The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The North Corral > Black Powder and Cowboy Action Shooting

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 29, 2008, 11:06 PM   #26
Smokin_Gun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2005
Location: Mojave Desert, CA
Posts: 1,195
Quote:
We can certainly say Colt never PRODUCED an 1851 Navy in .44 cal, if that makes anyone feel better.
Colt produced at least ONE that we are sure of probly more

Why can't you call a .44 cal on the Navy frame a Navy?
So Pietta reproduced a prototype en masse. They sell good and shoot great.
I have to say that it's an 1851 .44 Navy Repro...is that to be denied?


SG
__________________
"I Smoke Black Powder" "Favor an 1858 Remington"
SGT. Smokin' Gun, Mosby's Rangers 43rd Virginia Cavalry C.S.A.
SASS# 19634, ...
Admin:http://blackpowdersmoke.com/oldcoots/index.php
Smokin_Gun is offline  
Old June 29, 2008, 11:28 PM   #27
Fingers McGee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 19, 2008
Location: Missouri
Posts: 1,843
Can I put my $.02 worth in????

Cause a .44 with an octagonal barrel isnt a Navy. The Army and Navy frame are the same except for the cut in the frame for the .44 rebated cylinder. What we call the 1851 Navy now was originally known as the old model belt pistol of Navy caliber - that was later shortened to 1851 Navy - when it was in production. The Navy caliber designation meant .36 caliber. .44 cal pistols were designated as Army caliber. Therefore, a .44 caliber pistol with an octagonal barrel, hinged loading lever, and Navy style grips might have actually been a prototype of the 1860 Army, not the Navy.

During their production, Armies could be ordered with Navy grips and vice versa. The grip shape isn't what determined the pistols designation.

There were also some 1851 Navies made with round barrels and hinged loading lever as well as some 6 1/2 inch barreled ones.
__________________
Fingers (Show Me MO smoke) McGee - AKA Man of Many Colts - Alter ego of Diabolical Ken; SASS Regulator 28564-L-TG; Rangemaster and stage writer extraordinaire; Frontiersman, Pistoleer, NRA Endowment Life, NMLRA, SAF, CCRKBA, STORM 327, SV115; Charter member, Central Ozarks Western Shooters
Cynic: A blackguard whose faulty vision see things as they are, not as they should be. Ambrose Bierce
Fingers McGee is offline  
Old June 30, 2008, 12:39 AM   #28
pohill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 27, 2005
Location: northeast
Posts: 518
Here's a fact to check on - who bought more "Navy" caliber guns, the Army or the Navy? (I know)
Where did the term "Navy" actually come from in regards to a revolver?
pohill is offline  
Old June 30, 2008, 12:50 AM   #29
Smokin_Gun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2005
Location: Mojave Desert, CA
Posts: 1,195
Quote:
The Army and Navy frame are the same except for the cut in the frame for the .44 rebated cylinder.
You said it the same frame as a Navy...an 1860 Army hadn't been made made yet. The .44 was a prototype correct? Well there you have it, 1851 Navy frame bored out .44 barrel in Octagon. Besides it's a reproduction what is the big deal? What are you gonna do tell Pietta to call it an 1851 Army(P) Prototype?
Come on...

What can I tell ya you Spelled it all correctly jus' din't say it right...


SG
__________________
"I Smoke Black Powder" "Favor an 1858 Remington"
SGT. Smokin' Gun, Mosby's Rangers 43rd Virginia Cavalry C.S.A.
SASS# 19634, ...
Admin:http://blackpowdersmoke.com/oldcoots/index.php
Smokin_Gun is offline  
Old June 30, 2008, 03:36 AM   #30
Hawg Haggen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2007
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 11,639
My problem with it is it wasn't a production gun that was available to anybody. Maybe you could have had one if you were a close friend of Sam Colt or uber rich. Just because they made a prototype doesn't cut it with me.
Hawg Haggen is offline  
Old June 30, 2008, 04:31 AM   #31
Smokin_Gun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2005
Location: Mojave Desert, CA
Posts: 1,195
Quote:
My problem with it is it wasn't a production gun that was available to anybody. Maybe you could have had one if you were a close friend of Sam Colt or uber rich. Just because they made a prototype doesn't cut it with me.
LMBPAO! But the point is it was produced by Colt...it's in a Museum in Conneticut. So it wasn't available to the public. But Pietta apparently knows about it so they reproduced it and Pietta made it available to the public. Pietta brought forth a link if you will in the Colt chain of events. I feel even better now about the 1851 Navy .44 Pietta & I did say Pietta...I think I'll go buy one.

SG
__________________
"I Smoke Black Powder" "Favor an 1858 Remington"
SGT. Smokin' Gun, Mosby's Rangers 43rd Virginia Cavalry C.S.A.
SASS# 19634, ...
Admin:http://blackpowdersmoke.com/oldcoots/index.php
Smokin_Gun is offline  
Old June 30, 2008, 05:37 AM   #32
mykeal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 8, 2006
Location: Northern Michigan
Posts: 2,754
I used the word 'produced' in the classic manufacturing sense; that is, a production process was implemented to build a large number of items for distribution and sale to the public. As opposed to building (not producing) a single item as an experiment. Making a single item isn't 'production', it's 'building'.

Pietta has no altruistic motives in producing a .44 cal revolver with an 1851 Navy barrel. They did it because people would buy it, plain and simple. And I don't have any problems with people owning and shooting them, any more than I have problems with people owning and shooting a Ruger Old Army (I own both myself). We just need to be accurate in our presentation of the data.

But, getting back to something useful for the OP, who I'm certain isn't interested in a bunch of old men arguing semantics, re his question on the costs of shooting, and articap's excellent response:
I was working up some numbers but articap's are just as well.

If the idea is to shoot inexpensively, then a good .22 pistol is the answer, hands down. I shoot a Ruger Single Six convertible for practice regularly, because I can put 300-500 rounds downrange every session without taking out a loan. It's a great way to maintain trigger control muscle memory, follow through and sightline control.

Unfortunately, there's just no way to do that with my Walker, which I'd love to do, or my Smith & Wesson Model 60 .357, which I should do.

The bp guns are for fun, pure shooting enjoyment, like no other guns I own. It's been that way for 30 years. If you're going to participate in a sport, you need find a way to enjoy it. Being satisfied with my skill level (practicing with the .22) and then shooting the boomers (the bp guns) is my way.
mykeal is offline  
Old June 30, 2008, 06:43 AM   #33
pohill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 27, 2005
Location: northeast
Posts: 518
How far do you take the concept of historically accurate? If you're into pure history, then a .44 "Navy" is a no-no, unless you want to point to a Colt patent for the same gun and justify its existence. Driving your car to the range is not historically accurate. Answering your cell phone as you load certainly isn't. Altering a gun (adding screws, etc) is not historically accurate. What about buying a gun made in Italy as opposed to an American-made Ruger Old Army? Hmmmm...
I recently bought an original Whitney .36 Navy that I fired at the range. The turning knob on the loading lever is not original - does that disqualify the gun's claim to being original? What if I add new nipples to the gun?
I wouldn't get a .44 with a brass frame only because I don't think the brass is strong enough. That's the only reason I wouldn't get one. Then again, I might handle one in the store tomorrow and snatch it up because of its balance and feel.
pohill is offline  
Old June 30, 2008, 11:09 AM   #34
Fingers McGee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 19, 2008
Location: Missouri
Posts: 1,843
Well said Mykeal.

Well, Smokin', I think I did say it right. Once the cut in the frame was made, it was not a Navy frame anymore; but, a prototype of the future 1860.


To quote Pohill:
Quote:
Where did the term "Navy" actually come from in regards to a revolver?
Depends on what book you read. The designation could have come from:

Colt's desire to market it to the Navy in a caliber that the Navy liked.

The 1843 Campeche naval battle scene that was roll engraved on the cylinder.

That the Navy bought more of them than the Army or civilians, even though it was the Army Ordinance Board that field tested them in 1850.
__________________
Fingers (Show Me MO smoke) McGee - AKA Man of Many Colts - Alter ego of Diabolical Ken; SASS Regulator 28564-L-TG; Rangemaster and stage writer extraordinaire; Frontiersman, Pistoleer, NRA Endowment Life, NMLRA, SAF, CCRKBA, STORM 327, SV115; Charter member, Central Ozarks Western Shooters
Cynic: A blackguard whose faulty vision see things as they are, not as they should be. Ambrose Bierce
Fingers McGee is offline  
Old June 30, 2008, 12:13 PM   #35
pohill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 27, 2005
Location: northeast
Posts: 518
Quote from Chief of Naval Ordnance Commodore Morris in 1854:
"It has not been considered advisable heretofore, to purchase Colts revolvers for the general service. Pistols can seldom be used with effect in the Navy, except when boarding vessels with the view to their capture, which rarely occurs. At such time...swords or boarding hatches could be used by seamen with equal, if not greater certainty and effect, than pistols."
The author of the book, CIVIL WAR SMALL ARMS OF THE NAVY AND MAINE CORPS, John D. McAulay, goes on to say, "The revolver was never highly regarded by Navy officials."

From what I've read, the Army bought more Navies than anyone.
pohill is offline  
Old June 30, 2008, 03:02 PM   #36
Hawg Haggen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2007
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 11,639
Quote:
How far do you take the concept of historically accurate? If you're into pure history, then a .44 "Navy" is a no-no, unless you want to point to a Colt patent for the same gun and justify its existence. Driving your car to the range is not historically accurate. Answering your cell phone as you load certainly isn't. Altering a gun (adding screws, etc) is not historically accurate. What about buying a gun made in Italy as opposed to an American-made Ruger Old Army? Hmmmm...
A reasonably accurate clone.
I don't want to live in the 19th century...........At least not most of the time. I just want my guns to be a decent representation of what was available.
I have no problem with Italian guns. I have six of them. I don't want a Ruger Old Army or any other Ruger SA.

I don't have a problem with anybody that shoots stuff I don't like except maybe inlines.:barf: I do like to point out the historical inaccuracy of some of them just in case somebody doesn't know and thinks they're getting an accurate reproduction.
Hawg Haggen is offline  
Old June 30, 2008, 04:04 PM   #37
pohill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 27, 2005
Location: northeast
Posts: 518
I'm with you on the way these guns are advertized. Cabelas used to annoy me with their ads and claims but, what the heck, at least someone is enjoying the sport. I just don't want to discourage someone who is happy and excited about a gun they bought and then someone tells them it's a fake copy of a copy of an original.
As far as the Ruger Old Army - I thought I'd never own one, then I got a good deal on an older one and I gotta say, I'm impresed. I have (if I remember correctly) 17 BP guns and they're all my favorite. The Ruger is the easiest to shoot in cold weather due to the larger chamber mouths. It never jams with spent caps, and it's accurate. Built like a tank.
pohill is offline  
Old June 30, 2008, 06:27 PM   #38
arcticap
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2005
Location: Central Connecticut
Posts: 2,973
A revolver is just another type of inline anyway!
arcticap is offline  
Old June 30, 2008, 06:30 PM   #39
Hawg Haggen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2007
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 11,639
Quote:
A revolver is just another type of inline anyway!
BUT, it's a historically accurate inline.
Hawg Haggen is offline  
Old June 30, 2008, 06:57 PM   #40
Fingers McGee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 19, 2008
Location: Missouri
Posts: 1,843
You mean Col. Colt invented the inline?? Well, whadayano
__________________
Fingers (Show Me MO smoke) McGee - AKA Man of Many Colts - Alter ego of Diabolical Ken; SASS Regulator 28564-L-TG; Rangemaster and stage writer extraordinaire; Frontiersman, Pistoleer, NRA Endowment Life, NMLRA, SAF, CCRKBA, STORM 327, SV115; Charter member, Central Ozarks Western Shooters
Cynic: A blackguard whose faulty vision see things as they are, not as they should be. Ambrose Bierce
Fingers McGee is offline  
Old June 30, 2008, 07:39 PM   #41
Hawg Haggen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2007
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 11,639
No he just improved it. Actually there were some inline rifles made as far back as the 1840's but they bear no resemblance to modern junk.
Hawg Haggen is offline  
Old July 1, 2008, 05:58 PM   #42
HKFan9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2008
Posts: 2,678
I thank everyone for the input and array of knowledge shared. I will admit to not really knowing anything when it comes to black powder pistols, especially compared to all of you. However it's getting a little off topic from my original post so maybe its time to re-holster those ego's.

It'd be nice to own an historically accurate BP revolver, but that day will come when I'm older. My intent wasn't to buy something and go to a war re-enactment with (although I do live about a mile from the Brandywine Battlefield....) I just wanted a big nice looking BP pistol to change up things in my safe, and at the range. I've never had the privilege of shooting a Cap and Ball Revolver and it looks like a lot of fun. Historically accurate gun or not I feel like it's a throw back to the firearm heritage of our country. I'm only 21, so I can't say I've been able to see, or even learn much of that history at all. I grew up around firearms, and tried many hobbies, sports, but always come back to my one true love (hope the g/f doesn't see this) firearms.

So maybe instead of arguing about the historical accuracy you can tell a potential new BP shooter how much fun it is, or how you guys got started into it. Don't get me wrong, I loved reading the good debating, and I probably learned more than I did in the classroom today, but it's kinda off topic?
HKFan9 is offline  
Old July 1, 2008, 06:07 PM   #43
Hawg Haggen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2007
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 11,639
It's a blast, you're gonna love the gun and hate it at times. Just shoot tha thang and have fun and don't worry about us old farts that maybe get too deep into the historical aspect sometimes.
Hawg Haggen is offline  
Old July 1, 2008, 10:00 PM   #44
mykeal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 8, 2006
Location: Northern Michigan
Posts: 2,754
Quote:
us old farts that maybe get too deep into the historical aspect sometimes.
I'll have you know I resemble that remark!

Quoting myself:
Quote:
The bp guns are for fun, pure shooting enjoyment, like no other guns I own. It's been that way for 30 years. If you're going to participate in a sport, you need find a way to enjoy it. Being satisfied with my skill level (practicing with the .22) and then shooting the boomers (the bp guns) is my way.
Yesterday 05:31 AM
I have a S&W .357 mag 3" Model 60 for personal protection. I have a Ruger .22 Single Six convertible for skill development and proficiency practice. And I have 40 black powder guns that I've built and collected over 30 years for fun. The bp guns don't have to work for a living like the Single Six and M60 do - they get to go play. I get to change every round if I want to, just to see what will happen, or if I can tweak it just a little better. Or I can load it up and make it turn heads, just for the fun of doing so.

I won't even try to identify a 'best' or 'favorite' bp gun. It changes every time I open the safe. I've been known to take 20 guns to the range because I couldn't make up my mind (didn't shoot them all, though someday I just might). I even enter bowling pin shoots and PPC matches with a bp revolver just to go shooting. Haven't gotten under 10 seconds on a table yet, so I don't even make the results listing, but I have fun (if you hit it, you never have to go back and knock it off the table with a Walker - it leaves of it's own volition).
mykeal is offline  
Old July 1, 2008, 10:27 PM   #45
Smokin_Gun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2005
Location: Mojave Desert, CA
Posts: 1,195
Quote:
Well, Smokin', I think I did say it right. Once the cut in the frame was made, it was not a Navy frame anymore; but, a prototype of the future 1860.
It was a Navy frame with a notch in it...like a .38Colt Kirst is a 1851 Navy conversion with a big notch cut in the frames loading Port. But it wasn't an 1860 Army even more.



Quote:
Making a single item isn't 'production', it's 'building'.
Tell me where you read there was only one proto type of the Colt Navy made in .44cal Mykeal. And it's called R&D Manufacturing or "Research & Developement Manufacturing". I "produced" Both Flight and R & D Tubopumps for SSME Main Engines. Even a Rocket Scientist calls R&D Manufacturing Production. (that's Space Shuttle Main Engines)
Fact is 1851 Navy Colts were made as prototypes. 1860's came out as a Result of an 1851 Navy retrofitted and test fire I am sure as a .44 cal Rev. Anyone could have had knowledge of this and converted one, Like Cooper Arms, local gunsmith, me if I were there. Anyway a Reproduction of that Prototype exists and Pietta is Producing them

SG
__________________
"I Smoke Black Powder" "Favor an 1858 Remington"
SGT. Smokin' Gun, Mosby's Rangers 43rd Virginia Cavalry C.S.A.
SASS# 19634, ...
Admin:http://blackpowdersmoke.com/oldcoots/index.php
Smokin_Gun is offline  
Old July 2, 2008, 05:03 AM   #46
Hawg Haggen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2007
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 11,639
Did the proto have a brass frame?
Hawg Haggen is offline  
Old July 2, 2008, 06:42 AM   #47
pohill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 27, 2005
Location: northeast
Posts: 518
Good question, Hawg Haggen. There's this one (I think Pietta would market it as an early semi-auto)
http://collectorebooks.com/gregg01/c...er/Lot-416.htm

pohill is offline  
Old July 2, 2008, 12:04 PM   #48
Hawg Haggen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2007
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 11,639
Now that's nasty looking.
Hawg Haggen is offline  
Old July 2, 2008, 12:44 PM   #49
shepherddogs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 9, 2007
Posts: 1,007
To the OP. I was not trying to discourage you from BP shooting. I was merely pointing out that BP is highly corrosive. If you shoot the gun 1 time, then you will need to clean it thoroughly. Its not like a modern smokeless firearm. I've shot my 1911s and not cleaned them for weeks. Try that with BP and you'll see what I mean.
shepherddogs is offline  
Old July 2, 2008, 01:04 PM   #50
Hawg Haggen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2007
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 11,639
Quote:
I was merely pointing out that BP is highly corrosive.
An undeserved reputation. I frequently go two or three days without cleaning mine. I use Pyrodex which is supposed to be more corrosive than real bp AND I live in the humid South. Also I only take mine completely down maybe once a year. I remove the cylinder and grips. The metal parts go into hot soapy water. The bore and chambers get patch cleaned. Once removed from water the action is allowed to drain and then gets sprayed out with WD-40 to displace any remaining water. Then it gets sprayed out with Remoil. Bore, chambers and cylinder pin get lubed with bore butter. After reassembly it gets a good wipe down.
Hawg Haggen is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12898 seconds with 7 queries