Model12Win
Moderator
NOTE: Although concerning a black powder firearm, I chose this section of the forum for this thread because it is more pertaining to general usage/philosophy of use and ballistics inquiry rather than just a question about black powder shooting. Mods, feel free to move to the Black powder/Cowboy Action section if you do not share this opinion.
Hey everyone! Well, I'm the proud new owner of a Colt Navy 1851 revolver chambered in .36 caliber:
I bought the gun mainly as a range/target piece but also as a backup in case my other home defense handgun, a Glock 19, goes down. It also may see some use being carried on the trails and in the woods for camping and come hunting season as a backup handgun, both for potential small game hunting of rabbits and squirrels, and defense from 2 and 4 legged predators if the need arises. I know .36 might be considered light for wilderness defense, but living in east-central Kansas it should be powerful enough to handle any dangerous predators out here.
I started this thread in order to discuss the .36 caliber round ball loads this gun uses. Ballisticly, the gun is capable of launching one of these balls (actually .375" in diameter) at around 900-1000 FPS depending on powder charge/type, and with a weight of roughly 81-83 grains this performance closely mimicks the on-paper performance of the .380 ACP when using a moderate charge of powder. With a full charge and especially with something like Hodgdon's 777 (a potent BP substitute) energies can get close to the 9x18mm Makarov. Usage in the U.S. Civil War and numerous gunfights in the Old West indicated good performance from this gun. Elmer Keith writes in his famous book Sixguns about how the .36 round ball fired from a Colt Navy had higher "stopping power" (I know that's a controversial term) than the on-paper ballistics might convey. Supposedly veteran Confederate cavalrymen (interviewed by Keith himself) preferred the round ball to the heavier conical bullets for loading in there Navies, claiming they were more effective against human targets.
Alas, I know some of you may think using a cap and ball revolver in this manner in the year 2014 is strange, and perhaps not recommended, but please be cordial. This will not be a primary defensive handgun for me, but as I said will serve in a secondary capacity in that role.
So what do you think about the effectiveness of the .36 caliber Colt Navy using round ball for home/self defense, wilderness defense from small predators (in this part of Kansas) and small game hunting?
This should be interesting!
Hey everyone! Well, I'm the proud new owner of a Colt Navy 1851 revolver chambered in .36 caliber:
I bought the gun mainly as a range/target piece but also as a backup in case my other home defense handgun, a Glock 19, goes down. It also may see some use being carried on the trails and in the woods for camping and come hunting season as a backup handgun, both for potential small game hunting of rabbits and squirrels, and defense from 2 and 4 legged predators if the need arises. I know .36 might be considered light for wilderness defense, but living in east-central Kansas it should be powerful enough to handle any dangerous predators out here.
I started this thread in order to discuss the .36 caliber round ball loads this gun uses. Ballisticly, the gun is capable of launching one of these balls (actually .375" in diameter) at around 900-1000 FPS depending on powder charge/type, and with a weight of roughly 81-83 grains this performance closely mimicks the on-paper performance of the .380 ACP when using a moderate charge of powder. With a full charge and especially with something like Hodgdon's 777 (a potent BP substitute) energies can get close to the 9x18mm Makarov. Usage in the U.S. Civil War and numerous gunfights in the Old West indicated good performance from this gun. Elmer Keith writes in his famous book Sixguns about how the .36 round ball fired from a Colt Navy had higher "stopping power" (I know that's a controversial term) than the on-paper ballistics might convey. Supposedly veteran Confederate cavalrymen (interviewed by Keith himself) preferred the round ball to the heavier conical bullets for loading in there Navies, claiming they were more effective against human targets.
Alas, I know some of you may think using a cap and ball revolver in this manner in the year 2014 is strange, and perhaps not recommended, but please be cordial. This will not be a primary defensive handgun for me, but as I said will serve in a secondary capacity in that role.
So what do you think about the effectiveness of the .36 caliber Colt Navy using round ball for home/self defense, wilderness defense from small predators (in this part of Kansas) and small game hunting?
This should be interesting!
Last edited: