Are my nipples shrinking?

[Bottom Dealin Mike]

For years without number I've used Remington #10 caps with great results on my C&B sixguns. Years ago I bought a big supply at a great price, and they lasted until now.

A few weeks ago I bought 1,000 new Remington #10s, but these are falling off the nipples on all my guns unless I pinch them down.

Did #10s get bigger, or are my nipples shrinking?

[Drayton Calhoun]

Probably the caps are larger. I've noticed the same thing with CCI #11's in the past. They probably installed new stamping dies.

[cpt dan blodgett]

Looks like another $37 or so for tresos once the size of the caps stabilize.  Think the two companys are working together???

[Advertising]

[Montana Slim]

Remington's made several major changes to their P. Caps in the past 25-30 years.....one more reason behind my preference for CCI.

Slim

[Cal Fornia]

Heh... nothing worse than having your nipples shrink.   

[Mako]

Mike,
Remington caps are the best cap on the market for reliability, day in and out.  They have changed just once in the last 20 years when they standardized the diameter for both the #10s and the #11s.  The difference is in the length of the skirts.  Follow the link I show below for a total explanation of how the caps work in relationship to the cones.  After you read it do me a favor, measure the height of the cap and the diameter.  I have measured hundreds of Remington caps, so those two measurements will be sufficient to figure out if there is a difference from what they have been for the last eight years.  Later on I'd also like to know how long the skirt is from the priming compound to the edge of the skirt, but we can work on that after you get me the other two dimensions. The two dimensions on the left in the illustration shown below will work for now, but I really want the two on the right.



Now go read the primer on caps that is in the Dark Arts Library:

http://www.cascity.com/forumhall/index.php/topic,39098.msg497584.html#msg497584

I'm wondering if they packaged #11 caps in the wrong tins?  As you will see when you read the information in the link that the #11 caps will fit looser on a cone than the #10s.

After you read the link send me a PM.

Regards,
Mako

[fourfingersofdeath]

I'm a bit of a newbie in teh cap and ball area, but I was always told not to pinch caps on as they will flare on the side and possibly end up squirting a bit of flame around the back of the cylinder (where the other pinched on caps are  ).

[Norton Commando]

Are my nipples shrinking?

Well, they could be getting a tiny bit shorter and a tiny bit fatter. However, it's probably immeasurable.

Perhaps as Makos suggested, you've got some variation in the caps you're currently using.

Following are my measurements of CCI and Remington #11 caps.

CCI
Length: 0.166"
OD: 0.179"
ID: 0.165"
Inside Depth: 0.120"

Remington
Length: 0.147"
OD: 0.180"
ID: 0.163"
Inside Depth: 0.115"

As you can see, the geometry varies between two brands of the same “size” (#11) cap. Moreover, there are dimensional variances between caps of the same brand.

So chances are great that the latest caps you’re using are just slightly different than what you’re accustomed to, meaning the ID is slightly larger and/or the inside depth is slightly shorter. I'm convinced that an occasional cap missfit is to be expected in the BP game, regardless of the brand.

[Mako]

Are my nipples shrinking?

Well, they could be getting a tiny bit shorter and a tiny bit fatter. However, it's probably immeasurable.

Perhaps as Makos suggested, you've got some variation in the caps you're currently using.

Following are my measurements of CCI and Remington #11 caps.

CCI
Length: 0.166"
OD: 0.179"
ID: 0.165"
Inside Depth: 0.120"

Remington
Length: 0.147"
OD: 0.180"
ID: 0.163"
Inside Depth: 0.115"

As you can see, the geometry varies between two brands of the same “size” (#11) cap. Moreover, there are dimensional variances between caps of the same brand.

So chances are great that the latest caps you’re using are just slightly different than what you’re accustomed to, meaning the ID is slightly larger and/or the inside depth is slightly shorter. I'm convinced that an occasional cap missfit is to be expected in the BP game, regardless of the brand.

External dimensions can be very confusing unless you understand how the caps actually fit.  That is why I went to the trouble to write the Cap Fit portion of the Primer.  It is actually just two dimensions on the cap that affect the fit. The I.D. and the skirt length.  The thing that makes the fit confusing is that the tubes have the tapered cones the caps fit on.  This means both of those dimensions can change the fit.  If you refer to the link it is much easier to understand.

Each manufacturer puts a different amount of priming compound in the caps which would change the internal engagement length unless they lengthen or shorten the overall length of the cap or change the I.D. to make the skirt the cone.  People get caught up in the fact the caps look different externally, it's too bad we don't all have X-Ray vision or we would see the internal engagement areas of the caps are actually very similar between manufacturers for the caps they call #10s and the #11s and RWS 1075.

If you look at the chart that appears in the link:



You will see that between me and two assistants we have measured quite a few caps from quite a few tins and from different lots and yeas of manufacture.  The reason I say that the Remington caps haven't changed in at least eight years is because one tin of #10 caps was from a lot that is eight years old.  The more measurements we take, the more convergence we get on the numbers I am publishing.  Some people sent me some older caps including Remingtons, They are the ones in the old style tins and before Remington started advertising the "Improved Geometry."  These do NOT appear on the chart.  Some day I may publish those as well, but I am afraid those numbers would be repeated on the different forums that have these discussions from time to time and it would muddy the water with fit today. 

All that being said, that doesn't mean that there may have been a problem at the plant, or that they were mislabeled.  Remington uses two distinct cap blanks, the #10 is the larger of the two.  I have not been to the Remington line, I have seen the CCI line in operation.  I have been told Remington uses the same tooling for both cap sizes and the blank determines the cap size.  It is definitely possible a bin of #11 caps was put in the wrong tins.  If the report was that #11 caps were now fitting looser then I would suspect a change or a tooling problem.

From my experience and based on the analysis of the geometry relationships between Hammer, Cone, Cylinder location and Caps sitting on the cones as I talked about in another Primer section, Cap Gun Primer Correct Cone Length:

http://www.cascity.com/forumhall/index.php/topic,35696.msg457397.html#msg457397

I have come to the conclusion that Remington caps work more consistently with cap and ball revolvers across the board (especially those with wimpy springs as is now common from both Uberti and Pietta).  Remington caps with their lower overall height above the cone face due to the lower priming compound volume and the petal splits which allow a proud cap to be pushed home by the hammer fall will work in more percussion firearms with out additional work.  That being said there are thousands of people successfully using CCI caps. 

I have used CCI #11 caps with the Treso tubes installed.  A couple of years ago I simply couldn't find Remington #11 caps.  Using CCI #11 caps I got more unexplained misfires (technically a "no-fire") that went off when hit a second time.  I finally modified two sets of Treso tubes to specifically use Remington #10 caps which were available and my problem quit.  I have even changed my Uberti springs out for USFA springs to make sure I have a stronger hit.  You have to shorten the USFA spring 1/16th to 3/32nds of an inch to fit under the roller.  Pettifogger at one time showed a good solution to stiffen the factory spring which involved a second piece of a spring or metal to change the flex point.

I have two original 1860s and I'd be willing to bet they take twice the force to cock than any of the Ubertis I have.  The newer Ubertis made since 1997 all have thinner and lighter springs.  We have gotten spoiled with easy to cock modern cartridge pistols with easy to ignite primers.  Reliability with Cap Guns requires a margin of additional force to help assure consistent ignition.

~Mako

[Bottom Dealin Mike]

Here are my dimensions:

h- 0.1785
d - 0.1800
Internal D - 0.1590
Skirt - 0.1410

[Norton Commando]

Here are my dimensions:

h- 0.1785
d - 0.1800
Internal D - 0.1590
Skirt - 0.1410

Wow, I'm impressed that you have measurements out to four decimal places!

Ah, the vagaries of BP ignition!

Your ID dimension of 0.1590" doesn't suggest an over-sized cap. Perhaps the depth of the cap is too shallow?  I couldn't discern which of the dimensions you listed is the depth.

[Mako]

Here are my dimensions:

h- 0.1785
d - 0.1800
Internal D - 0.1590
Skirt - 0.1410

Mike,
Those look like the current dimensions for the Remington caps.  All except the I.D. which can be hard to measure.  I use pin gauges.  I don't think it is that small.  If it were they would probably be too tight.


Here is yours compared to 120 other Remington #10 caps from three lots spanning eight years.



I think your I.D. is off otherwise your cup would be super thick.  No one makes caps that thick.  If your dimensions were accurate the cap would be tight much further up the cone than what I believe the actual I.D. is. If those caps are loose then CCI #10s will also be loose.  The CCI #10 has a larger I.D. (Ø.161) and only .112" of skirt to engage.  As I said, if those Remingtons fall off then CCIs will be even looser.

I expected measurements along the lines of the Remington #11 caps with the internal skirt depth to be between .112" and .115".  That would explain the fit.  Now I am at a loss.  

What kind of tubes are they? Are they the original tubes?  If so which manufacturer and which model?  30 years ago smaller caps were available from RWS known as the 1055s.  I reported those dimensions above that Hellgate provided.  I have a partial tin around somewhere but I haven't found it yet.  I used to have an 1849 I built from a kit that had small cones. After I couldn't get 1055s anymore I swapped the tubes out for some Pietta tubes I took off of a pistol when I replaced them with Treso Tubes.  Those Pietta tubes take #10 caps.  

Sooner or later I'm going to find those caps and I think the tubes are with them.  I have a storage box with at least 60 factory tubes in them, I started with over 72 and I have some stainless tubes I got from another source as well, but I looked in that box a while back when the subject of RWS 1055s came up and they aren't there.  All of my guns don't have Treso tubes on them, but I'm getting there. I was just counting on my fingers, I have at least 14 sets of Treso tubes, two cylinders worth are modified for #10 caps.

Do you have any of those old caps left?  What about the tins they came in?

This is a 30 year old cap tin:


They were like this until about nine or ten years ago:


Now they are like this:


And these are about 45 years old:


Notice the last ones. See where it says "trimmed edge?"  They used to have trimmed edged much like the CCI caps, now they leave the petals from the blank.  That sounds like a step backwards, but it actually makes them fit more cones and makes them self relieving.

Regards,
Mako

Added: Actually the old Remington caps had a slight internal edge chamfer like the RWS caps which gave them a "saw tooth" edge, but both the CCI and RWS caps are trimmed.

[hellgate]

"See where it says "trimmed edge?"  They used to have trimmed edged much like the CCI caps, now they leave the petals from the blank.  That sounds like a step backwards, but it actually makes them fit more cones and makes them self relieving."

AMEN BRUTHA!! That's why I like them. They fit ALL my myriad of C&Bs (or I change the nips to those that do).

[Montana Slim]

Just for grins, I contacted the service departments of both CCI and Remington, requesting dimensioanl data on their respective percussion caps......The result? CCI customer service sent me a personal email reply within the hour. Remington....no...haven't heard from them...still waiting (over a month). Follows is the CCi data:

CCI #11 and #11M

Outside diameter:  .178"
Inside diameter:  . 1683'
Height: .165"

CCI #10

Outside diameter:  .173"
Inside diameter:   .163"
Height:  .165"

[Mako]

Just for grins, I contacted the service departments of both CCI and Remington, requesting dimensioanl data on their respective percussion caps......The result? CCI customer service sent me a personal email reply within the hour. Remington....no...haven't heard from them...still waiting (over a month). Follows is the CCi data:

CCI #11 and #11M

Outside diameter:  .178"
Inside diameter:  . 1683'
Height: .165"

CCI #10

Outside diameter:  .173"
Inside diameter:   .163"
Height:  .165"

Slim,
It's good to see someone still responds to requests.  They were very gracious during my tour as well.

Those I.D.s seem awfully large so for a quick sanity check I just measured one of each size to see what the largest pin I could put in in each.  I'm afraid they've given you some bogus information.  As I expected both diameters they gave you are way too big.  The CCI #10 would only accept a .160+ pin, a .161+  would not even start.  On the CCI#11 it would only accept a .166+ pin, a .167+ would not even start.





The #10s were from lot DO6M and the #11s from lot H2BM.

You should email them back and tell them I have measured 121 of each size from 3 lots each and 20 each from 6 different tins and the largest pin that fit in any #10 was a 162+ and a there was only one #11 cap that accepted a .168+ out of 121 measurements.  Only 7 #11 caps accepted a .167+  pin, 92 accepted a .166+ pin and 21 accepted a .165+ pin.  

Based on my compiled measurements the #10s have an I.D. of Ø.161 and the #11s Ø.166.  We're not talking about measuring just a couple of caps.  Three people made the measurements for total of 121 caps of each size from three lots and 20 each from 6 packages.  I'd like to correspond with them about this, have them contact me.

Regards,
Mako

[Norton Commando]

Yes, the CCI ID of 0.1683" that was provided to Montana for a #11 cap does seem big. 

My measurement of a #11 CCI cap, using a vernier caliper, shows the ID to be ~0.165". Granted a vernier caliper is not the most accurate device for this application, but I averaged the measurements of a dozen or so caps.

[Montana Slim]

For additional grins, I'll add my measurements from selected types of cap I have on-hand of (4000 caps) each...these are CCI #10 & #11. I've used a number of measuring methods, including gage pins, expanding ball ID pins (then read using a mike). All with recent calibration to a certified gage lab. I also had one of the gage technicians measure several caps. Interestingly, he shared a similar thought to mine - That the relatively soft body of the caps will expand with very slight force when measuring with any of the aforementioned "hand" methods. Best results from these typical devices would likely be obtained using a gentle touch and that readings withing .001 to .002 are the best resolution obtained with essentially hand tools. One persons interpretation of the proper fit of the measuring tool may not match another's. It was agreed that measurements using destructive methods, X-ray and a digital comparator would be more consistent, at least removing the human factor. Unfortunately, I didn't have a "job/charge-code" to fund such research.

Data from my collective measurements are:

CCI#10 (2005)             CCI#11 (2009)
ID   .165                     ID   .170
OD  .170                     OD  .175
LEN .160                     LEN .162

Anyone is welcome to contact CCI direct....below is the email (just replace "__" with "@".
cciexpert__ATK.com

[Mako]

...One persons interpretation of the proper fit of the measuring tool may not match another's. It was agreed that measurements using destructive methods, X-ray and a digital comparator would be more consistent, at least removing the human factor. Unfortunately, I didn't have a "job/charge-code" to fund such research...

Slim,
Fortunately my measurements are not "one persons" interpretations, they have taken by three different individuals.  We also corroborated the Internal Diameter measurements taken with gage pins using a new OGP Smart Scope I received this spring.  I actually paid two people to take measurements for me while I was on assignment in Philadelphia earlier this year (I wrote about that).  If you remember I had been reporting a limited sampling of each cap type.  All height measurements after the original measurements I reported earlier this year were taken using an optical comparator because it was much more accurate than using a pair of calipers.  The internal depth was taken using a drop gage with a Ø2mm tip.  Diameters were taken using better pin gages than I showed from my home set, but as I said we verified the measurement technique using the Smart Scope.  If you would like I can repeat the verification using the exact two caps I measured last night and I can take pictures to show the equipment, the caps being measured and the results.

I wish to point out one thing, you make the statement,

That the relatively soft body of the caps will expand with very slight force when measuring with any of the aforementioned "hand" methods. Best results from these typical devices would likely be obtained using a gentle touch and that readings withing .001 to .002 are the best resolution obtained with essentially hand tools.

My measurements are smaller than what you report which is the opposite of what it would be if the "soft cups" were being expanded because the inspectors were unskilled and not capable of correctly measuring the I.D.s with pin gages.  I will remind you we verified the measurement technique with the Smart Scope because I had the same concern.  So once again, three different people taking measurements and then using a totally different measuring instrument to verify the measurements.

You don't agree with yourself with your own measurements.  Since you have received the information from CCI your reported measurements have now grown larger and closer to theirs.

On April 22th of this year you posted this:

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

You can find the discussion about those dimensions here:

http://www.cascity.com/forumhall/index.php/topic,37612.msg480255.html#msg480255

Your measurements for CCI #10 caps has grown from .158 to .165 and (that's .007"), the CCI #11 caps from .164 to .170 (which is .006")  Those are significant changes when it comes to fits on cones...

This is how they compare,  then and now:



Your measurements used to be much closer to the results I now have from large samples taken from multiple lots and with multiple inspectors.  The volume of the data and the minimum deviation over time and inspections gives me confidence in the reliability of the reported averages.   Your reported measurements are now much larger than what they were before.

Regards,
Mako

[Montana Slim]

The difference in my own tabulations are a result of:

- In the first reported info, a vernier caliper was used. Rather hastily, too. I attempted to lightly touch the edges of the cap ID. This vernier is calibrated annually by the gage lab.

Differences of opinion in the earlir thread (quoted above) caused me to evaulate the technique & I found it had flaws in repeatability using the "touch" technique, combined with the "give" of the soft caps.

- Second set (latest) was done using the ball tool, micrometer and gage pin techniques, using gage-lab tools.
This data was recorded a month or two before I asked for CCI /Remington for their data. I recoded my data on note-cards for all the cap types I have on hand, and took photos of both the note cards and cap boxes for a future article for the NCOWS magazine (The Shootist).
Although the note cards are sitting on my desk, I hadn't actually compared my data to the CCI supplied data until I responded to this thread.....primarily because I've held out hope that Remington would respond...I'd rather list manufacturer's data in the article than my own.

In my first message I alluded the concept that high repeatability and accuracy of measuring caps was not likely.....thats really why I've chimed-in a few times. I see similar examples of variation in manufactured cartridge components such as cartridge brass, copper jackets and primer cups (the ability to consistently produce and measure features) for a number of popular, high-volume ammunition items. When the guys spending millions of dollars making and measuring those items get Mako's level of consitency.....well, I'll be tickled.

I can easily reduce the controversy by not posting any additional comment.

Slim

[Mako]

Slim,

This is an example of what we have been doing:





Those are both #10 Remington caps.  I think the most inexperienced viewer of this thread can see why we had to resort to some other measurement technique than a caliper or a micrometer.  To measure a large number of caps they tried using a pocket (a hole) in a plate to hold the cap and a drop gage with a tip larger than the diameter of the cap for the measurement, but the caps often tilted (even a slight cocking changes the measurement) unless there was a very close or almost a line to line fit between the cap and the pocket.  Measuring heights or caps with irregular edges was just one measurement problem.  One of my techs asked me if she could use the Optical Comparator I had moved into my personal workspace, and as you can see from the images it is perfect for the job.  All you have to do is zero out the "Z" axis on the seating surface, then place and focus on each new cap and record the height.  She sent me this photo while I was out of town to ask if it was acceptable.

Check this out, this is her set up:


Notice the "Z" measurement?  .18201, which of course is recorded as .182 tall.

Here's another shot she took, it also has the OGP Smart Scope in it.  The O.C. is a bench top model that got stuck in the corner and she was showing me they left it in the corner (it was on the wall before I took delivery of the Smart Scope) out of the way yet had set it back up, validated the machine in the new location with standards from the metrology lab and then conducted a simple R&R study between the two of them to show it was capable with the parts they were measuring.


That's the automated vision system they used to verify and correlate the Inside Diameter dimensions they both recorded using the laboratory grade gage pins.

I have pretty much anything available I need already in my lab space, I have a CMM, an Optical comparator, a toolmaker's scope, the Smart Scope, a hardness tester, a superficial hardness tester, stereo scopes,  any hand measuring equipment you might need, I can also use the film or the digital X-Ray equipment when needed, Instron material testers, fatigue testers, the die penetrate lab and more.

As I told you earlier the measured CCI #11 caps run from Ø.165 to Ø.168, that's a range of four gage pins in .001" increments.  The CCI #10s actually have a greater range but they cluster at Ø.161, they range from Ø.159 to Ø.165, that's seven gage pins.  But read this carefully, only two measured at Ø.165, only six measured at Ø.164 and only three at Ø.163.  In their notes they both indicated all of those appeared to have been slightly flared.  Those caps were sequestered and I also observed the "flare" they reported. That's only 11 out of 120 measured caps, those are obviously outliers.

I wish you and everyone else a happy Thanksgiving,
Mako

P.S. I am contacting CCI using the address you provided me.  I'm going to lay out the inspection methods, the equipment, the pictures, the models and ask for their reply.