Do I need a filler for a 20 grain charge in a .44 cal. Cylinder?

[Old-Duckman]

The thought of relying on a percussion revolver for defense does not give me great confidence but if it has to be done , it has to be done.

Amen to that!

Other than being a felon and not being able to legally own an unmentionable, why would it have to be done? Maybe the reason was in an earlier post that I didn’t read..?

 

[Schutzer]

Amen to that!

Other than being a felon and not being able to legally own an unmentionable, why would it have to be done? Maybe the reason was in an earlier post that I didn’t read..?

I don’t think it was implied that there was any legal need, by anyone. It was more about, if one were to carry one for self defense, what would be acceptable standards as far as power, etc.
Besides, though I believe BP guns aren’t considered firearms by the Feds, I think they still fall under the definition of “firearm” in most states. I.e., a weapon that by some chemical combustion or explosive process causes the expulsion of a missile or projectile, etc. So the Feds may not get a felon carrying BP, but the state/local police will! at least where I am.

 

[Stantheman86]

What do you think of the Ruger Blackhawk? I have an opportunity to purchase one but it seems like a LOT of money for something that is ahistorical, as well as only slightly more powerful than the historical copies, plus it looks VERY large and bulky. The only advantages would be virtually unlimited loads and from what I’ve heard, no cap jams.
I agree with you about the Dragoon etc. As far as accuracy, there is just something about the 1851 that fits the hand perfectly, feels very comfortable, and incredibly good accuracy— I can always hit center of bullseye at 7 to 10 yards, one handed. Which is further than most self-defense situations would warrant. When I was a policeman I carried the Glock and there’s no way I could boast of doing that consistently with it, one handed! These reproduction guns are are far more accurate than most people think.

More people than I can count have tried to steer me to the Ruger Old Army, but I not only already have a pile of Ruger "unmentionables " that are pretty much the same gun , but I enjoy the open top Colts for range shooting and fun projects

I have no need for a "serious" percussion revolver that's basically a percussion Super Blackhawk

If you need the absolute best cap and baller , that will last forever, the Ruger is it

 

[Stantheman86]

Amen to that!

Other than being a felon and not being able to legally own an unmentionable, why would it have to be done? Maybe the reason was in an earlier post that I didn’t read..?

YouTube is full of the "I made a mistake and now I can't own firearms " guys teaching you tactical Pietta snub shooting

There are rare outliers, there are people who just choose not to own "modern" firearms or maybe their family doesn't like guns but they allow a cap and baller. When I was a college kid I kept a (then) 90 buck Cabelas special .44 Reb Navy brasser loaded with Pyrodex and round balls as an "apartment defense " gun because I was out of State, couldn't get a "real" gun plus I figured if it got stolen I wouldn't have to worry about a cheap non-gun like if someone swiped a Beretta 9mm, and I'd have a gun registered to me floating around.
But that kinda stuff is basically a rare, case by case scenario of using blackpowder revolvers out of either necessity, to keep domestic peace or just convenience

It would be an extreme last ditch scenario if I'm keeping a capper hogleg as a home defense gun and sure it would probably work, but if I hear glass breaking downstairs I'd rather not reach for 1850s weapons tech as the line between life and death

 

[SmokepoleSam]

@Schutzer,The Ruger Blackhawk is a cartridge revolver and that is why you haven't heard of any cap jams with it.

 

[Schutzer]

@Schutzer,The Ruger Blackhawk is a cartridge revolver and that is why you haven't heard of any cap jams with it.

Sorry, I meant the Ruger Old Army or New Model Army or whatever silly name it got. The guy with the booth at the gun show confused me- he had the Ruger C&B revolver on the table but kept referring to it as the “Blackhawk”.

 

[Schutzer]

More people than I can count have tried to steer me to the Ruger Old Army, but I not only already have a pile of Ruger "unmentionables " that are pretty much the same gun , but I enjoy the open top Colts for range shooting and fun projects

I have no need for a "serious" percussion revolver that's basically a percussion Super Blackhawk

If you need the absolute best cap and baller , that will last forever, the Ruger is it

Well I’m still thinking about it— for the price of the Ruger Old Army I could buy a new HF radio I’ve been wanting lol.

 

[Uncle Miltie]

 

[Schutzer]

YouTube is full of the "I made a mistake and now I can't own firearms " guys teaching you tactical Pietta snub shooting

There are rare outliers, there are people who just choose not to own "modern" firearms or maybe their family doesn't like guns but they allow a cap and baller. When I was a college kid I kept a (then) 90 buck Cabelas special .44 Reb Navy brasser loaded with Pyrodex and round balls as an "apartment defense " gun because I was out of State, couldn't get a "real" gun plus I figured if it got stolen I wouldn't have to worry about a cheap non-gun like if someone swiped a Beretta 9mm, and I'd have a gun registered to me floating around.
But that kinda stuff is basically a rare, case by case scenario of using blackpowder revolvers out of either necessity, to keep domestic peace or just convenience

It would be an extreme last ditch scenario if I'm keeping a capper hogleg as a home defense gun and sure it would probably work, but if I hear glass breaking downstairs I'd rather not reach for 1850s weapons tech as the line between life and death

I understand where you’re coming from. I’m not a convicted felon, so for me it would be just a choice. I agree that a C&B revolver might not be a good choice for home defense, particularly if one has a wife and/or little ones to be responsible for. If one’s single and alone, that might be a different matter… but, to be clear, I was mainly referring to carrying outside of the home. And, I was mainly referring to its use NOT against a suspect armed with another firearm (in my opinion one shouldn’t be messing with trying to draw on someone who already has the drop on you with a firearm anyway, but that’s another topic). Rather, against a suspect assaulting or attempting to assault with a lethal weapon that would necessitate (and the law would allow) a deadly force response, but that is NOT a firearm. For example, someone swinging a bat, or a club, or a bike lock, or possibly a knife (that’s a controversial subject I know), a brick, a large rock, or any object that could result in grievous bodily injury or death, or even simply using overwhelming physical force by way of numbers— all of these being attacks against which one can legally use deadly force (assuming one has already retreated or attempted to retreat, or not, whatever is required in one’s state). Those would be the kinds of situations against which, in my opinion, using a C&B revolver would be more suitable, perhaps even more so than a modern firearm.

The topic is long and complicated, but I can think of a few advantages a C&B firearm would have over a modern one. Unfortunately, and I know this from having been in law enforcement for years, is that no mater how legally justified one is in use of force, and even if the use of force was unsuccessful, in that both the attacker and yourself are completely unharmed, one thing is somewhere between 50% and 90% likely— one is never going to see that firearm again. It is going to be seized for the investigation and disappear into an evidence locker from which it will never emerge, or if it does emerge, your grandchildren will have had their own grandchildren already by then. I’ve known of cases of folks who had to hire lawyers and jump through all kinds of hoops to have a very personal keepsake returned like their grandfather’s WW2 weapon etc. Bottom line— would you rather lose your $4000 Korth or $2000 Colt Python… or a battered but trusty $150 Pietta clone?

There are other advantages I can think of— you control the power of your firearm, according to how many grains of powder you load it with. Assuming of course, that you don’t overdo it and load your Remington 1858 with like 70 grains (if it could fit), which by any account would be overkill and any prosecutor could argue that. It is very unlikely for there to be overpenetration with a C&B pistol, which might be important in an urban environment. And if you miss, the ball has far less energy than a modern round so will travel far less and is far less likely to penetrate walls and bricks and things, that it might unintentionally strike. And, something that might be very important, depending on where you live, use of an 1850s black powder revolver is far less likely to generate hate for “big scary semi automatic weapons of war” than use of a modern firearm might. In other words, it would be far less likely to lead to anti-2A activism by unfriendly state attorneys and such. It would be more like “That poor sweet old man had to resort to such a weak, primitive weapon to save his life against an attacker… bless his heart.”

There are more advantages I’m sure, and plenty of disadvantages too. Anyway, standard disclaimer— don’t take anything I posted as legal advice, or even tactical advice, and check your local laws and regulations.

 

[Old-Duckman]

Well I’m still thinking about it— for the price of the Ruger Old Army I could buy a new HF radio I’ve been wanting lol.

Yeah but the Dems don't want to ban Hi Fi radios...

 

[nick_1]

Work on your accuracy and you won't have to worry about power. If you couldn't hit a bullseye at 7 yards with a Glock then your probably not lying about being a cop. My experience with cops was that the few that were good were really good and the rest of them shouldn't have been allowed to touch a firearm. Last time I was at the range while the sherrifs department was qualifying one of the traffic obstructions missed a 7yrd silhouette target completely with the shotgun and blew a branch off a tree above the Bern...

 

[Stantheman86]

I understand where you’re coming from. I’m not a convicted felon, so for me it would be just a choice. I agree that a C&B revolver might not be a good choice for home defense, particularly if one has a wife and/or little ones to be responsible for. If one’s single and alone, that might be a different matter… but, to be clear, I was mainly referring to carrying outside of the home. And, I was mainly referring to its use NOT against a suspect armed with another firearm (in my opinion one shouldn’t be messing with trying to draw on someone who already has the drop on you with a firearm anyway, but that’s another topic). Rather, against a suspect assaulting or attempting to assault with a lethal weapon that would necessitate (and the law would allow) a deadly force response, but that is NOT a firearm. For example, someone swinging a bat, or a club, or a bike lock, or possibly a knife (that’s a controversial subject I know), a brick, a large rock, or any object that could result in grievous bodily injury or death, or even simply using overwhelming physical force by way of numbers— all of these being attacks against which one can legally use deadly force (assuming one has already retreated or attempted to retreat, or not, whatever is required in one’s state). Those would be the kinds of situations against which, in my opinion, using a C&B revolver would be more suitable, perhaps even more so than a modern firearm.

The topic is long and complicated, but I can think of a few advantages a C&B firearm would have over a modern one. Unfortunately, and I know this from having been in law enforcement for years, is that no mater how legally justified one is in use of force, and even if the use of force was unsuccessful, in that both the attacker and yourself are completely unharmed, one thing is somewhere between 50% and 90% likely— one is never going to see that firearm again. It is going to be seized for the investigation and disappear into an evidence locker from which it will never emerge, or if it does emerge, your grandchildren will have had their own grandchildren already by then. I’ve known of cases of folks who had to hire lawyers and jump through all kinds of hoops to have a very personal keepsake returned like their grandfather’s WW2 weapon etc. Bottom line— would you rather lose your $4000 Korth or $2000 Colt Python… or a battered but trusty $150 Pietta clone?

There are other advantages I can think of— you control the power of your firearm, according to how many grains of powder you load it with. Assuming of course, that you don’t overdo it and load your Remington 1858 with like 70 grains (if it could fit), which by any account would be overkill and any prosecutor could argue that. It is very unlikely for there to be overpenetration with a C&B pistol, which might be important in an urban environment. And if you miss, the ball has far less energy than a modern round so will travel far less and is far less likely to penetrate walls and bricks and things, that it might unintentionally strike. And, something that might be very important, depending on where you live, use of an 1850s black powder revolver is far less likely to generate hate for “big scary semi automatic weapons of war” than use of a modern firearm might. In other words, it would be far less likely to lead to anti-2A activism by unfriendly state attorneys and such. It would be more like “That poor sweet old man had to resort to such a weak, primitive weapon to save his life against an attacker… bless his heart.”

There are more advantages I’m sure, and plenty of disadvantages too. Anyway, standard disclaimer— don’t take anything I posted as legal advice, or even tactical advice, and check your local laws and regulations.

I may be oversimplifying but I had thought, once you draw and fire any kind of firearm, it's a firearm. If a thug tries to hit me with a bike chain, and I shoot him with my .36 Pocket Navy I'm in the same process legally as if I'd shot him with my Glock 42.

The advice I was always given was, don't carry too much gun, don't carry stupid stuff like 1911's with "Smile and wait for flash" on the muzzle, or any of that. No .44 Magnum snubs. Just a gun that suits a regular civilian who was out trying to go to the store when 2 men accosted you and tried to take your car keys with a knife.

I carry one of my little NAA Minis a lot, basically the modern version of the old "vest pocket revolver" . If I ever had to use it, I could never be accused of being out looking for a gun fight. It's also very convenient and easy to carry, I got tired of dressing around larger guns.

Carrying a little Wells Fargo .31 would definitely not be seen as "too much gun" , it all depends on how the Homicide investigation goes down. You could also be seen as carrying an "untraceable drop gun" because people like meth heads are starting to buy up stuff like Pietta cap and ballers to use as 6 pops and a drop disposable guns. I've seen pics on local PD's Facebook pages of "seized drugs and weapons caches" and it's a bunch of meth making supplies and a brasser Pietta 1858 Remington or something. Because they can just go to a gun show and buy them with cash and no background check.

 

[Schutzer]

“I may be oversimplifying but I had thought, once you draw and fire any kind of firearm, it's a firearm. If a thug tries to hit me with a bike chain, and I shoot him with my .36 Pocket Navy I'm in the same process legally as if I'd shot him with my Glock 42.”

Not necessarily. The investigation, possible indictment, etc, is a long process with a lot of moving parts. First of all, the officers and the state attorney would have to decide to charge you… then, if you’re charged, it would have to go in front of a Grand Jury… then, it would go in front of a judge or jury who are all human… then, if convicted there is sentencing. At any one of those steps, your case could be dismissed or on conviction the sentence lengthened or shortened. So human PERCEPTION, and emotions, and opinions are constantly entering into it. The details matter. Whether you were armed with “too much gun” as you put it or alternatively, “a very primitive weak weapon that barely works“, really would matter. Plus, remember it might be covered in the press, where public opinion might matter greatly.

I didn’t realize BP guns were beginning to be carried by criminals. Where I served, it was all crackheads and crack and heroin dealers, who wouldn’t have had the mental acuity to even attempt to load and cap a revolver, much less use it properly and safely… they would have been going off in their pockets constantly! I can see how they might be being used even unloaded in robberies though— most civilians don’t know the difference and aren’t gowing to question whether the revolver in their face has loaded and greased chambers, is capped with non-CCI caps because those hardly ever go off, etc. A good policy would be to keep a very close, good record of your BP guns, including their serial numbers, with family members being aware of them etc. Maybe even put them in your will, by serial #. That way no one can be accused of attempting to conceal ownership and possession.