36 Caliber Remington New Model Navy-Uberti

[mec]

The .36 Caliber revolvers went into production in 1860 shortly ahead of the more familiar Remington /Beal .44s. They evolved along with the larger caliber and remained in production until 1875. A fair number went to the Confederate States of America before the outbreak of the Civil War and a substantial number seem to have been purchased by the Union. The replicas haven't gained the popularity of the .44 NMA Remington copies but have some meritorious and distinctive characterists.

The small bore and increased weight gives the Navy a heafty feel while the .5" shorter barrel makes it appear more compact than the 8" Army caliber. The cylinder walls are thicker than on the Colt .36s but the really interesting aspect of the revolver is that it has significantly deeper chambers than the Colts. We found that our Uberti would hold 28 Grains of fffg with just enough room to seat the .380 ball, and decided we would concentrate on full loads for our initial shooting. Sure enough, the top performers with the 80-81 grain ball and the 125 Grain Buffalo bullet provided calculated energy equivalent to the reported performance of the standard pressure 158 grain lead .38 Special load. - 870fps/ 158 Grain Bullet/ 266 ft/lbs energy. Interestingly enough, current versions of the Special load frequently register velocities 70 and more feet per second lower than the advertised.

380 Ball Velocity Extreme Spread Energy
28 Grain Swiss FFFG 1238 fps 59fps 272 ft pounds

28 Gr/vol Pyrodex P 1181 fps 74 247

28 Gr/vol Hogd.777 1188 fps 49 251

Buffalo Bore .375"
125 Grain Bullet
22 Grains Swiss FFFG 978 fps 62 265

Powder capacity was increased three to five grains over that of a Navy Colt and the top loads provided from 100- 150 fps extra velocity. Consistency with Hodgdons 777 was much better than with most of our revolvers. We were careful to settle the powder and seat the ball with minimal or no compression (as recommended by the manufacturer.)

We clocked the rounds shooting off-hand at 25 yards over the chronograph. Groups were a bit to the right of point of aim and about one foot low. The front sight can be drifted for windage and is extra tall to allow a precise sight-in. Most of our six shot strings formed 4-6" spreads with one particularly unstead one expanding the overall cluster to about 7 inches. We were shooting at a blank background attempting to guess at the amount of hold over to hit a target lower on the paper. - Not the most effective way to guage accuracy.

The Remington .36 promises a satisfying degree of accuracy. We established an aiming point at 62 feet from our casual bench rest. I fired four shots into about 2" and pulled another one low and about an inch low. Bates took the revolver and added a round to my tight 4 round cluster. Not scientific group shooting- but the group looked so good I took a picture of it.
http://www.gunpix.com/gallery/Muzzleloaders_and_Blackpowder/remingtonnavy2.jpg

I do think when this is sighted in, it will be satisfingly accurate.

 

[Rat]

Good post on such an un-sung hero of the pistol world.

For years I thought the ".36's" (wish they called them ".38"s, which is what they really are) were "weak sisters" to the .45's. Not so. The little .36 packs a strong punch.

I finally got a Uberti .36 Remington Navy a couple years ago and it's really something. Mine has a 6&3/8"s inch barrel, slightly shorter than the one in the posted pic. I think it's really an ideal barrel length for this gun.

Accuracy is unreal. With Swiss my gun does 1.5" at 20 yards. With 777 groups really open up. I didn't know about the compression thing when I tried 777, but having to worry about seating the ball just right without compressing the powder definately rules it out for my use. I did notice that it compresses quite a bit! But again, after getting 1.5" groups with Swiss powder I won't be trying any others.

The .36 is often compared with the .38 SPL, but I believe the .36 is the more deadly gun. The 158 grain .38spl slug does not expand or penetrate well. The .36 ball moving at high velocity expands dramatically, and penetrates about as good as the slow moving .38spl slug. I'd rather be hit with the .38spl. Also, being a true .38", whereas the .38spl is a .35", it has more frontal area, which makes a difference in "real life", and does not show up on the "paper ballistics" such as the FPE formula.

My pistol shot to POA right from the box. I use it for a survival/small game/coup-de-grass gun and two legged varmint repellent when I'm black powder hunting. With the small .375" balls I can carry a lot of survival ammo without much weight. On top of that, even though I love my 1860 Colt, this Remington has NEVER jammed from a cap-fragment, or fired cap getting between the hammer and frame.

Rat

 

[mec]

The swiss was way out ahead with this revolver. With others, we've seen it getting velocities close to pyrodex but it stomped all of them in the Remington. I also loaded 13.5 Swiss with a 50 grain ball in my 31 Wells Fargo. Velocities were up in the 800 fps range- gaining over 100 fps over the pyrodex, goex and 777.

 

[Don]

Mec,

Since you seem to know a lot about cap and ball revolvers I have a couple of questions. Does it help reduce over compression with 777 if you use a corn meal filler? And second, what is the powder capacity of the repro .36 colts?

I know these questions are a little off topic but I'm interested in getting a steel framed colt repro but I've always thought that the .36's were enemic thus I've stayed with .44's.

Thanks

Don

 

[mec]

I haven't tried fillers with h 777. All I know is I tend to get extreme velocity spreads when I load it to the same volume as black or pyrodex. Although it is marked as a fffg substitute, Hogdons has a whole different set of load recommendations for it and say that it shouldn't be compressed. I have no idea what -beyond seating the ball on top of the powder column might arrive at the definition of "compressed." It does work rather well with lighter charges in my LePage Target and Lyman Plains pistol> In the Lepage, 15 gets about the same performance as 20 grains of pyrodex and 20 grains is pretty much the same as 30 of pyrodex in the fifty caliber.

My shooting partner has found 24 grains with no filler works well in his .44s.

The literature puts the colt cylinder capacity at either 22 or 25 grains of fffg. I've found them to hold 25 but the ball is right at the front of the chamber. The highest I've loaded Swift fffg in the Colt 1861 is 22 grains getting very high 1,000 fps range averages. This is plenty for me but since the Remington holds 28 I thought it would be interesting to see how much faster it would go. 28 grains is the spout most people use for routine shooting with the Colt or Remington .44 replicas - thought they will both hold .35 -37 grains under a ball.

 

[Zonie]

I was told that the Italian replacas of the .36 cal Remington was not exactly correct.
It seems they use a .44 size frame and chamber the cylinder for the .36. This seems to be the case with my .36 and .44 cal guns.

I have the Auction Catalog of the Karl F. Moldenhauer Collection of Remington Arms and noted that guns #102 thru 105 are shown in one photo.
One of these is a 1861 Army, One is a 1863 Army and two are 1961 Navy's.
For those interested, the frame length on all of these guns, from the front, where the barrel stops, to the rear of the recoil shield appears to be the same on all 4 guns.

The grip length, as measured from the hammer pivot screw centerline, straight down is shorter on the .36 caliber guns.

Using my Uberti .44 as a basis to determine the actual length of this dimension, and measuring the Army guns photo to determine the scale factor, the Navy guns grip length was determined to be about 2.85 while the Army is 3.10.

I'm not really complaining, and I'll be the first to say shooting either of these guns is great fun, but I thought this was interesting.

 

[mec]

I wondered if the originals were really exact duplicates with different bore sizes. Both of these calibers followed the same sort of development process with significant changes at least twice between 60 and 63. The earlier Remington Beals have a different look than the New Model Army and Navy.

I have heard that the Italian replicas arn't the exact size of the originals-or some of them aren't but don't really know for sure. I suspect I'd be better off not taking a micrometer to them.

Interestingly enough, Jim Taylor, a writer for New Gun Week, had a big supply of original .44 Remingtons for a while. His dad was a gunsmith. He fixed several of the up for shooters and experiment with them also. they were stuffing in 37 grains of black powder with a ball and getting over 1,000 fps with some combinations. This is in the ball park with what I've read off with 35 grains of pyrodex or swiss fffg.

 

[Rat]

Don, I used to think the .36 was weak for a long time, until I owned one. They are hot pistols, and .380" is not that small of a bore. First time you shoot one you'll know what I mean. They rock.

Using a cornmeal filler is a waste of time and corn meal. It's a dumb/silly thing that somehow got started, it will do you no good at all. I don't see a difference in how the powder would compress, whether it was the ball, or cornmeal compressing it. I'm amazed that people still cling to the cornmeal filler thing. Don't buy into it.

I don't see 777 as a good pistol powder anymore, accuracy is just not there if you compress it, (in my pistols) and it sure seems silly to carefully ram the ball down "just so", so that it's not compressed. First time I tried it, I thought it was the Bee's knees...but not no more.

I suppose if maximum power is all a guy wanted, then filling the chamber to the mouth with 777, and seating a ball would do it. Yes it compresses that much. And that will only work in a Remington, loads like that will do funny things like shear off the loading lever latch pretty quick in the Colt clones. Don't ask me how I know that!

You would love an 1851 in ".36", I promise. NOT anemic! Use Swiss powder if you can get it, and you'll have NO regrets.

Rat

 

[mewing6003]

I think that cornmeal filler got started with the old timers in the NSSA. They experiment all the time with reduced loads. When I was shooting with them they insisted that the ball had to be seated as close to the end of the chamber mouth as possible or you would never get good accuracy. Being the new guy I tried it their way and gave up the ghost after a few times. Not only did I not notice any increase in accuracy, I also had quite a few balls move forward from recoil and jam the cylinder. They avoided this by single loading as there is not time limit in revolver shooting in the NSSA. :results: :imo:

 

[mec]

It was a target shooter's dodge. The old theory was that the lightest load that would get the ball to the target was the most accurate. This seems to have been just another example of making things more complicated than they have to be. The full loads with no filler are plenty accurate as are loads that include quite a bit of chamber jump before reaching the bore.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

"Plenty accurate" means different things to different folks.
Off-hand target shooters realized that they could not "buck and roar" and score competitively with those who shot much lighter kicking loads.
Having bench rested many C&B revolvers over the years I have never found full power loads to be the most accurate, nor have I found deep seated balls to shoot as well as those loaded atop a filler.
Just because corn meal filler is an old idea don't make it an old wives tale, tain't the same thing at all. It was an idea that became common practice because it worked, and still does.
Rather than being so quick to discard old ideas we might better question new one. Everyone who has some product or gadget to sell makes great claims for their revolutionary idea and people jump on the bandwagon because they haven't the experience to know they don't need to spend a lot of money to get the desired result.
Wonder wads have pretty much replaced corn meal filler and they are convenient but corn meal works just fine and for about 1% of the cost.
Besides, my wife ain't near so old as me and I rather like her tail. :haha: :haha: :haha:

 

[mec]

Alright. I'll buy into that. "Plenty accurate" for me may not be as accurate as it would be for a match shooter. If I can whack out a bullseye at 25 yards or produce a good many(but not all of them) 4-5" groups at 50 yards, it makes me happy enough.
I probably don't shoot good enough to appreciate anything better than that.

My snotty dismissal of fillers comes from being too lazy to want to constuct a parfait of ejecta within each chamber.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

Never thought you were being snotty MEC, and I didn't mean to jump your case at all.
My post was mainly aimed at those who just automaticly assume that NEW and EXPENSIVE must, of course, be better than old and cheap.
There was a post here last week by a fellow who thought he just couldn't shoot his new rifle untill the postman delivered his new patches. I calculated he was spending over $12.00 per hundred just for patches and wads and I'll bet I could find old garmets and rags in his home that would shoot just as well and likely better and for free.
I look at all the new manure on the market, Wonderful patches, Wonderful wads, Wonderful lube, Wonderful bore cleaner, Wonderful powder (if it even goes off and if you didn't accidently compress it) and all of this manure just appeared within the last thirty years and most of it more recently. People look at the adds for a new powder "cleans up with water" and think "wow, how simple". Folks have been cleaning muzzleloaders with water for how long? For so long nobody ever thought to advertise it as being Wonderful. And guys who were told they have to by the Wonderful bore cleaner to go with the Wonderful lube never knew that water, spit and urine work just as well, though the later may draw flies.
How'd we ever get through the previous seven centuries without this Wonderful stuff? :hmm:

 

[mec]

From my perspective, the fillers are a New Idea rather than an old one. I like sticking with the loading methods people used when these guns were state of the art.
(I also make fun of silhouette shooters who hold the handgun up to their face-like a rifle.}
Some of the replica powders seem to be trying to create the impression that they clean up pretty much like modern smokeless. I haven't really tested this idea but use hot water, soap and water displacing oil on everything.

 

[montanadan]

Hey Mec-I agree with you 100%,especially the part about being lazy..Sometimes you could really color me lazy..Respectfully Montanadan

 

[CoyoteJoe]

SURE, but when these revolvers were state of the art they were strictly combat weapons. If I were packin one for personal defense I'd want all the powder I could pack into it and accuracy would be my last concern. If the bullet just comes out the front end that is probably more accurate than anyone but maybe Wild Bill hisefl could actually shoot while being shot at.
For defense I prefer my 357 Mag but even with that I shoot alot of 38 wadcutters. I don't always need to Buck & Roar, And the ability to adjust loads to fit needs has always been the ML advantage.

 

[mec]

I suspect that the old-times users of these things were a lot like modern guys in that they probably really wanted to blow stuff to kingdom come and stuffed as much powder into the chambers as they would hold. The tendency may have been moderated by stuffy old guys who made flask spouts a bit shorter than maximum and loaded those weak paper cartridges.

When I got into these smokewagons, I determined that I wouldn't go obsessive about such things as small groups. So, I do most of my shooting standing up- one handed and if I can get a fair percentage of good groups and none obviously wide in the ditch- I'm happy. Some of my loads are less than maximum but heavy enough that the ball will seat on top of the powder without filler.
Groups bigger than this are usually my fault and not the loads

I've found that 40 grains or the equivalent volume of pyrodex is as light as I can go with a ball in the Dragoon and still get a good consistent burn. Ball is pretty low in the chamber

this one was one of my Wild Bill Hickock memorial targets. The load is 45 grains of pyrodex p with velocities in the mid 1100s. I strongly suspect the miss was caused by me and not the load. http://www.gunpix.com/gallery/Muzzleloaders_and_Blackpowder/75ydragoon2.jpg

 

[Rat]

But Wonder Wads are...er, ah....WONDERFUL!!



Rat