The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

can you post up some pictures of the revolver on here?

Could it be a possibility that RFD your end is after a quick buck and is just telling you it's unsuitable as you don't know better? afterall he has already robbed you of £35 for doing nothing

bradaz11 wrote:can you post up some pictures of the revolver on here?

Could it be a possibility that RFD your end is after a quick buck and is just telling you it's unsuitable as you don't know better? afterall he has already robbed you of £35 for doing nothing

No pictures to hand. However the RFD that handled my paperwork was merely the nearest to me for delivery.

The RFD that pointed out the faults is over in Wiltshire - and once he'd shown me a new gun to compare and demonstrate what the areas in question should look like it was apparent that he was on the level.

I replaced the nips on my revolver myself before using it.. like changing a timing belt on a new/old car.

As for him paying to replace parts, that does not make sense.. even if he refunds all your costs and scraps the gun, he loses less than sorting it.

With reference to your earlier post regarding not having the tools to strip the gun, you do realise that shooting a BP revolver requires a deep strip and clean everytime you shoot it I hope.

I replaced the nips on my revolver myself before using it.. like changing a timing belt on a new/old car.

As for him paying to replace parts, that does not make sense.. even if he refunds all your costs and scraps the gun, he loses less than sorting it.

With reference to your earlier post regarding not having the tools to strip the gun, you do realise that shooting a BP revolver requires a deep strip and clean everytime you shoot it I hope.

Dark Skies wrote: No pictures to hand. However the RFD that handled my paperwork was merely the nearest to me for delivery.

The RFD that pointed out the faults is over in Wiltshire - and once he'd shown me a new gun to compare and demonstrate what the areas in question should look like it was apparent that he was on the level.

good, at least you know what to look for now.

I'd ask for a partial refund to cover the parts + a little bit more, like the postage or something, then crack on and do it myself, make it into a learning experience, the gun is pretty much zero cost and would have had to go back anyway, and you can't mess it up badly enough to write it off by taking it apart, so have at it!
as for the tools, as Hrun says, you'll need to get at the trigger mech every so often, so those tools are needed anyway, anything else would be hammer and punch isn't it?
you'll be wanting a nipple wrench anyway if you don't already have one. I'd also put some PTFE tape on the threads when putting the new ones in.

Hrun wrote:I replaced the nips on my revolver myself before using it.. like changing a timing belt on a new/old car.

As for him paying to replace parts, that does not make sense.. even if he refunds all your costs and scraps the gun, he loses less than sorting it.

With reference to your earlier post regarding not having the tools to strip the gun, you do realise that shooting a BP revolver requires a deep strip and clean everytime you shoot it I hope.

When something is described in 'as new condition' then I take that to mean that it's ready to enjoy out of the box without having to spend money on it for a while. If it's described as 'reasonable condition but needs some TLC' then I assume I may need to give it a bit of a service. I don't think that's unreasonable of me.

The simple way for a seller not to be placed in this position is not to make inaccurate or reckless statements.

With regards to the deep strip / tools. I deliberately bought stainless as it's more forgiving. I also plan to use Triple 777 as it's reputed to be easier to clean. And I chose the Remington because it appears more accessible for cleaning with minimal tools. In a short space of time I'd planned to get a few screwdrivers, sure. But I didn't immediately anticipate having to rebuild the innards and fettle a hammer spring and such in order to get it to shoot. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to actually get the gun dirty in use before a strip down. But maybe I'm old fashioned.

Regardless of this particular situation it is always best to strip down any of these guns bought second hand so that you know exactly what you have inside, it may look perfect on the outside and function fine but could be one shot away from something going wrong inside. Stripping the gun and reassembling it a few times before shooting is also recommended as you will have a far better understanding of how it operates also it will make cleaning easier as if you find the process initially daunting then it is more likely to encourage you to procrastinate stripping for a thorough clean.

The use and maintenance of these guns is grossly misunderstood and these guns can get worn down quickly when used and cleaned by those who do not have the understanding of how to operate and clean them. There is more myth, fiction, misinformation and downright lies perpetrated about BP guns that any other type of fire arm.

There is some in your post, tripple 7 being to all intents purposes a smokeless powder leave less fouling that black is true. However its fouling is still hygroscopic and needs cleaning as often and with the same simple process as BP so you gain nothing that way in using it.

Stainless steel does stainless than blued but as you will be cleaning your gun every time after use anyway then there is no benefit with stainless in normal use unless you like cheap looking shiny and paying more for an attribute that you don't need, remember it is only the frame, cylinder and barrel that are stainless. All the internal working parts which are the bits most likely to go wrong are made from the same non stainless metal whether they are fitted to a stainless or blued gun so the insides need cleaning with the same thoroughness and frequency in a stainless gun as they do in a blued.

Just been on the phone to Ken at Henry Krank who was very helpful . Apparently the maintenance kit doesn't come with the hammer - that's a separate item. So all in with VAT the parts will be around the £75 mark. We spoke about the timing issue and he was of a mind that that's really something for a gunsmith to tackle so ... looking increasingly likely that a repair is going to be more costly than the seller will cough for unless he has his own gunsmith in house - which I doubt, otherwise I'd have thought the issues would have been caught before putting up for sale.

Update.

Had a long chat with Ken at Henry Krank today who was super helpful regarding selecting the right kit/s to repair the pistol and info how to go about it. Turns out the blued steel maintenance kit would have all the bits I might need - unlike the stainless kit which is minus a hammer. And it seems a blued hammer would probably be the stronger anyhow - and is a popular choice in the States.

Armed with the knowledge and costs involved I then rang the seller.
The seller had received the pistol today and concurred the hammer was in poor shape.

Long story short - he was happy to give a refund. I prompted the idea that I'd be happy to have a go at fixing the issue myself (armed with a parts kit, a shiny new set of gunsmith screw drivers, and the might of Youtube DIY vids) if he chipped in for the cost of parts.

He was fine with that and refunded £50 and will send the gun to my RFD.

So in the end I think I did pretty well £100 - stainless Pietta in otherwise good shape.
Had to buy £55 worth of parts which includes a nipple / wrench kit and a set of Graces screwdrivers at £40 (but I'm not counting that as I've been meaning to get some anyhow).

if I can build a fuel injected Z1000 from a box of bits and a Land Rover from a bag of rust on wheels I can do this.

That seems fair. My blued revolver cost £100 and needed ne nips. That cost the nips and three wrenches to get them out..

It would have helped you if the seller had been more honest, I bought mine in person. I would always be wary of a gun described 'as new' after all, that implies no-one has shot it, ever.