black powder revolvers

B

bamaranger

New member
I have always been curious about black powder BP /percussion revolvers.
Excluding the Ruger and genuine Colts re-release's, what importer, or are any of the import guns, worth it?

I would likely not shoot the thing to much, but I'm intrigued.

Also, for a fun gun, .36 or .44. cal? Thirty six seems logical, but the pistols are higher priced.

The 1860 Colt Army has always "talked" to me. Sleek, deadly looking, kind of a an antebellum Python.
 
i have been shooting bp since my first 58 cal zuoave bought in the eary 60,s. i too love the 1860 army, but love my ruger old army too. you may find the 1858 remington new army more to you liking and it like the 1860 colt have a histroy in our civil war and was used by both sides. eastbank.
 
As Ronald Reagan always said, "Well...."

I like the feel of the boom of a .44 over a .36. They are not that much more expensive to shoot and they make more smoke and noise.

For a person who is not going to shoot very much, there is little to recommend the extra expense for a steel frame revolver. I happen to be partial to the appearance of a steel frame pistol but that is purely personal.

I could look at a million photos of 1860(1) Colts and when someone showed me the million and first photo, I would still say, "Dang....That is a pretty pistol!" In my collection it is the most populous model. I like to think of the design as "Deadly elegance".

Just a superb looking pistol. But again this is purely personal and others will cite some very valid reasons to go to a Remington design.

(I know that "Smokin Gun" is just waiting for me to hit the "submit" button so he can wade in.)
 
If you like the 1860's looks but want a 36 cal then look to the 1861. 1851 grip (smaller than an 1860) same rounded barrel but in 36. Pretty gun.
 
Yeah, the import guns are great!
I have a Uberti and a Pietta and like both of them. The Uberti is better-finished.

Go ahead and get the replica Colt 1860 Army, what a classic.
 
(I know that "Smokin Gun" is just waiting for me to hit the "submit" button so he can wade in.)
Click to expand...

Well Doc I guess I'm slippin' should been here sooner :O)
I will say that the 1860 Army is the sleekest and one of the most beautiful revolvers there is ... but for me they don't shine like the 1858 NMA or the 1861 Old Army Remington Revs.
I'm more taken to the .44 caliber than the .36's but I do like um both and they both do the job...
 
robhof

I've got the Ruger old Army, not peroid correct, but strongest of the B/p revolvers and a 1849 Pocket dragoon clone that's 32 cal and a real cheap shooter, only takes 12gr of powder and a tiney round ball or conical.
 
The Uberti is better-finished.
Click to expand...

Dunno bout that and the grips aren't orange.:D

Pietta1860.jpg
 
thanks guys

Appreciate all the responses. Sorry about posting thread on wrong forum.

When I was a kid, my folks bought me a "gun book" that had a sketch of a colt 1860 w/ ivory grips, hanging on a nail on a board wall. Walked in a shop the other day and there was the book, new. bought it (don't ask). "The How and Why Wonder book of guns" And there was that picture, new and glossy. (NOT nude, c'mon guys) That's what started this thread.
 
Don't feel bad, Bama

You don't have to apologize for a thread that gets more than ten posts in the first twelve hours. I like reading about this stuff and I like talking about this stuff. Thanks for the post.
 
If you can, handle the guns before you buy. I like the design of the '58 Remington .You can change the cylinders easily and they detail strip into fewer parts. The frame is arguably stronger than a Colt. I can't even hardly stand to hold a Remmy though. I have big hands and the trigger guard just beats the crap out of my second finger. The 1860 Colt has a long sweep to the grip which leaves plenty o room for my mitts and my pinky don't hang off.
 
The Colts are better balanced than the Remingtons. This balance makes the Colts point much better, for instinctive shooting.
The Remingtons are stronger, but the point is pretty much moot because both Colt and Remington are designed for black powder pressures.
The Remington's sights are better. The Colt's sights are just a notch in the hammer and a brass bead on the muzzle -- and that brass bead glows indistinctly in sunshine.
I have both Remington and Colt deisgns. For point shooting and pure fun, I like my Colt 1851 Navy 2nd generation.
For accuracy, I take my Uberti-made Remington Army in .44 caliber.
I like my Uberti-made 1860 Colt and its .44 caliber for point shooting with a big caliber.
For beginners, I suggest the .44 caliber, so you can buy .454 or .457 inch balls instead of the oft-recommended .451 inch balls. The larger balls create a better seal in the chamber, and offer a wider driving band for the rifling to grip, enhancing accuracy.
If .380 inch balls were as available as .454 and .457 inch balls, I'd probably recommend an 1851 Navy (for the history) or an 1861 Navy (for the sleekness and pointability).
But neither Speer nor Hornady, the two biggest manufacturers of lead balls, offer .36-caliber balls other than .375 inch. I find this .375 inch too small for a good seal or accuracy.
Speer and Hornady make balls of .451, 454 and .457 inch.
So, I'm inclined to suggest theh .44 caliber.
The Colts shoot high at 25 yards, and about dead-on at 80 to 100 yards.
So, if you plan to knock off tin cans in the local gravel pit at 15 to 25 yards, you'll need to aim well below them. This can be aggravating.
Most Remington replicas today are made with sights that are slightly higher than they need to be. This causes the ball to strike below the point of aim.
You can "adjust" the Colt sights a bit by filing a slightly deeper notch in the hammer nose.
If the Remington shoots low, merely file down the front sight a bit until the sight picture matches what you want to see at 25 yards or so.
But the sights should NOT be touched until you find the most accurate load!
Find an accurate load first, then modify the sights to fit that load if need be.
Or use the revolvers as-is, which is what most of the old-timers did.
Very few original Colts and Remingtons have come down to us with sights that were altered. The old-timers just learned where they shot at each range, and compensated. At close range, they aimed low with the Colts.
I believe that the original Remingtons pretty much shot dead-on at 50 yards. Comparing my Uberti-made Remington with an original a friend owned, we noticed that the Uberti had a much taller front sight.

If I were pressed to suggest the best cap and ball revolver for a beginner, it would be:

Uberti made
Remington Army
.44 caliber
stainless steel
Standard sights, not target adjustable

The proper balls for .44-caliber are more readily available. Uberti makes some of the best cap and ball revolvers found today. Ubertis also have slightly deeper rifling than Pietta, which helps them shrug off powder fouling longer and aids accuracy.
Stainless steel is more forgiving. Most newcomers to the sport put off cleaning their revolver and it rusts. Stainless steel will eventually rust, but it takes a while.
Standard sights? You're probably getting into this hobby because of the romantic history. So why do you need modern, adjustable sights? Enjoy the revolver as it was designed. Others may disagree, believing that adjustable sights are best, but I find them clunky-looking on a cap and ball.
The Ruger Old Army is probably the finest cap and ball revolver made. If you're not into history, it's a great revolver.
I shoot mine for history's sake, which is why none of my cap and balls have adjustable sights. Nor do I own a Ruger. It's a personal choice, not an indictment.

Whatever you get, don't ever forget that millions of lives have been snuffed out by cap and ball revolvers. They are not toys! They will kill as quickly as any modern gun, and are just as dangerous in irresponsible hands.
A lead ball at 1,000 feet per second is not to be taken lightly.
 
still here

I've handled a buddy's 1858 Rem. It handled OK, but the look just didn't appeal to me. My buddy hates the look of the Colts, so its a personal thing. I have not handled a Colt of any model.

The advice on ball dia makes good sense I suppose I would have to shoot alot of .36 to make much savings against a .44

I've read two articles one by Hacker, very old, 1970's, and another by .......Sanow, more recently, about percussion revolvers. Hacker shot cylinders full of balls for time and accuracy./ Sanow shot into ballistic gelatin and made comparisons to modern loads. Very interesting.
The .44 ruled. But, all I'll wack with mine is cans. And I'll put fake ivory, or similar grips on it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hacker claimed the Colts, open topped as they were, fouled and cap-jammed less than the topstrapped Rem's.
 
Hacker claimed the Colts, open topped as they were, fouled and cap-jammed less than the topstrapped Rem's.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are many that well challenge that. My personal observation is open tops have more cap related issues and top strap models have more fouling issues, particularly around the cylinder pin and forcing cone area.

Either style can be tuned to be very reliable. The best approach is to own several of both Colts and Remingtons.

If you prefer the Colt style then I would get a 51 Navy steel frame revolver. Cabela's has their 51 on sale often and is well made.
 
gotta jump in

I have several of both Colt models and Remingtons.
From .31 cal up to the .44s love everyone of my babies.
My newest is the 1860 what a sexy gun. But the same can be said about the 51 and also the remmies. Go find somewhere that has both and fondle as many as you can and make your choice like that.
 
The Remington's sights are better. The Colt's sights are just a notch in the hammer and a brass bead on the muzzle -- and that brass bead glows indistinctly in sunshine.
Click to expand...

This is very true. However, the Colt 1860 has 12% more sight radius than the Remington 1858 (10 3/8" vs. 9 1/4"). This is a very good thing in favor of the Colt, as long as the hammer has no loose side play.

The Colts shoot high at 25 yards, and about dead-on at 80 to 100 yards.
So, if you plan to knock off tin cans in the local gravel pit at 15 to 25 yards, you'll need to aim well below them. This can be aggravating. You can "adjust" the Colt sights a bit by filing a slightly deeper notch in the hammer nose.
Click to expand...

Yep. My Pietta 1860 shot about 9" high at 50 yards. However, filing the rear sight notch deeper will not change the point of impact. Since the top of the front sight is held even with the top of the rear sight (top of the hammer nose in this case), the top of the rear sight, not the notch itself, needs to be lowered. Doing the math told me I had to lower the top of the hammer by .052" to shoot to point of aim at 50 yards. Worked like a charm, and, yes, I did have to also deepen the notch again in order to have a notch left to see. Now it shoots dead-on at 50 yards, and 2-3" high at 25 yards. By the way, don't bother to listen to anyone who says the imported parts are still "soft". I ruined my long-time favorite file on this hammer!

DSCF4065-resized.jpg


What was a real eye-opener for me was to place the 1860 up-side-down, cocked, on a table so the hammer and front sight rested on the table. Looking at the axis of the bore in relation to the sight plane, you SWEAR the thing would shoot really low at any range. It was then that I really realized just how much the muzzle jumps before the bullet even leaves the muzzle! Check it out for yourself.

DSCF4075-resizednot4x6.jpg


Or use the revolvers as-is, which is what most of the old-timers did.
Very few original Colts and Remingtons have come down to us with sights that were altered. The old-timers just learned where they shot at each range, and compensated.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I wonder if the originals really shot like the reproductions do. I tend to think that maybe the original manufacturers spent alot more effort in making sure each individual arm was properly regulated before leaving the factory. I don't really know this for sure, though.

If I were pressed to suggest the best cap and ball revolver for a beginner, it would be:

Uberti made
Remington Army
.44 caliber
stainless steel
Standard sights, not target adjustable
Click to expand...

Bingo! My very first gun. My brother helped pay for this as my grade school graduation present in 1978. Got it from EMF, I believe. I remember seeing the ads in all the gun magazines at the time. I think the cased set ran $180-200? even back then.

100_2348-resized.jpg
 
Last edited:
Since the top of the front sight is held even with the top of the rear sight (top of the hammer nose in this case), the top of the rear sight, not the notch itself, needs to be lowered.
Click to expand...
If the need is to lower the rear sight,
why would one deliberately hold high on the rear sight?
Why wouldn't one simply hold the top of the front sight with the bottom of the notch,
and then file the notch deeper if the need to hold even lower was apparent?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top