Loose Cylinder at Full Cock

[E-4forever]

My Pietta 1851 .44 navy I believe would be a hazard for me to fire right now. At full cock the cylinder shakes slightly counter-clockwise. This to me seems too dangerous to fire as it may not provide the bullet with a direct path to exit and could strike some of the soft brass frame, shredding the gun in the process.

I took corrective action be doing a complete inspection of the weapon, to include tearing it into everyone of it little pieces. After finding that none of the moving parts where damaged I put the entire pistol back together and found that the detentes in the cylinder where the bolt is suppose to catch where worn completely flat on one side which not only accounted for the wobbling but the wobbling in only one direction.

I then proceeded to order a new cylinder which will be here on Wed, do you folks believe that I have taken the proper corrective action for this problem?

 

[O.S.O.K.]

safety

hey, where are you from? Just curious as your syntax is a little strange... by comparisson...

You are smart to be cautious of a loose cylinder when locked and ready to fire. I would suggest getting a new cylinder.

 

[AntiqueCollector]

Yeah, a cylinder that's too loose is not worth the risk just to save money.

 

[Old Fuff]

...do you folks believe that I have taken the proper corrective action for this problem?

It would seem so. The only option would be to fit a wider cylinder bolt (the part that goes into the notch (detent) in the cylinder.

This condition may be aggravated if the hand (the part that pushes on the cylinder ratchet and causes the cylinder to rotate) is too long. As you cock the revolver this will cause the bolt to batter the notch on one, (the left) side, as you have described.

 

[sansone]

when the new cyl is installed, cock the hammer and slide a snug fitting dowel down the barrel to check alignment.

 

[4v50 Gary]

sanson1's test is call ranging. It's to check barrel & cylinder alignment. OK, it's loose at full cock. Drop the hammer (you can thumb it down). With the hammer down and the pressure kept on the trigger, is the cylinder still loose? If so, it's not safe.

 

[Old Fuff]

Sanson1's test will work with double action Colt's, but not others. Why. because in older Colt double action revolvers the hand is attached to the trigger, and as you continue to pull the trigger the cylinder will continue to rotate - if it can. Thus if you lowered the hammer while continuing to hold the trigger back, and then successfully "ranged" the barrel and chamber, and all was well you'd be O.K.

But Colt (and most other) single action revolvers - cap & ball or metallic cartridge alike - the hand is attached to the hammer, and "ranging" the bore and chamber when the hammer is down, while pulling the trigger will make no difference. The results will be the same regardless if the trigger's being pulled or not.

 

[E-4forever]

thanks, i'll let you know if it worked when the part comes in

 

[4v50 Gary]

Thanks Old Fuff for the correction.

 

[Old Fuff]

During the middle 19th century, Colt’s made some amazingly accurate revolvers. Since their machinery couldn’t told the kind of tolerances we can now, they would use something called, “selective fitting.” They would measure the bore diameter of the barrel, and then match that with a cylinder where the chambers were the exact correct size. Last but not least, they would include with the revolver an exact correct size bullet mold. This is part of the reason cylinders were serial numbered to the frame.

The result was a revolver that could shoot 5-shot / one-hole groups at 25 yards.

Even after the gun was over 100 years old.

 

[BigG]

The result was a revolver that could shoot 5-shot / one-hole groups at 25 yards.

You forgot to mention - "if I do my part"

 

[Old Fuff]

Big G:

By now the anti-gun crowd should have made it clear to you that handguns of any form or age are evil, and able to go off and shoot all by themselves. This is the reason that they should be restricted to police officers and members of the military services, because in their experienced and trained hands they don't dare do such things.

I admit that on just one occasion during my youth I did shoot a 25 yard / 5-shot / one hole group, with the 6th ball hitting about an inch out from the core group, and I did it one-handed before a reliable witness. The revolver was an 1851 Navy that was in excellent mechanical shape with a matching bore, of 1863 vintage. You may be shocked to learn that I was never able to repeat this performance - although using either original or reproduction revolvers I did duplicate it several times at 50 feet. That's a far cry from 25 yards though.

What these early revolvers could do is largely underestimated in an age when some shooters take 15 yards to be a long distance.

 

[sansone]

I like to shoot my 4"-6" revolvers at 25yds or more. slow, careful fire too. people who look at me funny always have young faces and plastic guns. not trying to start trouble

 

[BigG]

Ole Fuff -

I never tried a formal accuracy test, but my 1860 Uberti would put all six balls into a tight group at whatever mark I was shooting at. Of course, you know the sights are only suggestions.

Those old Colts (and the repros, apparently) were supernaturally accurate.

 

[Old Fuff]

Sights? What sights...?

Prior to the Italian reproductions the only cap & ball revolvers we had to shoot were the original ones, and prices were nowhere near what they are now.

Today, I think very few shoot original guns anymore.

The better reproductions are often accurate, but quality is quality, and if it isn't there don't expect the revolver to shoot well.