Very short nipple or swap hammer?

[galamb]

I am building a cap lock rifle using a Chambers Golden Age Percussion conversion lock mated to a Pete Allen Ohio style patent breech.

With the addition of the (bolster) on top of the drum, it doesn't leave enough room for a standard rifle nipple unless I change the hammer (bending the existing would be too extreme).

Even the more standard pistol sized nipple would be "tight".

TOTW has some very short (1/4" high) nipples listed for snake eyes or pepperbox pistols listed that would fit perfectly (correct thread) without altering the hammer at all (save side/side alignment).

My question is, is there any practical reason not to use this (tiny) nipple? - I would rather not swap the hammer, love the look of the lock "as is", but don't want to compromise safety or service.

Thoughts?

Thanks in advance

[smokinbuck]

galamb,
The first thought that comes to mind is that the cup in the face of your hammer may be to deep for the short nipple cone. If that's the case it may not detonate the cap.
Mark

[galamb]

Ok, will have to check that...

Got out the calipers.

The hammer recess is .120, the nipple extends .175 above the base - too close?

Anything else???

[necchi]

The striking angle of the flat inside the cup may not be parallel to the nipple as the hammer moves further down.
Simple fix with a little inletting black to the top of the nipple and a small grinding stone and a Dremel, but that will make the cup deeper.
You may have to file back some of the cup's skirt so it will clear the nipple base.
Those short nipp's may use a #10 cap.

I'd use a common nipple and file it down to the size/height you need, then face the hammer cup for fit,, then again file/trim the neck of the nip down so a #11 cap fit's proper.

Just throwing out ideas,, Good Luck

[galamb]

Ok thanks. The nipples I'm looking at do take #11's.

But appreciate the idea's - keep em comming. When there are none left I'll just use the nipple and see what happens

[P.W.Berkuta]

galamb, I built this rifle for a woman using a Pete Allen breach plug of the Ohio style and I used a Jim Chambers mountain lock. I have not modified the hammer or anything else. All parts fit and functioned as intended first time every time. Is your barrel inletted into your stock deep enough?

[galamb]

No, not too deep. The bolster is sitting perfectly in the cutout of the lock. I would have to raise the muzzle more than 2" to get the alignment correct back at the breech without extreme bending of the hammer.

What I don't see on your breech is the extra bit of casting on the top of the drum portion. It is .125" and it moves the nipple up that extra bit taking everything out of alignment.

I could bend the hammer a bit and make a typical pistol nipple work, but believe that with the (tiny) nipple, everything would be fine.

If I swap the hammer for one found on L&R's Warranted lock, it would work quite well with a typical pistol nipple (tried it), but as I stated, I like the look better with the stock hammer which appears more (compact).

Alternately, I could file back that extra casting, taking it down near where the (drum) actually is, and that also would lower the nipple allowing everything to line up better (see pic).

I have read a note from Pete saying this is/was added to ensure that longer threaded nipples don't extend too far into the drum, but that is not an issue with the nipples I have (laying around).

[smokinbuck]

Graham,
From the picture you attached, I can see why the nipple is sitting high. Depending on the thickness of the drum wall you "may" be able to file that flat extension off and make it work.  Make certain you have enough thread left, if you do that, to secure the nipple properly.
Mark

[galamb]

Yes, that does seem to be the issue. I just didn't want to mess with the casting unless I had to, so the very short nipple would compensate for that extra .125" on the drum (should have stuck with snail breeches which I'm familiar with  )

That extra height throws the whole alignment off with the shorter throw hammer (again, I'm used to throws somewhat north of 1.7 so have "wiggle room" to adjust), plus, since the nipple hole is already "tapped" in, I can't adjust alignment as I would on a (regular) screw in drum.

I do really want to make this work without having to change out too much, but I just may lose some of that bolster and go with a standard pistol nipple.

My biggest concern was 1) would I get premature wear with the very short nipple? or 2) is there some other potential issue that I'm not aware of if using a tiny nipple.

I use a pistol nipple on my 40 cal/13/16" barrel, just nothing this small before - it's really tiny but would still (clear) the hammer recess and allow for a "flat hit" from the hammer.

[Acer Saccharum]

One problem with a short nipple is when you take it out at the range, and it falls on the ground. Have you got another one?

[galamb]

Isn't the patchbox for extra nipple storage, along with a couple left over Halloween candies?  

After the comments/advice (much appreciated), I think I will take the casting down some and see what that does for me.

There is quite a bit of "meat" in the drum itself and could probably (safely) lose most of that "extra" (I'm mostly a wood worker and still a little tenuous about removing metal in great hunks).

But for now it's all going to wait. Off to Florida Thursday morning (with a pit stop at Dixon's on the way). Was -11F this morning - considerably warmer in Orlando  

[Acer Saccharum]

Take the casting down only so much so that the threaded end of the nipple is just hitting the top of the cross hole. Any deeper, the nipple will be blocking the fire channel.

[galamb]

Ok thanks, I get what you are saying there.

The more I look at it I think it will work fine with a combination of a little shorter nipple and a little less metal on the bolster.

At worst I will replace the hammer, just really like the slim profile/look of the lock.

This is the first Chambers lock I have bought. I wouldn't recommend it to any relatively new hobby builders such as myself for your "first" lock, unless you want to spoil yourself.

After getting a good look at it, seeing how well it's finished and how well it works (at least at this point) I'm not sure I can look at another Davis or L&R the same way again.

If my first lock had of been a Chambers, the others would be "somewhat disappointing" in comparison...

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

Graham:  Don't be too critical of 'the others', unless you can make one better yourself.  I like the diversity of the various lock makers, and I have never bought a lock that I could not make work perfectly.  One thing 'new hobby builders' need to do, apart from wanting all the answers handed to them here, is take a chance - build gun.  Make some mistakes and learn.  There is no down side.

[galamb]

This is just my 5th build and the first time I chose a gun that I could use a Chambers lock on - heard so much good about them.

If it sounded like I really knocked the others that wasn't my intention at all, I have a couple of Davis and a couple L&R's and can not complain at all about their functionality - no issues there, it's just this one was polished better "off the shelf" than what I have achieved with many hours of work and cramped fingers.

I was just very impressed.

[Acer Saccharum]

It's all part of the discussion, talking locks, merits of each, etc.

I have found ALL locks need work. Some locks might require more work than others, but I go into it knowing that I can make a functional lock out of what I buy. Locks can also vary from one to the next, from the same supplier. It's best to pick them out in person......

so...

Go to Dixon's! Or Log Cabin Shop! Or anywhere else you can pick your stuff out in person.

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

Wouldn't that be a treat!  Not an option in the Great White North.