Cap'n Ball Capping Questions

[Mako]

Ain't  we all ?  

Really?  Degreed, advanced degree(s), registered?  Tell us more.

I'm curious now...  was that a wink or a blink?

[rickk]

Ya, Degreed... EE... official title is "Principal Engineer" for ITT, although ITT is a really big corporation and there is more than one  "Principal Engineer".

[Mako]

Rikk,
I figured either EE and actually considered Communications since you seem to have limited access to tooling or gaging instruments.

Welcome to the 19th Century... I wish you the best in your projects.

Have a great day,
Mako

[Advertising]

[rickk]

Mako, my "thing" is power conversion electronics, mostly for military applications. At work I have all sorts of precision toys at my disposal, but when I come home I try my best to measure stuff by "jigglling it" it and "eyeballing it" and such. I live in a farm house built in 1880 that is still heated with only wood, and have a tractor that ain't an antique cuz it was made in 1956, the same year as I was. I can exist quite well in either the high tech or the low tech world. I get a kick out of showing off in front of the more recent college grads by diagnosing electronic circuit problems with my nose and my finger, yet I can pull out all sorts of fancy stuff and fake my way thru it without need of resorting to the manual.

It all comes down to doing what needs to be done with what is within reach.

Now, can I borrow a screw driver? I need to hammer something into precise conformance with it's surroundings ;-)

[Crow Choker]

     Howdy All-hope your day is a good one. Here in Iowa, just waiting for another Iowa storm to come in. Out of couriousity, I played around with my cap and ball revolvers checking percussion cap fit with three different caps. Using dial calipers I measured exterior height and width and the interior demensions of CCI #10, Rem #10, and Rem #11's. I came to within a few thousand's or the same as to what Mako posted, except the Rem #11's which averaged between .165-.170. These Rem #11's were purchased back in the '80's some time. I use Rem#10's for all my shooting at the moment, the difference in the Rem #11's could be attributed to 'old manufacturer' as has been mentioned 'rickk'.

     On the revolvers I measured the height of the nipples/cones. The '51 Colt Pietta (44 cal) measured .185, while a new Pietta cylinder I recently purchased with Treso nipples were .165, a lot shorter. A Pietta '58 Remington (44 cal) measured .183, while nipples on a new cylinder were .185. A Uberti Dragoon had nipples at .206, while a Uberti '51 Navy (36 cal) came in at .175 and a Uberti '60 Army (44) measured .183. These were all average, some of the nipples (all stock except the Treso's) differed on the same gun. The Treso's were more uniform. I didn't measure any nipple width at any point. My question, if anyone can answer, are all Treso nipples of the same exterior demensions for various models, except for thread size and diameter??? Would think they would be larger for Dragoons and Walkers.

     In trying each brand and size, none of the CCI #10's would fit or seat except on the new Pietta Remington cylinder. I pushed on them with a plastic tool as much as I 'dared', no dice. I got 500 of them to try several years ago and never could seat them on anything. The Rem #10's seated snug on everything, a gentle push with the plastic tool seated all, except on that new Pietta Rem cylinder they fit snug, but not as well as on the nipples of the other revolvers. The Rem #11's were LOOSE on everything, even the Treso's. Being they were purchased in the 80's sometime and not of new manufacture could be the reason. They were originally bought for use in my first cap and ball , a Euroarms '51 Navy, 44 caliber bought in '72 and a T/C Hawken rifle. They never did stay on that '51 Navy very well. Just a note, I wore safety goggles and leather gloves when doing this. Didn't want a Cuts Crooked thumb! The Rem #11's never did well in an old inline capper I bought in '72. Since switching over to Rem#10's, whenever that was, I've never had problems with either of the two Cash inline cappers or a Cash 'snail' capper I use. They all stay upright and feed well.

     Untill Mako posted his well needed information, I was always under the impression that the bigger the cap number, the bigger the cap was in it's interior width. Can see now how the length of skirt fitting down further on the nipple as it's width increases holds the cap tighter. As to the Treso's, have thought alot of converting all my c&b revolvers over to them, but have got along for the most part OK with the stock nipples. According to what 'rickk' found out while talking with Treso, it appears they may manufacturer their nipples to CCI #11 specs, but it appears the reason Rem #10's work is due to similair internal specs. Hope so, If I switch over to Treso's, I don't want to have to invest in CCI #11's, as I have a hoard of Rem #10's. Well thar pards, this is just my 2 cents worth on this well traveled and discussed subject. Yers till next time, Crow Choker (Disregard any spelling errors, I shoot better than I spell)(Ain't that right Jubal Starbuck!)

[rickk]

Crow Choker, here is what I got from Treso regarding how they make their nipples...

"All Treso nipples are made in one of two sizes, either #11 or Muskets."

I am assuming from the above statement  that they make them all in one of the two mentioned profiles.

[Crow Choker]

     Howdy, Good New Years Eve To All: rickk-From what you've found and stated, your saying Treso makes their nipples/cones(which is proper the term or is it determined by what part of the country you live?) to fit #11 or Musket size. Thus I assume your saying no matter what make and model revolver you have, they make nipples of different exterior dimensions to accomodate different models of revolvers, but all are designed to take a #11 cap(possibly of #11 CCI demensions). Might have to invest in a few sets. Know of a source who always shows up at a upcoming gun show who sells them for around $5.00 a set cheaper than most on-line sources I've seen.
     The 'proof of the pudding' when I checked the three different caps with my various revolvers, was in the physical placing /trying of each cap on each indivdual revolver nipple to see what fit what. All of my measurements, which by no way could equal Mako's due to his use of pin guages and other more high tech instruments and his advanced knowledge of such things, were more or less a generalization of what I measured. The height of the cones really didn't mean 'squat' unless a person would measure the base and top of the nipple along with the height and know enough geometrical wizardry to determine the available surface area that would be available to be capped with the known interior surface of a percussion cap. Mako probably knows the game plan for this, me, I've allowed all of my geometry skills to lapse, just as my ability to run the 100 yard dash in around 12 seconds. Quess the whole end game plan when determining the right cap size is as when I go  and purchase new blue jeans. For the most part, 36x30's of most brands fit, but if in question, 'the 'proof of the pudding' is to physically  try them on. Not all 36x30's are of the same cut(dimensions), some a little tighter, some a little looser than others. Hate baggy jeans. Mako-In no way am I meaning to trivalize any of your measurements and efforts. All was very interesting and appreciated. In all the years of shooting and reading about percussion firearms, I've never seen or heard any of the info you posted. Quess I never thought about alot of it either. Just bought caps and used them.

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL!   Yours, Crow Choker

[Mako]

Crow Choker,
There actually has never been any mystery to what caps the Treso cones are manufactured for, look on page 27 of this link:

http://www.houseofmuskets.com/1images/House%20of%20Muskets%202005.pdf 

The Treso manufacturers have always specified #11 caps for their cones on the pistols we are talking about or musket caps on the larger rifle/musket  and a very few shotgun cones.  As I told Rikk most discovery just requires simple reading and research.

Make no mistake, the height of the cone is extremely important… Not necessarily for fit with the cap, but for the reliability of the pistol.

The CCI #11 caps will probably work for you.  The Remington #11 and CCI #11 are similar internally, but there are some subtle differences in the base internal diameter and the smaller final internal diameter which make up the internal taper.  Don’t be deceived by the appearance that the CCI cap is slightly taller, it is actually shorter internally because of the thicker priming compound in the CCI cap.   It really takes all of the dimensions to determine the functional differences in the caps.

Personally, I actually find the current Rem #11 caps fit tighter than the CCI #11 caps on Treso cones.  The nature of the petals on the Remingtons caps will help them fit more cones than the CCI caps.  The best thing to do is what you have already done and that is to do empirical testing to find what fits best on your cones.  Most people can use the dimensions that have been posted so far to make some relative comparisons, but they need to buy a couple of sizes or brands to find the best cap for their cones.  The good news is that you can use the caps which are not the ideal choice as practice caps.

In all of this discussion I have left out one cap that I haven’t seen in a few years and that is the RWS 1055.  It runs the smallest of any cap that has been in our discussions.  The only thing I ever had that cap fit well was my 35 year old 1849 I built from a kit which had very small cones.  I haven’t seen them for sale in several years so I didn’t even bring them up.

Regards and happy experimentation,
Mako

[Montana Slim]

Ain't  we all ? 

Yes here, too! BSME, ISU.Go Clones!

Regards,
Slim

[Blackpowder Burn]

Well, I shot my first match with those Dragoons this weekend.  I shot the entire two day match (12 stages) with one miss, and it was a rifle.  The Dragoons functioned flawlessly with the Treso nipples, Remington #10 caps, 35 grains of Goex FFg, a lubed wad and 0.454 round ball.  No cap fragment jams.  It was a hoot, and I'm now hooked on cap'n ball.

The only problem is that I've acquired a new alias at my local club - "Mattie".  This, of course, after the young girl in True Grit.  Since the Dragoons are so large I have a hard time shooting duelist and reaching the hammer to cock it - so I gave up and shot two-handed!

Life is good with new toys to play with.

[ZVP]

 Different brands of caps have different hardnesses their material make-up is different.
 Switching to Remingtons has solved several problems with my '51 Colt/ Pietta and my '51 Uberti London.
 Heck I even tried the soft RWS copper caps and they shattered and jammed the revolver!
 The distance of gap between the hammer and Nipple does make a huge difference and your hammer should always have some gap to prevent shattering the caps.
 Try different brands.
 ZVP

[Mako]

Different brands of caps have different hardnesses their material make-up is different.
 Switching to Remingtons has solved several problems with my '51 Colt/ Pietta and my '51 Uberti London.
 Heck I even tried the soft RWS copper caps and they shattered and jammed the revolver!
 The distance of gap between the hammer and Nipple does make a huge difference and your hammer should always have some gap to prevent shattering the caps.
 Try different brands.
 ZVP

ZVP,
There is no perceptible difference in the hardness of the cap materials when evaluating Remington, CCI and RWS caps, they are basically the same.  They are harder than fully annealed copper because they are drawn during forming, but they run less than 1/4 hard.

Who told you that they were different hardness?

They don't "shatter," copper doesn't shatter at temperatures you can survive in.  The caps split, and they don't split because of a hammer blow, they split because of the pressure coming back through the flash hole.

You also don't want a "gap" between the hammer and your cone face. Not if you want reliability.  That is exactly the opposite of what works well.  The cup material is greater than .008" for all three cap brands, to have a "gap" you would have to leave a clearance for the thickest.

No offense intended, but I'm just curious where some of this mis-information gets started, where did you hear that the caps were different in hardness and that you need a gap to keep from shattering caps?

Regards,
Mako

[John10>10]

In the midst of doing research on which caper to get for my Pietta 1858 Rem. and whether or not to Treso nipples, After reading all this interesting, informative, and humoristing dialog, nothing was said about stainless steel nipples, good bad, or indifferent. I have 2 cylinders, just replaced one with stainless, and the #10 Rem. caps I just stared using fit good far as I can tell, but only shot a couple dozen rounds so far on them. The gun was bought this past Feb. and after 100 rounds, the original nipples started to mushroom. Also I must say this guy Mako makes me smile by the way he explain things

[Blackpowder Burn]

Mako is one of the smartest guys you'll ever come across and has a wicked sense of humor.  Pay attention to what he says.  He's kept me out of the ditch on several occasions.

[Mako]

Bug-0-1,
Stainless can be fine, it depends upon the external geometry of the tube more than anything.  Check this thread out then ask any other question you have.

http://www.cascity.com/forumhall/index.php/topic,35696.0.html

~Mako

[Fox Creek Kid]

The myth of having the hammer not touch a bare nipple has been around for eons IMO. So much BS that precision in the 19th century could machine to 0.001" when universalized measurement was not even adopted here until late after the Civil War and Jos. Whitworth from England and of Whitworth rifle fame was the engineer that perfected it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Whitworth

U.S. companies used "go/no go" gauges from a master copy of the weapon being made. Obviously, "cones" were turned on a machine.

http://www.sizes.com/tools/thread_history.htm

[wildman1]

What would cause caps to split when all you are doing is snapping a cap to make sure the nipples are clear before starting to shoot or load your C&B? WM 

ZVP,
There is no perceptible difference in the hardness of the cap materials when evaluating Remington, CCI and RWS caps, they are basically the same.  They are harder than fully annealed copper because they are drawn during forming, but they run less than 1/4 hard.

Who told you that they were different hardness?

They don't "shatter," copper doesn't shatter at temperatures you can survive in.  The caps split, and they don't split because of a hammer blow, they split because of the pressure coming back through the flash hole.

You also don't want a "gap" between the hammer and your cone face. Not if you want reliability.  That is exactly the opposite of what works well.  The cup material is greater than .008" for all three cap brands, to have a "gap" you would have to leave a clearance for the thickest.

No offense intended, but I'm just curious where some of this mis-information gets started, where did you hear that the caps were different in hardness and that you need a gap to keep from shattering caps?

Regards,
Mako

[Mako]

What would cause caps to split when all you are doing is snapping a cap to make sure the nipples are clear before starting to shoot or load your C&B? WM 

Wildman,
Do you have caps split when just snapping?

~Mako

[wildman1]

Yes, the caps I am using are "Vorderlader-Zundhutchen" also says RWS # 1075. I'm shooting an ASM 44. I thought maybe the holes in the nipples were small but they look normal. This doesn't seem to affect how it shoots, ignition seems to be fine. WM

[Mako]

I'm familiar with RWS 1075s

http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/RWS1075-1.jpg

http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Files%20for%20Cap%20Gun%20Primer/RWS1075b-1.jpg

Notice the scalloping on the base of the skirt?  Also note the very sharp corrugations on the the cup.  Corrugations on other brands have a gentle radius at the bottom of the corrugated feature.  The RWS caps have sharp features.  These are natural stress raisers and if you take one of your popped caps and look at it under a scope you will see it split right along one of these corrugations.

In fact, try an experiment for yourself.  If you have a loupe, microscope or even a higher power magnifying glass look at a couple of candidate caps and mark the striations you think are the sharpest.  Also look inside of the cup and look for cracks or where the corrugations have made a hard line.  Mark the outside of the cup at this point.  Now put them on the tube and pop them.  Report back on how well you could predict the split area.

The RWS caps have been trimmed and the inside edge beveled in the manufacturing process.  CCI and Remington doesn't do this.  Each manufacturer has it's own process, strengths and weaknesses.  A lot of people call RWS caps "hard,"  after talking with a few of them they usually attribute the "hardness" to the splitting.  I have tested a few with a superficial hardness tester and find them no harder than CCI or Remington caps. I need to follow up this testing with a microhardness test before I publish the results but based on a 15T test they are very similar.

A few more questions:

• What is the tube?  What brand?
• How does the cap fit?  Do you have to press it home with a push stick?
• Have you tried other brands, if so which cap size fits the best?

RWS 1075s tend to fall between the #10 and #11 caps in the way they fit on a lot of tubes. 

Later,
Mako