Cap'n Ball Capping Questions

[kflach]

Did you also extend the notch on the sides of the cylinder?

[Claypipe]

You can't mill steel with a Dremel.  If you try using a steel cutting tool on a steel work piece three things are likely to happen.  1. you'll ruin your cutting tool.  2.  You'll ruin the piece you are trying to cut.  3.  You'll ruin a finger or two.  What you can do with a Dremel, and plenty of pards have done it, is use a cylindrical stone or small sanding drum.  Hold the stone/drum at a 90 degree angle to the base pin hole and you'll wind up with a cut that looks like the pictures.  Anyone notice anything else that's different on the cylinder on the left?

I notice several differences. But, most of all a job well done. Are these cylinders by the same manufacturer? I've been debating on whether I wanted to pick up another Remmie. I sold the one I had years ago.

CP

[Pettifogger]

The one on the left is a recent production Pietta.  The one on the right is a 50 year old GU.  (Precursor to Uberti.)  Notches are stock.

[Advertising]

[Capt. Augustus]

Well Pards, I found the discussion concerning Tresco nipples so interesting that I ordered 4 sets for my pistols.  Quite an  investment, they might not play music, but at least they are gold colored.

[rickk]

Last night I had some spare time, so I rounded up every tin of caps I had and some Treso nipples. At least on the Treso's and caps I have in my possession, CCI #11's seem to fit perfectly, with RWS 1075's a close second. The CCI #11's slide on easily but then snug up when pushed fully forward and don't want to fall off.

Remington #10's and #11's were way too big.

I looked at the Treso catalog. They state they are made for #11's, but don't indicate what brand. However, they also sell caps and only carry CCI and RWS brands. I am thinking that might mean that they are sized for CCI #11's

[Springfield Slim]

My 6 Pietta 51's and my 2 Uberti Dragoons have Treso nipples and I use CCI #11's on all of them with nothing falling in the guts of the pistols. Good thing, too, as I bought 10,000 of them cheap from a cowboy shooter I know who swore that they wouldn't work on his guns with Tresos. They do generally split quite a bit. Must be the way I hold the pistol, they always fall out to the right, sometimes getting between my hand and the grip, but I deal with it. And I'm sure Mr. Green enjoyed the little reparte in this post. I used to shoot with him when before he moved further east. We didn't always agreee but at least I knew he was talking from personal experience. For what it is worth, in his capacity as a high tech civilian consultant to our forces in the sand box he managed to get himself wounded AGAIN this year. I believe that is the fifth time since Vietnam. I keep telling him he is too old for that stuff, but duty calls, I suppose.

[rickk]

I had an email exchange with the Treso people. Their observations on cap fit run slightly different from mine. Particularly, they put the RWS cap in between the CCI 10 and 11, whereas my batch of RWS's seems bigger than the CCI 11's.

Also,They felt that the Remington 10's are a very snug fit, but they fall onto and off with no effort at all for me.

I am really thinking that one batch of caps may be quite a bit different than another batch of caps.

I guess if one finds some that fits, buy the place out.

On the flip side, one could buy 5000 or so of the same lot that are a little tight and adjust the nipples to fit to be all set for a while.

[Mako]

I had an email exchange with the Treso people. Their observations on cap fit run slightly different from mine. Particularly, they put the RWS cap in between the CCI 10 and 11, whereas my batch of RWS's seems bigger than the CCI 11's.

Also,They felt that the Remington 10's are a very snug fit, but they fall onto and off with no effort at all for me.

I am really thinking that one batch of caps may be quite a bit different than another batch of caps.

I guess if one finds some that fits, buy the place out.

On the flip side, one could buy 5000 or so of the same lot that are a little tight and adjust the nipples to fit to be all set for a while.

Rikk,
What do you mean by "bigger?"  That can be a very relative term.  The RWS 1075s are slightly taller on the inside but shorter on the outside The RWS I.D. is also smaller by a thousandths of an inch, and as I said the distance from base of the cap to the priming compound is longer.  The CCI 11s have .112” from the base to the priming compound, the RWS 1075s have .114” in the same dimension.  Having a .001” smaller I.D. and a longer engaging distance will make the RWS a tighter fit than the CCI 11s.  So at this point I have to agree with the folks the who make the cones that the RWS 1075 caps fall between the CCI 10 and CCI 11s in fit.

In practice I have also found that Remington 11 actually fits the Treso cones pretty well on the many dozens of unmodified Treso cones that I have.  A lot of people want them to fit so tight they have to mash them on hard so they go to 10s.  I find the 11s fit with a light press and don’t fall off.   I actually use whatever is available when it comes to Remington Caps.  But if I want ignition approaching 100% with the Rem #10 caps I actually use two pairs of modified Treso cones that I have turned a few thousands smaller  on a lathe.

The picture of Cut’s thumb that he mangled while pressing a cap on is on my mind when I choose not to smash caps onto cones.  This is true even with a seating stick I always use.  Having the chamber to the starboard side go off at the loading table is not an experience I want to recount on this board or anywhere else.  My only complaint about the Rem 11 is that it sometimes gets sideways in the snail capper I use.
 
Below is an amended table I posted before.  I have added the distance the cap sits above the cone face from the bottom of the priming compound or bursting disk to the top face of the cap.  You can subtract this from the overall height to get the engaging length inside of the caps.  After Aggie's account on the heights I also measured a new batch of Rem #10s and changed the median to .183".

CAP	I.D.	Height	Cap face above cone
Rem 10	0.166”	0.183”	0.038”
Rem 11	0.166”	0.154”	0.037”
CCI 10	0.161”	0.163”	0.051”
CCI 11	0.166”	0.165”	0.053”
RWS 1075	0.165”	0.160”	0.046”

Did you talk to the sales staff at the House of Muskets or to one of the staff in the shop?

Regards,
Mako

Warning, objects in mirror may be closer than they appear, slight settling may occur during shipment, all weights are approximate and I am not a Cowboy in real life, but I play one on Saturdays...

[rickk]

Mako, I do not doubt your measurements, but I think some of the caps that I have are different than the ones that you have.

I don't have pin gauges, so I can not duplicate your measurements, and calipers won't work on caps because they aren't smooth on the inside.

Also, assuming two cap brands are not too much different, might the method of manufacture affect the fit a bit? That is something that a measurement alone would not tell a complete story about. Some are more tapered than others. Some have only a few folds while others look like cupcake wrappers.

The CCI 11's I have fit more tightly than the RWS's. I have Remington 10's that wiggle loosely when pushed all the way on the same nipples that the RWS fit snugly on.

J.P. Rappenecker from Treso told me that in his experience, Remington 10's are a tight fit, a total contradiction to what I am seeing.

I spent a few hours searching the net yesterday. I saw people swearing by Remington 10's and others swearing by Remington 11's.

A couple of people stated that they had older caps of the same brand and size that fit differently than newer caps did.

There seems to be much contradiction about this.

I don't think that anyone is wrong here. I am thinking that caps aren't all that consistent over time.

I am going to rummage around my workshop today as I think I have some older vintage caps someplace and I want to see if I can find caps of the same brand and size that are not the same as each other.... "the smoking gun" if you will.

[Mako]

Rikk,
Caps can change from lot to lot, it depends mainly on the copper blank thickness and in the case of Remingtons the blank shape.  Remington doesn't trim the formed edge of the base like the CCI and RWS caps.  All I can do is report the measurements I have taken on caps for the last several years.  I use gage pins, calipers and micrometers for most measurements.  A stereoscope for observation of the interiors and an optical comparator or in some cases a tool maker's scope for end on measurement of the corrugations and the height of the Remington petals.

That being said the I.D.s are less prone to change than the other measurements such as O.D. and cup thickness based on the forming technique around a mandrel.  Because CCI and RWS trim their formed caps to length there will be less variation there as well.  The majority of variation I have recorded has been in the overall length in Remington caps because they are left as formed.

On the recent chart I have changed my height for the Remington 10 caps from previously posted data.  I'm going to keep a running log of the measurements and maybe in a few more years I can give a better indication of the actual range.

Only the CCI caps have any vestige of the corrugation that appears on the O.D. of all three brands of caps we have discussed.  The RWS are actually relatively smooth on the inside, and the Remingtons are very smooth.

Characteristics of each cap brand:

Remington  Smooth on the ID, corrugated on the O.D.  A four leaf petal shape on the base which is a result of the cup forming operation. Remington doesn't trim this.  The I.D.s are basically the same for both cap sizes, the difference in fit is accomplished by the differences in length.  The priming compound is the thinnest on the Remington caps.

CCI  Corrugated on the O.D. which shows up slightly on the I.D.  The actual change to the I.D. is negligible where the corrugations show through.  The I.Ds. of the #10 and #11 caps differ in size, the "larger" #11 cap has the larger I.D.  The lengths barely differ on the two sizes, the "smaller" (tighter fitting) #10 cap is slightly shorter than the #11 (but it may fall within the normal manufacturing variation in height).  The formed base edge is trimmed and a slight chamfer has been cut on the inside I.D. edge.  The priming compound is the thickest on the CCI caps.

RWS  The 1075 has a corrugated O.D. and little if any of the pattern shows through on the I.D. in the packages I looked through.  The average I.D. of the 1075s runs smaller than the Remington caps and between the #10 and #11 CCI caps (though closer to the #11). The overall height is less than the Remington#10 and shorter than the CCI #10 and #11 caps.  The formed base edge is trimmed and a slight chamfer has been cut on the inside I.D. edge.

Each manufacturer has taken a different approach to fitting the caps to cones.  RWS has taken a middle ground approach and falls between #10 and #11 on the other two brands.

Cap fit is one of the most if not the most important part of a reliable cap gun.  Taking the time to find the correct fitting cap is the basis for successful competitive shooting. I'm going to go more into this fit determination on a different thread I have started.

Regards,
Mako

[rickk]

Mako,

by any chance have you taken any measurements of any taper of the inside walls? I would think that might be a significant factor in how it fits.

I rummaged around the basement and found a older can of CCI #11's, some RWS's, and a can of Dixie Gun Works #11's. I believe they are all late 1970's vintage. I will play with them a bit tonight and see what I can see.

It might be an interesting experiment to have others post their informal observations on how whatever different caps they have in their possession all fit on a single nipple... grading them tightest to loosest. While it isn't "precise" data, it is still data, and a large data set may revel something.

[rickk]

I went thru lots of caps tonight.

I looked more at the RWS's. I originally thought they were ever so slightly looser on my test nipple than the CCI #11's. However, after checking about 20 samples of each, I think that maybe the RWS's are ever so slightly tighter than the CCI #11's. At the very least, they are very close. I am having a hard time telling the difference by feel.  I tried both a newer production lot of RWS's (in the plastic can) and a 30+ year old lot of RWS's (in the metal can) and the size did not seem to differ appreciably between the two vintages.

Then I opened up a 30+ year old can of CCI #11's. While the recent vintage batch fit my test nipple nicely, the 30+ year old batch fell off under their own weight. The cans look a bit different (different labeling).  The caps themselves both look the same. The cap construction appears to be the same. Even the color of the paper inside is the same, but the older ones fit much looser.

So, a question in my mind is did CCI make a diameter change in the last 30 years, or do they vary all over the place from lot to lot?

I also found a few 30+ year old Remington #11's. While they were very loose on my test nipple, they fit much tighter than some recent production Remington #11's.

I was always under the impression that RWS caps were "high quality". For what it's worth, they did not vary all that much in diameter between these two 30+ year different lots. The CCI's got bigger over time and the Remingtons seem to have gotten smaller.

Are the factories reading all these stories about Brand X fit's better than Brand Y and tweaking their tooling to recapture market share? Does the tooling simply wear over time and each lot is different than each other lot? Are some brands more uniform than others?

And the Dixie Gun Works #11's (which you can't get any more) do not come anywhere near even starting on the nipple. They are smaller than CCI#10's. Of course, they were half the price of anything else back then, and as I was shooting them in a Hawkins Rifle mostly back then, caps falling off was not an issue. I was using the old cans of CCI's way back then in my ROA on Ruger nipples.

Looks like I have more questions than answers.

[Mako]

...I also found a few 30+ year old Remington #11's. While they were very loose on my test nipple, they fit much tighter than some recent production Remington #11's.

... The CCI's got bigger over time and the Remingtons seem to have gotten smaller.

...Are the factories reading all these stories about Brand X fit's better than Brand Y and tweaking their tooling to recapture market share?

Looks like I have more questions than answers.

Rikk,

Are you sure you meant to say,

The CCI's got bigger over time and the Remingtons seem to have gotten smaller.

?
I actually know that they have,  but your statement,

I also found a few 30+ year old Remington #11's. While they were very loose on my test nipple, they fit much tighter than some recent production Remington #11's.

seems to contradict your later statement.  I have some old Remington #11 and #10 caps as well and they are definitely not the same as current caps.

If you look at the picture below you will have the answer to two of your mysteries.  Remington made a change a few years back.

http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Cap%20N%20Ball%20Questions/2a-1.jpg

Regards,
Mako

P.S. if you have any 30+ year old Rem #10s you will find they are a different diameter than your 30+ year old Rem #11s as well.  If you look long enough and carefully enough you will discover there is little that is just chance on items that have been manufactured with precision tooling, there is a reason for almost everything.

Careful reading, research and analysis will answer most of your questions.

[Fox Creek Kid]

I have some Remington #12 caps. Yes, TWELVE. Bought them at a small gunshop a few years back. I believe they are made for the original Colt Dragoons that had a larger nipple than the copies of today. Labeling appears to be from 1950's or 60's.

[rickk]

Ya Mako, My wording was messed up.

The old remingtons did fit tighter than the new ones. By the way, my "new ones" are maybe 5 or more years old. When I buy caps or primers, I usually get 1000-5000 at a time, so they last a while. How old was that box in your picture? It's not what the box that any of mine have on it. It looks like they "fixed them" again after I bought my last stash. Maybe they "unfixed" the loose fit that I saw in my "newer ones". 

Your box is the "smoking gun" that says that they mess with the primer sizes now and then.

Fox Creek Kid, I know I saw Remington #12s for sale at least in the 70's and maybe the early 80's. This brings up a possibility however. I wonder if when they dropped the 12's they opened up the size on the 11's for a while to try to accommodate both 11 and 12 users?

This is all somewhat eye-opening.

[Mako]

Your box is the "smoking gun" that says that they mess with the primer sizes now and then.

Fox Creek Kid, I know I saw Remington #12s for sale at least in the 70's and maybe the early 80's. This brings up a possibility however. I wonder if when they dropped the 12's they opened up the size on the 11's for a while to try to accommodate both 11 and 12 users?

This is all somewhat eye-opening.

Rikk,

They didn't open up the Remington 11s, they did just the opposite.  The Rem 11's are tighter fitting than old Remingtons.  Those from five years ago are tighter than those from 20 years ago and the ones today fit a bit tighter because they run about .01" longer.

#12s are for the big cones on weapons such as Dragoons and Walkers.  There isn't much need for them now since Uberti makes their cones to fit 11s and the Treso replacements also fit 11s.

The change Remington made was to make their 11s smaller and the #10s use the same draw tooling.  They share a common diameter, the fit is controlled via the skirt length.

The problem with anecdotal reporting is there is no data to correlate with past, current or future analysis.  Fit is a very relative thing.  It can be controlled by diameter, taper, length or a combination of any of the above.

Yes, manufacturers tailor their product to meet the needs of the market.  The current crop of percussion weapons have cones that have converged on the size #10 - #11.  Current aftermarket cones have done the same.  Treso being the blending of the two.  I have 4 unused packages of the 11-56-166 and one package of the 11-50-106 for Piettas.  I have been using those cones for reverse engineering of the models.  Both type of unmodified cones readily accept the Remington #11 caps with a light seating pressure.  The caps will not fall off.  Because the Remington caps have only about 56 minutes of draft (0.9338°) they will fit on either cone, the fit is controlled by the length and the little petals appear to be their secret to their "new geometry" along with the common I.D.

The world has changed for cones and for caps.  You will notice that RWS only markets one cap now aimed at both #10 and #11 cones.  Remington has narrowed it focus and CCI has straddled the past and the present.

Regards,
Mako

[Noz]

Mako, you are an engineer aren't you?

[Mako]

Noz,
Guilty as charged, actually a couple of times over...
~Mako

[Cuts Crooked]

I'm thinkin 'bout moving this thread over to the Dark Arts once it's run it's course. Waddaya think gang?

For those of you who didn't understand Mako's reference to "Cuts Thumb" here's a pic of what's left after a cap detonates when you push it on a loaded chamber:   

[rickk]

Mako, you are an engineer aren't you?

Ain't  we all ?