New Thought on Cylinder Presses

[WaddWatsonEllis]

There has been a lot of threads about cylinder presses, but I got this strange idea that might actually be worthwhile ...

I had my drill press guage next to me while reading the cylinder press threads.

Alot of them talked about marking a cylinder when shooting five cylinders for SASS competition ... or just for safety's sake.

Anyway, I was thinking about marking one nipple with red nail polish, and not using that cylinder. Of course, one could always just remove that nipple.

In any case, a .44Cal would fit a 7/16" dowel according to my drill gage, 7/16" = .437 ... about as close to .44 Cal as it gets. Home Depot carries a 7/16 Dowel that would probably fit my .44 ROAs and my Pietta (Gun that never was) Model '51/.44 Cal.

My thought track is that if one made the dowel just 1/2" longer or so, one could put a rubber tip to it and place it in the cylinder to be unloaded, coordinating with the Nipple that is marked to be unused.

That way, one could load up to five cylinders and never have an 'oops' of a capped shell with no powder or vice versa ....

Any thoughts?

[WaddWatsonEllis]

There is not one answer to my idea?

I am a total newbie to black powder... is this a good idea? Bad Idea?

[Sir Charles deMouton-Black]

I hadn't needed it before as I didn't own a cylinder loading press until recently.  I think I've seen a discussion on a similar idea not too long ago.  Marking one cone would make supervising the loading table a lot more comforting.

My thought is that anything to keep Murphy in his place is a great idea.

[Fox Creek Kid]

WWE, there is very little new under the sun here. Yes, this has been presented here by members in the past. Here's what I recommend: search the archives here specifically. It really has a good search function and 99.99% of anything a rookie can think of has already been asked & answered. A person can sit down with a cup of coffee and absorb in a night what some of us had to learn through YEARS of painstaking trial & error before the Internet. Between this forum and the Graybeard Forum: http://www.go2gbo.com/forums/index.php/board,98.0.html?PHPSESSID=457qaqcb2507ombj5se4pos594 there is nothing that has not been covered for answering the neophyte's questions. 

Good luck!

[Judge Lead]

What you must remember is that the 44 cal C&B is really a .45 ie minimum of .451 to a ROA at .457, so a 7/16" peice of dowel at .437 will fall out.

Regards

[Pettifogger]

I shoot a lot of matches around the country and try to keep the loading process the same so as to minimize errors.  Sometimes, however, people will come up and try to start a conversation while I'm charging cylinders or getting ready to cap and things can get confusing.  On my Rugers I leave one of the original stainless steel nipples installed and have the five Tresos (which are brass colored when clean and black when shot).  Every once in a while there is a reload on a stage so the stainless nipple might get blackened so I stamp with metal stamps the last two digits of the serial number of the gun one digit on each side of the nipple window that has the stainless nipple.  That way when I am capping I have two ways to make sure I don't cap the empty chamber.  I look for the stainless nipple and the numbers.  When loading, I just drop a piece of aluminum rod in the chamber with the stainless nipple.

[WaddWatsonEllis]

Fox Creek,  Pettifogger, Judge Lead,

Thank you for your kind and thoughtful replies:

Pettifogger,  When I got my Rugers used, they had already been converted to all Treso Nipples ... but I agree about setting one chamber aside as the safety chamber, i.e. one not to be used. My only fear is that constantly not using one chamber might somehow cause damage to the cylinder .... I like the idea of stamping the last two numbers of the serial number on the unused cylinder ... it would keep the cylinders in the same weapon they were made to work with ....

Fox Creek, I have had absolutely zero luck with cascity.com's search engine. So thank you for showing the address to the thread; I will certainly peruse it and learn after I return home tonight .... and I think that I should check out the entire 'childs forum' on the Darsider's Den so that I can get all the basics ...

Judge Lead; I agree about the 7/16 just falling out .... but when I brought the dowel home, I acutally had to put it in a drill press and lightly sand the dowel in order for it to tie in ... it had been raining and really humid for days, so the 7/16 may have expanded to 1/2" .... I dunno

But I now have two ( I made three, but the third had disappeared in my shop), and am awaiting Dick Dastaredly's cylinder press to try them out .... The idea (Without trying it out yet) is to put the whole thing on a piece of wood with four holes for .44 and .31 fitted dowels. The other side woutld have round cutouts that would fit .44 and .31 cylinders. That's the iidea so far

[Montana Slim]

Marking cylinders or removing a cone: Never done this. I've learned that the best insurance on proper loading is to do things consistently, including to verify where the "empty" is before capping.

Loading presses: Yes, I even have one ( my "prize")...but have not really used it. I find it handier & easier to keep the pistol asembled and load using the built-in lever, as designed. I use the loading lever in it's "down" position to keep organized during the loading process.

Extra cylinders: yes, I have several Colt & Remington .44s. Never loaded these as I have them as spares (yes, I've worn-out clylinders).

Well, that's my take on these matters.

Regards,
Slim

[Mako]

...Loading presses: Yes, I even have one ( my "prize")...but have not really used it. I find it handier & easier to keep the pistol asembled and load using the built-in lever, as designed. I use the loading lever in it's "down" position to keep organized during the loading process...

Actually Colt designed his pistol to be taken apart to load.  There is no practical difference in the disassembly of a Paterson as compared to any of the other Colt's pattern percussion pistols.  He added the loading lever as an afterthought.

Ever thought of that one?

Mako

[Bishop Creek]

Actually Colt designed his pistol to be taken apart to load.  There is no practical difference in the disassembly of a Paterson as compared to any of the other Colt's pattern percussion pistols.  He added the loading lever as an afterthought.

Ever thought of that one?

Mako

I'm sure most of us have fired many, many more rounds in cap and ball pistols than the old timers ever did. They just didn't shoot like we do. They loaded it up, put it in a drawer or carried it while traveling, only rarely discharging it to put in fresh (dry) powder.

I have my great-grandfathers Civil War diary where he remarks that they discharged their rifles at the end of a march to put a fresh load in.

[Montana Slim]

Actually Colt designed his pistol to be taken apart to load.  There is no practical difference in the disassembly of a Paterson as compared to any of the other Colt's pattern percussion pistols.  He added the loading lever as an afterthought.

Ever thought of that one?

Mako

Stating the obvious, but The built-in loading device was considered one of Colt's early improvements to thier firearms....save for some pocket models where utility was sacrificed for compactness. Early models needed refinements, culminating (IMO) with the 1860. When combined with the use of combustible cartridges, the revolvers could be loaded nearly as fast as metallic cartridge revolvers. Especially when you have a good capper.

Personally, I find no need or advantage to disassemble my favorite Colt (style) revolvers to clean/lubricate the cylinder pin, chamber face, etc...or to load the chambers. The built-in lever of the 1860 has more leverage than at least one of the separate loaders I've seen.

[Noz]

Personal opinion:

Cylinder loading presses, chamber fillers and marked nipples are all solutions to a problem that does not exist.

Load 5, cap 5, shoot 5.  Sam Colts equipment worked in 1860 and still works now.

[Mako]

Stating the obvious, but The built-in loading device was considered one of Colt's early improvements to thier firearms....save for some pocket models where utility was sacrificed for compactness. Early models needed refinements, culminating (IMO) with the 1860. When combined with the use of combustible cartridges, the revolvers could be loaded nearly as fast as metallic cartridge revolvers. Especially when you have a good capper.

Personally, I find no need or advantage to disassemble my favorite Colt (style) revolvers to clean/lubricate the cylinder pin, chamber face, etc...or to load the chambers. The built-in lever of the 1860 has more leverage than at least one of the separate loaders I've seen.

Yep, it was an "improvement..."  But be careful when you say that...Don't sit proudly on that statement with your arms crossed.  If you take that tack then it will come back and bite you.  Cartridge pistol shooters make that same argument about percussion revolvers.  Using your logic we should all be shooting conversion revolvers if we insist on retaining the older models that preceded the Open Top model of '72.

Slim, my point is simple.  Samual Colt originally designed the revolver in his original incarnation to be taken apart for loading.  The reaction we get from some is almost akin to horror if it is suggested the pistols be taken apart for loading and simple cleaning/inspection.  Also there is no practical difference in the wedge retention system between his Paterson design continuing until the advent of the first Colt's cartridge revolver ('71/'72).  So it isn't any more difficult to disassemble a modern reproduction of any Colt's pattern pistol today than it was in the early to mid 19th century.

I have even read strident replies on a different forum where it was stated emphatically that there was no EVIDENCE whatsoever that anyone ever took a cylinder out for reloading.  I posted to one such claim and asked if there was a reloading program run by Colt in his first endeavor where you would return the pistol once shot to the factory for reloading.  Once the poster realized he was in an untenable argument, he pretty much said the same thing as you did about improvements.  But he never would concede that for quite some time revolvers were reloaded by disassembly.

As I originally said.  The original design required the pistols to be disassembled.  The well known and heralded users that made the Paterson famous didn't have the loading lever pistols until at least 1842.  We wouldn't have any of our Colt's pattern pistols beyond the Paterson today if it weren't for the exploits of those men who (horror of horrors!!!!!!!!!) disassembled their Samuel Colt revolvers to reload them.

Furthermore it's almost humorous that they had what some might argue to be a cylinder loader before 1838:

http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Cylinder%20Loaders/Tool.jpg


And to steal a phrase from Noz:

Sam Colts equipment worked in 1860 and still works now.

I will add to that, "Sam Colts equipment original intention of disassembly for loading worked in 1860 1836 and still works now."

I thought I would just tweak Noz on that one...

Have a great day,
Mako

[Pettifogger]

Personal opinion:

Cylinder loading presses, chamber fillers and marked nipples are all solutions to a problem that does not exist.

Load 5, cap 5, shoot 5.  Sam Colts equipment worked in 1860 and still works now.

Good advice, for a FIVE shooter.  However, I can't count the times I have seen people cap the wrong chamber at a match or tip the gun back far enough so they can see which chamber is empty.  At big matches I'm often the posse marshal or wind up doing most of the timing and have to get everything done in a hurry or while having people asking questions.  I like to eliminate as many potential problems as possible and prefer to be able to positively identify the empty chamber without having to tip the gun far enough up to see in the chambers or guess which one is empty.

[Noz]

If I lose track of which chamber is loaded, I stick my cap pusher into the chambers until I get to the one that's empty so I don't have to tip the gun up to look.
As long as the hammer is down on an uncapped nipple, that should be good enough for the loading table officer.

[Montana Slim]

"The built-in loading device was considered one of Colt's early improvements to thier firearms" - I'll stand by that all-day-long 

and so far....I haven't seen anyone using a Paterson at a CAS match....Not sure SASS rules would allow...admit it would be fun to see a gunfighter in action (on video)...as long as they used blanks and it wasn't me.....BTW, I have two Pats....in a case, even with a loading tool to save the trouble of using the arbor. And, yes, I'll go one further that the 1860 model was considered to have combined the best features and improvements in percussion revolvers up to that date (personally, I think its the best C&B ever). I doubt I need to list these features in detail. I even think some Patersons were made with the built-in rammer...others had non OEM ones fitted later.

Sometimes I shoot cartridge guns, too...and if the metallic cartridge is considered an improvement (& I consider it such)...well, I have several conversion based on the 1860 & 1861 models just for those occassions. For SASS or NCOWS...I use these in one of the BP duelist cartridge classes.

Side notes:

Interestingly, I've noticed some folks whine about the cost of authentic equipment, whether real BP vs subs, firearms (brass-framed, 44-caliber 1851 Colts), clothes, etc...& then see they're dropping $$ on cylinder loaders instead of using the supplied rammer.

I have seen several factory cased Colt sets having extra percussion cylinders ...some numbered to the gun. I could likely dig up a photo or two if I needed to win a bet. However, I believe these were all pocket models. Point here is I agreee that all models could be disassembled...while some were specifically designed to be loaded that way. Holster guns, belt-models...generally these are gonna have a rammer. The guy without his rammer (hey, it's a weight savins thang) is likely one of the "high-speed" operators (innovators) of his day.

On the loading table...it should make no difference to the loading officer whether I (or you) have capped the unloaded chamber. His (her) job is to ensure you're firearm is kept pointed in a safe direction and that the hammer is down on an empty chamber. For those that don't shoot C&B, the "empty" is the one that is not capped - regardless if it is "charged" or not). It's quite easy to spot the empty while keeping it safe. Its a good idea to practice with an empty revolver and refine these techniques during non-match shooting, prior to attending a CAS event.

Often, a loading (or unloading)officer will admit they don't know what to check with the C&B shooters. I'm impressed when folks do ask & I'm glad to share the basic info.

Regards,
Slim

[Mako]

"The built-in loading device was considered one of Colt's early improvements to thier firearms" - I'll stand by that all-day-long  

...and so far....I haven't seen anyone using a Paterson at a CAS match....Not sure SASS rules would allow...admit it would be fun to see a gunfighter in action (on video)...as long as they used blanks and it wasn't me.....BTW, I have two Pats....in a case, even with a loading tool to save the trouble of using the arbor. And, yes, I'll go one further that the 1860 model was considered to have combined the best features and improvements in percussion revolvers up to that date (personally, I think its the best C&B ever). I doubt I need to list these features in detail. I even think some Patersons were made with the built-in rammer...others had non OEM ones fitted later...

Patersons are SASS legal, they meet the four requirements for percussion/pistols.  They are at least .36 caliber, they have a minimum of 5 chambers (this is a requirement that cylinders have no less than 5 and no more than 6 chambers), it is a single action and it is a reproduction of a model before 1899.  The 6 chamber maximum actually irks some Lematt shooters.

Did you think because it only has 5 chambers it would be excluded?  What about all of those people shooting those R&D cylinders?  The only requirement is that the hammer can't be resting on a chamber or a cap.  The "safety" pin or slot the case of the Remingtons is not addressed by the rules.

I have shot a pair of Patersons in a match.  I have one and I borrowed a second.  I didn't finish with the borrowed one it was a Pietta and had issues almost from the beginning. I finished with my Paterson and a '51 navy.  You just start with the hammer down between two caps.  The only problem I had was the grip shape doesn't fit my hand very well.  I did have to make sure I flipped the triggers forward before reholstering.  This is one case I would probably want a holster that was cleared for the trigger if I shot them regularly at matches.

If you haven't noticed the '60 is my revolver of choice as well.  I actually have 12 of them including 2 originals that are 148 and 147 years old.  And you keep saying the same thing about the loading lever being an improvement.  I never said it wasn't designed and marketed as one.  I just said that Colt's original design was to have the pistols disassembled for reloading.  It worked 175 years ago and it works today.  There has never been a year it didn't work...

Jack Hays and his band of Texican Ranger pistoleros didn't need no stinkn' loading levers to go down in history killing 30 Pehnahterkuh Comanches with their Colt revolvers and forever launching Colt's revolver into fame and lore.  For at least two more years Hays and the other Ranger companies used those pistols without loading levers to push the Comanches West out of the more populated South Central area of the Texas Republic.

According to records it wasn't until 1842 J.C. Hays saw the loading lever modifications and made the comment they would be useful for reloading from horseback.  It seems his company had been using The Tower of Power up until that point and it wasn't as easy to use off of a saddle.

~Mako

[Montana Slim]

Not a SASS member here....and I must say I infrequently consult their rules...My gear does not change frequently, but their rules do...at least to allow more "stuff", seldom if every removing "stuff"... so I'm generally unaffected. Until recent they did not recognize the "pin" between chambers....Earlier changes were specifically to aloow the 5-shot conversions...Some Colt repros have the pins, some do not ...some that have the pins but they are beat-down, other pins do not fit the hammer, some hammers are welded & ground. My take on the term "slot" in the latest SASS booklet implies that the notch in a Remington may be acceptable - or, do they mean slot for a cylinder stop(?). If it boils down to a functional position as "empty", the trick is if the revolver being used a) has such a feature and b) does it really do anything. I've worked on many C&B pistols and found some Remingtons would not hold at all...same for some Colts. Some cColts the ....Well, in any case a shooter could charge/cap 4 and cap the 5th on the clock. This is an option regardless.

So...can you load 5? ...you may... or may not, depending on the configuration of the particular revolver in question.

Similarly, many fixed FP cartridge revolvers can be safely carried by lowering the hammer between cartridge rims. This relies on a stiff mainspring as you'd expect in percussion revolvers..but, remember most period cartridge revolvers also had rather stiff mainsprings to ensure ignition. This is very feasible with my small S&W hammered revolvers...but, the technique is not SASS legal. However, I get no complaints if I were to load 4. then add the 5th on the clock.

Looking at a Pat & holding one is one thing, shooting one at the range another...in a match..that is another story...my hat is off to anyone giving that one a go.

Regards,
Slim

[Mako]

Slim
You're right about the rules being a moving target.  About seven years ago they started allowing the five shot cylinders, before that it specifically said that five shot cylinders couldn't be loaded before the line with more than four.  I know it was about seven years ago because that's when I shot those Patersons.  There had been an attempt for a couple of years to allow R&D cylinders to be loaded with 5 rounds and they finally changed it in '02 or '03.  So when the new rules came out I decided to shoot the Patersons.  The previous rule had been another afterthought when people wanted to shoot '62s or Patersons in competition.  Since the cartridge shooters make the rules they reasoned it should be the same as a regular percussion pistol, just less one chamber.

The newest rule still didn't get it totally right, but at least it addresses the fact that there are the hammer safety pins on Colt's pattern pistols.  Like you said, the Howell cylinders have a slot that is not a hammer rest like the Remington pattern pistols. I don't think anyone quibbles anymore because the cylinders are specifically designed to allow the hammer to sit between chambers.  And with the Colt's pattern pistols you would have to totally remove the cylinder to add a 5th round which is why it was broadly construed at least at club matches.

I had thought I might try the Patersons again someday, but I need to find a mate to my Uberti.

Regards,
Mako

[Drayton Calhoun]

Mako, I don't think the Patterson fits anybody's hand well, lol. I love mine, but it is a trial to fire. Oh, yes, what about the Wells Fargo Baby Dragoon? The end of the arbor was intended to be the loading tool.