You could cut down a Remington or buy the Ace. I wouldn’t unload every day. You can cut some plastic hose that would fit over the caps that would help seal them a bit from moisture. I would not use lubricated wads, it can leach into the powder and cause failures over time. I would use 777 and a roundball. I would seal the cylinder with a hard beeswax and olive oil or tallow mix. That will help keep moisture out, and if made hard like over 50% beeswax it shouldn’t melt. Is this what I carry? No, I carry a Gl**k or a S*g Sa**r in 9mm. But if all I had was black powder revolvers, then I would carry the Remington over my Colt 1862. I would also carry mine with my unmentionable cylinder in 45 colt.
-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
Pistol for edc?
- Thread starter Acohill1
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
- Status
I'd sooner a felon not carry anymore than his ID.
If it’s a non-violent felon in on simple drug or financial charges and has repented then the situation becomes less concisely determinatable.
I love mine! I would have zero desire to be on the business end of that. Most just comment on what an interesting walking stick it is. A pleasant smile and nod of the head is the general response.
I enjoy shooting my C&B revolvers, but I carry a 45 caliber unmentionable of the Sam Colt variety. Even with my forming retired guy beer belly, it carries nice in a high rise pancake holster. It would be funny some of the stares I'd get walking through the grocery store with my 1860 in a cross draw.
I would have to agree especially when it has been decades since a nonviolent person has been in any legal difficulties.
In my opinion the only persons who should be barred from ownership are habitual career felons and those who have proven that they will use a gun to commit crimes with and mentally unstable people who have been committed.
Hundreds of thousands of American citizens who have never criminally misused a gun and have not been in trouble in many years, have been stripped of their rights of self-defense.
If a person cannot be trusted to be in the Free world with a weapon, then they should still be in a correctional facility.
Paying one's debt to society should not be a lifetime punishment and if it is a lifetime punishment, then they should not be amongst the Free world.
If they remain so dangerous, then they should remain in a facility because evidently the laws will not stop them from obtaining a weapon and reoffending.
If you pay your debts to society and demonstrate your rehabilitation, it should not be a life sentence as a second class citizen. Such a person is as Worthy of self-defense as any other human being.
Though I would not be opposed to a period of say 5 years of weapons prohibition from release. Studies tell us that roughly 90% of recidivism occurs within the first 3 years.
If a person can remain outside of a correctional facility for 5 years then there is a very good chance that they are a rehabilitated individual.
The spirit of the second amendment demands that people should not be classified as a second-class citizen who is unworthy of personal self defense.
Those who don't grasp this concept... Might understand it one day when citizens in general have been completely disarmed and only their betters in high positions of government have been deemed worthy of armed self-defense.
But by then it will be far too late... In increments and only by the consent of the governed.... Ultimately we will all have the government we deserve.... And It won't just apply to the felons amongst us.
If we all live long enough.... Remember that you heard it here first.... And we the people allowed it to happen.
Most of the people who should really be prohibited from ownership are those who think they have the right to prohibit other people from ownership.
Last edited:
CaptainVane
Colt ‘51 & Remington ‘58 .36; Colt ‘48 .31
Condom after vasectomy?
Teets on a boar hog?
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Messages
- 13,036
- Reaction score
- 7,296
Waiting patiently for the 1858 cylinder to arrive after counterbore with taper being added to the chambers. I should dig through the .45 molds' box and select the first designs to experiment with.
A few weeks from now I may have some different answers.
A few weeks from now I may have some different answers.
Sam squanch
69 Cal.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2019
- Messages
- 3,178
- Reaction score
- 4,542
And you can thank the republicans for that bit of wisdom. Yep, that was their idea.
Bollocks
Sam squanch
69 Cal.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2019
- Messages
- 3,178
- Reaction score
- 4,542
The republicans slipped that in a crime bill. Look it up.
Sam squanch
69 Cal.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2019
- Messages
- 3,178
- Reaction score
- 4,542
That should remind folks that politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle hate gun owners.
A very simple answer to an unproven and ambiguous claim
Sam squanch
69 Cal.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2019
- Messages
- 3,178
- Reaction score
- 4,542
Look it up.
The person who needs to look it up is not the one who makes the claim..... onus
Time to put this article in the round folder,
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Messages
- 13,036
- Reaction score
- 7,296
Without analysis of the suitability of loads or bullet types for self defense.
What a shame.
What a shame.
Y'all are overlooking one of the great tactical advantages of a black powder revolver. After the first couple of shots, you have created an impenetrable smoke screen that renders you nearly invisible to your attacker. 
No, don’t do it. Too dangerous and unreliable. Buy a cartridge firearm appropriate for you purpose.
- Status
Similar threads
