it's 1862, what pistol would you carry?

Help Support Muzzle Loading Forum:

Pete Gaimari

69 Cal.
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
3,545
Reaction score
2
Looks like a sore knuckle in your future from the trigger guard.

See your little finger off the bottom of the grip? You won't have that with the 60.
 

east texas

45 Cal.
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
582
Reaction score
0
yea that big ol remmie looks like a cap gun! :rotf: my trigger finger is kinda tight in there too! i didnt send it back and get the 60 cause i had alredy re done the grips. they were basically un finished and almost black from being oil soaked in a plastic bag but im savin now for a 60
 

Pete Gaimari

69 Cal.
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
3,545
Reaction score
2
I'd still send it back. They just stick them in the bargain barrel.

Once you hold the 60 you'll never shoot the 58 again.
 

east texas

45 Cal.
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
582
Reaction score
0
well illprobally keep it hate to get rid of a {perfectly good gun?} i noticed on some of the colt style pistols the triggerguard is cut away in the back, cant remember which model! my finger wont even fit behind the trigger guard! maybe why im havin a little trouble shootin high? havin to bend my wrist unnaturally downward to get a good sight picture! i guess this pic will settle that argument about man size hands and girly grips :dead: :dead: :dead:
 

Dphar

70 Cal.
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
4,622
Reaction score
1
According to Garavaglia and Worman in " Firearms of the American West 1803-1865" supplies were good for civilians and the full flute was very common in early production.
The 1860 was tested by the Board of Ordnance in May 1860 and I suspect it was in serious production by that time, 11 months prior to Ft Sumpter. So there was time for several thousand to go to civilian hands. Given the inspector reject rate of the SAA I suspect that there were rejects in the 1860 production as well that were then sold on the open market just as the SAs were.

Pg 318
"In spite of voracious demands of the Ordnance Department....the Colt factory was still able to supply the Civilian market with all the revolvers it could handle."
Though the Army was in shorter supply than the smaller bore revolvers.

Dan
 

Norinco

50 Cal.
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
1,169
Reaction score
0
There is a lightening cut between each chamber on the cylinder. Rather than the cut going halfway back like we're used to on modern revolvers, it went the whole way.
 

Pete Gaimari

69 Cal.
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
3,545
Reaction score
2
east texas said:
well illprobally keep it hate to get rid of a {perfectly good gun?} i noticed on some of the colt style pistols the triggerguard is cut away in the back, cant remember which model! my finger wont even fit behind the trigger guard! maybe why im havin a little trouble shootin high? havin to bend my wrist unnaturally downward to get a good sight picture! i guess this pic will settle that argument about man size hands and girly grips :dead: :dead: :dead:
You don't want the square trigger guard. It has less room than the round guard. It wasn't offered for 60, so you don't need to worry about it.
 

Zonie

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
MLF Supporter
Joined
Oct 4, 2003
Messages
30,293
Reaction score
2,821
Location
Phoenix, AZ
I agree.
There was a good reason Colt got rid of that neat looking squareback trigger guard. It can really put a hurt on the shooters finger if a heavy load is fired.
 

bdhutier

45 Cal.
Joined
Feb 24, 2009
Messages
696
Reaction score
0
Nice to know, since I've been ogling the 2nd model Dragoon for the trigger guard!
 

Dave Rosenthal

70 Cal.
Joined
Nov 24, 2006
Messages
4,471
Reaction score
0
Just remember a SHOOTER buys a gun based upon fit & purpose, a COLLECTOR buys a gun cause it looks pretty :redface: and used guns exist because collectors who start to SHOOT get their knuckles whacked, right Pete?

Dave
 

David W.

70 Cal.
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
4,233
Reaction score
0
My first choice is the 1862 New Army. If I were Jose Wells, I would list about three or four more.
 

BillinOregon

Cannon
MLF Supporter
Joined
Aug 4, 2004
Messages
6,896
Reaction score
174
Location
Alamogordo, New Mexico
Dan Phariss said:
According to Garavaglia and Worman in " Firearms of the American West 1803-1865" supplies were good for civilians and the full flute was very common in early production.
The 1860 was tested by the Board of Ordnance in May 1860 and I suspect it was in serious production by that time, 11 months prior to Ft Sumpter. So there was time for several thousand to go to civilian hands. Given the inspector reject rate of the SAA I suspect that there were rejects in the 1860 production as well that were then sold on the open market just as the SAs were.

Pg 318
"In spite of voracious demands of the Ordnance Department....the Colt factory was still able to supply the Civilian market with all the revolvers it could handle."
Though the Army was in shorter supply than the smaller bore revolvers.

Dan
Dan: Thanks for looking that up. I have both volumes of Garavaglia and Worman too. Should have occurred to me to check!
 

bdhutier

45 Cal.
Joined
Feb 24, 2009
Messages
696
Reaction score
0
What about a collector who is a shooter? :blah: The guns I buy are the ones I love. But the only ones I'll keep are the guns I shoot. Make sense?
:thumbsup:
 

Dave Rosenthal

70 Cal.
Joined
Nov 24, 2006
Messages
4,471
Reaction score
0
bdhutier said:
What about a collector who is a shooter? :blah: The guns I buy are the ones I love. But the only ones I'll keep are the guns I shoot. Make sense?
:thumbsup:
No, not to me. I don't have money to throw away. So I only buy what fits me and that I'll shoot. Not the least bit interested in collecting, just pumping lead. Never bought a gun cause of looks, only bought them because of what they can/do that's somewhat different than what I've already got. In my entire life I've only ever sold ONE gun, and it had a release trigger that I couldn't get used to no matter what I did.

If I had more money, I'd buy more
Colts and then fly over to Pete's place so he could teach me some tricks :grin: :wink: .

Dave
 

bdhutier

45 Cal.
Joined
Feb 24, 2009
Messages
696
Reaction score
0
Agreed, though I don't think I correctly articulated what I meant to say. My general rule is, one weapon for one purpose. Example: I have one BP shotty, one CF shotty. One hunting RB BP, one CF hunting rifle. One BP handgun, one CF handgun. And so on. I figure if I have 4 rifles appropriate for deer, I'm only really going to be shooting one rifle, therefore three collect dust. There's no point in having the other three. If I have a need, I buy the weapon I want to fill that need. If I want a 2-band Enfield, but I'm always going to grab the Renegade .50 to go hunt, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to get the Enfield too, does it?

See what I mean?

Now, there are exceptions, of course. If I saw a shootable Ordnance version '97 Winchester for $200, it'd be at my house before you could spit... :grin:
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2006
Messages
7,237
Reaction score
1
if headed to a fight a .44 Remmy and spare cylinder. as back up to a breechloader carbine.
the same if headed into the frontier but possibly a big-bore muzzler - maybe a .54 or .58 and a smoothy front-stuffer capper pistol of same caliber for prbs and shot for small game - say the goose/turkey shot size
 
2

Latest posts

Top