1858 remington forum

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
I was able to get to an indoor range yesterday. The maximum range is 50 feet but it was more pleasant than the sub-zero temperatures outdoors.

Anyway, I was able to shoot up the remainder of my Fiocchi cowboy ammo (about 70 rounds). I fired about 8 five shot groups from a rest, and with the exception of a couple fliers, all groups were less than 3 inches. Which is much better than the results that I had with the percussion barrel.

I have yet to enlarge the chamber diameters in the percussion cylinder but, the accuracy with the 45 Colt ammo is now acceptable. ----- GeezerD
Percussion Rifles / Re: The holy grail,the legend. Whitworth
« Last post by Racing on Today at 05:29:46 AM »
The eagle has landed.

Indeed a few things are missing,the ramrod and the globe front sight,but first impression is very good.

Will rip the thing apart and check more in depth during the day and get back to you guys on the matter,with pics of course.
1858 Remington Revolvers / Re: Muuuuhaaaahaaahaaaa!!
« Last post by Yolla Bolly Brad on January 22, 2019, 01:43:13 PM »
  If someone has the technology to make patterns for casting with 3D printing, than they should also be able to use CAD software to adjust the size of the patterns for shrinkage allowance.
  I've done a little research into investment casting shops and some of them now have 3D printers that create the wax patterns. They use these for "rapid prototyping". When it comes to doing a production run, they CNC machine a mold to make the wax patterns.
1858 Remington Revolvers / Re: Muuuuhaaaahaaahaaaa!!
« Last post by sltm1 on January 22, 2019, 11:03:03 AM »
Prof, thanks for the info. Had that shrinkage problem recently when I did a sand casting of a Merwin Hulbert loading gate...ended up doing it twice, was using silver
Off-Topic Discussion / Re: What's going on today?
« Last post by Mad Dog Stafford on January 22, 2019, 06:02:19 AM »
Getting Max ready for school here.
Colt Revolvers / Re: Asm 3rd model dragoon parts
« Last post by dragoon on January 22, 2019, 12:03:21 AM »
Thanks for the replies. I’ll make a note. I’m buying up what I can of the ASM parts but some aren’t available.
Hi, shooting stock BP revolvers even with their size issues, they have always shot more accurately than I can hold. However, anything done to improve confidence seems to improve accuracy.

Top machinists have an obsession with precision and just love to make things dimensionally perfect.
Repeated bench testing (taking as much of the shooter's error out of the system as possible), with multiple loads, is the only way to fisk out a gun's inherent accuracy.

Also; say you have a pistol with an inherent, bench-tested accuracy of 4" at 25 yards, with the best load you can find for it.  Let's also say that you as a shooter can, with the best of the best of pistol and ammo combination (say the gun is capable of 1" at 25 from a perfect mechanical rest), can shoot to 4" at 25.  Even in that scenario, the gun having the 4" inherent accuracy will yield larger groups on average, FOR YOU, than the gun with the 1" inherent accuracy.  The point being that any added variation in the mechanical system will increase the shooter's average group sizes.  Of course if you're a really poor shooter (say, twelve inches at 25 even with a fantastic pistol/ammo combo) that difference will be totally lost in the "noise".

There is, for every shooter, that nagging question of; Is it me or is it the gun?  Only with enough experience, including trying lots of guns, and having other, better shooters try your guns, etc., will that question become answerable.  And there one must be careful to be honest with one's self.  For example we will all eventually shoot an amazing group.  Either that amazing group is a fluke, because with 5 shots for example, it is always possible to get the occasional amazing group even with an inaccurate system or a less-than-stellar shooter if you launch enough rounds down range.  So then it becomes a matter of how consistently you, or the gun, can shoot.

This concept is nicely illustrated in the "One MOA All Day" challenge among rifle shooters.  It is common for someone to say "My AR can shoot to one MOA all day" but it is quite another to prove it.  Thus someone came up with a target having five, one-inch bulls on it, to be shot at 100 yards.  If you and your rifle can shoot "one MOA all day" then it should be a trivial matter to put your bullets where you mouth is, and shoot five targets in a row, with five shots each, all touching the bull's eyes.

The NRA standard for accuracy testing of a pistol is five consecutive groups of five rounds each at 25 yards.  Group sizes are then measured, and the average size of those five, five-shot groups is taken, and that's the pistol's "accuracy".

That's 25 rounds fired for every load tested, and an NRA review typically includes testing the gun with several loads (for how else would one get any real idea of the gun's capabilities?).  If you test five loads then, that's 125 rounds fired on 25 separate targets, with all the careful records-keeping that that implies (and by the way they also take chrono readings and give all that data along with the review, so there's high, low, extreme spread and standard deviation to record and list).

It ain't easy to talk about "accuracy" then, with a lot of credibility.  The temptation is to show one's best group and leave it at that, but of course that isn't how science workls.  In fact it's damn hard work and really no fun at all for the tester/gun writer until payday, and we generally speaking don't do this black powder stuff in anticipation of a payday.  We do it as a hobby, and that NRA standard, which is a good and proper standard making a lot of sense, is a TON of work for a mere hobby.

So cudos to anyone who actually meets that aforementioned standard for accuracy testing (regardless of the actual results - if you can manage to get through the whole process without mixing up your notes or introducing other errors into the experiment, you're awesome).  I've come close a time or two, but never actually done it through to completion.

OK, so anyone want to actually try this?  Try testing two guns with five loads each, keeping your 25 yards consistent, carefully measuring all your powder charges and suchlike, keeping your chrono set up, taking careful notes along the way, using the above standards.  Actually I wouldn't impose that on a friend, because it would be days of hard work with no enjoyment (unless you REALLY enjoy science).

So what I want people to take away from all this is;
Though you may not enjoy science enough to actually go through this sort of rigorous, scientific testing, at least understand what it takes to be able to tell others how "accurate" you and/or your gun may be, and keep it in mind.  And please; if you show us your targets, and please do, for Pete's sake at least tell us the distance at which they were shot.
1858 Remington Revolvers / Re: Muuuuhaaaahaaahaaaa!!
« Last post by Omnivore on January 21, 2019, 02:08:05 PM »
sltm1; Every alloy has a shrink rate, expressed as a percentage (how much it shrinks after freezing).  You compensate by making your pattern (foam or otherwise) that much larger.  In such a small part as a revolver frame it's probably not significant, being that the critical surfaces will be finish-machined to spec anyway.

It's been common practice, in casting parts for replacement, to use an original part, say, which was broken, as the pattern for casting a new one.  I've done this by epoxying the broken part back together (fortunately, cast grey iron tends to break cleanly, so that's easy), so as it's strong enough to use as a pattern.  In agricultural machinery I've done this several times in iron (either by cementing together a broken part or using an identical, intact part from another machine as a pattern), and the results have been utterly satisfactory.  I'm talking parts in the range of a few inches to about 10 inches, and in such a case the new castings have been interchangeable with originals.  Casting large parts, with critical dimensions to the casting, you have to compensate by applying the shrink rate to make an over-sized pattern.  Old school pattern makers accomplished this by using measuring instruments having the shrink rates built in (e.g. a metal twelve inch rule that's actually a bit longer than twelve inches), or by simple calculation, say, adding a few percent to the pattern dimensions.
Off-Topic Discussion / Re: What's going on today?
« Last post by G Dog on January 21, 2019, 01:30:20 PM »
Today is Ray Day.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10