Pistol/revolver of choice...........

Discussion in 'Handguns' started by ebiggs1, Jul 23, 2010.

Help Support Muzzle Loading Forum by donating:

  1. Aug 15, 2010 #61

    Don

    Don

    Don

    58 Cal.

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,254
    Likes Received:
    1
    I have fired my .36 colt over a chronograph several times and though it is no magnum it is clearly deadly. With 23 grains of Pyrodex P and a ball I averaged 969 feet per second with 167 foot pounds energy. My 1851 navy will hold more powder than that and will send that little lead pill down range in excess of 1000 fps which will give it the same energy as the modern .380. A manstopper by todays standards? No, but still dang deadly. Is the .44 a more convincing killer? for sure but if I was faced with either the .36 or .44 I'd be sayin my prayers and lookin for an exit.

    Don
     
  2. Aug 15, 2010 #62

    redwing

    redwing

    redwing

    58 Cal.

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    2,104
    Likes Received:
    1
    The .380 or 9mm short is a man stopper. :rotf: I think this "Ole Sidewinder". would make a better weapon. :rotf:[​IMG]


    Even though he's has lost some guts of late. :idunno:
     
  3. Aug 15, 2010 #63

    David Teague

    David Teague

    David Teague

    54 Cal. MLF Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,650
    Likes Received:
    6
    Well, funny you should ask, but my grandfather daily carry weapon as the country sheriff during his 8 year term was in 32 S&W. He carried that sidearm for protection and had it in his home until he passed at the age of 84.

    I now have his revolver and received it in his will.

    What do I carry today? Well over the last 30ish years I have carried concealed the: 22LR, 380,38 spl, 9mm, 40 S&W, 44 Spl, and 45ACP. Sometimes while you want a larger caliber, the situation does not allow for a big hog leg strapped to your hip.

    There is a reason I practice headshots...

    Now back to the question at hand.

    I would choose a brace of 1861 Navies. Why? Cause they are fast in my hands (much faster than the larger 1860 Army,and of the Larger Colt horse pistols, the Remington grip, or the Lemat which is so large I can't cock it with one hand).

    My Navies have always been more accurate than my bigger bore Colts than I've owned (maybe because of the gripping issue).

    Regardless of the distorted modern opinions of others here, the 36 laid a number of people in the grave in period, was carried by a number of famous soldiers and gunfighters (yes, including Wild Bill who kept his C&B Navies after more powerful CARTRIDGE firearms came out).

    I've put my money where my mouth is as I've owned and shot 61 and 51 Navies since I was 16 (52 now) and used to shoot in a Cowboy Action club here in Anchorage with my brace of 36's against shooters with CARTRIDGE 44s and 45s and I'd kick their butts until a cap would lock my action in one on one speed shoot offs.

    Those little 36's were faster on target and for the follow up shots. I've always shot these style revolvers one handed and I was beating shooters using the weaver stance.

    Now as a former ACW reenactor I own all the Union gear and I'm not quite sure what 2 cold wet horse blankets have to do with a winter undershirt, shirt, vest, sack coat, and overcoat. You first claimed that the 36 Navy wouldn't shoot through a Union coat, now the claim has morphed into wet winter gear at 25 yards (and no documentation yet on this claim). Solders had a special tool at their command for longer range shooting. A primary weapon such as a musket or carbine.

    You seem to have more of a modern outlook on this issue so I'll share a quote from a solicitation e-mail from Frontsight " Understand this: Handguns are woefully inadequate in their stopping power as compared to a shotgun or rifle. So why do we carry handguns? Because we can! They are small enough to always have on our person for an emergency and they allow us to immediately respond in a defensive manner. (If you know you are going to a gunfight don't be an idiot with a handgun -- take a shotgun or rifle.)

    Which is why I own both a modern defensive rifle and shotgun...

    So I'm closing with a famous Civil War Quote "getting there firest with the mostest" can mean a 36 to the heart and a second to the head before the other guy was able to come to bear on you. Worked for Wild Bill 5 times that we know of.

    David
     
  4. Aug 15, 2010 #64

    David Teague

    David Teague

    David Teague

    54 Cal. MLF Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,650
    Likes Received:
    6
    Hey Redwing,

    The point of the thread is what would a person carry and why.

    You've stated your reasons why you'd carry your choice and I've (and others) have stated ours.

    Quit belittling our choices as we have the right to choose what we'd carry in this theoretical choice. We all have the intelligence to know and understand ballistics and historical documentation.

    Your belittling is becoming quite distasteful for us fans of the 36 Navy and downright rude.

    David
     
  5. Aug 15, 2010 #65

    Zonie

    Zonie

    Zonie

    Moderator Staff Member MLF Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2003
    Messages:
    29,149
    Likes Received:
    1,733
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    I agree.

    It's fine to have ones own personal opinions and to let others know about them but when they are repeatedly used over and over to bash others with it adds nothing to the discussion.

    As this is a Traditional website I must ask that more references to modern firearms capabilities be avoided. This Topic is not about modern firearms, their use or power. It is about the guns that were used during and prior to the Civil War so lets keep it on that subject.

    Getting back to the 1851 Colt, prior to the war, approximately 90,000 of them were sold, most going to civilians.
    During the years of 1860-1865 another 95,000 were sold and before it went out of production in 1873 another 30,000+ were sold totaling over 215,000.
    These numbers represent the Hartford production and do not include the London made guns.

    While there is no denying that the .44 caliber Colts are significantly more powerful it should also be remembered that a sidearm in that era was not a primary battle-arm but was usually used for close quarters defense where IMO the .36 caliber guns could be used with some effectiveness.
     
  6. Aug 15, 2010 #66

    Don

    Don

    Don

    58 Cal.

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,254
    Likes Received:
    1
    Redwing,

    I think you need to re-read my post. I didn't call the .380 a man stopper just deadly. I think you have already made up your mind about the .36 and are disinterested in any facts that might contradict your opinion of it. Oh well, nothin I can do about that.

    Don
     
  7. Aug 17, 2010 #67

    redwing

    redwing

    redwing

    58 Cal.

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    2,104
    Likes Received:
    1
    The Moderator condems your post. The Moderator then goes on to point out how right his point of view is. No wonder so many of the old members no longer post on this forum. :shake:
     
  8. Aug 17, 2010 #68

    mykeal

    mykeal

    mykeal

    58 Cal.

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    The moderator was correct and his post was most appropriate. In my opinion.
     
  9. Aug 17, 2010 #69

    Zonie

    Zonie

    Zonie

    Moderator Staff Member MLF Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2003
    Messages:
    29,149
    Likes Received:
    1,733
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    Sorry you feel this way.

    The moderator was not condemning anyone's post but was merely commenting on some members methods of justifying their own thoughts.

    As for the comments about the .36 cal Colts I thought a bit of history might be of interest.
    One should note that nothing was said about the .36's effectiveness, just the guns popularity.
     
  10. Aug 17, 2010 #70

    redwing

    redwing

    redwing

    58 Cal.

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    2,104
    Likes Received:
    1
    In your opinion. :rotf: :rotf:
     
  11. Aug 18, 2010 #71

    Don

    Don

    Don

    58 Cal.

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,254
    Likes Received:
    1
    Zonie, you have handled this situation with tact and class. I appreciate all the technical advise you have given me over the years and I respect your view point on many issues. :thumbsup:

    Mykeal, I feel the same about your posts and look forward to your feedback when I post a question or comment. Both you and Zonie are upstanding men. :hatsoff:

    Don
     
  12. Aug 18, 2010 #72

    David Teague

    David Teague

    David Teague

    54 Cal. MLF Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,650
    Likes Received:
    6
    Wow...

    Now on the point of this thread, did any of you read the other thread on Jesse James and the 1851 navy? The part about one though the heart and the 2nd one between the eyes sure sounded familar :wink: Though I must say I don't remember reading that account before...

    Cheers,

    David
     

Share This Page



arrow_white