Your favorite SAA barrel length

I love my Remington's in 44-40 5.5". Maybe even a little more than the colt's. They get shot lot more than the Colts.

RealGun said:

What would be the logic of carrying "right side, butt forward", if not left handed?

Click to expand...

The Cavalry did a lot of their fighting dismounted. One trooper would take control of several horses. If going into a fight mounted, the sabre was the cavalryman's principle weapon. Much more effective slashing with the sabre in close quarters than trying to hit opponents with a revolver. The sabre was carried on the left, so it could be drawn 'cross draw style' with the right hand during a cavalry charge.

The short Trapdoor carbine was the cavalryman's secondary weapon. Often carried with a sling attached to the trooper's belt. For dismounted fights, the Trapdoor carbine was very effective, even though it was slow to load.

The revolver was the cavalryman's tertiary weapon. It provided five or six quick shots at close range. Seldom used while mounted, the revolver could be drawn with the left hand while standing. It could be transferred to the right hand if needed, or it could simply be drawn with the Cavalry Twist. Before drawing the revolver, the wrist is rotated 180 degrees so the palm is facing out. Then grabbing the butt of the revolver and rotating the hand as the revolver is raised brings it to bear.

Yes, the "logic" of carrying the revolver on the right side, butt forward, has to do with the saber. The saber, carried on the left, would be drawn by the right hand. If the trooper had sword in hand, the revolver could be drawn by the left hand in cross draw fashion. (This would be hard to do while also controlling the horse's reins.)

That was the theory. In practice, the saber wasn't used against the Indians. In most cases, the sabers would be left in the barracks. Yet the practice of carrying the revolver on the right persisted. Changing it would have required all new leather gear. As it was, the penny-pinching Army tried to make do with modified Civil War holsters.

The twist draw is actually very effective once you get used to it.

Driftwood Johnson said:

The short Trapdoor carbine was the cavalryman's secondary weapon. Often carried with a sling attached to the trooper's belt.

Click to expand...

To clarify, this was a shoulder sling, over the left shoulder. We call them "saddle ring carbines," but the sling had nothing to do with the saddle. There was a small leather collar attached to the saddle, through which the barrel of the carbine would be inserted to keep it from flopping around. Disengaging that could be a problem if the trooper had to dismount in a hurry.

Mn Fats said:

Dang, those are all esthetically pleasing to the eye.


Isn't that just Ruger? I thought the Colts and thier proper clones were 4.75" in this context. The 5/8" came from Ruger. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Click to expand...

Always had a thing for Blackhawks. Grew up learning to shoot and reload using Rugers. Never wanted to risk blowing up a Colt.

My 1858 Remington is 5.5" and my 38 SPL is 3". I want to shorten the 1858 to around 4" and then dovetail in the front sight. Some work for me when my workshop is completed. This may take a while since I am disabled and cannot work as fast as I used to. Oh well, at least I am healthy and can sit up and take nourishment.

My first SAA clone (Uberti) and first Ruger SA (Original Vaquero) were the 4 5/8” versions in .45 Colt. They were handy and quick to draw in my few SASS matches back in the later 1990’s. The sight radius was ok for SASS, which is shot almost exclusively at short range, but at longer distances I didn’t shoot them very well. I (much later) added a Wrangler.22 with the 4 5/8” barrel as well. My 16 year old son has taken a fancy to “the cowboy .22” so I think it will be his soon.

Since the first ones came home I have added longer-barreled Rugers. My .41, .22 Single Six and .32 H&R Bisley all wear 6.5” barrels. I will admit that I shot these much better at distance, but don’t really like the longer barrels like these. I guess they (to me) are just a little bit unwieldy.

I finally found my sweet spot, a 5.5” .44 Spl. The barrel length is handy enough to tote and the sight radius makes it a bit more effective for me at distance. The same would go for the SAA’s if I had any.

YMMV

Stay safe.

King Medallion

Love the stag on your pair of Remingtons! Looks great with the bluing and color case hardening!

AlexanderA said:

Yes, the "logic" of carrying the revolver on the right side, butt forward, has to do with the saber. The saber, carried on the left, would be drawn by the right hand. If the trooper had sword in hand, the revolver could be drawn by the left hand in cross draw fashion. (This would be hard to do while also controlling the horse's reins.)

That was the theory. In practice, the saber wasn't used against the Indians. In most cases, the sabers would be left in the barracks. Yet the practice of carrying the revolver on the right persisted. Changing it would have required all new leather gear. As it was, the penny-pinching Army tried to make do with modified Civil War holsters.

The twist draw is actually very effective once you get used to it.

To clarify, this was a shoulder sling, over the left shoulder. We call them "saddle ring carbines," but the sling had nothing to do with the saddle. There was a small leather collar attached to the saddle, through which the barrel of the carbine would be inserted to keep it from flopping around. Disengaging that could be a problem if the trooper had to dismount in a hurry.

Click to expand...

I see in some pictures that the Confederate version was a conventional cross draw, maybe not cavalry though.

RealGun said:

I see in some pictures that the Confederate version was a conventional cross draw, maybe not cavalry though.

Click to expand...

Quantrill's Raiders were famous for carrying multiple revolvers, as many as 4 on the belt and 2 more on the saddle. As a kid in Lawrence, Kansas, I learned in school about the raid when they killed all the males in town over 14 years old. (War crimes are not a recent phenomenon.)

I'm a fan of shorter barrels. I own a 3 inch, a 3 1/2 inch and a 4 inch. No not 4 3/4, 4 inch

As with an earlier poster, if I was limited to one full sized handgun, it would be either a 4-3/4" SAA in .357 Magnum (or .45 Colt), or a S&W Mdl 10 w/ 4" bull barrel.

I like the look of the ejector rod housing and barrel being equal length.

As such, I prefer the 4 and 5/8" and I own a 5.5" that I had customized with a longer ejector rod housing.

-Stan

stanley_white said:

I like the look of the ejector rod housing and barrel being equal length.

As such, I prefer the 4 and 5/8" and I own a 5.5" that I had customized with a longer ejector rod housing.

-Stan

Click to expand...

We have to see a picture.

Mn Fats said:

I too am fond of the S&W Model 10, especially the old Police trade-ins that were around $200-$300 7 8 9 10 years ago. Many times a pre-lock would be sitting there with just a little holster wear.

Click to expand...

This is not about a SAA. Mr Mosin planted the seed of a thread hijack but did mention his SAA.

Mn Fats said:

I too am fond of the S&W Model 10, especially the old Police trade-ins that were around $200-$300 7 8 9 10 years ago. Many times a pre-lock would be sitting there with just a little holster wear.

Click to expand...

I am always up for a little bit of thread hijacking.

A S&W Model 10 with a tapered 4" barrel. Out the door for $125 about 20 years ago. I have always assumed it was a police trade in, I assume the number 54 below the cylinder was a police armorer's rack number.

Historically, I would've said 4¾", hands down. Though I've noticed in recent years that completely without my knowledge, the longer guns have multiplied and ganged up on them. So I reckon my answer is, "yes".







All my S&W replicas are longer.




As well as my Open Top and cartridge conversions.




I used to not care for the 5½'s at all but they've been creeping in too. To the point that I bid on a USFA that length last week.

RealGun said:

We have to see a picture.

Click to expand...

As requested.

-Stan

stanley_white said:

As requested.

-Stan

View attachment 1077961

Click to expand...

That's really interesting, but I thought it would be a SAA.

I love the look of the shorter barrelled variants where the barrel is flush with the ejector rod housing