Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21

Thread: Revolver cylinder chamfering question

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Ringwood
    Posts
    4,934

    Revolver cylinder chamfering question

    Sorry if this has been covered before but I was looking at a Ruger Old Army the other day that had had the cylinder chamber fronts chamfered and was wondering what possible advantages this would make. Anybody done this, if so why and at what angle did you chamfer ? Only advantage I could think of was that it perhaps made loading slightly oversize balls easier to load but would you then still get the necessary swaging ring of lead ?
    Remember, it is the strongest character that God gives the most challenges.

  2. #2
    Turnup's Avatar
    Turnup is offline Dialling code‎: ‎01344
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Crowthorne
    Posts
    5,491
    I recall reading an article in Blackpowder by Jim Tanner (he is famous for his bullet and ball moulds moulds). He was refurbishing a Remington revolver and described chamfering the chamber mouths. His explanation was that it would cause the ball to swage into the chamber rather than be cut, and that this increases the area of rifling engagement. Don't recall much more detail and it may be that the particular gun had shallow rifling. I make no comment as to the effectiveness but he seemed to think it worthwhile.
    True freedom includes the freedom to make mistakes or do foolish things and bear the consequences.
    TANSTAAFL

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Huntingdon
    Posts
    9,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Turnup View Post
    I recall reading an article in Blackpowder by Jim Tanner (he is famous for his bullet and ball moulds moulds). He was refurbishing a Remington revolver and described chamfering the chamber mouths. His explanation was that it would cause the ball to swage into the chamber rather than be cut, and that this increases the area of rifling engagement. Don't recall much more detail and it may be that the particular gun had shallow rifling. I make no comment as to the effectiveness but he seemed to think it worthwhile.
    Mr Tanner knows whereof he speaks, please disregard my comment. I am a very happy customer of his, and never fail to commend him to my fellow shooters in USA and Canada.

    tac

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Ashford
    Posts
    1,222
    Wouldn't surprise me if it was done to facilitate easy loading of conicals or other non-spherical ammo. Lead balls may cut in easy but a square base round is much harder to accurately seat without the chamfer.
    It also reduces the chance of damage if you're careless and don't properly align the cylinder before ramming. Yes; proper technique will avoid this, but how often have you seen the wonderful 'tube vids of people who shouldn't be allowed near firearms.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Huntingdon
    Posts
    9,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Solvo View Post
    Wouldn't surprise me if it was done to facilitate easy loading of conicals or other non-spherical ammo. Lead balls may cut in easy but a square base round is much harder to accurately seat without the chamfer.
    It also reduces the chance of damage if you're careless and don't properly align the cylinder before ramming. Yes; proper technique will avoid this, but how often have you seen the wonderful 'tube vids of people who shouldn't be allowed near firearms.
    The base of the Lee conical, made especially for the ROA, has a reduced chamfer to make it easy to enter the opening of the chamber. It's not the easiest, but it does make things easier than a true flat base conical.

    tac

  6. #6
    Turnup's Avatar
    Turnup is offline Dialling code‎: ‎01344
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Crowthorne
    Posts
    5,491
    Correction: I earlier refereed to Mr Tanner as "Jim" - on reflection I am pretty sure he is in fact "Jeff"
    True freedom includes the freedom to make mistakes or do foolish things and bear the consequences.
    TANSTAAFL

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Huntingdon
    Posts
    9,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Turnup View Post
    Correction: I earlier refereed to Mr Tanner as "Jim" - on reflection I am pretty sure he is in fact "Jeff"
    Correct. I call him Mr Tanner, as we have not been introduced.

    tac

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    leeds, west yorkshire
    Posts
    12,946
    Quote Originally Posted by tacfoley View Post
    Mr Tanner knows whereof he speaks, please disregard my comment. I am a very happy customer of his, and never fail to commend him to my fellow shooters in USA and Canada.

    tac
    mr tanner work and experience is of the highest merit
    seems logical to chamfer the cylinder mouths to ease loading esp conicals
    like to see the end results to see if his work paid off
    edit....just googled this and its a mixed camp on effectiveness.
    if you have it done then they will be no shaved lead ring on your lead balls....oooohhh errrr missus
    EDIT 2 TAKEN FROM INTERNET

    The other major factor in chain firing deals with poorly fitting bullets. Bullets not fitting the chamber walls tightly may allow hot gases from a neighboring chamber to ignite the underlying power and again, glomming on a lot of Crisco on top of the loaded chamber does no good, you'll still get a chain fire.

    Some years ago, while experimenting with a Colt replica, I made a useful discovery. The minor chain firing that still occurred after using proper loading procedures could be entirely eliminated by simply removing the sharp edges at the entrance of each chamber.

    As most revolvers come from the Italian factories, the openings of the cylinder chambers are machined with sharp edges. These sharp edges bite into the soft lead of the ball as the ball is started and when the ball (or conical) is rammed down, the ball is cut leaving it undersized and unsymmetrical thus creating a gap where hot gas from another chamber can enter and ignite the charge. You can vastly improve your revolver by using a countersinking tool to remove the sharp edges at the entrances of the chambers. It is easy to do and only takes a couple of minutes. Simply hold the cylinder in you left hand and carefully grind with your right hand until the sharp edges of all six chambers are removed. When finished, your cylinder chambers will be lightly ‘chamfered’ and no more than a light chamfer is needed. This operation will not disfigure your revolver in the slightest.

    Chamfered cylinder and countersink tool.

    Chamfering the chambers does three things for you. First: instead of shaving off a lot of lead and ending up with an undersized, unsymmetrical ball, the ball is ‘swagged’ into the hole, thus making a perfect gas tight seal (assuming no trapped powder grains). Second: because you don’t shave off so much lead, but gently swage the ball in place, the rammer force is usually less. Third: because the ball is not undersized or unsymmetrical by having been cut, it fits the bore and engages the riflings much better. When a ball fits the bore and engages the riflings properly, you get a much more accurate shot.
    Last edited by loiner1965; 20-01-2018 at 07:17 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Ringwood
    Posts
    4,934
    All very interesting, thanks for your input.
    Remember, it is the strongest character that God gives the most challenges.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Ashford
    Posts
    1,222
    Quote Originally Posted by loiner1965 View Post
    .......
    As most revolvers come from the Italian factories, the openings of the cylinder chambers are machined with sharp edges. These sharp edges bite into the soft lead of the ball as the ball is started and when the ball (or conical) is rammed down, the ball is cut leaving it undersized and unsymmetrical thus creating a gap where hot gas from another chamber can enter and ignite the charge. You can vastly improve your revolver by using a countersinking tool to remove the sharp edges at the entrances of the chambers. It is easy to do and only takes a couple of minutes. Simply hold the cylinder in you left hand and carefully grind with your right hand until the sharp edges of all six chambers are removed. When finished, your cylinder chambers will be lightly ‘chamfered’ and no more than a light chamfer is needed. This operation will not disfigure your revolver in the slightest.

    Chamfered cylinder and countersink tool.

    Chamfering the chambers does three things for you. First: instead of shaving off a lot of lead and ending up with an undersized, unsymmetrical ball, the ball is ‘swagged’ into the hole, thus making a perfect gas tight seal (assuming no trapped powder grains). Second: because you don’t shave off so much lead, but gently swage the ball in place, the rammer force is usually less. Third: because the ball is not undersized or unsymmetrical by having been cut, it fits the bore and engages the riflings much better. When a ball fits the bore and engages the riflings properly, you get a much more accurate shot.
    I don't have a depth of experience in manufacturing or gunsmithing, but from what i do know about machining and physics this is, to be polite about it, on par with fertilizer.

    To address the points:
    First.
    The ball is cut, but it cannot be undersize... it's being cut by the hole it's forced into, It is the exact right size for the chamber. Unless the chamber is conical for some reason, in which case a chamfer will just allow the ball to swage to the same size and have the exact same result. Lead doesn't magically expand like that.

    Second.
    Reforming instead of cutting is also likely to increase the rammer force - I'm not certain on this so wont debate it, but shear force to trim a tiny ring of lead vs swaging the same amount and increasing the surface area would increase friction - all this by such a minute amount i highly doubt anyone would ever notice.

    Third.
    It's not undersize. Also this is why cap and ball revolvers use a 'forcing cone' to further reduce the diameter of the projectile and tightly fit it to the rifling.

    This whole post seems to have been taking from a US forum where they have an obsession with the idea of flashover and very little idea of how metal works. Not to mention a fairly insulting opinion on firearms design, it's entertaining how some people think this "one simple trick to improve your accuracy" is something never before considered in the last two hundred years. I'd be willing to bet that the combined efforts of designers like Samuel Colt and the cast majority of western worlds armed forces might have noticed if the design was as terrible as this person seems to suggest.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    8,331
    Quote Originally Posted by Solvo View Post
    I don't have a depth of experience in manufacturing or gunsmithing, but from what i do know about machining and physics this is, to be polite about it, on par with fertilizer.

    To address the points:
    First.
    The ball is cut, but it cannot be undersize... it's being cut by the hole it's forced into, It is the exact right size for the chamber. Unless the chamber is conical for some reason, in which case a chamfer will just allow the ball to swage to the same size and have the exact same result. Lead doesn't magically expand like that.

    Second.
    Reforming instead of cutting is also likely to increase the rammer force - I'm not certain on this so wont debate it, but shear force to trim a tiny ring of lead vs swaging the same amount and increasing the surface area would increase friction - all this by such a minute amount i highly doubt anyone would ever notice.

    Third.
    It's not undersize. Also this is why cap and ball revolvers use a 'forcing cone' to further reduce the diameter of the projectile and tightly fit it to the rifling.

    This whole post seems to have been taking from a US forum where they have an obsession with the idea of flashover and very little idea of how metal works. Not to mention a fairly insulting opinion on firearms design, it's entertaining how some people think this "one simple trick to improve your accuracy" is something never before considered in the last two hundred years. I'd be willing to bet that the combined efforts of designers like Samuel Colt and the cast majority of western worlds armed forces might have noticed if the design was as terrible as this person seems to suggest.
    I agree with what you are saying. The chamfer on the mouth of the cylinder may locate the ball on the chamber easier but you are still swaging the ball into a fixed diameter chamber and it will always be the same size as the chamber.
    The ring of lead that is taken off is so that the ball seals the chamber because it has been swaged in,as you know.
    I have witnessed flashover. It was from the back of the cylinder. Loose fitting caps or worn nipples that allow hot gases in from the previous shot are going to be a problem.
    I have never used grease on the front of the ball and nor do most people I shoot with. If you grease the balls and fire one shot and then look at the chamber either side most of the grease will have been blown out, which illustrates that gas pressure is deflected back into the front of the chamber. If swaging the ball in did not effectively seal the chamber flashover would be a very common occurence.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Ringwood
    Posts
    4,934
    Well...Just had a close look at a brand new 4 3/4" Cattleman and guess what ? The cylinder is chamfered, just a little but definitely chamfered. I say brand new but it has been in the guys collection for over a year, completely unfired, except proof, boxed and on a shelf in his gun room. Must say I was very surprised but definitely not mistaken and the owner says he's not touched it. The owner is a collector more than a shooter. Seems to me there's no definitive answer to my question on this topic, some prefer chamfered cylinder's for whatever reason's others don't but it looks like Uberti are now in the chamfered camp. Does anyone have an older Uberti they could look at, I'd be interested to hear if this is something they've just started doing or whether they've always done it ?
    Remember, it is the strongest character that God gives the most challenges.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    8,331
    Quote Originally Posted by vbull View Post
    Well...Just had a close look at a brand new 4 3/4" Cattleman and guess what ? The cylinder is chamfered, just a little but definitely chamfered. I say brand new but it has been in the guys collection for over a year, completely unfired, except proof, boxed and on a shelf in his gun room. Must say I was very surprised but definitely not mistaken and the owner says he's not touched it. The owner is a collector more than a shooter. Seems to me there's no definitive answer to my question on this topic, some prefer chamfered cylinder's for whatever reason's others don't but it looks like Uberti are now in the chamfered camp. Does anyone have an older Uberti they could look at, I'd be interested to hear if this is something they've just started doing or whether they've always done it ?
    Iv'e got a Uberti New Army police, the one with the fluted cylinder and it is not chamfered.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    leeds, west yorkshire
    Posts
    12,946
    will check my 1858 new army but i am sure its not chamfered
    Last edited by loiner1965; 25-01-2018 at 05:27 PM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Huntingdon
    Posts
    9,253
    I've got just one Ruger Old Army and that isn't chamfered, either.

    My Colt Blackpowder Firearms Second-series Walker wasn't, either.

    tac

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •