Speaking of big iron

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ugly Sauce said:
I like it. A lot of revolvers were nickel plated back in those days, and they usually do "age" like that, even when taken care of.
Click to expand...

None of the cap and ball war pistols were nickel plated. Colt didn't nickel plate anything until 1869. You could special order Richards Mason revolvers with nickel plate but Colt sent them elsewhere to be plated.
 
Right, didn't mean the civil war era revolvers, although I know some were plated later. Saw an original 1851 that was nickel plated, but I forget where. The Natives/Tribes/Indians (my Indian friends have always called themselves "Indians", never "Native American", but trying to be politically correct) especially liked nickel plated SAA's and S&W's, scouts were often given such revolvers.
 
brewer12345 said:
I occasionally think about a big monster bp pistol. If I were going to buy just one monster revolver, what would you pick and why? Seems like a walker would be default choice, but I don't know the monsters that well.
Click to expand...
I chose, and use a 454 Casull by freedom arms. It’s big and heavy but I carry it in a chest holster (not under arm) when salmon fishing Alaska rivers. Same rig when picking huckle berries in the Idaho/Montana high country where there’s Griz. Same rig when bow hunting (chest carry doesn’t interfere with the bow draw). You need a darn good grip to use it because it has a heavy recoil. The gun Has a 5 shot cylinder, and my holster has loops for 6 more if I need them. It’s a big game stopper if (big IF) you can practice and become proficient with it to hit your target. Why did I choose a 454, because it will (if properly used) stop any game on the continent. I would have carried it as a backup gun in Africa but many of the countries don’t allow hand guns. But if I ever go to hunt South Africa I will hunt with the 454. The REAL bottom line is carry what you are comfortable, proficient, and confident with. That’s the most important aspect.
 
brewer12345 said:
I occasionally think about a big monster bp pistol. If I were going to buy just one monster revolver, what would you pick and why? Seems like a walker would be default choice, but I don't know the monsters that well.
Click to expand...
Oops, you said black powder and I missed it. Kinda spouted off about the 454 thing. Sorry. I have never used a bp weapon so I can’t help. Good luck and good shooting.
 
Jackiesman said:
Same rig when picking huckle berries in the Idaho/Montana high country where there’s Griz.
Click to expand...

Them's my stomping grounds!!! Well, North Idaho anyhow. When berry picking I usually carry a rifle, (sometimes a modern revolver) but often something that burns (lots) of black powder. Or a musket...which burns even more of the black stuff. Sometimes a double barrel 12 gauge shell-gun, (hammer gun of course) and both of mine (one long, one short) only shoot (lots) of black powder...and great big round balls.

As much as I love my black powder revolvers, and as much as I like to live dangerously, I think the only BP revolver I'd feel somewhat safe with (in Grizz country) would be the Dragoon...and even then, "somewhat". The Walker of course is a little more powerful, but to me they are ugly (life is too short for an ugly gun) and for the weight of a Walker a short carbine would/is (for me) much easier to carry.
 
Well, call me a daisy, but frankly, my Walker is a bit too much to shoot one-handed. Not the recoil...I'm used to shooting .44 mag and I've done it one handed enough times...but it's more the weight, and the forward arm of that weight. The Walker is one nose-heavy son of a biddy. My Dragoons are somewhat better, can manage a few one-handers before my wrist starts to give out. As was stated earlier, the Army must have felt like a godsend when it came out, especially on horseback where unless you were Rooster Cogburn, you rode with the reins in one hand and the gun in t'other.
WRT the R&S...mine is a late Euroarms model, and while I never measured max load (as far as how much powder I could stuff down it's torpedo tubes), I know there is no way in Hades I could squeeze 50gr behind a RB...especially with a wad or leaving room for lube in the chamber mouths.. Blackie must have had a different manufacturer or had his chambers deepened. Like my Armies and Remingtons, 35 grains is a hella stout load and anything more is just burning up powder and beating up the gun for no good reason, IMHO. Most of that powder gets burned up OUTSIDE the muzzle in the form of a comet's tail anyway.
 
Yes, one reaches the point where there's not enough barrel to really make use of a high capacity torpedo tube. 35 grains makes sense. However, it does seem like 40 grains under a bullet would put it right, or almost on par with (most .44 C&B slugs run around 220 or so, or less, mostly, whereas the .45Colt throws a 250-256 hunk with 40 grains) a .45 Colt, and that wouldn't be a bad thing. The LEE 200 grain bullet over 40 grains would make it equal to a .44-40/.44WCF.

Well, concerning Blackie, I think it is the duty of everyone on this thread to go fill a chamber of their R&S, dump it out on the scale, and report the findings. It would be interesting to see if they vary, or not, and see if only Blackie owns a 50 grain pistol. ??!!? I don't have a Rogers and Spencer....yet.
 
Ugly Sauce said:
Yes, one reaches the point where there's not enough barrel to really make use of a high capacity torpedo tube. 35 grains makes sense. However, it does seem like 40 grains under a bullet would put it right, or almost on par with (most .44 C&B slugs run around 220 or so, or less, mostly, whereas the .45Colt throws a 250-256 hunk with 40 grains) a .45 Colt, and that wouldn't be a bad thing. The LEE 200 grain bullet over 40 grains would make it equal to a .44-40/.44WCF.

Well, concerning Blackie, I think it is the duty of everyone on this thread to go fill a chamber of their R&S, dump it out on the scale, and report the findings. It would be interesting to see if they vary, or not, and see if only Blackie owns a 50 grain pistol. ??!!? I don't have a Rogers and Spencer....yet.
Click to expand...
I will try this tonight and report back.
WRT 40gr...I think I managed to squeeze that into one of my Remingtons once, but the balls were shaving lead at the forcing cone. Not something I'd want to do every day. However, that was done with Pyro P rather than 3F
 
I don't have a R&S but unless it has chambers the length of a dragoon I don't see how 50 grains is possible. 35 grains is my normal load for a .44 and 25 for a .36.
 
Hey, them's my loads too. On the .36" I'm still experimenting with the '62, the Remington I've settled on 23 under a slug, be it a LEE, Kaido, or a modified Colt design, and a modified Remington bullet. (original design with flat noses)

Anyhow, I watched Blackie again, wasn't so bad, maybe I just have to get used to him. Right off the bat though, I caught some bad information about the early Dragoons, he kind of states they fought entirely with Dragoon pistols, which is not right, they were armed with short smooth bore long (but short) guns. Many of the officers carried Dragoon pistols. At least in 1858 that was the case, and how they were armed when Col.Steptoe came through here, which was Indian reservation at the time. The tribes, Spokanes, Kalispel, Yakimas, CDA's, beat Steptoe and his Dragoons badly, and chased them back down South and off the reservation. Four or five Colt Dragoon pistols have since been dug up in farmer's fields where the battle was, since then. But the troops, enlisted men were armed with short smooth bore guns. And sabres, which they LEFT BEHIND (!!!!) on that trip, and seriously regretted later. Then Col.Wright came through a few months later, with infantry armed with the 1855 Springfield, beat up the Indians, and took the land. Check it out, google it! Battle of Four Lakes.

Anyhow, unless his powder measure is off, which it could be, his gun did take 50 grains, again, going by his measure.

As an experiment, I threw a charge out of my old adjustable measure, set at 50 grains, which I've been using forever, and got 45 grains by weight. So maybe those measures that they have been selling since forever are not real accurate. ?? Or perhaps 45 grains is the true max capacity. ?
 
Ugly Sauce said:
As an experiment, I threw a charge out of my old adjustable measure, set at 50 grains, which I've been using forever, and got 45 grains by weight. So maybe those measures that they have been selling since forever are not real accurate. ?? Or perhaps 45 grains is the true max capacity. ?
Click to expand...

They're not regulated so you can expect different charges from different manufacturers. I haven't checked mine but it was made by TC back in 1980 so I would expect it to be fairly accurate but what do I know.
 
I think the problem is, any specific volume of powder will vary by weight depending on the moisture content and grain size. Maybe the phase of the moon. Perhaps even the mix of the chemicals and charcoal. 4fg will weigh more than 1fg, when measured in equal volumes. So, how they originally "calibrated them" is anyone's guess. Very possible that Blackie's measure throws a charge that is five grains light, like mine. That would help explain how he got 50 grains in there.

Maybe I could leave a comment on his video, and ask him if his measure throws 50 grains into a scale or not. But, once those videos are a few days old I think the comments don't get read anymore...or seldom.
 
Ugly Sauce said:
I think the problem is, any specific volume of powder will vary by weight depending on the moisture content and grain size. Maybe the phase of the moon. Perhaps even the mix of the chemicals and charcoal. 4fg will weigh more than 1fg, when measured in equal volumes. So, how they originally "calibrated them" is anyone's guess. Very possible that Blackie's measure throws a charge that is five grains light, like mine. That would help explain how he got 50 grains in there.

Maybe I could leave a comment on his video, and ask him if his measure throws 50 grains into a scale or not. But, once those videos are a few days old I think the comments don't get read anymore...or seldom.
Click to expand...
A few years back, on another forum, I showed photos of an 1858 cylinder with 50 grains piled up in a cone above the chamber. Then I showed a photo of another guy's measure holding "50 grains" of 3F and a transparent measure showing it to be 45 grains. It wasn't accepted very well.
 
Ugly Sauce said:
Yes, one reaches the point where there's not enough barrel to really make use of a high capacity torpedo tube. 35 grains makes sense. However, it does seem like 40 grains under a bullet would put it right, or almost on par with (most .44 C&B slugs run around 220 or so, or less, mostly, whereas the .45Colt throws a 250-256 hunk with 40 grains) a .45 Colt, and that wouldn't be a bad thing. The LEE 200 grain bullet over 40 grains would make it equal to a .44-40/.44WCF.

Well, concerning Blackie, I think it is the duty of everyone on this thread to go fill a chamber of their R&S, dump it out on the scale, and report the findings. It would be interesting to see if they vary, or not, and see if only Blackie owns a 50 grain pistol. ??!!? I don't have a Rogers and Spencer....yet.
Click to expand...
It's on the way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

tark
  • Locked
Uberti 1876 in 50-95
2
Replies
34
Views
6K
eastbank
eastbank
T
  • Locked
The guns of The Hills Have Eyes
Replies
24
Views
2K
atek3
atek3
ClemBert
  • Locked
Loading a Walker with 2Fg instead of 3Fg?
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
ClemBert
ClemBert
Hoyte
  • Locked
Pietta 1851 Navy vs CVA Walker
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
Jackrabbit1957
J
J
  • Locked
Giant Rabbit terrorize farmers in English village
2 3
Replies
65
Views
3K
Darlene
D
Back
Top