Hard lead vs soft

[ThomasT]

Lane's experience is pretty close to mine! I knew before I read it that he was shooting a Remington pattern. My Remie did the same thing!! I'm pretty sure most (if not all) of the frame bending happened while loading the REM. I'm sure firing it didn't help and may have been the "final" step as far as how much damage was done. This is the very example that I've been using when folks spout about the superior strength of the Remington . . . it isn't superior . . . in fact it's weaker than the Colt pattern open top design.

it isn't superior . . . in fact it's weaker than the Colt pattern open top design.

I am probably like most and thought/think the Remington design is stronger than the Colt. Can you please explain how the Colt is a stronger gun? I have a brass framed Remington (Richland Arms) that has never been shot and really want a steel framed gun and the Remington design was my choice because it looks so much stronger. Plus the sighting system has the Colt beat hands down.

 

[ThomasT]

If looking for dead soft lead see if you have any house movers in your area. You know, the guys that pick up old houses and move them to a new location. Those old houses had lead pipe for drain lines. And they had lots of it. Its where I got my first batch of lead from that started me casting bullets. I got around 200 pounds from just one house.

Go to the storage lot where these old houses are parked and they will most likely have pipe stored there they will sell you. Also check with tile men and remodelers. Some older showers had lead pans in them that get removed when the shower gets retiled. I bought aronnd 90 pounds from a kid at WM that had it in the back of his truck and was going to take it to the scrap yard. I offered $20 to save him the trip. He was glad to sell it for that. And its dead soft too.

 

[45 Dragoon]

At the risk of starting an onslaught . . .
Ratshooter, the Colt frame is wider, the arbor is larger (than the top strap), the keyed end of the arbor is held by a very robust support (barrel lug). Everything about the support for the cylinder is a physically bigger scale. The frame structure (arbor) runs through the cylinder instead of around the cylinder which means the periphery is more compact. The frame of the Remington is very narrow at the bottom, very sparse at the front (rammer). The top strap is thin, with a sight groove that makes it thiner and an opening at the top rear corner where the hammer nose enters. The periphery is larger but much thinner which yields the opposite of a thick, stout and compact frame.
The result of this has been spoken of twice in this thread about the Remington frame actually bending while loading/firing harder lead balls. I've never experienced this with a Colt open top pattern revolver. Quite the reverse, I've actually sheared a loading lever screw loading an open top.

Mike

 

[arcticap]

At the risk of starting an onslaught . . .
Ratshooter, the Colt frame is wider, the arbor is larger (than the top strap), the keyed end of the arbor is held by a very robust support (barrel lug). Everything about the support for the cylinder is a physically bigger scale. The frame structure (arbor) runs through the cylinder instead of around the cylinder which means the periphery is more compact. The frame of the Remington is very narrow at the bottom, very sparse at the front (rammer). The top strap is thin, with a sight groove that makes it thiner and an opening at the top rear corner where the hammer nose enters. The periphery is larger but much thinner which yields the opposite of a thick, stout and compact frame.
The result of this has been spoken of twice in this thread about the Remington frame actually bending while loading/firing harder lead balls. I've never experienced this with a Colt open top pattern revolver. Quite the reverse, I've actually sheared a loading lever screw loading an open top.

Mike

I read the one example about Lyman NMA frame stretching 1/8" and also about the crack in the forcing cone of the Rogers & Spencer cited by LaneP in post #9.
They may have both been Euroarms guns that were made with mild steel and even if the Lyman wasn't a Euroarms, whatever lead they were shooting that caused it may have able to damage, stretch or bend a Colt as well.
One example of an older production gun doesn't actually prove anything about the strength of the design.
I'll admit that one individual Remington could be weaker depending on the generation of the steel if there was any production flaw in the steel.
Palmetto made revolvers too which their quality isn't necessarily representative of all the guns produced by the other different makers.
And I can't say that a Colt arbor has never worked loose from its frame or became bent, maybe yes or maybe no, but that's probably not unheard of depending on the make and model.
We know that Uberti went to making forged Remington frames, while Pietta has maybe made their frame beefier since they first began production.
If each maker used better quality steel or forged steel then there may not be any weakness detected in either frame designs.
And we don't know if the one Remington that stretched had a flaw in the casting or if it was a soft materials issue.
My point is that one example doesn't necessarily support making the final conclusion that the Remington is a weaker design.
It may or may not be, however who can say with any certainty without scientific testing?
And even then each individual gun can be unique with its own production flaws and characteristics built into it.

 

[45 Dragoon]

Arcticap, I understand what you are saying but we aren't talking about one example. LaneP's experience plus mine would be 2 examples.
And of course, the Colt pattern open top (ad nauseam) concerning loose arbors is directly related to short arbors in basically every example made since the originals except for late model Pietta's. I seriously doubt anyone has ever stripped the arbor threads during the act of loading (which is when my Remington gave way), even a short arbor since that would have absolutely nothing to do with the loading procedure. One would shear the loading lever mounting screw before pulling an arbor (just like I have done).
So suffice it to say, 2 examples, 5 examples, a hundred examples may never be enough for some which is totally fine with me (I consider the Remington a fine weapon by the way). I just know that both designs have their deficiencies and I can just identify many more in the Remington pattern than the Colt pattern. Just the mear example of material (even if both are made with exactly the same steel) in the Colt pattern vs the thin framed Remington along with its larger perimeter frame (spreads the strength of what's there even thinner) compared to the shorter, stouter, thicker Colt design (which demands it to be a larger package because of the arbor) which could also be considered a detractor.
I feel like I keep saying the same thing over and over and over. Just compare what my post just above has in it with what I just pecked out here once again.
I think I'm done now so, I'm happy with whoever thinks top strap revolvers are stronger, fine. We'll just have to agree to disagree (even though science and engineering are on my side . . . come on!!! I can have a little fun too !!!!)

Mike

 

[Tommygunn]

Well, I have never had problems with either the Colt or Remmie designs..... .... and I guess I oughta be happy, 'cuz I like both designs!

 

[ThomasT]

To my brain the cylinder window on the Remington looks like the O-Frame on my Rockchucker press I have been using for 40 years now and after untold thousands of rounds I still haven't worn out. The Colt on the other hand is a two piece gun held together by a fitted wedge through a slot that from what I have read can be pounded out of shape and spec.

The Colt barrel assembly is held to the frame in one place. Thats the arbor with the wedge. The bottom of the barrel assembly just butts up to the frame and is held in place by two locating pins. The bottom of the frame and barrel assembly provide strength when the gun is fired and the ball pushes on the forceing cone and at least in theory forces the barrel assembly hard on to the bottom of the frame. The rest of the force of firing is carried by the arbor and the wedge in its slot.

I hope I am describing this in a manner that gets my point across and what I see in my imagination of the working of the Colt system. But I suppose in the end what really matters is both systems work and have worked for over 150 years. Even back when the guns were built of iron instead of steel. Of course a lot of those old original guns have been worn out and discarded too.

But to stay on the subject of the thread yes, always use dead soft pure lead in these style of BP guns. There is one poster over on the TFL forum that states he uses hardened balls in his BP rifles and gets much better penetration but a rifle loaded with a hard ball is a whole new game from a BP revolver.

 

[arcticap]

Arcticap, I understand what you are saying but we aren't talking about one example. LaneP's experience plus mine would be 2 examples.

Got to agree with LD, LaneP and TOK.
Lane's experience is pretty close to mine! I knew before I read it that he was shooting a Remington pattern. My Remie did the same thing!! I'm pretty sure most (if not all) of the frame bending happened while loading the REM. I'm sure firing it didn't help and may have been the "final" step as far as how much damage was done. This is the very example that I've been using when folks spout about the superior strength of the Remington . . . it isn't superior . . . in fact it's weaker than the Colt pattern open top design.
I'm not saying the REM isn't a good revolver, it is and I am a fan!! I wouldn't have spent so much time and aggravation figuring out how to make coil springs work in them!! The "fly in the ointment" is I only shoot cartridge conversions in my revolvers and have never had any problems with "frame bending" or forcing cone cracks or leading problems in my guns. I load with "store bought" 250 gr lead bullets.
So, mainly, soft lead balls/bullets makes loading easy. Loading with hard lead . . . will bend your Remy !!!

I'm sorry, I missed your description about how your Remington frame bent during loading.
I haven't found any concrete examples of steel Colt arbor threads going bad, however there's dozens of people who complained about their arbors being loose due to the arbor locking pin backing out and needing to be tapped in, restaked or replaced.
Some folks use Loctite or epoxy to help keep them tight.
There was some mention about stress cracks being possible in the wedge slot of the arbor, perhaps due to a poorly fitted wedge or the use of smokeless loads.
That may be the arbor's weakest spot.

1. https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/loose-arbor-on-51-navy-advice.191846/#post-2347825

2. https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/how-to-tighten-a-loose-arbor.528196/page-2

 

[ThomasT]

I think if I were to buy another one of these guns I would also buy a loading stand and save the loading lever for field use and reduce the strain on the gun.

 

[JPIMBO]

Range scrap in my .54 and .380

 

[Old Stumpy]

I think I'm done now so, I'm happy with whoever thinks top strap revolvers are stronger, fine. We'll just have to agree to disagree (even though science and engineering are on my side

Someone should have informed Colt and S&W about your superior engineering intellect.
It would have saved them from needlessly producing revolvers with top straps for well over a century.
Just imagine, those .44 magnums never needed top straps at all.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

You can get a pretty good idea of ingot hardness with your thumbnail.
If you can make a significant mark, its soft enough for BP. If not, it goes in the centerfire bucket.
That may be a little too 'farmer' for some, but it works for me on my scrap lead.

Howdy

I agree 100%. Use the old thumbnail test. In particular, take a look at how deep your thumbnail will dent or scratch the ingots that say dink vs those that say thud. You can get away with lead that is not completely pure, dead soft lead, when I used to cast bullets for my Black Powder cartridges, I added a little bit of tin to lead that I knew to be pure because pure lead shrinks more when it cools than lead that has a little bit of tin added.

The real problem you may encounter using lead that says dink is the balls may be hard enough that you will over stress the screw the loading lever pivots on when shoving them into a chamber. Remember, you want to shave off a thin ring of lead for a seal. If the balls are too hard, you may have to push the lever hard enough to bend or break the pivot screw. Don't ask how I know this.

 

[Old Stumpy]

I agree 100%. Use the old thumbnail test. In particular, take a look at how deep your thumbnail will dent or scratch the ingots that say dink vs those that say thud.

Another solid indication is whether the cast projectiles turn black or not. Pure lead will readily blacken, those with a trace of tin or antimony will slowly darken, those with any significant amount may not.

 

[45 Dragoon]

Old Stumpy, it would probably help your understanding if you'd read more than a couple of lines in a post . . .

If you'd ever taken even an elementary engineering coarse, you'd understand that a thin box isn't a as strong as a thicker but half the size box (both made out of the same material), but that's OK, we all enjoy the comedic distraction . . .

I've pointed out in many posts that the top strap design lends itself to a smaller package because it doesn't have the larger centrally located arbor for the cylinder to rotate on. Instead, it uses a smaller, non structural base pin which allows a smaller diameter cylinder. So, that plus the "cheaper to manufacture screw the barrel in the frame" production, is why it is still in use today.

But, even more to your point, Colt produced the top strap Root revolvers and revolving rifles . . . before Remington . . . and discontinued them . . . in favor of the open top design! So apparently, Colt sided with me when he could have gone either way or even offered both designs simultaneously. Hmmmmm . . . he must have known something I know. So in fact, Colt knew all along . . . they didn't need me to tell them.

Mike

 

[Armored farmer]

If the balls are too hard, you may have to push the lever hard enough to bend or break the pivot screw. Don't ask how I know this.

I know it too.
The broken screw is better than the bent lever fyi.
I've had both.....BEFORE I learned to thumbnail check my lead...

 

[midland man]

Old Stumpy, it would probably help your understanding if you'd read more than a couple of lines in a post . . .

If you'd ever taken even an elementary engineering coarse, you'd understand that a thin box isn't a as strong as a thicker but half the size box (both made out of the same material), but that's OK, we all enjoy the comedic distraction . . .

I've pointed out in many posts that the top strap design lends itself to a smaller package because it doesn't have the larger centrally located arbor for the cylinder to rotate on. Instead, it uses a smaller, non structural base pin which allows a smaller diameter cylinder. So, that plus the "cheaper to manufacture screw the barrel in the frame" production, is why it is still in use today.

But, even more to your point, Colt produced the top strap Root revolvers and revolving rifles . . . before Remington . . . and discontinued them . . . in favor of the open top design! So apparently, Colt sided with me when he could have gone either way or even offered both designs simultaneously. Hmmmmm . . . he must have known something I know. So in fact, Colt knew all along . . . they didn't need me to tell them.

Mike

way to go mike as I only own the colt revolvers as I love the open tops!!

 

[Old Stumpy]

Old Stumpy, it would probably help your understanding if you'd read more than a couple of lines in a post . . .

Obviously, I read the whole post.

It is nonsensical to suggest that the tiny surface area of the Pearson wedge cobbled together in 1836 for the Paterson is stronger than a solid revolver frame.

Arguing otherwise is just plain silly. Certainly, well over a century of solid frame top strap revolvers confirms this.
The wedge system is quaint and nostalgic. Nothing more.
I find it laughable that we are still debating this.