1851 Colt with 4.75" barrel.

[RussB]

I thought there was a post here on this same subject, but I couldn't find it. :shocking:

Anyway, has anyone had any experience with this rather short barrel revolver in .44?

Who makes the one from Cabella's?
http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/templa...&hasJS=true

Has anybody chronographed any loads from this pistol?

I would think that barrel length would be awful handy, but does it have any uumph?

Thanks,

Russ

 

[montanadan]

RUSSB-I can not personally comment about power loss(if any),but take a look at the shorter loading ram. I have (uberti)51's in .36's with 5" tubes on them,they are definitley harder to load(especially when I use .380 rb's). I have 61's in .36(71/2) which are much easier to load, longer arm on the loading ram. Might be something to think about, shorter barrel lengths are much easier to carry.Weight wise, I have not really noticed any real difference..I hope this helps..Maybe MEC would know? Respectfully Montanadan p/s Nice looking revolver..

 

[RussB]

Aahhhh! The loading Ram....More leverage.....Makes good sense to me. I had not even considered that :redface:

I'm going to be getting "sumpin" here very shortly, and just haven't made up my mind...yet. Thanks for pointing that out.

I have a very nice Old Army, but it seems it has turned out to be more for lookin than shootin, since my daughters had it all engraved. And, the fact I have never owned a 51 seems to gnaw at me....guess I need to get out more ::

Respectfully, Russ

 

[montanadan]

Hey RUSS- I remember that engraved revolver! Man I would be afraid to even shoot it, I might mess up the engraving. One more thing..60'sand 61's have the improved loading lever they are stronger, and relieve some of the strees fron the mounting screw(located under the barrel). I check that screw a lot. I shoot my revolvers in CAS so it is not unusual for them to shoot 100r/b's in a single match. The guys that have shortened their REMMIES(NMA's)have broke the mounting screw.I bought spares @2.00 each,for the 51's(VTI gun parts,Pietta-Ubeti parts). Im my 51's and 61's I have shot over thousand r/b's in each revolver. I have a lot of work(done myself)in them,but they are as relialbe as a cartridge revolver. Be safe,good shooting..Respectfully Montanadan

 

[Ivery Keys]

Russ B,
I do have one of the brass frame "Sherrif's Models" and just use a loading ram from another '51 when I am shooting it, then reattach the shorter one for carry. I use a high tech period correct rubber band to hold the ram in place. Not that big a deal. The other option is to pull the cylander to load, then replace and cap and shoot...

Regards,

Ivery

 

[montanadan]

Russ-I tried that longer loading ram-hangs up in the holsters. When I take them to the range, I load them externally,on a loading stand,from Traditions. My only thought was on that short barrel.44, if you went to .454 rb's might be tad hard to load. Colt's can be unique, I like 'em. I prefer Uberti,but, I just saw two new Piettas,and I was really impressed. Well have fun..Respectfully Montanadan

 

[RussB]

......."Im my 51's and 61's I have shot over thousand r/b's in each revolver. I have a lot of work(done myself)in them,but they are as relialbe as a cartridge revolver"............

Montanadan....Does the 60 & 61's have the same feel / balance as the 51?

Everyone seems to think the 51 has a great balance, and most won't hesitate to recommend it over other revolvers for that same reason. I see that Uberti has a nice steel 1861 revolver in the very popular pantina, or "antique" finish. (I think they may also have the 51 too.) What's your thoughts on this?

Respectfully, Russ

 

[Rebel]

The '60 Army and '61 Navy both have a nice balance and feel, just not as nice as the '51 Navy. :imo:

 

[Ivery Keys]

I think the grip frame on the '51s is smaller than on the '60s. Also I like the way the loading lever feels on the '51 rather than the cam type'60. Personally I think the '51 points more naturally than the '60. One thing I do like better about the '60s is the front sight, which is a blade rather than a bead. For some reason I seem to be able to pick up that blade a little faster than the bead, but all in all still prefer the '51s...

Regards,

Ivery

 

[jim gray]

I do have one of the brass frame "Sherrif's Models" and just use a loading ram from another '51 when I am shooting it, then reattach the shorter one for carry. I use a high tech period correct rubber band to hold the ram in place. Not that big a deal. The other option is to pull the cylander to load, then replace and cap and shoot...

Wouldn't it be easier to carry a short piece of hollow pipe to slip over the end of the lever to increase the effective length?

 

[montanadan]

RussB- 51's have the Navy grip which is smaller,Uberti only produces this in .36cal.60's have the Army grip,which is wider and little longer grip,Uberti produces these in .44cal.61's are built on the same frame as the 60's but with a choice of grips,they use to be built with either Army or Navy grips(I am not sure if they are built this way anymore).61's and 60's both have the blade style front sight,61's are in .36cal(Uberti). I do not have large hands, but have long fingers,so I prefer the Army grip.51's have the octagon barrel, and post type front sight. Boy Russ I would not be able to tell you which one to buy,I like 'em all! To me all colts just point well,and feel right.Now I am sure the REMMIE guys will have a lot to say about that. My 51's have the charcoal finish,and suppose to turn a gray like finish with use,I do not think this is going to happen in my life time(I personally do not like this finish)it does not wear well and is very delicate.I could go on about the differences in construction(because there is not really any difference 60's-61's other than grip and caliber). I think you should purchase what you like ,I am sure everyone is tired of me rambling on. Respectfully Montanadan...

 

[Ivery Keys]

Flash in the pan,
Because it never occured to me? Remember I did not say this is the way I carry the thing. This is just the way I shoot it when practicing...

Regards,

Ivery

 

[Rat]

I have the 1860, and have owned the '51 in .44 (actually .45) in the past. Just recently I had to clean/fix up a 1851 that a friend bought, that had been fired and not cleaned, and then put away for a couple years, so I got to make some real good side by side comparisons. (it had been left in a drawer, in a dry place, and only had a couple of small rust spots on it)

I think the nod goes to the 1851 for feel and balence, over the 1860. All things considered, I'd go with the standard length barrel too, as a '51 in .44 is light and handy as is, a shorter barrel is not really that much of a plus, on that gun.

On using/shooting the engraved pistol, I think an engraved pistol looks just as impressive with some honest wear on it as it does looking "new in the box". In fact I'd rather see that any gun has been used and shot, rather than being some kind of display queen. You certainly can't wear the engraving down, or hurt it with normal use. The pistol could always be refinished/blued (is it blue or stainless?) in the future, if that new-look really has any meaning.

Having said that, you will find that a '51 is a nicer gun to carry. The engraved pistol/Ruger would be best used when you want maximum power, and a '51 would be good to have for "light duty". In other words I'm trying to say get a '51 but don't let the Ruger turn into a dust-collector either.

I'm also thinking the '51 would be the place to start, then maybe pick up a '61 later, and then a '60 if you want to have a nice little collection of BP revolvers to shoot.

Rat