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!)