November 6, 1850 Ordnance trials

99octane said:

Can anybody tell me where to find texts and records about the november 6, 1850 ordnance trials that saw the Colt 1851 belt revolver (Navy) winner of the trials?
I tried to search the Nationa Archives with little result, but maybe I'm not that well versed in perusing state bureaucracy...

Click to expand...

This isn't the official text but it provides some details. --->>> https://books.google.com/books?id=OXkDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=november+6,+1850+ordnance+trials&source=bl&ots=UWLerIrq-a&sig=ACfU3U36XgZ8YXorT4tdh_0r_0QyeRrKqg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjri4zRgYPyAhUSWs0KHbegCuMQ6AEwCHoECA0QAw#v=onepage&q=november 6, 1850 ordnance trials&f=false

Perhaps the original records aren't available online or need to be requested somehow?
A historcal researcher might know which agencies to ask, such as the Library of Congress, the National Archives or the Defense Dept. are some wild guesses.
Maybe a request needs to be in writing or by email similar to a freedom of information request?

Are you writing a book or paper, or do you want it just for the sake of curiousity?

I’ve been quite curious about the .40 cal version Colt also submitted along with the .36 cal version. If/when I get a ‘51 Navy I’m quite likely going to modify it to such. I assume the .40 cal would be a .41 cal by today’s measuring standards. I’d love to know what the actual dimensions were.

“A very small number of Navy revolvers were produced in .34 caliber, and are so marked. Another rarity in the 1851 Navy production is the .40 caliber model, only 5 were made in 1858 for testing by the U.S. Navy Bureau of Ordnance.”

Testing of the .40 cal version was apparently much later than I realized. Also didn’t know there were .34 cal versions of the ‘51 as well.

[QUOTE="Testing of the .40 cal version was apparently much later than I realized. Also didn’t know there were .34 cal versions of the ‘51 as well.[/QUOTE]

Serial #1 of the experimental .40 caliber Colt 1851 Navy is on display at the NRA Firearms Museum at Bass Pro Shop in Springfield, Missouri. It is in great condition. Screenshot from a video:

J-Bar said:

[QUOTE="Testing of the .40 cal version was apparently much later than I realized. Also didn’t know there were .34 cal versions of the ‘51 as well.

Click to expand...

Serial #1 of the experimental .40 caliber Colt 1851 Navy is on display at the NRA Firearms Museum at Bass Pro Shop in Springfield, Missouri. It is in great condition. Screenshot from a video:

View attachment 1014526[/QUOTE]

That is awesome, thanks for posting!

rodwha said:

..... That is awesome, thanks for posting!

Click to expand...

Dittos!!!

If they had gone .40, would there have been a .44 or .45?

Why? The 1860 Army was .44. Would Colt want two .44 caliber revolvers? Maybe ..... maybe not. I can see .40.
However, that may just because J Bar's photo of serial #1 has me drooling ....

Jim Watson said:

If they had gone .40, would there have been a .44 or .45?

Click to expand...

Probably not. Dragoon sized .44’s already existed, built to allow safe firing of the larger bore using inconsistent quality steel. It wasn’t until 1860 that Bessemer spring steel was available to make the 1860 Army in belt size a safe possibility. Even those sometimes blew up in testing with fluted cylinders. So no, .44 Navy’s would not have ever been built. It sounds like even .40 was too much for the steel process of the 1850’s. The “.44 Navy” was just the .44 Army, since they were built on the same frames. If you could ask Colt why he never produced a .44 Navy, he’d probably ask why anyone would want the bulkier, heavier octagonal barrel, weaker loading lever, and undersized grip after his factory went through all the trouble of designing improved parts with stronger steel. Even the 1862 “New Model” Navy’s used the improved barrel and loading lever, since the Old Model was by then an obsolescent design that was less efficient to produce. I would say to enjoy the Old Model Navy for what it was: a transitional model (in .36) that was more than enough gun on the battlefield and across the frontier. It evidently performed well enough on two legged targets that it was purchased long after belt sized .44’s were available, and set the stage for .38 Long Colt/Special loadings in the late 1800’s which continued in police service until the adoption of 9 mm in the 1980’s. Not everyone in the 1800’s needed a gun rated to drop a horse in combat when their concerns were bandits. And people have gotten dumber since 1870, but not tougher, so .36 still does the job fine.

The sequence I was thinking of was
"1851" .40
"1862" .40
No Army/Navy .36s or 1860 .44 at all.
1873 .40, woo, woo.

Jim Watson said:

The sequence I was thinking of was
"1851" .40
"1862" .40
No Army/Navy .36s or 1860 .44 at all.
1873 .40, woo, woo.

Click to expand...

You would want the 1873 in .38-40. That was a .40 caliber bullet over around 40 grains of powder. Flat shooting, a little weak for deer, but a unique cartridge. And about as 40 as you can get while still being called 38.

The SAA came out in 1873 as did the Winchester .44-40. Winchester added the .38-40 the next year but Colt did not pick it up until 1878.

So I am talking about a true .40 in a straight case developed instead of .45 Colt.

Jim Watson said:

The SAA came out in 1873 as did the Winchester .44-40. Winchester added the .38-40 the next year but Colt did not pick it up until 1878.

So I am talking about a true .40 in a straight case developed instead of .45 Colt.

Click to expand...

That’s an interesting thought experiment. I suspect .44 models would still be produced and refined since it was used for anti-horse purposes to good effect. The 1873 might have remained in .45 even with a Navy in .40 since it was intended to serve as a cavalry arm filling the same role as earlier Dragoon revolvers.