Random thread about myths and gun show tales about percussion revolvers......

[Flintlock Whiskey]

Forget the second cylinder. I'd sooner carry a second revolver.

That's what many of them did, sometimes up to four. I've heard the movie Josie Wales being bashed here, but there is truth in carrying several revolvers at a time.

 

[Flintlock Whiskey]

I don’t know… most people have vivid imaginations…

Very true.
I bought an "American Long Rifle" and a friend couldn't understand why the thing wasn't able to drive tacks at 100yds like in the movies/tv.

 

[SOLANCO]

Very true.
I bought an "American Long Rifle" and a friend couldn't understand why the thing wasn't able to drive tacks at 100yds like in the movies/tv.

I couldn't even see a tack at 100 yards!

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

TRUTH!
I'll bet there is a B-17 on the far side of the moon, the National Enquirer said so. So, if they wrote it......

Actually, it's true. I saw it the last time I was out there. The tail gunner opened fire on me. Punched some holes in my Buick......

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

So the military, after 30 plus inspectors have looked at the pistols in question and passed them all, just passed on a design flaw? Note also that the War department continually praised the Colt 1860 Army for its accuracy. Is it possible that they didn’t notice that every single example shot into 2” at 25 yards… 12” high?

We should all be grateful that Nick has come along to explain things to us. And he even bought Manuel along. Thanks Nick.

 

[Codger Craig Wilcox]

Having spent a few years in the Philippines in the mid-1950's, I am well aware of the Moros, although while I was there it was the "Huks" that we worried about - Filipino Communists. Just as fanatical as the Moros. Dad, a Naval officer, had experience in calling in fire corrections from Naval ships, and from a helo, called in fire corrections to Marine mortar men on more than one occasion.

 

[TDM]

I couldn't even see a tack at 100 yards!

As long as the tack is at least 8” in diameter I have no problem seeing one at a 100.

 

[nick_1]

So you guys really think that the army ordinance dept required Colt and Remington to shoot 12" high at 25yrds and be dead on 75 yards but they never put in writing anywhere . ....language..... One of the major factors in getting a govt contract was price point and these sights are literally the most cost effective thing they could come up with that still worked. Pistol duels at the time happened at10 paces or about 30ft. these sights are dead on at that range.. Until someone can show written documentation from the army or one of the manufacturers I am going with the 75 yard zero being intentional is an urban myth. Prove me wrong and that would be super exciting and interesting reading. I was working in an attic a decade or so ago and found newspapers from 1861. needless to say my work production was rather limited that day

 

[Whitworth]

I'm not sure where this thread diverged from muzzleloading, but back some years ago a friend of mine published a monthly called "The Trade Blanket" on black powder stuff, and we did a fairly extensive comparison of the relative force delivered to the target by various cap-n-ball revolvers as compared to that delivered by modern handguns. We tested the .36 Navies and the .44 Armies primarily, with a tip o' the hat to the .31 Pocket models and the .44 Walker. We discovered and documented the following surprising information: The .44 Army revolver - and mine was a Colt 1860 and several clones - delivered slightly more kinetic energy to a target than a modern .22 RF solid nose lead bullet such as Federals. The .36 Navies slightly less. The .31 Pocket was right up there with a .22 Short, and the .44 Walker (DGW Clone) was the "magnum," surprising nobody. All were tested with Dupont powder, CCI caps, felt wads, and round ball loads. We didn't have a chronograph but our test target was a ballistic pendulum with a numerical readout and we shot multiple 5-shot groups and compared the mean values of each sample with the mean values achieved with the modern loads. For the record, the .45 Colt and .45 ACP loads exceeded them all, even the Walker. We published the results. That was at least 30 years ago.
Appropos of nothing, General "Black Jack" Pershing was a serving officer during the Moro Rebellion and distinguished himself by putting down that uprisinng. He favored the 1873 Colt "Artillery" model, I'm told. The Moros were radical Muslims.

I've shot a lot stuff with .22LR, the wallop of a .44 Army seems way above that.

Shooting any cap n' ball revolver in the Sonoran Desert where I live will result in the "lube" dripping out all over the place and coating everything (including you) in a fine mist of the stuff. Who ever invented felt over wads deserves a bottle of Scotch.

First shot does the same to adjacent cylinders blowing the lube out and over the gun I use a liquid lube now, one or two drops over the ball, seems to work for my general blasting pleasure.

 

[earlwb]

Having the revolvers sighted in for 75 yards may or may not be true.

I really don’t remember any of my replica revolvers shooting high. They seemed to be right on at 15 to 25 yards. My 1870s Colt Thuer conversion has a really short front sight too. But the .44 colt cartridge only holds about 15 grains of powder anyway.

I think that the reason the revolvers shoot high is that they loaded the guns with less powder than we do today. Plus the black powder they used way back then is different from what we use today and that could be a contributing factor too.

But someone in another article mentioned that many of the pistols had different more tall front sights on them than what came out of the factories. So obviously gunsmiths were changing out the front sights for taller sights that the owner would file down to suit.

But shooting at a man sized target out to 75 yards or so should not pose a problem. A decent shot with a pistol could do that fairly well. If it shot high at closer ranges would not be a big deal as the idea is to hit the target to reduce the threat. Aiming at center mass should guaranty a hit out to 75 to 100 yards for a man size target.

 

[nick_1]

I feel that a good shot with a pistol can hit IPSC targets at 50m but most folks are Not good pistol shots. I have had so called experienced students consistently completely miss IPSC targets at 7m I don't know how that is even possible but they somehow manage to miss. . Heck I watched one of our illustrious sheriffs miss the 7 yrd PPC silhouette with a 12Ga shotgun.. You can't even make that manure up.. she blasted a branch out of a tree a good 6ft above the berm... then one of the other sheriffs swept me with his 12Ga while we were shooting the breeze and he was casing his weapon. can't even put their guns away without sweeping someone with the muzzle. there are many documented cases from the days of .357 mag service revolvers of cops blasting the hood of a suspects car or their cruiser while trying to shoot someone on the other side on the car a mere 6ft away. There was a reason that most first time shooters at IPSC matches were never seen again. They simply found out in a rude hurry that they were not nearly as proficient as they thought they were... I think the person who suggested powder loads and quality is on to something. 19g of 19th century bp is not as hot as 25 or 30g of goex which is not as hot as the same in tripple7.

 

[45D]

IPSC targets aren't trying to kill you.

Mike

 

[nick_1]

all the more reason you should be able to hit them at 7yrds...

 

[45D]

Nope, all the more reason to stop the fight at a distance and NOT at 7 yards.

Mike

 

[BadDaditood]

Just remember, You are buying the item, NOT the story

At gun shows I like to ask “how much is it withOUT the story”?

 

[Stantheman86]

So you guys really think that the army ordinance dept required Colt and Remington to shoot 12" high at 25yrds and be dead on 75 yards but they never put in writing anywhere ............. One of the major factors in getting a govt contract was price point and these sights are literally the most cost efective thing they could come up with that still worked. Pistol duels at the time happened at10 paces or about 30ft. these sights are dead on at that range.. Until someone can show written documentation from the army or one of the manufacturers I am going with the 75 yard zero being intentional is an urban myth. Prove me wrong and that would be super exciting and interesting reading. I was working in an attic a decade or so ago and found newspapers from 1861. needless to say my work production was rather limited that day

A forum member who shoots original Colts says they hit high at 25, just like the reproductions

The Colt Paterson and later the Walker were designed with the intent to be used by Rangers to fight Indians , from horseback. Samuel Colt would not have developed the genius design of a revolving pistol and just throw sights on them as an afterthought that all just happened to hit at an 80 yard zero

Rifled-Muskets hit high at 100 even at the 100 yard sight setting, soldiers were trained , if they received training , to aim at the belt of enemy soldiers

A revolver that hits 2 feet low at 100 yards would be way more useless than a revolver that can be held at the belt of an intended target and hit somewhere on a man sized target from 0 to 100

Colt designed the revolvers so he would give his primarily military contract customers, an effective tool to kill people with so he could make money. Hitting people with bullets as intended was the goal, not bullseye shooting.

 

[TDM]

A forum member who shoots original Colts says they hit high at 25, just like the reproductions

The Colt Paterson and later the Walker were designed with the intent to be used by Rangers to fight Indians , from horseback. Samuel Colt would not have developed the genius design of a revolving pistol and just throw sights on them as an afterthought that all just happened to hit at an 80 yard zero

Rifled-Muskets hit high at 100 even at the 100 yard sight setting, soldiers were trained , if they received training , to aim at the belt of enemy soldiers

A revolver that hits 2 feet low at 100 yards would be way more useless than a revolver that can be held at the belt of an intended target and hit somewhere on a man sized target from 0 to 100

Colt designed the revolvers so he would give his primarily military contract customers, an effective tool to kill people with so he could make money. Hitting people with bullets as intended was the goal, not bullseye shooting.

This is correct.

 

[Stantheman86]

Having the revolvers sighted in for 75 yards may or may not be true.

I really don’t remember any of my replica revolvers shooting high. They seemed to be right on at 15 to 25 yards. My 1870s Colt Thuer conversion has a really short front sight too. But the .44 colt cartridge only holds about 15 grains of powder anyway.

I think that the reason the revolvers shoot high is that they loaded the guns with less powder than we do today. Plus the black powder they used way back then is different from what we use today and that could be a contributing factor too.

But someone in another article mentioned that many of the pistols had different more tall front sights on them than what came out of the factories. So obviously gunsmiths were changing out the front sights for taller sights that the owner would file down to suit.

But shooting at a man sized target out to 75 yards or so should not pose a problem. A decent shot with a pistol could do that fairly well. If it shot high at closer ranges would not be a big deal as the idea is to hit the target to reduce the threat. Aiming at center mass should guaranty a hit out to 75 to 100 yards for a man size target.

I fired my Dance and Brothers .44 one handed at a 100 yard silhouette, and hit it 4 times out of 6 , and the other 2 would have hit the guy next to him or behind him. I'm far from a Master pistol shooter. It's not that far, people act like hitting things at 100 is like a 1000 yard rifle shot.

 

[TDM]

With practice and good eyesight all things are possible. But now I have to settle for 25 - 50 yards.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

So you guys really think that the army ordinance dept required Colt and Remington to shoot 12" high at 25yrds and be dead on 75 yards but they never put in writing anywhere ............................... One of the major factors in getting a govt contract was price point and these sights are literally the most cost efective thing they could come up with that still worked. Pistol duels at the time happened at10 paces or about 30ft. these sights are dead on at that range.. Until someone can show written documentation from the army or one of the manufacturers I am going with the 75 yard zero being intentional is an urban myth. Prove me wrong and that would be super exciting and interesting reading. I was working in an attic a decade or so ago and found newspapers from 1861. needless to say my work production was rather limited that day

You seem nice.