The OutlawKid

[Ugly Sauce]

I think it comes down to the fact that I don't have the skill to get a good reliable action with a weak spring. I don't doubt the Dragoon and the Kid can do it, so for me, I'm just better off going to a slightly stiffer spring. I can smooth and polish things up, and get a nicer action, and even have some concept of adjusting the timing a bit, but that is about it. But, even though I like a smooth action as much as the next guy, and my '62 is nice and smooth now, as my revolvers are wilderness survival tools, and not target/competition or just fun-shooters, reliability that I can achieve at my skill level is how I gots to go. !!! However, I'm thinking I can get this '62 to work right when I'm done tinkering with it, without replacing the main spring.

In hind-sight, one would probably be best off when buying a revolver, just having it sent directly to one's revolver guru, and then shipped home after the magic has been performed. I can see it would be well worth it.

Actually, having just retired from High School, I can tell you that they are changing math for the first time in thousands of years. It's called "common core math", and it's a mess. It's being forced on all the schools, even though the teachers know it's crazy-bat-crap-stuff. Politics.

 

[woodnbow]

I will keep the mainspring stock...which works great for most people as it feels way lighter after i have made internal adjustments...but i have had a few customers ask me to lighten the main spring even more or they will install one of them lighter aftermarket springs that are made by Wolff. They work great and the cap poat prevents any blowback as mr.dragoon45 said. I leave it up to the customer. But i definately understand how some customers want an even lighter spring due to arthritis etc as a lot of folks in our sport are old timers...also some females prefer to have very light springs because their hands arent strong enough. A customer of mine...mr.woodnbow...sent me a beautiful second gen colt and it was soooo stiff and had a mainspring that was as thick as a jeeps leaf spring. He wanted it smoother and lighter so that his wife could use it with ease. I worked the insides and used a stock pietta spring and wow wee was it smooth and light...but each gun is an individual...another gun with the same set up may not feel as light. Other guns i would have had to shave metal off of the mainspring to match the same lightness. So remember ...what works for one gun doesnt always work for another.

That was a stout spring! That’s now my wife’s favorite pistol. Bar none. The Kid knows his stuff...

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Hey...I want that spring!

 

[Shortgrub]

I didn't want to step on anybody's toes here. Just want to acknowledge the gents work.

 

[45 Dragoon]

I don't see any "stepping on of toes" from here! I think the Kid must do good work or folks wouldn't be singing his praises!

What I was pointing out is lighting an action will only go so far as reducing the hammer draw and couldn't understand how one goes from super heavy to light enough for the "little lady" (without any lightening of the main) Lol! I missed the part where the main was replaced with a lighter Pietta main!

In any case, I did a test in the shop today just to make sure math was still math! Apparently it is! I chose 3 stock random revolvers and measured the hammer draw before and after I removed the combo spring, bolt and hand. The results are as follows:

1. Walker 2nd Gen (early) was 5 1/2 lbs before and 4 lbs without an action.
2. Navy (Pietta) CL date. Was 7 lbs. before and 5 1/2 lbs " ". "
3. Army. " CC. ". Was 6 lbs. ". and 4 lbs ". ". "

So, apparently the best you'll get in a reduction of hammer draw weight is 2 lbs with 1 1/2 lbs more likely without any attention given to the main spring. Just wanted to get some type of understanding for you folks. The target weight for me is 4 lbs. with most late model revolvers getting there with no main spring adjusting. Obviously though, on most older guns with heavier mains, you'll have to do some "adjusting".

Good thread!!
Mike

 

[TheOutlawKid]

Yes for mr.woodnbows wifes gun i didnt keep the old thick main spring...i replaced it with a brand new pietta main spring and even threw in some free new nipples as the stock ones were beat. Its rare for me to keep the stock super heavy main springs from the way older guns...usually i replace it with a new pietta mainspring at no charge for the customer. Makes my job easier and faster rather than grinding down an old stock spring thats decades old and has corrosion in some areas that could cause structural flaws. But yes sometimes lightening the inernals doesnt always make hammer light enough...but it always depends on the gun. I have noticed that some of the older thick springs have different strengths even if they are the same dimentions/thickness...i assume its due to the type of spring steel and the temper as some will feel super heavy while others will seem as light as a new stock thin spring. Every gun is an individual. Like mr.robhofs gun...that gun was a beast to cock even with two hands....but i only adjusted the inernals and it became a really light single hand gun. Yet ive worked the same make and model gun for other customers and did the same work on the insides yet the gun was nothing like mr.robhofs gun until i took material off of the main spring. Thank you for all the feedback and compliments folks! Means a lot to me.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

I sure have a lot of admiration for those who really have these revolvers figured out. I have a basic knowledge, and a lot of mechanical background, but I spent most of the day today getting that '62 to work right. And, still don't know if it will continue to "work right". If not...I'm "sending it off". Seriously.

Never could get the tresco nipples to work. Successfully fired one cylinder full with the original Uberti nipples, and called it quits for the day. Got some hammer blow-back on the first chamber, then it seemed to work normally. I'm surprised, that little gun really pops off with 18 grains of 3f. Would not want to get shot with it. I will certainly go down to 15 grains, which I think will solve the blow-back-hammer issue. Playing around with the gun all day, the main spring really does not seem that light. Certainly seems to be very accurate.

Didn't have time to (or inclination) to go out back and set up a target, so I just put a 2X4 mill end, about five inches long, on a stump outside the garage and fired away off-hand at what I considered the distance I'd usually see a grouse on the ground, or a wabbit. (about 12-15 paces/yards/meters) No problem hitting the block every time, although I had to set it back up for each shot.

All very puzzling to me, I've never had any timing, cap-jamming, or miss fire issues with either my 1860 or my Remington Navy, which I've had for years and years. The 1860 has sheared off a few loading lever latches, and launched a few front sights into outer space, and chain fired once, but she always fires when ya pull the trigger, and if she's ever cap-jammed, I don't even remember it!

 

[45 Dragoon]

Hey Ugly Sauce, you should get the Jerry Kuhnhausen book on Colt Single Action Revolvers. With a good mechanical background you would have no problem tuning your revolvers.

There is a sequence and I've mentioned it many times but in a nutshell, you need to start with getting simultaneous cylinder lock-up and full cock (deals with correct hand length). After that, bolt drop (timing) is dialed in . . . it's that easy!! Lol!! If you install a bolt block (every action should have one) you'll need to stretch the hand (99% of the time!) If you wait and add the bolt block, your "dialed in" timing will be late (yes, there's that much slop in the action). If you want to have a coil and pushrod (Ruger style) hand spring, do it before you start as the flat hand spring may not keep sufficient /constant pressure on the hand. So if you add the coil and pushrod later you may need to "back up" to step 1.


That's the basic idea anyway. The book will teach you how to shape /contour the parts for best operation and length of life. Of course tuning the springs as well.

Mike

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Will do. For sure, there's a couple of pieces of the "puzzle" that I haven't figured out yet. !!!! Bolt-drop seems to be a stumbling block to my mind. Thanks for the tip. !

 

[BigBoomD]

With the discussions on cap posts and action shields I am wondering if anyone, especially The Kid or Mike, explored a Kittredge style cap shield instead of the post and action shield?
https://patents.google.com/patent/US41848
This was a patent from way back, so I don’t think the cap fragments and fouling are a modern phenomenon. This style would also keep the hammer slot clean. I attempted to make one of these but found that the nipples are recessed in the cylinder a bit too far, so the thin spring material would jam up the action.
I really like the post and action shield and have installed a post and will do a shield as well!

 

[Bibbyman]

With the discussions on cap posts and action shields I am wondering if anyone, especially The Kid or Mike, explored a Kittredge style cap shield instead of the post and action shield?
https://patents.google.com/patent/US41848
This was a patent from way back, so I don’t think the cap fragments and fouling are a modern phenomenon. This style would also keep the hammer slot clean. I attempted to make one of these but found that the nipples are recessed in the cylinder a bit too far, so the thin spring material would jam up the action.
I really like the post and action shield and have installed a post and will do a shield as well!

But looks like you would lose the park on peg safety feature.

 

[Black Jack Shellac]

Hey ! Where is the Kid?. I haven't seen anything from him in a while
Black Jack Shellac

 

[BigBoomD]

Bibbyman, your right, you would indeed, except I suppose if you hade a very small drilled hole in the shield that would line up with the peg, then the hammer would push the shield over the peg and lock it between chambers. The hole could be very small such that it would probably not at all affect its shielding abilities. The shield itself needs to be somewhat sprung so that it is biased towards remaining pressed up and flush against the recoil shield/frame so as to remain clear of the pegs and caps etc during cylinder rotation. This makes me want to try again and see if I can make it work.

 

[Bibbyman]

Bibbyman, your right, you would indeed, except I suppose if you hade a very small drilled hole in the shield that would line up with the peg, then the hammer would push the shield over the peg and lock it between chambers. The hole could be very small such that it would probably not at all affect its shielding abilities. The shield itself needs to be somewhat sprung so that it is biased towards remaining pressed up and flush against the recoil shield/frame so as to remain clear of the pegs and caps etc during cylinder rotation. This makes me want to try again and see if I can make it work.

I'm thinking... make the shield out of one of the large binder clips? The problem would be how to fasten it without screw heads sticking up. Maybe small screws used in knife making?

 

[armoredman]

My 1851 brasser should be landing on his doorstep in the next day or so for a full treatment. I am sure it will be worth twice what I pay for it. I haven't seen him on in a few days - hope he didn't go out of town!

 

[Jackrabbit1957]

Counter sink the holes, dimple the sheet metal, use taper headed screws. IT COULD WORK!!

 

[Bibbyman]

If a guy wanted to test the principal, you could make a shield out of about anything - even tough plastic, etc - and epoxy it on the bottom.

 

[45 Dragoon]

If it worked (and I'm sure it probably would) you couldn't lighten the main spring. It represents to me just another hurdle to overcome with enough main spring tension. I'd rather drill and tap a hole and screw in a stainless post. It's passive, allows utilizing the safety pin, doesn't rob any main spring power yet still limits rearward travel of cap frags /hammer movement. Combined with an action shield, it is as close to 100% effective for removing cap jams and failure to fires along with keeping your action clean as you can get. Comparing the "time to install " element, the post and shield is a no brainier.
Jmo.
Mike

 

[BigBoomD]

Yes, drilling and tapping the frame was tough with the arbor there. And the shield itself being an odd shape it would need to be a laser cut piece if doing many of these. A much more cumbersome solution, with potentially no additional benefits to those solutions already presented and actively keeping the open tops running cleanly. (Post and action shield)
The post and action shield are also hidden fixes which I really like.

 

[Bibbyman]

I looked at the patent drawing again and I noticed the cylinder has 12 notches.

If a person wanted to make many of these, maybe use a hole cutter like used to cut conduit holes in boxes.

I bet one could be made from a tin can lid.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Well, it may not be everyone's "cup o tea" but typically, a "tuned" revolver is one that functions smoother, easier, with precision, is 100% reliable which "normally" means it has lightened springs because it takes less tension than the stock tension for that part to do its intended job. The higher tensioned springs tend to mask flaws in the factory version of the revolver. Therefore, a tuned revolver isn't less "manly" because it doesn't have "strong" or "heavy" springs, it means it will work longer, faster, with less work from the shooter and with much more mechanical precision . . . which will put a much bigger smile on the shooters face.
As far as use in a shooting sport where speed is a factor, lighter actions tend to be faster than heavy actions. Thumbing an 8 lb. hammer five times means you're moving 40lbs rather than 20lbs. with a 4 lb. hammer . . . at the end of the day with a lot of shooting, one thumb will have a lot more wear than the other . . . not to mention if the thumbs in question have arthritis . . . you don't HAVE to have heavy springs, you can if you want.
As far as blowback through the nipple, that's what the cap post is there for. Blowback can't push a hammer back past the cap post. As bad as it may or may not seem, that is where cap guns are today. None are "competition" ready or "dead nuts" reliable with longivity out of the box . . . but they all can be made to be.
Comparing original examples to todays offerings is futile without original style caps (since that seems to be the biggest complaint). We have what we have and for the most part, the best offerings today are superior to the originals . . . just as cars today are far superior to the originals.

In the end, you don't have to have a Rolex to tell time, some appreciate the work that makes them possible though . . . most will never know or understand.

Mike

860
I just now noticed something that didn't catch my attention before. I'm not understanding how/why blowback can't push a hammer back past the cap post? (the whole blow back thing is kind of confusing me at the moment. I have my own theories, but no experience to back it up) I mean, the hammer travels forward and aft over the cap post, so...?? A more in-depth explanation of that? (if you are not totally annoyed at explaining all this stuff over and over)

Another thing I'd be interested in thoughts on, is what effect the lower weight and mass of a 1862's hammer, and the hammer on a 1860 has to do with it. I notice that just popping a cap on the 1862 can bounce the hammer back quite a ways. That does not happen on my 1860. I know my eye isn't fast enough to detect any bounce back on the 1860, but it certainly does not drop caps into the action. A spent cap under between the hammer and frame just does not happen on the 1860. Never a cap jam on that thing.

With the 1862, often I can find a spent cap in that location, (between hammer and frame) after firing, when very carefully bringing the hammer back and looking in. Obviously, the cap fell in there when the hammer was bouncing back. I'm not understanding why the 1860, with a 200 grain slug, and 25 grains of 3f exhibits no signs of blow back, when the 1862, with 15 grains of 3f, and a 80 grain ball, seems to be suffering badly from it, and both guns are using the same size nipples and caps.

????????

 

[45 Dragoon]

US,
Blowback through the nipple is what pushes the cap hull off of the nipple. With a cap post in place, the cap hull can't go past the post. Since the hull isn't propelled any further, the hammer won't be moved either. For the '62, I would add a slight upward bend to the main spring just under the hammer. It will give a little extra tension to the hammer as well as increase the lock time (something I call "Goons Kickass Main Spring").

Mike

 

[armoredman]

I hope he can do the wonders you guys talk about to mine - it gets delivered today...hope he's there...

 

[Bibbyman]

With the discussions on cap posts and action shields I am wondering if anyone, especially The Kid or Mike, explored a Kittredge style cap shield instead of the post and action shield?
https://patents.google.com/patent/US41848
This was a patent from way back, so I don’t think the cap fragments and fouling are a modern phenomenon. This style would also keep the hammer slot clean. I attempted to make one of these but found that the nipples are recessed in the cylinder a bit too far, so the thin spring material would jam up the action.
I really like the post and action shield and have installed a post and will do a shield as well!

I was all ready to R&D a shield this morning - even if it wasn't fixed in place. I made some measurements. I had it all thought through. Then was studying the situation. With the cylinder on the arber, the safety pins come almost to the recoil shield. To make this mod, the safety pins would have to go. Or the recoil shield milled back the thickness of plate.

Project on hold.

I did look at making a tapped hole below the arbor. I figured to drill and tap from the back of the action. Then a counter sink could be made from the front with a larger, longer bit.

 

[arcticap]

I was all ready to R&D a shield this morning - even if it wasn't fixed in place. I made some measurements. I had it all thought through. Then was studying the situation. With the cylinder on the arber, the safety pins come almost to the recoil shield. To make this mod, the safety pins would have to go. Or the recoil shield milled back the thickness of plate.

Project on hold.

I did look at making a tapped hole below the arbor. I figured to drill and tap from the back of the action. Then a counter sink could be made from the front with a larger, longer bit.

Wouldn't the shield and its parts eventually collect residue, more residue than would be prevented from entering the hammer slot?
Then the screws holding the plate could require being removed for maintenance.
It seems that it would be a less desirable design to need to extensively modify an expensive frame part when installing the "modern" action shield and cap post requires less modifications, could be just as effective, and with less risk of damaging the frame.
Doesn't the modern cap shield only require slightly modifying the hammer by making a small slot?