Howdy to the campfire. This quesiton might have been asked before and I am sorry when I missed it.
Are factory conversions of the Thuer, Richards and/or Richards Transitional known with 4 srew frame or 3 screw frame with cut in the recoil shield for the shoulder stock?
Thanks.
Long Johns Wolf
I won't speculate on the Thuer... but 3 & 4 screw exist on the Richards....though the 4th screw was often filled
e mailed you two example photos
Quote from: Long Johns Wolf on March 23, 2008, 04:03:07 AM
Howdy to the campfire. This quesiton might have been asked before and I am sorry when I missed it.
Are factory conversions of the Thuer, Richards and/or Richards Transitional known with 4 srew frame or 3 screw frame with cut in the recoil shield for the shoulder stock?
Thanks.
Long Johns Wolf
I am going on memory, so I could be wrong, but I believe the only Richards conversions that had 4 screws a cut for shoulder stock were some of the 60' Army U.S. Richards that were made for the Army. As to the Thuer conversions I not sure about all of them but I have seen a picture of a 60' army with a shoulder stock. I hope I'm correct about this. WBR
http://www.cascity.com/forumhall/index.php/topic,19565.0.html
'Metallic Cartridge Conversions' The History of the Guns and Modern Reproductions by Dennis Adler published 2002 has a picture of a British proof marked Cased Thuer Conversion with shoulder stock and is the only known cased example to be fitted with a shoulder stock. It is a 3 screw model with recoil sheild cuts. So there was at least one.
Seth. There is a picture in the book of Alexander Thuer holding a stocked 1860 conversion.
There is also a note in the book that 'on the Thuer conversion (and later percussion models above serial number 50,000) the fourth screw was not used to secure the shoulder stock. So from that, I'm guessing that there were no 4 screw conversions unless someone sent a below SN 50,000 gun back to the factory to be converted.
FM
Here's a pic of that Thuer conversion. Hear it's only sold in Europe....
(http://i25.tinypic.com/wbyzgm.jpg)
Well, that's just slicker than deer guts on a doorknob! 8)
Thanks pards, that helps.
So, a Belgian Colt 1860 aka Centaure 1960 with 3 screw frame cut for stock would be period correct as the base gun for a Thuer conversion. Now, I have to start saving the money!
Current quote of Karl Nedbal/Austria is € 450 for the Thuer conversion plate, € 300 for the 5 piece reloading device, € 200 work expence for fitting conversion plate to pistol, alterations to barrel, hammer etc. bluing. € 30 for 12 Thuer cases prepared for boxer primers...
Long Johns Wolf
Long Johns Wolf, please send me a kit for a then I'll buy one...for the kit. Wouild sure like to have one on my safe. Good on ya ...keep us iformed on your progress.
Smokin'
Smoking Gun: please, send me a PM and spell out exactly what you want from Nedbal. I will gladly liaise between the two of you if necessary. I also suggest that you check first the import regulations from Austria to the US...
Talked to the HEGE people last week regarding their Thuer project using Uberti parts. They confirmed the project is on but they are still in the prototype stage...And the gunsmith assigned to the project is currently ill. So, it may be a couple of more months before we have more details about that one...
Well pards, I was weak...again.
Just gave Nedbal the thumbs up for the Thuer project. He will convert my engraved extra Centaure cylinder to Thuer while I start looking for a reasonably priced Centaure regular New Model Army as the "base" pistol for the conversion. Karl promised to photo-document the conversion program. I will be posting the pics here and on the Centaure website.
Long Johns Wolf
Long Johns Wolf, Thank you for your generous offer to liaise. I was told that Importation of the Thuer Conversion was not allowed , or that they could not do so. I will live the thrill through your pics and progress. Can't wait to see it.
Thanks again Pard, much apprteciated...
Smokin' Gun
You would think with all of the clever lads we have over here and the advances in CNC machinery that a Thuer conversion could be marketed here on a special order basis.
I agree Dusty... Even Geronimo made conversions out in the open Desert. 8)
Dear Long Johns,
This isn't the first time you've posted that picture of the Centaur cylinder (or one similar to it), I always notice the chamber mouths have been chamfered. I have always assumed that a sharp square mouth on the chamber was best and a generous yet gentle entrance angle (i.e. 11°) of the forcing cone was ideal.
We all know much of the efficiency and power of Black Powder is determined by how well it is compressed and how long the bullet resists moving. This allows the pressures of the relatively slow expanding BP to build and get the initial moment of the bullet up higher than it would be if it weren't restrained before it started moving. This moment is important because it will determine how well the bullet continues to overcome the friction of the chamber, deals with the temporary expansion of the bullet as it bridges the gap, the obturation that takes place as the bullet enters the forcing cone, the re-swaging in the forcing cone and engraving by the rifling. Even though this isn't part of my question it is obvious that the longer the bullet fully seals the chamber, the longer the pressure of the combusting powder has to build on the base of the bullet. As soon as the bullet breaches the edge of the cylindrical portion of the chamber, the gases will begin to expand from the axial path and become the cylinder gap blast we observe every time we shoot a normal revolver. If you consider the geometry of a ball it is even possible to have the ball in the gap with the base out of the chamber and not yet be engaged in the rifling of the barrel.
When I use correctly sized balls and seat them into the chambers I normally get a cut ring of lead, I want this and a healthy amount of deformation of the balls to maximize the contact patch on the chamber walls. I want this to assure resistance during the initial stages of combustion allowing the pressure to climb before the friction against the chamber walls and inertia of the bullet at rest is overcome.
I have noticed that fouling at the chamber mouth and the warm residual lube allows the ball to be seated easier and sometimes without cutting a ring of lead. There have even been cases when the ball actually came back out or pushed back as I retracted the loading lever ram. This never happens with a clean chamber. I have unseated one of these "slip fitting" balls by pushing from the rear after removing the tube and powder. When comparing this ball with another ball pushed out from a clean cylinder I noticed two things:
- The force required to push the dirty cylinder ball out was less than the clean cylinder.
- The contact ring patch looked similar in width on both projectiles. Under a microscope The contact patch on the ball from the dirty cylinder looked very smooth and swaged, the ball from the clean cylinder looked cut and sheared on the contact patch. I couldn't measure a discernable difference with a micrometer, I would have to have a much larger population sample to make a statement about measured diameter.
However, I do have a hypothesis that the dirty cylinder ball actually has a film of lube or fouling between it and the chamber wall. This film may not only act as a lubricant but may actually make the bullet slightly smaller in diameter than the chamber wall.
Now after all of that lead up here are my questions to those of you that chamfer the front of your chamber mouths. Do you notice any decrease in velocity, a propensity for the balls to move in the unfired chambers under recoil or even the ball to push back up and follow the loading lever ram as it is lifted? I ask that because it seems reasonable that a chamber that cuts the bullet as it is loaded is going to maximize the contact area and pretty much assure there isn't any residual lubricant or fouling between the engaging band and the chamber. Another question is whether or not you get a cut ring of lead from a ball as you seat it, or does the chamfer minimize it?
CAS loads are definitely not optimized and I can understand why chamfering may actually be a non-issue or simply outweigh any negatives they produce. I was just wondering if chamfered chambers have any more problems with bullet movement either during loading or under recoil.
Regards,
Mako
Mako and other pards. That is an interesting thought but...I am not the BP expert anymore I used to be. My BP pistol shooting times are long gone, it's smokeless for this lazy cowboy. I am looking at this Thuer project primarily because I like quality craftsmenship. I will also shoot her eventually with BP and share the experience with you.
So, this is a subject for pards like Rifle and other experienced C&B revolver shooters. Rifle, are you out there?
However, I checked all the Centaure pics I have here to see to what extend chambers are chamfered (by the factory). Except for most of the very early production models (Civilian, Cavalry Models) they all came from the factory with more or less pronounced chamfered chamber mouths. This is particularly visible in the later production ones, see attached pic of my 12307 (1972 production). This Centaure produces a (comparatively smaller?) lead rings during loading the ball. I am not an authority to suggest that this chamfered mouth still gets more ball into the chamber...
I seem to recall to having owned C&B revolvers during the 1970 with slightly tapered chambers (Santa Barbara/Remington 58?) and have observed this "come-back" phenomenon that you describe. The Centaures I have inspected have conical chambers.
Sorry that I cannot contribute more but like to learn.
Long Johns Wolf
Quote from: Dusty Morningwood on April 04, 2008, 06:50:36 AM
You would think with all of the clever lads we have over here and the advances in CNC machinery that a Thuer conversion could be marketed here on a special order basis.
In talking with the Kirst folks at the SASS Convention, they are currently working on a Thuer Conversion. I kindly offered my SS 2nd Gen 1860 to them to use for one of the prototypes; but they havent taken me up on it as yet.
Fingers (who'd love to have a pair of Thuers for main match guns) McGee
Thank you Long Johns...
Perhaps someone else has experience with this one way or another. I do know some gunsmiths advertise that that they chamfer Percussion chambers as a service, but I also know that everything some gunsmiths do is not always advisable or even supported with a legitimate reason. It is interesting that the Centaure pistols appear to have chamfers as a rule.
I'm not sure if the Centaure factory did this because it is standard practice to break sharp edges on machined parts, or if it actually was an intentioned feature. I can say that because I have actually worked directly with firearms manufactures and defense contractors and it is amazing how little many of the workers, technicians and engineers actually know about firearms. It is just another "machine" and simply a job for them. Firearms are in fact simply machines but there are some nuances that add to the function, accuracy and use that they are actually unaware of. I have had to stop manufactures from doing things similar to chamfering chamber mouths because it was simply a standard manufacturing process and it actually affected the quality of the firearm.
One of my goals, the older I get is to give people and companies "the benefit of the doubt," otherwise I will just end up a crotchety old man. So I'm going to assume that Centaure knew what they were doing.
As always thank you for your kind answers and keep up the good work.
Regards,
Mako