Colt action question
- Thread starter jhon
- Start date
- Status
Smokin_Gun
Member
Old Fluff, I'm makin' Caribean Jerk Teryaki Boneless skinless big ol' chicken breasts for dinner. Come on by if you like and we can talk about the hammer, timmin', trigger, hand thing.
Jus's wanna mention/ask about this thought. Say you got an 1860 call it a repro. And It's brand new and made for Joe public the hammer doesn't stop at the frame. There not much but a little play in it at the backstrap. No harm in that ok? Now 10 years down the road with wear and tear mostly at the triggers sear edge & not so much the hammer notches(case hardened), but also the hand where it has been rolled or burred and worn as may be the trigger at the hammer. A nd she's still shootin' where you aim her. Now after 10 year of shooting an 1860 Pietta and only having done some stoneing on the trigger and Hand. What would be differant if the hammer used the backstrap as a stop?
Yup my Pietta
I didn't mention that it has a brass shim as wide as the wedge is tall, and a beer can shim on the top of the arbor to slip the barrel over. It don't wobble .
http://s29.photobucket.com/albums/c277/Smokin_Gun/?action=view¤t=ColtPietta.jpg
SG
Jus's wanna mention/ask about this thought. Say you got an 1860 call it a repro. And It's brand new and made for Joe public the hammer doesn't stop at the frame. There not much but a little play in it at the backstrap. No harm in that ok? Now 10 years down the road with wear and tear mostly at the triggers sear edge & not so much the hammer notches(case hardened), but also the hand where it has been rolled or burred and worn as may be the trigger at the hammer. A nd she's still shootin' where you aim her. Now after 10 year of shooting an 1860 Pietta and only having done some stoneing on the trigger and Hand. What would be differant if the hammer used the backstrap as a stop?
Yup my Pietta
I didn't mention that it has a brass shim as wide as the wedge is tall, and a beer can shim on the top of the arbor to slip the barrel over. It don't wobble .
http://s29.photobucket.com/albums/c277/Smokin_Gun/?action=view¤t=ColtPietta.jpg
SG
try this link:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=3-pnAAAAEBAJ&pg=PP1&dq=117461&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=0_1
But I can't find "No. 82258, Dated September 18, 1868"
The question that comes to my mind is how much was a revolver changed from pure BP to cartridge? I know little about cartridge guns from that period, even conversions.
And remember, Sam Colt had nothing to do with this patent or any patent after 1862.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=3-pnAAAAEBAJ&pg=PP1&dq=117461&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=0_1
But I can't find "No. 82258, Dated September 18, 1868"
The question that comes to my mind is how much was a revolver changed from pure BP to cartridge? I know little about cartridge guns from that period, even conversions.
And remember, Sam Colt had nothing to do with this patent or any patent after 1862.
Smokin_Gun
Member
pohill, you'd find it here if any place and your in the area to spend the weekend at this Library.
Here ya go:
http://www.cslib.org/archives/Finding_Aids/RG103.html
Here ya go:
http://www.cslib.org/archives/Finding_Aids/RG103.html
Smokin_Gun
Member
Ain't no wrong side to Arizona. Was in Tuson a spell commin' here in '74. Worked a while in Pheonix, near Camel Back Mountain. One placeI'd go if I weren't here is Arizona.
Send them Thunder Heads this a way...send the rain too, we are literaly dyin' a thurst and Burnin' up.
SG
Send them Thunder Heads this a way...send the rain too, we are literaly dyin' a thurst and Burnin' up.
SG
Pohill:
The patents aren't under Colt's name. They were taken out by company engineers and then assigned to the company. Look for the names: Thuer for No. 82258 and C.B. Richards for No. 117461.
The revolvers under discussion here were cap & ball revolvers converted to use metalic cartridges. Nothing in the basic desigh, lockwork or method of manufacture changed except for mounting a firing pin on the hammer of the Richards design. The Thuer could be changed backwards to percussion by switching cylinders.
Have to go! Thunderbanger coming in!
The patents aren't under Colt's name. They were taken out by company engineers and then assigned to the company. Look for the names: Thuer for No. 82258 and C.B. Richards for No. 117461.
The revolvers under discussion here were cap & ball revolvers converted to use metalic cartridges. Nothing in the basic desigh, lockwork or method of manufacture changed except for mounting a firing pin on the hammer of the Richards design. The Thuer could be changed backwards to percussion by switching cylinders.
Have to go! Thunderbanger coming in!
SG, that's the CT State Library I went to last summer. Rich Hartford lives nearby. Great place. You walk in, no charge, no cell phones or cameras allowed, and then you're on your own to walk around and look. Patersons, Walkers, Dragoons, Gatling guns, prototypes...every gun Colt ever made, even modern ones.
Old Fuff, I have a copy of THE HISTORY OF THE COLT REVOLVER FROM 1836 TO 1940 by Haven & Belden. It has an entire section of patents. The only reference I could find concerning the actual backwards movement of the hammer was...(crap, I lost the page)...well, basically it said that the hammer moved sufficiently to allow the cylinder to rotate.
Old Fuff, I have a copy of THE HISTORY OF THE COLT REVOLVER FROM 1836 TO 1940 by Haven & Belden. It has an entire section of patents. The only reference I could find concerning the actual backwards movement of the hammer was...(crap, I lost the page)...well, basically it said that the hammer moved sufficiently to allow the cylinder to rotate.
Well that would be hard to disagree with...
We all know where the hammer starts from. The question would seem to be; where do it end up?
After Sam Colt passed away in 1862 the company continued on. Obviously they weren't going to stop right in the middle of the Civil War. As time went by a number of engineers or designers took out patents, which in turn were assigned to the Colt Company Some of these men were:
F. Alexander Thuer
C.B. Richards
William Mason
They worked on a number of projects, not the least being to find ways to make metallic cartridge revolvers that could use up thousands of left over parts from Civil War era cap & ball revolvers.
The reason I illustrated part of Thuer's No. 82258 patent was because it was based on a standard 1860 Army revolver and showed the relationship between the backstrap, hammer and trigger - while the hammer was cocked. While the subject revolver was designed to use metallic cartridges, the part I showed was identical to a cap & ball revolver of the kind under discussion. It served to show that when the hammer was cocked it was back against the backstrap. Nothing beyond that was necessary. I can reproduce the entire patent, but not with enough detail to mean anything.
Smokin_Gun
Member
Well Old Fluff all I can tell ya is what I have in front of me. I have that 1860 Pietta 10yrs old, and an 1873 Uberti. The Pietta 1860 has about 3/16" movement of the hammer till it touches the backstrap w/o any cyl movement. The Uberti 1873 has about 1/16" movement of the hammer and stops about .004" from touching the backstrap. Now my Colt Colt 1st Model Dragoon is a whole differant Patient I am sure, hammer has movement but is still 3/8" from the backstrap when it stops.
So I guess it would be safe to say that, Hammer stop to the backstrap is how it was done under the Patient of 1862 and you continued to do it that way with non-Colt repros. Is that correct?
With that in mind and what I told you about my Pietta 1860 Army(10yrs old)it's safe to say that The Italian, Spanish, German, Belgian, and the USDA Choice whatever it's called companies did not incorparate the 1862 Colt Patent into the Manufacturing of there Reproduction Colt 1860 or any other revolver. Ok I'm done... and I believe you about the Colts.
And I brought a present...I do wish I could get one here...Europe only
SG
So I guess it would be safe to say that, Hammer stop to the backstrap is how it was done under the Patient of 1862 and you continued to do it that way with non-Colt repros. Is that correct?
With that in mind and what I told you about my Pietta 1860 Army(10yrs old)it's safe to say that The Italian, Spanish, German, Belgian, and the USDA Choice whatever it's called companies did not incorparate the 1862 Colt Patent into the Manufacturing of there Reproduction Colt 1860 or any other revolver. Ok I'm done... and I believe you about the Colts.
And I brought a present...I do wish I could get one here...Europe only
SG
Depends. If they appeal to your 'prurient' interest, then it's pornographyNow I'm really worried. Does this mean that my pictures are X-rated on The High Road? Are we now to not show "stripped" revolvers???
. Otherwise, it's art.Does a 'stripped' revolver ring your gong?
Smokin Gun:
That picture sure is pretty. I think that Sam Colt would have been impressed.
No, so far as I've been able to discover the Italians and other Europeans didn't do it the way it was done at Colt's, and for good reason - they didn't know.
Back in the late 1950's a great gentleman named Val Forgett Sr. got together with an Italian gunmaker named Aldo Uberti with a proposal. The Centennial of the U.S. Civil War was coming up, and Val thought it would be great if part of the celebration included some reproductions of the principal handguns that were used were created. Although others would get into the act later, everything we have today in the way of replica cap & ball revolvers goes back to these two, and we owe them a lot for their foresight.
However Val didn’t know much about the specifics of how the original guns were made, and Uberti knew absolutely nothing – but he was willing to learn. The “learning” was done by using an original Colt 1851 Navy with some mileage on it as a model to be duplicated – which they did. It was a long road to get where we are today, and the revolvers are a far cry from the first ones they built. Over time a lot of improvement occurred.
But there are still problems related to bad timing, and excessive wear or breakage of some parts, which was the reason this thread got started when the first post said:
I had a pretty good idea about what was causing the problems, but I stirred up a hornet’s nest when I started to explain. Thereafter much of the thread was devoted to “back & forth” between myself and supporters vs. my critics while I simply tried to establish my credentials. Hopefully that’s over with.
Now I strongly suggest that no one start in trying to modify they’re revolvers at this point. While it would be best if the hammer’s rotation was stopped by the backstrap, IT IS NOT THE ONLY SOLUTION! Also it may not be the best one if you are working with an Italian reproduction.
It would be nice if I could explain everything in a single paragraph, but of course this is impossible. It is as important to understand WHY some things are done in a certain way, as it is to understand HOW these things are done.
I also have a bit of advise for my critics – especially Rifle: Just because what I have been saying is different then you may believe, what I propose does not mean that you are entirely wrong. This is not a, “my way or no way,” sort of thing. An expanded horizon never hurt anything, and knowledge is something that you can take or reject. But do wait until the entire story has been told.
I also have a personal problem, which is time. It takes time to make words, especially a lot of them. I have other responsibilities and matters to attend to that are pressing, so it will be necessary that some time goes by before all of this is resolved, at least from my end. But don’t worry – the world won’t come to an end.
That picture sure is pretty. I think that Sam Colt would have been impressed.
No, so far as I've been able to discover the Italians and other Europeans didn't do it the way it was done at Colt's, and for good reason - they didn't know.
Back in the late 1950's a great gentleman named Val Forgett Sr. got together with an Italian gunmaker named Aldo Uberti with a proposal. The Centennial of the U.S. Civil War was coming up, and Val thought it would be great if part of the celebration included some reproductions of the principal handguns that were used were created. Although others would get into the act later, everything we have today in the way of replica cap & ball revolvers goes back to these two, and we owe them a lot for their foresight.
However Val didn’t know much about the specifics of how the original guns were made, and Uberti knew absolutely nothing – but he was willing to learn. The “learning” was done by using an original Colt 1851 Navy with some mileage on it as a model to be duplicated – which they did. It was a long road to get where we are today, and the revolvers are a far cry from the first ones they built. Over time a lot of improvement occurred.
But there are still problems related to bad timing, and excessive wear or breakage of some parts, which was the reason this thread got started when the first post said:
I had a pretty good idea about what was causing the problems, but I stirred up a hornet’s nest when I started to explain. Thereafter much of the thread was devoted to “back & forth” between myself and supporters vs. my critics while I simply tried to establish my credentials. Hopefully that’s over with.
Now I strongly suggest that no one start in trying to modify they’re revolvers at this point. While it would be best if the hammer’s rotation was stopped by the backstrap, IT IS NOT THE ONLY SOLUTION! Also it may not be the best one if you are working with an Italian reproduction.
It would be nice if I could explain everything in a single paragraph, but of course this is impossible. It is as important to understand WHY some things are done in a certain way, as it is to understand HOW these things are done.
I also have a bit of advise for my critics – especially Rifle: Just because what I have been saying is different then you may believe, what I propose does not mean that you are entirely wrong. This is not a, “my way or no way,” sort of thing. An expanded horizon never hurt anything, and knowledge is something that you can take or reject. But do wait until the entire story has been told.
I also have a personal problem, which is time. It takes time to make words, especially a lot of them. I have other responsibilities and matters to attend to that are pressing, so it will be necessary that some time goes by before all of this is resolved, at least from my end. But don’t worry – the world won’t come to an end.
Smokin_Gun
Member
Happy 4th of July To all!!!
Old Fluff, well spoken.
Happy 4th of July ...be safe, and don't eat or drink too much
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c277/Smokin_Gun/FireShow.jpg
SG
Old Fluff, well spoken.
Happy 4th of July ...be safe, and don't eat or drink too much
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c277/Smokin_Gun/FireShow.jpg
SG
Duplicate Of Post #49
Apparently the image in Post No. 49 has gone into never-never land. Therefore I am trying to do it again, as the image is necessary to show what I am trying to explain. Hopefully this time it will work.
The attached illustration was extracted and enlarged from a Colt Patent, (No. 82258, Dated September 18, 1868) that covered the Thuer Cartridge Conversion used on former cap & ball revolvers, or on new revolvers made from Civil War surplus parts. The lockwork and fitting was identical to that done on 1860 Army percussion revolvers. Note that the hammer is rotated fully to the rear and resting against the backstrap, while the trigger is engaged in the full-cock notch.
Those that are familiar with Colt patent drawings know that his draftsman were meticulous in their attention to detail. However some might suggest that the hammer’s position was a fluke and didn’t necessarily represent the way revolvers were actually built.
But another patent (No. 117461, Dated July 25, 1871) Covering C.B. Richards’ later design for a metallic cartridge conversion shows the cocked hammer in exactly the same position, and if the first illustration was in error it seems unlikely it would have been repeated years later.
The respective patents are under the name of the inventor (Thuer and Richards), not Sam Colt.
Please excuse the size of the illustration, but I wanted to be sure the pertinent details were clear.
Viewers should feel free to make they’re own judgments concerning the “how and why” issues concerning how these Colt revolvers were built during the 19th Century.
Apparently the image in Post No. 49 has gone into never-never land. Therefore I am trying to do it again, as the image is necessary to show what I am trying to explain. Hopefully this time it will work.
The attached illustration was extracted and enlarged from a Colt Patent, (No. 82258, Dated September 18, 1868) that covered the Thuer Cartridge Conversion used on former cap & ball revolvers, or on new revolvers made from Civil War surplus parts. The lockwork and fitting was identical to that done on 1860 Army percussion revolvers. Note that the hammer is rotated fully to the rear and resting against the backstrap, while the trigger is engaged in the full-cock notch.
Those that are familiar with Colt patent drawings know that his draftsman were meticulous in their attention to detail. However some might suggest that the hammer’s position was a fluke and didn’t necessarily represent the way revolvers were actually built.
But another patent (No. 117461, Dated July 25, 1871) Covering C.B. Richards’ later design for a metallic cartridge conversion shows the cocked hammer in exactly the same position, and if the first illustration was in error it seems unlikely it would have been repeated years later.
The respective patents are under the name of the inventor (Thuer and Richards), not Sam Colt.
Please excuse the size of the illustration, but I wanted to be sure the pertinent details were clear.
Viewers should feel free to make they’re own judgments concerning the “how and why” issues concerning how these Colt revolvers were built during the 19th Century.
Attachments
I have examined very few original 1st. Model Dragoons (like two), but a larger number of 2nd. and 3rd. Models. I believe (with no evidence to prove it) that very soon after Colt go his Hartford factory up and running they started to use the backstrap as a hammer stop.
As for the Colt-Colt modern reproductions, these were made by Colt using raw unfinished parts they got from Uberti, and I have no reason to think that the assembler's at the factory had any knowledge of what had gone before.
I will go into more detail at another time, but when you cock that Dragoon do it slowly and carefully to avoid excessive strain on the hand and cylinder notches. Other then the mentioned, it is an exceptionally fine revolver.
So, like many things in this world, we can believe what we want, based on the way we analyse data (or lack of). Fortunately, in this case it's not really a big deal (it's not politics or religion), but it's still interesting.
I don't see why it would be used as a stop or how it would be used without causing damage. And if it's designed later than 1862, it's out of my area of true interest and limited knowledge.
I don't see why it would be used as a stop or how it would be used without causing damage. And if it's designed later than 1862, it's out of my area of true interest and limited knowledge.
The practice of using the backstrap to stop the hammer's rotation originated during the early 1850's and perhaps before. I say this based on observed examples. I used an 1868 patent drawing simply to show the practice because it was easily available and provided contempory evidence of what I was pointing out. A second patent that shows the same thing tends to confirm that the first one wasn't a fluke.
Smokin_Gun
Member
Thanks for the Patient Drawing Old Fluff...pretty KooL a schematic of a Colt from 1868.
Thanks for the acknowledgement of the 1st Model Dragoon's status qoute. And the info along with it.
Pohill, I dig the History and mechanics of the Colt as I do all Revs but some accurate info still lays below the surface. Colt 1st, 2nd,or 3rd Generation are all fun and interesting in many ways. Even though I am a Rem man I still do like Colts.
I think this one's up for grabs
Some on the other forum thought this was Wayne/Rifle but it ain't. I talked with him a day or two ago. Phone line crashed, killed Modem. So I think that's Modem pictured above:
,but Wayne is live and well.SG
I took my Paterson apart last night and there is no way that Colt designed the backstrap to stop the hammer on his first revolver. I had that observable fact in my hand, not just from a drawing. Opinions and assumptions are fine, but I like facts. ...
Paterson repro in hand, page opened to the original patent...
And you have original revolvers in your hand on which you base your observations, or are we still talking drawings?
What do you say about the Paterson?
What models are you referring to when you say "early 1850's"?
Maybe it's time for me to write another book...
And you have original revolvers in your hand on which you base your observations, or are we still talking drawings?
What do you say about the Paterson?
What models are you referring to when you say "early 1850's"?
Maybe it's time for me to write another book...
Well I have handled several original Paterson’s, but out of respect to the age of they're springs I didn't try cocking one. Also have handled Walkers but not cocked them either. I did go over them with an educated eyeball though.
I have cocked a number of Dragoons, one Second Model in particular, which I owned, and on occasion shot. I've lost count of the number of Pocket Models, '51 and '61 Navies, '60 Army and various others. The earliest revolvers that I noticed showing evidence of work on the backstrap dated from the early/middle 1850’s
The point of my question was that reproductions are not always exact replicas of the originals, and you can't always make a judgment or form a conclusion concerning the original guns by examining or working on replicas.
While actually handling the original revolvers is probably the best way to learn about them, contemporary drawings and documents are helpful too. I make use of any research material I can lay my hands on.
By all means, do go ahead and write a book. The best part about this is that the investment is so low. All you need now days are a computer with a word processor, a printer, and a ream of paper. You might not even need the printer and paper because some publishers will accept work submitted on a disk.
I have cocked a number of Dragoons, one Second Model in particular, which I owned, and on occasion shot. I've lost count of the number of Pocket Models, '51 and '61 Navies, '60 Army and various others. The earliest revolvers that I noticed showing evidence of work on the backstrap dated from the early/middle 1850’s
The point of my question was that reproductions are not always exact replicas of the originals, and you can't always make a judgment or form a conclusion concerning the original guns by examining or working on replicas.
While actually handling the original revolvers is probably the best way to learn about them, contemporary drawings and documents are helpful too. I make use of any research material I can lay my hands on.
By all means, do go ahead and write a book. The best part about this is that the investment is so low. All you need now days are a computer with a word processor, a printer, and a ream of paper. You might not even need the printer and paper because some publishers will accept work submitted on a disk.
- Status
