Pietta 1851 Navy balance?

All of my C&Bs are 44 caliber: ROAs, Remmy 1858s, a Colt 1860 (Uberti) and one of those brass frame 1851-style 44 cal. None of the LGS have any C&B in 36 cal. to try, so thought I would ask here.

Is there much, if any, difference between the balance and "pointability" between the 1851 Navy and other cap and ball revolvers? I know this is subjective. I've heard good things about the 1851 over the years but never handled one in 36 cal.

I noticed Cabelas has a sale on the Pietta steel frame 1851, which led to this question.

Thanks for any opinions.

Jeff

BullRunBear said:

All of my C&Bs are 44 caliber: ROAs, Remmy 1858s, a Colt 1860 (Uberti) and one of those brass frame 1851-style 44 cal. None of the LGS have any C&B in 36 cal. to try, so thought I would ask here.

Is there much, if any, difference between the balance and "pointability" between the 1851 Navy and other cap and ball revolvers? I know this is subjective. I've heard good things about the 1851 over the years but never handled one in 36 cal.

I noticed Cabelas has a sale on the Pietta steel frame 1851, which led to this question.

Thanks for any opinions.

Jeff

Click to expand...

Well, don't take MY word for, but ask the old gunfighters for THEIR opinion.

Most of 'em used the Colt .36cal Navy revolver because of its extreme pointability and 'lithe character' in the hand.

tac

I have found over the years that Colt's .36 revolvers are just the cats meow for feel and pointability.
Now I do prefer a .44 as I like the bigger bullet, but I do not feel underpowered when armed with a .36

I now have three 1851 Navy models. Two Euro Arms and one Pietta. One of the Euroarms was given a "tune" under prior ownership. I really haven't figured out why, but it seems a little better balanced than the Pietta, but the Pietta seems much better balanced than my 1860 Western Arms 36 cal. And also better than my 1858's, whether 44 or 36.

And certainly better than nearly all my muzzleloader pistols. My TC Scout probably weighs twice as much.

I have nine cap and ball revolvers a Walker down to a 1849 colt. My 51 Colt is my best shooter. My 1860 Army is second and my NMA third.

I don't think that you can go very far wrong with a Navy revolver. Everybody seems to like the way they feel and point. To me the Navy feels a little nicer than the 1861 Army because of the smaller handle. If you have big hands this may be different. I just had ivory stocks put on my 1851 Navy; this goes to show how much I like this revolver.

I would agree with all the above. My Uberti "London" Navy just feels natural in the hand. Much more so than my original Colt Army, though the feel of the Army improves if I'm wearing a leather glove. (Which has led me to speculate if the fact that the Army model was intended for the Cavalry, who wore gloves, did not factor into the longer grip frame?) Thankfully, they went back to the Navy grip for the 1873 Army cartridge revolver. Both it and the Navy are renowned for their pointability - must be the grip frame.

My brother used a Colt's Navy in Army(.44) caliber, but I always prefered the 1861 in .36 with the round barrel and creeping loading lever. Both pointed like Uncle Sam on a war recruitment poster! :shocked2: You just can't beat a Colt's for balance and pointing. Tree.

I never have understood what folks mean when they are speaking of balance in hand gun terms.
Do they mean weight in the hand or barrel heavy because a hand gun,being griped from the rear, does not really have a balance point as does a long gun.
Perhaps what is meant is that the felt weight in the hand is equal to the barrel heft.
Personally I have always preferred a bit of barrel heft and the longer sight radius of a longer barrel. Mike D.

Thanks to everyone for the feedback. I just placed the order for it from Cabelas. Any gun that can inspire a phrase like "lithe character" has to have a lot going for it. :thumbsup: Also, there is some appeal in using a bit less powder and lead compared to the 44 calibers. Another benefit is that the lighter recoil will be more comfortable for my wife, who is tiny, especially if her arthritis acts up.

Defining a good 'balance' varies with use, at least for me. If I want a revolver for quick use and close targets, 10 yards or less, I prefer a shorter barrel where the weight is in my palm. For careful target work and distances over 10 yards, I do better with longer barrels, six inches or more. My C&Bs are just for targets and plinking so they are all the longer barrel versions.

Now for the hard part: waiting for the delivery.

Jeff

Maybe that's why folks like the Rogers and Spencer..

Try this:
Stand at room distance and view an object with both eyes open and (unloaded!) gun at rest. Close your eyes and raise the gun, cock and point where you "think" the object is. Now open your eyes.
9 times out of 10 my Colt Navy is dead-nuts or just a hair off....as opposed to some of the other replicas. This is what the "pointability" thing is all about.

Now that trick is a good one. What I do is look at an object across the room, point at it with my index finger, then do the same thing with my 1851. Always within an inch or two at 7 yds. Or so. Now modern "experts" claim nobody hit what they were aiming at using the hip shooting technique, but I wouldn't want to be the target of me with that 1851! :bow:

Could be but I'm told all that pointability stuff sorta goes out the window when hot lead is coming back at you and whizzing by your noggin! :rotf:

M.D. said:

Could be but I'm told all that pointability stuff sorta goes out the window when hot lead is coming back at you and whizzing by your noggin! :rotf:

Click to expand...

Well said actually. When adrenaline gets to pumping, all the fine motor skills go out the window. We also need to remember that many of the old gunfighters had just a decade or so in the game, many had seen service in the not so Civil War. One of the best quotes was from Wyatt Earp who told someone that in a gunfight you need to "take your time, in a hurry"! :wink:

The technique described by CaptainKirk is a valid one, and is used quite often, even in modern times.

As for hip shooting, just watch a video of Bob Munden, or those who practice the same technique today. I imagine those at the top of the game have the most incredible hand eye coordination. Even in modern combat pistol training, the fast draw and firing from the hip is taught in very close quarter situations, usually when the attacker is within a few feet of you, and it is still necessary to be accurate. It can be learned with a lot of practice.

Bill Jordan used to smash aspirin tablets at 7 (?) feet point shooting/ fast draw. If the gun fits you, and you have the hand/eye coordination, that skill will get you through the close-in fighting, when there isn't time to "take your time". Pure reaction, no time to think. And, for that circumstance, about as much practice time involved as there is in gaining the skill to keep telling yourself "Front sight...front sight" when the bullets are whizzing by you.

You might want to reconsider the shorter barreled pistols. As our eyes age, the sights seem to stay better focused with the shorter radius. Also barrel time comes into play - I find a 4 inch or 3 1/2 can shoot tighter than a longer barrel.

Just my experience, and worth a thought. Enjoy your new pistols.

Grumpa said:

when there isn't time to "take your time". Pure reaction, no time to think. And, for that circumstance, about as much practice time involved as there is in gaining the skill to keep telling yourself "Front sight...front sight" when the bullets are whizzing by you.

Click to expand...

Like ole Wyatt said about gunfights..."You have to take your time in a hurry!" :thumbsup: :wink:
When adrenaline starts pumping, you're fine motor skills go to hell, then muscle memory & sight picture better come back in a real hurry...there's no 2nd place winners in a gunfight!
:shocked2:

I'm talking punching distance, and a little beyond. At this range, there's no time to go for a sight picture. Even Bill Jordan dismissed the sights in these circumstance... and he wrote the book. It all comes down to practice, and no fine motor skills. I've had people who never fired a handgun hitting the target within 7-10 feet. It's hand/eye coordination, having a gun that fits, and knowing where it is, by peripheral vision or feel.
Triangulating the gun, the target and your eyes, is a natural skill.