Steel quality on the Italian repros versus the originals?

[His lordship.]

As the quality of steel has improved over the years I have wondered if a modern typical Italian repro of an 1851 Colt is better or worse than an original Colt made in the 1850's in Harford, CT?

I wanted to add an extra cylinder for my EMF made 1858 Remington back in the mid-1990s and ordered a spare cylinder through a catalog (I think it was made by Pietta).  As it had too much length on the cylinder I had to carefully and slowly draw file the cylinder end down to fit into the frame.  I have a machinist's background so I knew to rotate the item being filed in a circular pattern, go easy and frequently fit check to see if it was ready to drop in.  Man, it took quite awhile, the steel seemed to be of high quality.

I had a guy at a gunshow say that the older steel on the originals was better, but metalurgy has improved quite abit since 1855.  Anybody have any experience working on the two types? :?

Thanks

[bfoster]

Chris,
Today, many folks don't appreciate the intelligent use of available materials made by designers and manufacturers during the nineteenth century. The progress in understanding steel chemistry and in all phases of steel manufacture and use during this time was remarkable, moving in the arms industry from (in all but best guns) from rather rough and ready materials and methods to the readily recognizable.

I have heard many remark on the lack of control of impurities in steel during this time. To lay this notion to rest obtain a period razor, etch it, then examine the structure of the steel under a microscope; you'll be amazed at how clean a steel was produced when needed.
 
For production guns like the Remington New Army and the Colt M 1851 (Navy), the steel was much like the steels in use in all U.S. made handguns until just after WWI, a low to medium carbon variety with minimal alloy content. Most handguns of this period had few heat treated parts (excluding the obvious, like springs).
 
Today, most blued handguns, including the reproductions are made with medium carbon steels. Alloy content and heat treat vary considerably from manufacturer: nowhere is this variety more apparent then in the reproduction arms business. Generally steels like 1030, 1045, 4130, 4140, & 4350 are used for the frame and barrel.

Better quality stainless guns are made largely of the 400 series. 416R (and variants) are typically used for barrels, softer parts sometimes use the 17-4's or 18-8's.
 
On the other hand, forging has just about disappeared as a manufacturing process in the arms industry. In some applications, this allowed lighter weight parts to be used than do some of the more current methods like investment casting, MIM, and the powder metal family.

Yes, metallurgy has made great strides since 1855, but as a mechanical engineer you'll not find me stating that the Colt or Remington product of the mid nineteenth century is either better or worse than the typical reproduction of today. Exception (in part): the Ruger Old Army model is stronger than any of the old handguns, including the reproductions. But the Colt and Remington originals had hand fitting absolutely lavished on them, even during wartime production. With a background in machine work you'll readily appreciate that proper fit up can overcome a multitude of minor "sins".

Had the guy at the show been discussing "high end" handguns made in the U.S. from 1935-1940 he might have had a valid point. The manufacturing controls insofar as materials and process resulted in a product that approximated the strength of todays production handguns (not, for instance, a Freedom Arms M83- this is a semi-custom piece), and the hand fitting had not disappeared. If you have the opportunity, shoot and examine a Colt Shooting Master or S&W (registered) Magnum. Even H&R made a remarkably fine shooting pistol (the U.S.R.A. model) at this time.

One last note. Above I referred to the Remington New Army. You referred to this as a M 1858, I think. The M 1858 properly is the Beals revolver, an arm which has never, to the best of my knowledge, been reproduced (no matter what Lyman and others have to say). The Beals model has no notches between the nipples, it has a German silver cone front sight, the web below the barrel through which the rammer passes is much smaller than in later models, and the patent marking is different than on the New Army. The marketing folks didn't do their research.

regards,

Bob

[His lordship.]

The Remington EMF repro I bought in 1989 was what I thought was the standard Army Remington .44 caliber revolver.  An "1858" that I have heard did not really see use until 1863.  Pretty much the more common of the reproduction cap and ball guns.  I am not familiar with the Beals model, it looks like a trip to the library for me to research the Remington guns of the period, and their variations.  Another learning experience. :-)

I did have a repro Euroarms 1851 Colt that saw heavy use for 7 years and I did buy a replacement cylinder pawl shortly after the initial purchase.  The cylinder main rod on the gun eventully stretched out and I sold the gun "as is" more as a decorator due to misfires.  Yet, none of the internal parts ever had to be replaced.  I guess that speaks well for the quality of the moving parts in that gun.  Same with my reproduction Colt Walker, used it for about 5 years and no part ever failed, again I wasted my money on a spare pawl.

[Dan Chamberlain]

Can't comment on the metalurgy.  It is interesting that the Beals has never been reproduced, but the early Remington "renditions" of the New Army imported by Lyman actually had Beals dimension grips!  Also, the rest of the gun was slightly scaled down and closer in dimension to the Beals than the guns in production today.  There were notable differences however.

Dan C

[HWooldridge]

I work in the injection molding business and see a lot of steel.  I also made a good bit of side money over the last 20 years as a blacksmith.  I have seen a lot of old anvils made in the 1800's that had faceplates which came apart due to bad welds or had porosity in the steel.  Even good anvils like a Peter Wright sometimes have problems.  Due to the fact that there are only a relatively few mills in the world today and the competition is somewhat global, I'd opine that today's steels are better (read more consistent) than those made years ago if only because the processes are more repeatable.  Probably the only way to accurately test the theory would be to find a pristine Civil War revolver and hold an endurance contest with a modern Italian replica, but I doubt anyone will venture to do that.

[bfoster]

Chris,

The New Army is sometimes called the M 1862 or M 1863. One book to check out at the library is Karr, Charles Lee Jr., & Karr, Carroll Robbins, Remington Handguns, Stackpole, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 1947. There are several editions of this. My copy, a third edition, was published in 1956.

HWooldridge,

I don't disagree with you regarding the consistency of the steels used. But as you will have observed in working with moulds, indifferent fit and finish work can cause a host of problems starting with flash and progressing through extremely rapid tool wear. While the parts that are produced by modern machinery are without doubt more dimensionally consistent than the parts that were produced by early machines, the original Colt and Remington arms were fit up with what, by todays standards, is extraordinary care. I suspect that the care in fit up in the originals to some degree compensates for many shortcomings. But I don't know if the surviving arms in shootable condition tended to be the best of the original production, that is possible.

I have done much minor work on reproduction arms over the years, quality isn't by any measure bad, but many of these guns, like most other contemporary arms, are rather roughly fit. They are fully functional as they come, but they do benefit from attention to the action. Oddly, there is less cylinder gap in many original revolvers than in most of todays reproductions. This must have caused problems with some of the powders then in use.  Without doubt it would be possible to build more durable reproductions today than the originals, but would the market bear the price?

Bob

[HWooldridge]

Bob,

I won't argue craftmanship at all but the original question was about the quality of gun steels, then and now.  You are "preaching to the choir" about hand fitting since I'm not sure any hand work or care goes into modern guns.  Most, if not all, manufacturers don't want to use labor on anything.  I sell plastic parts to a couple of the major American arms makers and have been in their plants.  The trend is away from the experienced worker with 20 years on the job because he makes too much money and I'll bet it's no different in other parts of the globe.

I recently bought a brand new .45 auto from a foreign manufacturer that was absolutely chock full of burrs.  I completely stripped it and studied all the parts under magnification.  Beyond actual assembly, it was apparent that none of the parts had been touched by a human since leaving the CNC mill.  In other words, somebody put it together from a pile of parts, fired a proof shell and put it in a box.  It functioned reliably from the first shot but had a horrible trigger pull and the thumb safety was very hard to operate.  I spent 2 patient hours stoning everything then reassembled and now, it almost feels like a Colt...

The old gunsmiths in the Colt and Remington factories not only took pride in their work but probably realized someone's life depended on a fully functional revolver.  I doubt that crosses many minds nowadays.

Hollis

[Flint]

The opinion of some gunsmiths and students of firearms is that even the lower grades of modern European gun steel is better than the steels used in the 19th century.  Witness alone the Walker and Dragoon models which were known to blow up....  Besides weight, the Dragoon was downsized from the Walker for purposes of reducing the powder charge.  The 1860 Army was made possible by Colt's much advertised use of better steel than the Dragoon was made of, allowing the smaller cylinder and thinner barrels.  Even the cheapest of Italian repros is made of better metal than the originals.  Winchester went to an Iron frame in thew 1873 model to take the stress of the 44WCF.  The modern Italian 1860 and 1866 Henry and Yellowboys can handle the 44WCF, the originals were in a smaller rimfire 44 Henry, about the size of the 44 Russian cartridge.  Many 19th Century receiver frames were cast iron, not even steel.