are the pocket revolvers strong enough?

[3 stinky dogs]

Not trying to argue here but I was thinking of bill Hickok and his gun's.I know he shot alot of people and his guns were .36 right ? That is just sround 9mm and if compaired it seems puney.How maney times did he have to shoot his adversarey's?the .31 must have worked or it would have gone away unless it was somthing that could be cheaply had.Now I have had the privlage to listen to an old timer who took part in the pacfic island campain during WW2.He sed that they were told NOT to close with the japs for close corter fighting.He had seen a man empty his 1911 into a charging Jap and still get the bayonet in his guts.I think Bill hickok was able to stay cool under fire and that was the reason for all his gun fight wins.They carried guns that could not be reloaded verry fast so I think that when they were fighting that first shot would have been the killer .

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

Couldn't agree more! A .58 rifle-musket and a nice big .44
Dragoon are lovely companions at any time.

 

If I had lived in the old days and needed to carry a side arm, it would have been an 1860 Army. Lighter than the Dragoons but still a .44 and plenty of power.

I didn't finish the story about my uncle. He hated pistols with a passion and told that story to illustrate their uselessness but I liked pistols so it was always a bone of contention with us. In the years that I knew him, the only thing he ever said about handguns was that their prime purpose was to shoot a person in the belly - a conclusion based on that one incident from his youth. Although the Indian threat was about gone when he was young, there were a few outlaws in the country who would rob a family going to town with cash and he said they always carried a couple of 12 ga double shotguns on the wagon - so in his mind, all serious work was done with a long gun. In my opinion, the pistol is sometimes a life saver.

I agree that a .31 must have been enough to get the job done at close range or Colt would not have made the quantity they did.

 

[TarletonRanger]

If I'd needed a C&B revolver for protection, I don't think I'd have been able to do better than a Remington .44

For some reason this model just feels good in my hands and I like the heft of it. I'd also like the option of carrying a spare cylinder for a fast reload. :front:

Jake

 

[montanadan]

Anvil-I probably would have carried a pair of 51's(if I could have afforded them),if not.I would go with a 60 Army,not as heavy as the dragoons.My rifle would have been a 54 cal.Like Hickock said "my 36 Colt's have never failed to take the fight out of a man"...Respectfully Montanadan

 

Montanadan,

I would not feel undergunned with a pair of fully loaded 1851's - even today... :grey:

 

[DanL]

Hello folks,

I offer this info for our thoughts. Not trying to prove or disprove anything.

In the 1970's I learned about blackpowder shooting from an old and very competent gunsmith. He happened to have a 1860 army model Replica Arms (Uberti).44 colt replica. He had spent much time tuning and "accurizing" the pistol. He allowed me to shoot it many times. He died in 1978 and left me the pistol.

I got supplies and practiced with it until I felt very confident with consistant acccuracy within 20 yards. I took it deer hunting as a side arm to my hawken. A young doe walked within 10 yards and stood broadside. I thought this a good opportunity to shoot a deer with the 1860 army.

I carefully propped and aimed the pistol. I fired. The Doe went down. She got up. I fired again. The Doe went down. She got up. I fired again. The Doe went down. She stayed down for 10 minutes. I was climbing down from the stand and the doe got up and ran off. I tracked her and found very little blood. No luck. I found a friend to help me look and he brought his dog. No luck. To this day...I didn't find that doe.

Given: Although well practiced and confident with the pistol, the shots may not have been fatal ones. However, with each shot she went down hard (e.g. solidly hit 3 times).

Conclusion on my part: I never shot at a deer again with the blackpowder .44 because I do not feel that it has sufficient stopping power for an animal of that size. Yes, they have been used for 150 years and have killed many men. However, in my experience, For stopping power and potential life saving need I will stay with a modern .45 auto.

Please consider this as my experience only.

DanL

 

[gooddw]

I know this for a fact. My 1858 Remy with 37 grains of Pyrodex and a .454 ball will shoot a hole clean through a shovel blade at 10 yards. I believe that would stop most normal humans.

On a side note, I bought an 1851 Colt in 44 caliber. Afterwards, I learned that the 1851 was never made by Colt in 44. Is this true? Was it always only a 36 and only made in 44 by the replicators?

 

[TarletonRanger]

Stars and Bars, yup the 51 Navy was only ever made in .36 caliber. Who is the maker of yours? Is it Pietta? If so, we've got the same pistol. Steel Framed and looks just like the .36's, just shoots a beefier .44cal roundball. I'd love it to death if it didn't shoot 2FT high.

As to your Remmy, is it also a Pietta model? Ishoot my Pietta Remmy with 30 grains of 3FG powder underneath a .454 roundball. I'd be interested in attempting to stuff 37 grains in one of the chambers, just wasn't ever sure that it would fit with the roundaball. ::

 

[gooddw]

Yes, it is a Pietta. I have an 1851, 1860, 1858 and an 1849 Pocket with a 6" barrel. The Remington is pretty tough. I load the cylinder to the top with Pyrodex and seated a ball over it. The Pyrodex will crush and compact as you seat the ball. It is very powerful and the gun shows no ill effects. It is fairly accurate with this load. I was amazed. I would recommend ear protection for this load as it will definitely hurt.

I keep this piece, loaded and capped, in my night stand. After a couple of months in the drawer, I took it out and fired all six rounds to to see if it was reliable. They all fired.

I loaded my 1860 and put in a backpack for a month. When I took it out and fired, two caps did not fire. It appears moisture had ruined the caps, they were Remingtons that were suppose to be moisture resistant.

I wonder how well the guns performed during the civil war when they round around in the rain?

 

[TarletonRanger]

Dunno about how resistant they were to moisture during the civil war, but I carried one around on my hip all weekend a few years ago during nearly constant rain. At the end of the weekend my caplock rifle discharged as did the 5 loaded chambers of the Remington.

I don't carry it in a mule eared cavalry holster, just a regular, "western" type holster. When it's on my belt, putting on a jacked and zipping it up keeps the upper part of the cylinder with the caps out of the rain pretty good.

Jake

 

[HillbillyGadget]

Ok, I found the article

www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_0BTT/is_173_29/ai_n7578405/print

Mike Venturino wrote it in American Handgunner Jan-Feb, 2005
"Old West pistol power a baffling experiance."

test box was made to hold 1x12" white pine planks spaced 1" apart
.31 cal '48 baby dragoon 4" barrel, 48gr round ball and 14gr swiss 3f, 760fps, at 15' lodged in 3rd pine board.

He was surprised, he also tested various other c&b pistols

Elmer Keith also wrote about using the .31 to put down bobcats and mountain lions, caught in traps, with body shots straight into the front of their chests, now I know that yes they were in traps, but I still wouldn't have been less than 10' away, having put down trapped critters of any size they get real mean for a second or two, if not shot in the head and head shots damage pelts and skulls.

 

[thomas]

HillbillyGadget,

Good article, thanks for the link!

Thomas

 

[crockett]

Someone told me a few experimental 1851 models were made by Colt in 44 caliber while developing the 1860 Army. Small technicality but it seems there were a few, rare 44 Navy 1851's. They may have never left the plant.

On this pistol power discussion. I think a lot of the shootist of old would alway take a head shot if such was practical.

 

[gooddw]

My 1851 in 44 has the exact same cylinder as as the 1860. They are interchangeable. I don't knoe if that was because of what you said about Colt experimenting or not.

About those head shots, I can tell you from experience that when someone is shooting at you, you're not thinking to clearly. Return fire is first and foremost. If you have time to think about head or torso then you're not up against a worthy apponent.

 

[crockett]

Yes. As I undwerstand it the experimental 1851's had the same cylinder but remember they were rare and virtually unknown.
On the head shots. A sure and instant killer with any percussion revolver and there are stories of such from the old west. I believe Buffalo Bill's autobiograghy had some discussion on this topic. There are also plenty of accounts of body shot desperados that lived long enough to kill their opponent.

 

[recycle33952]

43 foot pounds? sounds like a stiff air rifle mmm now to think about it I have air rifles that will shoot through 1/2 plywood so its gotta hurt some. also got one 50 cal airgun shoots 800-900 fps precharged to 3000 psi will shoot through cinderblocks

 

[jim gray]

I used to use small bits of 2x4's for plinking targets for my .36 cal navy and have never had a problem punching through them with full power loads even out to 20 yards or so.

I have never owned or fired a .31 cal., but I did try some light loads to save powder in my .36 cal.. I cut my charge back to 10 grains of 3Fg once and shot at a dead stump. The ball passed within a foot of my thigh when it came back at me.

I know that the same powder charge will push the little .31 cal. ball faster but I doubt that it would have more energy than the 63 grain ball coming out of a 7 1/2 inch barrel.

If I had to use a C&B revolver for self defense my first choice would be my second model dragoon, but the .36 cal. brass framed Navy is the most accurate of my cap and ball guns. I would not hesitate to use it in a pinch either.

Even with modern medicine an abdominal wound is an iffy situation, especially on the battle field.

 

[jim gray]

the .31 must have worked or it would have gone away unless it was somthing that could be cheaply had.

A couple of thoughts that I have on that subject, although they are merely opinion, are 1) then as now far more people owned sidearms than used them, and 2) a lot of these were probably carried as a backup to a larger more effective handgun.

Also at issue is their concealability. A cowboy going into town with a SAA strapped on his hip was probably going to get hassled by the local constabulary, but his buddy with a .31 cal baby dragoon in his pocket probably wouldn't get a second glance. Sometimes practical considerations dictate that you can't carry what you'd prefer.