1851 Navy, brass vs. steel, etc.

[MrTriple]

First, historically the 1851 Colt Navy was always a .36 caliber weapon, correct? Were the historical revolvers ever .44 or are the .44 replicas a historical inaccuracy? Same question re: octagonal vs. round barrels.

Second, what's the deal with brass from a historical and physical standpoint? Was it ever used historically as a construction material for these revolvers? And is the brass significantly weaker than steel to the point that brass revolvers aren't worth the savings you get over steel?

Thirdly, isn't the "brass" used in today's replicas not true brass but more of a bronze, and therefore stronger than brass? I get conflicting answers in that regard.

Thanks again!

 

[cynthialee]

1. the .44 1851 is a fantasy firearm
2. brass was used in place of steel by the South as a metal saving measure during Mr Lincolns war
3.I do not know the answer to this. But I do know that hot loading in a brass frame and shooting it allot will eventually stretch it.

 

[CaptainKirk]

First, historically the 1851 Colt Navy was always a .36 caliber weapon, correct? Were the historical revolvers ever .44 or are the .44 replicas a historical inaccuracy?

Navies were .36 cal. The Army configuration was the .44

Same question re: octagonal vs. round barrels.

All the Remingtons were octagonal barrels; both Navy (.36) and New Army (.44)
Colt Navies were octagonal barrel
Walkers and Dragoons were round barrel with flat Navy-style receiver
Army was round barrel
Later model Navies ('61-'62) were round Army-style barrels
'Confederate Navy'(A.K.A. Schneider & Glassick style)-brass frame .36. octagonal barrel
'Confederate Navy (A.K.A. Griswold & Gunnison style- brass frame, round barrel
There are a lot more types and styles, but these are the most popular replica types
BTW, there is no historical evidence to prove a brass framed Remington like those sold at Cabelas was ever made, to my knowledge....

Second, what's the deal with brass from a historical and physical standpoint? Was it ever used historically as a construction material for these revolvers?

Yes. The south used brass in most of their revolver construction.

And is the brass significantly weaker than steel to the point that brass revolvers aren't worth the savings you get over steel?

For the most part, yes. If you keep max loads below 20gr FFF on a brass Navy, and below 25gr FFF on a .44, you will be safe for a good long while. But for the extra $100.00 or so a steelie costs, you can basically stuff in as much FFF powder as the cylinder will hold and still turn and not harm it.

Thirdly, isn't the "brass" used in today's replicas not true brass but more of a bronze, and therefore stronger than brass? I get conflicting answers in that regard.

No. The brass used during the Civil War period actually contained more bronze

 

[Zonie]

To add a bit to Cynthialee's comments, the 1851 Colt was always a .36 caliber gun.

Prior to the 1851, Colt made the Walker and the Dragoons in .44 caliber. At the time, those were the only .44 caliber revolvers made in the US.

Cynthialee is correct about the Colt copies made in the South. Some (but not all) of those Southern companies used a round barrel rather than a octagon barrel.

Colt himself used brass for the trigger guard and grip backstrap. These brass parts were silver plated.
The exception to this was the guns Colt made in his factory in England. The Brit's didn't want brass trigger guards or backstraps so the "London" guns were made with these parts in iron.

As for brass and bronze, there are over 100 different kinds of it on the market.

Some of it is quite strong. Some of it is pathetically weak. No one I've ever talked to knows what grade the Italians are using for their reproductions but you can bet it isn't something that contains beryllium or cobalt.

 

[jaxenro]

I don't think it was lack of iron but ease of machining and casting that caused the South to use brass. Remember by later 1863 the South was working on iron cannons because they were out of bronze (actually copper)

 

[BowerR64]

Dont let the historicly correct thing get in the way of your decision there is nothing wrong with a .44 in any model.

Why do you think they have it in .44? Its better and more people wanted it in .44

Once you start collecting a few of them you will wish they all use the same ball like i did.

 

[cynthialee]

Dont let the historicly correct thing get in the way of your decision there is nothing wrong with a .44 in any model.

Why do you think they have it in .44? Its better and more people wanted it in .44

Once you start collecting a few of them you will wish they all use the same ball like i did.

I have to agree.
The 1851 in .44 was probably the biggest missed opportunity Colt ever had. imho
I absolutely love my 1851 .44 it has served me well so far.

 

[dickydalton]

jaxenro is right. It was the cost and ease of machining brass that made it popular for the South.

 

[jaxenro]

I was reading a period comment somewhere the other day where they liked the new iron cannons because they didn't ring the ears like the brass ones did when fired. Got me to thinking about bell metal and what sound the cannon might make

 

[BowerR64]

Dont let the historicly correct thing get in the way of your decision there is nothing wrong with a .44 in any model.

Why do you think they have it in .44? Its better and more people wanted it in .44

Once you start collecting a few of them you will wish they all use the same ball like i did.

I have to agree.
The 1851 in .44 was probably the biggest missed opportunity Colt ever had. imho
I absolutely love my 1851 .44 it has served me well so far.

Me too, i find it easier to load then the 60 for some reason the cylinder is to close to the frame or something and the ball only sits down ove rthe chamber right under the ramrod. The 51 the ball can sit on the side till its rotated under the ramrod wich for me helps me load it. I also like that big beefy looking barrel. Im wanting a civillian model with the steel and silver so i have one of each in the brass and the steel

 

[t.l.a.r. eng]

Here is a 51 Navy .36 in steel with a round barrel. Accurate, and a blast to shoot. May do another one like this in .44 :thumbsup:

 

[Zonie]

If that pistol has a steel frame, you have created a pretty rare Confederate gun.

The company of Leech & Rigdon made a very limited number of iron framed, round barreled .36 caliber revolvers. Many of them had 12 cylinder stops, the extra 6 being used to lock the cylinder in a "safe" position.

 

[Wes/Tex]

I have to agree.
The 1851 in .44 was probably the biggest missed opportunity Colt ever had. imho
I absolutely love my 1851 .44 it has served me well so far.

I'm sure Colt considered it but since the M.1860 was a result of steel advancements in the decade since the Navy came out, the extra machining required for octagon barrels wasn't economically viable during war time. They did do a basically baby version in the so called "M.1853" which was, in fact, an octagon barreled version of the Pocket Police or M.1862. Both were basically the rebated frame trick used to upgrade the .31 Baby Dragoons to .36 pocket pistols, like your shiny new baby! :thumbsup:

 

[cynthialee]

I have owned the 1860 in the past and I did not find it to be an improvement on the 1851 other than caliber. I much prefer the feel of the older model in my hand. Which with the 1851 .44 fantasy gun it is a non issue.

Now I do like the 1860, do not get me wrong here. I have owned them in the past and if the right pistol were to find its' way to my hand I would be all about bragging and posting pictures.

 

[Wes/Tex]

The only reason Colt went with a longer grip on the M.1860 was it was considered a hard kicking handgun for it's time. Not sure who's final decision that was since the Walkers and Dragoons had standard length grips. Suppose since the M.1860 was the weight of a Navy with close to the load of a Dragoon, somebody got the willies and decided cavalry troopers needed help. I've got smaller hands and have swapped out grips with Navy .36's since it's a bit more comfortable for me. Since the frames are actually the same except for the rebated milling to hold the larger fronted .44 cylinder, it's possible to swap out small parts except for frame and loading levers.

The new versions of a .44 Navy are indeed a non-issue except for the historical aspect. If it wasn't for my love of the looks of the M.1860, I"d probably have bought one for fun shooting! :thumbsup:

 

[George T.]

In our area at least the price of the two are very close. I would go with the steel frame. In fact I did. I have two 1860 Army's.

Geo. T.

 

[CaptainKirk]

If that pistol has a steel frame, you have created a pretty rare Confederate gun.

The company of Leech & Rigdon made a very limited number of iron framed, round barreled .36 caliber revolvers. Many of them had 12 cylinder stops, the extra 6 being used to lock the cylinder in a "safe" position.

Zonie is correct....it's a L&R with the exception of the roll-engraved cylinder.

 

[Wes/Tex]

Zonie is correct....it's a L&R with the exception of the roll-engraved cylinder.

In the strictly FWIW category, Giswold & Gunnison made a percentage of iron framed Colt 'Navy' copies as well, as did Schneider & Glassick of Memphis, Tenn.; George Todd of Austin, Texas; and L.E. Tucker & Sons(later Tucker, Sherrard & Co.), Lancaster, Dallas & Marshall, Texas...they were paid by the state, then had all their workers conscripted! :shocked2: Oops!! :haha:

 

[BowerR64]

Another thing i like about the 51 i forgot about is the ramrod.

Since this gun is supose to be a .36 the ramrod is smaller for the .36 that sloppy ramrod really helps speed of loading IMO.

I find that some of these reproductions have a very tight fitting ramrod into the chambers (unless they have been reamed) when the ramrod is a tight fit it can sometimes jam up or you ca turn the cylinder to far and pass the chamber. I never have this issue with the .44 in the 51 that .36 ramrod always gives me that little wiggle room.

I can see this gun being the best with loading under stress or in a hurry.

 

[crockett]

1. I "think" there were six experimental 1851's in 44 that never left the Hartford factory. This was when Colt was wondering if a 44 would work on a frame smaller than the Dragoon.
2. Yes- the Confederate forces but even then the production was small. The Confederates carried far more revolvers that were just standard, steel frame Colts, etc.
3. Not sure that the originals were pure brass- I thought they were an alloy of some sort. Brass can be hard or soft or even made into springs. A liner lock spring on one of my folding knives is brass.