Uberti 1860 Army .44 Ballistics

45 Dragoon said:

(Not being ugly, just curious as to the maximums . .

Click to expand...

No, you can't be Ugly. I am Ugly.

Having owned, broke, trained and worked on horseback, I'm pretty sure that the 1860, as much as I love and respect it, would not stop or drop a horse, other than with a very lucky shot. Yes, you could kill a horse with it, but I don't see it dropping or stopping a running/charging horse. So no, in that sense I don't see how it could be a "requirement", or be expected to do so.

Ugly Sauce said:

Having owned, broke, trained and worked on horseback, I'm pretty sure that the 1860, as much as I love and respect it, would not stop or drop a horse, other than with a very lucky shot. Yes, you could kill a horse with it, but I don't see it dropping or stopping a running/charging horse. So no, in that sense I don't see how it could be a "requirement", or be expected to do so.

Click to expand...

Exactly even the vaunted Walker isn’t really a sure fire item. Not to mention the difficulty in unlimbering such an unwieldy piece while a half wild bronch is chewing on your ear and tap dancing on your duodenum… it ain’t for sissies, as gramps used to say. Probably just really get him motivated is what you’d accomplish.

woodnbow said:

Probably just really get him motivated is what you’d accomplish.

Click to expand...

Oh yeah, the hoss would die...later. Possibly much later. Maybe the next day.

Ugly Sauce said:

Oh yeah, the hoss would die...later. Possibly much later. Maybe the next day.

Click to expand...

Jay Massey was once asked by a sport if the .357 magnum was enough for defense against Grizzlies. Jay say, “Oh hell, yeah! 357’s kill grizzlies! Eventually…”

woodnbow said:

Jay Massey was once asked by a sport if the .357 magnum was enough for defense against Grizzlies. Jay say, “Oh hell, yeah! 357’s kill grizzlies! Eventually…”

Click to expand...

Well put!

Like a good heavy broadhead arrow from a powerful bow...it will kill a grizzly, after he's done mauling you.

Ugly Sauce said:

Like a good heavy broadhead arrow from a powerful bow...it will kill a grizzly, after he's done mauling you.

Click to expand...

When Monty Browning killed the largest brown killed with a longbow, he said it ran 80 yards away before it died with the top of its heart cut off. His guide said, “He’d have had plenty of time to do a lot of damage before he expired…”

Truth. Generally speaking, they will break off the attack/mauling sooner if wounded badly. I heard of/saw/read about one incident where that was the case. I think they sense, or know when they are wounded bad. So I'd still put one in a charging bear had I the chance, and then it's K-bar time. I'm sure as hell not gonna play dead while something tries to kill me. !!!

Ugly Sauce said:

Truth. Generally speaking, they will break off the attack/mauling sooner if wounded badly. I heard of/saw/read about one incident where that was the case. I think they sense, or know when they are wounded bad. So I'd still put one in a charging bear had I the chance, and then it's K-bar time. I'm sure as hell not gonna play dead while something tries to kill me. !!!

Click to expand...

Apparently the best thing you can do if a grizz tries to take you down is play dead. Not saying I would or could but that’s what the experts say. With blacks you’re supposed to fight like the devil is after your soul. Confusing huh?

A friend of mine was attacked by a momma lion and her yearling kit. They mistook him for a cow (calling elk) and if it wasn’t for the hood on his jacket and his daypack, might have killed him in the first seconds of the fight. He did start yelling and fighting back and once she realized he was a human she broke and ran. He said it was a pretty exciting 20 or 30 seconds…

woodnbow said:

Apparently the best thing you can do if a grizz tries to take you down is play dead.

Click to expand...

That's true, the logic being that you can't win a fight with a bear, and that's true too. I think that if you can get to your knife, and it's a good big knife like a K-bar or Bowie or something and start stabbing for all one is worth, you know, like the third monkey getting on the Ark, and it's starting to rain, I see a chance there. I usually carry my K-Bar, or my Jungle Commando on my right leg, below the knee for that purpose. Empty handed, yeah, play-dead is probably best.

Hey, I think I'll invent a mini-claymore that straps to the back of my back-pack. With a trigger cord like an inflatable life vest. It will say: "this side facing bear" on it. Of course, no one will want to walk behind me on the trail, or share a tent.

StrawHat said:

Incuding the myth about the requirement to kill a horse at (fill in a number) yards. That one has been repeated many times but no one has been able to document it as part of any criteria. But, it does sound good and it should have been included.

Kevin

Click to expand...

I have seen where it said they were sighted in at 75 yards but not what the target was. I have heard speculation it was to hit either a horse or the man on the horse. Disable a troopers horse and you've pretty much taken him out of the fight.

Pure soft lead will mushroom and cause devastating results on soft tissue. It’s not the best for deep penetration against hard barrriers. For self defense it’s probably ideal but for self defense against heavy big game animals… ehh maybe not the best

hawg said:

I have seen where it said they were sighted in at 75 yards but not what the target was. I have heard speculation it was to hit either a horse or the man on the horse. Disable a troopers horse and you've pretty much taken him out of the fight.

Click to expand...

My understanding is that a man is a long vertical target, so that with a high zero one can just aim center of mass and hit the target somewhere. That makes sense to me. Eliminates having to hold-over. And the closer the target, even with a high zero, the less-high it actually hits. Again, makes sense.

It is true, that if you do put a pistol bullet into a horse, it's not going to like it, and will become hard or perhaps impossible to handle. Depending where the bullet went, the horse could be out of the fight soon. Either bleeding out from a hit in an artery, bullet in the lung, etc. And, horses go lame pretty fast from any injury to their legs. So yeah, you can disable a horse with a pistol, but I don't think that had anything to do with design or intent.

Disabling the rider is a better option, as the horse can't shoot back at you, but the rider can still shoot at you from the ground, and/or get another horse. And when you kill the rider, you might get to capture and keep the horse. Free horse! Bonus!

hawg said:

I have seen where it said they were sighted in at 75 yards but not what the target was. I have heard speculation it was to hit either a horse or the man on the horse. Disable a troopers horse and you've pretty much taken him out of the fight.

Click to expand...

Was it not mostly cavalry that carried cap and ball revolvers in the civil war? I’m not exactly sure how far apart each side was from one another when they were within shooting distance of each other? I could see were the skirmish lines would be approximately 75 yards apart and then you could just hold center mass and shoot if u had a revolver instead of a Springfield/enfield.

Smokepole14 said:

Was it not mostly cavalry that carried cap and ball revolvers in the civil war? I’m not exactly sure how far apart each side was from one another when they were within shooting distance of each other? I could see were the skirmish lines would be approximately 75 yards apart and then you could just hold center mass and shoot if u had a revolver instead of a Springfield/enfield.

Click to expand...

Cavalry and officers, also artillerymen carried revolvers. I have read that early in the war they issued revolvers to infantry soldiers but infantrymen aren't going to carry any more weight than they have to. Some of them sent them home and some of them just threw them away on the side of the road.

hawg said:

some of them just threw them away on the side of the road.

Click to expand...

Oh man, what road was that??? I'm gonna go look! But seriously, at the end of the war, when entire armies surrendered, the woods were littered with rifles leaning against trees as the soldiers returning home didn't want to carry them. Some kept them, some were surrendered, but from what I understand the locals could pick up rifles by the hundreds.

Ugly Sauce said:

Oh man, what road was that??? I'm gonna go look! But seriously, at the end of the war, when entire armies surrendered, the woods were littered with rifles leaning against trees as the soldiers returning home didn't want to carry them. Some kept them, some were surrendered, but from what I understand the locals could pick up rifles by the hundreds.

Click to expand...

Whatever road they were on when they started getting heavy. As I understand it surrendering soldiers had to turn their rifles in to the capturing army. They couldn't take them home. I can't imagine a soldier not wanting to take a perfectly good rifle home, especially the poorer ones.

hawg said:

I can't imagine a soldier not wanting to take a perfectly good rifle home, especially the poorer ones.

Click to expand...

Exactly, I would think that a Springfield rifle would be very useful back home on the farm. Heck it would probably be the most valuable thing they owned monetarily.

hawg said:

Whatever road they were on when they started getting heavy.

Click to expand...

Having to march hundreds of miles in the july/august heat with a wool suit and no shoes. Toting a rifled musket with a knapsack full of gear and supplies. Anything remotely heavy/unnecessary I could imagine would litter the roadsides.

I think it was harder on union soldiers. Their officers were more spit and polish than most southern officers. They pretty much had to carry all of their field gear. Most southerners didn't even have backpacks. They carried everything they had in a rolled up blanket. They tossed everything they didn't need. Many of them even tossed their bayonets.

hawg said:

I think it was harder on union soldiers. Their officers were more spit and polish than most southern officers. They pretty much had to carry all of their field gear. Most southerners didn't even have backpacks. They carried everything they had in a rolled up blanket. They tossed everything they didn't need. Many of them even tossed their bayonets.

Click to expand...

For sure, the Union Soldiers weren't leaning their rifles against trees and marching home. They had to "muster out" of the Army. (and at one time it was Army policy to allow the soldier to buy his rifle and keep it when getting discharged) The Southern armies when surrendering didn't so much go through pomp and ceremony, march by the Union generals, and stack their arms. They just left them and started walking home. I don't believe they mustered out, or actually got discharged. ?? Once the Union armies became the "police", I don't think many union patrols would allow the Southern boys to march home with their rifles. I don't think they could take them home. Also consider having to walk home two-three-four hundred miles and packing that Springfield with you. I do suspect many pistols made it home, but don't say nothing.

Well, the terms of surrender were that the Officers could keep their horses, personal "effects" and side arms. Soldiers could keep their horses but had to surrender all other arms. So, they could not walk home with a rifle, and I don't think they would walk a mile or more to politely stack them for the Union soldiers. Many were left littering the woods, as there are (which I can't site) accounts of that happening.

Remember when the Kid tried to keep his rifle, said he needed it for "squirrels and such", but the officer would not let him keep it? Then they shot them up with gattling guns? And Josey was watching from a distance with his spy glass the whole time? Yeah, no Southern boy be walking home with a Springfield or Enfield.

Ugly Sauce said:

Also consider having to walk home two-three-four hundred miles and packing that Springfield with you. I do suspect many pistols made it home, but don't say nothing.

Click to expand...

I don't think the walk would bother them too much packing a rifle. They didn't move much during the winter months but in summer they marched a lot of miles. Going home with a good rifle would help a lot.

hawg said:

I don't think the walk would bother them too much packing a rifle. They didn't move much during the winter months but in summer they marched a lot of miles. Going home with a good rifle would help a lot.

Click to expand...

Yes, but, the terms of surrender did not allow them to take their rifles home, and Union patrols ( and I imagine some of them were very nasty people, out for revenge) were active after the surrender. I suppose some snuck home if they were not far from home with their rifles, but for the majority it wasn't an option. Didn't happen, other than in rare instances. Could not just go home with a rifle.

Ugly Sauce said:

Yes, but, the terms of surrender did not allow them to take their rifles home, and Union patrols ( and I imagine some of them were very nasty people, out for revenge) were active after the surrender. I suppose some snuck home if they were not far from home with their rifles, but for the majority it wasn't an option. Didn't happen, other than in rare instances. Could not just go home with a rifle.

Click to expand...

I didn't mean to infer that they did. I was just sayin a good rifle would have been good motivation.