.36 round ball for SD/HD?
- Thread starter Model12Win
- Start date
Bill DeShivs
New member
Hickock was known to "unload" his pistols by shooting them, rather than unloading.
I don't have any 36's but I do have a small heard of 44's.
For home defense I would use one. Granted a modern gun would be better.
If the gun is loaded correctly with the correct sized cap and the top of the ball greased well I have found them to be very reliable. And rain is not a problem.
To the fact that they killed a lot of people during the CW you have to remember that a large percentage of men died after they were hit from poor medical practice. Some of them with what would be called minor injuries today.
For home defense I would use one. Granted a modern gun would be better.
If the gun is loaded correctly with the correct sized cap and the top of the ball greased well I have found them to be very reliable. And rain is not a problem.
To the fact that they killed a lot of people during the CW you have to remember that a large percentage of men died after they were hit from poor medical practice. Some of them with what would be called minor injuries today.
bamaranger
New member
Elmer
Guv, I looked for my copy of "Hell I was There" and seem to recall now I lent it to a friend, who lost it in a house fire, so what follows is from memory.
Let me elaborate on KEITH's lines. His reference to a .36 C&B was in descriptions of his early, near childhood days with firearms, and tales from old cow hands and (dare I say it) Indian fighters. Being Elmer, he undoubtedly shot some game with CB,... jack rabbits and 'Pdogs I suspect, and likely drew a conclusion on the RB's effects from his shooting and the tales he heard of from the men who fought with the old CB revolvers. KEITH mentioned one old hand who told of a fight and KEITH went out and found the victims skull, with a .36 hole in it! Brought it home, his momma said "No Way!"
I don't recall that KEITH ever recommended a .36 CB as an SD gun, he simply commented on his experience and conversations as a youth.
Your drive by of his elk shot will be a good subject of another post.
You ever read any of KEITH's books?
Guv, I looked for my copy of "Hell I was There" and seem to recall now I lent it to a friend, who lost it in a house fire, so what follows is from memory.
Let me elaborate on KEITH's lines. His reference to a .36 C&B was in descriptions of his early, near childhood days with firearms, and tales from old cow hands and (dare I say it) Indian fighters. Being Elmer, he undoubtedly shot some game with CB,... jack rabbits and 'Pdogs I suspect, and likely drew a conclusion on the RB's effects from his shooting and the tales he heard of from the men who fought with the old CB revolvers. KEITH mentioned one old hand who told of a fight and KEITH went out and found the victims skull, with a .36 hole in it! Brought it home, his momma said "No Way!"
I don't recall that KEITH ever recommended a .36 CB as an SD gun, he simply commented on his experience and conversations as a youth.
Your drive by of his elk shot will be a good subject of another post.
You ever read any of KEITH's books?
bamaranger
New member
SANOW
SANOWS BP article claimed that dead soft pure lead round balls, driven fast enough with full size revolver tubes, not the 5 shot police colts, would expand and cause more "tissue damage" in ballistic gelatin than conicals. He then went on to equal that gelatin performance to .380 acp, HP's I think.
That mirrors my own limited experience with .32 percussion rifles. Balls I recovered from coons and possums, looked more like chewing gum, or dome shaped, hollow based spheres, the balls apparently turning inside out. The damage to fox and gray squirrles seemed significantly more than what I expected,too, more so than .22 lr.
That is contrary to some round balls I have seen photographed, recovered from deer size game, from .45 and .50 cal rifles, that maintained their round shape well. I suspect those balls were not dead soft pure lead, and that the range was such that the balls had slowed considerably. The charge was unknown too.
BAck to C&B, the cap jam issue, and the cloud of smoke associated with BP would nil such an arm out for me in any type of SD plan, short of total societal collapse, and I don't want to take the thread there.
But I wouldn't want shot with a .36 round ball either!!!!
SANOWS BP article claimed that dead soft pure lead round balls, driven fast enough with full size revolver tubes, not the 5 shot police colts, would expand and cause more "tissue damage" in ballistic gelatin than conicals. He then went on to equal that gelatin performance to .380 acp, HP's I think.
That mirrors my own limited experience with .32 percussion rifles. Balls I recovered from coons and possums, looked more like chewing gum, or dome shaped, hollow based spheres, the balls apparently turning inside out. The damage to fox and gray squirrles seemed significantly more than what I expected,too, more so than .22 lr.
That is contrary to some round balls I have seen photographed, recovered from deer size game, from .45 and .50 cal rifles, that maintained their round shape well. I suspect those balls were not dead soft pure lead, and that the range was such that the balls had slowed considerably. The charge was unknown too.
BAck to C&B, the cap jam issue, and the cloud of smoke associated with BP would nil such an arm out for me in any type of SD plan, short of total societal collapse, and I don't want to take the thread there.
But I wouldn't want shot with a .36 round ball either!!!!
The argument that percussion revolvers killed many people during their reign is really irrelevant.
For over two thousand years, swords killed many people, too.
Does that justify carrying a sword today?
Technology moves on, and you can be guaranteed that if you ever need to use a handgun to defend against another human who also has one, his will not be a percussion revolver.
You put yourself at a distinct handicap right from the start in reliability & capacity with hostile people, and the same, while adding a power disadvantage, with hostile animals of any size big enough to threaten you.
Percussions have their own quirks & vulnerabilities.
I own three .36 Navies, none are carried as defensive pieces.
Neither is the .44 Ruger, a much more reliable & powerful gun than the .36s.
If you base your defensive carry choice more on emotion than efficiency, that's up to you.
If "Six (Hopefully) & Done" is good enough for you, that's fine, but it's not for me.
Over the past 45 years I've had cap misfires, cap-jams, chainfires, cap-pops, and so on. A fully-charged cylinder left sitting for two years while I was out of the country would not fire all six chambers when I got back home.
Some have had better luck than I've had.
But, even when everything does work right, there's still no practical reload, and regardless of Hickok's preferences, I prefer more power & terminal effectiveness. My first .36 would not penetrate an old car door years ago, with a full charge.
Carrying a duplicate gun adds weight, and you will not be able to swap a spare cylinder into a Colt-pattern percussion .36 in time to do you any good at all if you ever do require a fast reload.
Walker? If I'm going to strap on any handgun that weighs over three pounds, it'll be a .454 Casull (or even a long-barreled .44 Mag in the same Ruger Super Redhawk), at less than 3.5 pounds, with twice the power of the Walker, no ram to flop loose & bind the cylinder, a near immediate reload with speedloaders, water-proof ammunition, zero chance of chain-fire, the capability of near-indefinite storage loaded without moisture getting into the powder charge, no possibility whatever of a cap-jam, and much better accuracy.
When I was a teenager & a .36 was all I had, it got carried, because it WAS all I had.
Today, not a chance.
Maybe an also-toted, but never again the only-toted.
Make your choice, but do so while understanding what you're giving up.
Denis
For over two thousand years, swords killed many people, too.
Does that justify carrying a sword today?
Technology moves on, and you can be guaranteed that if you ever need to use a handgun to defend against another human who also has one, his will not be a percussion revolver.
You put yourself at a distinct handicap right from the start in reliability & capacity with hostile people, and the same, while adding a power disadvantage, with hostile animals of any size big enough to threaten you.
Percussions have their own quirks & vulnerabilities.
I own three .36 Navies, none are carried as defensive pieces.
Neither is the .44 Ruger, a much more reliable & powerful gun than the .36s.
If you base your defensive carry choice more on emotion than efficiency, that's up to you.
If "Six (Hopefully) & Done" is good enough for you, that's fine, but it's not for me.
Over the past 45 years I've had cap misfires, cap-jams, chainfires, cap-pops, and so on. A fully-charged cylinder left sitting for two years while I was out of the country would not fire all six chambers when I got back home.
Some have had better luck than I've had.
But, even when everything does work right, there's still no practical reload, and regardless of Hickok's preferences, I prefer more power & terminal effectiveness. My first .36 would not penetrate an old car door years ago, with a full charge.
Carrying a duplicate gun adds weight, and you will not be able to swap a spare cylinder into a Colt-pattern percussion .36 in time to do you any good at all if you ever do require a fast reload.
Walker? If I'm going to strap on any handgun that weighs over three pounds, it'll be a .454 Casull (or even a long-barreled .44 Mag in the same Ruger Super Redhawk), at less than 3.5 pounds, with twice the power of the Walker, no ram to flop loose & bind the cylinder, a near immediate reload with speedloaders, water-proof ammunition, zero chance of chain-fire, the capability of near-indefinite storage loaded without moisture getting into the powder charge, no possibility whatever of a cap-jam, and much better accuracy.
When I was a teenager & a .36 was all I had, it got carried, because it WAS all I had.
Today, not a chance.
Maybe an also-toted, but never again the only-toted.
Make your choice, but do so while understanding what you're giving up.
Denis
Today it is a fun gun
I have to agree pretty much with DPris last post a couple up from this one. The first revolver I ever owned was a heavy barrel S&W model 10. The second was a reproduction .36 Navy, Navy Arms, IIRC. I actually shot the .36 more than the 38 Special. Got to be pretty good with it also. I really enjoyed shooting that gun. I do not have either of those guns now. If you ever find yourself in a self defense situation you are certain to be wishing you had a bigger gun and more ammo. I have been down this path myself. Do the best you can with the best you can come up with. Good luck in all your endeavors. Gary
I have to agree pretty much with DPris last post a couple up from this one. The first revolver I ever owned was a heavy barrel S&W model 10. The second was a reproduction .36 Navy, Navy Arms, IIRC. I actually shot the .36 more than the 38 Special. Got to be pretty good with it also. I really enjoyed shooting that gun. I do not have either of those guns now. If you ever find yourself in a self defense situation you are certain to be wishing you had a bigger gun and more ammo. I have been down this path myself. Do the best you can with the best you can come up with. Good luck in all your endeavors. Gary
No, that's not what the OP was asking about.
HE HAS a .36 Navy. What he was asking about was how well it would work for defense, if needed, and other things, besides punching paper.
Lots of posts saying no, no way, don't use it, there are better things, etc. And I will admit there are much better things available today.
None of which means anything, really. The .36, loaded correctly, will do the same today as it did in 1851, and has since.
Ok, it may only be about equal to a .380ACP on paper, but people successfully use the .380 all the time. Are there better things than the .380? Sure. Again, so what?
It may seem stupid to consider the cap & ball revolver in this modern era of high capacity autopistols, but remember that if its stupid, but it works, its NOT stupid.
One of the other fallacies involved in the "It does the job every bit as well today as it did in 1851" is that in 1851 everybody was playing with the same deck of cards.
Everybody was subject to the same liabilities, vulnerabilities, and weaknesses of the percussion guns.
In other words- a more or less level playing field, as far as technology went.
The same, in 1851, could be said of a sword- "It cuts every bit as well today as it did in 1061."
But, in 1061 when EVERYBODY had a sword, with its own vulnerabilities, it was much more of a level playing field then, too.
In 1851 nobody was saying "I like swords, I don't care that a man with a modern .36 Navy can kill me before I can even get close enough to use my sword, I'm going to carry it anyway."
Those who understood the risks & the needs, and took them very seriously, used the most modern technology available.
You didn't see Hickok carrying a sword, you saw him carrying what was, at THAT time, one of the best-carrying (or two of them, anyway) belt guns available in terms of controllable power, weight, and proven (as far as percussions could be proven) reliability.
You can safely bet, had he lived more than three years beyond the Colt Peacemaker's introduction, he would have eventually switched over to more power, more reliable metallic cartridges, and the quicker reloading of the Colt .45.
As it was, you notice he did carry TWO .36s, and that wasn't just to balance out his stylish ensemble.
He knew their limitations, and he didn't yet entirely trust the new self-contained cartridge guns. There were many others who didn't either & kept on with percussions for years after the metallic cartridges became established in handguns.
If you should ever need to defend yourself, and the other side has a gun, you'll most likely find yourself with the 1851 equivalent of taking a sword to a gunfight.
All this is not to mention the .380 (and the .36) can both be quite survivable with modern medicine. One important part of the gunshot mortality rate of the percussion era was the primitive medical services available then, not necessarily the immediate incapacitation power of the .36s & below.
And, before you bring up the "Placement Is Everything" mantra, I'll say it isn't always, doesn't guarantee immediate incapacitation unless it's a CNS or head strike, and even then you'd better be damned good with your 6 against a moving target that's probably shooting back at you.
I didn't use the "stupid" word & I'm not using it.
Deliberate handicap is the term I'm using.
If that's acceptable to you, by all means, go for it.
Denis
Everybody was subject to the same liabilities, vulnerabilities, and weaknesses of the percussion guns.
In other words- a more or less level playing field, as far as technology went.
The same, in 1851, could be said of a sword- "It cuts every bit as well today as it did in 1061."
But, in 1061 when EVERYBODY had a sword, with its own vulnerabilities, it was much more of a level playing field then, too.
In 1851 nobody was saying "I like swords, I don't care that a man with a modern .36 Navy can kill me before I can even get close enough to use my sword, I'm going to carry it anyway."
Those who understood the risks & the needs, and took them very seriously, used the most modern technology available.
You didn't see Hickok carrying a sword, you saw him carrying what was, at THAT time, one of the best-carrying (or two of them, anyway) belt guns available in terms of controllable power, weight, and proven (as far as percussions could be proven) reliability.
You can safely bet, had he lived more than three years beyond the Colt Peacemaker's introduction, he would have eventually switched over to more power, more reliable metallic cartridges, and the quicker reloading of the Colt .45.
As it was, you notice he did carry TWO .36s, and that wasn't just to balance out his stylish ensemble.
He knew their limitations, and he didn't yet entirely trust the new self-contained cartridge guns. There were many others who didn't either & kept on with percussions for years after the metallic cartridges became established in handguns.
If you should ever need to defend yourself, and the other side has a gun, you'll most likely find yourself with the 1851 equivalent of taking a sword to a gunfight.
All this is not to mention the .380 (and the .36) can both be quite survivable with modern medicine. One important part of the gunshot mortality rate of the percussion era was the primitive medical services available then, not necessarily the immediate incapacitation power of the .36s & below.
And, before you bring up the "Placement Is Everything" mantra, I'll say it isn't always, doesn't guarantee immediate incapacitation unless it's a CNS or head strike, and even then you'd better be damned good with your 6 against a moving target that's probably shooting back at you.
I didn't use the "stupid" word & I'm not using it.
Deliberate handicap is the term I'm using.
If that's acceptable to you, by all means, go for it.
Denis
You also have Trauma RN's permission.
The drug thing was something we noticed becoming more prevalent back in the 80s, when reports of multiple hits not stopping an adversary immediately began to circulate among LE channels.
Meth, as you probably know, is still on the rise.
And the "placement" thing was given new light for me years ago when an officer in a neighboring jurisdiction was shot through the heart & still managed to chase his killer a surprising distance on foot before collapsing & dying.
If you don't strike a narrow CNS corridor, or the relatively small & highly movable cranial vault, you can't depend on one or more low-energy shots for immediate cessation of hostilities.
Same goes for a more powerful caliber, too, but it at least improves your odds.
.380?
Saw actual news video (never aired) of a shooting one of our officers was involved in a few years back.
Ex-boyfriend had kidnapped a gal from church at gunpoint (somehow managing to switch off his conscience long enough to ignore the "gun-free zone"), carjacked a vehicle, rolled it on a freeway exit at the end of the subsequent police chase, and during the lengthy stand-off that resulted with him using her as a hostage to hide behind, he finally decided at one point he was not going to walk away from that one.
Shot her square in the chest from 2 feet away.
She walked around the car, sat down on the other side, and waited till the paramedics could get to her after officers from at least three agencies immediately eliminated any ability of the ex to further injure anybody again, ever.
She survived.
I've seen the .380 kill, I've seen it not kill.
Never seen the results of a .36 Navy shooting, nobody serious enough to use a gun on another human used one in my neighborhood while I was a working man.
My comments & opinions are based on personal experience with the .36s, percussions in general, and exposure to cleaning up the results of shootings.
Again- deliberate handicap.
Your choice.
Denis
The drug thing was something we noticed becoming more prevalent back in the 80s, when reports of multiple hits not stopping an adversary immediately began to circulate among LE channels.
Meth, as you probably know, is still on the rise.
And the "placement" thing was given new light for me years ago when an officer in a neighboring jurisdiction was shot through the heart & still managed to chase his killer a surprising distance on foot before collapsing & dying.
If you don't strike a narrow CNS corridor, or the relatively small & highly movable cranial vault, you can't depend on one or more low-energy shots for immediate cessation of hostilities.
Same goes for a more powerful caliber, too, but it at least improves your odds.
.380?
Saw actual news video (never aired) of a shooting one of our officers was involved in a few years back.
Ex-boyfriend had kidnapped a gal from church at gunpoint (somehow managing to switch off his conscience long enough to ignore the "gun-free zone"), carjacked a vehicle, rolled it on a freeway exit at the end of the subsequent police chase, and during the lengthy stand-off that resulted with him using her as a hostage to hide behind, he finally decided at one point he was not going to walk away from that one.
Shot her square in the chest from 2 feet away.
She walked around the car, sat down on the other side, and waited till the paramedics could get to her after officers from at least three agencies immediately eliminated any ability of the ex to further injure anybody again, ever.
She survived.
I've seen the .380 kill, I've seen it not kill.
Never seen the results of a .36 Navy shooting, nobody serious enough to use a gun on another human used one in my neighborhood while I was a working man.
My comments & opinions are based on personal experience with the .36s, percussions in general, and exposure to cleaning up the results of shootings.
Again- deliberate handicap.
Your choice.
Denis
Last edited:
Deliberate handicap? Absolutely, if you have to ability to have something better.
My point is that it will still work as good as it did then. The fact that its a disadvantage today, compared to what you are most likely to face is another matter.
And it wasn't a laser death ray in 1851, either.
The 'working as well now as it did then" is my counterpoint to those who infer that someone with one is virtually unarmed and defenseless. They aren't.
Turn it around, if you were attacked by someone with a cap&ball revolver, would you think them harmless? I wouldn't. Maybe I can put 19 holes in them in 3 seconds, but if they put even one hole in me, its not a complete win, and could be a total loss, even with today's medicine.
Relic of a bygone age, absolutely. Foolish to deliberately handicap your self, by choice. But useless? No.
My point is that it will still work as good as it did then. The fact that its a disadvantage today, compared to what you are most likely to face is another matter.
And it wasn't a laser death ray in 1851, either.
The 'working as well now as it did then" is my counterpoint to those who infer that someone with one is virtually unarmed and defenseless. They aren't.
Turn it around, if you were attacked by someone with a cap&ball revolver, would you think them harmless? I wouldn't. Maybe I can put 19 holes in them in 3 seconds, but if they put even one hole in me, its not a complete win, and could be a total loss, even with today's medicine.
Relic of a bygone age, absolutely. Foolish to deliberately handicap your self, by choice. But useless? No.
