Steel vs Brass frame differences?

[Sound Tribe]

Hello, totally new to black powder but have been recommended to start with a pistol, preferably an 1851 Navy model. I actually prefer these anyways.

What is the major differences between steel and brass frames though? I know only the steel frame can be converted to a cartridge shooter...
I'd prefer brass due to the looks honestly, but I also want the conversion option available.

Any other reasons I should consider?
Thanks

 

[deermanok]

Welcome to the rabbit hole.
Speaking only from what I've read, some say that brass frame revolvers can warp over time. How true or untrue that is, I don't know.
I owned an 1858 Remington 44 revolver up until recently. It was a lot of fun to shoot even though I wasn't too good of a shot with it.

 

[anonymouscowherd]

Steel frame will let you shoot real BP without worry, brass frame means limited shooting and/or light loads only.

Even many of the steel frame repos have a brass grip and lower frame.
I would also go with a 1858 clone/repro since it has the top strap, etc. much stronger overall design, better sights, etc.

 

[earlwb]

Well as I understand it, it is the cylinder slamming back from the recoil into the frame. There isn’t a lot of flat metal on the cylinder there. With brass being softer than steel it can cause the brass to migrate away or be pushed away over time with many shots fired. Thus the cylinder gets more loose front to back and the cylinder gap opens up more. They have a fancy name for it but I forget it at the moment. Oh yeah it is called “endshake”.

Some gunsmiths can carefully machine the frame there and insert a steel disc/washer to repair the problem. Now this isn’t something that happens after a few shots as you have to fire maybe hundreds or more shots before it becomes a problem. It also happens with steel frames too just not as quickly. They also repair steel frame guns the same way too.

But other than that there really isn’t anything else to cause problems with brass over steel frame revolvers.

 

[45D]

Steel frame will let you shoot real BP without worry, brass frame means limited shooting and/or light loads only.

Even many of the steel frame repos have a brass grip and lower frame.
I would also go with a 1858 clone/repro since it has the top strap, etc. much stronger overall design, better sights, etc.

Not only "real" bp but "hot" subs such as Trip 7 !!

As far as top strap being stronger, not true . . .
The open-top platform is the better design when executed correctly.

Mike

 

[Jitterbug]

Not only "real" bp but "hot" subs such as Trip 7 !!

As far as top strap being stronger, not true . . .
The open-top platform is the better design when executed correctly.

Mike

I don’t have any documentation, nor am I planning to look any up- but it seems to me that a frame with a top strap would tend to be stronger than an open-top revolver.

Right or wrong, that seems to be the consensus among the masses, as well.

The lack of modern open-top revolvers designed for smokeless powder might be the first exhibit supporting my thought process.

Discuss.

 

[earlwb]

I don’t have any documentation, nor am I planning to look any up- but it seems to me that a frame with a top strap would tend to be stronger than an open-top revolver.

Right or wrong, that seems to be the consensus among the masses, as well.

The lack of modern open-top revolvers designed for smokeless powder might be the first exhibit supporting my thought process.

Discuss.

Yes it seems logical that a top strap frame would be stronger but it really isn’t. The cylinder when fired slams back against the rear of the frame in more or less a straight line. Thus the top strap doesn’t do anything to provide more strength. The strength is all in the cylinder itself and how strong it is. Either design eventually develops more endshake from the gun being fired a lot and the cylinder causing the metal in the rear of the frame being shot peaned too much over time And wearing a depression there.

But it does look stronger with a top strap so people just think it is stronger. About the only thing might be stronger for a top step frame is if you used the gun as a hammer or dropped it hard and it hit hard enough to bend the frame. But in either case if you blew up a cylinder somehow either design would not be better.

 

[MrTom]

it seems to me that a frame with a top strap would tend to be stronger than an open-top revolver.

But it does look stronger with a top strap so people just think it is stronger.

Strength aside, I think a 1858 Remingon, or the Ruger modern counterpart, just look like "complete" pistols. That top strap missing on some models looks like half the gun is missing.

 

[45D]

I don’t have any documentation, nor am I planning to look any up- but it seems to me that a frame with a top strap would tend to be stronger than an open-top revolver.

Things aren't always what they "seem" to be.

Right or wrong, that seems to be the consensus among the masses, as well.

Perfect example as to why we don't live in a Democracy!! The masses can be wrong !!

The lack of modern open-top revolvers designed for smokeless powder might be the first exhibit supporting my thought process.

The lack of modern open-top revolvers is purely because of economics. It's much easier / cheaper to produce a top strap revolver frame and screw a barrel in. The OT barrel is a little more involved.

Yes it seems logical that a top strap frame would be stronger but it really isn’t. The cylinder when fired slams back against the rear of the frame in more or less a straight line. Thus the top strap doesn’t do anything to provide more strength. The strength is all in the cylinder itself and how strong it is. Either design eventually develops more endshake from the gun being fired a lot and the cylinder causing the metal in the rear of the frame being shot peaned too much over time And wearing a depression there.

Yes, the cylinder is the pressure vessel but the platform it's contained in is the "support" system. So, it's the design of the platform that pays dividends. For example: I have an Uberti '60 Army with a Kirst gated conversion chambered in 45acp.
I also have a Pietta made copy of a Colt Mod P 1873 in 45C /45acp. Five 45acp +p's moved the frame of the '73. The '60 OT has about 1300 rounds through it with about 400 of that being +p (critical duty). All but about 20 rounds have been jacketed or plated. It's a most excellent setup . . . definitely a hoot to shoot!!

Mike