1860 Colt Army

[Idaho Elk Hunter]

Thanks for all the replies to my question regarding my 1st pistol purchase. I am leaning towards the 44 caliber and 1860 Colt Army.

I noticed that there seems to be a few that lean towards 36 cal vs: 44 cal on pistols. Is it due to the wear and tear on 44 caliber main frame or is it accuracy or whatever?

Can you buy a 36 in the 1860 Colt Army?

Jim in Idaho

 

[Musketeer]

If you like the looks of the 1860, but you'd prefer .36 cal., take a look at the 1861 Navy. It's physically slightly smaller than the 1860 Army, since it's only .36 cal., but it looks extremely similar. :thumbsup:
http://www.uberti.com/firearms/1861-navy.tpl

 

[Don]

Yes, its called the 1861 Navy or Police. I havn't noticed a difference in accuracy between my .44's and .36's. Personally I prefer the .44 because of its power. That said the .36 had a reputation for doing some real damage. Its also a good choice for small game and has less recoil than the .44.

Don

 

[Zonie]

I think a lot of people just like the bigger boom of the .44 while some others like to save lead and powder.
IMO, the .36 is safer to rework the chamber diameters to leave the ball close to the rifleing groove diameter for better accuracy.

As an example, the Dixie catalog says the Uberti .36 cal Colt has a bore diameter of .360 with .382 for the rifleing groove diameter.
The cylinder chambers are .372 diameter. This makes the ball .010 smaller than the groove diameter.
Many folks feel that if the chamber is enlarged to .380-.382 the accuracy is greatly improved.
Doing this however makes the gun need a ball which is larger than .382 so that it will swage into the chambers properly. There are no standard balls which are .385 diameter.

As for the .36 caliber Colt that looks like the 1860 Army, it is actually a 1861 Navy.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

The '60 Army and '61 Navy weigh about the same. The Army is definitely more powerful than the Navy. One thing to consider is that the Army grip is longer and often fits modern hands better than the Navy grip. I'm not aware of any .36 caliber Armies.

 

[echo89]

I am not a power oriented person when it comes to CnB revolvers. I like the 36 basically because the 51 Navy balances much better in my hand, and that's the primary caliber it comes in. I like my 60 Army, it just doesn't naturally point, and feels a tad muzzle heavy. It also seems to be more fussy with assembly, wedge position, lubing and other stuff. I haven't noticed any savings on ball, powder, etc. Have you considered the non-historically correct 51 Navy in .44? It's not a problem for me, but I understand how others feel about them.

DC

 

[graybeard]

The .44 Army is a mighty fine pistol. One advantage to cap'n'ball revolvers is that you can load them up or down, depending what you want, the weather, and the Dow Jones Average. :v Maybe I'm clumsy, but the 1860 Army feels just as good and points just as well to me as the .36 Navy. :hatsoff: graybeard

 

[Idaho Elk Hunter]

I am going to go with the 44 in the 1860 Army as that is where I was leaning anyway and the firepower would be nice if you needed to stop a bear or wolf or even cougar. In northern Idaho all three are possible. Born and raised here and have never had any problems with any, but you never know either. I am older now and maybe more cautious than I used to be out there.
Thanks for all the information on the 44 Army and others as well.
Jim in Idaho

 

[pondoro]

I have an 1860 Army, bought after weighing all the advice here on this forum. I got the steel frame from Cabela's, and I love it. 44 cal ammo and accessories are slightly more common than 36 (an issue with me because I don't have any good muzzleloading shops in my immediate area). The 44 does not seem any too powerful, though of course I would not want to get shot with one! I shoot 357 and 44 mag handguns a lot, so maybe the 44 C&B simply seems light because of that. I think you will be happy with your purchase whichever way you go.

 

[rickystl]

WOW!! Great thread. I have shot both my 1860 Army and 1851 Navy (in .44) for a few years now. The Navy definately has faster handling characteristics. The grip is about identical to the Colt Peacemaker. Mabye this is why the Navy was one of the most popular guns Colt produced? However, I also find the Army grip more comfortable, especially with fat loads with the .44. I read a while back that the larger grip was designed to better handle the larger recoil of the .44 and to accomodate cavelry use while wearing gloves. You will probably find that all the Colts shoot way high. That's because the originals were sighted to be dead-on at about 75-yards. I've even noticed this with the muskets. I had my Colts re-worked by a gunsmith with a 2.5 lb. trigger pull, 11-degree cut on the forcing cone, and a higher dovtailed front sight. This made ALL the difference when shooting up to 25-yards. The pistols now shoot where you point them. Thanks again for starting this thread.

 

[Voyageur]

I'm not sure whether this helps or not but I own several cap & ball revolvers. Included are the .36 Navy, .44 Army and .44 2nd Model Dragoon. These are all 2nd generation Colts.

I have shot two deer with the .44 Army, both at about 50 - 60 yards. Both were shot with roundballs using a standard charge of 3F powder and both only took one shot to kill.

None of the handguns have been altered and they all shoot pretty much point blank at 50 yards. I have shot ground squirrels with the .36 Navy but have yet to shoot any living critter with the .44 2nd Model Dragoon.