Thought I'd share data from my percussion cap spreadsheet:
Manufacturer Size ID OD Length Material
Remington 10 0.162 0.182 0.175 Copper
Remington 11 0.170 0.186 0.163 Copper
RWS 1075 0.159 0.177 0.157 Copper
CCI 10 0.158 0.173 0.162 Copper
CCI 11 0.164 0.177 0.165 Copper
Dixie (Italy) 11 0.160 0.181 0.151 Brass
Notes:
Generally, caps are tapered. My ID measurements are closer to the small diameter.
My Remington #11s are probably 30ish years old. Price on the tins are $1.99...but, as you can see they are larger than Rem #10s, but actually shorter than the #10s. I don't see any Rem #11s on the shelves anymore, or I'd try a new tin, just to see if they really are different today. It makes no sense to me that the current production #11 is the same ID as a #10. If I measured such, I'd have to drop a dime on my friends at Remington...or maybe just chat them up at next months conference.
Slim
Slim,
All I can say is be very careful what you publish about the sizes of percussion caps. You did admit that your Remington #11s are probably thirty years old, but people will pick up on what you say and repeat it as gospel. I am amazed at how many times things get repeated on different forums. I have even had people post some of my graphics as their "proof," which is funny when I post the full image, or the additional ones that put it in context.
Remington changed their geometry a while back, I’m afraid to say exactly when, but it was probably over 5 years ago. If you still have contacts at Remington please ask them the exact date and let us know what it is for our reference. The #10 and #11 Remington caps now share the same internal diameter, the difference is in the skirt length. This change is even noted on their packaging as "improved cap geometry":
http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Cap%20N%20Ball%20Questions/2a-1.jpgricck brought up the same point about the old Remington dimensions in December of last year. I pointed the same labeling out to him and provided this amended table.
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” |
I say amended because my original measurements were a few years old and Aggie Desperado supplied some new measurements which prompted me to re-measure all of the caps on the chart with fresh caps. These dimensions have been checked by others on different forums and we are pretty much in agreement within the margin or error for measurement. All measurements were taken with gage pins and an optical comparator for the height and diameter (to avoid pinching). If you refer to the pictures below you can see it would be difficult to get a good height measurement with a caliper or micrometer.
To further illustrate the differences between Remington #10 and #11 caps I offer the following pictures.
http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/Rem10d-1.jpg http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/Rem11a-1.jpgI’m going to throw up images of CCI and the RWS caps as well to address the misconception about "cap taper."
http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/CCI10c-1.jpg http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/CCI11c-1.jpghttp://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/RWS1075-1.jpgAs you can see there is little or no taper on any of the caps. This is not only externally, but internally. In fact some of the caps are actually smaller at the base, this may be due to handling, etc. but the fact remains there isn't any discernible taper beyond a .001".
I measured these caps internally using gage pins. The pin for the recorded dimension would go in until it bottomed out on the priming compound. In all cases this was just before the bursting disk face at the area where it adjoined the walls. I checked the next size up with the pins and found that there was more variation due to out of round conditions rather than any internal taper.
The dead soft copper they use for the cap material has very little or no spring back. I know that Omark used rolled and then annealed material for their caps, of course it gets some work hardening, but copper relieves itself so well I wouldn't expect any appreciable spring back. I have extensive experience with forming thin gage copper for Flex Circuits and exo-skeletons for semiconductor devices. I have formed 1/4, 1/2, full hard and annealed copper both nickel plated and un-plated with an organic barrier to prevent oxidation before soldering. I used to be able to predict the spring back very accurately without any calculations for the 1/2 hard and full hard materials we primarily used due to availability. It became a game with each new design to see if the boss could predict the formed angles. I won a lot until they kept shrinking the allowable tolerance on me.
During a tour of an Omark facility in my days in a different industry I stopped at the cap line and asked a lot of questions just for my personal interest. They were very accommodating and I even have (or had) some samples of the caps in process to show the forming steps. I may have lost them during a move because I looked for them last year and still haven't found them. I'm hoping they are squirreled away with some other "trophies" I can't find.
I never traveled to any of the Remington facilities (except for their MIM house) but I still have a direct contact at Olin (one of my old Chemical Engineers) and there might still be some at Omark who I have dealt with. But I'm very familiar with the drawing processes they would use and I know that the guys at Omark told me there was no draft on the forming mandrels. I was assuming there was and they explained the "spring back" they got was pretty much entirely diametrical and they didn't need draft as it was enough to release the cup. I know it was diametrical because as we spoke I kept saying internal taper and I was corrected, I tend to remember being corrected...
Now to your statement that it makes no sense that the I.D.s of Remington #10 and #11s are the same. It does make sense, and it is simple geometry. I don't remember if I posted these images on this forum or not, but this explains your conundrum...
This is a standard Uberti Cone, I used it because the person I was responding to refused to accept the Treso cone as the basis, he claimed the Treso wasn't a "factory" cone and therefore didn't apply, so I simply accommodated him.
This shows how this particular cone accepts a Remington #11 cap with a slight interference at the base of the skirt, but the #10 would not fully seat because it runs into the tapered walls of the cone. One Internal Diameter, two different fits because of skirt length.
http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Cap%20N%20Ball%20Questions/RemingtonCapComparison-1.jpgJust for grins we will use the same cone and show how CCI caps fit.
http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Cap%20N%20Ball%20Questions/CCICapComparison-1.jpgTwo different methods of fit, Remington uses skirt length, CCI uses internal diameter.
I prefer Remington caps for a couple of reasons, one of them being you can usually use both #10 and #11s on a Treso cone. The cones were designed for #11 caps per their literature, but because of the nature of the skirts on the longer Remington #10 cap and the stress (forming cracks) at the juncture of the petals the skirt will relieve itself at the petal crotches and allow you to force it on.
These are the cracks I am speaking of:
http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/Rem11c-1.jpg http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/Rem10b-1.jpgSo I try to get Rem #11s, but I can use #10s and use more force to seat them. The 11s are plenty tight, I would prefer not to "force" a cap on. With CCIs it takes too much force trying to seat a #10 on an unaltered Treso cone and I won't do it with a loaded cylinder.
Regards,
Mako