are the pocket revolvers strong enough?

[bezoar]

This popped into my head last night while watching the duval film "convicts". In the film he shoots his cartridge conversion of a .36 caliber brass framed 1851 colt navy thru his closet door. He killed one convict that way years before.

SO i just got to wondering, if the small .31 pocket pistols or the 4 inch barreled .44 colt marshals have the energy to blow thru a closet door and kill the person standing behind it?

 

[TarletonRanger]

Bezoar....now I've never ACTUALLY tried this, so this is just my view on it.

.44 revolver punching through the closet door? OH YEAH BABY!! I shoot my 58 Remington with 30 grains FFFG behind a .454 roundball and she's got some power behind her. A closet door wouldn't be a problem.

Now the .31's on the other hand are another thing all together. They might...MIGHT be able to make it through the closet door, but I doubt that it would have enough power left to penetrate a human body. Now, I by no means am saying for the sake of knowledge that I'd stand behind my closet door while my buddy emptied the cylinder of his Wells Fargo Remington into it.

Maybe someone who's actually experinmented with this will chime in here. :crackup:

Jake

 

[Zonie]

A .31 cal Colt Pocket pistol takes a 12 grain charge of FFFg.
A .31 cal Remington New Model Pocket pistol takes a 10 grain charge of FFFg.

Lymans BP Reloading book says the 12 grains will give about 790 FPS and 65 Ft/Lbs of energy while 9.5 grains will give about 642 FPS and 43 Ft/Lbs with the 47 grain ball.

There is no way in He!! your going to get me to stand on the other side of the closet door while you try to blast me, even with the little Remington.

 

[WV_Hillbilly]

SO i just got to wondering, if the small .31 pocket pistols or the 4 inch barreled .44 colt marshals have the energy to blow thru a closet door and kill the person standing behind it?

Most closet doors (6 panel colonial style), are nothing but a very thin veneer of soft wood (pine?), surrounding a very weak frame-work made of (also soft) 1 x 2 wooden boards, with corrugated cardboard inside. It's really easy to zip right through one with just about anything. Especially if you miss the "real boards" that are the internal skeleton/frame-work. Most of the "real" wood is on the edges and it may also have a center horizontal brace across the middle section near the knob/handle.

I know this because a friend had to replace a closet door that had warped badly. Being that we both worked doing R&D and testing, (our minds just work like this) we did a bunch of actual shooting tests, and trying various things (hammer, axe, ballbat, etc...) out on it. It's REALLY easy to get through at 40 to 60" high in the upper center of the door.
A good punch from a person of average strength will go through it. Trust me, I know this to be true...

Now remember though, that the doors of older houses might actually be made of solid wood, and possibly of harder oak. The recessed panels would be the thiness part and they are still probably 3/4" thick wood. That would slow down a .31 pretty good. It just might not get through at all(?) A .36 has better velocity and penetration, but I still have never tried it. REAL wood doors are too expensive to waste like that. Even if it was an old door needing replaced, I'd find some use for the remaining good wood.

So you need to consider what kind of door that you have.

The .31's are pretty weak compared to the .44's, or even the .36's, but I don't want shot at with ANY of them--either through a door, or without!

ALWAYS use enough gun,
WV_Hillbilly

 

[bezoar]

Tru modern doors are thin shells. But i was wondering if a real door, circa 1857 would have let one of these 64 grain balls through.
But what about a thin, 1/4 inch plywood skinned blind? Season is coming up and ive seen the signs that the dog pack is back in operation, lots of turkey skeletons around suddenly.

 

[HillbillyGadget]

I just read an article on c&b pistol power and the .31s penetrated 2 and lodged in the 3rd board at 20', the boards were in a frame with 3/4" separating each board.
I'll try and find the article.

 

[Zonie]

Did they say how thick the boards were and what kind of wood they were made from? ::

 

[WV_Hillbilly]

I just read an article on c&b pistol power and the .31s penetrated 2 and lodged in the 3rd board at 20', the boards were in a frame with 3/4" separating each board.
I'll try and find the article.

Please let me know what the article said, or where to find it. I find those results hard to believe. I am familiar with ballistic testing and I know how the conditions can be skewed to give practically ANY results that the manufacturer or article writer wants you to read--AND BELIEVE!

FWIW, I usually tend to avoid getting into possible disputes about specifics, BUT I know how weak a .36 sheriff's model is from past ownership of one. Granted, it could hurt someone really bad up close, might kill them too if shot in a vital organ, heart, or brain... but it was pitifully weak. I doubt it would have went through ONE 1x6 (3/4" thickness) pine board at almost ANY distance from the muzzle. I did NOT load more than 20 gr of FFFg, but it was a brass framed gun and that charge did a pretty good job of filling up the the cylinder. Seem to remember the maximum load was only about 22gr FFFg anyway.

Yet, I could have told you that cute little .31cal could blow a 4" hole in the target. IT REALLY CAN!--IF you hold it 2 inches away from the "PAPER" target, AND let the muzzle blast blow the 4" hole throught the PAPER. Leaving out details such as that, are typical of most gun "rag"-azines, (pardon my use of Scooby Doo language).

ALWAYS use a big enough gun,
WV_Hillbilly

 

[3 stinky dogs]

I was reading a modern gum mag one time and a dide named Massad Aoyoub had a collum where he would review self defence shooting incedence.He did an article about a prison break where two guy's had taken the wardon hostage .The warden had a .41 cal pocket gun and had found an oppertunity to shoot one of his captor's right in his ear.The man who was shot dident even go down and survived to be exicuted later on.If I remember right the gun was a Remingtod derringet type pocket gun ? any way is that gun could not drop the bad guy why would the .31 ? Oh I think that the ammo for the gun was a .41 rimfire.Dont mean to boot leg the post but just wondering.

 

A .41 Rimfire is a weak cartridge. I have an old Colt single shot derringer that I inherited from my dad. He fired it a few times when I was a kid and you could still buy the ammo. I remember him shooting it at a big wooden fence post and the bullet stopped on the surface and then fell to the ground - looked like a cartoon. The nose was dented a bit but no other damage. I think several layers of clothing or a heavy coat might have easily stopped it.

The problem with these pocket guns is primarily the low velocity from the short barrel and small powder charge. I would bet the 41 rimfire derringer barely made 300 fps. However, if Colt had made a .31 with an 8 inch barrel and holding 25 or so grs, the small ball would have killed about as well as the .36 - which of course, had a good reputation in the 1851 model.

 

[3 stinky dogs]

Would the lighter ball from the .36 penatrate better because it is lighter and can go faster ? I tell you ML balistics are the hardest thing for me to get my head around.As for .41 rimfire ammo I think you can get brass for it.You use a primer set into the rim but as I sed ZI read it years ago.this is a cool thread.

 

[montanadan]

I would have to agree with Zonie,I would not volunteer either.However some of the highest production numbers for Colt included the 48,49 and 51 models,and were still offered and sold into the early 1880's.That'a a pretty good run for these small calibers,which indicates to me they must have got the job done.I have read some of the articles by Elmer Keith about cap-n-ball pistols(he learned to shoot them from Civil War Verean's),he said and the veteran's, the round ball was the best man stopper(in reference to 36 cal).Most interesting to me was the veteran's armed with the 36's never felt under gunned.I often wonder how much more powerful the old black powder was compared to today's offerings?Maybe the Swiss powder is a close as it get's? Just some thoughts..Respectfully Montanadan

 

[WV_Hillbilly]

Remember though, the poor standards of health treatment available from the 1840's through the 1880's. (the era of the cap-n-ball guns). Even a minor wound could get infected and there weren't any antibiotics--not even penicillin(sp?)! A person survived by; their strong constitution, their will to live, and the Grace of God.

Even a very small and pitifully weak belly wound would surely kill someone, just took a bit longer than a shot to the brain. So don't think that the size of the gun or bullet really mattered. The reason those tiny little pocket .31cal models sold in greater numbers than any other cap-n-ball revolvers is because: easy concealment, the smaller caliber which conserved lead, powder, and caps--which were high cost items, AND very hard to come by when you're out in the gold fields. Also you needed a gun to defend your claim to gold land or homestead land. There were many reasons those little pipsqueaks were popular... but powerful they ain't!

Black powders were a lot more potent back in the mid to late 19th century too. But with smokeless powders getting easier to make and use. There was no reason to continue development of obsolete propellants. I'd be sure that the longer barrelled .36 cal Navies were pretty potent relative to the little single shot derringers and anemic little .28 and .31 cal revolvers. Remember that some Union Officers even carried the early S&W .22 Short revolvers, which fired nothing more than the equivalent of modern a CB cap/BB cap. (Some of today's pellet rifles are much more potent than those old small caliber revolvers)

Again, it's those "dad-burned" un-attended wounds that do the victims in... remember that old "army man" - General Peritonitis? He killed more men than "any one" else in the Civil War. AND he fought on both sides at once!!!

Notice too that the issue revolver in the Civil War for the army anyway was a .44 caliber gun? Not the .36 (which went to the Navy). The foot soldier was more likely to suppress a massed attack with a .44 than a single shot rifle and a saber. Why do you think that the guerilla fighters and "rangers" used to carry up to 8-10 loaded revovlers on the horse with them. FIREPOWER! They just needed to cut a swath through an enemie's lines while they were reloading and wound as many as they could with their revolvers and keep on riding. Talk about a frightening experience. Then the wounded would lay in agony for days or weeks until the infection killed them.

I have been impressed with what a cap-n-ball revolver will do to a soggy catalog or box of wet newspapers . That ball flattens like a pancake and rips a hole almost big enough to put a tennis ball through it. I'm not doubting that in anyway. But let's not overestimate the efficacy of the little .31 with it's low velocity and poor penetration against heavily clothed or even someone with an armoured vest (there were some crude chain mail and plate mail attempts to make a wearable yet tolerable torso protection device). But once the enemy found out, they'd just use a bigger gun or aim for the head. I still wouldn't volunteer to stand in front of ANY gun, even a small caliber gun, AND EVEN WITH a "BP" vest on .

This is a VERY interesting subject--the effects of round balls fired from a cap-n-ball revolver. We do need to realize the circumstances under which they were used and popularized though.

ALWAYS use a BIG ENOUGH gun,
WV_Hillbilly

 

[TarletonRanger]

To be sure I've never messed with .31 cal revolvers, so my thoughts on them are purely opinions based on what I've seen. (friends who shoot them).

I have done considerable shooting with the .44 cap and ball revolvers though and can attest to their power. With 30 grains of powder behind a .454 round ball, both of my .44's will hold good groups at 25 yeards. My remington will have cut a hole the size of a tennis ball in the target once it's cylinder is empty.

Most of the time my shooting is done at a target that is standing in front of a high dirt embankment....so on occasion I am able to dig out and examine the fired bullets. Most look suprisingly alike. The front side will be completely pancaked, showing good expansion for a roundball. The back side will have a slight hump where the rear of the bullet will still be round, but showing deep rifling cuts.

I know if given the opportunity, back in the 1860's-1870, if I was gonna be carryin a pocked revolver, I would have done my best to make it a snub-nosed .44

Jake

 

[Don]

I have read the artical in ? and may shed some light on the issue.They were shooting at 1" soft pine boards 1/2 inch apart at a range I believe was 10 yards or less using max loads in each gun they tested. If you do a google search for "cap and ball revolver power" you may see an artical named "cap and ball power a baffling experience". Interesting read but I haven't had the chance to test it my self.

I have tested a couple of my oun guns though.

.44 cal 1851 brass framed repro with .454 ball and 22gr pyrodex P at 10yrds give or take, fired at a 2x4. Ball penetrated half way through with bulge at back of board.

Traditions .45 Philly Deringer 20gr pyrodex P .440 ball fired at 2x4. Ball thouroghly imbedded into board.

Same Derringer with 25gr of P fired at 1" pressure treated yellow pine board leaned against cardboard target stand. Ball penetrated board and bounced off cardboard at a range of 7 yards approx.

.31 pocket revolver with full load of powder is the equivalent to a modern .25 auto.

Bottom line: Any gun is dangerous, some more than others.

Don

 

[TarletonRanger]

.31 pocket revolver with full load of powder is the equivalent to a modern .25 auto.

I once knew someone who carried a .25 auto in his boot. One day he reached in to grab it and it went off pointed down. It lodged in the top of his boot heel.....didn't even make it all the way in. (No it wasn't me)

Jake

 

[crockett]

Crockett used to shoot 10 grains FFFg in a Navy 36 and on RARE occasion hit the target frame. Ball went about half way into wood. That's about the time I loaded up to maximum charges. More accurate, lots more kick and fun. 10 FFFg with a 31 caliber for self defense??- Guess that's why the old timers often went with a head shot.

 

[hirocker]

Some years ago, we bought and restored a circa 1830 house with many "real wood" doors. The door panels were 1/2" yellow (or white) pine, which would easily be penetrated by a strong pellet rifle (I know, because I did it...).


A .31 is not something I would want to use to stop a drunk, charging yahoo in a bar brawl, but it would certainly penetrate, and perhaps eventually kill. There is nothing like a lot of mass (heavy bullet, hawk, club) for immediate stopping power, but hiding behind a closet door is no defense, even from a relative puny weapon.

 

Although medical care wasn't as good 100 years ago, I'm not sure the goal was to wound and let them die slowly because you might get a bullet in return. In other words, the INTENT was to kill when you shot someone, so the little calibers must have had enough whump to do that. Even though I dissed the .41 rimfire, I would not want to catch one in the eye or throat.

True story: My now deceased great-uncle, Willie Frantzen, was born in 1894 and lived to be 94. They often traveled to town by wagon as children (Fredericksburg, Texas) and would do what all farming families did, which was to get supplies and anything else that wasn't available in the country. On one trip, Willie and his father were passing time in the barber shop when a small-statured local man came in with a pistol (Uncle was familiar with guns and told me it was a small caliber revolver, probably a 32 or 38). There was a very large fat man getting a shave and the little fellow walked up and shot him point blank in the stomach. The larger man stood up and proceeded to beat the other fellow to a pulp. After he tossed the poor guy out in the street, the big man sat down and let the barber dig around for the bullet, which had gone only a short distance into the fat rolls of his beer gut. The sheriff showed up and arrested both of them - all this over a woman; ah well, such is life. Point is, the little guy expected the other man to fall over dead and it didn't even come close to happening. The moral of the story is to use enough gun...

 

[WV_Hillbilly]

Although medical care wasn't as good 100 years ago, I'm not sure the goal was to wound and let them die slowly because you might get a bullet in return. In other words, the INTENT was to kill when you shot someone, so the little calibers must have had enough whump to do that.

Folks,

I think some of you MAY have mis-understood my discourse about the poor medical treatment available to a small caliber bullet-wounded person in the early-middle to late-middle 1800's. I think ALL the .31cal shooters DID INTEND to kill their assailants. BUT as you told in that second part, sometimes bullets don't do too much at all to a person.

I don't think the people who picked the .58 caliber rifles with Minie bullets for the Civil War thought that there would be as many wounded--rather than just the "killed instantly" enemy soldiers either. It must have been pretty horrible to have a single shot disintegrate the biggest bone in your body and if you are not unconscious from the pain or shock, you choose to take the amputation OR die from gangrene.

Once you had your claim jumper down from a bullet wound in the guts, you could take your time and put one through his eye or eye from about 3 inches away. Cruel, yet effective.

Think about the mentality of today's Army and that pipsqueak M-16 compared to the .30-06, 8x57mm, 7.62x64R .303 British, 7.7x58mm, all much more lethal guns that were used in WWII by the various sides. The goal nowadays is to just wound the enemy soldier so that 3 persons are involved in moving, caring, treating the wounds. That logic might work if the enemy CARES about their people. Most of the trash that the USA has been fighting since WWII don't give a rat's butt about their civilians, let alone their soldiers.

They must be figuring this out, cause many military are now switching back to the .45 ACP and now they have that 6.8 SPC round that will work in a slightly modified M-16. At least they are headed in the right direction. I've shot a Beretta 92 9mm and a Colt 1911 .45 and the power difference is obvious on a piece of 2 x 4. Also the Colt is absolutely reliable in all conditions and it was never meant as a primary offensive weapon--too many people watching movies and TV shows about guys using their 9mm large capacity pistol to shoot at bad guys 100yds away. The pistol was meant as a close range weapon (no more than 25yds and more like closer than 25 FEET!) and for that purpose there is nothing like a good old Colt .45 Auto. But that's getting a little bit OT... it does illustrate how things were/are though.

Let me ask you though... which caliber cap-n-ball would you pick as your self-defense sidearm in the 1860's, IF cost or availability of the supplies didn't make any difference...? I'd have probably looked for one of the 3rd model Dragoons, or any of the Dragoons or a Walker if available. Can't beat that "extra whompus" factor.

Being "over-gunned" (I call that well prepared!) was never a disadvantage in any normal battle or gun fight situation that I've ever read or heard of. Don't think that will ever change either. Size does matter in pistol fights!

ALWAYS use a BIG enough gun,
WV_Hillbilly