Printable View
I'm going to look at a MAS 1873 revolver tomorrow. Anything in particular I should look for? I figured I'd check to see if the cylinder works the way it's supposed to along with the single and double action. Don't really know what else to check. Probably never find ammo for it anyway so not likely it will be fired. Condition is well worn but functional as far as the owner can tell. Cylinder chambers appear smooth with no pitting. Bore has strong rifling but is dark. Grips are worn smooth.
This link and some help from Google Translate. armement reglementaire francais les armes de poing
You can make the cases from 44-40.
Lee do dies to reload. 11mm lead bullets are about for them.
I bought the last 2 molds that Lee made, about 7yrs ago. I think they could make you one to order.
Balleurope do make bullets RN453 179g
MY 1873 is not nice to look at but internals fine.
Solid as a rock. normal checks for BP ie cleaning.
then all the usual revolver checks.
here is a better link to the same place as above
armement reglementaire francais les armes de poing
Thanks guys. I'll let you know how it goes.
I don't think it's all matching but I can't really see the numbers well. It has quite a bit of color variation. Owner says it will probably clean off. I can't tell from the photos.
Check to make sure the cylinder lockup is good. To check cock the hammer and check that the cylinder stays aligned with the barrel without excessive play. Next check timing, in DA the cylinder should lockup just before the hammer falls.
Check the cylinder gap, anything over .010 and it will spit lead and fire out the sides, not that big a deal but something to check.
Other then that check the hammer nose for anything odd and for any odd rub marks on the cylinder, hammer, trigger and the frame itself.
Good luck!!
Ammo: a friend has one of these, and trimmed .44 S&W Russian cases fit without any further work (may depend on cylinder-recoil plate clearance).
My impression is that these are the most popular revolver in France for BPCR enthusiasts, being of a rugged construction that has lasted well.
Addendum to previous post by WarPig: in both actions (SA/DA) cylinder lockup and play can only be fairly checked as the hammer is about to fall. Up to the release point, the cylinders on old revolvers can feel rather loose because the locking mechanism (cylinder bolt a.k.a. stop/lugs/recesses) is often worn slightly diagonally. The final push that releases the hammer usually also gives that extra little bit of lug overlap and interlock that makes the timing better than it appears at first.
So if the cylinder lockup isn't good, should I pass or is it repairable? Price is at the lower end of the value listings for these so it's probably worth the asking price as a wall hanger.
This is the most informative website:
http://www.revolver1873.fr/
These guys even have reloading sets! (It really is popular in France)
http://www.hc-collection.com/
---------- Post added at 02:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:52 PM ----------
"So if the cylinder lockup isn't good, should I pass or is it repairable? Price is at the lower end of the value listings for these so it's probably worth the asking price as a wall hanger."
Yes, it is repairable. Get it. More later - my PC and this software are not getting on well with each other.
I'll defer to Patrick on repairability of antique revolvers.
OK, switched off PC, went and watered the front garden, let's hope the electronics is now behaving a bit better!
First off: most of my guns fall into the "near wallhanger" category, and I reckon that refurbishing a potential wallhanger that can be successfully returned to service is more useful to the community than paying out a huge wad of cash for something that is so good that you daren't take it to the range.
Second: I have treated a couple of revolvers, although my experience is not as extensive as with rifles. But the working principles are similar enough.
Third: I have got a few books on gunsmithing, but they deal almost exclusively with modern items, so that one finds over and over again tips on the lines of "if the length/diameter is more than 0.001" out of spec you will need to buy a replacement part from XYZ Parts Unlimited". This kind of advice is totally useless for just about every European BP gun.
So it's a case of DIY or wallhanger. I know which I prefer.
---------------------------------
"So if the cylinder lockup isn't good, should I pass or is it repairable? Price is at the lower end of the value listings for these so it's probably worth the asking price as a wall hanger. "
Yes, get it. I reckon you have the skills to do it yourself, unless the ratchet is really wrecked. If you like, I can talk you through it, but you will need to post good photos of the bits, showing the wearing surfaces, so that we can all see what needs to be done and others can chip in..
One caveat: if the bore has been ruined by someone using the "steel wire brush on an electric drill" method of removing rust, then it will be a wallhanger. I have not yet discovered how to regrow rifling - any tips will be welcome!
Hoping to see good pics of the internals of your new acquisition very soon!
I just got back from checking it out. I did buy it and bring it home but photos are going to have to wait a bit. I have a busy weekend planned with WWII weekend tomorrow and a slew of graduation parties on Sunday.
It is not a pretty one. Seems to be rust free on the exterior but there is what appears to be slight erosion in places and the appearances of a wire wheel cleaning. Bore looks good with the exception of one area which I am hoping is fossilized grease.
Cylinder works on single action, double action and locks up pretty tight on cocking. Seems to be a nice solid piece.
Hopefully I can clean it up nicely.
Update, couldn't stand it and had to find out what that was in the bore. It does appear to be fossilized grease. I have it soaking in PB Blaster and I was able to get most of it out and it does not appear to have affected the rifling. It ran about 3/4's of the way down the barrel and was mostly only on one side. Like it may have been lying for a long time and everything moved in that direction and hardened.
Wife is complaining about the smell already, she's only been in the house for 2 minutes. Women.
Got home early and decided to take it apart. It is all matching, even the grips. Interior looks pretty good. Only real rust is on the solid handle side under the grip and it is very light. Bore is cleaner but still not fully clean. Doesn't look too bad now. Started working on removing the grind and wheel marks. Not going too bad. Not looking for perfection but I may has well minimize the damage done by others. Disassembly is easy and designed so it can be field stripped with no additional tools. You pop out the cylinder rod by pushing the large screw in and pulling. The end contains a screwdriver for removing all the screws. One screw removes the side plate and the grip comes off just by lifting it out. There is a lever which is flipped inside the handle so the spring is easily removed and re-installed. Only large part not marked with the full serial number is the frame. May be because the barrel is marked, I don't know. The partial serial is on the inside of the frame. Still have not figured out what the substance in the barrel is. It is hard but it does not seem to stick to the metal when scraped with a brass rod. Too hard for the wire brush. PB blaster did loosen it some. I did find two small areas on the exterior that seem to have the same substance. Comes off easier there as I can get too it. Not sure what they did to the grips. Looks like they scraped them to remove the checkering for some reason. Shame as they are original and matching.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...mj0a6oxd-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...kl8c2zyv-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...oj0csryd-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...lmfaqk7l-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...szcnuv35-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...yuedpxbl-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...fdz5q5mf-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...x3jp84ro-1.jpg
Stripped it completely down. Got the rest of the crud out of the barrel and polished out the grinder marks. The grips are toast, can't really do anything with them, very soft. I'll keep my eyes open for replacements. Originals will do for now.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...rhleypa1-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...bfjubeu8-1.jpg
Huge improvement, had to do what you had to do.
You're doing well! Keep it up. BTW, the Mle 1873 was usually bright finished, so you need have no "originality" worries about polishing off the scratch marks. The markings are all there and very clear, and the internal mechanism is in very good shape, although a close-up of the ratchet would be a good idea - they often require a bit of peening and super-cautious filing to restore good timing. I reckon you made a very good purchase.
I steered clear of any polishing of any working mechanisms. There doesn't appear to be much wear on the internals including the ratchet. The cylinder moves a about 1/16th of an inch total from side to side (around) and is tight from front to rear. I may work on polishing a bit more but I'm pretty happy with it as it is. It came out a bit better than expected. I'll probably polish up the cylinder rod pin flat, that still looks a bit rough. I don't have a gauge for the cylinder gap but it isn't very big. I can get two but not three sheets of paper through it and there is no erosion on the bridge.
"The cylinder moves a about 1/16th of an inch total from side to side (around) and is tight from front to rear. "
If you mean that the cylinder can be rotated by about a 1/16 on the circumference when the revolver is cocked, then that is what I both feared and expected. It needs to be tighter than that, as if the mouth of the cylinder chamber is badly aligned with the entrance to the forcing cone, then the bullet can strike the edge and that will certainly result in a slice being shaved off the bullet and spat out sideways. Not good for accuracy either.
However, as I wrote in a previous post, to be fair to the revolver you need to test this at the moment the hammer is about to drop. Revolvers of this vintage work by the pawl pushing the ratchet sufficiently to hold the lug or notch (depending on design) on the cylinder against the trigger stop (a.k.a. bolt). If the pawl is worn or bent (both common) then it will not push the ratchet round sufficiently. And since the pawl is itself pushed up by the trigger, the amount of trigger movement also plays a part. And of course wear on the ratchet and the trigger stop... and the lugs/notches... but let's take it step by step.
To test: Cock the revolver, then put a felt wad between the hammer and the back of the frame, so that the hammer cannot bang on the frame if it drops. Now use one hand to squeeze the trigger, and the other hand to very lightly push the cylinder back so that the ratchet is in continuous contact with the pawl. Get as close as you can to the release point, and hold it steady. Now see if you can rotate the cylinder.
If you can, then the pawl is not pushing the ratchet round far enough. If you really want to shoot the revolver and not have lead spitting out, then any rotary play should be more of the order of a 1/64 than a 1/16!
Last chance: squeeze the trigger until the hammer just drops, allowing a bit more "shove" from the pawl. How much play is there now. 1/16 is too much, 1/32 is loose but usable. 1/64 is OK. All just IMHO, of course. What you really need is to make sure that the bullet emerging from the mouth of the chamber flies into the forcing cone without striking the edge, so it all depends a bit on the start of the cone as well.
OK, so if it's not good enough - what is to be done? Watch this space!
P.S. A close-up of the pawl and the ratchet would be useful. (If you consider a continuation of theis topic to be useful)
Tried rotating as the trigger is set to release and cannot detect a difference. I did get an actual tape out and measure the movement, it's actually closer to 1/32nd with the exception of one cylinder which is a little more. I hope these show what you wanted to see. there is some wear on the edges but doesn't look sufficient to cause much movement. My Nagant revolvers rotate about the same amount and I never had any issues with them. If these are not helpful, let me know what else to take. Only other place I can tell that would hold the cylinder is the actual trigger assembly where it comes up into the tear drop shaped groove and that doesn't appear to have any wear at all.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...lzohxbjr-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...lf9pciww-1.jpg
The wear here seems to be on the one side only about half the thickness. The side shot shows it better.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...prgumtf7-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...zdb4ucnm-1.jpg
This particular rachet is the most worn and my guess for being the one that moves the most. The others are not this dramatic.
Trying to learn about this last evening and am wondering if first I should try polishing the inside of the arm of the "hand" hope I got that right. This would allow it to come in a little further and catch the ratchet where it is not worn. I guess peening the hand top would be next if that doesn't work? Not planning to do anything until instructed.
The pawl/finger (why on earth hand? - but I don't make these terms up) looks odd to me in having a squared off top. The usual shape is rounded, with the round being sharper on the inner (axis) side and with a longer slope on the outer side so that it falls into the ratchet easily and fits into the "notch". I wonder if somebody though that this rounding was severe wear, and "smartened it up"?
The squared outer corner means that the pawl has to fall a long way before it clears the edge of the ratchet tooth, and the squared inner corner is going to cause lost motion, as the ratchet has to turn some way before it comes to bear, and it will tend to dig into the teeth instead of having a bit of excess motion to allow it to slide over the outside rim of the ratchet as the trigger is squeezed in more and more.
So I suspect that the finger/hand/pawl/thingummy is too short, by about 1/16" least.
As my description may not be brilliantly clear, I'll make a sketch and post it ASAP.
Watch this space!
... then maybe this will help.
If you make a copy of this sketch and square off the nose of the pawl, you can imagine what is going to happen.
a) The pawl has to drop so far for the squared end to clear the tooth of the ratchet that the inner corner is nowhere near in contact.
b) So there is a lot of lost motion before the inner corner makes contact with the face of X and pushes it up.
c) In the process, the square corner is going to gouge the face of the tooth.
d) The square corner is going to cause severe wear on the rounded outer corner of the tooth.
e) The lost motion means that the pawl will not have the necessary overtravel to keep the cylinder stop hard against the face of the notch on the outside of the cylinder as the trigger is depressed and the revolver fires.
In other words, a square end to the pawl is like mating an ACME square thread to a Whitworth nut - a recipe for fast, damaging wear.
So I find it hard to believe that the pawl is as it should be.
Test: If the pawl has the correct length, then it will slip into the notch of the ratchet with a light "snick" when the trigger is nearly fully forwards. About 1/8" from the end of travel - no more! The closer the better. If you hear this "snick" when the trigger is still noticeably depressed*, then the pawl is too short.
Try it and let me know the result.
*Just for fun: I guess it will be a 1/4" or more on your Mle 1873.
There are two snicks. The first is 1/4-3/8 inch from the end of the trigger travel. The second is right at the very end of travel. I believe the first snick is where the pawl first engages the ratchet because if I pull the trigger there the cylinder begins to turn immediately. Anywhere prior to that and the cylinder does not move.
"There are two snicks. The first is 1/4-3/8 inch from the end of the trigger travel... I believe the first snick is where the pawl first engages the ratchet because if I pull the trigger there the cylinder begins to turn immediately. Anywhere prior to that and the cylinder does not move."
Looks like I made a good guess - the pawl is too short. You will have to build up the end by about 2mm, then file the nose to shape and shorten it by trial and error until the pawl engages as described previously - quite close to the end, but see below.
" The second is right at the very end of travel." Must be the engagement of the trigger with the hammer. I.e. full cock. This is set to happen just after the pawl has dropped into the ratchet notch, thus preventing repeated firing of the same chamber. Sounds like it is correct, so you need to set the pawl length so that it drops just before this point.
When you have done that, the pawl will have sufficient overtravel/excess motion to achieve the state shown in stage 3 of my sketch. The play in the cocked cylinder positions should be considerably less. Note that any variation between the individual positions will depend on the state of the outside corners of the teeth and the state of the locking notches on the outside of the cylinder. The notches often have slightly worn and battered edges - another reason why the positioning is better when the trigger is depressed right up to the release point and the (more or less worn) trigger stop/bolt - whatever it is termed - moves in further and achieves better engagement.
How do I go about building up the pawl? Spot welding?
Yes, if you have the skills or know someone who has them. All it takes is a blob of mild-steel welding rod welded on to the end. Keep the shank of the pawl firmly gripped in a heat sink, as although the material will be a fairly high carbon (i.e. hardenable) steel you do not want to soften up the bearing pin.
The ratchet is probably the hardest part of the mechanism to replace, so the nose of the pawl should be softer than the ratchet, as if you have to replace anything because of wear, rather the pawl than the ratchet!
Do not try to harden the nose. In plain mild steel it will probably last for as long as you are likely to shoot it anyway. And one day, if it really is worn, repeat the process.
Once you have a good blob on the nose, then it is simply a case of file and fit. Takes a bit of time, but is not difficult.
My son in law will be able to do it for me when he has the time. Thanks Patrick.
The best thanks you can give me is to confirm that it works better after the pawl adjustment.
Then we can get on to the fine tuning!
Aragorn, I am happy to be able to help you, and look forward to hearing how the pawl turns out.
The fine tuning will be optional, depending on results. But it can turn a revolver with timing slop into one with practically none. Get your son-in-law on the job a.s.a.p. and while he is at it, perhaps he can make up a brass or mild steel rod that is an inch or so longer than the barrel plus cylinder (so that you can pull it out if it jams) and turned to be a close sliding fit in the bore. This is the basic tool required to check the timing on all chambers - for quality and equality.
A.S.A.P and my son in law don't match well. His work involves a lot of travel so he's not home much. My daughter has his schedule pretty well worked out when he is home. My welding projects aren't very high on her priority list. But Father's Day is coming so I might rate for one day soon.
"But Father's Day is coming so I might rate for one day soon."
Good Luck! Hoping to hear from you soon.
I've been waiting for about 14 months to get a tip added to an Italian Vetterli firing pin. Last Father's day they had a party/picnic.
"I've been waiting for about 14 months to get a tip added to an Italianhttps://www.milsurps.com/autolinker/images/link6.gif Vetterli firing pin. Last Father's day they had a party/picnic."
Tell him you'll pay for a crate of beer AFTER your firing pin and pawl have been welded.
But Father's Day is coming so I might rate for one day soon.
Playing the Fathers Day Card.
I like it.
Patrick Chadwick -- what a fine thread. I personally learned a great deal from your systematic diagnosis and prescriptive recommendations. We should call you "Dr. Chadwick."
I was able to follow your instructions exactly and diagnose the problems with a 1896 Hopkins & Allen 32 revolver that fires Colt 32 shorts. Because these rounds are nearly impossible to find new, I had some made from old shells. Unfortunately the reloader is getting on in years and the bullets often were ill-fitted to the brass, overhanging like a pot belly and love handles. I was worried that the bullet would not enter the forcing cone with precision, given the wear on the cylinder.
Rather that make a big deal, I used a traditional old fashioned pencil sharpener (the little one-inch kind we had in our pencil cases as school kids) (which to my surprise is perfect for putting a nice cone on a 32 lead bullet). Simply by putting the cartridge in the pencil sharpener and twisting like you'd sharpen a pencil, it shaved off a lead curl forming the bullet into a nice cone -- easy, about 10 seconds of work per bullet.
Patrick,
Found this on a video last evening and took a screen shot. It looks like the side touching the ratchet has also been built up a bit. I can also see a slight "lift" on the right side top a bit similar to what you've described. The ratchet looks worse than mine.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...5fmnviao-1.jpg
Too fine of a weld job for my son in law. I'll have to find someone else. He works on heavy equipment and that's what he's set up for.
How are you on silver-soldering?
I can do it on copper pipes no problem. I have done it on steel a few times, a 1917 front sight, and a Vetterli front sight. Wouldn't that be too soft?
"Rather that make a big deal, I used a traditional old fashioned pencil sharpener (the little one-inch kind we had in our pencil cases as school kids) (which to my surprise is perfect for putting a nice cone on a 32 lead bullet). Simply by putting the cartridge in the pencil sharpener and twisting like you'd sharpen a pencil, it shaved off a lead curl forming the bullet into a nice cone -- easy, about 10 seconds of work per bullet."
Sheer brilliance! Deserves a creativity medal.
Well, provided you don't tell anybody else, I'll let you into a little secret: I have used silver solder 1) to repair a hammer, where the striker was FUBAR and 2) to build up a pawl that was only about 1/2 mm short.
In no 2) I reckoned that adding such a tiny piece of steel was going to be extremely fiddly, so in a fit of creative laziness I just popped a blob of silver solder onto the end of the pawl and filed it to shape.
Yes I know that's not the correct thing to do, worthy of Ali Bubba, :eek: and truly guys, I will do it properly ... some day ... In the meantime, the provisional solution is still working. It is visibly wearing and was only intended to last long enough to test out the revolver and then do the job properly ... but an old German saying is that nothing lasts as long as a provisional solution. Very true in this case. Definitely good enough for a try-out.
BTW, silver solder is quite strong enough. In this application it is only subjected to a light pressure. It is more elastic than a weld, and is easier to dismantle and redo if you get it wrong. Just keep the bottom end of the pawl in a heat sink so that the bearing pin is not softened.
As for the "finger" of the pawl: as mentioned previously, such parts were made of carbon steel (not carbon tool steel - which would be too brittle - but nevertheless hardenable) as when it has cooled down, the pawl will still be hard enough for its job.
And there is a very good reason why the pawl should be a bit malleable - but I am on holiday in the Internet backwoods, and you will just have to watch this space for further explanations.