Colt 3rd Gen. SAA w/ BP

[Fox Creek Kid]

Anyone here shoot a Colt SAA third gen. w/ real BP? Just curious how the pressed bushing works with real BP.

[Tommy tornado]

I haven't had a problem at all.  I use the 250 big luber or regular bullets with SPG lube and a wonder wad in the case.  Both worked well in CAS matches and on the range.

[Fox Creek Kid]

Thanks, T.T.!! So, the pressed in bushing can go an entire match with real BP w/o having to relube?

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy Fox Creek Kid

The pressed in bushing really makes no difference at all. One of my 2nd Gens has the bushing permanently frozen in place. I gave up trying to press it out long ago. It might as well be pressed in place. I does not shoot BP any more poorly than the freely moveable bushing in my other 2nd Gen Colt. And Rugers have the bushing formed as an integral part of the cylinder. Mine don't have any problem with BP. I think the fact that the bushing is removeble really has nothing whatsover to do with how well the gun functions with Black Powder. It is how well the bushing deflects fouling away from the cylinder base pin that is important.

[Fox Creek Kid]

I think the fact that the bushing is removeble really has nothing whatsover to do with how well the gun functions with Black Powder. It is how well the bushing deflects fouling away from the cylinder base pin that is important.

I agree with that 100% Driftwood and thanks for the insight.    I had always wondered how the 3rd. Gens. worked w/ real BP. Now I know. 

[Dick Dastardly]

One thing that does make a difference, regardless of manufacturer, is the barrel to cylinder gap.  If it's too narrow the fouling will stop the wheel.

Now, I wish I could get a Schofield with the same bushing arrangement as the Rugers and Colts. . . .

DD-DLoS

[Abilene]

My early third gen 44 Spcl SAA's have worked fine with BP with my method of using unlubed smokeless hardcast bullets and squirting a glob of Crisco over the first two shots of each cylinder full.  Never a bit of binding.

[Marshal harpoluke]

 

I use Colt 3rd gen in 357Magmum, never  problem.  Be shure to have the cylinder gapped properly, and use anti=sieze grease on the Base pin.

[Tommy tornado]

Just shot about 60 rounds of .45 LC big lube 250 pills over 30 grains of 3fg and no problem.  Also noticed some snot on the target but that was just lube that must have flow down range or come off the bullet in flight.

[Fox Creek Kid]

One thing that does make a difference, regardless of manufacturer, is the barrel to cylinder gap.

Be shure[sic] to have the cylinder gapped properly...

Fellas, what on earth are you basing this on? I have shot BP in revolvers, cap 'n ball & cartridge, since the early 1970's and the tighter the forcing cone gap the better as you don't get all that fouling blowing onto the cylinder pin. In essence, a tight gap deflects it like a gas ring. D.D., I shot a buddy's Uberti Russian Model continuously for NINETY SIX shots after liberally greasing the cylinder pin with Crisco. The forcing cone gap was 0.003. The bullets were .44 MAV. The reason why Remingtons lock up is that there is no place to put any lube on the cylinder pin. It has no grease grooves like a Colt. I don't mean to sound contrary but all my experiences speak to the complete opposite of "loose tolerances". If you don't have space for lots of grease on the cylinder pin (arbor) then you need a gas ring. If neither are available then that is when you get "vapor lock", e.g., Remingtons. I have never seen any evidence of the forcing cone gap aiding this problem. As a matter of fact, one fairly prominent "gunsmith" in CAS ruined many guns by opening up the forcing cone gap. Needless to say he went out of business and left countless people in the lurch.

[Dick Dastardly]

Howdy Kid,

I have a brace of RVs in .357 Magnum that wouldn't run one cylinder of bp before binding up and stopping.  We opened up the barrel/cylinder gap and now they will run forever.

I had one 44 Mag RV that did the same thing.  Same cure, not it will run on and on like a pink bunny.

So, based on those three and the cure that cured them, I'd say that if the barrel/cylinder gap is to tight the wheel will stop.  Now, Rugers have almost no end play.  Many others do.  That may be the reason they can run with tighter gaps.  Don't know but it's my guess.

DD-DLoS

[Fox Creek Kid]

D.D., I confess I am ignorant about Rugers as I have no idea how they are set up. BUT, it's a modern design and has no historical basis other than a passing resemblance to the SAA. I would bet money that Ruger never took BP into consideration when making it, unlike say Colt. I stand by my experiences with clones of Colt, Remingtons & S&W.

[Driftwood Johnson]

Fox Creek Kid

I have shot Black Powder in my Colts, clones, and Rugers. All of them have the factory barrel/cylinder gaps, I have not opened any of them. My experience has been that gaps running from around .005-.008 are fine for shooting Black Powder. As long as I have enough lube on my bullets, I don't get any binding. I have a pair of .357 New Vaqueros that have relatively tight gaps, probably down around .002 or so. These are Mrs Johnson's pistols. I have never shot them with BP, but I have a suspicion that the .002 gaps would tend to bind up from fouling on the cylinder face. I really don't have plans to shoot them with BP, but I have a strong suspicion that those tight gaps would cause some binding.

The only revolvers I own that tend to bind up really quickly are my Reminton 1858 New Model Armys, fitted with R&D cylinders. These pistols tend to start binding after 2 cylinders full of BP rounds, even with Big Lube bullets. I attribute this to the fact that there is no raised bushing on the front surface of the cylinder, it is completely flat across. They are not binding because of fouling building up on the surface of the cylinder and binding in the gap, they are binding because there is nothing to deflect fouling away from the cylinder base pins. Fouling gets blasted directly onto the pin, and gets into the hole in the center of the cylinder. That's what binds them up. If I clean off the pin every couple of cylinders full, they keep shooting.

This is what I was talking about earlier when I talked about raised bushings. It does not matter if the bushing revolves, what is important is a raised bushing to deflect fouling blasted out of the barrel/cylinder gap away from the cylinder base pin. If the pin can be kept clean, the cylinder will not bind, as long as there is a barrel/cylinder gap of around .005-.008. Any more is overkill, and may allow even more fouling to build up on the surface of the cylinder.

Remington corrected their 1858 design with the 1875 model and included a raised bushing on the cylinder, just like Colt's. The 1875 model does not have the same binding problems that the 1858 model does.

[Fox Creek Kid]

Remington corrected their 1858 design with the 1875 model and included a raised bushing on the cylinder, just like Colt's. The 1875 model does not have the same binding problems that the 1858 model does.

The one original '75 I owned had no such things. No bushing and same cylinder pin design as '58.

Here's a link to a real '75 with superb photos. Mine was exactly like this:

http://www.cwslagleantiques.com/view_detail.cfm?catid=54&id=2864

[Driftwood Johnson]

Fox Creek Kid

When I say bushing I am taking the liberty of using the term for both separate, 'true', bushings that are not integral with the cylinder, and a simple raised surface, that is integral with the cylinder, as is on a Ruger.

The photos of the cylinder on that revolver clearly show a raised surface on the front of the cylinder. Now it may not be as tall as the raised bushing on a Ruger or a Colt, and it is clearly integral with the cylinder, not a separate part, but there is clearly a raised surface. The front surface of the 1858 cylinder is truly flat, with no raised surface at all. So nothing shields the pin from fouling blasted out of the barrel cylinder gap. The 1875 'bushing' may not be as effective as the raised surface of a Ruger, but that 'bushing' must be capable of deflecting at least some of the fouling away from the base pin.

A few years ago a friend loaned me his Italian clone version of the 1875 Remington. I remember the bushing was not raised as high as the bushing on my Rugers, but I was able to shoot a bunch of Black Powder ammo through it without the cylinder binding. More than I was able to shoot through my 1858 Remmies.

The key here is that the spot the cylinder base pin emerges from the cylinder not be on the same plane as the barrel/cylinder gap. If the spot the pin emerges from the cylinder is offset on a different plane, less fouling will be blasted onto the pin. That is one of the keys to keeping a BP revolver rolling. That's why the modern Schofield reproductions do not work well with BP. The bushing design was changed when they went to a 45 Colt and there is nothing now to keep the fouling off the cylinder base pin.

[Fox Creek Kid]

Driftwood, I think you & I are in agreement. FWIW, people have told me that the early Uberti '75s with a shorter cylinder than the new ones shoot BP far better. By the way, S&W actually called it the "gas collar" and there are four different lengths in the American, Russian & Schofield models as S&W lengthened the original three times due to fouling complaints. The Pate book on the S&W American Model goes into great detail with photos on this.

[Appalachian Ed]

I have to agree with Fox Creek here. I have found over my 25 years of shooting and competing with BP, tighter cylinder gaps are always better. I shoot both 3rd gen. Colts and Pre-War USFA and both have very tight tolerances.

-Ed

[Dick Dastardly]

Just to clarify my statement about the RVs that I had problems with. . .  The barrel/cylinder gaps were all under .003".  When opened up another .005" the binding problem went away.

I did call Ruger and ask about the binding cylinders on their RVs and was advised that the guns weren't made for black powder.

So, when I put a feeler gauge into the gap on my ROAs, (which Ruger did make for black powder) I measure .008" on a clean gun.  They don't bind up.  I simply transposed that dimension to the RVs and they no longer would bind up either.

Now, make of that what you will.  Ruger guns with too small a gap will bind up when shot with black powder.  I await the answer that would prove otherwise.

DD-DLoS

[Cuts Crooked]

Interesting! I'm one of those who shoot 75s and Fox Creek has shot one of my favorites, an early production Uberti with the short cylinder in .45. It handles BP loads fantastic, running through an entire match without even dragging a little bit. But..I have 3 other 75s and they will start to drag a bit towards the end of a match. The difference b'tween them and the early production one is small but very significant in performance with BP, that "bushing" actually a raised ring on the front of the cylinder, is  just enuff longer on the older gun to place the cylinder gap slightly out of the plane b'tween it and the cylinder pin "gap" below. It prevents the fouling/gasses from blasting directly onto the cylinder pin!

BTW Fox Creek, I'm still loading those "hell fer stout" 3f charges in my Remmies.

But I have another gun that is an interesting contrast. My Open Top in 38 Special! This gun came with a funny "gas ring" that slid over the cylinder pin and actually set into a groove in the face of the cylinder. In theory, it should have shot BP  great with this set up, with this "gas ring" deflecting fouling away from a large cylinder pin that is also grooved to help with fouling build up. In practice...it was piece of crap! The only way I could get this gun to work with BP was to remove the gas ring completely and go with Snakebite bullets in my loads. (note: even with snakebites this gun wouldn't run with BP when the gas ring was in it. it would bind up in one go around)

So, go figger!?!?!?

[Dick Dastardly]

I been thinkn' about black powder fouling and I wonder if it's a little like this. . .

Could the fouling be mostly gas till it chilled?  In other words, would it be more fluid before it grabbed hold of metal?  And, once it got hold of some metal might in not invite more fouling to join in till it had built a reef of fouling?

I'm thinkn' that as long as the solid stuff was kept moving along it stayed happy but as soon as it got hold of some iron it would settle in and take up housekeepin'.  Next thing ya know, it had some kin movin' in with 'em.  Pretty soon, there goes the neighborhood.  Yer gun is stuck.

Lube might make the grabbin' on of the fouling less tenuous.  The next charge might blow away fouling that didn't get a grip on raw iron.  Any iron parts that kept the fouling crud from takin' up residence on moving and working parts were a good part of the answer when it came to keepin' the neighborhood happy.

So, keep the movin' parts covered from the blast of foul gas and coat all the others with enuf lube that they can't get a grip.  Yup, seems logical to me.

Who's buyin'.  I'm thirsty.

DD-DLoS