Second Model Dragoons On Trial

[oldwolf]

I thought this was an informative article, maybe you will too.

After you read this, I would like to know what you think about the statement on the first page indicating that the 1860 Army Colt revolver is “not that much less powerful” than the Dragoons. Not ever having a Colt replica, I cannot comment on the validity of this statement, so, I would like to hear what owners of these revolvers think of this statement. When I read that particular line it struck me as doubtful.

Second Model Dragoons On Trial

Thanks - Oldwolf

 

[Runner]

I had a Third Model with the express leaf rear sights. It would handle 60 grains under a ball or 45 under a 250 grain Lee REAL. Believe me when I say that the Army isn't even in the same ballpark!

 

[oldwolf]

Where did you get one with express rear sights? Those are adjustable, am I correct?

 

[oldwolf]

Believe me when I say that the Army isn't even in the same ballpark!

That is what I thought.

 

[Runner]

I have never seen another one, so I don't know where you could get one. It was purchased at Sappington guns many years back. The rear sight was in a dovetail slot and could be drifted but that was never needed that I remember. It was supposed to be a direct copy of the Third Model Dragoon Officers Horse pistol. As such, the sights were set to the original spec's. The lowest blade was way out there, and the other two were set for even farther. Supposedly the sights were made that way so that an officer could add fire power where it was needed up and down the line. Even the hammer notch was too high for close range work. I took mine to Sappington guns and had a ramp with a post and bead put on for a front sight. You could put the bead in the sight notch and squeeze. The trigger was stoned and you could not feel when it was going to go off. Made me a lot better shooter because you never knew exactly when it was going to go off as you squeezed! With the Lee REAL, mine would put five out of six in a ragged hole at 30 yards. 100 yard gongs and milk jugs were no challenge for the gun, altho they often were for the shooter!

That was way back when I did not really care about history at all. I just liked the guns. I have a CVA Kentucky pistol barrel around somewhere that was scoped. Most of my use was hunting backup or target. It hung from my bed post in the holster loaded for years as my home defense gun. I would go shoot it about twice a year, clean it, and then reload it. Very nice pistol, but it was a Horse Pistol that needed a gunbearer to carry it for you if you were not on a horse! It was heavier than my current 12 guage muzzleloading shotgun!

 

[Doc Arroyo]

After you read this, I would like to know what you think about the statement on the first page indicating that the 1860 Army Colt revolver is “not that much less powerful” than the Dragoons. Not ever having a Colt replica, I cannot comment on the validity of this statement, so, I would like to hear what owners of these revolvers think of this statement. When I read that particular line it struck me as doubtful.

The dragoon will hold about 60 grains, and the 1860 will hold about 35 grains. Now for the big question...how much of the 60 grains actually burns, and how much ends up fertilizing the area in front of the firing line?

I haven't run any velocity tests, but I have run simple penetration tests. There was a about 10% difference between my Walker and my 1860, with 50% less powder and 50% less gun weight. So if I had to carry one on my belt, I know which one it would be!

 

[Dave Rosenthal]

O-K, you asked for an opinion, so here goes! I currently own & shoot a 1858 Remmy New Model Army, an 1860 Colt Army, a Walker, and just aquired a Colt 3rd Model Dragoon. All are made by Uberti. Fit, finish and functionality are fine with all of them at time of purchase to present.

Only the Walker and the 3rd Model Dragoon make perfectly round holes in the target...something like a wad-cutter in a .357 or .38 spl! The Walker gets 50 grains of 3Fg and the Dragoon gets only 45 grains. Yes they can hold more, but they just get dirtier quicker, as not all of the powder is burned in the barrel. We use 25 grains in the 1860 Army, and can shoot it all day long without having to take it apart for cleaning. Although I haven't chrono'd them, I have shot water jugs at the same distance with most of them. Judging by the results, I'd have to say that the Dragoon and the Walker have a lot more power.

Accuracy wise, the Walker is a hands-down favorite of mine. So far I have done the NRA Qualification Matches with the 3rd Model Dragoon and the Walker. Last Monday I shot a 67x100-1x at 50 yards duelist style with the Walker, then shot a 81x100-1x the same way at 25 yards. The groups are really tight if I do my part!

In reading the article you mentioned in your post, I took notice to the fact that the best performance and the tightest groups to be had were accomplished with real BP! As I strive for Sharpshooter and Expert classifications, I will use the Walker. That guns weighs a ton, but the 9" barrel does a good job at 50 yards!

Well, that's my opinion. Buy & shoot a Colt clone and let me know what yu think!

Dave

 

[Zonie]

Although it is not comparing the Dragoon with the 1860 Colt, the latest (October) issue of Muzzle Blasts magazine has an article giving some data in this area.

The 1860 Colt with a 140 grain roundball loaded over a compressed 38 grain charge of 3Fg had a MV of 962 FPS, and a muzzle energy of 288 foot pounds.

The Walker with a 140 grain roundball loaded over 55 grains of 3Fg had a MV of 1131 FPS and a muzzle energy of 398 foot pounds.

Per the additional data given in the article, that puts the 1860s energy just a shade under a .38 Special and the Walkers energy just a shade under the .45 ACP.

 

[mykeal]

Well, it's always dangerous responding to a subjective statement; "not a lot less powerful" is hardly declarative. It could mean almost anything.

Clearly the 2nd Dragoon can, and, as some here have shown, does deliver more power. Considering that neither the Dragoon nor the 1860 Army shoots accurately with a maximum load, I suggest that the comparison be limited to the power available at the most accurate load for each design. For the 1860 Army, my testing says 25 gr; the Dragoon shoots it's most accurate groups at 40 gr. There is no question the Dragoon is putting more power on the target than the 1860 Army at the most accurate load for each gun.

It is more powerful. Is it "a lot more" powerful? I don't know the answer to that - I don't know what it means.

 

[Don]

The data Zonie shared about the 1860 puts it well into the .38 plus P power zone. I can achieve this with 30gr of Pyrodex P in my .44 navy. Without a doubt the dragoons and walkers are more powerful and really shine when shooting conicals. But they are very impractical when it comes to carrying them on your belt. Mykeal has a point, the statement in the artical is some what vague and open to interpretation.

Don

 

[Runner]

I dropped a buck with a neck shot. He was stunned and started to attempt to get back on his feet when I got to him. He hooked at me several times with his horns. I kicked him over and put a 250 REAL out of the Dragoon thru his lungs at about five feet. Huge buck. The bullet went deep enough into the ground that I could not find it without tools. The Dragoon or the Walker with a 40 or 45 grain load of 3f under the 250 REAL is a good close range deer load. Believe me, it will do the job just fine! The Army will do about same speed with a ball that the bigger guns will do with the 250 grain conical. They were the "magnums" of their day. By the way, at dusk, they look like you are firing artillery with full loads! The reason they had gun fights at noon was because at night every body was blind after their first shot!
On the other hand, the Army and Navy smaller framed 44's are a lot nicer to carry. They both make better carry backups than either of the bigger guns because of weight. I really liked the open frame small cylinder guns myself, but I got rid of all of my repeaters over the years.

 

[kaac1221]

Don,

Them big irons weren't made to be carried on the belt. That was the horse's job. That's why they called them horse pistols! :wink:

But they are fun to shoot. I have two Walkers and two Dragoons and yes they do speak with authority.

Have fun!

Dryball

 

[oldwolf]

This thread has indicated to me that neither the Dragoon nor the 1860 is clearly more desirable that the other. :hmm:

I guess I will just have to get both of them. :wink:

Boy, my wife is going to love that decision. :yakyak:

 

[Don]

I'm sure your wife and my wife could share the same line---"what do need another one for!"

Good Luck,

Don

 

[Dave Rosenthal]

My Wife already beat both of your Wives to that "punchline"! :surrender: :haha: :nono:

Dave

 

[Wes/Tex]

Although it is not comparing the Dragoon with the 1860 Colt, the latest (October) issue of Muzzle Blasts magazine has an article giving some data in this area.

The 1860 Colt with a 140 grain roundball loaded over a compressed 38 grain charge of 3Fg had a MV of 962 FPS, and a muzzle energy of 288 foot pounds.

The Walker with a 140 grain roundball loaded over 55 grains of 3Fg had a MV of 1131 FPS and a muzzle energy of 398 foot pounds.

Per the additional data given in the article, that puts the 1860s energy just a shade under a .38 Special and the Walkers energy just a shade under the .45 ACP.

Recent research noted the conical only delivers about half it's energy to the target before passing through. The round ball usually stayed in a man-sized target of ballistic gelatin. The roundball in the 1860 Army gave superior stopping powder than a .44 Special hollow point or the .45 Long Colt with a 250 gr. semi-wadcutter! The heavier Dragoons and Walker did even better.

 

[Don]

Anecdotal evidence (stories told by CW soldiers and others)have the cap and ball revolvers performing beyond what the paper data would suggest. The concept of energy dumping persists even though some disregard it as nonsense. I tend to believe the old timers. What other logical reason would Wild Bill Hickcock have to keep his cap and ball guns well into the cartridge era unless they were dang effective. Yes the balls are lighter than the conicals but they leave the same size hole. My question would be, what is the effect of the spherical projectile having on the tissues as it penetrates the body? If we can answer that than we can understand why the stories were so persistant.

Don

 

[oldwolf]

This is somewhat on topic.

How do I tell if a revolver is a Cimarron? Do they stamp it somewhere?