Revolver shooting low, file?

[brewer12345]

I picked up a pietta 36 belt revolver in 1858 pattern. I found an accurate load, but it is 6 inches low and 3 to the left. I can drift the front sight for windage,but elevation adjustment seems to require filing the front sight. Any tips on doing so? Don't want to screw up a nice revolver.

 

[Lyle]

In the past we called it ‘Kentucky Windage’. My ‘51 navy shoots high. I just adjust my aim point.

 

[gtrgy888]

I picked up a pietta 36 belt revolver in 1858 pattern. I found an accurate load, but it is 6 inches low and 3 to the left. I can drift the front sight for windage,but elevation adjustment seems to require filing the front sight. Any tips on doing so? Don't want to screw up a nice revolver.

One file stroke at a time. It’s easier to remove metal than to add it back. If you can tolerate a wait, take one file stroke every time you clean the gun, and stop when the group is where you want it. Do NOT change projectiles, powder type, or powder charge as you do this. Use your preferred loading for serious use (carry, hunting). Also, check the accuracy of each chamber by putting up 6 targets, benchresting, shooting each one with a specific chamber 3 times, then checking the group size on each. Your least accurate group becomes your empty chamber if you load 5.

 

[brewer12345]

I was playing around with different charges of black mz and round ball with a lubed wad. 20 grains produced about an inch and a half group at 15 yards, which is about what I can do with a primitive sighted revolver. It was just way off. Guess I will go to work will the file. I am nearing the end of my summer shooting season, so not sure I will get to this before hunting season takes over.

 

[Hugger-4641]

If it's already shooting high, filing down the front sight is only going to make it shoot higher.

 

[windini]

If it's already shooting high, filing down the front sight is only going to make it shoot higher.

Yep - this is right.

If you file, i.e. shorten the front sight, you will have to raise the muzzle to make the now-lower top of the front sight line up with the top of the rear sight. Raising the muzzle = raising POI.

What yardage are you shooting at? if at 10 or 15 yards, try the same load farther out and see if the revolver is more just sorta zeroed at 20 or 25 yards.

You might could file the rear notch deeper; that way, you'd have to raise the frame to bring it up to the front sight - same effect as lowering the muzzle.

EDIT: you said 1858 pattern... my bad. Tough to file that rear trench deeper.

 

[Captain*kirk]

Ditto what the guys said about sight height. You need to go taller.
Bear in mind the original Army contracts called for an Army caliber (.44) gun that would shoot POA at 75 yards...not the 25 we are generally used to shooting at. You can drift the windage if your sight is dovetailed, but generally most folks just use "Kentucky Elevation" and hold low.

 

[brewer12345]

I adjusted the title. It is shooting low, not high.

 

[Hugger-4641]

Ok, that makes it a little easier to deal with without changing the gun, you just need to train yourself to bring the front sight a little higher in the notch.
I had this same problem with my Chiaippa revolver, just had to practice enough to train my brain.

 

[44 Dave]

On one of my NMAs I soldered a bit of 1/6' brass rod ,on the front sight fared it in and blackened it with Magic marker. You have to look very close to tell.

 

[Hugger-4641]

That gives me a thought. I put gloss white fingernail polish on all of my shotgun beads and some of my pistol sights like my CZ52. If I were to put a little on the bottom 2/3 of that Chiappa front sight, I could probably focus easier on the white part and ignore the upper black portion. I'll definitely try this.

 

[TheDr]

Aim your revolver and fire.
Next shot,tilt the front end of it lower and look at your front sight.
Keep doing this until it's hitting where u want it.
Take a pencil and aim an empty gun,setting the sight where it was when u liked it,then guide a friend,while your aiming and have them mark the front blade where you tell them,while looking down the sight.
Then file down to the line.
Eleminates tons of guesswork

 

[.38 Special]

It is fortunate to find one of these which hits low. Most are high, which is a tougher fix.

I like a 6" or 8" fine cut file for the job. If you are extra concerned about overdoing it, sandpaper on a block will put you further away from a mistake. Some people also will wrap tape around the barrel to help protect against a slip.

And then, as others have pointed out, cut a little and shoot a lot!

 

[TheDr]

A good fine diamond knife sharpener works great.
Removes just a little at a time.

 

[4v50 Gary]

Don't file unless you have filing skills. It could be askew. Place emery paper on a sheet of glass (or if you have a stone cooking surface and the wife isn't around). Place the gun upside down and push the revolver sight on it.

 

[drobs]

I picked up a pietta 36 belt revolver in 1858 pattern. I found an accurate load, but it is 6 inches low and 3 to the left. I can drift the front sight for windage,but elevation adjustment seems to require filing the front sight. Any tips on doing so? Don't want to screw up a nice revolver.

Just curious what power charge are you using?

 

[brewer12345]

Just curious what power charge are you using?

20 grains of black mz worked very nicely. I actually like it better in my revolvers than real black because it fouls less. In my 44 I found 25 grains of fff or 30 grains of black mz was the ticket.

 

[gtrgy888]

20 grains of black mz worked very nicely. I actually like it better in my revolvers than real black because it fouls less. In my 44 I found 25 grains of fff or 30 grains of black mz was the ticket.

Checking velocity and or penetration of that loading is a good idea to understand the capability and limitations of the gun. A .36 is a tricky gun to understand ballistically based on source documents alone or even advice of some who shoot them. Testing in 1850 showed 20 grains of powder and roundball was sufficient to punch through 6 boards of 1 inch pine separated by an inch. I would challenge anyone to match that performance with modern replicas and that loading of powder. For a modern .36 cap and ball with modern powder to be MINIMALLY adequate by modern standards, it must be FULLY loaded with QUALITY powder. The widespread failure of blackpowder shooters to understand that fact is why the elegantly proportioned Navy is often bored to .44 as an ahistorical work around. Restoring these civilian arms to their original military performance requires one to be very picky and very selective about the gun chosen and the powder loaded. Also, when talking about the .36, it should be noted that the Uberti is often chambered and barreled to exactly .375 while Piettas are chambered and barreled closer to .373 or as small as .369! When we’re talking about an arm requiring maximal loadings to attain merely adequate performance, a difference of a couple grains of lead and .004 inches of projectile diameter may or may not significantly affect ballistic performance, but I’d check to see if that difference makes a difference and opt for more lead with greater surface area given the choice.

 

[brewer12345]

Checking velocity and or penetration of that loading is a good idea to understand the capability and limitations of the gun. A .36 is a tricky gun to understand ballistically based on source documents alone or even advice of some who shoot them. Testing in 1850 showed 20 grains of powder and roundball was sufficient to punch through 6 boards of 1 inch pine separated by an inch. I would challenge anyone to match that performance with modern replicas and that loading of powder. For a modern .36 cap and ball with modern powder to be MINIMALLY adequate by modern standards, it must be FULLY loaded with QUALITY powder. The widespread failure of blackpowder shooters to understand that fact is why the elegantly proportioned Navy is often bored to .44 as an ahistorical work around. Restoring these civilian arms to their original military performance requires one to be very picky and very selective about the gun chosen and the powder loaded. Also, when talking about the .36, it should be noted that the Uberti is often chambered and barreled to exactly .375 while Piettas are chambered and barreled closer to .373 or as small as .369! When we’re talking about an arm requiring maximal loadings to attain merely adequate performance, a difference of a couple grains of lead and .004 inches of projectile diameter may or may not significantly affect ballistic performance, but I’d check to see if that difference makes a difference and opt for more lead with greater surface area given the choice.

I looked at the ballistics of 36 round ball and understood before I bought the thing that this is mainly a paper puncher, possibly a small game proposition. The 44 is a more serious proposition, especially once I get around to casting some conicals for it. So my main interest with the 36 is accuracy, not power. It does not take much to kill a rabbit or squirrel, but I do have to be able to hit a small target in field conditions.

 

[gtrgy888]

I looked at the ballistics of 36 round ball and understood before I bought the thing that this is mainly a paper puncher, possibly a small game proposition. The 44 is a more serious proposition, especially once I get around to casting some conicals for it. So my main interest with the 36 is accuracy, not power. It does not take much to kill a rabbit or squirrel, but I do have to be able to hit a small target in field conditions.

That’s fair enough. The rock stuck in my shoe is the wrong idea that the .36 was always inadequate until the .44 became commonly available. That idea is based on modern powder (usually Goex) manufactured to weaker specifications. Navy caliber must not have been so bad historically if it could bust 6 boards loaded to 66% capacity! That should be the benchmark for evaluating the power of .36 pistols. When I have the money and time to get a good chrono, I intend to test out the .36 with different powders and finally determine minimal and maximal power ranges without common confounding variables (used Goex, ruined the powder by compressing lubricated wads onto it, loaded 15 grains). If everyone loads a .38 special with .38 long, that’s cool, it just doesn’t say anything about the capability of .38 special.

 

[brewer12345]

That’s fair enough. The rock stuck in my shoe is the wrong idea that the .36 was always inadequate until the .44 became commonly available. That idea is based on modern powder (usually Goex) manufactured to weaker specifications. Navy caliber must not have been so bad historically if it could bust 6 boards loaded to 66% capacity! That should be the benchmark for evaluating the power of .36 pistols. When I have the money and time to get a good chrono, I intend to test out the .36 with different powders and finally determine minimal and maximal power ranges without common confounding variables (used Goex, ruined the powder by compressing lubricated wads onto it, loaded 15 grains). If everyone loads a .38 special with .38 long, that’s cool, it just doesn’t say anything about the capability of .38 special.

Absolutely. I'd guess that 4F would probably produce the best power loads, all else being equal. Since I shoot BP revolvers for fun exclusively, I don't feel the need to explore beyond getting accuracy. When I get the 36 where I want it I will probably hunt small game with it. Should be ideal for Abert's squirrels.

 

[Malachi Leviticus Blue]

Is there any evidence to show that "historically" BP was more powerful than today's formulations?
At first glance I would consider that unlikely and expect "modern" manufacturing methods and an extra 150 years of knowledge to show an improvement.
After thinking about it though, I can see how possibly the (currently popular) idea of consistency (bringing the best down to the lowest to be equal) could affect that.

An example -
I am a beer brewing hack, and can tell you it is not that hard to make some good beer.
What is a LOT harder is to make that same beer again over and over consistently the same flavor, ABV, IBU, etc.

I'd be interested in seeing some more specific BP data that supports the idea the BP was more powerful in the 1800s than the 2000s if it exists.

 

[gtrgy888]

Is there any evidence to show that "historically" BP was more powerful than today's formulations?
At first glance I would consider that unlikely and expect "modern" manufacturing methods and an extra 150 years of knowledge to show an improvement.
After thinking about it though, I can see how possibly the (currently popular) idea of consistency (bringing the best down to the lowest to be equal) could affect that.

An example -
I am a beer brewing hack, and can tell you it is not that hard to make some good beer.
What is a LOT harder is to make that same beer again over and over consistently the same flavor, ABV, IBU, etc.

I'd be interested in seeing some more specific BP data that supports the idea the BP was more powerful in the 1800s than the 2000s if it exists.

Though it seems intuitive that modern technology would improve the power of reproductions, that is sadly not usually the case. Modern production techniques in other historical weapons often streamline the production of cheap copies. An Iaido practitioner shopping for a good quality katana will find several brands of cheap display pieces before ever encountering one good quality sword. The same applies to cap and ball sixguns. These days, most buyers simply need the gun to look good, make big noise, and punch paper at the range. Those market demands drive weaker (cheaper) powders and suboptimal, easily produced guns, often fudging historical accuracy to sell fancy looking noisemakers to unscrupulous casual shooters. Originally, the guns were needed to neutralize legitimate threats in battle, so the market demanded quality powder (with more expense) and well tuned guns that performed reliably.

Arcticap posted this recently:

https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_OXkDAAAAYAAJ/page/n1/mode/2up

The ordinance report demonstrates that as of 1850, whatever powder was used in the .36 was strong enough to penetrate 6 boards with 20 grains under an 83 grain round ball (only one board less than the Dragoon revolver tested simultaneously). That is the original power benchmark that was commonly expected of the Colt Navy in .36. To shoot less powerful loadings is actually ahistorical. Finding ANY modern powder that can approximate that kind of performance through pine boards has been a chore. 777 comes close. When I test Swiss, I suspect I’ll find closer to historical performance. If we value the history of the weapon, we have a duty to maintain and present the weapon to the standards of its original use PRIOR to judging its efficacy for one use or another. I’m of the opinion that plenty carried the .36 when belt sized .44’s were available for the same reason many still carry .38 special instead of .45 acp today. Because both are deadly when loaded as intended.

 

[Malachi Leviticus Blue]

Unfortunately, comparing penetration of pine boards from the 1800s to the 2000s is equal evidence of the average pine boards being tougher to penetrate in the 2000's vrs 1800s and not necessarily any difference in the powder's oomph.

 

[J-Bar]

In my opinion/experience, windage errors are more vexing than elevation errors.

I want my cowboy action match revolvers to hit a few inches low at 6 o'clock when shooting over a rest because I know I tend to shoot higher when shooting faster, at match speed. If you expect to ever shoot this gun rapidly, just correct the windage deviation because that point of impact is going to come up naturally when you shoot fast. (You are not going to take the time to get that front sight all the way down into the rear sight notch when shooting fast.). Test it on paper at your expected rate of fire before you file.