My Type II .44 spl Forcing Cones

[Thai Fighter]

I supposedly had the forcing cones worked to 11-degrees.  Does this look right to anyone?  I thought there would be more visible chamfering present?



Thanks.

[Rebel Dave]

Well if it's chamfered I can't see it. Hope you didn't pay to much.  I just did my own with a round  (ball) stone, ginding wheel.  On mine you can see where I chamfered it. I did it to smooth off the sharp lip on the entrance to the BBL. Hopefully   that will help the bullet transition from the cylinder  to the BBL.
You might try that on yours, It's  not hard to do. Just get a round (ball)  stone, medium or fine grit grinding wheel, and do it by hand. After I use the wheel, I wrap it in 600 grit wet and dry sandpaper, and smooth it out real nice.

Rebel Dave

[Thai Fighter]

My thoughts as well Dave.  When you feel the edge, it's pretty sharp and with no discernible chamfering.  But I'm a newbie to this so I thought I'd ask for some input.

The 'smith is a pretty stand-up and honest guy from my experience so far.  I'm positive this wasn't intentional as he was most likely preoccupied with getting the guns to run reliably (they're not very good out-of-the-box) and got sidetracked.  Emailed him with the same pic, we'll see what he says.

Thanks.

[Hoof Hearted]

Cutting a forcing cone and chamfering the leading edge of the breech end of the barrel are not one and the same.

Personally I do not chamfer. It is unnecessary and actually decreases the area that seals the gas, eventually leading to premature erosion.

Try measuring the breech end of the bore. It will be considerably larger than the chamber throat. That will be all that's needed and the 11 deree forcing cone (probably has a step or dual angle) will do the job you were looking for; increased accuracy!

HH

[Thai Fighter]

Cutting a forcing cone and chamfering the leading edge of the breech end of the barrel are not one and the same.

HH

You see, this is why I ask questions!  I thought "cutting the forcing cone" was basically chamfering the leading edge of the breech as described.  So when one says "cut the forcing cone to 11-degrees" what does that mean and where is "the cut"?

Thanks HH

[Hoof Hearted]

You see, this is why I ask questions!  I thought "cutting the forcing cone" was basically chamfering the leading edge of the breech as described.  So when one says "cut the forcing cone to 11-degrees" what does that mean and where is "the cut"?

Thanks HH

A forcing cone is just that. A cone to force the bullet into the bore.
A bullet is upset (mostly at the base) upon firing. The forcing cone aligns it and "resizes" it into the bore.
11 degrees is the angle thought to be the most gentle.

The cutter used to "cut" the forcing cone is tapered and will cut as deep as you pull it into the barrel. Your picture doesn't show the lead cut into the barrel well but it should be 3/4 of an inch or so. The thickness of the barrel wall dictates how deep you can cut. Obviously you don't want the breech end too thin.

Hope this helps!

HH

[Abilene]

I'm sure some folks have had their Opentop and Conversion forcing cones cut with no problems, but just a little warning - I've seen several that have had the rear of the barrel split as a result.  The bottom rear of the barrel, as you can easily see from the pic, is much thinner due to the clearancing for the gas ring on the front of the cylinder.  I'm talking .44 and .45 barrels, where this area is thinnest.  Possibly those folks cut more than they should have, I don't know.  Damage like that will not be a warranty repair if the forcing cone has been cut.

[Hoof Hearted]

I'm sure some folks have had their Opentop and Conversion forcing cones cut with no problems, but just a little warning - I've seen several that have had the rear of the barrel split as a result.  The bottom rear of the barrel, as you can easily see from the pic, is much thinner due to the clearancing for the gas ring on the front of the cylinder.  I'm talking .44 and .45 barrels, where this area is thinnest.  Possibly those folks cut more than they should have, I don't know.  Damage like that will not be a warranty repair if the forcing cone has been cut.

Abilene is "spot on " here
That's why I said, "The thickness of the barrel wall dictates how deep you can cut. Obviously you don't want the breech end too thin."

Always verify experience and knowledge

HH

[Fox Creek Kid]

Another option is "Taylor Throating".

[Montana Slim]

Could be the lack of illumination in the bore, but, from the picture, it doesn't appear reamed to me.

I have a good reamer obtained from Brownells a number of yeras ago & I've cut dozens of forcing cones...some of our repros don't come with much or a forcing cone, or worse, undersize, rough and/or out of round.

There is a limit on how large the forcing cone major diameter should be, based on the bore diameter. A person that understands this would never approach making the wall thicknes then enough to cause a barrel to split (JMHO).

My Uberti RM's and Opentop came with a nice, uniform and smooth FC from the factory.When they look this good, I don't botehr fooling with them. Now, all my C&Bs and a number of other cartridge revolvers...yes, they have been corrected. So, another trick is judging whether the work really needs to be performed at all. Perhaps your pistols FCs looked pretty good and were just polished , de-burred and/or sharp edges removed.

Regards,
Slim

[Thai Fighter]

This has been very educational.  I've checked out pics of reamers on the Brownell's website and now have a better understanding of the sort of shape I'm looking for.  Definitely NOT a clear chamfered-type edge.  Now I know. 

Hard to tell still if mine's had the work done or not.  Should have looked at it before I put 100 rounds through it.

[Fox Creek Kid]

I have never seen a revolver shoot worse after a PROPER forcing cone job was performed and most shoot dramatically better. I have it done on all my ctg. revolvers. As an example of what it can do I have a Type II Richards that before the "cone job" shot about 4"- 5" to the left at ten yards!! After the "cone job" the shots were dead nuts on. Without a smooth transition from the cylinder into the bore everything is for naught. I cannot recommend a proper "cone job" enough. 

[Thai Fighter]

Well, how's this picture look now that I've gotten the guns cleaned and some daylight to photograph? 

[Fox Creek Kid]

It looks like someone did some cutting. By the way, is that wear or lead on the breech face of the barrel?

[Thai Fighter]

By the way, is that wear or lead on the breech face of the barrel?

That my friend, is wear

Looked like that the very first time I pulled it apart to clean.  But considering the leading (see other post here in STORM) problem I'm having, I might go back and look at that more carefully to see if it's not indeed lead?

[Fox Creek Kid]

Take a lead pencil & run the lead tip (actually graphite) across it. If it's lead it will rub off. 

[Mako]

http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o67/mb1k/DSC02013.jpg

Well, how's this picture look now that I've gotten the guns cleaned and some daylight to photograph?  

Thia Fighter,
I don't think your forcing cones have been re-cut.  That is a factory angle and finish.  You can usually tell a machine reamed finish on a throat or forcing cone, the hand cut gunsmith jobs have a much better finish.  I just measured a couple of mine and the depth from the breech end to the end of the chamfer where it meets the bore is about .110-.120".  Yours look about the same.  Most gunsmiths will recut the chamfer with an 11° (some a 10°) reamer.  The original factory chamfers are usually 18°, but you find a few 16°.

When the smith lengthens the lead-in (and makes your forcing cone more concentric if necessary) there usually won't be any change on the diameter but the chamfer will run deeper.  I checked a cerrosafe casting I have from a .44 spl SAA that I reamed and it measures a full .185" deep with an 11° throat.  I don't know any smith that "re-cuts" them at 16°-18°, what would be the point? Besides you would open the lead-in diameter too much.  The only way you could "re-cut to 16°-18° would be to install a new barrel or set the old one back at least one full revolution.

I'd call Steve and gently ask him if he found that the forcing cones didn't need to be chamfered, and then mention that you really wanted them chamfered even if he found them to be concentric.

~Mako

P.S. That looks like lead or powder fouling buildup on either side just below where the barrel stub meets the gas ring seat.  I'd say you've been shooting smokeless loads, or somebody has by the look of it.  It's not wear (which is good news...) The solution is to shoot the Holy Black , you don't get powder foulding which is worse than leading.  If you haven't been shooting BP then it is leftovers from Nates test firing (man I hate cleaning smokeless powder residue...)

[Thai Fighter]

Mako,

Thanks for more good information.  I do plan to shoot black powder as exclusively as possible when I get settled into a routine with these pistols.  Eventually ending up reloading all my own down the road.  I got impatient when these arrived and didn't want to wait for Goex cartridges to show up by stage.  I was in the local Wal Mart and saw these Winchester Cowboy loads on the shelf (the ONLY thing on the shelves) and had to get some.  You can't leave new guns laying around and NOT being shot!

That's promising news on the fouling.  With my old eyes it looked like wear, but with the help of digital photography and "enlargement" it looks more like material that's built up (fouling) rather than material that's been removed.  I did hit it with a copper brush and Hoppe's #9, but I suppose not aggressively enough huh?

Steve's already offered to do the barrels if they prove to not have been done.  I just got to send them back.  That guy is awesome, I highly recommend him to anyone else reading.  He stands by his work, believes in doing right and very personable to boot.  Can't praise him enough.  I'm going to send the barrels back when I get my 1860 and have Steve do them all at the same time.

[Montana Slim]

Observations:
1) I see obvious lead buildup all around the barrel, especially near the cylinder pin (arbor) hole face.
2) Doesn't look reamed to me. Mine are much, much smoother than this (almost polished) after reaming.

Regards,
Slim

[Thai Fighter]

Thanks Slim!  I'm going to send them back to Steve along with the 1860 I just got from Marshall Deadwood.