|
Post by Toby Benoit on Apr 7, 2011 7:21:07 GMT 12.75
Snakeeye's done increased his BP collection by four new additions to the family. I'll let him tell you which one is which, but I'll tell ya...I really like that Remington "Buffler Hunter"!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Snake Eyes on Apr 13, 2011 1:43:23 GMT 12.75
First off let me thank Toby for posting the the photos!
The two on the right are Navy 1861 C/B .44cal revolvers.
Top left is Tobys want....1858 Remington .44cal Texas Buffalo w/12 inch barrel
Bottom left is an 1863 Colt Peacemaker .44cal percussion.
These are all reproductions.All by Pietta of Italy...All in new to NN condition.
|
|
|
Post by Paws on Apr 14, 2011 2:37:27 GMT 12.75
First off let me thank Toby for posting the the photos! The two on the right are Navy 1861 C/B .44cal revolvers. Top left is Tobys want....1858 Remington .44cal Texas Buffalo w/12 inch barrel Bottom left is an 1863 Colt Peacemaker .44cal percussion. These are all reproductions.All by Pietta of Italy...All in new to NN condition. I have three of those 44 Cal "Navy" pistols; problem is, none were ever used by the Navy, only 38 Cals during the period.
|
|
|
Post by Toby Benoit on Apr 14, 2011 11:09:52 GMT 12.75
Yup, but them .44's was made on the same frame and design as that comissioned by the Navy. Personally, I'm not fond of the strapless design, I prefer the Remington design with the top strap so if I get a chain fore, the damn cylinder has less chance of blowing up and into my skull! With that twelve inch barrel, you just know that "Buffler" revolver's got to be accurate as heck for a BP; it'd make a fun hog hunting weapon don't ya think?
|
|
|
Post by Two Tales on Apr 14, 2011 15:22:29 GMT 12.75
Toby it looks like it would be but ya gotta remember that's a low load gun with the brass frame...heavy charges can and eventually will push the frame...
|
|
|
Post by Snake Eyes on Apr 15, 2011 2:31:42 GMT 12.75
Toby, TT makes a valid point,depending on what you consider a heavy load.....I personally would not consider 20grns of 3fff Goex a heavy load,but much over that I would. Hunting hogs with the Remington Buffler with 20grns Goex,assuming you do your job should be sufficient to dispatch a hog.You have to keep in mind that a .44cal C&B revolver is not a .44 cal S&W. Things happen with C&B.....Some not always good.It is absolutely necessary that you know your revolver. John
|
|
|
Post by Paws on Apr 15, 2011 2:56:05 GMT 12.75
I think the manufacturer recommends a max load of 15 grains of BP and to not use GOEX nor modern smokeless powder. With re-enactment it isn't a problem since there is no ball to compress the charge. I've experienced a few chain fires and I can well imagine that a fully loaded weapon doing that could be a whole lot like holding a hand grenade.
|
|
|
Post by Snake Eyes on Apr 18, 2011 0:57:52 GMT 12.75
Phil, All B/P mfgs cover their a$$ with lower loads than the gun is capable of handling. Personally I would not give a 2nd thought to using 20grns 3fff Goex in anyone of these revolvers, and I will. "Chain Fire" is certainly to be considered whenever shooting a C/B revolver.To reduce that problem, big time, cover the loaded chamber with bore butter or even Crisco.Besides reducing c/f to near 0 also makes the revolver much easier to clean.IMHO John
|
|
|
Post by Snake Eyes on Apr 18, 2011 1:09:44 GMT 12.75
First off let me thank Toby for posting the the photos! The two on the right are Navy 1861 C/B .44cal revolvers. Top left is Tobys want....1858 Remington .44cal Texas Buffalo w/12 inch barrel Bottom left is an 1863 Colt Peacemaker .44cal percussion. These are all reproductions.All by Pietta of Italy...All in new to NN condition. I have three of those 44 Cal "Navy" pistols; problem is, none were ever used by the Navy, only 38 Cals during the period. Phil, I did not live during that period,like you!But,I am happy with my .44s. John
|
|
|
Post by Two Tales on Apr 18, 2011 4:36:05 GMT 12.75
|
|
|
Post by Toby Benoit on Apr 18, 2011 4:43:24 GMT 12.75
One thing about Florida is that we're practically overrun with wild hogs. I've killed many, many of them with a .22lr solid to the head. I got no doubt that a .44CB with 20grfff will getterdone and I have no illusions that a .44 bp load carries anywhere near the power of a .44 S&W. It does generate plenty enough KE to enter and do plenty damage to the baddest boar hog out there. I have a couple old .44Navy revolvers I have fired but never hunted with; I can't hit the side of a barn with them although they're fun to make smoke n noise with. I bet that lengthy barrel on the Remington, combined with adjustable sights, would make a fine short-range pig gun. When you get thm out t o a range, let us know how they handle, Snake!!
|
|
|
Post by Snake Eyes on Apr 19, 2011 0:56:47 GMT 12.75
I got no doubt that a .44CB with 20grfff will getterdone and I have no illusions that a .44 bp load carries anywhere near the power of a .44 S&W. Toby, Actually when I said that, I was not referring to power of one vs the other,but more on the reliability of the C/F over the C&B.Be rare for a C/F .44 to not go bang under about any condition,not so with the C&B. John
|
|
|
Post by Paws on Apr 19, 2011 1:27:41 GMT 12.75
Phil, All B/P mfgs cover their a$$ with lower loads than the gun is capable of handling. Personally I would not give a 2nd thought to using 20grns 3fff Goex in anyone of these revolvers, and I will. "Chain Fire" is certainly to be considered whenever shooting a C/B revolver.To reduce that problem, big time, cover the loaded chamber with bore butter or even Crisco.Besides reducing c/f to near 0 also makes the revolver much easier to clean.IMHO John Bore butter helps some but the initial explosion/spark at the back of the cylinder is the real problem.
|
|
|
Post by Snake Eyes on Apr 19, 2011 21:27:59 GMT 12.75
To be honest I have always read and been told it is from the front of the chamber that causes chain fires.I have never had one in hundreds of shootings C/B. I have seen it occur two times. Both times when the shooter forgot the BB over the front of the load.Neither involved serious injury but was scary. Now if what you say is a problem then being very careful put some BB over a tightly seated cap would help. Or,for that matter making absolutely sure you have a tight cap fit.I always use #10 CCI caps to help ensure that. Just an opinion. John
|
|
|
Post by Paws on Apr 19, 2011 22:40:45 GMT 12.75
Yes number 10 caps and fit them tight. Couple years ago there was a cap with only four flanges on it and they were having real problems with those CFs. Fully loaded chambers (with balls) does reduce CF with a tight patch and the chamber greased. Without the ball the grease is needed to keep the powder from falling out and seal the chamber. But this only prevents the CF in the front end. Too big a charge or an off center cylinder will cause a heavy flash back which melts the grease and sets off the CF from the front end too. I think maybe using a courser powder might reduce/eliminate back end CF flashes. Don't know for sure. Where the hell is Frank?
|
|
|
Post by Toby Benoit on Apr 20, 2011 18:33:41 GMT 12.75
Never had or seen one, but heard and read about 'em chain firing. Don't wanna be around it if it ever happens though I'll tell ya that!
That's why I'm kinda skeered of them open top Navy models, seems like they might be a bit more dangerous if it ever happens.
Is there a difference in occurance based on projectile, say a conical bullet versus a round ball?
|
|
|
Post by Paws on Apr 20, 2011 22:02:45 GMT 12.75
I don't know. I don't know whether or not the CW soldier even used the Miniear' ball in a revolver. Good question.
|
|
|
Post by Snake Eyes on Apr 20, 2011 22:36:50 GMT 12.75
Yes number 10 caps and fit them tight. Couple years ago there was a cap with only four flanges on it and they were having real problems with those CFs. Fully loaded chambers (with balls) does reduce CF with a tight patch and the chamber greased. Without the ball the grease is needed to keep the powder from falling out and seal the chamber. But this only prevents the CF in the front end. Too big a charge or an off center cylinder will cause a heavy flash back which melts the grease and sets off the CF from the front end too. I think maybe using a courser powder might reduce/eliminate back end CF flashes. Don't know for sure. Where the hell is Frank? Paws, Now you have me confused, four flange caps are musket caps(top hats) and to my knowledge never used on any C/B revolver.I don't see how they would have ever fit? I may be misunderstanding your statement.Would not be the first time.
|
|
|
Post by Paws on Apr 21, 2011 3:21:45 GMT 12.75
Yes number 10 caps and fit them tight. Couple years ago there was a cap with only four flanges on it and they were having real problems with those CFs. Fully loaded chambers (with balls) does reduce CF with a tight patch and the chamber greased. Without the ball the grease is needed to keep the powder from falling out and seal the chamber. But this only prevents the CF in the front end. Too big a charge or an off center cylinder will cause a heavy flash back which melts the grease and sets off the CF from the front end too. I think maybe using a courser powder might reduce/eliminate back end CF flashes. Don't know for sure. Where the hell is Frank? Paws, Now you have me confused, four flange caps are musket caps(top hats) and to my knowledge never used on any C/B revolver.I don't see how they would have ever fit? I may be misunderstanding your statement.Would not be the first time. No, you are right as I recall these were intended for use on the muskets as I recall. They were literally disingetrating when fired.
|
|
|
Post by Snake Eyes on Apr 22, 2011 1:25:52 GMT 12.75
Phil I have switched nipples on a couple of my regular rifles to musket nipples.I saw absolutely no advantage using them over the CCI#11 mags.Well other than the musket caps are more expensive. John
|
|