1849 Pocket Navy "magnum" conversion?

Tactical Lever · Apr 9, 2019

Hankering after a small revolver, and wanted a 1849 for a while now. But the power is a bit on the low side. I see that the 1862 is billed as a "pocket model" in .36, but I hear that the frames are bigger?

I was also wondering about conversions, as sometimes I just want to play around without a big clean up after.

I think a 62 with a 38 Spl conversion would be pretty cool if they are small, or maybe a 49 with something like a 32 H&R conversion. Has anyone tried it? Is there enough metal? Does cylinder length play into it?

On a side note, I've always wanted a Bearcat too, and just like pistols scaled to the smaller rounds. Saw one converted to .327 Federal on the Gunblast site.

Dave Markowitz · Apr 9, 2019

The 1862 Pocket Navy and Pocket Police share the same frame size as the 1849 Pocket Model. To allow the use of .36 caliber balls in a .31 size frame, they use a rebated cylinder with a matching cut in the frame. This is similar to the 1860 Army, based on the 1851 Navy.

Sarge7402 · Apr 9, 2019

Had one done for the wife some time ago by BobMillington and the best he could do was make it handle the 38 Short colt. The colt round has a hollow base so it expands and seals the .375 diameter barrel. Shot nicely

Sarge7402 · Apr 9, 2019

EMF suposedly is coming out with a pocket colt in 380 Auto

Sarge7402 · Apr 9, 2019

Sorry cimmeron

https://www.americanhunter.org/arti...t-pocket-navy-conversion-revolver-in-380-acp/

expat_alaska · Apr 9, 2019

Dave Markowitz said:
The 1862 Pocket Navy and Pocket Police share the same frame size as the 1849 Pocket Model. To allow the use of .36 caliber balls in a .31 size frame, they use a rebated cylinder with a matching cut in the frame. This is similar to the 1860 Army, based on the 1851 Navy.

The Uberti models of the Pocket Police and Pocket Navy are on the small 1849 Pocket sized frame. The Pocket Police has the rounded barrel like the 1860 Army/1861 Navy with the creeping load lever, while the Pocket Navy has the octagon barrel with the 1851 Navy style load lever. The Pocket Police also has a semi-fluted cylinder, whereas the Pocket Navy does not.

The Pietta Pocket Navy has no rebated cylinder and is nothing more than their 1851 Navy with a short barrel.

Jim

expat_alaska · Apr 9, 2019

Sarge7402 said:
https://www.americanhunter.org/arti...t-pocket-navy-conversion-revolver-in-380-acp/

To think that I thought Pietta came up with some non-historical looking revolvers! The round cylinder is the correct shape look for a Pocket Navy, but it has a modified Pocket Police looking round barrel, and therefore not a copy of either, notwithstanding the conversion cylinder. And what is up with the location of the front pin sight? Pockets never had a barrel length that long.

I hope Cimarron did their homework.The .380 uses a .357" bullet, and the original Pocket Police/Pocket Navy had a .380" bore. If Cimarron used a .380" bore, that .357" bullet will just rattle around in the barrel and accuracy will be nil.

The link does not state much information about it (hardly any gunzines do). I like the length and style of the grip which is not like a Colt Pocket of any configuration.

I do like the way it looks, but you would have to pry my cold dead hands from my wallet at that price.

Jim

Tactical Lever · Apr 9, 2019

Sarge7402 said:
Had one done for the wife some time ago by BobMillington and the best he could do was make it handle the 38 Short colt. The colt round has a hollow base so it expands and seals the .375 diameter barrel. Shot nicely

He made a conversion cylinder or converted an existing cylinder? If you don't mind my asking; was it a pricey conversion? What kind of pressures and velocities are you limited to with that?

rodwha · Apr 9, 2019

Doesn’t the .38 S&W have a ~.380” bullet? There’s not many options regardless.

With the right powder and bullet combo the .36 Pocket Police/Navy can be made to produce roughly low end .380 ACP ballistics getting 180-200 ft/lbs. That’s respectable from a small gun using black powder.

Tactical Lever · Apr 9, 2019

expat_alaska said:
To think that I thought Pietta came up with some non-historical looking revolvers! The round cylinder is the correct shape look for a Pocket Navy, but it has a modified Pocket Police looking round barrel, and therefore not a copy of either, notwithstanding the conversion cylinder. And what is up with the location of the front pin sight? Pockets never had a barrel length that long.

I hope Cimarron did their homework.The .380 uses a .357" bullet, and the original Pocket Police/Pocket Navy had a .380" bore. If Cimarron used a .380" bore, that .357" bullet will just rattle around in the barrel and accuracy will be nil.

The link does not state much information about it (hardly any gunzines do). I like the length and style of the grip which is not like a Colt Pocket of any configuration.

I do like the way it looks, but you would have to pry my cold dead hands from my wallet at that price.

Jim

That is pricey. Probably about twice as much as a nice Uberti 1851 (or something) in 38 Spl, that I handled about 10 years ago. I believe that one was a octagon barrel and still had a loading lever on it, too. Or maybe it was a Dragoon?

I don't see an ejector rod or a loading lever on that .380. Kind of looks half finished somehow.

Tactical Lever · Apr 9, 2019

rodwha said:
Doesn’t the .38 S&W have a ~.380” bullet? There’s not many options regardless.

With the right powder and bullet combo the .36 Pocket Police/Navy can be made to produce roughly low end .380 ACP ballistics getting 180-200 ft/lbs. That’s respectable from a small gun using black powder.

I believe the bullet diameter is .363 or something oddball like that.

If there is enough thickness in the cylinder, I don't see why something a little snappier couldn't have been used. I like rimmed cartridges for revolvers, but the 9mm seems like it would have been a good fit.

rodwha · Apr 9, 2019

Tactical Lever said:
I believe the bullet diameter is .363 or something oddball like that.

If there is enough thickness in the cylinder, I don't see why something a little snappier couldn't have been used. I like rimmed cartridges for revolvers, but the 9mm seems like it would have been a good fit.

The measurements I was given by an owner some time back (a few years and don’t know if it was newer or older) was .370” lands with .376” grooves, and .372” chambers.

Tactical Lever · Apr 9, 2019

rodwha said:
Doesn’t the .38 S&W have a ~.380” bullet? There’s not many options regardless.

With the right powder and bullet combo the .36 Pocket Police/Navy can be made to produce roughly low end .380 ACP ballistics getting 180-200 ft/lbs. That’s respectable from a small gun using black powder.

I would like a little more snap than a .380. What would be ideal is maybe a .327 Federal, or 32-20 chambering, if it fits. .327 might be pretty hot in that gun though, as it's pressure is pretty high. I wouldn't mind the 32-20 at all...

LRDGCO · Apr 10, 2019

Sarge7402 said:
EMF suposedly is coming out with a pocket colt in 380 Auto

I remember reading about it. Was it SHOT Show this year? That's interesting! Thanks for the reminder.

rodwha · Apr 10, 2019

Tactical Lever said:
I would like a little more snap than a .380. What would be ideal is maybe a .327 Federal, or 32-20 chambering, if it fits. .327 might be pretty hot in that gun though, as it's pressure is pretty high. I wouldn't mind the 32-20 at all...

I don’t think you’ll find it. You can make it slightly snappier using Swiss 4F, but it goes against the manufacturer’s recommendations and will get poohed on by many others despite it being used frequently in late 19 century cartridges and paper cartridges during the Civil War.

I’m not certain but I think a .32’s capacity with a ball runs about 15 grns so there’s just no way to achieve .32-20 ballistics. Which from a long gun could achieve a respectable amount of energy using a bullet. But here you are confined to a very finite space for both powder and projectile, and so you’ll not meet this desire of performance from either of these guns.

The .380 ACP, with a bullet that penetrates, goes rather deeply. Myself, I like a wide meplat that creates a larger hole. Granted it gives a little on penetration, but nothing like a HP does. Maybe this is what you are looking at? Are you familiar with what a wide meplat can do?

If not give this a read:

https://beartoothbullets.com/tech_notes/archive_tech_notes.htm/61

And this:

https://www.ballisticstudies.com/Knowledgebase/The+Effects+Of+The+Meplat+On+Terminal+Ballistics.html

There’s isn’t a conversion cylinder for what you propose. The .32-20 is rather long for a pocket pistol. And if that’s what you’re after it would almost be easier to work backwards using a gun chambered for what you really want. Otherwise you’d need to look at a muzzleloading pistol with thick enough walls.

dickydalton · Apr 10, 2019

rodwha said:
Doesn’t the .38 S&W have a ~.380” bullet? There’s not many options regardless.

With the right powder and bullet combo the .36 Pocket Police/Navy can be made to produce roughly low end .380 ACP ballistics getting 180-200 ft/lbs. That’s respectable from a small gun using black powder.

38 S&W used a .360 bullet and the 380 ACP uses .355 bullets.

Sarge7402 · Apr 10, 2019

Tactical Lever said:
He made a conversion cylinder or converted an existing cylinder? If you don't mind my asking; was it a pricey conversion? What kind of pressures and velocities are you limited to with that?

Think he made a new cylinder for it - that's why I have a pocket cylinder that fits nothing. Pressures were limited to those for a 38 short colt as were velocities.

Neat pistol, but I owned a factory navy conversion that handled 38 specials.

Tactical Lever · Apr 11, 2019

rodwha said:
I don’t think you’ll find it. You can make it slightly snappier using Swiss 4F, but it goes against the manufacturer’s recommendations and will get poohed on by many others despite it being used frequently in late 19 century cartridges and paper cartridges during the Civil War.

I’m not certain but I think a .32’s capacity with a ball runs about 15 grns so there’s just no way to achieve .32-20 ballistics. Which from a long gun could achieve a respectable amount of energy using a bullet. But here you are confined to a very finite space for both powder and projectile, and so you’ll not meet this desire of performance from either of these guns.

The .380 ACP, with a bullet that penetrates, goes rather deeply. Myself, I like a wide meplat that creates a larger hole. Granted it gives a little on penetration, but nothing like a HP does. Maybe this is what you are looking at? Are you familiar with what a wide meplat can do?

If not give this a read:

https://beartoothbullets.com/tech_notes/archive_tech_notes.htm/61

And this:

https://www.ballisticstudies.com/Knowledgebase/The+Effects+Of+The+Meplat+On+Terminal+Ballistics.html

There’s isn’t a conversion cylinder for what you propose. The .32-20 is rather long for a pocket pistol. And if that’s what you’re after it would almost be easier to work backwards using a gun chambered for what you really want. Otherwise you’d need to look at a muzzleloading pistol with thick enough walls.

Maybe I'm asking a little too much out of a small open-top. After all, a 380 is nothing to stick the incautious finger in front of! I'm familiar with the mechanics of a large meplat. I'm not sure that a FN non expanding bullet does give anything up on penetration. They track straighter, and the flat nose channels the flesh around it making a wave that does not drag on the sides. Maybe a pointed nose bullet might go a bit deeper, but I know a FN can penetrate a long way.

Gordon · Apr 11, 2019

I just don't under stand why very very few have been done in .38 S&W which is still loaded to black powder specs, is short with a nice rim and a soft lead largewr than 9mm bullet. .363" diameter bullets are not uncommon in .38 S&W ! I lust after an old Great Western .38 S&W derringer , which I have search engines running looking for on Gun broker and Guns america for several years. Although I have just a few (5) .38 S&Ws left , I really like the caliber , for what it is. Apparently at one time at least one of the cartridge convertor makers made one for 1851 Colts , but no more and I can't find any

Tactical Lever · Apr 11, 2019

Sarge7402 said:
Think he made a new cylinder for it - that's why I have a pocket cylinder that fits nothing. Pressures were limited to those for a 38 short colt as were velocities.

Neat pistol, but I owned a factory navy conversion that handled 38 specials.

I'd like a 38 Special. Running a heavy-ish cast bullet at moderate velocity seems like a natural fit.

1849 Pocket Navy "magnum" conversion?

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads