Could Colt theoretically manufacture a SAA variant in say, 44. Magnum whilst retaining the slender frame design?
Would it simply be financially untenable to bring such a product to market, or literally impossible at our current level of metal-working?
Even the old model Ruger Vaquero features a notably thicker topstrap/frame/cylinder.
Can we really not make steel strong enough to withstand these pressures without making the frames hideously chunky?
From what I recall from old forum posts they allegedly did for about a dozen guns but decided they needed to make the top strap thicker
Yes, but is that more a matter of it being too expensive/impractical to make a small frame strong enough to handle such a round in a production gun, or that it simply couldn’t be done? Say in a very limited run as a sort of flex? Like the Bugatti Veyron.
It could certainly be done since the Colt's frame got beefed out over time but people who want a SAA are cowboy larpers or guys who watched too many spaghetti westerns and want it in the original calibers, I suppose that falls under the impractical side
I just think it’s a really beautiful design & is kind of ruined by attempts to beef it up for more powerful cartridges. Considering the things we can do with metals in this day and age I wonder if making the top strap a couple of millimetres thicker is absolutely necessary.
If you can supply dimensions and pressure data it shouldn't be too hard for someone to make a back of the envelope calculation and see.
I think some parts of the frame would have to be thickened probably 25-40%
The frame is fine, the cylinder walls would be the issue. That issue could be solved easily. Slightly larger cylinder. Make it a five shot.
>make it a 5 shot
Much better to slightly enlarge the whole thing & maintain the proportions, but it’s besides the point. The question is, could you not simply use better steel & keep the rest the same?
You can keep the frame dimensions. The issue being increasing the pressures on the side walls without increasing the strength of the cylinder. 357 magnum wasn't an issue as the diameter of the round was smaller increasing the strength of the cylinder without changing the outside dimensions. 5 shot 44 magnum would be the answer if you wanted no external changes.
I completely understand your reasoning, but it’s not answering the question. If cost were not a factor, as it obviously is in a production firearm, could you not simply make the same cylinder out of a higher tensile strength steel?
Unless we are presuming Colt already uses *the highest quality of steel achievable by mortal craft* and not simply the highest quality steel they can cost-effectively manufacture for profit.
It's a psi and impact resistance thing as well. So titanium or Phosphor bronze if you want to retain weight.
So short answer, sure why not?
That’s the spirit! I suppose a little extra weight might help handle the recoil though…
I was thinking of having a religious fanatic detective in a modern rpg game I’ll be running possess a unique .44 Magnum as a sort of heirloom that the players might obtain. I’m fine with bullshitting some mythical “limited run of .44 Mag SAA revolvers” but I wondered if it was actually physically possible.
I'd go with an original ssa and a found mythical Phosphor bronze cylinder from some failed defunct company.
>mythical Phosphor bronze cylinder from some failed defunct company.
oh and topkek, phosphor bronze is shit compared to even alloy steels, you could heat treat cheap shit like 4140 to outperform nearly every grade of phosphor bronze in every mechanical property with less weight if that's the benchmark.
Done larping yet? The reason you use the steels you mentioned in a 223 Barrel is because they are strong enough to withstand deformation but maliable enough to resist cracking and failure.
Because of this they are the base and the barrels must be lined to prevent premature wear.
A cylinder is not subject to wear in the way a barrel is.
authority on subject recommendations are brittle tool steel in a job that is subject to massive pressures while having thin walls.
Nta but cylinders splitting at the front is one of the most common revolver catastrophic failures. Precisely because the last cm or two of the cylinder performs the duty of the barrel and is exposed to even higher pressures.
Yep, barrels are barely subjected to pressure and have the reciever to support them where they are.
Peak pressure for any cartridge is reached once the bullet begins engraving or it smacks into the forcing cone for revolvers.
No it doesn't. The cylinder does not compress the bullet as happens in the cone, lands/grooves. It is however unprotected as there is no case there. Exposing it to corrosive materials
The cylinder after the 'chamber' portion is significantly tighter than the cone and in most revolvers the end of your cylinder is about 1-2cm, there's then cylinder gap, which in poorfag guns or shitty new builds, can be up to 1mm, this lets off immense amount of pressure, then you have the cone, starting much wider than the cylinder end, and being about 1-2cm in length before the grooves and lands can bite. The pressure drop-off is massive. Which is why you don't see revolvers with split barrels or cracked frames nearly as often as you see them with burst cylinders.
>>The cylinder after the 'chamber' portion is significantly tighter than the cone and in most revolvers
Irrelevant we are discussing the ssa
Where's that 454 Redhawk failure anon?
I'd even settle for SBH 454 failure, this is what happens when someone who knows nothing believes he has a point.
Those revolvers and the "supersteels" used failed at sizes similar to the ssa. That is why they have mysteriously large cylinders.
By your own claim you are wrong. Tested and shown that they can not handle 44mag or higher pressures without falling outside the parameters of the discussion.
>they fail at similar sizes
That hasn't been tested and you've never tested it.
Revolvers do not go from r&d to production without extensive testing to failure.
They only tested it in SRHs and SBHs in 454. Why would they test it in their smaller models which already had cylinders of sufficient strength to handle anything a reasonable person would throw at it?
It hasn't been tested in the use case you're thinking of, but I'd offer that it would be more than sufficient.
>Revolvers do not go from r&d to production without extensive testing to failure.
This is correct, they do M&S before even putting a prototype into production to evaluate which materials they can get away with for which component, where are the highest stress areas, etc. Then they prototype and test with a few different designs/tweaks and down select from there. It's one thing to a single or a small batch of prototypes, it's another to produce thousands of assemblies that all perform identically to the first run.
Lawyers first question during R&D
>>what will happen when you chamber a hot handled or a incorrectly made factory round.
Apparently if it's 50% over SAAMI(92,000), it eats it 300x with no deformation. That's how they proofed it.
How incorrect are we talking here, everything has its limits, but you'd find it a lot sooner with other metals.
You would have to start with the correct size.
"Silver steel" was claimed to be better than the old steel the walker was made out of. The reality was it was most likely just filled with less inconsistencies.
You are right now claiming a massive cylinder in a massive revolver is evidence it will be better in drastically reduced dimensions.
The company chose to make it massive because the steel would fail if it were made smaller. Making your entry in the conversation by all accounts retarded like your mom and her brother, your dad.
Your weird fixation on familial sexual relations aside, I believe his point is that a metal capable of handling .454 Casull could feasibly handle .44 Magnum at a smaller size. I believe the Casull is rated for more than twice what the .44 is, after all.
By your logic the larger poorer quality metal of another revolver that handles literally double the charge of the smaller one would be just fine if you used it in smaller dimensions with half load.
However that exact situation played out and it was the beefed up size it was to begin with exactly because the metal was not reliable at a smaller size.
The logic in this room isn't.
>that exact situation played out
Which one?
Right...and all these pics being posted are showing failings of the cylinder. Lending to the argument that pressures in the cylinder are more important to worry about than barrel pressure, or stresses on the frame. OP was wondering if changes to the frame were necessary to fire .44mag from a colt saa. Someone responded that you'd have to make it a five shot for the cylinder to handle the pressure in the same dimensions. Someone said no, just use 'x' metal and keep it a 6 shooter, someone else said no 'x' metal doesn't work.
The frame is never the issue. This is the colt walker. The most powerful pistol untill 357mag came along in the 1930s or so. The only reason there even IS a top strap is because the colt factory burned down and Ruger got the military contract to take over and fill in the void.
Colt walker was a huge cylinder because 60g BP is a big charge. They made the pistols smaller with "new steels" but they also dropped to 30g-40 of powder under the same ball.
Along comes the OPs SSA using cartridges. So far the claimed subject expert has only shown the exact same course of action. To use 454C they beefed up the cylinder again. And the frame. This does not show the steel is better when spread thinly as is on the SSA.
When they switched to more powerful cartridges they found you needed that top strap to keep barrel alignment. Cylinder gap opened up drastically over the lifetime of pistols like dragoons. Wasn't ever an issue with .357/.38.
And related to what you're saying. The bottom is 44
44lc is not more powerful than the walker. The top strap was put on by ruger most notably while still in blackpowder.
It had nothing to do with more power as the colt 1960 existed at the same exact time and the power is negligible.
The top strap was simply a choice. One that at the time was not liked because the guns fouled quicker and the tighter tolerance of the ruger caused it to fail more often.
>which in poorfag guns or shitty new builds, can be up to 1mm
Even in the photos posted thus far, you can see huge variance in cylinder gap. The antique Tiffany grip .45 vs the Centennial Frontier Six-Shooter in the OP for example.
I’d imagine (again, layman) that cylinder gap is why you might need a thicker top strap?
>Done larping yet? The reason you use the steels you mentioned in a 223 Barrel is because they are strong enough to withstand deformation but maliable enough to resist cracking and failure.
I stated it as an example, you can compare the pressures if you want which was my case I explicitly made as an example. Gun industry primarily uses alloy steels because they are strong, heat treatable to numerous properties, formable, and cheap. I fail to see how you have refuted anything, you want a cylinder that shares those properties, strength and ductility to absorb impact/shock similar to a barrel but the stresses will be different.
>Because of this they are the base and the barrels must be lined to prevent premature wear.
This isn't necessarily true, plenty of AR15s don't nitride or chrome line the barrel to save cost, the coating increase the lifespan but that's the case in every industry, how much are you willing to spend? There's also some tradeoffs incurred with chrome lining.
>cylinder is not subject to wear in the way a barrel is.
>claims authority on subject recommendations are brittle tool steel in a job that is subject to massive pressures while having thin walls.
Of course not but I didn't suggest anything about wear earlier. Also the tool steel I recommended is an impact resistant tool steel, i.e. it is the opposite of brittle, it would probably outperform 95% of commercially produced steels on the market for impact energy absorption. The 300M is a Maraging steel, very high alloy, very expensive but it will hold up to shock well. You could also look at some austempering processes on alloy steels, bainitic microstructure will give you decent strength but optimal toughness for a given material.
Also I'm not the one recommending phosphor bronze which is shit in every category compared to alloy steels. Not only is it weaker than cheap 4150 but is muc less ductile.
https://www.matweb.com/search/datasheet.aspx?matguid=ad6c1f78e59a43e1a67f001392dcba50
Phosphor bronze
No kaboom
Heavy, near the hardness of steel, way higher yield. Same size cylinder as the old steel ssa, able to survive much higher pressures.
The exact alloy steel (4150) I mentioned has a yield of 55ksi in the annealed state (not hardened at all), has higher ductility by a factor of over six (I see your table conveniently leaves ductility off of it. And on top of that it is lighter, I'm not even pretending 4150 is the best, it's not, it's the affordable decent grade of steel but it absolutely wipes the floor property wise with any grade of phosphor bronze and is probably cheaper to boot. The only thing that Cuprus alloys have on it is corrosion protection especially in saltwater. Also in the hardened state high temperature has a yield almost double your cited material, it's true for reusable parts they design around the yield (which is usually about 70-80% the tensile strength in alloy steels), by your own arguments you should concede alloy steel is superior to phosphor bronze. The steels in your table are also cherry picked, A36 is structural steel (i.e. whatever cheap shit that failed higher mechanical specifications or more commonly low carbon steel like 1008-1020) which is weak as shit but meant to be extremely cheap since it is used in massive volumes at a time structurally.
Here is a reference to the annealed state:
https://www.matweb.com/search/datasheet_print.aspx?matguid=ed2db09d65434c7b9946a459a22eb9dd#:~:text=AISI%204150%20is%20notable%20for,across%20a%20variety%20of%20sizes.
and a hardened state of 4150:
https://www.matweb.com/search/datasheet.aspx?matguid=2863bbdfa350429e9ec0b8e30fb953a6
I also fully concede, my 4150, which decimates your phosphor bronze is almost all categories, is medium tier for steels as a whole, you can find extremely high strength stainless steels with 10% ductility and 2.5GPa. the 645 someone cited earlier is an excellent (and expensive) high alloy high impact strength stainless steel.
>high temperature
*high temperature temper
doesn't understand
Titanium is stronger than steel by weight, not by volume.
Titanium would have to be thicker than steel. either the thing looks different or it's a five shot.
So you think the .44 Ruger Vaquero uses the strongest steel humans can make? In a production firearm? Interesting.
You don’t think they could shave a little off the top strap & the cylinder by using prohibitively expensive & hard to work steel?
you were wrong
The 44srh has a massive cylinder compared to the 44nv, while aslo being fluted, as opposed to the nv needing the full cylinder mass to survive the pressure. No other nv chambering needs the full unfluted cylinder, because none of the other loadings come close to the 44. Now take this same logic, and apply it to the 454srh and the 44srh. The 44 can be fluted, because the cylinder walls are retarded latina thick. The 545 still has to go with the full unfluted cylinder to survive. Trying to mimick the ssa's dimensions, makes the cylinder walls too thin for the pressure of 44, even with the supposedly superior steel of the 454chambering.
Again, all those examples are in cost-effectively produced market guns. The question wasn't if one could mass-produce & profitably market such a gun… the answer to that question is obvious!
It was “could such a gun be produced, if cost were not a factor?”.
His point is correct. All your examples claiming the superiority of said product or steel all fail the test. In every single example the answer was make it bigger to make it stronger. You have failed to even show in a different application that you can use substantially less material to withstand the type forces and heat cycles that happen here.
Wrong, the cheapest solution was to go bigger.
This idea you have that cost prohibitive materials can't make up for size is ludicrous when I cited the difference between S&W's massive 460 X frames only being 5 shots vs the Redhawk's 6 shot that operates at an even slightly higher pressure.
Difference in metal is the differentiating factor, not the size.
claim
expert
examples
>>all examples are in direct opposition to said claim
>> claims expert status
>> starts process again.
I know a certain someone who has a touch of the syndrome!
Why is the Redhawk capable of a six shot configuration while the 460 only 5?
Answer cocksucker.
Because one only has 5 holes and one has 6 holes.
So they could just make it a 6 shot no problem.
That would depend entirely on the original layout of the cylinder. It is far easier to make one stronger if you can minimize the material loss at the center and ratchet and shift in. However the difference revolver to revolver means that not all have the same potential.
Here the problem is simple. (Saa) You have a fixed size and known thinness issue. Can you replace the material to make up for the weakness or not. The material you have suggested even in the application you provided needed to be thicker than normal to work.
So that sure looks like the cock of your wrong attached to those balls on your chin.
>RH needed to be thicker than normal to work
For its given application in a cartridge producing 65,000psi, perhaps in fact it's very overbuilt since it happily digested hundreds of 92,000psi proof loads. We're talking about a cartridge producing a little more than half that at 36,000psi fitting into a 1.650" diameter cylinder.
You seem to believe that the Redhawk's cylinder NEEDS to be 1.800" in diameter, it simply does not and if you knew jack fucking shit about handloading you'd understand that guys have been loading up 45 Colt to 50,000psi safely for decades in the same size cylinder made of weaker material than 465.
It's not a big ask to make a cylinder capable of 44 Mag, nothing needs to be as thick or strong as Ruger's guns and frequently they're not. Those weaker guns are all more than adequate for their SAAMI chambered cartridges.
No I meant an Xframe 460S&W, which uses a 1.92" diameter cylinder and only comes in a 5 shot configuration, while the Redhawk's puny 1.800" cylinder.
Remember anon, metal doesn't matter, only size.
this apple is huge we could make a whole pie with it because of this this small orange can indeed be a plumb.
Well steel makes no difference anon, only size.
So yes, there's no reason we don't have a 460S&W in 6 shot configuration.
Metal obviously matters you strawmanning retard. Firstly cylinder diameter is not the same as chamber wall thickness, so stop making idiotic comparisons. The point is that ruger chooses not to go any slimmer for that caliber, even with their wondermetal. Their larger cylinder in the 44 redhawk has the same wall thickness as their smaller cylinder 44 new vaquero. 454 redhawk, not fluted. 44 redhawk, fluted. 44 new vaquero, not fluted. All other new vaqueros, fluted. If the alloy used for the 454 is so much better, why does it have massively thicker walls than the 44 that's using a weaker alloy? Why make an entirely new cylinder for the 44 new vaquero instead of just using the exact same tooling and jigs that all other calibers use, but with the better alloy?
>using the exact same tooling and jigs that all other calibers use, but with the better alloy?
… Perhaps the alloy that is significantly more resistant to massive amounts of heat & pressure is also slightly harder or more costly to shape/tool.
That there isn’t a steel alloy that can be made better than the one the Vaquero already uses, or that such an alloy would not be able to mitigate the extremely slight differences in dimensions between the Vaquero/SAA
are ludicrous statements, and we’ve had as much stated by a literal metallurgist itt.
I consider this a settled question, cheers guys.
>>faps away at the kids table during Thanksgiving prayer. All the kids have been told not to make eye contact with retarded uncle when he is having his special time.
How tf you going to get six shots out of 5 holes? "no problem"
Wut? You must mean 480, and even then, all redhawks are 6 or 8 shot.
He will have you know he is a subject matter expert
>In every single example the answer was make it bigger
And in every single example this was in order to produce a cost-effective, mass-produced product. That’s not the question. The question those companies were asking is not the same one being asked here. How is this so difficult to understand?
Do you think these companies used the strongest steel alloy ever created by mankind? If the answer is no, then your point is moot.
"You" are the one claiming a metal that is cost prohibitive that was used by a manufacturer for this application who indeed had to go bigger to make it work is the answer to go smaller.
>>is retard
No, you’re thinking of someone else, and dodging the question besides.
Do you think the Ruger Vaquero chambered in .44 Magnum uses the strongest steel producible by mankind? No?! Then if they did make it in said steel they could marginally reduce the required dimensions, correct?
Now, how much bigger do you think the Ruger Vaquero .44 Mag is compared to, say, the .44-40 WCF SAA? Hint: I posted a direct comparison earlier
steel
That's not the metric you need. You need maliable. The problem is one is trying to use the longest lasting material, that also will not wear out. When you thin out a metal to that degree it behaves in multiples differently than it did thicker.
So if cost is no option you would use a material that would wear out quicker but could withstand the pressures while being thinner.
Phosphoranon pls.
Unless you think Ruger used the best suited steel achievable by human craft in their .44 Magnum Vaquero, then you must necessarily allow that if they had, they could marginally decrease the bulk of the weapon safely.
Logical fallacy is strong here.
Your logical fallacy is that for a given size, the kind of steel makes no difference and only size promotes strength.
The other fallacy you employ is that every dimensional decision is made out of necessity, they HAD to make a cylinder that size, which is transparently false.
One is a straw man you are desperately humping
The second is silly. They made it that size. If they didn't need to, they would not have. That's where they landed.
>You need maliable.
No you need tough, pure copper is very malleable but will lack the strength to resist much stress. What you need is a tough material with a lot of strength and ductility to the impact.
Who suggested using copper? Nobody?
away at strawmen
Bronze, brass, and copper are all totally the same thing
He doesn't even understand why canons in that era were made of bronze. By the way it has nothing to do with their malleability.
Actually it did. Nice try samefagging with himself now after the strawman fail.
>who indeed had to go bigger
Hahaha… here we go again kids…
iiiiiin order to make a cost-effective, mass-produced product!
Aaaaa completely different question to whether it can be done at all! God you’re a moron.
had to make x a certain size but they really didn't have too but they did but you could go much smaller trust me bro I'm an expert
You
Are
R
E
T
A
R
D
E
D
So in making a cost-effective product at a marketable price point, they still managed to use the best steel humanly producible.
You fully understand that you are wrong, and everyone else fully understands that you fully understand. It’s not that big of a deal.
If it was the best steel humanly producable it would not be a huge ugly lump.
>>It was “could such a gun be produced, if cost were not a factor?”.
Yes. Use phosphor bronze. The trade off for the ability to withstand the pressures at a thinner size (something it is has proven in its use in high pressure bushings and bearings), and it's ability to withstand extreme heat and cold cycles without loosing said malleable nature would simply be a shorter life than an overly hard tool steel that would most definitely crack and fail is made that thin.
Again, my answer
is probably.
But cylinder walls of that thickness have never been done succesfully with 44mag with any metal by anyone. And when you have to start measuring the wall thickness in hundredths instead of thirty-secondths, there's a lot more than just tensile strength to take into account.
Has it ever been tried?
That's kind of the crux, no one has tried because there has never been an incentive.
>prohibitively expensive & hard to work steel?
The question is what is the market willing to bear, if I make a ultra high end revolver that costs 2000 to make all said and done and sells for 2500 I won't sell very many revolvers compared to the guy who made one out of thicker alloy steel and the assembly costs 800 to make and sells for 1200. People aren't willing to broadly spend more money for a niche superior product when a cheaper one exists that does 85% of what the expensive thing does. People looking for expensive want an art piece.
>instead demand a tungsten cylinder.
Tungsten is not very strong and very brittle at room temperature, also did I mention it'll be heavy as balls. It's a Body Center Cubic crystal structure makes it subjective to Ductile to Brittle Transition Temperatures which are well above room temp for tungsten. It's very stiff, very dense, okayish room temperature strength, low ductility.
>>I can only win arguments if I make the case for both sides. I'm so smart
Where did I make a case for both sides. I am stating that you will never get a mass production revolver that meets your fantasy because so few are willing to pay it. They'd rather spend much less money on something that does 85% of the utility, I know this from my own personal experience working in industry that's how it works. You make a niche product for too much money and others will undercut you.
>Who suggested using copper? Nobody?
You suggested using "maliable" as the primary metric. If malleable is your metric to optimize then copper is a logic material choice but as you are covertly conceding, clearly it's a terrible option. To repeat what I said, you want a material with high yield strength and high ductility, what fits that metric at low cost? Alloy steel. If money is no object? High alloy stainless, high alloy maraging steel, certain shock resistant tool steels, maybe some grades of Inconel, etc.
Okay you're trolling me nobody is this braindead.
Imagine building a strawman only to have it blown the fuck apart by a bronze cannon both literally and figuratively.
Try harder retard. Answer:
Cannons were made of bronze in part due to the inconsistencies in Iron. Bronze was far, far more expensive to use. However the heavier bronze was actually better for cannons in almost every way than Iron. It was resistant to wear along the bore. It was able to take far more pressures and return to form. And even though heavier, a bronze can on could be made lighter.
Very rapid fire could however overheat and deform a bronze cannon. But that was largely irrelevant as they were used by the royal and other navies ad the tactics they used did not involve rapid fire.
Of course I know why they used bronze you larping child.
The above also applies to my suggestion vs yours.
>Cannons were made of bronze in part due to the inconsistencies in Iron.
That's basically true, the inconsistencies came from graphite flakes forming in a cast component of a material called cast iron. Back then there weren't many material options for casting, basically with metals it came down to expensive precious metals like silver or gold or engineering metals like cast bronze and brass or cast iron. Mind you this is in the era of metallurgy before superior materials like even basic steel could be produced by the Bessemer process or even later blast furnace generated pig iron that could be further refined and decarbonized into high quality alloy steel.
>Bronze was far, far more expensive to use. However the heavier bronze was actually better for cannons in almost every way than Iron.
That's true
>It was resistant to wear along the bore. It was able to take far more pressures and return to form.
Wear resistance not that much but absolutely for pressures. When you graphite flakes imbedded in your material they act as stress concentrators and lead to brittle failure that propagates along the graphite flakes.
>Of course I know why they used bronze you larping child.
Given the rest of your postings you could've fooled us. I am skeptical you didn't just look it up three minutes ago and are larping but I'll give you credit, you read the right articles and got the gist of it atleast.
Retard alert!
They did not use cast iron for cannons. Use some common sense.
>Namefags as "Metallurgist" while speaking absolute drivel
LMAO
Dude, in the copy pasted shit like three posts up it says there were cast iron cannons, and that they were garbage.
My bad, my historical expertise is in the medieval era. Sorry.
>>One especially salient advantage was that bronze guns were less likely to break while firing, and when they did the barrel usually bulged or split open longitudinally at the breech rather than explode. When iron cannon burst they tended to shatter and fly to pieces, which caused much more catastrophic damage to nearby personnel (Tucker 1989: 10; Kennard 1986: 161; Guilmartin 1983: 563)
>>not to yield too easily to the action of the ball when passing out of the bore; tenacious, so as to resist the explosive power of the Gunpowder and not to burst; and lastly, elastic, so that the particles of the material of which the Gun is composed should, after the vibration caused by the discharge, return to their original position
and iron were the only two metals with these requisite qualities available to historic gunfounders, and bronze was long considered the superior metal for ordnance manufacture. Up until the third quarter of the sixteenth century, however, iron guns outnumbered bronze pieces, though the former were almost all wrought iron, of decidedly inferior quality. The most powerful guns had to be cast, not hand-wrought, and as cast iron guns were overly heavy or dangerously unreliable, bronze was the material of choice throughout the 16th century
>> dispite the fact that bronze is 20% heavier than iron, bronze guns were lighter than their counterparts because the stronger metal could be used to make thinner guns of the same caliber (Tucker 1989
-Kruger the post
titanium is a bad metal for revolver cylinders
>not simply the highest quality steel they can cost-effectively manufacture for profit.
This is how every manufacturer in every industry works. It's why alloy steel like 4150 is so common. Is it the best steel for the job? Absolutely not, there are plenty of steels like Maraging 300M, Impact resistant tool steels like S7, nickel alloys like Inconel 738 (especially for machine guns due to its high temperature strength properties), or other high alloy stainless tool steel that would be far superior in virtually every mechanical property to standard alloy steel. It's just that 4150 is still really quite good stuff, the best anyhow from the affordable mass production alloy steels, has a lot of hardenability and you can get excellent strength with the right quench and temper process, also it's forgeable, and most importantly for mass market is incredibly affordable and available in tons of options in volume.
You'd have to compare the pressure with the expected life cycle of the weapon, just as an example I think 30 HRC is somewhat common top end hardness for the AR-15 pressure bearing components. For that you need a steel that is higher than status quo (approximately 140 ksi TS, 125ksi YS and 19% elongation just based on matweb for properties of 4150 at 30 HRC) to replace 4150 with a "high pressure" 5.56x45mm. You could run the same math for any realistic pressure, probably should prototype your design (or atleast these days model and simulate the testing with a variety of materials) to make sure it holds up fatigue life wise. But absolutely possible to have a higher pressure in same dimensions barring any ridiculous geometric features that act as harsh stress concentration site but it will come at a high cost.
>t. materials scientist
Thank you for the post. I’d suspected this is more or less how it worked from a layman’s perspective. Manufacturers are looking to sell a product to a given market, at a price that market is willing to pay, and make a profit doing so. That’s a very different set of parameters to “is this engineering feat technically possible?”.
Glad I’ve got nerds arguing, the lifeblood of all vital threads on PrepHole. Here’s the other side of that .44(-40 Winchester) SAA in the OP.
>bolt notches right on the chamber
>Thank you for the post. I’d suspected this is more or less how it worked from a layman’s perspective.
I'm driving a bit into the weed actually, metallurgist is not nearly as complicated as it may sound.
>Manufacturers are looking to sell a product to a given market, at a price that market is willing to pay, and make a profit doing so.
They have a design consideration from modeling a simulation for each component of an assembly, usually they have a mechanical property call out TS, YS, Elong, and RA for more critical parts and Rockwell hardness (which is a pseudo-estimated approximate for TS) for less critical since that's what actually matters. The grade of steel and heat treatment recipe is just a tool to meet those ends. Also it gets way more complicated from a business perspective, usually there are five or six grades of steel allowable for all but the most severe applications of comments for us to pick which grade is cheapest at the time of ordering and fix the heat treat for that grade of steel upon receipt. We'll obviously do whatever we can to maximize profits without compromising the design.
>That’s a very different set of parameters to “is this engineering feat technically possible?”.
Correct, if I could use ridiculously high strength steel in every application I would, I'd use so much S7 it'd make tool steel industry blush but the business unit tells me no. I have a love in my heart for S7 as it is while not particularly good in wear applications (as far as tool steels go) it is incredibly resilient and tough.
>Glad I’ve got nerds arguing, the lifeblood of all vital threads on PrepHole. Here’s the other side of that .44(-40 Winchester) SAA in the OP.
That's what I'm here for. Also hopefully get people interested in going into metallurgy, it's a very interesting field halfway between a trade and an engineering discipline.
You suck many dicks larper
This is the cylinder you must recreate
Backside
Requires a steel that does not need to be overly thick like those you have suggested.
As you can see both these steels required an increase in size of cylinder and a non uniformity of the outside wall of each chamber to make them stronger.
The solution Phosphor bronze .
You are making false comparisons for a retard level argument.
You can keep coping, no grade of bronze can compete with properly chosen and heat treated alloy steel.
>Why is this guy posting random pictures of revolvers failing?
His suggestion is because a steel revolver failed, therefore phosphor bronze, which is a seldom used material for this because it is weaker on average is somehow superior. He is coping because I have displayed his preferred material is handily bested by mid-tier alloy steel let alone expensive high tier steels which are probably triple the yield instead of double.
>Weren’t we discussing documented higher strength steels explicitly not used in these revolvers, and the results of doing so?
Correct
You would want 465 Carpenter steel as the basis for your cylinder.
Yes, it's stainless, but it's the same material Ruger uses for their 6 shot 454 Casull cylinders. The only 6 shot 454 on the market.
That cylinder is thick. That's how they overcame. The assignment is the same dimensions.
>they overcame just by it being thick
Why are 460S&W just 5 shots?
The cylinder is .12" thicker than the Redhawk's, the cartridge is the same diameter, and it operates at 5000psi less than 454 Casull.
Why might that be anon?
Is it perhaps the 465 Carpenter's potential TS of around 250,000psi?
You could easily make a 44 Mag cylinder out of it that is dimensionally the size of a SAA, use offset notches too to avoid a thin spot.
Ts is not the determining factor in a cylinder. Yield is far more important. The ability to deform and return to its original shape under massive pressures. Low yield equals kaboom. High yield equals no kaboom
Lol, enjoy your blown out cylinder dumbass.
Seems to happen to Redhawks a lot doesn't it?
Thin walls, overly hard steels and hot loads will do it every time. That and choosing steels that harden quickly over time.
I was being facetious, point out an example of the 454 Redhawk actually failing. The proofing during R&D was shooting 300 rounds at 92,000psi.
That's the dumbest thing I have ever seen posted as a response. You have ancestors who are directly related.
>t no argument
Phosphor bronze for the win.
Holy shit.
465 is not your only choice if worrying about mass production, or even limited, is not a concern. For a one off maybe even beryllium copper? It has a psi rating almost 65k above carpenter.
Tensile or yield?
How well does it machine?
Probably costs a fair bit.
Assume tensile. IIRC it is a bitch to machine as it almost instantly work hardens. Super high conductivity, non-sparking, extremely corrosion resistant. Toxic. Plus unique looks, so if OP is looking for a "flex" material for a game it is a good choice.
Mu mistake, was referencing the datasheet for a lesser grade of Carpenter, still beryllium is only a couple thousand less on tensile (still ~200k psi) while being comparable Rc.
Plus it looks cool af.
>Mu mistake, was referencing the datasheet for a lesser grade of Carpenter, still beryllium is only a couple thousand less on tensile (still ~200k psi) while being comparable Rc.
>Plus it looks cool af.
Beryllium copper is actually a decent and cool material but will probably never be used for another reason. Beryllium is highly regulated and there is a lot of liability using it liberally as Beryllium is very toxic to people. Inhaling Beryllium dust during fabrication can lead to a permanent condition called berylliosis in workers so it's a big liability, used to work for the DOE and high Beryllium materials were a big issue about 30-40 years in nuclear bomb neutron reflectors/moderators. Cu-Be also quite brittle failing at elongations of 4%, an equivalent steel will be well over 14% for equivalent strengths. Very impressive strength for copper alloys, basically as good as you can get.
https://www.matweb.com/search/datasheet.aspx?matguid=ae0103ab776344b9bf4b6b4bd6eb6f8b&ckck=1
I'd rather go full retard and instead demand a tungsten cylinder. Pic related is me coming up with my genius and entirely feasible idea.
You also want offset cylinder stop notches, this means you need to play with the timing on the ratchet and the location of the locking bolt in the frame as they relate to the new notch positions.
You don't want the cylinder's weak point to be where the notches are.
This is true, regular SAAs fail at this point and usually blow the 2 adjacent chambers to the one in battery. Most failed revolvers you see have 3 failed chambers with half the cylinder missing
Gee, look at these thin 454 Super Blackhawk walls. That 465 Carpenter will never survive, it's "too hard" according to anon. I'm sure they all exploded during proofing and never made it to market.
Unhardened vs hardened yield. Smfh
>>full blown Google retarded
That's not 465 and probably isn't a 454, you have eyes and can see it's not stainless.
Larpy larp larp
>an sp101 is made of 465
Lol lmao
strong in retard
>flutes in cylinder
That's a 44 mag. Keep trying.
>>that's the exact thing we are discussing and it doesn't forward my retard level claim so please Mr stop showing everyone I'm a larping dipshit
Only the 454 model uses 465 anon.
You have done zero research.
Why is this guy posting random pictures of revolvers failing?
Weren’t we discussing documented higher strength steels explicitly not used in these revolvers, and the results of doing so?
My point is that even unhardened 4150 matches your phosphor bronze in terms of YS highlighting why it is not as resilient as steel which can be hardened and handily overmatch your preferred material. I put hardened specifications in as the second link but I guess you don't really care about the metallurgy. Keep coping my dude.
>what is a ruger vaquero
>only in 3.75'
>4oz heavier than the .45lc
The frame is beefed up, which is what OP was looking to avoid
… a revolver that, when chambered in .44 Magnum, has a visibly bulkier cylinder, top strap & overall frame than an original SAA.
For OP, these have existed for quite sometime. The guy posting blown up Rugers is a retarded nagger without an understanding of what is being suggested. He can't provide a single instance of someone actually testing the yield strength of a 465 cylinder.
https://www.sportsmans.com/shooting-gear-gun-supplies/handguns/uberti-1873-single-action-cattleman-callahan-44-magnum-6in-blued-revolver-6-rounds/p/1795604
Now compare that cylinder to all of uberti's .45lc cylinders. No fluting. Because again, too much pressure, has to be beefed up. Not "slender" like the OP requests.
For OP, the new Vaquero is offered in 44 Mag on a limited basis. It is just .020" wider than an original SAA. It has been offered in 5.5" models in the past.
>fluting is the difference between slender and not slender
Use a stronger metal, Uberti is not using some strong aerospace alloy like Ruger does for their 454s.
… Again, those have way bulkier frames than the SAA though. That’s the whole point of this discussion, can you avoid making the dimensions of the SAA bigger & get it to safely fire .44 Magnum.
And we offered metals, expensive ones, that will do it safely. You just don't like the answer.
You have offered example that have never been used in the reduced dimensions. Factually you have shown that after testing those steels needed to be used in massive dimensions to be safe.
I believe Lee Martin is the only guy to have done a documented conversion on a Blackhawk with 465 Carpenter. I just can't recall what wildcat he was rechambering the gun to.
There's no reason to believe that a 9% reduction in cylinder diameter(the Redhawk's 1.800" to a SAA 1.650") isn't going to be offset by the 50% reduction in pressure the 44 mag places vs the 454 Casull.
The blackhawk is the same as the old vaquero, substantially larger than the new vaquero, which is still larger than a colt saa. At the end of the day, would a saa built to spec with your magic metal work? Probably, and you'd probably never have any issues with factory target loads. But i'd never trust it with hunting loads or bubbas handloads
I wouldn't trust it because the SAA doesn't have a very strong or durable lockup. You'd be peening and loosening all kinds of parts with few cycles.
The cylinder and absolute strength isn't remotely what concerns me.
The cylinder is a set pattern and size. It has to remain the exact same. The thing you are proposing is not remotely the same. Even if we ignore this and just turn it down 9% you still have just compromised the outside wall the absolute worst place to do so.
You are repeating trying to pound a square peg in a round hole.
You do not have the right data to make any comparison whatsoever. The only example you have it speaks against your own position.
Right, but there's no real world examples of those metals being used. Whomever is claiming that the ruger .454c is an equivalent example is completely mistaken, since even comparing it to the exact same gun in .44, shows they had to beef it up to handle the pressure. The ruger srh in .44 is already substantially larger in cylinder size than the ssa, and it's the cut down and lightened version of the 454. Which would make one think that they couldn't go any smaller. And if the 454 uses different metal than the 44, why'd they still have to beef it up?
Bingo.
Calm down man, I was quite happy with your answer and I believe I said so. I’m simply pointing out that suggesting the question has been answered by highlighting a revolver with a bulkier frame is missing the point of the question.
I’m quite satisfied that there are steels in existence that could withstand .44 Magnum pressures within the dimensions of the SAA frame.
I'm not considering absolutely nobody has done it. Every single actual real world solution has been go bigger. There is not a single metal actually used that has been used to do what you asked. Not reliably. Not a single one. Making one believe the answer lies in a material that has yet to be used.
>absolutely nobody has done it
That just proves what is obvious, that increasing frame size is a more cost effective method of solving the issue than using prohibitively expensive steel alloys.
For major manufacturers they must also have a steel that is very machinable. They can't spend 3 hours trying to bore a barrel blank while breaking tools.
Everything in the market is a balance of lowest cost, lowest time, and quality. It requires a singular person with an idea to realize what OP is asking for, it's going to cost a lot, it is going to be time consuming, and it's going to require quality materials.
It can be done.
The frame isn't the issue.
>That just proves what is obvious, that increasing frame size is a more cost effective method of solving the issue than using prohibitively expensive steel alloys.
Am metallurgist from earlier and bingo, it's cheaper to use bulkier material that is more affordable than wunderwaffen material that is fuck nuts expensive per ton. Also machinability is necessary, these parts have decently tight tolerances and with wunderwaffen material you have to go much slower and it results in more tool wear. Anyone in industry knows how these parts are fabricated, if they are investment cast, there are probably some limitations and modifications that have to be made to deoxidize cast steel, wrought parts just incur the machining problems and material waste hogging all that material out.
>For major manufacturers they must also have a steel that is very machinable.
This too, you rough down and heat treat in the roughed state then quench and temper, there is distortion and warping that happens in oil quench process that makes it harder to deal with but if you leave an extra 25% thickness you can correct for some of the warping machining it true if you have a bit of extra material.
Keep coping with pic rel.
Could Ruger make an eight shot .357 magnum Super Blackhawk?
I think they could, sort of surprise they haven't ever done it. The SBH cylinder is according to my calipers is 1.730 diameter, I think S&W N frames are like 1.700 and they make an 8 shot.
> The SBH cylinder is according to my calipers is 1.730 diameter, I think S&W N frames are like 1.700 and they make an 8 shot.
But smith dosnt pour their metal into a mound to make their frames and cylinders like ruger does. That’s why tigers a clunky which makes people think they are “overbuilt” when in reality it’s to make up for all the bubbles in the frame from being poured.
I do hate ruger but am thinking about pic related. Maybe a scorpion.
The cylinders are made of bar stock dude, everything except the barrel and cylinder are cast
Ah their special pouring metal into a mold process that is their claim to fame is so good they don’t even use it for the cylinder. I’m sold let me buy a 5 shot sp101 that’s twice as big and 3 times a ugly as a j frame
It's just twice as heavy.
Doubling down on being wrong. Bold move.
Shit man, that’s way cooler.
Why is this even a fucking question?
The Italians have been doing it for decades.
The Uberti, Ruger etc always have a larger cylinder with thicker walls and a larger top strap relative to the original Colt SAA. So no, it’s not been done.
Now, as you can see, it’s not a world of difference, and could probably be made up with stronger steel.
The top strap isn't the issue. Failure isn't of the top strap. And when it is it is not catastrophic. Failure is in the cylinder.
You heard it hear boys, metal properties don't matter. Only size.
Remember, companies never take pic rel into consideration. Everything they do is always out of necessity.
They HAD to only consider the strength of the material, they make no concessions and always put out the strongest product.
Logical fallacy, on parade.
Anon, you can’t possibly maintain that they both didn’t use the best steel for the job and also that if they had it wouldn’t make any difference. Right?
out pee pee and humps straw man with it limp. Brags about how hard it is to onlookers. Even shows them the soft pee pee while boasting of its hardness. Continuing to pound away against the strawman it becomes a bloody nub while the onlookers look away and saunter out of the room embarrassed for the obviously mentally challenged man.
Never changing the dimensions of your revolver that is insanely popular and have it capable of chambing and firing the hottest loads would be a manufacturers wet dream.
There is no way to make a 44 Mag Redhawk's cylinder smaller, the Super Blackhawk doesn't exist.
Therefore it's completely impossible to chamber the cartridge in anything smaller. Only size of the cylinder matters, you can make the cylinder out of whatever material you want. Fuck, wood works too as long as its big enough.
>>has sex with straw man in front of entire room. Lights cigarette puts pee pee away. Zips up confidently and strikes up a conversation with onlooker about how he became such a ladies man. Packs up his straw fuck toy whilst still bragging oblivious of the sick cloud that has settled on the room
Hey retard, the blackhawk is huge compared to the new vaquero, which is still bigger than a colt single action army.
>new vaquero, which is still bigger than a colt single action army
And also uses the best metal evar in the universe, and even if it doesn’t, it wouldn’t make any difference if it did.
That same tired strawman. If the metal suggested, and reported to be used in the 454 chambering of the redhawk, was so much better, why does ruger feel the need to beef it up substantially more than the 44mag in a supposedly worse steel? The answer to OP's question is probably. All of your answers though have been incorrect. There's likely a metal out there that works, but none of what you've offered is likely to.
What are you even talking about?
Which model has worse steel and what do you think is being beefed up?
Read
Which was probably your post.
If the steel being suggested is so much better, why does ruger take the extra cost of using it for one niche caliber in one gun that nobody cares about? And why is that cylinder larger and unfluted compared to the 44 of the exact same frame? Especially if the steel is so much better?
Because 454 Casull is a SIGNIFICANTLY higher pressure cartridge than 44 Mag. They are worlds apart and the strain that 454 places on a revolver can't be understated.
Ruger takes the extra cost because Bill Ruger wanted a 6 shot 454, he has the only one on the market and owes that to the steel selected.
You're asking why they beefed up the cylinder, but they're the same dimensions sans fluting, that doesn't make as much a difference as you might think.
… I took these two statements you made:
“This is how every manufacturer in every industry works. It's why alloy steel like 4150 is so common. Is it the best steel for the job? Absolutely not”
“absolutely possible to have a higher pressure in same dimensions barring any ridiculous geometric features that act as harsh stress concentration site but it will come at a high cost”
-to mean that there are better alloys that could be used to make a revolver than the ones used, and that doing so could indeed mitigate the size differences observed from the SAA. Is that incorrect?
>to mean that there are better alloys that could be used to make a revolver than the ones used, and that doing so could indeed mitigate the size differences observed from the SAA. Is that incorrect?
The answer is I don't know for a fact, but 70% want to say yes just basing it off what I know you can do with alloy steel vs very high end steel. It would depend on the stresses you are planning to subject the cylinder to by increasing pressures and decreasing area cross sections. There absolutely are better metals than alloy steel (like 4150/4340l/5160/6150/etc) available like the 645 alloy cited earlier but there are other options like 300M. Truthfully a big gun manufacturer would need to do a stress finite element analysis on the cylinder and frame and see if we could get away with it from a size perspective with a variety of these material specifications. I was mostly pissed about the troll constantly injecting bullshit like phosphor bronze is some miracle material when it is shit tier compared to what we currently use.
Cool idea but let me know when someone makes a 4" topbreak 7 cylinder in .327Mag
Come on everybody, do you always have to take the most extreme positions every time? (Yes)
You need both toughness and strength in a gun steel.
So as you can see you samefagging straw man fucking retard, if you want to make a revolver cylinder with thinner walls you cum guzzling epic level dipshit, you need to sacrifice wear resistance for a more malleable metal.
Class is dismissed you absolute poser larping pimple factory.
Not him, but you’re comparing bronze cannons to iron ones, ignoring the fact that steel cannons eventually replaced bronze & iron cannon.
Nobody’s suggesting you make a revolver cylinder out of iron.
It's worse than that. He is suggesting we use a steel that was developed in no small part for wear resistance. The reason it's so thick on the single example they used it on is isn't as malleable as alternatives.
So in this exercise it is not a viable option. The proposal is horrifically thin walls for the pressures achieved. The answer is quite obviously give a little to contain said pressures.
Which metal are you refering to? The 465 is a more elastic metal than what is used for the other calibers, that's why it was chosen. If you're refering to one of the other alloys mentioned like the fancy berrilium stuff or whatever then i'll just take you at your word since that's out of my wheelhouse.
I am suggesting you stop samefagging
Please point me to my samefag posts
Here, here, and there. Also here and here. Also your next post.
>So as you can see you samefagging straw man fucking retard, if you want to make a revolver cylinder with thinner walls you cum guzzling epic level dipshit, you need to sacrifice wear resistance for a more malleable metal.
>Class is dismissed you absolute poser larping pimple factory
You're still wrong though, no matter how many insult you feel so inclined to hurl, you are still factually wrong. The case on this thread has been closed for several hours atleast without the addition of your schizophrenic ramblings.
Wrong is simple to show.
Wrong example
>>use a tool steel that is more wear resistant in an application where it will be spread thin and subject to extreme pressure
Correct example.
>>use a more maliable metal that will wear out quickly but will allow you to use a thinner wall under same pressure as shown in the historic example of the same issue
had a conversation with himself pretending to agree and disagree with himself to pretend he was correct after he was called out on strawman and multiple other fallacies
You have to alert the neighbors personally when you move in
And the proofs, point me to any others you'd like.
>>you
Look at this fag, showing off Bubba's pissin hot handload kb's as if they were in spec.
He kept confusing ruger with remington and he was off with his dates by 100 years. Hate to say it but looks like a 12 years old who skipped his history lessons to watch some westerns and 1900s are a prehistory to him.
Still samefagging former trip fag?
Nobody confused shit. You are just a syndrome having chronic guzzler
So did Phosphorfag ever confront the fact that Steelfag had better numbers for yield, tensile strength & hardness than phosphor bronze? I spent quite a lot of time skimming over his autistic screeching.
Apart from that I think his only point was that 454 Casull needs a bigger cylinder than a SAA, which doesn’t seem to be relevant when talking about a smaller cartridge that’s about half as powerful.
Considering pic rel is a .44 Mag Vaquero, it seems you really wouldn’t need to trim much fat at all to get to OG SAA levels of slenderness. I’m sure there’s steel that could do it.
Yep, and that Vaquero isn't using any better steel than 41XX series if blued or 410 series stainless. Plain old bar stock cylinder and heat treated.
The carpenter steels(dependent upon series) are significantly stronger, so taking a legacy design and combining it with expensive modern metallurgy would easily allow 44 Mag to be housed in original SAA confines.
44 Mag offers an advantage over the 45 Colt chambering due to granting .023" greater cylinder wall thickness ×6.