I dont recall problems with blown cylinders that early. I know Colt improved their material when the 1860 Army was developed. There was another improvment in material during the Single action Army's production in the late 1880's when the cartridges went to smokless powder. I cant remember the date that switched. But blown cylinders could and would occur when shooting smokless loads in a pistol rated for black powder loads.

 

Trapdoor:Colt didn't covert to smokeless powder until 1897 some say '98-Winchester converted in 1894.

 

Colt advertised they used an alloy called "Silver Steel" in the Model 1860, allowing it to be stronger and lighter than the older model revolvers (Walker, Dragoons, etc.) I have never read anything that provided information on what "Silver Steel" actually was, but I am sure it had no silver in it. Probably just one of the newer steel alloys, which were coming into use at that time due to rapid advances in metallurgy which occurred about the time of the Civil War.

 

Some Walkers did blow their cylinders. I guess that proved that a 60 grain charge wasn't entirely safe in all of them. Some have speculated that the failures were due to soldiers loading the picket bullets in backwards. I don't know if that would increase the strain on the cylinder or not. I think the metallurgy just wasn't consistent enough. Most Walkers would take it--some wouldn't. Probably as a result of these failures, the dragoons had shorter cylinders allowing only a 50 grain charge. I believe the metallurgy was essentially the same until the advent of the 1860 Army.

 

From my reading, it seems the Walker cylinders were iron and did have a fair number of cylinder ruptures, with is a major reason for the low survivability of original Colt Walker's.

The Dragoons had smaller cylinders that held less powder, which made the cylinder stronger and thus less problems.
Remember that the Walker and Dragoons were the worlds first revolvers and metallurgy was in it's infancy as a science.
Prior to this people understood how much powder a muzzle loading barrel could safely take and how to build good barrels.
A revolving cylinder with 5 or 6 chambers was very new technology.

Sam Colt fully understood the damage exploding cylinders would do to the reputation of his revolvers and immediately started working on strengthening the guns. The first step was a smaller, lighter Dragoon with a cylinder that held less powder, then on stronger metals.

 

From a member with limited interest in the percussion cap guns, I'd like to thank you all for this topic. I had no idea - very interesting!!!

 

Frames and Barrels I am pretty sure were Wrought Iron on the Colt Cap & Ball and also on the Colt SAAs and probably the 1878 DA and thers also...but I do not know when this would have changed to make them of somethbing else instead. Wrought Iron of course is typically Forged and is a very good material for frames and Barrels of Arms from that period. It was not strong enough for Rifle Barrels once 'Smokeless' came into fashion for Rifle Cartdidge pressures as they came to be, and various Steels were then brought into use for Rifle Barrels.

Many Revolvers of the period had Cast Iron Frames, and, this also could vary a lot, as far as what kind of Cast Iron it was, or how malluable it was. Possibly some Revolvers even had Cast Iron Cylinders, which were then of course machined to spec...I do not know. Some Cast Iron kinds might have been allright for that.

Cylinders may have originally been Wrought Iron on the WALKER, or Cast iron using a particular kind or composition, I do not know...but, if so, it was not so good a choice even then, as some temperable and Forged Steel would have been.

Steels tended to have been mostly an impirical matter then, with various Alloys being proprietary to different sources, or occurred naturally in consequence of how Iron Ores in some areas would have attending elements geologically deposited alkong with them, and, with use and expriment, Manufacturers of different things would find which Steel suited them best.

'Silver Steel' I believe did contain some Silver, but, also contained other things, and, there were likely many kinds of 'Silver Steel'.

Steel being of course an alloy, where various elements are added to Iron.


Wrought Iron is 'Iron'...literally...though Carbon content can vary, and with this, the technicality that it is then an 'Alloy'.


"ATKINS" Saws used to advertise that their Saws were made of 'Silver Steel', and, I am confident they were, too.

Otherwise, I do not know what the Cylinders of the Walkers or the subsequent Dragoons were made of, but it is interesting to learn that Colt advertised the 1860 Army as having a 'Silver Steel' Cylinder ( which, the WALKER ought to have had, apparently! )

 

Colt Walker cylinders were made from cast and forged Iron. Unfortunately, the science of metallurgy was unknown at that time, all that could be relied on was the trade knowledge of the artisans making the cylinders in the factory. Thus, a certain number of the 1100 cylinders were fated to fail. However, this situation was aggravated by the fact that the bullet mold supplied with the pistols had only 1 cavity that produced a conical bullet. The troops to which the Walkers were issued had never seen conical bullets before, only round balls.
So, many of them loaded the conicals into the cylinders upside down. The result of metal flaws and mis-use resulted in a higher than normal number of blown cylinders. It is not widely known, but in the aftermath of the Mexican War, the troops who had been issued Walkers were made to turn them in to the Army, who then sent them back to Colt for examination and refurbishment. That is why Walkers in their original configuration are so rare. As an example, the mate to my Walker, B Company No. 25, has a First Model Dragoon loading lever instead of the original Walker one. There are only about 112 original Walkers known to exist, and only about half of these are in the original configuration with all original parts.

 

I do not see why the Revolver ( or the Cylinder ) would care which way a Conical ( or any other ) Bullet was Loaded.

I know we always hear that loading them up-side-down was supposedly some of the cause or reason for the Cylinders rupturing, but, this makes no sense to me.

Pressure behind the Bullet, pressure bearing against the Cylinder Walls, is the same regardless of the orientation of the Bullet...or, loading it upside down or crooked, might even allow a lot more Blow-By and hence less pressure behind it...so...

 

The answer to the above reply is quite simple. The diameter of the cylinder chambers in all Colt percussion revolvers is slightly larger than the diameter of the barrel's bore. Bullets cast in Colt bullet molds are larger in diameter than the cylinder chambers; so, in loading the bullet, a small amount of lead is shaved off the bullet and therefore the bullet walls forms a seal with the cylinder walls. When the gun is fired, the pointed end of the projectile (or the rounded front of a ball, which is smaller in diameter than the bore) enters the bore, and the force of the powder gasses forces the soft lead of the bullet into the grooves of the rifling, with excess lead being shaved off at the entrance of the cone and expelled in the gap between the cylinder and the barrel cone.
If the conical bullet is loaded up-side down, the flat end of the bullet tries to enter the barrel and jams, thus causing the cylinder to burst because the pressure of the gasses have nowhere to go.
With regards to "silver steel", this was nothing more than an advertising gimmick and had little to do with reality. Granted, the steel used in ca. 1860 Colts was superior in strength to that used in 1847, but not that much. The reason Colt stopped production on the fluted cylinder 3rd Dragoon and the '60 Army, was that the thinner metal in the flutes caused many of their cylinders to burst, and the public, as well as the Union Army did not trust them.

 

This is a disappointing discussion. Beyond the fact that some Walker cylinders failed, Dragoon shorter cylinder, etc., most of the rest of it is hip-shooting. It would be refreshing for someone who really knew something about the subject(s) weighed in. Starting with iron, which is an element, it is probably true that what was thought to be pure iron, could contain impurities that affected its strength both plus and minus. Steel is iron with the element carbon added. It was learned from Biblical times that adding carbon increased the strength of the iron (making it steel). There were various methods of adding carbon and it would be interesting to know just when the 'smiths' really knew what they were doing -- other than it had always been done that way and learned and passed down through apprenticeships.

Seems to me the explosive force in the chamber (in all directions) only sees the bullet as its easiest way out, a disc preventing its escape, without regard to whether it is actually spherical as a ball or pointed as a bullet. If the Walker had no forcing cone it might make a miniscule difference in pressure rise as it attempts to enter the rifled bore.

I apologize to those of you who presented facts - you know who you are. All I'm sure of is how I handle iron and steel, having made scores of springs and other parts in my serious working on guns since the 1950s. In my work on pre-1800 restorations I have repaired a number of spring failures by welding - usually considered a NO-NO.

 

This is a disappointing discussion. Beyond the fact that some Walker cylinders failed, Dragoon shorter cylinder, etc., most of the rest of it is hip-shooting.

Well, we to not have much more than that to play with!

> It would be refreshing for someone who really knew something about the subject(s)
> weighed in. Starting with iron, which is an element, it is probably true that what was
> thought to be pure iron, could contain impurities that affected its strength both plus
> and minus. Steel is iron with the element carbon added.

Well, yes, but Steel also usually has and had other Elements present also...( Manganese was somewhat common in many early Steels, especially those Steels used in the production of Wood Working Chisels and Plane Iron inserts ) and, thus, is actually an Alloy in it's way. I doubt many Steels ever existed which were of pure Iron and pure Carbon only, and, nothing else.


It was widely enough known in those days ( 1840s and earlier ) that iron Ores from specific localles would have differing properties, as would the Steels produced from them, and, these then lent themselves to particular kinds of uses or items. This tended to favor certain places then for Steels used in particular kinds of items, and, or, for the Making of those very kinds of items.

Sweden was famous for Centuries for their Irons and Steels of course.

Russia at one time was famous for posessing particular Cast Irons which filled out very fine details in Sand Moulds, and, also, which were maluable and not 'brittle'.

Sheffield England and various areas in Germany each were famous for very fine Steels in the 19th Century, and or both places specialized in the making or manufacture of particular items which requires especially fine and homogenous Steels, such as those used in Scalpals, Straight Razors, and better kinds of Scizzors, as well as those used in Wood Working Chisels, Plane 'Irons' inserts, and Engraving Tools. Switzerland was famous for the best Files, etc...

The United States took quite a long time to catch up as far as making it's own particular Steels for so many things.

Even into the 1920s Sheffield and German Steels were still the De Rigeur for most Cutting Tools and Saws produced in the US.


By then the Goden Era was passing and most manufaturersw went to Chrome Vanadian or other kindred Steels, and their reason or quality of 'reason' was for ease of Manufacturing, and not because these Steels were in any way 'better' ( they were not ).

So, the Steels which were made from the Iron Ores found in various localles, tended to favor the production of specialty or particular items, or for particular grades of particular items, for which those localles often became famous.

So, anyone wanting Steels for particular purposes could get them from those places.

Boatbuilders relied on Swedish Iron Nails for their reputaiton and property of not rusting whether in Salt or Fresh Water use...for yet another example.

Wrought Iron in practice was sometmes somewhat intermediary, usually, to plain or pure Iron, and Steel, or would be by whatever degree, depending on the kind of Iron Ore it was, or from which the Wrought Iron was made, what else was present and in what amounts in the Iron Ore, hjow much Carbon it acquired or lost, and, how it had been worked.


As far as I recall reading, or maybe just surmising, the Frames and Barrels of the Colt Revolvers were Wrought Iron, and, stayed that way well into the Metallic Cartridge era, and probably stayed that way up to or even some ways in to the Smokelsss era Frame wise for all I know. I was never sure what the Cylinders were made from, whether at the beginning or on from there, other than, that at some point, I asumed they began to make them of fairly carefully elected Steel of some kind.

> It was learned from Biblical times that adding carbon increased the strength
> of the iron (making it steel). There were various methods of adding carbon and
> it would be interesting to know just when the 'smiths' really knew what they
> were doing -- other than it had always been done that way and learned and
> passed down through apprenticeships.

I think some of the Viking Swords and Daggars ( or their Blades proper, anyway ) have turned out to be of Domascus Syria or other at the time famous Steel Centers of the Middle East, which 'Blades' had of course to have come a long ways ( or may even have been Ordered to their shape and size and detail also, ) to be in the far Northern parts of Europe...but, things, and word got around, definitely, even in ancient times. And Trade was likely a far more active and reaching matter than most Historians have supposed.

 

Wow, this info is far above my paygrade

 

Some of those early steels were worse (meaning brittle with hard & soft spots) than the wrought iron they sought to replace! I have read where the South during the War Between The States was forced to use iron for their revolver cylinders..this iron was twisted while hot before machining, in an effort to improve it's strength..there were reports of these failing in service...Another thought..I have seen British percussion revolvers with color-cased cylinders & barrel/frames..These were the integeral barrel/frame models..just how they kept the bores from warping is a wonder? Don't think the C.H. of cyl. would do much for strength..but would improve wear resistance in locking notches.

 

Like so many things in Life - it is only as good as who's doing it.

The South of course was under a great deal of duress...they were an Agricultural Society and were not any where near as 'Industrialized' as the North was, and, had very little iron or Steel production, and relatively little Manufacturing of Steel items which could readily convert into Arms Making. They had some, but, not much.

And, everything being in a hurry, I am sure the South ended up buying many iffy items from less than devoted or scrupulous Manufacturers or Importers.

Even the North ended up buying quite a lot of 'bad' items, bad Guns, bad other things...and likely too, there was more corruption among Contractors and Kick Backs and so on, in the North, to support and enable such mis-adventure.

 

Cont'd -



Europe seems to have taken a while for some reason, in the develpment of 'better' Steels far as say five hundred to a thousand years ago is concerned. Spain then I suppose had the lead oweing to the Culture of the Moors and their as it were Middle Eastern continuity and Know-How...then, eventually, England, and also Germany.

In surveying the Artefacts of the times, I am confident we will find, that endless Smiths or their Kin knew very well how to acheive desired results, and very good results, in Iron or Steels, which some particular item needed to have.

If their way of knowing was impirical, ( or had not got as far as it was to do later ) it does not lessen the quality of outcome under the circumstances, or the consistency of product necessarily - it would all depend on the practioner.

The Brooklyn Bridge was supposed to have a particular grade of Steel Wire, from which the large Suspension Cables were twisted or made into Steel 'Rope'...and, at some point, suppliers whom Mr. Roebling had trusted, had substituted Wrought Iron Wire of the same Gauge. By the time it was found out, some fair amount had got wound in to the Cables, and, remains there to this day I suppose.

Big difference there, between those two!

The Walker Revolvers were produced at Whitneyville by Eli Whitney's Nephew and Son I think...and, by every evidence, it seems that these people were impeccible Machinists and Engineers and Metal Workers, and for their time, would have been expected to have had a good working knowledge of Irons from various places foreign and domestic, and, of Wrought Irons and Steels made of them, or of Steels known to derive from particular places famous in their day for them.


And, with this, to have been up to date on Published informaiton relating to the intentional production of Alloys, and the kinds of properties those Alloys had once Hardened and Tempered and so on.

I have no idea how the Walkers were 'Proofed', but, this may be an important aspect - if the problem we have heard about of Cylinders Bursting is true ( and I have no reason to suppose it is not true ) then I have to wonder what was lacking in the 'Proof' Testing of each individual Revolver, and how come adequate Proofing was lacking?

It would not be hard to proof test a Cap & Ball Revolver, even if it might be a little tedious - by loading a fullest possible Cylinder Chamber with hard compressed 3 f Powder, and, placing a Ball or better yet, to allow the fullest possible Charge, a stubby flat front and flat rear Lead 'Puck' on top of that of course, and, then, adding, via Muzzle Loading, two or three or four usual Lead Balls or a Lead
Plug' even of whatever desired Weight.

By Marking the Cylinder Chambers with something, whether a tiny 'Stamp' or some Ink or Wax or whatever, one could then proceed to 'proof' each Cylinder Chamber.


I would have to think that such a process would have eliminated any faulty Cylinders, or, if finding that too many Cylinders were failing, then, such Proof Testing resulting in failures would have given cause to review the composition of the Metal used for them.

For all I know, the Cylinders may have been Cast Iron, and not Wrought Iron at all...but, either way, adequate Proof Testing should have shown up any problems, rather than to have problems of burst Cylinders occurring in the Field, and, being a disappointment to those who were relying on the Revolvers in actual use or combat.


Being as a Revolver's Cylinder Bores have always had much thinner Walls than the Barrel, I am surprised that more care or intention had not gone into their production.

It seems obvious to me, that some sort of tough Steel would have been the best choice...but, then, this would also have occasioned a greater expense, or, final cost to the Customer...but, it could also have been a good basis for 'Bragging Rights' or Advertisements which highlight the amenity, so...Business wise, to my mind, it would have been well worth the extra expense and Trouble to do. Plus, the Base Ratchet 'Teeth' would have tended to be more durable! And, nothing wrong with that!

I still do not accept that a Pointed Pure Lead Bullet could assume a canted or upside-down position or be installed in any position whatever, where it would occasion enough 'pressure rise' in meeting the Forcing Cone, to burst a Cylinder.

Or, in my imagination, the only Cylinder possible TO burst by that means, would be one which was so margainal and iffy to 'bad' to begin with, that it likely would have burst anyway soon enough, with any sort of Full Charge use, so...

> Seems to me the explosive force in the chamber (in all directions) only
> sees the bullet as its easiest way out, a disc preventing its escape, without e
> regard to whether it is actually spherical as a ball or pointed as a bullet.
> If the Walker had no forcing cone it might make a miniscule difference in p
> ressure rise as it attempts to enter the rifled bore.

Under those pressures, a pure Lead Bullet is like 'Putty' anyway, so I do not see how it's shape would matter in any way whatever, as far as offering a momentary obstruction or pause or delay while deforming or constricting at or in the Forcing Cone, for any meaningful rise in pressure behind it to occur.

The phase would be so very brief anyway, and, with a 40 or 50 or 60 Grain Charge, I doubt the entire Charge would even be consumed yet while the Bullet is meeting the Forcing Cone, so, pressure 'then' at that instant of Forcing Cone phase, would be a lot less than it would be as the Bullet is farther or even mostly down the Barrel...far as my own imagining or 'Mental Model' goes anyway.

> I apologize to those of you who presented facts - you know who you are.
> All I'm sure of is how I handle iron and steel, having made scores of springs
> and other parts in my serious working on guns since the 1950s. In my work
> on pre-1800 restorations I have repaired a number of spring failures
> by welding - usually considered a NO-NO.

Well, there's a lot of different kinds of 'Welds'...

Forge Welded, then annealed, then hardened, then Tempered, should be fine.

Gas or Arc Welded, if using a 'Rod' of compatible composition...or better yet if using no 'Rod at all and merely welding the ends plain, in a heavy Reduction Atmosphere or Oxygen excluding condition, then annealed, then hardened the Tempered...should be fine, or good enough, or depending on what kind of Spring it is, and it's role, and how much it is going to be used, anyway.

Long Winded me! Lol...

But, such a fun topic, I hope no one minds...

 

Looks like my comments opened Pandora's box. In our diatribes we tend to wax philosophic -- I try to remember that "life is 10% how you make it and 90% how you take it."

Thanks to Oye for expanding where I barely touched the subject. All in all a tutorial about the history of iron/steel for those not already up to speed. Not being any further advanced, I have to give applause - aside from some speculation which I cannot endorse nor deny.

Comments about proofing each chamber in the cylinder are certainly on target. The British did exactly that (still do?) on imported revolvers - I have had a couple examples.

We seem to be in agreement in the discussion about projectile orientation in the Walker as regards cylinder failure.

Welding? I can only comment on mine. I first had (and still have available) basic arc welding, some call it stick welding. Then TIG welding for a while but had problems with availability of gas and had to give it up. A major setback & went back to stick welding for several years. Then MIG welding, which I have used for past 10-15 years. In all these I have tried to get/use the simplest steel rod, electrodes and wire.

 

I wouldn't be surprised that there have been papers written on the metallurgy of ferrous metals used in older guns. Any good metallurgy lab, given a sample, could easily determine about everything that would be needed to define exactly how a Walker cylinder (or barrel, or frame) was made and how strong it was. I remember an article in one of the older editions of Gun Digest on a metallurgical analysis of a straight razor blade made in England dating from the mid-19th century, the conclusion being that the quality of steel used then was as good as the steels of today, at least for the blade of a razor. Until later in the 19th century, the state of the art in metallurgy technology in the US was not up to that of europe, especially in England, Germany, and Sweden. And don't forget the fine steel blades made by the Japanese swordsmiths as early as the 15th century.

My guess is that if in fact Walker cylinder blowups occurred, it may well have been as much the fault of corrosion and pitting as any other factor.