1851 Confederate Navy

[rhoggman]

Hear a lot of people saying not to go over 22-25 grains in the brass framed guns. I understand the logic behind it, but does anyone have pictures of how the frame is impacted by shooting the heavier loads? What to look for?

I shot the revolver quite a bit this weekend and it performed well, but seemed to be more accurate with 30gr of fffg Goex. There really was not much recoil even with the 30gr loads.

 

[Hawkeye748]

SO CALLED Confedrate Navy

I am some what of a history nut and have been watching this thread for a while. It's raining and I am in foul mood, or I probably would not post this but just let it slide.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A BRASS FRAME CONFEDERATE NAVY IN 44 Caliber.:banghead:

This is an entirely Italtian creation that never existed as an actual historical weapon. There was never an 1851 style pistol made by or for the Confederate Army in 44 Caliber. :banghead: In fact, in the parlance of the day, Navy, regardless of style, meant the pistol was 36 Caliber. Army meant it was 44 Caliber.:banghead: Don't believe me, check out Flayderman's Antique American Firearms.

The 44 Caliber was tpically a Dragoon style until the late 1850's which were large heavy powerful guns meant to be carried on horse back by Calvary troops. It became apparent that Army officers, who were required to purchase their own firearms, wanted a lighter weight belt model gun. Many bought the "Navy" model revolvers. In the late 1850's, someone got the bright idea that Army officers should carry "Army" revolvers, not Navy, revolvers. They began making lighter framed 44 caliber belt revolvers to market to Army officers that would use the 44 caliber ammo issued to the regular enlisted troops. The best known of these is the 1858 Starr Army, though there were a few others.

Colt and Remington were a little late into the marketing ploy, but caught up quickly with much better made and designed revolvers in the ARMY caliber. Their entry with "Army" revolvers were the model 1860 and model 1861. Both were high quality and quickly gained favor over the others, and they dominated the market. Still, because of the lighter weight, many Army officers continued to prefer the Navy revolvers and many more of them were manufactured to fill the demand.

Now that I have vented a bit, I feel better!

 

[Smokin_Gun]

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A BRASS FRAME CONFEDERATE NAVY.

Collectors call the CSA made Brass framed G&G 1862 the Confederate Navy ... para quote "almost an exact copy of the 1851 Colt Navy but made with a brass frame".
Another was the Schneider and Glassick.

 

[Fingers McGee]

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A BRASS FRAME CONFEDERATE NAVY.

On it's own, that first sentence is incorrect. The .36 cal Griswold & Gunnnison and Schneider and Glassick revolvers were brass framed Confederate Navies. Now, the rest of the rant is more or less correct about there not being any 1851 style .44 cal pistol made by or for the Confederate Army. The only exceptions, that could logically be argued, would be the Tucker and Sherrard, and the Dance brothers revolvers. While not exactly 1851 Navy sized revolvers; they were styled after the 1851 Navy. The 44 cal brass and steel framed 1851 Navy pattern pistol is indeed an Italian invention.

..........But then, I'm just being picky

And, as an aside, what we know as the 1851 Navy is a modern collectors designation of Colt's Belt Pistol of Navy caliber.

 

[Smokin_Gun]

Tuco started the .45 Colt Navy Conversion in the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly ... let's blame Tuco he likes it.

So what's wrong with an 1851 Conversion like a Richards Mason or Richards, or Open Top in .45Colt carts called a Navy model and an 1851
Italian Navy being called a Conversion to .44 in C&B?

Jus' curious ... :O)

 

[Hawkeye748]

MEA CULPA for not finishing the sentence. I have corrected it!

So what's wrong with an 1851 Conversion like a Richards Mason or Richards, or Open Top in .45Colt carts called a Navy model and an 1851
Italian Navy being called a Conversion to .44 in C&B?

It's wrong because the Richard and Richard Mason Conversion were of the 1860 not the 1851. The Navy Colts that were converted were done usually to 38 RF and 38 CF. Not enough metal in the 1851 to bore them out to handle 45's.

I am the one being picky for wanting historically correct terms used on these Revolvers. Point is, the 1851 was only originally made in 36 caliber. Any 51 or copy in 44 is incorrect historically.

 

[pohill]

I don't think we'll ever know all the guns that once existed. If you're ever in Hartford, CT, check out the Colt Collection at the State library - they have some very unusual guns.

Check this out:

"Rare Prototype Colt Model 1860 Army Percussion Revolver With Mershon Hollingsworth Cocking Device
Serial no. 3803, .44 caliber. Standard cylinder and 7 1/2 inch barrel with New York markings. Custom brass frame with case hardened hammer and oil finished walnut grips. Right side of frame with circular German silver fitting inscribed Mershon Hollingsworth"

 

[BHP FAN]

there were plenty of brass framed Colt copies, read Confederate Longarms and Pistols by Richard Hill and William Anthony if Smokin Gun, and Fingers McGee haven't convinced you. And thanks, Pohill,I haven't ever even seen a picture of THAT one before!

 

[Hawkeye748]

But none in 44 Caliber!!!!

 

[arcticap]

Hear a lot of people saying not to go over 22-25 grains in the brass framed guns. I understand the logic behind it, but does anyone have pictures of how the frame is impacted by shooting the heavier loads? What to look for?

What to look for is recoil shield damage.

Here's a few threads describing the damage and also the "washer fix" with photos:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=365588&highlight=recoil+shield+washer

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=357670&highlight=recoil+shield+washer

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=234664&highlight=recoil+shield+washer

 

[Fingers McGee]

Point is, the 1851 was only originally made in 36 caliber. Any 51 or copy in 44 is incorrect historically.

You are absolutely correct. The dimensions of the octagonal barrel made it impractical to bore out to .44 Cal. There were some experimental models that were bored out to .40 cal; but they never got past the experimental stage.

I am the one being picky for wanting historically correct terms used on these Revolvers.

I agree about using historically correct terms. The '51 Navy should be called the Old Model Belt Pistol of Navy Caliber, the '60 Army should be called the Improved Holster Pistol of Army Caliber, and the '61 Navy should be called the Improved Belt Pistol of Navy Caliber. And by extension, a .44 Caliber revolver with Octagonal Barrel could be called the Old Model Belt Pistol of Army Caliber.

 

[BHP FAN]

right,but the truth is if you tossed a ''defarbed'' .''44 Navy'' down on a Civil War battle field,some Yank or Reb would scoop it up and use it,without a second thought.If you look hard enough you can find almost anything,like the BRASS framed Colt .44 in Pohill's photo,which, while only a prototype,certainly did exist. For years I've heard rumor of an original BRASS framed Confederate ''Remington''. Did someone see a one off black smith's pistol? A Spiller and Burr mis-identified? I'd like to live long enough to see that one solved,definitively.

 

[dirty dave]

Well I have a old brass frame revolver kind of looks a little like the Colt but has a screw through the grips and a round barrel 36 cal.and name on it nobody has ever heard of,reads patten applied for.I have shot it but keep loads low.

 

[madcratebuilder]

I am the one being picky for wanting historically correct terms used on these Revolvers. Point is, the 1851 was only originally made in 36 caliber. Any 51 or copy in 44 is incorrect historically.

Your not picky at all. All the Italian manufacturers offer a Navy Caliber belt pistol, or 1851 Colt Navy. They are also in the business to make money and these low cost .44's seem to sell well, so the make them.

The brass frame 51 style is historically correct with three or more makers during the Civil War.

Hear a lot of people saying not to go over 22-25 grains in the brass framed guns. I understand the logic behind it, but does anyone have pictures of how the frame is impacted by shooting the heavier loads? What to look for?

Two things to look for are indentations of the cylinder ratchet on the recoil shield. This is caused by the cylinder being pushed back into the recoil shield on firing. The more cylinder end play you have the faster this occurs. Second is the arbor becoming loose in the frame.

 

[sparrqhme]

can you shoot this gun without a ball , for civil war re enactments? if so how?

 

[IBEWBULL]

I have not done it but think they use paper or felt wading.
As for loading brass framed 36 heavy, I shot my High Standard Griswold and Gunnison with max loads, about 400 rounds or so the cylinder "axel' loosened up and had to be steaked with a punch. No frame stretching to be noticed at all.
Way back in 1973 I carried this one on my boot. later I bought a M 28 Highway Patrolman 4 inch.