it's 1862, what pistol would you carry?

[oletymepreacher]

I don't collect. I accumulate.

 

[Celt5494]

Le Mat!

 

[rdillion]

I accumulate and accumulate and then accumulate some more. I am fortunate that my wife shares or at least understands my passion for firearms. Our first date was a range session shooting handguns. I was shooting a 9mm she was shooting a 45ACP. Needless to say I had to upgrade.
:thumbsup:

 

[bdhutier]

Ohhhh, yeah... Can't be shooting 9mm when she's laying down .45. I heard 9mm is a .45ACP set on "stun." :grin:

 

[bdhutier]

I do think of myself as a collector. A collector who is too poor to collect 98% of the time, but details...

I'd say I am, because I obtain very specific items (specifically firearms in this case) based on a pointed personal interest. I don't buy weapons because I can, I buy them because that's the one I want. For me, it's typically a historical connection.

When looking down the barrel of the Navy, I can almost feel the too-scared-to-piss-himself Lieutenant at Manassas, or the half-drunk 18yo cowboy at the end of the cattle drive, hoping to find the trouble he's afraid he'll find to prove he's not a kid anymore.

I can almost feel the half-numb tremor of the Private peering over what is now my M39 Moisin-Nagant, desperately praying he won't see Russians in the treeline today, because he's not sure he can handle another yesterday.

For me, firearms are tools. Mine are tools of the time machine variety, and I collect time machines when one calls to me... and I can afford it. :wink:

 

[himem777]

:rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:

 

[Dphar]

Why the confusing nomenclature?

The "1874" Sharps was fully formed and shipping in 1870-71. I don't think it was called a 74 prior of 1875 or 76 but would have to hit the books to be positive.


Maybe back dating them 3-5 years made the revolvers seem better proven?

Dan

 

[Dphar]

hey dan excuse my ignorance ,but what is full flute? :hmm:

http://www.cimarron-firearms.com/BlkPowder/CA041-60ArmyFlute.htm

Better late than never. Missed your question.
Some (many?) original FF 1860s are the 7.5" bbl variant.

Dan

 

[Dphar]

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

I lot of this is, as it was then, personal preference.
While the Remington has some perceived advantages, in actual use of both the Colt and the Remington in a speed contest you will find that the Remington is less desirable. Only hits count and even the SAA is inferior at gun fight ranges for pointability and getting hits. The various "full frame" perc revolvers really have no disadvantage in accuracy either. Its why so many Colts were made. It was not ALL Sam Colt's considerable marketing skills.
I would still stay with the 1860 for a pistol in the west. They were not carried for hunting. They were last ditch protection and I found I could easily shoot small game with a rifled pistol about as far (or even farther with the percussion pistol) as the small shot would be effective anyway. Carrying a bag of shot around along with everything needed else would outweight its occasional use shooting small game.
See Osborne Russell's account of the Pierre's hole fight. He had a "German Horse Pistol" in case he was charged when his rifle was empty since the fight was very close quarter.

As you suggest the 50+ caliber ML was a better hunting arm than the various early breech loaders until the advent of the 50-70 and 44-77 cartridges. As a result the "plains" rifle was in use longer than many might think simply because it worked well. Having a good ML for hunting and a Henry or 1866 (the 66 was often called a "Henry" in the west) for "social events" would have been near perfect before the big SS rifle arrived or could be afforded.
IIRC Cover was carrying a full stocked Hawken in 1867 when Bozeman was killed.

Dan

 

[poordevil]

Does any one find the two screws used for the shoulder stock to interfere with their shooting hand? It just rubs on my trigger finger. To remove the screw opens the frame to dirt and I have found no filler screws to replace them with.

 

[Blizzard of '93]

as the OP says the time is 1862. the big bore front stuffer was definitely more powerful then early breech-loaders (which were quicker reloading - for 'social purposes' as you aptly put it).
the smooth bore pistol would be my preference for takeing game and birds on the move, and yes I can shoot my Remmy and ROA well. the added logistical problem of carrying a bag of shot and wadding could be dealt with easily enough - mind that a pack animal or 2 would be taken.

 

[32 conical]

I'd carry what points best for me, which is an 1851 Navy Colt. I'd load it with conicals to get more oomph than 36 rb's. If not that, the 44 Remington fits my hand and balances better for me than the 1860 Colt. :hmm: :applause: :applause:

 

[Geraldo]

1862, eh? Well first I'll tell you what my family carried for handguns...nothing. At least one was issued a Lorenz rifle (his regiment later got Enfields). He was an enlisted man who spent a lot of time on pioneer duty, so he probably handled an axe more than a firearm.

The civilians had locally Ohio built rifles and not much need for anything more (a neighbor's family had a Leman).

Had I been born to these people I'd have been a mid-western farm boy, the son of a man who outlived his first two wives and had more children than he could count over a period of forty years. I'm not sure I'd have even had my own rifle let alone a handgun.

If I had enlisted, perhaps I could have picked up a Griswald and Gunnison, Dance and Bros, or London Navy Colt from some Johnny Reb prisoner.

 

[Zonie]

My Pistol in 1862 would be a Colt 1862 Police model.

Its .36 caliber would do anything I think I would need to do and its light weight would make carrying it a breeze.

It would work very well on trap lines or as a back up for dispatching any deer that needed it.

I'm not into the "shooting people" mind frame but if that was needed its .36 caliber should do the job.

I would also end up with the sexiest little revolver Colt ever made. :grin:

 

[Pete Gaimari]

Good luck with bears. :idunno:

 

[Homesteader]

Zonie, I've only had .44's. How does the '62 Police differ from the Colt Army? I'm a big guy who likes a big gun, and have always found it easier to use the same ammo, etc. Would it be worth acquiring a .36? (Remember, I'm so broke these days it's hard to pay attention!) What's the real difference between those revolvers?

(FWIW, my favorite "period" set is two '60 Colt Army's carried butt forward in Slim Jim's.)

Thanks!

 

[Zonie]

The real BIG difference is size.
The 1862 Police is basically a .36 caliber 5 shot revolver built on a .32 Colt sized frame.
The cylinder is rebated to accommodate the larger caliber cylinder and is fluted to reduce weight. The barrel shape and loading lever looks like the streamlined 1860 Army.

The grip is very small so anyone with big hands probably wouldn't be comfortable with it.

The gun was built to be light weight with a larger caliber so the Police wouldn't have to carry a heavy gun around all day but if they needed it they would have the power of a .36 to stop the bad guys.

 

[Norinco]

With the lead and powder you save by shooting .36, you can make up the cost of a bullet mould easily.

 

[brubincam]

-----BEARS? thats why he carries a pocket knife----- :idunno:

 

[Pete Gaimari]

-----BEARS? thats why he carries a pocket knife----- :idunno:

I tried that. The bear was laughing at being tickled.