Jobe Holiday
Sergeant Major
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2010
- Location
- The Perpetually Frozen North
With all due respect, the Curly Maple grips are replacements. The original grips were straight grain Walnut.
J.
J.
With all due respect, the Curly Maple grips are replacements. The original grips were straight grain Walnut.
J.
Hi JH: I can accept that but could you be more specific for my own knowledge? I was with understanding that Colt got pressured to come back with a reproduction model due to the many Italian and other made re-pops.
They were made for a few short years as Colt only. No Italy or other stamps anywhere. This window was shallow. They then continued with parts made elsewhere, and then stopped all production once again.
Please correct if I'm wrong. I just need to know for my own peace of mind.
If that is an original Colt 3rd Model Dragoon, it must have been special ordered from Colt as the barrel is not 7.5" long and has the appropriate sized load lever assembly for that barrel length. The 4-screw frame has been cut for a shoulder stock, and the sights are commensurate with that. The grips are definitely not Colt but have some nice figure in the wood.
@Jobe Holiday: How can you be sure they are made from curly maple? Black walnut (a preferred wood) has at least those characteristics.
Maple is a blonde wood, and those appear to be oil finished, not stained. Not buying into that perception.
Regards,
Jim
That makes sense to me and grasshopper has lots to learn. What I don't understand is the lack of any stamps anywhere on the gun and parts that are not just the matching serial #'s. Then of course the Sam Colt etc stamps on the top of the barrel. I always understood if gun parts such as the barrel, frame, etc were made overseas, they had to be stamped. I had heard the latter part of production was indeed as you are describing. But also understood that the first year or so was all done by Colt. I can't find where I read that, but shall look for it.
Just assembled from Italian parts at Colts plant. I could be wrong on this, Pietta I think.
Currently a nice Pietta 1860 Army between the seats of my truck. My daily carry.In the 1980s Cap and Ball revolvers were not considered pistols. I was living in D.C. With the loaded Navy .36 reproduction in the bed side table I never felt under gunned.
The round ball tends to impart more of its energy on the target because of its shape. The 36cal Navy was perfectly adequate for self defence. Many men were killed with the 31cal Colt's pocket revolvers. It's all in how you look at it. We've been convinced over the years that more power is better. I'm not going to disagree with that, but that doesn't mean the less powerful weapons aren't effective. The .32 automatic is a good example.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.
Sorry, that was a major error on my part(isn't it amazing how one word can make such a difference lol). But yes, I agree that the .36 colt navy is still a perfectly viable firearm for self defence. If concealability weren't a issue, I would carry mine often. I have carried my 1848 Colt pocket model many times.Kirk, I agree with what you say but I would change "The .36 navy was perfectly adequate" to "The .36 navy is perfectly adequate."