The Colt Paterson revolver- which one ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
electricfactory

electricfactory

Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2020
Messages
189
I have all but resolved to buy an Italian reproduction of the Colt Paterson revolver, guess I'm still on the fence a bit. I'm pretty sure I want one with the loading lever and I prefer the Uberti finished guns but am looking to increase my knowledge base on these guns. If you have one I'd very much like to get your feedback, insights etc.
How do the Pietta Patersons compare ? What mechanical details bear consideration when shooting a Paterson ie the drop down trigger ? Do they need any extra attention that regular C&B revolvers do not ? Any hands on experience with these guns would be very much appreciated.

0kGtJsbh.jpg

lP4Yr6vh.jpg
 
Last edited:
They were more mechanically complex than Colt's later single action design. Mine has to be disassembled to load with the extra tool, and getting it apart was very hard when it was new, and still isn't easy.
The one with the loading lever should be easier to load, but might be as hard to disassemble for cleaning.

The above refers to my Uberti. No experience with Pietta.

Does either company still make these? I've sort of lost track .... but I seem to recall they're no longer being made ....:uhoh:
 
No, not currently in production but sometimes available on the used market. I wonder if that's because they were too expensive to manufacture..

Tommygunn said:
They were more mechanically complex than Colt's later single action design. Mine has to be disassembled to load with the extra tool, and getting it apart was very hard when it was new, and still isn't easy.
The one with the loading lever should be easier to load, but might be as hard to disassemble for cleaning.

The above refers to my Uberti. No experience with Pietta.

Does either company still make these? I've sort of lost track .... but I seem to recall they're no longer being made ....:uhoh:
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The Paterson is one C&B revolver I have never had or fired.
However I have heard often that they are very finicky and prone to malfunction.
If you want it for regular shooting, you might want to wait for more feadback from folks willing to share their experiences.

It is a great piece of history though.
 
I've heard the same thing. I'm also not the gun 'tikerer' that some are when it comes to fixing c&b pistols.

Malachi Leviticus Blue said:
The Paterson is one C&B revolver I have never had or fired.
However I have heard often that they are very finicky and prone to malfunction.
If you want it for regular shooting, you might want to wait for more feadback from folks willing to share their experiences.

It is a great piece of history though.
Click to expand...
 
I had a Uberti. Wasn’t my favorite and the trigger, on the small side, was heavy enough the be an errant on the finger. I also don’t care for the necessity of dismounting the cylinder to load.
It was overall a nice looking piece and in retrospect wish I hadn’t traded it away.
 
From a historical standpoint I find them fascinating; archaic but fluid design and the precursor for the Colt Navy. But the Paterson is not particularly user friendly. Neither is the Colt Walker at nearly 4lbs for that matter but at least the Walker had a loading lever and trigger guard.
I'm still trying to picture how the Paterson was used on horseback to hit anything smaller than a barn door. Any horsemen here know what I mean. Even at a walk sitting a horse makes for an extremely unstable shooting platform.

whughett said:
I had a Uberti. Wasn’t my favorite and the trigger, on the small side, was heavy enough the be an errant on the finger. I also don’t care for the necessity of dismounting the cylinder to load.
It was overall a nice looking piece and in retrospect wish I hadn’t traded it away.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
There's a reason the reproductions aren't being made any more: dissatisfied customers. I guess buyers were under the mistaken impression that these were practical to shoot. Exactly like the originals, they fall short in that department.
 
If you want the attached loading lever, then the only game in town is the Uberti and they go for a pretty penny!
Other brands without a loading lever include the following markings:
MOFRA, Mainardi Officina Fabrica Replica Armi, that made the first Italian replicas although I believe that there was an American maker before or concurrently but I do not remember the name and not many were made (late 60's and early 70's.)
Double Diamond, Euromanufacture, the successor to MOFRA (70's.)
Palm Tree, Palmetto, which bought out Euromanufacture above (80's.)
FAP in a diamond, Pietta (late 70's until recently.)
In addition it is said that Colt made some, I believe some of the United States Historical Society and America Remembers commemoratives were theirs.
As much as you see against them as shooters, they go for $600 and up without the loading lever because there are not as many out there as the other Colt clones and collectors always want one of each for their collections. If your can find an Uberti with a loading lever for under $800, grab it! Cased sets often go for over $1000. This Paterson replica flask (not even listed as Paterson) just went for $157.50 on Ebay:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Brass-Black-Powder-Measure-Replica-Arms-5-shot-revolver-dispenser/324440879588?ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649
s-l1600.jpg
 
Last edited:
electricfactory said:
I'm still trying to picture how the Paterson was used on horseback to hit anything smaller than a barn door. Any horsemen here know what I mean. Even at a walk sitting a horse makes for an extremely unstable shooting platform.
Click to expand...

One of my wife's ancestors rode with John Hunt Morgan during the late unpleasantness. She had a book written by one of his men. He related that they were required to have multiple pistols some had up to six in saddle holsters and in their belts. They had to practice until they could hit a stump from a gallop. This must have given them a tremendous advantage against Union Calvary armed with a single shot carbine and sword. I have a feeling most shots were probably at point blank. Not much danger shooting a man trying to reload and cap a carbine from horseback.
 
I watched this with the sound down, very informative when considering shooting from horseback;


Zygodactyl said:
One of my wife's ancestors rode with John Hunt Morgan during the late unpleasantness. She had a book written by one of his men. He related that they were required to have multiple pistols some had up to six in saddle holsters and in their belts. They had to practice until they could hit a stump from a gallop. This must have given them a tremendous advantage against Union Calvary armed with a single shot carbine and sword. I have a feeling most shots were probably at point blank. Not much danger shooting a man trying to reload and cap a carbine from horseback.
Click to expand...
 
Lots of things to consider when trying to shoot from horseback, horse needs to be trained for it, you need to be trained for it, I mean what could possibly go wrong, horse jumps out from under you, you shoot the horse, it's why I don't mess with hayburners anymore.
 
I'll bet that actually happened in the Paterson/ Walker- armed cavalry days. In fact I'm betting more shooting was done dismounted than from a galloping horse, aplogies to True Grit.

Jackrabbit1957 said:
Lots of things to consider when trying to shoot from horseback, horse needs to be trained for it, you need to be trained for it, I mean what could possibly go wrong, horse jumps out from under you, you shoot the horse, it's why I don't mess with hayburners anymore.
Click to expand...
 
electricfactory said:
'll bet that actually happened in the Paterson/ Walker- armed cavalry days. In fact I'm betting more shooting was done dismounted than from a galloping horse, aplogies to True Grit.
Click to expand...
That's why the early U.S. cavalry were designated as Dragoons -- mounted infantry. The doctrine was to ride to the battle, and then dismount to fight. The unit to which the Walkers were issued -- the U.S. Mounted Rifles -- carried this concept one step further, using carefully aimed fire from rifles. The mounted corps wasn't designated "Cavalry" until the Civil War.

It's not clear how the issued Walker revolvers were intended to be used. Each trooper was issued a pair, to be carried in saddle holsters. Considering how heavy and awkward these were, it's hard to see how they could be used effectively while riding. And remember, these were the secondary arms of the troopers, the primary one being the rifle. It's possible the Walkers were meant to be last-ditch defensive weapons, in case the unit's position was about to be overrun, with no time to reload the rifles.

More research needs to done on how Colt ended up producing such a large / heavy revolver. We know that Colt was responding to Capt. Walker's suggestions for "improving" the Paterson design. But is it possible that Walker's suggestions were misinterpreted, and the gun, as produced, was, say, 10% or 15% larger than originally intended? After all, the Paterson and Walker are completely different in size. (I think a similar dynamic was at work regarding the M1849 Ames Rifleman's Knife, a near-contemporary of the Walker. That monstrosity is so large and awkward as to be unusable. Somebody misinterpreted the drawings.)
 
Last edited:
This makes a lot of sense to me and probably extended well beyond the CW. The notion of mounted cavalry actually shooting from a galloping horse is doubtful. This is not to say it didn’t happen but rather doing so wasn’t considered combat effective.

AlexanderA said:
That's why the early U.S. cavalry were designated as Dragoons -- mounted infantry. The doctrine was to ride to the battle, and then dismount to fight. The unit to which the Walkers were issued -- the U.S. Mounted Rifles -- carried this concept one step further, using carefully aimed fire from rifles. The mounted corps wasn't designated "Cavalry" until the Civil War.

It's not clear how the issued Walker revolvers were intended to be used. Each trooper was issued a pair, to be carried in saddle holsters. Considering how heavy and awkward these were, it's hard to see how they could be used effectively while riding. And remember, these were the secondary arms of the troopers, the primary one being the rifle. It's possible the Walkers were meant to be last-ditch defensive weapons, in case the unit's position was about to be overrun, with no time to reload the rifles.
Click to expand...
 
The Paterson is really not a very well designed gun and not at all practical. The replicas accurately reproduce all the flaws and inconvenience of the original. Same goes for the Walker. Buy a Glock if you want something reliable. A Paterson will give you a taste of what shooting was like 180 years ago. You might even have some fun with it.
 
electricfactory said:
From a historical standpoint I find them fascinating; archaic but fluid design and the precursor for the Colt Navy. But the Paterson is not particularly user friendly. Neither is the Colt Walker at nearly 4lbs for that matter but at least the Walker had a loading lever and trigger guard.
I'm still trying to picture how the Paterson was used on horseback to hit anything smaller than a barn door. Any horsemen here know what I mean. Even at a walk sitting a horse makes for an extremely unstable shooting platform.
Click to expand...

Were Paterson revolvers fired from Horseback? I imagine they were.

Going back to Pre Revolutionary War days IIRC Simon Kenton and Daniel Boone were able load and fire flintlock rifles from horseback.

Then there is the Cowboy Mounted Shooting Association. They use blanks but still it's not hard to imagine hitting a man size target at close range while on horseback:



Side note:
While there is no historical proof of swapping cylinders in Remington 1858 NMA revolvers outside of Hollywood. There is proof that this was done in the Paterson revolver to great effect.

http://www.texasescapes.com/JefferyRobenalt/Battle-of-Walkers-Creek-and-Colt-Paterson-Revolver.htm

"Sam Colt produced several models of the Paterson, but model No. 5 was a five-shot .36 caliber percussion revolver with a nine inch barrel and a folding trigger that only emerged when the hammer was cocked; a feature common to all Paterson Colts. The revolver was a bit fragile and the barrel had to be removed to switch cylinders, but the weapon came with an extra cylinder or two, giving the user from ten to fifteen shots before reloading was necessary.Colt's model No. 5 was referred to as the "Texas" Paterson because of its use by the Texas Rangers at Walker's Creek. How the Rangers got their hands on the weapon is a story unto itself."

"During the running, three-mile, hour-long Comanche retreat, Yellow Wolf rallied his warriors for three separate counterattacks with the Rangers fighting in relays — one group quickly switching the cylinders of their Colts while the other engaged the Comanches. Just as Yellow Wolf was haranguing his warriors into making one more attack, Ranger Ad Gillespie shot him in the head at thirty yards. Now thoroughly demoralized, Comanches fled the field."

Below is a screen print from the Book "Savage Frontier" that mentions changing cylinders (on Colt Paterson revolvers) during the Battle at Walker's Creek:

33577428783_2020a437d2_b.jpg

Paterson revolvers came with 2 cylinders from the factory.
https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/70/2124/colt-paterson-revolver-36-percussion

upload_2021-1-13_6-54-0.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2021-1-13_6-53-51.png
    upload_2021-1-13_6-53-51.png
    659.1 KB · Views: 0
AlexanderA said:
That's why the early U.S. cavalry were designated as Dragoons -- mounted infantry. The doctrine was to ride to the battle, and then dismount to fight. The unit to which the Walkers were issued -- the U.S. Mounted Rifles -- carried this concept one step further, using carefully aimed fire from rifles. The mounted corps wasn't designated "Cavalry" until the Civil War.

It's not clear how the issued Walker revolvers were intended to be used. Each trooper was issued a pair, to be carried in saddle holsters. Considering how heavy and awkward these were, it's hard to see how they could be used effectively while riding. And remember, these were the secondary arms of the troopers, the primary one being the rifle. It's possible the Walkers were meant to be last-ditch defensive weapons, in case the unit's position was about to be overrun, with no time to reload the rifles.

More research needs to done on how Colt ended up producing such a large / heavy revolver. We know that Colt was responding to Capt. Walker's suggestions for "improving" the Paterson design. But is it possible that Walker's suggestions were misinterpreted, and the gun, as produced, was, say, 10% or 15% larger than originally intended? After all, the Paterson and Walker are completely different in size. (I think a similar dynamic was at work regarding the M1849 Ames Rifleman's Knife, a near-contemporary of the Walker. That monstrosity is so large and awkward as to be unusable. Somebody misinterpreted the drawings.)
Click to expand...
My reading on that subject suggests Walker ask Colt for a caliber that would reliable put down a horse. Walker was engaging Mexican Mounted Lancers in that time frame. Kill the horse and a mounted man with a lance is pretty much out of the picture. Ironically Walker was himself killed by a wound from a lance. Colts answer was the 44 caliber Walker with a 6 shot cylinder capacity for 60 grains of black powder and a .454 round ball in each. Formidable compared to the rather tame 36 caliber 5 shot Paterson with its 22 grain capacity.
The Walkers time frame was brief as Colt almost immediately started redeveloping the same caliber but down sized revolvers know today as the Dragoon’s.
 
You guys are terrific, love the historical info and insights. I think it’s fair to say that whoever the mounted Dragoon’s were they could ride and had nerves of steel.
As to the Paterson revolver itself it’s not hard to understand the evolution from it to a more stable and reliable revolver platform.
 
drobs said:
Side note:
While there is no historical proof of swapping cylinders in Remington 1858 NMA revolvers outside of Hollywood. There is proof that this was done in the Paterson revolver to great effect.
Click to expand...
How do we reconcile that with the modern experience with replica Patersons, where fouling often locks them up even before the first cylinder is expended? What was the secret of the old timers to keep their Patersons functioning?
 
Italian reproduction guns are not made to the same tolerances as Colt made 19th century revolvers. Not even close.

AlexanderA said:
How do we reconcile that with the modern experience with replica Patersons, where fouling often locks them up even before the first cylinder is expended? What was the secret of the old timers to keep their Patersons functioning?
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
Where's the Paterson's?
Replies
14
Views
1K
Gaucho Gringo
G
M
  • Locked
I bought this old Paterson
Replies
9
Views
922
Deltaboy1984
Deltaboy1984
R
  • Locked
Colt Texas Paterson Specifications
Replies
16
Views
2K
Nicodemus38
N
SC_Slowhand
  • Locked
New Toys: Powder Inc Cylinder Loader
Replies
2
Views
715
SC_Slowhand
SC_Slowhand
N
  • Locked
My Texas Paterson has arrived!
Replies
22
Views
2K
mec
M
Back
Top