.36 Colt Navy that powerful??????

[Jay Templin]

I have heard people comment on it but have never seen it in writing about "horse pistols" or larger calibers being for the specific purpose of stopping a horse. Though it does make sense.

The term “horse pistol” comes from the 17th and 18th century practice of mounted troops carrying the large pistols in buckets on the saddle, as a way of distinguishing them from smaller pistols that were carried on one’s person like scuppets and dags. It first shows up in writing about 1695, and in print about 5 years later.
Jay

 

[Eutycus]

The term “horse pistol” comes from the 17th and 18th century practice of mounted troops carrying the large pistols in buckets on the saddle, as a way of distinguishing them from smaller pistols that were carried on one’s person like scuppets and dags. It first shows up in writing about 1695, and in print about 5 years later.
Jay

I have always pretty much thought that the term "Horse Pistol" was referring to how it was carried and not what the target was meant to be.It appears alot believe it was to stop the horse though. I don't totally believe that to be the primary reason for a large caliber.

 

[springfield art]

I need comparisons. I have heard they are equal to a .38 special??

Roughly.

 

[earlwb]

I have no doubt that the .36 was adequate and did the job - I do want to point out that during the fighting in the Philippines after the S.A.W. - the Army found that the 38s that they had issued lacked the umph to do the job quickly and reissued 45 colts which did the job much better

The Army had chose to use a Colt revolver using .38 Colt cartridges. This was not the same as a .38 Special or .38S&W cartridges.

But there was a lot of behind the scenes political things going on. The Army ranks wanted something that was like the .45 Colt cartridges. They wanted to be able to shoot through horses to hit the fellow behind it. A lot of ex Cavalry troops were behind the push to go back to a big fat heavy bullet.

The amazing thing was we got the 1911 semi auto pistol firing the.45 ACP round which mimicked the .45 Colt but gave you 7+1 rounds capacity too.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.38_Long_Colt

 

[springfield art]

Yes! That .38 Colt was a pop-gun. The aptly named .38 Special was a big improvement in power; in fact, many of today's hotly-loaded Specials, with cleverly designed projectiles, are quite effective. The Special came on the scene in what, the 1930's?

 

[earlwb]

Yes! That .38 Colt was a pop-gun. The aptly named .38 Special was a big improvement in power; in fact, many of today's hotly-loaded Specials, with cleverly designed projectiles, are quite effective. The Special came on the scene in what, the 1930's?

The .38 S&W Special first came out in 1898. It was at first loaded with black powder. The longer cartridge case allowed it to hold 3 grains more powder than the .38 Long Colt. Thus giving it about 100 to 150 fps over the .38 Colt round.

It has been said that the government requested a more powerful .38 as the .38 Long Colt bullets could not penetrate the Moro shields or body armor. That led to the development of the .38 Special where it started using smokeless propellant to get a little more power out of it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.38_Special

 

[Dark Angel]

its always easy to use excessive force. real courage and skill is handling the situation without violence.

Every 'situation' I.ve found myself in required either implied violence (showing your weapon to the perp) or executed violence (using your weapon on the perp) Perhaps, my negotiating skills aren't as finely hone as some others. I've never found myself in a 'situation' where a little judiciously applied violence wasn't applicable to the 'situation.'

 

[WalnutRed]

No disrespect to Mr. Keith or anyone else but other than perhaps Cavalry troopers I doubt if very many ACW soldiers actually saw anyone shot with a pistol. I think the fondness of the Navy revolvers was largely that they were easier to carry and were powerful enough for close range work. The fact that the Army did not seem to seriously consider a small bore revolver until a generation after the ACW, then replaced it in a decade with a large bore handgun, says a lot about filed experience with handguns.

 

[nick_1]

Dark Angle. you might not have good verbal Jui jitsu skills. some guys always escalate the situation. some almost never need to use force. A man who has the capacity for great violence and does not use it has stronger character than the man who resorts to violence easily.

 

[smokeum54]

A man who has the capacity for great violence and does not use it has stronger character than the man who resorts to violence easily.

This is very true. I'm not huge but I'm a big guy. My ability to stand and give a "i will end you look" to my aggressor has kept me out of a lot of trouble.

 

[Coinneach]

No disrespect to Mr. Keith or anyone else but other than perhaps Cavalry troopers I doubt if very many ACW soldiers actually saw anyone shot with a pistol. I think the fondness of the Navy revolvers was largely that they were easier to carry and were powerful enough for close range work. The fact that the Army did not seem to seriously consider a small bore revolver until a generation after the ACW, then replaced it in a decade with a large bore handgun, says a lot about filed experience with handguns.

One General NB Forrest would differ, his highly succesfull Cavalry tactics hinged on "getting there firstest with the mostest" and in close; while his preferred weaponary for the job were Double Barrelled ML Shotguns and........36 calibre cap & ball Navy revolvers; each Trooper preferably armed with 2 or more of them. There can be little doubt that the Navy (and its various clones produced by the Confederacy) were actually used to good effect and your comment "I doubt if very many ACW soldiers actually saw anyone shot with a pistol" defies the historical fact that Revolvers were plentiful, carried and used by both sides in that era.

 

[WalnutRed]

No doubt many handguns were used by both sides. I'm also pretty sure that NB Forrest would have considered himself and his entire command to be cavalry, which I said was a possible exception. However most participants carried rifle muskets of some sort and I see no reason to think that the 10 yard rule would not have applied during the ACW as it has in most other wars. That those in combat are only really aware of what is happening directly in front and 10 yards on either side. Most participant who saw someone struck down would have seen them struck by Minnie or shell fragment, not revolver or buckshot. Reading first hand accounts unless you were horse mounted or a teamster any extra weight was quickly jettisoned on the march so I suspect many of the privately purchased revolvers ended up in a ditch somewhere in southern Pennsylvania or rural Virginia. I collect military history books. Specifically first person accounts of individual service. My collection goes from the 1840's to the early 2000's. One very common theme, from the War with Mexico to Vietnam, is some version of an infantryman's comment that "We threw away everything except extra ammo, water and food, and that was the order of priority in what we kept." Maybe that's why S&W sold so many little 22 revolvers, light weight.

 

[Dark Angel]

Dark Angle. you might not have good verbal Jui jitsu skills. some guys always escalate the situation. some almost never need to use force. A man who has the capacity for great violence and does not use it has stronger character than the man who resorts to violence easily.

Every time and I mean EVERY time I am threatened with violence, whether that be some troll pulling a knife and demanding my wallet or some goon threatening 'I'm Gonna Beat Your ***!', just because he doesn't like something I said or the way I dress, the situation has already escalated past a peaceful recourse, I go right to violence. there is no negotiating with people like that. I don't go around looking for trouble, but then I don't run from it either. that is a very good way to invite more aggression.

 

[nick_1]

Weak Verbal Ju Jitsu game... Some guys turn every situation into a fight. Some almost never fight. Quite often the one who diffuses the fight has less fear and the stronger character.

 

[Jedidiah]

Every time and I mean EVERY time I am threatened with violence, whether that be some troll pulling a knife and demanding my wallet or some goon threatening 'I'm Gonna Beat Your ***!', just because he doesn't like something I said or the way I dress, the situation has already escalated past a peaceful recourse, I go right to violence. there is no negotiating with people like that. I don't go around looking for trouble, but then I don't run from it either. that is a very good way to invite more aggression.

If you have a chance to walk away, and don't take it, then you really are no different than the so called perp. Most real men have their ego in check, and will always walk away if possible. IMHO.

 

[Dark Angel]

Weak Verbal Ju Jitsu game... Some guys turn every situation into a fight. Some almost never fight. Quite often the one who diffuses the fight has less fear and the stronger character.

DEFUSE THIS! Man puts a cut-down .22 rifle to your chest and demands your wallet, or pulls a knife on you and says, 'Give me your money or I'll cut you!' One happened while I was living in Kansas City the other during Mardi Gras in New Orleans. In one, I took the gun away from him, breaking his finger, unloading the cut-down and throwing at him, telling him to get lost before I killed him with his own gun. The 2nd, I cut his throat with a 12inch bowie that I carried at the time. In each case, situation defused. Time after time in similar situations, people have been killed to prevent them from testifying if the criminal was ever caught. Riddle me this; How would you have defused these situations?

 

[Jedidiah]

DEFUSE THIS! Man puts a cut-down .22 rifle to your chest and demands your wallet, or pulls a knife on you and says, 'Give me your money or I'll cut you!' One happened while I was living in Kansas City the other during Mardi Gras in New Orleans. In one, I took the gun away from him, breaking his finger, unloading the cut-down and throwing at him, telling him to get lost before I killed him with his own gun. The 2nd, I cut his throat with a 12inch bowie that I carried at the time. In each case, situation defused. Time after time in similar situations, people have been killed to prevent them from testifying if the criminal was ever caught. Riddle me this; How would you have defused these situations?

I probably would have been smart enough not be be in areas that have a high propensity for criminal activity. Like Mardi Gras, please, just setting yourself up for a criminal attack, IMHO

 

[B P Arn]

DEFUSE THIS! Man puts a cut-down .22 rifle to your chest and demands your wallet, or pulls a knife on you and says, 'Give me your money or I'll cut you!' One happened while I was living in Kansas City the other during Mardi Gras in New Orleans. In one, I took the gun away from him, breaking his finger, unloading the cut-down and throwing at him, telling him to get lost before I killed him with his own gun. The 2nd, I cut his throat with a 12inch bowie that I carried at the time. In each case, situation defused. Time after time in similar situations, people have been killed to prevent them from testifying if the criminal was ever caught. Riddle me this; How would you have defused these situations?

We bad... that's right, we bad.... uh huh... LOLOLOLOL!!!!!

 

[Flintlock Whiskey]

I don't go around looking for trouble, but then I don't run from it either. that is a very good way to invite more aggression.

Reminds me of what Kruschev said: Try to avoid fighting as much as you can. But if you have to fight, give it everything you have.
I have to agree.

 

[Jedidiah]

Reminds me of what Kruschev said: Try to avoid fighting as much as you can. But if you have to fight, give it everything you have.
I have to agree.

who would listen to anything Khrushchev had to say?