Graybeard Outdoors
March 20, 2010, 08:59:02 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Members: 36007  •  Posts: 1311341  •  Topics: 169151 •
Please welcome online stock trading nelp, our newest member.
 
  GBO CMS   Home   Help Links Login Register  

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: 1863 Pocket Remington  (Read 177 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
brpc
Trade Count: (0)
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


WWW

Ignore
« on: November 10, 2009, 11:10:06 AM »

Given the low charges used with this .31 cal revolver, would there be any downside to purchasing a model with a brass frame?
Logged
mcwoodduck
Trade Count: (6)
Senior Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2886





Ignore
« Reply #1 on: November 10, 2009, 11:24:25 AM »

No,
With the top strap the Remington revolvers do not have the hammer effects that the colts are known for.
I do not think you could hurt the Rem brass Reproduction guns with MAX loads.
Logged
madcratebuilder
Trade Count: (0)
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 88




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: November 13, 2009, 07:46:22 AM »

Given the low charges used with this .31 cal revolver, would there be any downside to purchasing a model with a brass frame?

The Remington style brass frames hold up much better than the open tops, but a full charge well eventually peen the recoil shield.  It would take a lot of rounds in a .31.  The ratchet hits the same spot on the recoil shield ever round, the more cylinder end play the sooner you well see a indentation of the ratchet in the brass.  Unless your shooting a hundred rounds a month I would not worry about it.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  



To Donate to the GBO server fund click the PayPal Donate Button above.
Click Here for more info



GBO Partner
GBO Partner OutsideHub

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.221 seconds with 28 queries.