New 1861 and questions

[Thumb Buster]

Just acquired a new Pietta 1861 and yes indeed it is a 'kit gun'.  First thing I noticed was that the cylinder bolt would not snap its leg past the cam on the hammer when it was returned to the down position.  Okay.  Little bit of emery cloth and that was fixed.  Went to the range and had about six misfires.  Caps wouldn't pop.  Hmmm!  That was when I saw a gap between the hammer face and the cones.  Compared it to my 1860, which has never failed to go 'BOOM'.  The 1860 hammer just barely kisses the cone and I do mean barely.  It's not enough to really kick the cylinder forward.  Alright.  Pietta failed to grind down the 1861 arbor where it protrudes through the frame of the 1861.  Addressed that issue until the hammer face is a micron from the cone.  Numerous caps have now popped with no problem.  And yes, I know I should get Slix Shot or another after-market cone... 

Now for my question folks: how much is proper contact between the two surfaces?  Should the hammer hold the cylinder forward against the cone closing the gap.  BTW my gap is .008.  I have seen hammers that flattened cones and I have seen them misfire due to a gap like a Uberti '73 SAA with the cylinder pin all the way in.  Just wonderin'. 

[45 Dragoon]

TB,
 There's not enough mainspring force for the hammer to keep the cyl against the barrel (during firing). To me, .008 is way big (big enough to throw a cat through!!). I set mine at .002 which is close enough to set up opentops for dry firing and be reliable enough to pop a cap 100% of the time. So, ideally, zero contact of hammer and nips (or cones) would be the order.

Mike
www.goonsgunworks.com

[Thumb Buster]

Thanks for the information Mike. 

[Advertising]

[45 Dragoon]

TB,
  BTW, the .008 clearance plus the limited forward travel of the hammer is why you had ignition problems.

I know some will say they have a .010" clearance and it's 100% reliable. That's because the hammer travel (or nose length) is way over spec. but that makes it easier to pass the "function test" to get it out the factory door.

Mike
www.goonsgunworks.com

[Coffinmaker]

I agree with the "Dragoon."  Too much Barrel/Cylinder gap.  I'm going to guess your still getting some excess contact between the hammer and the frame and or back of the Arbor.  Need to look for that.
The Slix nipples are also a very good investment in your case.  Some will argue with me, but when I set up a Cap Gun, I prefer contact between the hammer face and the nipple.  The Slix nipple is a tad longer than a stock Pietta and may just fix your short hammer issue.
The Slix will give you better ignition in any case and are worth the investment.

Coffinmaker

[Thumb Buster]

I am seriously looking at the Slix nipples.  I'm not really ready to start trying to close the gap as I don't have anything like a mill and don't trust myself with a file.  Besides that Mister Murphy is always right over my right shoulder and then I start cussin' like a sailor and that ain't good for my blood pressure.  I've taken both the 1860 and the 1861 frame and comparing them.  There's a tad more on the arbor protrusion that can come down.  Thank you both for the information and I'll let you know how it goes. 

[Thumb Buster]

Okay, okay...I admit I ain't the 'sharpest tack in the box'  so I went back into the revolver and knocked down some more of the protruding arbor until it is now flush.  Gained (or lost) .001.  Okay now I have .007 gap.  Then for whatever reason while I was holding it up to the light I saw an odd spacing between the barrel lug and where it kisses up to the frame.  Y' all have been very helpful with all the threads and postings about burs and such.  What do I do but miss burs at the mating surfaces.  (Yes!  I did give myself a thorough cussin' and even a 'brain duster'!)  In short the gap is now .006.  That's without me dressing the pins themselves...yet.  (They seem to have stuff where they actually enter the frame.)  This is a learning experience for me.  I shall keep at it.  Thank you all again.   

[Montana Slim]

Not sure if this was covered in your investigation....but, please check the fit/gap between the hammer & the end of the nipple while holding the cylinder forward (toward barrel).

Slim

[45 Dragoon]

M.Slim,
 That's another reason I like a close tolerance bbl./cyl., it's easy to set up for dry fire.

Mike
www.goonsgunworks.com

[Thumb Buster]

Go the cylinder gap down to .006 and the hammer face just kisses the cones and does not push the cylinder forward at all.  I am assuming, as I don't have any wire feeler gauges to make certain, that once the cylinder is pushed forward by the hand the hammer/cone gap is the same.  One thing I am most certain of is that the revolver is now a 'shooter'.  Fired it between 25 to 30 times (I lost count  ) and not one misfire.  All in all I have learned a lot in the last week but am certain I have not learned one nth of these firearms.

[Montana Slim]

Sound like things are working out. Keep shooting them  breaking them in, that's what they were made for.
I often take a pair out for a day & shoot 100 rds each, especially my new Navy's.

I agree with 45 Dragoon on the close gap...most of my pet C&Bs (mostly Colt style - all breeds) run between .001 - .003 gap & they have no issues dragging from fouling or such.

Slim