Buddy brought his 36 cal 1861... This is cool

Status
Not open for further replies.
StrawHat said:
The 1861 was called the Improved Navy by the factory. I agree, it is a big improvement over the 1851.


Kevin
Click to expand...


Why ?

This is something I wonder about. My understanding is the 1861 has a round barrel and creeping loading lever both of which I happen to like as opposed to the 1851 which has a hexagon pardon me I mean Octagon barrel (the hex [OK I mean Octagon not hex] is growing on me despite liking round barrels) and standard loading lever.

I have read somewhere that the 1851 was considered more robust and I can't figure out why.
 
Last edited:
Tommygunn said:
The Colt 1861 Navy is believed by many to be the most attractive cap 'n' ball revolver ever made by Colt. I have three; a Uberti military version and civilian version and Pietta's military version. The later has a historically incorrect 8" barrel.
Both Ubertis are very nice ..... and I have a difficult time determining if I like the brass TG and BS or the blued steel versions .... :confused:
Click to expand...



No sir the 1862 Pocket Police is obviously the most attractive cap and ball revolver made by Colt with the pocket Navy coming in 2nd. Glad to be of help :) ;) :D
 
grter said:
No sir the 1862 Pocket Police is obviously the most attractive cap and ball revolver made by Colt with the pocket Navy coming in 2nd. Glad to be of help :) ;) :D
Click to expand...

WRONG! The Colt Patterson wins the most attractive! Yuck...in all seriousness...i think the patterson is an ugly gun..ugliest colt ever made. Its just...bleh. Ya know?
 
grter said:
Why ?

This is something I wonder about. My understanding is the 1861 has a round barrel and creeping loading lever both of which I happen to like as opposed to the 1851 which has a hexagon pardon me I mean Octagon barrel (the hex [OK I mean Octagon not hex] is growing on me despite liking round barrels) and standard loading lever.

I have read somewhere that the 1851 was considered more robust and I can't figure out why.
Click to expand...


Having handled both the 1851 and 1861 Colt revolvers I found the balance of the 51 to be toward the muzzle while the balance of the 1861 was more toward my palm which aided in pointability. Early replicas also handled this way. And the graceful form of the 1861s is certainly an eye catcher.


Kevin
 
TheOutlawKid said:
Im not trying to be fair...of course a .44 conical will beat a .36...its a bigger bullet. What im trying to explain is that the .36 is no powder puff and can match and beat the standard .44 roundball load that most people with .44 cap and ball guns shoot. Lots of people are under the misconception that its a weak caliber not worth attention and pass the information to folks new to our hobby...when nothing could be further from the truth. The caliber can be extremely versatile...you can shoot a small 80 grain roundball with a light load and conserve powder and lead or you can shoot max powder with a heavy wide meplat conical that wil give your .44 a run for its money and make large holes and wound channels..with using only the same amount of lead as a .44 does at a minimum. The .44 isnt as versatile. Like i said...not trying to be fair...just trying to show that the .36 isnt some weak caliber that wont give you a big boom and that it can perform a little better than the .44 roundball. I want new shooters to know that it can perform very well instead of telling them to pass on the .36 and go straight and only to .44 , because if we dont inform them then they go on and tell other friends, famly members, other shooters, children getting into shooting...that the .36 isnt a caliber worth trying out because its weak.
Click to expand...

I hear ya Kid. With a slug over a full charge of powder, the .36 ain't no slacker. My Remington Navy, with it's longer cylinder than a Colt has plenty of authority. But the .36 Colts aren't slackers, weak sisters, or powder-puffers either.

Another cool thing about a .36 is that with a ball and light charge, it is a better small game gun, I think. I have shot grouse with mine, and meat damage was very minimal. I've never shot a grouse with a .44, but it would make sense there would be less meat, that you could eat. !!!! But I don't know that for sure, just stands to reason. Going back to heavy loads, I can sure carry more .36 slugs than I can .44's, at the same weight, so it makes it a better caliber, in my mind, for when I'm out exploring and trekking. I can carry more ammo overall, and have more small-game-getting capability. The .36 also seems to be super accurate, but not saying a .44 can't be super accurate.
 
grter said:
Why ?

This is something I wonder about. My understanding is the 1861 has a round barrel and creeping loading lever both of which I happen to like as opposed to the 1851 which has a hexagon pardon me I mean Octagon barrel (the hex [OK I mean Octagon not hex] is growing on me despite liking round barrels) and standard loading lever.

I have read somewhere that the 1851 was considered more robust and I can't figure out why.
Click to expand...

It's not more robust regarding strength but it probably does weigh more. Or at least it does feel more barrel heavy than a 61.

To each their own but having both the 61 is the certainly the better of the two. Creeping loading lever, more pleasing to the eye, and in my opinion it just balances better. The octagon barrel of the 51 is nose heavy and it's just more clunky looking. Apparently some people consider that robust. LOL The 61 was made by Colt as an improvement and it was just that.

The only thing more pleasing about the 51 is they have a cheaper price tag compared to the 61.
 
Armored farmer said:
Owning a '51 in Navy caliber allows me to comment that I prefer the .44 caliber guns myself. You get big-bore excitement and performance in an inexpensive, historical package.
I honestly say that I have at least as much fun with my c&b revolvers as I do
cartridge guns.
Get a full sized gun for starters, because they're easier to load. However a shorter barrel sheriff's model might fit in your SAA rig.(something to consider)
I will make a wager that if you get one, you'll get more within the year.
View attachment 964102
View attachment 964103
Click to expand...

I didn't know Dorman made round balls.

I bought a brass-framed .36 '51 Navy from a co-worker for $75, and it even had a built-in "empty chamber to rest the hammer on" One of the cylinders was drilled way out of line. I pulled the nipple off it, just to be sure I never load it.
1851cyl.jpg
Its fun to shoot, and you can pop away all day with 15 grains, its pretty mild. believe, me I like .44 C&B revolvers too, I miss my Walker. But the only ones I have now are a brass-framed 1851 that is stretched out to the point of being unsafe. (Lesson learned-I was young and had a tendency to stuff them full), and the 1860 Army that my uncle built for my Grandpa, to go with my great-great-Grandpa's bely buckle. He was a Sgt. in the MN 2nd Light Battery.

1860.jpg
Now I need an 1858, as that's what he was actually issued. I read the MN State adjutant report for 1862-1865 to find it.
I will never fire this one.
 
I competed with 1861s, originals for a while until a collector gave me more money than I thought existed fir both of them! A couple of years later at the Log Cabin Shop in Lodi, Ohio, I bought my first replica percussion revolvers. Replica Arms had just been bought out by Navy Arms and the Kindigs had gotten a bunch of Replica’s stock. The first thing I saw was a pair of 1861. I spent more for the pair than I did when I bought my originals but, I got them and still have them. They handle every bit as well as I remember the originals to handle. I have purchased several more over the decades but they have changed, becoming slightly larger and heavier. The look like 1861s but the handling and balance is noticeably different. (I have noticed the same with 51s and 60s.)

As far as power, Keith wrote how his mentors, a couple of ACW veterans preferred the 36’s because they were lighter and hit harder than the 44s. I know the round ball is an effective small game getter.

0C43534C-0280-42E5-8E5B-B7CE60E5B7AD.jpeg

Kevin
 
StrawHat said:
Replica Arms had just been bought out by Navy Arms and the Kindigs had gotten a bunch of Replica’s stock. The first thing I saw was a pair of 1861. I spent more for the pair than I did when I bought my originals but, I got them and still have them. They handle every bit as well as I remember the originals to handle.
Click to expand...

Very nice! I like that they are 4-screw CFS revolvers with blued steel trigger guards. I am partial to squarebacks (not historical, but...), and the current Pietta 1861 Navies do not have the aperture on the butt for the J-hook of the shoulder stock and have an 8" barrel. Go figure.

Nice guns, Kevin!

Regards,

Jim
 
Nice StrawHat! Are they Ubertis? RA Marietta usually sold Uberti for 1851's & 1860's and ASM for Walkers, Dragoons & Pockets but I do not know what manufacturer they used for 1861's???
As for the newer ones being heavier, Pietta uses an 8" 1860 barrel bored to .36 instead of .44 so it will be even heavier than on the Army!
 
Ephraim Kibbey said:
Nice StrawHat! Are they Ubertis? RA Marietta usually sold Uberti for 1851's & 1860's and ASM for Walkers, Dragoons & Pockets but I do not know what manufacturer they used for 1861's???
As for the newer ones being heavier, Pietta uses an 8" 1860 barrel bored to .36 instead of .44 so it will be even heavier than on the Army!
Click to expand...
The loading lever, hammers and finish say Uberti... at any rate, very nice!
 
Yes, those are Uberti made. I only have a couple of Pietta made revolvers as the quality of Pietta was lacking when I was purchasing. I hear they have improved but I am not looking for C&B at this time.

Kevin
 
ISKKO said:
This Navy Arms was purchased by my dad in the 1970's Since I have not seen another like it, I'm interested what the exact model was, Who the manufacture may have been.
Click to expand...

I almost passed this post by since it was in a thread about 1861 revolvers, but the sight rib caught my eye.

I came across one online about a year ago that was based upon an 1860 Army .44, marketed by Navy Arms in 1970, and manufactured on special order by Uberti, the first I had ever seen. It seems to have been well made and well thought through.

Navy-Arms-1860-Army-Target-001.png

Navy-Arms-1860-Army-Target-002.jpg

Navy-Arms-1860-Army-Target-003.jpg

Navy-Arms-1860-Army-Target-004.jpg

Navy-Arms-1860-Army-Target-005.jpg

Yours is definitely .36 caliber (so 1861 Navy), but I would not doubt it was part of the same Navy Arms marketing plan. Are there any Uberti markings on the underside of the barrel hidden by the load lever? Does it have a date code (Roman numerals)?

I really got a kick out of the 60's-70's era trigger shoe! My Dad insisted on installing them on every gun he/I owned at the time.

Thanks for posting!

Regards,

Jim
 
ISKKO said:
This Navy Arms was purchased by my dad in the 1970's Since I have not seen another like it, I'm interested what the exact model was, Who the manufacture may have been.

View attachment 968206 View attachment 968207 View attachment 968208 View attachment 968209
Click to expand...
Navy arms showed this in the 1972? Catalog? I have one (catalog not the revolver.) I would dearly love to find one of the revolvers. The best of my knowledge, they were built by Uberti and are rare indeed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

1KPerDay
  • Locked
Cabela's got me again! Pietta Colt 1851 Navy "Yank" steel .36
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
DickeyO
D
B
  • Locked
Wanted: info on Corsair Jager 36 cal SxS cap and ball pistol
Replies
2
Views
262
bstogsdill
B
Fingers McGee
  • Locked
There's a new nipple on the market
Replies
11
Views
2K
AbitNutz
A
drobs
  • Locked
Pietta 36 Cal 1851 "Yank" Navy - review.
Replies
9
Views
5K
expat_alaska
expat_alaska
Gatofeo
  • Locked
Choosing a cap and ball revolver
Replies
3
Views
1K
Shanghai McCoy
S
Back
Top