The .31 caliber?

ZVP · September 17, 2011, 11:09 PM

Why do you think that there was such a high popularity (and sales) of the little Pocket Colt?
Why when the Navy was not much larger, did the small colt sell so well? There was obviouslly no comparison to the two as far as pratical power went.
I just find the small revolver to be nothing more than a big bang with no power. Likely unable to penetrate the heavier clothing of the era with lethal power left.
I guess I am just a Navy Model fan!
ZVP

Ideal Tool · September 17, 2011, 11:35 PM

Hello, ZVP. In the bigger eastern cities of the U.S., there were laws against open carry, and face it, a typical business man or most women, wouldn't want to lug around a 71/2" navy revolver, no matter it's ballance or stopping power! Remember, in those times, it was infection that did the most killing, not brute stopping power..people knew this, a wound that one could shrug off today, after a quick trip to a medical emergency clinic, would most likely develop gangrene..a most horrible and slow way to die. I have always felt the little .36 Police revolvers were the best compromise.

mykeal · September 18, 2011, 05:57 AM

You need to put yourself in their shoes, with the knowledge and technology available then, not now. There was no concept of 'stopping power' then. They didn't have gold dot .357 magnums that could put a man down with one shot in a concealable 2" barrel aluminum frame. The idea was to cause enough damage to seriously injure, enough that it hampers the opponent's ability to fight. That gave you a distinct advantage. The .31 would do that, and it came in a frame that was concealable.

A 7 1/2 barrel revolver is by no means a 'concealable' weapon. Yes, it did have better 'stopping power', but since the concept didn't exist, and the gun was too big, it wasn't a solution.

noelf2 · September 18, 2011, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Yes, it did have better 'stopping power', but since the concept didn't exist

I find it hard to believe that the concept "didn't exist". Lot's of people today carry little 22 magnums for CCW and they're fully aware of the lack of "stopping power". I'm sure the folks of the day had "stopping power" on their minds, just not "killing power". Besides that, (we agree) the .31 was good for putting down a dog or a horse, was easier to conceal, was a bit quieter, and in the trained hand would stop a threat pretty quick. Shot placement, shot placement, shot placement.

Stephanie B · September 18, 2011, 01:38 PM

In the 1850s, as well as in the 2010s, most criminals are not interested in getting themselves shot. Probably why if one looks at the statistics of firearms use in fending off criminal acts, most of the time, the weapon isn't discharged.

Hawg · September 18, 2011, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Shot placement, shot placement, shot placement.

I don't think that was a mantra you'd have heard back then either.

Joe the Redneck · September 18, 2011, 03:03 PM

The 1800s weren't really that long ago. They knew full well that bigger killed better than smaller.

Killing, has never been the "name of the game". "Stopping" they attack was what it was about. Had they a choice, then as now, we'd all carry shotguns.

Then as now, we compromise. If youo could not lawfull stroll around down town with a gun at you side (as was often the case) you had too hide the gun. A small 31 you could carry was better than a 44-40 at home. (Sound familiar)

Another myth is that everyone had a "real sixshooter". than as now, guns were expensive. Many people would have carried cheap single and double barreled cap locks or knives. I think for most people a 31 revolver would have been a step up!

Remember, S&W first popular guns fires basically a 22 short.

Then as know, a street thug is looking for an easy target. Any show of force could be enough to stop an attack.

BillCA · September 18, 2011, 03:44 PM

I'd think cost was a probably a major factor too.
As I recall seeing a catalog from circa 1866 the .31 caliber guns were significantly cheaper than then larger bore guns .. by as much as $8!! That's when a nickel would get you five pounds of potatoes and another nickel would get you a loaf of bread, so eight bucks was a lot of money to many people.

In Eastern cities, carrying a smaller .31 caliber (today's .32) was often sufficient to ward off street punks, troublesome dogs, small feral animals and the like. Thugs didn't want to get shot then anymore than they do today -- perhaps they were even more afraid due to the lack of medical care they could get. Getting shot back then could put you on your back for a week or more, fighting an infection, then leave you weak for some time thereafter. It didn't matter if it was a .44 or a .31 ball.

Lastly, I wonder how many bought a .31 as a "backup" gun they could conceal, just in case their primary wasn't enough. C&B revolvers were slow to reload even then and many cowboys carried a good sized knife along with a revolver. I'm sure more than one bought a .31 caliber for a spare (or won it in a poker game!

)

BlueTrain · September 18, 2011, 03:56 PM

The problem with the reasoning "not much larger" still applies and that's why people still go in for small pistols and revolvers. The larger ones are in fact larger.

There was a lot of competition for the pocket pistol market, as you might call it, and the .31 revolver was bigger and more powerful than most. Colt had other models in that caliber, too, but the 1849 model was the one that made Colt. It was supposedly in production for 23 years and about 336,000 were made (wonder where they all went?). But it had less power than a modern .22 short, for what it's worth. Perhaps it doesn't take that much power in a pistol after all. The .38 special was described as "ultra-powerful" by one writer who should have known better but today most people don't think as much of it.

The Colt was well made and was a five-shooter, something most other's couldn't claim, although most of the competion at the time were single shots. Even more pocket pistols came out when metallic cartridges became available. Even so, I'd say the 1849 Colt would hold its own against a Freedom Arms .22.

ZVP · September 18, 2011, 05:30 PM

Intresting thoughts guys! I think ya convinced me!
Just stopping the agression is the name of the game.
Thanks for the education,
ZVP

noelf2 · September 18, 2011, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Shot placement, shot placement, shot placement.

Quote:

I don't think that was a mantra you'd have heard back then either.

Probably not. I wasn't there so I really don't know one way or the other. If I had to guess, probably would have been something more like: "Shoot 'em in the eye! Shoot 'em in the dad gum eye?"

Bishop Creek · September 18, 2011, 09:07 PM

As Texas gunfighter John Wesley Hardin said "I just kept shooting till he stopped moving."

arcticap · September 19, 2011, 02:44 AM

The Colt Model 1855 "Root Revolver" was made in both .28 and .31, so even if all a person had was a .31, there could have always been worse off.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost....12&postcount=7

BlueTrain · September 19, 2011, 06:04 AM

Lee owned a Roots sidehammer. It's on display at Arlington house. But I've never seen any painting or photograph of him armed with anything.

ZVP · September 19, 2011, 10:37 AM

The little Remington .31 sure looks like a rugged little revolver! It's classic lines mimic the larger revolver and it has the quick cylinder switch capibility too!
What Powder charge was common for the .31 caliber?
ZVP

jimbob86 · September 19, 2011, 10:58 AM

Quote:

.28 and .31

I have a theory:

#00 Buck 3.49 g (53.8 gr.) 8.38 mm (0.330")
#0 Buck 3.18 g (49 gr.) 8.13 mm (0.320")
#1 Buck 2.62 g (40.5 gr.) 7.62 mm (0.300")

These were cap and ball revolvers.
#00 buck would work for bullets for the .32 and #1 for the .28 cal. ....

I also concur that getting shot anywhere was very bad ju-ju before penecillin.... getting shot in the belly was worse than a death sentence, as at least hanging was quick and painless. Nobody wanted to be shot AT ALL. Having a gun was the most important thing in a gunfight, and still is. You could not have a large gun because you could not hide it. So smaller gun or no gun? Smaller gun.

That and people were (on average) smaller then, particularly in the cities.

drftrman · September 19, 2011, 06:46 PM

I do not believe that stopping power was not a concern. Remember the walker, and it's smaller cousin the 1860? The walker is a stopping power monster, and the 1860 was designed to be the same, but in a easier to carry option. I realize that refers to military, but a lot of men were exposed to military during the CW.

My opinion though is that manners had more to do with it. A man toting a gun on his side was looked upon as a ruffian, whereas a gentleman carried a derringer or pocket pistol. Remember that society was changing at that time, and as such most men wanted to be considered an upstanding citizen, but did not want to be left defenseless.

robhof · September 19, 2011, 06:58 PM

The usual powder charge for the .31's is 10 to 12gr of 3f. That's what I use in my Colt 49 clone. The .31 has about the same recoil as a 22, the only B/p gun I have that my will shoot til I get tired of loading for her, or run out of powder or balls.

Crazy Clay · September 19, 2011, 08:00 PM

Has anyone here fired a 00buck shot out of a 31? If that can be done, it would make finding ammunition much easier then and now. If it can be done, accurately, I would like to get myself a 31 pocket pistol.

Steven Clay

arcticap · September 19, 2011, 11:30 PM

See posts #14 - #16:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthrea...ight=buck+shot

DrLaw · September 20, 2011, 09:33 PM

Something you also have to consider is that in the 1800's, people were smaller in average height and stature, weighed less (unless you were a tad rich in which case you could eat a lot) and health services were not what we have today. Back then, the dirty little .32 could 1) do actual damage to the thinner body, 2) bring infection in with it for which there was no treatment, 3) people were not as healthy overall, teeth rotting, no bathing, etc..., and 4) the gun battles were close-in.

Everybody else has pretty much given the other reasons why small guns were liked in the old days.

The Doc is out now.

Newton24b · September 21, 2011, 07:47 PM

the popularity goes to several major factors.

economics for the most part. back then the standard was to squeeze the dime so hard the buffalo dropped 3 plops.

alternatives for pocket carry were

-colt pocket pistol with or without loading lever
-colt paterson in a short barrel configuration, .18 to .28 calibers
-colt paterson, 36 cal, cut down to short length

-sigle shot derringer
-single shot "travelors friends" consisting of 60-75 caliber single shot with 3 to 4 inch barrels

-full size single shot horse pistols
-full size dragoon or walker revolver.
-full size pepperboxes, variable calibers

can ya see the reason now?

September 18, 2011, 03:44 PM	#8
BillCA Senior Member Join Date: November 28, 2004 Location: Silicon Valley, Ca Posts: 7,117	I'd think cost was a probably a major factor too. As I recall seeing a catalog from circa 1866 the .31 caliber guns were significantly cheaper than then larger bore guns .. by as much as $8!! That's when a nickel would get you five pounds of potatoes and another nickel would get you a loaf of bread, so eight bucks was a lot of money to many people. In Eastern cities, carrying a smaller .31 caliber (today's .32) was often sufficient to ward off street punks, troublesome dogs, small feral animals and the like. Thugs didn't want to get shot then anymore than they do today -- perhaps they were even more afraid due to the lack of medical care they could get. Getting shot back then could put you on your back for a week or more, fighting an infection, then leave you weak for some time thereafter. It didn't matter if it was a .44 or a .31 ball. Lastly, I wonder how many bought a .31 as a "backup" gun they could conceal, just in case their primary wasn't enough. C&B revolvers were slow to reload even then and many cowboys carried a good sized knife along with a revolver. I'm sure more than one bought a .31 caliber for a spare (or won it in a poker game! ) __________________ BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)

September 18, 2011, 03:56 PM	#9
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	The problem with the reasoning "not much larger" still applies and that's why people still go in for small pistols and revolvers. The larger ones are in fact larger. There was a lot of competition for the pocket pistol market, as you might call it, and the .31 revolver was bigger and more powerful than most. Colt had other models in that caliber, too, but the 1849 model was the one that made Colt. It was supposedly in production for 23 years and about 336,000 were made (wonder where they all went?). But it had less power than a modern .22 short, for what it's worth. Perhaps it doesn't take that much power in a pistol after all. The .38 special was described as "ultra-powerful" by one writer who should have known better but today most people don't think as much of it. The Colt was well made and was a five-shooter, something most other's couldn't claim, although most of the competion at the time were single shots. Even more pocket pistols came out when metallic cartridges became available. Even so, I'd say the 1849 Colt would hold its own against a Freedom Arms .22. __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

September 19, 2011, 02:44 AM	#13
arcticap Senior Member Join Date: March 15, 2005 Location: Central Connecticut Posts: 3,166	The Colt Model 1855 "Root Revolver" was made in both .28 and .31, so even if all a person had was a .31, there could have always been worse off. http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost....12&postcount=7 Last edited by arcticap; September 19, 2011 at 11:24 PM.

September 19, 2011, 06:58 PM	#18
robhof Senior Member Join Date: September 16, 2007 Posts: 712	robhof The usual powder charge for the .31's is 10 to 12gr of 3f. That's what I use in my Colt 49 clone. The .31 has about the same recoil as a 22, the only B/p gun I have that my will shoot til I get tired of loading for her, or run out of powder or balls.

September 20, 2011, 09:33 PM	#21
DrLaw Senior Member Join Date: June 3, 2007 Location: Wild Western Illinois Posts: 559	Something you also have to consider is that in the 1800's, people were smaller in average height and stature, weighed less (unless you were a tad rich in which case you could eat a lot) and health services were not what we have today. Back then, the dirty little .32 could 1) do actual damage to the thinner body, 2) bring infection in with it for which there was no treatment, 3) people were not as healthy overall, teeth rotting, no bathing, etc..., and 4) the gun battles were close-in. Everybody else has pretty much given the other reasons why small guns were liked in the old days. The Doc is out now. __________________ General McAuliffe said it best "Nuts."

September 17, 2011, 11:09 PM	#1
ZVP Senior Member Join Date: June 20, 2009 Posts: 1,102	The .31 caliber? Why do you think that there was such a high popularity (and sales) of the little Pocket Colt? Why when the Navy was not much larger, did the small colt sell so well? There was obviouslly no comparison to the two as far as pratical power went. I just find the small revolver to be nothing more than a big bang with no power. Likely unable to penetrate the heavier clothing of the era with lethal power left. I guess I am just a Navy Model fan! ZVP

September 17, 2011, 11:35 PM	#2
Ideal Tool Junior member Join Date: October 6, 2010 Location: Michigan Posts: 1,080	Hello, ZVP. In the bigger eastern cities of the U.S., there were laws against open carry, and face it, a typical business man or most women, wouldn't want to lug around a 71/2" navy revolver, no matter it's ballance or stopping power! Remember, in those times, it was infection that did the most killing, not brute stopping power..people knew this, a wound that one could shrug off today, after a quick trip to a medical emergency clinic, would most likely develop gangrene..a most horrible and slow way to die. I have always felt the little .36 Police revolvers were the best compromise.

September 18, 2011, 05:57 AM	#3
mykeal Senior Member Join Date: October 8, 2006 Location: Northern Michigan Posts: 2,772	You need to put yourself in their shoes, with the knowledge and technology available then, not now. There was no concept of 'stopping power' then. They didn't have gold dot .357 magnums that could put a man down with one shot in a concealable 2" barrel aluminum frame. The idea was to cause enough damage to seriously injure, enough that it hampers the opponent's ability to fight. That gave you a distinct advantage. The .31 would do that, and it came in a frame that was concealable. A 7 1/2 barrel revolver is by no means a 'concealable' weapon. Yes, it did have better 'stopping power', but since the concept didn't exist, and the gun was too big, it wasn't a solution.

September 18, 2011, 01:38 PM	#5
Stephanie B Senior Member Join Date: March 1, 2008 Location: NWern SE Missouri Posts: 339	In the 1850s, as well as in the 2010s, most criminals are not interested in getting themselves shot. Probably why if one looks at the statistics of firearms use in fending off criminal acts, most of the time, the weapon isn't discharged.

September 18, 2011, 03:03 PM	#7
Joe the Redneck Senior Member Join Date: December 19, 1998 Location: New port richey FL us Posts: 473	The 1800s weren't really that long ago. They knew full well that bigger killed better than smaller. Killing, has never been the "name of the game". "Stopping" they attack was what it was about. Had they a choice, then as now, we'd all carry shotguns. Then as now, we compromise. If youo could not lawfull stroll around down town with a gun at you side (as was often the case) you had too hide the gun. A small 31 you could carry was better than a 44-40 at home. (Sound familiar) Another myth is that everyone had a "real sixshooter". than as now, guns were expensive. Many people would have carried cheap single and double barreled cap locks or knives. I think for most people a 31 revolver would have been a step up! Remember, S&W first popular guns fires basically a 22 short. Then as know, a street thug is looking for an easy target. Any show of force could be enough to stop an attack.

September 18, 2011, 05:30 PM	#10
ZVP Senior Member Join Date: June 20, 2009 Posts: 1,102	Intresting thoughts guys! I think ya convinced me! Just stopping the agression is the name of the game. Thanks for the education, ZVP

September 18, 2011, 09:07 PM	#12
Bishop Creek Senior Member Join Date: March 20, 2011 Posts: 566	As Texas gunfighter John Wesley Hardin said "I just kept shooting till he stopped moving."

September 19, 2011, 06:04 AM	#14
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	Lee owned a Roots sidehammer. It's on display at Arlington house. But I've never seen any painting or photograph of him armed with anything. __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

September 19, 2011, 10:37 AM	#15
ZVP Senior Member Join Date: June 20, 2009 Posts: 1,102	The little Remington .31 sure looks like a rugged little revolver! It's classic lines mimic the larger revolver and it has the quick cylinder switch capibility too! What Powder charge was common for the .31 caliber? ZVP

September 19, 2011, 06:46 PM	#17
drftrman Member Join Date: January 11, 2005 Posts: 26	I do not believe that stopping power was not a concern. Remember the walker, and it's smaller cousin the 1860? The walker is a stopping power monster, and the 1860 was designed to be the same, but in a easier to carry option. I realize that refers to military, but a lot of men were exposed to military during the CW. My opinion though is that manners had more to do with it. A man toting a gun on his side was looked upon as a ruffian, whereas a gentleman carried a derringer or pocket pistol. Remember that society was changing at that time, and as such most men wanted to be considered an upstanding citizen, but did not want to be left defenseless.

September 19, 2011, 08:00 PM	#19
Crazy Clay Member Join Date: September 4, 2011 Posts: 17	Has anyone here fired a 00buck shot out of a 31? If that can be done, it would make finding ammunition much easier then and now. If it can be done, accurately, I would like to get myself a 31 pocket pistol. Steven Clay

September 19, 2011, 11:30 PM	#20
arcticap Senior Member Join Date: March 15, 2005 Location: Central Connecticut Posts: 3,166	See posts #14 - #16: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthrea...ight=buck+shot

September 21, 2011, 07:47 PM	#22
Newton24b Junior member Join Date: February 10, 2009 Posts: 974	the popularity goes to several major factors. economics for the most part. back then the standard was to squeeze the dime so hard the buffalo dropped 3 plops. alternatives for pocket carry were -colt pocket pistol with or without loading lever -colt paterson in a short barrel configuration, .18 to .28 calibers -colt paterson, 36 cal, cut down to short length -sigle shot derringer -single shot "travelors friends" consisting of 60-75 caliber single shot with 3 to 4 inch barrels -full size single shot horse pistols -full size dragoon or walker revolver. -full size pepperboxes, variable calibers can ya see the reason now?