Handguns Cap And Ball Revolvers

If you believe that then explain why Custer's 7th Cavalry was using single-shot trap-door Springfield carbines and their enemy were partially armed with Winchesters---or maybe I have watched too many Hollywood movies.


Dixie Rifles, That was the decision made by the Army. The Henry, fired a low powered .44 rimfire and Winchesters of the time still fired pistol cartridges. The single shot trap door had far more range and knockdown power. Military thinking has always felt, with some justification, that when soldiers have fast firing rifles they just bang away and don't aim. There is also the problem of supply, you can bring a lot of ammunition in on a helicopter but Custer only had mules and wagons.
 
Alot of people found out the hard way that the "puny little" .36 caliber was indeed a manstopper. Like getting shot with a 38 or 357. Even when a itty bitty .22 is pointed at you, it looks big enough to drop a silver dollar down the muzzle.
 
The Colt "Peacemaker" aka SAA didn't make it to the frontier right away. In 1873 the government wanted to switch over from c&b and the early conversions to a more solid frame pistol that used center-fire rounds. The new guns were being bought up almost as fast as the Colt factory could make them. So the c&b remained in use well into the 1870's (Despite Hollywood) And ponder this, flintlocks were still being made and sold during this time. Granted, these were trade guns made in England. Belgium and such for trade to the Indians but they were still there! The latest dated flintlock trade guns that I've seen was stamped 1877 on the lock plate. Percussion trade guns were still being imported in 1880. The Hudson Bay Company sold the last muzzle-loading guns in 1936! :smile:
 
As far as the .36 caliber is concerned, it's more like a .38 special (Light loads) But mortality rate was high because of infection from bodily filth, few disinfectants or antibiotics and poor knowledge of surgery and the human body. Even a .31 c&b could kill and the early .22 revolvers could kill and/or inflict serious damage.
 
Bill Hickock was one of those who held onto his Colt's Navys well into the cartridge age. I remember reading that he shot them empty every night then cleaned and reloaded them. Is firing twelve shots every day the secret to becoming an exceptional shot?
12 shots a day couldn't keep a no-count murderer away...
 
Off topic, but: the Native use of Winchesters at the Little Big Horn has been overstated. No more than 5% of the combatants were armed with repeaters, and they were not used in any tactically significant way.
Cap and ball revolvers were used for decades outside North America too. The Australian Ned Kelly had a couple Navy revolvers when he was captured in the 1880s.
Bill Hickok was a showman, remember. Firing off his revolvers every night to clear them not only gave him a chance to practice - it gave other people a chance to see him practice, building his reputation and keeping the number of times he actually needed to use them to a minimum.
Seems like I've seen an Enfield that was supposedly owned by Kelly. It may have been a Snider conversion, don't recall. He was also said to be fond of a cut down smooth-bore percussion musket loaded with buck and ball. Hickock did own some cartridge revolvers in his last years. I believe he had one of the S&W revolvers and a "Williamson" derringer among others but as you pointed out, his career was started with the '51 Navy. It got the job done. Just ask Dave Tutt
 
I used to work at a place that manufactured weapons. I shot about 1500 to 2000 rounds a week. I'm a better shot now. Maybe 12 every night did it for him. Took me much longer. I don't think I have that sort of tallent.
I'm assuming you were working a lot of OT.... LOL
1,500 rounds a week @ 40 hours is 37.5 rounds an hour.... thats 1 shot every 1 minute 36 seconds...

Please elaborate on this profession, and tell us how bad you probably hate the smell of gunpowder smoke... LOL
 
I agree on the .357 and I withdraw that statement. But I stand by the .38. Same bullet though.

Not even close. If you are speaking of the round nose lead bullet of the .38 Special used in the early 20th century with smokeless powder, it was still more powerful than any load from an 1851 Navy .36, even though the round ball was slightly larger (~.380") than the .38 (.357"). These days, bullet design, improved powders, and better steel have made the .38 Special nearly as powerful as the mid 1930's version of the .357 Mag, given the same barrel length. I have a Ruger SP101 3" in .38 that I use for CC/HD/SD that will far out-chronograph and out-penetrate/expand in ballistic gel than any 1851 Navy .36 BP ball load.

Hickok was a marksman, but his one shot on the drunk Davis Tutt was luck at its finest at 75 yards.

Jim
 
Even when a itty bitty .22 is pointed at you, it looks big enough to drop a silver dollar down the muzzle.

One of my closest friends was an Emergency Room surgeon (and a NRA member and target shooter) at one of Detroit's busiest hospitals. She agreed with me, with both of our opinions based on actual working experience evidence, that the 22 L.R. consistently produced the most devastating and often fatal internal wounds more than any other handgun caliber.
 
I agree with the statements made by Copperhead-mi about the .22 caliber being very destructive on humans. This is because I also had a friend in the medical profession who said that the problem with the lowly .22 was that it had a tendency to hit a bone and then travel off in a different direction in the body causing extensive destruction along the way.
J.
 
It is popular to say the .36 and now the .38 are too weak to get the job done. Tutt was a one shot instant kill at 75 yards and buffalo were killed with them. I have read that when hunting buffalo the round ball was used, not the pointed "bullet". BTW while the ball starts as a .375 the chamber compresses it on loading.
 
You guys are really making me want to load up my old Remington! If it was good enough for Frank James, maybe it's good enough for me!
 
For what it's worth, the reason the Peoples Republic of New Jersey considers cap & ball revolvers to be in the same category as modern day cartridge firearms is that in the recent past (+/- 20 years or less), some feral miscreant committed a felony with one - possibly murder. The truly motivated can go google the details.

IIRC, it was a .36 Navy.
 
With the present groundswell of "antigun" feelings that so many of the uninformed have these days it wouldn't take too many illegal activities to have more restrictions placed on simple guns, even revolvers. Including cap and ball.
 
Here's a photo of my gr gr grandfather's 3rd Model Colt (.44 cal) Dragoon at the Virginia Museum of the Civil War at New Market [# 26]; it's displayed above a Model 1851 Navy Colt (.36 cal) revolver [# 27] for comparison :

NewMarket_Display.jpg


The curator pointed out that his dragoon has a two piece wooden grip while all Colt revolvers he has seen have a single piece, solid wood grip (like the grip on this Navy Colt). The grip halves on this gun are fitted and mounted in the same manner as Remington revolvers of that period.

Here are closeups of this gun's L/R grips :
Both_Grips.jpg


Has anyone seen any other CW era Colt revolvers with a two piece hand grip?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top