Random thread about myths and gun show tales about percussion revolvers......

[maillemaker]

By 1828, British black powder had reached its final power. From the 1770s (can't remember the exact date now) to 1828 British black powder had doubled in strength. But by 1828 the British (and probably everyone else) had figured out corned powder.

 

[maillemaker]

Here's another myth you often here: They were called "horse pistols" because they were intended to shoot horses. In fact, they were to be carried on saddle holsters.

As for the whole "sights" thing. I have read "Sam Colt's Own Record 1847", which details the evolution of the Walker revolver.

It is my belief after reading that Colt's intent was to produce a gun that would replace the usual single-shot carbine carried by cavalry. As such, the gun was set up to shoot like one. 60 grains of powder made it essentially a carbine for your hand. It makes sense that the sights would be set up for longer-than-usual-pistol ranges.

Another thing to consider is the highly parabolic trajectory of the relatively low-velocity BP arms of the era. This resulted in the computation of a "dangerous space" where anyone standing in that space was in danger.

If the revolver had been sighted in at 25 yards point of aim, then the drop from that point would mean your "dangerous space" would be much smaller than if the gun shot 8" high at 25 yards and was still on its way up in its parabola.

 

[M. De Land]

My favorite is S&W model 19.

4" for belt carry, 6" for targets.

They're beautifully proportioned guns on the "K" frame but will not stand up well to a steady diet of full house .357 Mag loads. The model 28 on the "N" frame is a much better platform for the Mag loads.

 

[maillemaker]

Can't speak to metallic cartridges.

But as we see from the 1860 US Ordnance manual, the specified charge for the .44 revolver was 30 grains of powder, and for the .36 it was 17.

I have not verified this myself, but I'm betting you will find that is about all you can get in the cartridge and have the point of the bullet nose be not over-flush with the cylinder face.

 

[maillemaker]

While it does not apply to revolvers, here we can see the idea of using different aim points on the target's body to account for different ranges.

From Henry Heth's A System of Target Practice:

 

[SOLANCO]

The only caliber that matters is the one in your hands when you NEED a gun. So........What do you carry?
Most days .45 ACP. Every now and again .44 Special in a magnum revolver. In genteel occasions such as doctor or dentist visits a .22 LR Browning in a wallet holster. The point is not to debate it. The point is don't leave home without it.
Caliber is significant. But no more than is what gun you can carry and what gun you can operate well. Revolvers are sometimes touted for better reliability than semi autos. I believe that reflects more on the operator than the guns. I do not understand carrying a smaller caliber than you are competent using except in limited specific circumstances.
Unmentioned, unless I missed it, is the advantage you will have in terms of surprise and shock by being armed. The perp will not expect it and you would be foolish to let that advantage pass. I completely dominated and took a perp by surprise firing a round next to his ear.
Understand that the perp has NO rules of engagement that you are aware of. If he is leery of pulling the trigger he is not likely to tell you that. Better to face a jury than that he face one for your murder.

 

[TDM]

“Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.”

 

[earlwb]

Can't speak to metallic cartridges.

But as we see from the 1860 US Ordnance manual, the specified charge for the .44 revolver was 30 grains of powder, and for the .36 it was 17.

I have not verified this myself, but I'm betting you will find that is about all you can get in the cartridge and have the point of the bullet nose be not over-flush with the cylinder face.

View attachment 172047

My source was from this thread here:
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...nal-charges-for-cap-and-ball-revolvers.66499/

 

[TDM]

My source was from this thread here:
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...nal-charges-for-cap-and-ball-revolvers.66499/

That is a great article! Thanks.

 

[maillemaker]

My source was from this thread here:
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...nal-charges-for-cap-and-ball-revolvers.66499/

Your source also cites the US Ordnance Manual specifications, but speaks to the variations found in actual specimens, from mostly private contractors.

It's absolutely true that a lot of variation was seen in private cartridge manufacture, and such private firms sometimes deliberately and sometimes not under-charged their cartridges. I'd have to go dig through Dean S. Thomas' "Round Ball to Rimfire" to find the quote and remember exactly which cartridge was being chastised for being under-charged, but I do remember the quoting of the chastisement. Volume 3 is the volume that deals with pistol ammunition.

 

[maillemaker]

I found the passage. Or at least, a passage. Round Ball to Rimfire Volume 3, Dean S. Thomas, page 124:

"The last 100M 36/100 ctges. are rejected, being said to contain only 14 grains. As they are marked 17 grains we would like you to come down & prove it: at any rate you must at once supply us 100M/17 grain sure, to replace these as they will be returned."

This is a message written by Silas Crispen of the U.S. Allegheny Arsenal to W.J. Syms & Bro., a private manufacturer of cartridges.

 

[earlwb]

Yeah, no surprise that the private contractors were trying to cheat or commit fraud or something by cutting costs when they were not supposed to. but still the government wasn't ordering full loads in the paper cartridges. I need to try some of these milder loads myself and see what my guns do with them. Some of these loads are pretty tame compared to what we have been using today. i can assume that the government was going to minimize the risk of a revolver failing with heavier loads. So they came up with milder loads that would still work OK under all conditions.

 

[maillemaker]

but still the government wasn't ordering full loads in the paper cartridges. I need to try some of these milder loads myself and see what my guns do with them. Some of these loads are pretty tame compared to what we have been using today. i can assume that the government was going to minimize the risk of a revolver failing with heavier loads. So they came up with milder loads that would still work OK under all conditions.

I think you are going to find that these are near-maximum loads for paper cartridges for their respective calibers. I have not made paper cartridges for the revolvers, so I can't say for sure, but that's my bet.

I suspect the main caution was not failure of the cylinders (this was handled from the Walker problems simply by shortening the cylinder so that it was physically impossible to over-load it), but rather the inability to ram the bullet home, which will jam the revolver. You had to be certain that the cartridge and bullet would completely sit at least flush with the cylinder face upon loading and ramming.

 

[Stantheman86]

Yeah, no surprise that the private contractors were trying to cheat or commit fraud or something by cutting costs when they were not supposed to. but still the government wasn't ordering full loads in the paper cartridges. I need to try some of these milder loads myself and see what my guns do with them. Some of these loads are pretty tame compared to what we have been using today. i can assume that the government was going to minimize the risk of a revolver failing with heavier loads. So they came up with milder loads that would still work OK under all conditions.

The loads were chosen to mitigate fouling and provide adequate stopping power. I'd assume they probably tested and provided these loads based on the fact that an extra few grains of a powder charge didn't provide enough of a gain in penetration vs fouling the guns

Kind of like how the 60 gr charge and .575 Minie standard for the 1861 Springfield rifle seems "dumb" to some people but adequate range and accuracy was achieved, vs trying to gain an unneeded accuracy gain and make the Minie hard to load in some rifles due to bore variance. A heavier charge would increase fouling and upset the Minie. It was a good compromise to keep rifles operational in combat. I think the same idea was applied to nitrate cartridges. The Walker and Dragoon were prone to fouling after several cylinders. Being able to keep shooting was probably seen as more important for the 1851, 1860 and 1858 Rem .

 

[Stantheman86]

I think you are going to find that these are near-maximum loads for paper cartridges for their respective calibers. I have not made paper cartridges for the revolvers, so I can't say for sure, but that's my bet.

I suspect the main caution was not failure of the cylinders (this was handled from the Walker problems simply by shortening the cylinder so that it was physically impossible to over-load it), but rather the inability to ram the bullet home, which will jam the revolver. You had to be certain that the cartridge and bullet would completely sit at least flush with the cylinder face upon loading and ramming.

People forget how much more space a heavy conical takes up

35 grains of 3f today, barely left room for a round ball in my .44 Navy. No way was any conical fitting in there

 

[Stantheman86]

Russ. show me in period writing. I suspect that the sight picture adjustment was a learned skill after the fact to deal with an imperfect system. BTW I shoot these rigs just fine. was just outside ringing 5" plates @ 25m. not too shabby for a revolver I have only had for two weeks... aint my first rodeo. View attachment 171971
View attachment 171972

Colt designed his first revolver during the era of Napoleonic Tactics still being used and battles were still fought with Flintlock Smoothbores

Also , fighting from horseback and across open spaces was normal back then. A revolver designed for 1830's - 1860's armed combat can't be compared to modern CQB or IPSC shooting, we're not even in the same galaxy as far as the tactics and expected combat with percussion revolvers vs a 1911, it's not even apples and oranges, they are more similar.

I was shooting two percussion revolvers today at ranges from 50 yards to about 5 and from 20 yards in I was basically point shooting , at longer ranges I aimed with both eyes open at the belly of the silhouette and was hitting Center Mass, they worked beautifully.

I was thinking how dumb it would be if the guns hit low at 50 and I had to aim at the head. I fired over 100 rounds today and probably missed a hit somewhere on the torso maybe 3 times, shooting one handed.

The guns work perfectly with the sights as designed. It was WAY more instinctive and takes almost no training to simply shoot at the middle of a man sized target. It's a no brainer. People spend all this time "correcting" percussion revolvers because they can't stand to shoot them as they were designed in 1836. Pietta is simply accommodating people by putting higher front sights on now, but they still hit a little less high now.

The result of using the guns like they're supposed to be used from 5 to 50 yards

 

[Stantheman86]

I used to believe this fully also. However, on a forum a few years back someone provided evidence of issued spare cylinders. I can't remember the circumstances anymore but it was, in fact, done. But I think it was extremely rare.

The rule of military history is that everything was most likely done at least once

We did some weird things to weapons on my deployment

It's entirely possible a skilled armorer fitted cylinders from busted guns to the guns of a Cavalry company and they carried them as the world's first speed loaders. If we can think of it now. They probably thought of it back then. Like "hey Homer can you fit up these extra cylinders our .44's? " sure probably let me get a bottle of that bourbon and a cigar and I'll take a crack at it.....

 

[Eutycus]

There have been a few posts on this thread that someone said "show me in writing...." Well I can say the same about horse pistols. In what manual intended for cavalry use did it specify shooting your opponents horse? In the term "horse pistol", the horse carried the pistol in a saddle holster, I don't think they were the intended target. Or maybe I'm wrong in my opinion, show me in writing.

 

[Stantheman86]

There have been a few posts on this thread that someone said "show me in writing...." Well I can say the same about horse pistols. In what manuel intended for cavalry use did it specify shooting your opponents horse? In the term "horse pistol", the horse carried the pistol in a saddle holster, I don't think they were the intended target. Or maybe I'm wrong in my opinion, show me in writing.

We're going to have to get a Ouija board and ask Sam Colt himself to finally get an answer on this , because not everything was written down in a manual and if it was, it was 150+ years ago.

I can't even get info from the manufacturer on what kind of flapper my 40 year old toilet uses, but we need documentation from 1847 for Colt revolvers being Zeroed for 75 yards

 

[maillemaker]

It is fun to use the available evidence to draw what conclusions we may.

I just found a pair of .44 and .36 cartridge formers someone gave me. I have not used them yet. But the .44 version is labeled as "25 grains" and the .36 version is labeled as "17 grains".

So, I'm betting that the 1860 US Ordnance manual's specification of 30 grains for the .44 and 17 for the .36 are pretty close to max loads that will fit in the chambers with conical bullets, which were the standard cartridge issue style of the era.

People spend all this time "correcting" percussion revolvers because they can't stand to shoot them as they were designed in 1836.

Well, to be fair, that is because a lot of us are competition shooters that are trying to put all the shots in a 4" circle or better at 25 yards, shooting off hand single-handed. Unless you are one of those guys who can instinct shoot accurately, if you are into precision target shooting you are going to need sights and a load that is dialed in tight at 25 yards.

At 25 yards I can hit a human silhouette with harsh language!