Asking one more time...

speculating here
He was probably a bad enough he didn't need anything bigger!

Hmmmmm . . . . . . . . gotta feeling this is a trick question!



Uh . . . . . . because the '61 wasn't available yet?

Probably because he was familiar with it and a good shot. I'd imagine back then things like "stopping power" and all that weren't as covetted. No doubt the .36 can put any man on Earth in his grave, and people knew it. A good shot with one was more than lethal. Of course, he might also have liked the handling of the '51 Navy as it points so well, and is light weight enough to pack around all day. This really is all speculation...

Hickok took his reasons to the grave!

Some good reasons mentioned so far. Just like some didn't rush to Glocks or other plastic guns when they first came out, he likely felt it did what he needed done.

Another thing rarely mentioned, I recall he was given factory engraved guns on a couple of occasions, and they may have been more Navy Colts. He was known to own and use other guns at different times, including Smith & Wesson 44's, which he chose not to carry later when he had the engraved Colts. Factory engraved guns were quite unusual and valuable. I have no doubt he appreciated them for their looks, as well as their feel.

For some reason many seem to feel he only had the one pair of Navies (there are a couple of credible stories of his guns existing in two different places), and didnt own or use other guns. History tells us otherwise. I recall more than one story of him being given engraved guns as gifts from friends and admirers.

He among others seemed to prefer the ergonomics of the Navy. Army was too big, Pocket models were too little. The Navy was just right.

I had an Army 44 and a Navy 36 and much preferred the balance and handling of the 51.

I haven't handled any later model Colt that balanced any better.

Because he was brought up to
Dance with the one who brung ya?

No doubt he was skilled enough the handle any gun he preferred.

Also no doubt a brace of .44's would get pretty heavy to carry around 24/7.

My guess is he had became so familiar with them, they were like extensions of his hands.

rc

I don't know how 1860's would be heavier. The grip frame is a quarter inch longer but everything else is a wash. Same frame. Bigger holes negate the slightly larger cylinder (half of it anyway). My Pietta 1860 weighs exactly the same as my Pietta 1851 London.

Same reason some people currently carry a 38 revolver, others a 380acp, others a 9mm, a few 357 sig, some others 357 mag, a few 41 mags, some others 40sw a handful of 44spl, a lot of 45acp, and then the majority who carry nothing. It's what he had, got good with, and for one reason or another liked better than other models available. I always wondered why the colt guns were so much more popular than the Schofield until I saw the floppy loading arm the Schofield has. There is only one person who ever POSSIBLY knew the answer and he died many years ago at a poker table. Ask a man why he prefers a 1911 over a HiPower...most folks don't really know why they like one over the other.

WestKentucky said:

Same reason some people currently carry a 38 revolver, others a 380acp, others a 9mm, a few 357 sig, some others 357 mag, a few 41 mags, some others 40sw a handful of 44spl, a lot of 45acp, and then the majority who carry nothing. It's what he had, got good with, and for one reason or another liked better than other models available. I always wondered why the colt guns were so much more popular than the Schofield until I saw the floppy loading arm the Schofield has. There is only one person who ever POSSIBLY knew the answer and he died many years ago at a poker table. Ask a man why he prefers a 1911 over a HiPower...most folks don't really know why they like one over the other.

Click to expand...

Floppy loading arm? Aren't we talking about a break-top cartridge revolver? What is the loading arm on a break-top?

Yep...I meant Lemat. Thanks for catching that Tommygunn

That makes sense. The LeMat to me is just NOT ergonomic. The blinkin' loading arm must be raised up. On the Colts and Remmies the arm pulls down and this is a much easier thing to do.
The only good thing the LeMat really has in its favor is -- if you DID run out of ammo -- it would make a really good bludgeon compared to the dinkier Colts!

The lemat's hammer seems pretty weak as well...I guess that was a non-issue since the loading arm was so problematic.

I seem to remember reading some where that Hickok preferred them because they fit in his waist band/sash very nicely. He didn't normally carry them in holsters. I can't remember a single picture of Hickok were he was wearing holsters
Being he was a professional gambler, the pistol carried in the waist band in the crossover style that he wore them, were easily and quickly brought to use seated at a card table.
I personally don't have any experience with the 1851 Navy, but I have heard guys say that during the civil war calvary soldiers, especially the guerrilla fighters, liked the 1851 because it was light, enabling them to carry several weapons on belt holsters and saddle holsters. In addition they were easily and quickly reloaded by exchanging the cylinder, and it was so easy they could do it mounted on a horse.

1. Could have been a Ford, Chevy, Dodge thing

2. Might have been ergonomics. Remember that most people were smaller in stature than today.

3. From the standpoint of power, the length of cylinder between the 44 and 36 is about the same in the 1851 and 1860. While the chamber may be only approx ball size, the 36 provides a longer powder column in proportion to the bore diameter. If you check the Lyman Black Powder hand book, the 36 has max ballistics which approach but not quite equal the 44, in a lighter package.

4. At pistol ranges, is their really a difference in stopping power. Not in ft lbs, but in penetration and wound value. (keep in mind that during the War of Northern Aggression, the idea was to remove the enemy from the fight and a wound was as good as a death for many. Some fought on despite wounds, but many just curled up and waited for inevitable death)

Some say the revolvers he carried to Deadwood were converted to 38 Colt. There is a book about JBH, I forget the author but he debunks a lot of the myths surrounding the man. The facts are plenty enough to take in.

I have only one 1851 but it is the same weight as many of my 1860s. The 61 is a bit lighter in weight. The 62 (Colt Pocket Police) is a lot lighter but carries less powder under the same size ball as the 51.

...in a lighter package.

Click to expand...

Both 43oz on my scale.

Supposedly when asked why the 36 over the 44 he was said to have stated,
"It's just as accurate"
robert

Joseph G. Rosa is the author who has debunked many of the myths surrounding JBH.

A lot of people used and carried them. There's a pic of John McCorkle, a Missouri guerilla, as well as many other holding the '51 Colt. The riders of the Pony Express carrying '51 Colts as their weapon of choice even over a rifle. A diary of a Texas rancher carrying a '51Colt on his side and a Dragoon on his saddle. More and more references of people expressing their preference for the '51 Colt are being discovered.

Here is 2 references to Wild Bill's ivory handled '51 Colts in Nyle H. Miller and Joseph W. Shell book, "Great Gunfighters of the Kansas Cowtowns" on page 114, where in 1867, a dispatch by Henry Stanley, yes that Stanley, saying,

"It is his custom to be always armed with a brace of ivory-handled revolvers with which weapons he is remarkably dexterous."

Another on October 26th, 1867, page 116, from the editor of the Manhattan 'Independent'

"He wore a richly embroidered sash with a pair of ivory hilted and silver mounted pistols stuck in it."

There are more than one reference to how good Hickok was with these revolvers. Just look at the gunfight between him and Phil Coe, and no there is no contemporary account that I can find that states that Hickok said anything during that fight to distract Coe, and Coe even had his revolver in his hand, when Hickok drew his and fired. If I was that good with them and that confident in them I would keep them also.

If I was that good with them and that confident in them I would keep them also.

Click to expand...

Yep! I think this is more a matter that HE was better with them, than anything inherent in the design. They do handle beautifully but there would be a transitional period had he switched to SAA's and his life depended on his skill with pistols. It worked and cartridges were still unproven technology. Why change what works?

They do handle beautifully

Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree Craig, in my opinion there is no handgun before or since that has that perfect handling and balance of the '51 Navy.

Best bet is it's what he had and carried , after using something o so much any thing els just feels wrong