When do you NOT shoot a percussion revolver?

I like to watch Pawn Stars and I know a lot of the show if not most or all of it is somewhat staged.

Every gun they get, they have to shoot it. This includes the old percussion revolvers like the Civil War era Navy revolvers.

I admittedly cringe every time I watch them doing this but I don't know if that is warranted or not. They haven't had one blow up yet.

I've always read/heard/been told that you do not fire a real period revolver. Perhaps this is due to value more than risk of safety, I don't know. I've also done the usual web search and have yet to find a video of them actually firing a real period piece. All are reproductions.

So what are the opinions out there? How do you know when one is safe to shoot and when not safe to shoot and would you shoot an original even if deemed safe, especially if it were yours, not some guy at the range that is shooting his.

I'm just on your train of though, I wouldn't risk a period gun. I'd not likely shoot one older than 1880s with certain exceptions both ways...

If everything was mechanically sound I'd shoot it. With that said I'd keep charges an round count low no need to wear it out. The way I see it the firearm doesn't know it's old.

There really isn't any reason to shoot them because of all the repros available. But that being said I wouldn't be afraid to shoot them. But a rare or high value pistol I see no reason to fire. So just because you can doesn't mean you should.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

If I can`t shoot it, I don`t want it. The wayI look at it is, someone somewhere in time shot it, so if it`s in good condition & function the way it should, then shoot it. Just like WarPig said, "it doesn`t know how old it is".

Dang, y'all won't like it if i get around to shooting the LeMat! Needs a selector spring and locking bolt repair, first.

There was a recent thread that compared the shooting results of original Remington and Colt revolvers. (Haven't been able to find it. May have been in a forum other than this one. European fellow, IIRC.)

Found the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7A_w9-QXtg

Ahhh, the LeMAT.... Now that's an "Assult weapon"...:thup:

It's just that if "I" shot one of these early weapons, something would surely "bust"...then I'd be hosed...once again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

It's just that if "I" shot one of these early weapons, something would surely "bust"...then I'd be hosed...once again.

---

That would be my concern. I'd wonder if the steel were as sound as the more modern arms and if just looking at it is enough to tell. Everyone I've seen looks a little rough, including the Navy revolver in the video. The grey color looks unusual to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aragorn243

The grey color looks unusual to me.

---

Post- "Naval jelly" "finish". After that sort of abuse, it might as well get some range time- collectors will run in the other direction!

But they were nice though, at least they actually exist. Around my neck of the woods, we don't even see those much. Very scarce...

Was neat to see a heads up comparison. If I could travel back in time and was given a choice I'd pick the Remington. Full frame,better sight picture,more accurate and the nipple design.

It'd be neat to know what a guy looked for back then standing at the counter of a general store deciding which pistol to buy with his hard earned money..

I've heard about that discussion...some liked a weapon with more heft, some a light handy gun. Most wanted the best knock down they could get. More heft would be the Remington, lighter would be the open top Colt. Later it would be closer with the full frame Colts...and of course everyone went to .45 Colt, the .44 magnum of the time.

I compete in international BP and muzzleloader competitions. An original percussion revolver is on my wish list, but fetches 4-figures if it is usable for a competition. Yes, plenty of people do shoot originals (look up the MLAIC).
http://www.mlaic.org/
And, of course, the Hungarian representative on this august body is Németh Balázs, a well-known figure on the ML-scene and the guy from the Hungarian website (don't worry about the language - look at the pictures!)

Having been able to try out enough replicas of these old six-shooters, and talked to those who are fortunate enough to shoot originals, the verdict is quite clear. A Remington beats an open-top Colt. The best is a Remington with the blade foresight. The cone foresight is preferred by some, as is the Rogers & Spencer. But solid frame beats open-top, that's just simple mechanical stability, and name-nostalgia doesn't change it.

So, if it was in my area (geographically and financially!) and the internals were OK, then I would happily go for the Remington with the collector-deterrent finish! The problem is, that the internals are usually pretty loose, ratchets worn etc. So if you want a shooter you may need to replace the tatty springs and screws by new components diligently tailored to fit the gun. The original components go into a clearly labelled box to be sold with the gun (if you ever sell it).

You guys have been privileged to see a couple of originals demonstrated by someone who really knows his stuff. And you may assume that the internals on his guns are really good! Bluing doesn't shoot - good bores and tight mechanics in the hands of an expert do!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aragorn243

When do you NOT shoot a percussion revolver?

---

To answer the original question:

1) You do not shoot it if it is not in proper, safe working order.

2) You do not shoot it if it is (as a collector friend has) something like a mint Adams double-action only (no hammer spur) revolver in the silk-lined original case with all the accessories and a finish that is perfect. Looks just about unfired - it's been sitting in that case for 150 years! A revolver that even I, with my practical it's-there-to-be-used attitude only handled with cotton gloves. That sort of revolver is indeed too good to be used. So if it were given to me in some fantasy world, I would sell it to get a couple or three competition guns and still have enough money left over to feed them for the rest of my life!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick

To answer the original question:

1) You do not shoot it if it is not in proper, safe working order.

2) You do not shoot it if it is (as a collector friend has) something like a mint Adams double-action only (no hammer spur) revolver in the silk-lined original case with all the accessories and a finish that is perfect. Looks just about unfired - it's been sitting in that case for 150 years! A revolver that even I, with my practical it's-there-to-be-used attitude only handled with cotton gloves. That sort of revolver is indeed too good to be used. So if it were given to me in some fantasy world, I would sell it to get a couple or three competition guns and still have enough money left over to feed them for the rest of my life!

---

As for point #1, I finally sold with some regret an Adams .50 cal. five shot DA revolver with the cocking aid spur that projected through the triggerguard only because the frame was about half broken through the rear junction of topstrap and recoil face. The frame was bent enough that the cylinder had about 0.030" (may have been more) fore and aft play! Fully intended to shoot it, but the repair was just too daunting. Plus, all but one spring was broken...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmoore

only because the frame was about half broken through the rear junction of topstrap and recoil face. The frame was bent enough that the cylinder had about 0.030" (may have been more) fore and aft play!

---

Frame straightened - I would tackle that.
but...
Frame welded or silver-soldered - that would kill the collector value, as being an irreversible alteration. And one would still have an "iffy" feeling about the strength of the result.

I think you made the right decision.

Sorry to be so cryptic with this but a close friend had this for many years and found it and ask me to get some information on it and whether it could be fired. From the best I can tell, it is fully functional but I know almost nothing about revolvers. I took it apart as far as removing the barrel and cylinder. The barrel has some pitting in it but the rifling is strong. The cylinder chambers have some minor pitting in them but the cylinder has the unhealthy looking grey cast to it. There is minor pitting on some of the surface parts as you can see in the photos. The brass looks great, the grips look pretty good. The end of the muzzle and the front sight are a little worn down (rounded). The gun was produced in 1863 but does not appear to be a military contract piece. I told him the standard "I don't recommend firing originals" but he'd like to be thorough.

I'm not overly concerned with the barrel, maybe the cylinder, not from pitting but from the color. It looks to have had rust ground off of it or something thus the gouges. Some of the engraving remains but the serial number is extremely faint. It is enough there that I believe it matches the rest of the gun. The gun is not all matching, the loading leaver is a replacement. Other than that, numbers match as far as I've taken it apart. The screw holding the wedge looks newer/new but would have been replaced many years ago. My other concern is the wedge. It does not seem to be especially tight and if it is not tapped in place hard there is some slight movement of the front frame. Tapped in solid, it seems ok. There is some slight travel in the cylinder but I have no way to measure. The gun has very little if any original finish on it that I can tell but does have a patina which is marked from a previous cleaning. I have no idea when this was done and neither does my friend.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...45b40511-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...18d388e7-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...449178f2-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...3488d8b5-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...716fd9b0-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...e95496ab-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...e460b83e-1.jpg

Let me know what you think.

That looks like something I would investigate very closely, to see if I could make a shooter out of it, while hoping that the collectors would pass by on the other side. If the ratchet is usable, then screws and springs are all "doable". The wedge, however, is the absolute key piece for these revolvers. To a certain extent, one can even fine tune the position of the barrel section, and thus the cylinder end play, by manipulating the wedge. But if it does not fit snugly, which means needing a very firm pressure or a tap with a plastic hammer to seat it right home, then the open-top mechanism is a very wobbly affair. The screw is there to stop it coming loose and getting lost, not to tighten up a slack wedge!

It is not easy to tell from photos, but the greyish look to the cylinder could be the result of leaving it in rust-remover for too long. Commercial rust-remover, as sold for D-I-Y car repairers, is more or less weak phosphoric acid. I wanted to clean an old screw-cutting die once, that had a lot of surface rust from bad storage, although the cutting edges seemed OK. I put it in a plastic cup with a good shot of rust-remover, watered down to cover the die completely, and promptly forgot about it for a couple of weeks.

When I finally took it out and cleaned it, it had developed that grey look, having been in effect weakly parkerized. That may have been what happened here, in which case collectors will run a mile, but the thing will still work!

Everything works. Pull the hammer back, the cylinder rotates. It lines up correctly. Pull the trigger the trigger falls crisply. Loading handle is a bit loose at the muzzle end but seems normal. It won't pop loose on it's own. It functions smoothly.

I don't think the cylinder soaked in rust remover because the nipples are still black from either powder residue or rust or both. But it easily could have had it coated on. Or it could have been fired and not cleaned properly after the rust was removed. I'm guessing that whatever was done to it did not weaken it structurally? I imagine the pressures we are dealing with here are pretty low compared to modern firearms.

The wedge will not tighten up the gun when pushed in by hand. It's close but it's just a bit loose. A tap or two with a small block of wood tightens it up just fine but it is almost touching the screw at this point. Perhaps that is normal. I do have a replica Walker, that's how I knew how to take the thing apart but I only ever shot that once and couldn't hit the broadside of a barn with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aragorn243

It's close but it's just a bit loose.

---

I have dealt with one like that. Saved the pain of filing up a new wedge from scratch by a touch of judicious peening to spread the wedge face a little, then a touch with the diamond file where it was too tight. Result: optimum wedge fitting. And collectors please note: that is just sensible maintenance to keep the revolver functioning correctly, not destroying a holy relic!

Caution! Depending on the wear on the slots, you may be able to tighten up the cylinder/barrel gap a couple of 1/1000. I was working on a tatty replica, and had to enlarge the barrel slot anyway, because the axle slot was larger, meaning that when the wedge was tight in the barrel slot it was still loose in the axle slot. So while I was at it, I used the file to shift the outer (?) end of the barrel slot a tiny bit further out, in order that the wedge could drive the barrel slot further inwards before it was fast in the axle slot. Do it on the wrong end, and the gap will widen! It is difficult to think this through in vacuo. without the bits in front of me! Work out carefully what you need before acting.

Peening hammer, diamond or fine file, marking blue, and go slowly!

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...6/starrL-1.jpg

I have been shooting this .44 Starr Army DA for years.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../starr1L-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../starr2L-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../starr3L-1.jpg

I wish more of the original finish was still present. The blue that remains is remarkable.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../starr4L-1.jpg

Yes! The one I would like most (after a Remington) - The Starr DA/SA. A versatile mechanism.

First let me say that in my opinion the Remington was a far better revolver then the Colt. However the Colt was more popular and Colt sold more revolvers only because he was a master at marketing the guns. The solid frame was so much better and I believe Colt had to wait for the solid frame patent to expire before he could produce the solid frame revolvers like the 1873 Colt.
But that video test was a joke as far as accuracy comparisions and the penetration tests went. No comparison of accuracy can be done by shooting free hand but needs to be done where the gun is in a solid/inmovable rest. And as far as the penetration test, it looked like the Colt bullet entered almost between the two blocks of wood. Of course there is less resistance to penetration. The Colts barrel is 7-1/2" and the Remington's 8". The same bullet and load should produce about probably the same penetration as I doubt the 1/2" would make that much of a difference. The video was entertaining but not very accurate.

Also as far as the danager of shooting the old black powder guns, as long as the bore is clear and the cylinder lines up there isn't much danger in firing it. You can't overload black powder, if you did over load it, the excess powder will blow out the muzzle burning. The only danger would be if there was a bore obstruction and that would create dangerous pressure. The only thing I can think of is one of the old moving parts could break or in the case of a revolver, the cyliner next to the one being fired might let off also. The bullet shooting off and glancing against the frame and off at an angle but with low velocity. I've had that happened to me several times because the bullet may have been a bit to small and/or not enough grease was applied over the face of the cylinder to prevent a spark to get past the bullet in the chamber.. Ray

I spent some more time investigating the "looseness" of the Colt. It turns out it is not the wedge which is loose but the arbor. It isn't coming out or anything but it has a very slight movement to it if you wiggle it from side to side.

Does this present a hazard? Recommendations for repair seem pretty dramatic and likely to devalue the piece.

The pin looks tight, maybe if I tighten the wedge more it will lock everything in place? I do not want to damage it so I'm proceeding with caution with this.

This would seem to be a weakness with the open top design.

If arbor is loose don't shoot it. It is repairable but it is tough job. When i was reading your post and you were writing about the wedge fit i thought the arbor might loose. Your cylinder gap is set arbor length. If the arbor is tight and you can change cylinder gap with the wedge the arbor is too short.

What a nice gun you have there Conec...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike 56

If arbor is loose don't shoot it. It is repairable but it is tough job. When i was reading your post and you were writing about the wedge fit i thought the arbor might loose. Your cylinder gap is set arbor length. If the arbor is tight and you can change cylinder gap with the wedge the arbor is too short.

---

Mike,

I don't think the looseness affects the cylinder gap at all, it was just a very slight side to side movement. The cylinder gap looked fine. It's hard to describe but you can't really see it move but I can feel it. If you pull out on the barrel, no movement. If you move it side to side, slight movement. Remove the cylinder and you can move the arbor.

I doubt it will ever be fired but it would be nice if it was known it could be fired.

If the arbor moves at all you should not shoot it.

Thanks Mike, I'll pass the info along. Kind of what I figured but I had hopes. Now I guess the question is: Is this strictly a shooter grade that fixing the arbor would not devalue it or should it simply be left as is? I guess a follow up would be is the cost of fixing the arbor worth the effort?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aragorn243

Is this strictly a shooter grade that fixing the arbor would not devalue it or should it simply be left as is?

---

The gun has no original finish left, but pitting all over.
The cylinder is so beaten up that I am not sure that it is the original one (damage does not match frame). That would be at least a partial explanation for the poor fit.

Rather a shooter grade IMOH.

But for that, the arbor must be fixed. Loose threads can be tightened up by very careful crushing in a 3-jaw chuck to spread the metal. If the length is incorrect, then it can be corrected on a small, precise lathe, turning a gnat's whisker off the shoulder of the threaded portion or turning up a spacer as required. However, this is a precision fitting job, so it is probably uneconomic unless you have the equipment to do it yourself.

What is an arbor? I cannot visualize it.

The arbor is the round "post" that the cylinder revolves around. In the case of this Navy revolver, the arbor is slightly loose. It will not come out but it allows for a very slight movement if you hold the revolvers butt and the barrel and "move" it. I don't think it affects the cylinder gap, that looks fine. It doesn't affect the cylinder lining up with the barrel as they move as one.

From what I can gather, the arbor is screwed into the frame and then pinned. It can't rotate and can't be pulled out. It holds the barrel assembly in place as the wedge fits through a slot in it.

The cylinder moves from side to side about 5 times more than what the arbor moves. This revolver saw some extensive use.

Thanks for the clear explanation. I never knew it was called that and I have seen them many times...

To answer the original question - "When do you NOT shoot a percussion revolver?", I say why bother? Even in less than functional condition, originals are more expensive than good to even excellent condition reproductions. I don't bother firing originals, including the original M1860 revolver I purchased for $75 back in the early 1980s. $75 was exactly what the high quality Navy Arms revolvers were selling for then but the original still hasn't been fired, no reason to. I have turned down offers of over $1,000 for it in the last few years, don't really need to sell it anyway. That is a lot more than the cost of a new condition, top quality reproduction.

Besides, I never really cared for shooting revolvers anyway.....:wave:

I understand that position but I'm more along the line of thinking of if it can't be fired, not much point in owning it. That being said, I don't shoot things very often. I have a lot of rifles that I've never fired just because I never got around to it. But I know they CAN be fired and that's the difference I guess.

This particular piece has historical significance that would interest me in owning it even if it can't be shot. Even though it is not a military piece, odds are it was used during the Civil War as a privately owned side arm and that is what the word of mouth down the generations that it is. My friend decided to give this piece to me. He has known of my interest in historical pieces for several years having attended a few of my presentations. It actually belonged to his wife and they have no one to leave it to that would appreciate it, most likely being sold as soon as it left their hands. Her words to me were "I want it to have a good home". I am very grateful to them for the gift as I know I could probably never own one of these otherwise.

I think after going over it carefully, that it could be safely fired, especially with lighter loads but it isn't something I'd want to make a habit of because it will only wear further. Whether I actually make the attempt or not is still up for debate. I'd rather the "good home" didn't blow up Great Grandfather's pistol.

That is a first rate way of looking at it.

And good to know that good friends found a good recipient they can trust for something that they appreciate. :thup: