Random thread about myths and gun show tales about percussion revolvers......

maillemaker said:

It is fun to use the available evidence to draw what conclusions we may.

I just found a pair of .44 and .36 cartridge formers someone gave me. I have not used them yet. But the .44 version is labeled as "25 grains" and the .36 version is labeled as "17 grains".

So, I'm betting that the 1860 US Ordnance manual's specification of 30 grains for the .44 and 17 for the .36 are pretty close to max loads that will fit in the chambers with conical bullets, which were the standard cartridge issue style of the era.


Well, to be fair, that is because a lot of us are competition shooters that are trying to put all the shots in a 4" circle or better at 25 yards, shooting off hand single-handed. Unless you are one of those guys who can instinct shoot accurately, if you are into precision target shooting you are going to need sights and a load that is dialed in tight at 25 yards.

At 25 yards I can hit a human silhouette with harsh language!

Click to expand...

Could it be that the early target shooters used a sight picture that allowed the revolvers to hit high, into the Bullseye?

Stantheman86 said:

I just found that, the World Record, at the time, shot at 20 meters with a Colt Bisley, was when shooters used a 6'o clock "lollipop" sight picture with the scoring circle of the Bullseye target. And I assume light target load cartridges

Could it be that the early target shooters used a sight picture that allowed the revolvers to hit high, into the Bullseye?

Click to expand...

Yes. The proper hold on a black bullseye is a lollipop with a little sliver of white showing between the bullseye and the front sight. You never hold on the center of the bull as you can not exactly replicate your sight picture. and, since your eyes can only focus on one thing, you focus on the front sight. The bull and rear sight blur slightly. Of course, this applies to standard pistol sights such as the Partridge or Express (Colt percussion revolvers) sights or Buckhorn as seen on many rifles. Aperture sights or peep sights are used differently.

"Correcting" percussion revolvers IS making them "as designed" (or as close as the modern copy will allow).

Mike

That was a interesting read, thanks for the article

Stantheman86 said:

I just found that, the World Record, at the time, shot at 20 meters with a Colt Bisley, was when shooters used a 6'o clock "lollipop" sight picture with the scoring circle of the Bullseye target. And I assume light target load cartridges

Could it be that the early target shooters used a sight picture that allowed the revolvers to hit high, into the Bullseye?

Click to expand...

I set up all my competition guns for a 6 o'clock hold (lollipop). Even then, nearly all of my reproduction guns shoot about 8" high, which is about 4" over the bull.

I never did like the 6 o'clock or lollipop hold. I think I was influenced early on by reading too much Elmer Keith who stated "the place to aim is where you want to hit". Of course at longer range Elmer advocated raising the front sight above the rear to compensate. This would require enough shooting at various distances to familiarize yourself with that particular gun and load.
P.S. I would like to retract that statement about reading "too much Elmer Keith". There is no such thing!!

Yes. I totally forgot about the 6 o’clock hold for aiming at targets. We used that in the USMC and it was in our big thick omnibus handbook that they give out to all recruits. That could be a reason why the revolvers shoot high.

But maybe it is simply a culmination of all of the things that happened way back then.

My original 1860 Colt shoots quite well with a 6:00 hold on the target at 25 yards with the original sights.

My new Remington Uberti shoots very low, even at 25 yards. You have to put most of the front sight above the top of the rear to hit at that range. That was with round ball and 20 grains of 4f black powder.

William P Sepessy said:

I never did like the 6 o'clock or lollipop hold. I think I was influenced early on by reading too much Elmer Keith who stated "the place to aim is where you want to hit". Of course at longer range Elmer advocated raising the front sight above the rear to compensate. This would require enough shooting at various distances to familiarize yourself with that particular gun and load.
P.S. I would like to retract that statement about reading "too much Elmer Keith". There is no such thing!!

Click to expand...

Having read, absorbed and used Keith's techniques, he is not wrong. However, it still depends on your goal. If you block out the target with the front sight, you're doing it wrong. Hence Keith suggesting that you raise the front sight above the rear sight. For hunting or self defense, the bullet should strike right at the top of the front sight. Bullseye shooting is different, because of how our eyes work. Floating the bull above the front sight will always garner you the most accurate group. So, depending on the size of the bull you want the bullet to strike several inches above the front sight. It's a totally different situation than hunting or self defense. I even use a "lollipop" hold when using optics as I am most concerned with group size. Where the bullets impact can be adjusted.

I first tried Keiths front sight trick......... I could not believe someone could hit a running coyote at 600ish yards with a revolver. Well, after extensive practice I found that I could hit a feed sack out semi-reliably at 300 yards. I never shot at game that far as I felt it was not a sure thing and I hate the idea of wounding an animal. But, feed sacks....well, they are fair game. I have recently been playing with a Uberti 1861 Colt and working my way down range. So far, I am at 100 yards.

Stantheman86 said:

I've heard this, if the rod bounces then the ball is seated

However, I've had "stuck" balls that bounced a rod too and they were inches above the powder , and I had to tap them down to shoot them out.

Click to expand...

Many people think you must repeatedly pump the ramrod up and down like a butter churn.

William P Sepessy said:

I never did like the 6 o'clock or lollipop hold. I think I was influenced early on by reading too much Elmer Keith who stated "the place to aim is where you want to hit". Of course at longer range Elmer advocated raising the front sight above the rear to compensate. This would require enough shooting at various distances to familiarize yourself with that particular gun and load.
P.S. I would like to retract that statement about reading "too much Elmer Keith". There is no such thing!!

Click to expand...

We had a police sniper on our team once who was also aghast that we used 6 o'clock holds.

I just find that at the ranges we shoot with the size of our bulls the front sight covers too much of the target for my eyes to see the target well.

Jim in Wisconsin said:

My new Remington Uberti shoots very low, even at 25 yards. You have to put most of the front sight above the top of the rear to hit at that range. That was with round ball and 20 grains of 4f black powder.

Click to expand...

They come with high front sights now apparently, because of 50 years of people complaining that repro cap and ballers hit too high

So you can file it to your desired load and point of impact

nick_1 said:

Like I said. show it to me in writing from colt, Remington or the govt and I will gladly believe that these pistols were deliberately manufactured with a now 100yard zero. you do know that they had rifles and carbines for those distances......

Click to expand...

Curious as to what distance these handguns were zeroed at based on the period documentation you have? All I have is unreliable anecdotal data from shooting multiple originals.

I have zero period documentation and neither does anyone else on the forum therefore I am sticking with the obvious which is that the sights are rudimentary and i seriously doubt that the intended zero was 75 yards when the standard pistol dueling distance at the time was 10 paces or roughly 30ft and the optimal rifle engagement distance was 100yrds. I have no doubt that some gun handy troops did figure out how to shoot these rigs at longer distances but I will not believe that it was required Army policy without some actual providence. in other words its an old wife's tale.

nick_1 said:

I have zero period documentation and neither does anyone else on the forum therefore I am sticking with the obvious which is that the sights are rudimentary and i seriously doubt that the intended zero was 75 yards when the standard pistol dueling distance at the time was 10 paces or roughly 30ft and the optimal rifle engagement distance was 100yrds. I have no doubt that some gun handy troops did figure out how to shoot these rigs at longer distances but I will not believe that it was required Army policy without some actual providence. in other words its an old wife's tale.

Click to expand...

So the actual originals that you have shot just had random points of impact?

nick_1 said:

I have zero period documentation and neither does anyone else on the forum therefore I am sticking with the obvious which is that the sights are rudimentary and i seriously doubt that the intended zero was 75 yards when the standard pistol dueling distance at the time was 10 paces or roughly 30ft and the optimal rifle engagement distance was 100yrds. I have no doubt that some gun handy troops did figure out how to shoot these rigs at longer distances but I will not believe that it was required Army policy without some actual providence. in other words its an old wife's tale.

Click to expand...

What does dueling have to do with using revolvers in combat?

Sam Colt didn't care about "dueling " that isn't even relevant

It's about using revolvers to kill people

100 yards is not the optimal distance for rifle fire, the British routinely fired at much longer ranges with great effectiveness during the Crimean War with their P53's

The Colt percussion revolvers hit high because Sam Colt designed them to do so, originals hit as high as the repros. These were weapons of war, not target pistols and the first use of Colt revolvers was by Cavalry. I don't think they waited until 25 yards out on the Frontier to shoot at Indians , and a Walker with a 25 yard zero would be ridiculous, these were designed to be used as Offensive weapons

nick_1 said:

I have zero period documentation and neither does anyone else on the forum therefore I am sticking with the obvious which is that the sights are rudimentary and i seriously doubt that the intended zero was 75 yards when the standard pistol dueling distance at the time was 10 paces or roughly 30ft and the optimal rifle engagement distance was 100yrds. I have no doubt that some gun handy troops did figure out how to shoot these rigs at longer distances but I will not believe that it was required Army policy without some actual providence. in other words its an old wife's tale.

Click to expand...

Actually both shooters are starting back to back, and taking 10 paces, with an average step being 2.5 feet, that's 50 feet. Interesting that some target shooting competitions use that distance as the max range...

LD

Too much editing needed gentlemen....

LD