Is A .31 Worthless?

[rodwha]

I've often read of people's opinions that a .31 cap n ball revolver is worthless unless you are hunting rats. I've often wondered myself as I've seen some chronograph results having used Goes (IIRC) with the outcome quite similar to a 25 ACP, which in my opinion isn't good for much else other than rats.

Having watched a video of a guy trying out the shot made on Tutt at 75 yds with a .36 cal Navy I see he used only 15 grns, which is about a max load on a .31 cal, and after ~75 yds it went through a gallon jug, and in his opinion would have certainly been deadly enough, especially considering it would have likely been loaded hotter. If after 75 yds that little ball, which isn't much bigger than a .31 cal ball, still had enough power to fully penetrate what he had set up, it makes me wonder if that little .31 ball wouldn't be viable out to 15 yds, especially if loaded with 4F, Swiss, Olde Eynsford, or even 3F Triple 7.

What do you think?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Sok14a7VA

 

[Flash Pan Dan]

I think that a comparison of a round ball caliber to any cartridge is worthless. A round ball works by displacement of tissue whereas a conical firing cartridge tries to work by shock. That being said I wouldn’t use this caliber on anything larger than a fair size rabbit. I shot big raccoon once with a 44 and I had to use a second and third shot to keep it down. Those things are tough. And what ever you do, don’t use 4Fg powder for a main charge regardless of the size.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

We are comparing apples and oranges. The purpose of the arm considered in historical context is different than the purpose and context of modern guns.

In 1849 almost any gut shot was fatal. The little 31's were defense weapons for ranges little more than across the room. Certainly more worth than the muzzle loading muff pistols of the prior 100 years. They were good for close range (like the preacher finishing off the Marshall)

I don't think I would use one to put down hogs even at close range, the skull might be too thick. I have seen 22 RF's not penetrate the skulls at close range.

Such guns fall into the category of "cats and rats." Because at any distance beyond the average room, that is about all they are good for.

With a full load of Goex 3fg, Lyman reports the baby dragoon only nets a muzzle energy of 54 ft lbs A minimal load of the same in the 36 caliber 1851 Navy nets an ME double that of the 31. A full load of 3fg gives a muzzle energy of 216 ft lbs. In a 44 cal, 1860 Colt, a full charge nets a muzzle energy of 326 ft lbs.

Lyman does report figures for use of 4fg, but indicates they used a special pressure revolver.

From a standpoint of practical hunting for anything larger than cats and rats, the .31 maybe about worthless. But that was never it's purpose.

 

[rodwha]

"But that was never it's purpose."

Indeed. Which brings me back to Tutt having been killed by (supposedly) a .36 RB from 75 yds away. Even a fully charged Navy likely wouldn't have much more oomph than a .31 RB at 7-15 yds, yet it killed Tutt fairly quickly if I understand correctly.

I know that a gallon jug and a piece of cardboard doesn't exactly constitute something deadly, but if that .36 RB was able to do with just 15 grns (I believe Brushhippies powder is more like Swiss) that from 75 yds away it seems to me that maybe these little pip-squeak pistols are disregarded unjustifiably so.

By modern understandings I never would have thought a .50 cal PRB could kill so efficiently a medium sized game animal at 100 yds, much less further. I've been told that you cannot look at a muzzleloader through the eyes, and with the understandings of modern projectiles. Maybe this holds true for even these little RB's? Of course shot placement is everything, but that holds true for most any caliber, cannons not included...

I certainly wouldn't want one to defend myself with unless it's all I had, but I wonder if they are more potent than many consider them to be.

I wouldn't have thought that a .36 cal RB propelled by a mere 15 grns of powder would have gone through a jug at 75 yds.

Maybe someone with a .31 cal revolver could try one out on a caged hog...

 

[nkbj]

I've often read of people's opinions that a .31 cap n ball revolver is worthless unless you are hunting rats. I've often wondered myself as I've seen some chronograph results having used Goes (IIRC) with the outcome quite similar to a 25 ACP, which in my opinion isn't good for much else other than rats.

Having watched a video of a guy trying out the shot made on Tutt at 75 yds with a .36 cal Navy I see he used only 15 grns, which is about a max load on a .31 cal, and after ~75 yds it went through a gallon jug, and in his opinion would have certainly been deadly enough, especially considering it would have likely been loaded hotter. If after 75 yds that little ball, which isn't much bigger than a .31 cal ball, still had enough power to fully penetrate what he had set up, it makes me wonder if that little .31 ball wouldn't be viable out to 15 yds, especially if loaded with 4F, Swiss, Olde Eynsford, or even 3F Triple 7.

What do you think?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Sok14a7VA[/quote]

Only rodent I ever shot with a percussion revolver was with an 1861. It was a vicious beast and took the .36 round nose conical to stop it's deadly charge.

 

[Durham]

I am a trapper and I kill coyotes bobcat coon possum beaver and all kinds of stuff with a .31 cal colt.

 

[rodwha]

I'm curious about your load and the results. Ever have to shoot one twice? I assume you shoot their head.

 

[Flash Pan Dan]

Are we sure it was a round ball? At that time conicals were more prevalent than round ball. During the civil war the issued ammunition for revolvers was a conical bullet.

 

[hanshi]

No one wants to get shot, not even with a .22short, .25acp or a .31c&b. They all three fall into the same class; ie, last ditch protection. Up close they will kill sizable critters but only as a "coup de grace" on, say, deer. They are not hunting guns, per se. For any serious work calibers start with the .36. Just consider the .31 as a fun gun, and nothing's wrong with testing it on small game.

 

[AZbpBurner]

No one wants to get shot, not even with a .22short, .25acp or a .31c&b. They all three fall into the same class; ie, last ditch protection. Up close they will kill sizable critters but only as a "coup de grace" on, say, deer. They are not hunting guns, per se. For any serious work calibers start with the .36. Just consider the .31 as a fun gun, and nothing's wrong with testing it on small game.

Gotta agree with the "fun gun" assessment.

As for the .36 cal, don't misunderestimate its' potential.

I have Remingtons in both .44 & .36. With even a moderate load, the .36 exhibits a crack upon firing that sounds much different than the .44

Folks with a chronograph contend that the sound you hear from the .36 is the he sound of that little roundball breaking the sound barrier.

 

[nkbj]

Too bad a longer cylinder and barrel were not supplied with the .31's. But, no doubt what was supplied was what would sell.

 

[Don]

The .31 was very popular in its day just like the .25 was and in some circles still is. Their main appeal was their size. Not every part of America was the wild west with big revolvers on the hip. Eastern city folks were concerned with discrete carry. Like the .25 acp they were frail in terms of power when compared to other revolvers. They likely failed to get the job done from time to time just as the .25 has, at the same time there were probably plenty of dead folks with .31 cal. holes in them. Bottom line, a gun is a gun and not a toy and no sane person wants to get shot so just like the .25 it was an effective deterant and could be employed effectively if worse came to worst.

Don

 

[M. De Land]

Yup, any of em will "hole your tunic" and are not to be played with! Mike D.

 

[RedFeather]

It ain't the hole but the threat of the hole. Fellow once was writing about "Saturday night specials", those small-caliber, cheap handguns that succeeded the .31's. He got to thinking about their current poor reputation, then considered the times when they were popular for self-defense. No penicillin, antibiotics or even sulfa drugs. You took on in the belly, your goose was cooked. If the bullet didn't get you, the infections in the hospitals probably would. Made for a very good deterrent.

 

[Don]

Even today the lowly .25 can penetrate deep with 50 grain fmj. They aren't reliable one shot stoppers but they are proven killers.

Don

 

[rodwha]

"As for the .36 cal, don't misunderestimate its' potential."

That's just it. The .36 is a man killer, even at 75 yds, possibly even with only 15 grns of what is essentially more powerful than Swiss 3F. It seems to me that this load can't be any more than what a .31 has at 15 yds...

 

[rodwha]

I ran the .375" RB at 935 fps (30 grns of P), and at 75 yds it's about as fast as a .31 cal RB would be at the muzzle, but has 105 ft/lbs. That's more than I had anticipated.

 

[crockett]

I don't think the 31 is worthless. I thought it was the most widely sold of all Colt percussion revolvers, probably because it is so small and easy to carry. I thought they were very popular with miners out in California during the Gold Rush Era.
That's a good point about the conical bullet. Nowadays all shots are to a heart/lung area but head shots were far more common years ago. On any of the pipsqueak type cartridges- head shots are the norm. I'm pretty sure a point blank head shot with a 31 would instantly kill a person.
On the trapline, how does the 31 compare to a 22 rimfire?
Still, the small frames were later used for 5 shots with a 36 ball. The 36, even with a smaller powder charge, must have been seen as superior.

 

[rodwha]

I'm curious about his experiences compared to a rimfire also.

Be nice if someone with a .31 would do some testing of velocity and penetration. Especially if they were willing to try hotter powders and/or 4F.

I found a site where a fellow tested a .31 with 15 grns of Pyrodex P, and that gave him 770 fps and 68 ft/lbs when he used .323" RB. Those numbers ought to be higher with a hotter powder, but how much so?

I also wonder how a conical would behave. How did the old .32's with a lead RN do? Did the lead even expand any? We're they able to put a dog down?

 

[BrownBear]

Are we sure it was a round ball? At that time conicals were more prevalent than round ball. During the civil war the issued ammunition for revolvers was a conical bullet.

That was my immediate reaction, too.

On the question of 31's in general, I think guys would be surprised if they shot more than paper and dirt banks with their 31's. My frame of reference is based on using 30 cal and 32 cal rifle for small game hunting. My standard charge in both rifles is 10 grains of 3f. And with that charge, you want to be careful to hit snowshoe hare in the head all the way out to 50 yards, or you'll be destroying a lot more eating meat than you want. Clearly more geewhiz than a 22LR hollow point.

Dunno poop about the vel of a 31 pistol at 50 or 75 yards versus the vels of my rifles. Dunno how to compare bunny heads with Tutt either. Dunno how to compare RB's with conicals, if in fact a conical was used in the example. But you wouldn't want to be hit by any of them.