Alloy Content of Uberti Brass Frames

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

Over the years, we have heard all sorts of opinions on just what metal Uberti is using in their brass framed Henrys and 1866 Yellowboys.

The metal used in original brass framed Henrys and 1866 Winchesters was actually a form of bronze, commonly known as Gunmetal. Paraphrasing Mike Venturino in his book Shooting Lever Guns of the Old West, even though the 19th Century guns actually used a type of bronze for their frames, they have been called brass framed for so long that the term has stuck. Gunmetal was a bronze alloy consisting of 80-88% copper, 10-15% tin, and 2-5%zinc. Gunmetal is classified as a bronze because the tin content is much greater than the zinc content. Gunmetal was prized by 19th Century arms makers because it was very easy to cast with, and had good strength, hardness and corrosion resistance. The frames of the 19th Century guns were cast to near net shape, then secondary machining was performed on them to bring them to their final shape, so the good casting qualities of Gunmetal made it an obvious choice. But modern frames are not cast to shape, they are CNC machined from bar stock, so the casting qualities of Gunmetal are no longer so important.

A very brief primer on the difference between bronze and brass is probably in order here. Both are alloys of copper. The main difference is bronze is principally an alloy of copper and tin, brass is principally an alloy of copper and zinc. Varying the ratio of copper to tin or zinc imparts different characteristics to each alloy.

For a long time now I have been wanting to get to the bottom of exactly what Uberti is using for their Henry and 1866 replicas. A couple of years ago Happy Trails, master gunsmith, gave me a sideplate from a brass framed Uberti Henry that he had used when prototyping his conversion Henrys, and told me to do with it as I wished. About a month ago I cut off a chunk the size of my thumbnail and gave it to the head of engineering at the company I work for. He had it analyzed for me by a process known as X Ray Fluorescent Analysis. I just got the results today. 56% copper, 44% zinc. Not a trace of tin. Now it's true this is just the sideplate and not the frame, but I cannot imagine why Uberti would be using different alloys for the frame and sideplates.

As far as I'm concerned, it looks pretty plain that Uberti is using brass, not bronze or Gunmetal, for their replicas of the Henry and 1866 Winchester.

[Joe Lansing]

    I agree with the idea that Uberti is using the same alloy for all "brass" parts.  if they weren't, there would probably be issues of color match, rate of tarnish, etc. However, if you feel adventuresome, get a sample from a receiver, say inside one of the tangs, and have it re tested.

                                                                          J.L.

                                                                   

[Professor Marvel]

He had it analyzed for me by a process known as X Ray Fluorescent Analysis. I just got the results today. 56% copper, 44% zinc. Not a trace of tin. Now it's true this is just the sideplate and not the frame, but I cannot imagine why Uberti would be using different alloys for the frame and sideplates.

As far as I'm concerned, it looks pretty plain that Uberti is using brass, not bronze or Gunmetal, for their replicas of the Henry and 1866 Winchester.

If that is an accurate analysis, and I have no reason to doubt it, then it is a most unfortunate choice of brass alloy on the part of the Italian Gunmakers, and it explains a LOT. An alloy with even a small amount of tin or even better, phosphorous, produces an alloy that is stronger, harder, easy to machine, and with a much greater resistance to stretching, the bane of all Brass Frame Colts.

This is probably why why the evil "fake Henry" can claim a much stronger frame using a magic alloy, most likely a variation of the phosphor bronzes which can command a tensile strength of as much as 95,000 psi, greatly exceeding the tensile strength of many plain steels (on the order of 50,000 psi and up )

If there is no other metal in this alloy, everything I could find for CuZn 56/44 ( or CuZn 44) points to ....

Button Brass.

brass for the manufacture of buttons.

stamped buttons.

that is , brass made for ease of stamping.

Not particularly strong, not particularly wear resistant,not at all resistant to stretching. crap. I can console myself that it is unlikely that, with the few rounds I shoot monthly,  I will wear mine out.  This does, however make me more inclined to start shopping for something with a stronger frame, even though 1873's and 1892's are so far out of my chosen timeframe.

Would that the Remington Revolving Carbine were not banned.... :-(
Since I do not compete as such, Perhaps the locals might allow it if I can address the "safety concerns". 

well.

How Ironical.

I suppose we can now all refer to our Yellowboys as "cute as a button".

yhs
Prof Disappointed Marvel

[Delmonico]

Interesting PM, didn't have the time to search the facts, but that just didn't sound like that good of an alloy to me.  Surprised it didn't have no manganese in it.  From years ago when I worked at Hy-Gain and they made military antennas the machined brass parts had some of that in it.  I was told it made it easier to machine and added strength. 

Also won't that much zinc make it a bit more brittle.  I know cartridge brass for the most part or at least US made is 70% copper and 30% zinc.

[Joe Lansing]

Professor Marvel,
    All may not be lost. There is still the "iron" frame Henry.

                                           J.L.

[Professor Marvel]

Posted by: Joe Lansing
Professor Marvel,
    All may not be lost. There is still the "iron" frame Henry.

Hmmmmmmmmmm. Okay! I'll trade ya!

Interesting PM, didn't have the time to search the facts, but that just didn't sound like that good of an alloy to me.  Surprised it didn't have no manganese in it.  From years ago when I worked at Hy-Gain and they made military antennas the machined brass parts had some of that in it.  I was told it made it easier to machine and added strength. 

Also won't that much zinc make it a bit more brittle.  I know cartridge brass for the most part or at least US made is 70% copper and 30% zinc.

AH my dear sir, you worked at Hy-Gain?!?! They were the ACME of antenna makers, and made great strides in design of affordable directional shortwave antennas, beams, rotors, towers...

I briefly investigated the "X Ray Fluorescent Analysis" process and equipment hoping that perhaps it might not show small percentages (less than 1 percent) of other alloying metals. Allas, it is a very effective process, and apparently is used to detect as little as 5 ppm of lead in paint and toys ...

Regarding the zinc content, I am unsure of the brittleness, as a mere amature metal crank and a failure at chemistry - I am limited to what opinions of others I can  read, and my own personal experiences and am unable to extrapolate an opinion in these arcane matters of chemistry - it is as obtuse to me as cooking, which is a chemical mystery in itself!!! 

All I could find regarding that specific alloy 56/44 (no other additives) pertained exclusively to button alloy.

It seems that high strength "gun bronze" contains a very high ratio of copper, 90% or more, but it seems more amenable to casting than machining, which would make it less desirable in rifle frame manufacture. However, there are a number of more appealing Bronze alloys that could have been used, amongst them
Phosphor Bronze (makes for great antenna wire, btw)
Various "other" Gun Bronzes (they often refer you to phosphor bronze!)
Aluminum Bronzes

I am currently playing with a very nice Aluminum bronze whose paperwork claims between 80k and 90k psi tensile strength -
really quite amazing, since mild steel runs between 45k and 55k psi tensile..
It has a lovely golden yellow color, machines well, so it will make nice knife guards or bullet molds, and is said to cast easily but I have not yet tried that.

this excerpt from Henley's formulas online instructs the properly equipped lunatic to make his own Gun Bronze or Phosphor Bronze:
http://www.achestofbooks.com/reference/Henley-s-20th-Century-Formulas-Recipes-Processes-Vol1/Phosphor-Bronze.html

and an ancient manual from 1884 discusses gun bronze of the era :
"The materials of engineering", Volume 3  (published 1884)
By Robert Henry Thurston
...
The most common of these alloys is gun bronze which consists usually of 90 parts copper 10 of tin or 89 copper n tin Such bronze has a strength which will depend greatly on the soundness of the castings and purity of the constituents of the alloy but which often may exceed 50,000 pounds per square inch in tension

The tenacity of gun bronze thus depends greatly upon the method of manufacture of casting and of cooling By careful handling it has been given a tenacity in ordnance exceeding even 60,000 pounds per square inch and the Author has obtained small bars still stronger Bronze ordnance of large size has been made here and in Europe with success ...
--------
Later He discusses the efficacies and wonderfulness of phosphor bronze:
..."journal Ordnance has been made of this modification of gun bronze by European nations and has been found to excel in strength toughness and endurance. Small arms have also been made of it and in ship work the screws and sometimes rods in small vessels.  "

the only issue appears to be the high cost:
"The comparatively high cost of phosphor bronze has checked its introduction notwithstanding its undeniable excellence "

However, having been involved just a tad in manufacturing, I can easily see that if the cost of the alloy and increased machining costs added, say only 20% to that cost, retail price on a Yellowboy could easily exceed $1200 for the cheapest model!

So, I will muddle along with bits and pieces of my fancy alloys in my projects, and refrain from  complaining overly.
If l I am ever able to machine my own revolver and rifle frames then I will have earned the right to raise a fuss! 

It *is* entirely possible, however that different alloys were used in the frame vs the side plate. But even if not, I can readily console myself with the empiracle evidence of many tens of thousands of BP and low pressure smokeless rounds being fired by our compatriots with no ill effects whatsoever. The only "high performance"  load I ever intend to try will be to work up a deer load of a full case of swiss under the appropriate lubed lead bullet, and that will only be used sparingly, because I am such a cheap barstich   fugal individual.

yhs
Prof Longwinded Marvel

[Delmonico]

PM, I turned 18 in Dec of 1974, a Sr in Hs, worked for them till July of 75 when I went to school to learn to fixed wrecked cars.

The CB rush was on, they hired almost anyone 18 who would work.  I was in stores 2nd shift and pulled the stuff to go to the Depts to be worked on, so I got around a bit.

[Fox Creek Kid]

Thanks, Driftwood. Informative thread. FWIW, how much did the analysis cost?

[Driftwood Johnson]

Thanks, Driftwood. Informative thread. FWIW, how much did the analysis cost?

Howdy FCK

It was a freebie. I work for a company that makes equipment that performs spectrographic analysis of lubricating oil. Our sister company makes X Ray Fluorescent Analysis equipment. We had one of their instruments on loan for some demonstrations and the head of engineering had my piece of brass analyzed for me as a favor. Ordinarily it would probably have cost around $300.

[Major 2]

Driff..
Sorry, I did not respond to the question you put to me concerning this topic.
I got around to looking back at and into other thread and saw it.

I have nothing in writing, certainly nothing along the lines of Spectroanaliysis you have. Just a statement from a Gunsmith I have great respect for , sadly he Passed in 1992. He told me, Uberti's Henry's were tough ,when I questioned him about the Brass Frame in the Henry back in 1980  (not being a fan of Brass frame Revolvers)
What I have is, 28 years of using a Allan Arms Henry , and the last 10 using another one.
I bought NIB in 1981 for $385 including 10% FFL recievers fee & State Sale tax (Mention here for 40 Rod)  
I've used that Henry in years in CW reenacting (firing thousands of BP blanks) and in SASS to about 1995 (44/40)
I guess perhap 600 or more rounds a year .... when I sold the Gun.
The new owner used it a few years , and about 2003 it was put away in favor of his new 66.

About 3 months ago I bought the old 44/40 Henry back ...It has very little blue, having turn quite brown... Stock was never
varnished and has years of character... and still tight and accurate.
The only problem I ever had with it, I hung it up in a tree on Horseback at Saylor Creek in "84 and messed up the Follower spring...I don't think My friend, had any issue while he had it.

I have 3 Henry's two Brass frame and one Steel like yours... I'd recommend either, but then I'm partial to Henry's as well as Richards conversions  

[Montana Slim]

...Glad I've gotten 15,000 rounds outta my Yellow Boy Rifle to date....it's probably ready to collapse 

Regards,
Slim

[will52100]

I've put close to 10,000 rounds of warthog black powder 45's through my Henry with no increase in headspace.  Load is 38 grains of 3F and a 250 grain bullet.  I was a little worried at first and checked the headspace everytime I cleaned it, but after no change finaly gave up, may have to check it again just to see if it's opened up any at all.  It apears the Henry even with comon brass for a frame is more than strong enough for standard loads.  Of course there probably hasn't been 200 rounds of smokless through mine.

Though I did wonder about the frame hardness, I've got a bunch of little dents on top from ejected cartriges.

[Steel Horse Bailey]

Howdy!

Driftwood, thanks for posting.  This is very interesting.



This part of my post is for good Professor Marvel & anyone seriously concerned about the longevity ... and strength ... of their "brass" framed Uberti rifles.  I read the following in a gun review back around 1998-'99.  I was considering adding a Henry or an 1866 to my armory, but was concerned about the "brass" frames.

The reviewer quoted a SASS champ who at that time used an 1866 in 45 Colt.  This was before the gamer mentality set in and the shooter used ONLY factory 45 Colt full-power rounds.  I'm sorry that I don't remember WHO he was, or what brand of bullets, but I'll relay what he said in the article.  At that time, he had fired over 100,000 rounds 'thru his '66 ... and had NO stretching issues.


I figured that was good enough for me!  By the way, I settled on an 1866 which probably has 10-12,000 rounds fired 'thru it.  Before I went to (nearly) all BP, I fired only full bang 45 Colt rounds, loaded to the maximum safe level as found in several loading books.  Since I went to BP, I shoot 37-39 grs charges.  (I fill them to 1/8"-1/16" of 3F Goex from the top, then a .030" wad and 250 gr BigLube tm seated on top.  Just so I know how much 3F is in each round, I weigh the charge.  In other words, they are loaded volumetrically, then weighed for informational purposes.)  

I am a proud and un-repentant Warthog.  I took these rounds deer hunting last fall ... but I didn't even SEE a deer.  I'm confident that barring bad shot placement, Buckie would have succumbed to this round ... with NO problem.

Regards -

SHB

[will52100]

I have read about a few opening up head space in "gunsmithing guns of the old west", but it doesn't apear to be from frame streatch as much as from poorly fitted toggle links to there mortices, and it was only mentioned in passing, aparently after Uberti upped the size of the toggle link pins it stopped it.

As for deer with your load, anything out to about 100 yards with decent shot placement should drop bambi.  I took one a couple years ago rite at 75 yards, I was up hill and he was running up anouther hill.  Shot entered next to spine and lodged in his stomack, nearly full body penitration and fractured the spine on entry.  Needless to say he droped like a rock.

[pony express]

Interesting thread. Only have one comment, Driftwood stated in the origional post that modern brass frame guns are machined from bar stock. But my '66 is obviosly cast, you can see the casting marks in some non machined area inside the frame. Maybe they have changed? I bought mine used about 7-8 years ago, so I don't know when it was made.

[Steel Horse Bailey]

Interesting thread. Only have one comment, Driftwood stated in the origional post that modern brass frame guns are machined from bar stock. But my '66 is obviosly cast, you can see the casting marks in some non machined area inside the frame. Maybe they have changed? I bought mine used about 7-8 years ago, so I don't know when it was made.

Pony E, there's a 2-letter code in a box that is the proof mark code for the year of manufacture.  I'll try to find my chart and post it here.  Wait one ...


I'm back; try looking here:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=6229818  It's up near the top of the post.

There seems to be controversy regarding the code for 1986: one source I found said this chart, which shows AP for 1986, but should read AO, according to a Beretta chart where everything ELSE is the same.  I don't know what is correct, but I guess you'll be OK with either code ... if your rifle was made in  1986.

[Montana Slim]

Interesting thread. Only have one comment, Driftwood stated in the origional post that modern brass frame guns are machined from bar stock. But my '66 is obviosly cast, you can see the casting marks in some non machined area inside the frame. Maybe they have changed? I bought mine used about 7-8 years ago, so I don't know when it was made.

I've had a look-see inside many 1866's and a couple 1860's all were cast.

I had to replace a side plate on mine many years ago, I didn't think the chemical content would ever be such a hot-topic, else I would have kept that plate and ran it through the SEM over in the Science & Engineering lab where I used to work.

Regards,
Slim

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy Boys

Let me add a correction. I misstated when I said the frames were machined from bar stock. It was just an assumption. If they were machined from castings I bow to superior knowledge. But my comments about the actual alloy stand.

[Steel Horse Bailey]

Driftwood, considering the original post was about alloy content, MOST of your post still stands ... and it's ALL interesting!  How much REAL difference would "machined from bar stock" vs. "machined from castings" be on a practical level?  If I remember, there's a small strength difference due to molecular arrangement between the 2, (and I don't know which might be slightly stronger) but does this really affect our guns which aren't going to be shot with hot loads?

As DD used to say, "There's learnin' goin' on here!"

[Joe Lansing]

    We've got to live with and work with what is, not with what isn't, until what isn't becomes what is.

                                                                 J.L.