Blu Nos Dav

Obviously my question has gotten on some members' nerves. I've read many threads here on the Wire that ask interesting questions. If I can offer some helpful information - I do, and if I can't - I don't. But, it would never occur to me to jump on my keyboard to type words to the effect of, 'I don't know the answer, but, I want to tell the OP what a dumb question he's asking!' If you actually have more important things to worry about, why are you here typing? Warden - Thank you for adding some levity, that was pretty funny! Ringo - Thank you for at least answering my

The instantaneous G-forces that are applied to a handgun during firing are actually much higher than the forces inside an internal combustion engine while running. Which is why gun parts "shoot loose", while car parts don't (as quickly), if the screws/bolts are properly torqued. It's interesting, that some shooters don't expect the same level of reliability from their firearms, as most drivers expect from their vehicles.

I wrote "$50 scope mount", of which there are many models which provide precise torque specifications for proper assembly. It helps if you read & understand the question, before you blurt out an answer. Please explain how both examples which involve holding two pieces of metal together using screws is "significantly different".

I don't know what type of tools Colt used back in the 1880's, but, I do know that they now use CNC machines and other very advanced equipment, so, I expect that their assembly & maintenance techniques should have improved as well. Perhaps, you believe that they are still using water-wheels to power their machinery along the Connecticut River? If I am the first person to ask this question, then I'll take that as a compliment.

Guys, I'm not shooting Wyatt Earp's Single Action Army from the OK Corral, nor Wild Bill Hickock's Navy Colts from Deadwood. For clarification, my guns are of fairly "modern" manufacture: SAA - second generation made in the late 1950's Frontier Scout - K series from the mid-1960's Army, Navy & Pocket Police - second generations from the 1970's & 1980's Another Navy - third generation from around the year 2000 I'm just curious why a revolver that can cost upwards of $2,000 even on the used market doesn't have published maintenance torque

Does any know what the torque specs are for the various screws that hold Colt single-action revolvers together? Or where I could find them? I own: SAA, Frontier Scout, Army, Navy and Pocket Police. The more I that I disassemble & reassemble these guns the more I wonder about tightening the various screws to the correct specifications. Thanx, Dave

Thanx for the info, Goode, I really do appreciate it! But, I'm not really interested in permanently modifying any of my perfectly good cap & ball revolvers. I think that self-contained metallic cartridges are a fad that will soon pass from our shooting world I might become interested in the type of conversion cylinders that Taylor's makes for full-size guns? But then again, I have an assortment of spouts for my powder flasks, a snail-capper that holds 100 caps, and pockets that hold plenty of round balls, so, I can usually reload my handguns while carrying on a conversation

Hogleg, SliXshot nipples fit into my Colt Pocket Police just barely, and so far, I haven't needed to use cap guards. Just as I was about to run out of caps, my LGS received a new supply of Remington #10's & #11's, plus some Winchester Magnum BP #11's. They limit each customer to 400 caps total. Back when I was using the smaller Colt factory "pocket sized" nipples, I found that CCI #10 caps, which are the smallest ones that I could find, worked best. Now on the SliXshots, the Remington #10's work great. H. K., Who makes conversion cylinders for these 5-shot pocket

Palewolf, All second & third generation Colt 1862 Pocket Police & Pocket Navy revolvers have 5.5" barrels, and all of them are of .36 caliber. While I have seen some Uberti/Cimarron/Taylor's 1862 Pocket Police & Pocket Navy models advertised with 4.5" barrels, none have "a barrel length of 4 inches or less". So, I don't believe that any of these models could or should be restricted from use as main match revolvers, despite their original 19th century marketing by Samuel Colt as pocket pistols. The 20th & 21st Century SASS usage of the phase "pocket pis

Does anyone use, or know of others who use, Colt Pocket Navy(s) or Pocket Police as main match revolvers? I own a second generation Colt Pocket Police and have access to a similar Pocket Navy revolver. I am considering putting together a lightweight rig for my wife to shoot in "Frontierswoman" category. My CPP shoots well - hits kinda high, but, I'm working on that solution ... but, I don't know how well pocket sized guns would hold up to SASS usage? Thanx, Dave

I was cleaning my two Navies and discovered an interesting "twist" to the 2nd -vs- 3rd generation saga. The rifling of the 2nd gen barrel is a RIGHT HAND twist, while the 3rd gen has a LEFT HAND twist! Both barrels have 7 lands & grooves and a rifling twist rate of 1 turn in 32 inches. The Official Uberti USA Rate of Twist Chart shows 1-in-32" LH rifling for black powder .36 caliber revolvers. So, that matches up exactly with my 3rd gen Navy, which is widely reported to have been made using 'unfinished' Uberti parts. The 2nd gen Colts reportedly began with ro

Thanx, Pards! Henry also makes a "Rare Carbine" version that has a 20.5" barrel and holds 10 rounds in the magazine tube. Does anyone know if any Henry carbines were actually manufactured back in the 1860's? Would a "New Original Henry Rare Carbine" be SASS legal? Specifically in Frontiersman category? (I understand that there would not be any room for a spacer stick in a carbine length tube.)

These are expensive, but, I like owning firearms that are made in the USA. Does anyone own one? Has anyone fired one? Any SASS match experience?

Thanx, Guys! So, except for historical accuracy, having a Winchester 1873, 1892 & clones or a Marlin 1894 chambered in .45 Colt, it would function just as well with modern ammunition as the same gun in .44-40, Right? Follow-up questions: Is/are there distinct advantage(s) of using specific caliber(s) when shooting cartridges in rifles loaded with black powder? If yes, are there reasonable work-around solutions for non-historically BP rifle calibers, such as .38 Special and/or .45 Colt? Thanx again, Dave

I remember reading somewhere a long time ago that historically, rifle manufacturers like Winchester & Marlin did not chamber their rifles in .45 Colt due to insufficient rim dimensions as compared to .44-40, etc. Which then led Colt to start making their SAA in .44-40, etc in the late 1870’s. But, when I look at the various cartridge specifications, the .45 Colt’s rim seems as proportional as the others. So, what changed? Because, nowadays, everyone chambers rifles in .45 Colt. Curious, Dave