would have to drag me out of the weapons rooms.

My kids love that we do this together!

Regarding the recoil etc., my boys really like the more relaxing nature of the BP guns. One said it seemed a lot more refined. I totally agree!

My son hates the cleaning part, but also loves the relaxed boom, as compared to the sharp crack of magnum revolvers and rifles.