• This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.



    Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades

Size difference .36 to .44 revolver

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Joined
Nov 17, 2016
Messages
1,811
Reaction score
2,054
Location
N.C. and elsewhere
Does any one have same cap and ball revolver in the two calibers mentioned? What I am curious about is if the cylinder is narrower in the .36 compared to the .44 or is the cylinder the same with smaller holes in the appropriate places. I am interested in all info but I am specifically looking at 1860 models. Additionally, the 1860 Army specs say it is an inch longer and about 3 ounces heavier than the 1860 Navy specs (with the same barrel length). Where is the difference? Thanks
 
I had a Pietta Remington 36 cylinder and it fit perfectly in a Pietta Remington 44. I suspect it may depend on who makes the reproduction. Originals may be different.
 
I assume you are referring to Colt revolvers. The 1851/1861 Navy and the 1860 Army all use the same frames.

The 1860 Army .44 has a rebated cylinder to accommodate the .44 caliber ball, and the frame water table is cut lower to accept the .44 cylinder. The cylinders were either round/engraved or fluted/non engraved. The cylinder is longer than the Navy .36 cylinder and the barrel forcing cone is shorter than the Navy .36 barrel. The barrel is 8" long and the gripframe is longer than the Navy.

The 1851/1861 Navy .36 has a non-rebated/engraved cylinder. It is shorter than the Army cylinder and the barrel forcing cone is longer than the Army barrel forcing cone. The barrel is 7.5" long.

The 1860 Army .44 4-screw frame cut-for-shoulder-stock with both types of cylinders:



The 1861 Navy .36 3-screw frame:



Regards,

Jim
 
Size comparison:

Armi San Marco 1860 Army .44 8" barrel 2 lbs. 8 oz.
Uberti 1848 Whitneyville Hartford Dragoon .44 7.5" barrel 4 lbs. 2 oz.
Pietta 1851 Navy Second Model Belt Dragoon (fantasy gun) .36 7.5" barrel 2 lbs. 7 oz.

 
A Dragoon in .36 would be neat......you can't tell me Sam Colt didn't once think about it.......a .375 round ball with a 60 gr charge below it? Yes let's do it
 
A Dragoon in .36 would be neat......you can't tell me Sam Colt didn't once think about it.......a .375 round ball with a 60 gr charge below it? Yes let's do it

Would you settle for one with a 4-screw cut-for-stock frame? Mine has 1860 Army grips with a Colt Type 3 stock.

No Walker-sized 60 grain charge though...



Regards,

Jim
 
That's neat, I love it :)

However a little .375 ball propelled by the Service charge of a 61 Springfield would be like a light recoiling little hand carbine
 
If only Col. Sam had made a revolver that used .53 round ball.
I could have an Italian replica to go with my GPR!
 
That's neat, I love it :) However a little .375 ball propelled by the Service charge of a 61 Springfield would be like a light recoiling little hand carbine

I doubt one can stuff that much BP into a Navy cylinder, and a lot of it would exit the 7.5" barrel unburned.

I think some enterprising machinist/gunsmith could figure out how to install a slightly shortened Pietta Pepperbox .36 cylinder and modified (breech-end) Navy barrel to a Pietta Navy frame.

 
I read an article years ago in like 2004 or so in a Shotgun News about British Tranter and other makers that made huge cap and ball revolvers during the Indian Mutiny and also just for general use for dangerous game. They had enormous cylinders and used huge bullets and balls probably around .58. They were big 5-shots but they must not have used big charges because the cylinders had a large circumference but were relatively narrow.

I would guess they evolved into those .577 cartridge revolvers likely used for the same purpose.
 
Does any one have same cap and ball revolver in the two calibers mentioned? What I am curious about is if the cylinder is narrower in the .36 compared to the .44 or is the cylinder the same with smaller holes in the appropriate places. I am interested in all info but I am specifically looking at 1860 models. Additionally, the 1860 Army specs say it is an inch longer and about 3 ounces heavier than the 1860 Navy specs (with the same barrel length). Where is the difference? Thanks

The Pietta interpretation of a .36 caliber 1858 has plenty of extra meat. Boring one out to be a .42 to shoot .44 mag molds (WC, SWC, RN) could make a really nice piece. There's been a lot of .424 and .429 round ball molds on ebay lately too.
:)
 
20200225_175322.jpg

The brass frame was on the smaller Pietta1851 44.
The steel was on the Pietta 1851 36. I prefer steel on 44s so I switched the frames and the cylinder works on the steel 36 frame without the lower cut in the frame for the cylinder.
 
The brass frame was on the smaller Pietta1851 44. The steel was on the Pietta 1851 36. I prefer steel on 44s so I switched the frames and the cylinder works on the steel 36 frame without the lower cut in the frame for the cylinder.

I am no expert, but that is pretty remarkable. Even Sam Colt could not accomplish that. What are the date codes on the two revolver frames? If they are earlier than BP/2001, those frames are pre-CNC guns and there were many different tolerances comparatively and I could understand that. Any interference between the cylinder and frame will readily show. Still...

Jim
 
I am no expert, but that is pretty remarkable. Even Sam Colt could not accomplish that. What are the date codes on the two revolver frames? If they are earlier than BP/2001, those frames are pre-CNC guns and there were many different tolerances comparatively and I could understand that. Any interference between the cylinder and frame will readily show. Still...

Jim
Might
The cylinder is real close but turns easily. Lines up and locks on the mark. I shot the 44 with no problems. Haven't shot the 36 but do not expect any issues.
I had the 36 about 15 years. The 44 I got at a pawn shop for little of nothing. Got to be CNC machined. I'll have to date them to know for sure. I was surprised. Figured there would be some little thing that would make it not work. The cylinder gap is a tad tighter than it was but no binding.
 
Back
Top