The concept of a wounded soldier being more disruptive to an Army than a dead one is a recent, 20th century concept. It's only a valid strategy if your enemy cares about all his soldiers. In the past, that care simply didn't extend to the lower ranks.
In the Crimean War (1854-56), the rate of death in Florence Nightingale's hospitals was greater than that suffered by the famous Light Brigade in its devastating charge (British cavalry against emplaced Russian guns).
In those days, most of the wounded died of infection, shock, bleedout and exposure; this was especially true of the lower ranks.
Not until the latter years of the American Civil War did any Army make a concerted effort to use trained medics to retrieve wounded from the battlefield, and return them to a well-established field hospital where triage was practiced.
Prior to this, it was standard procedure to treat the wounded according to rank, not necessarily the need for aid. The surgeon saw to the officers and high-ranking NCOs, and then saw to the enlisted.
The .36 Navy is often compared to the .380 ACP, but I feel this is somewhat flawed. The soft lead ball or conical bullet of the .36 tends to flatten a bit, or greatly, when encountering resistance such as heavy muscle or bone. This creates a larger wound channel.
The .380 ACP is at the edge of reliable expansion of jacketed hollowpoints. And if the hollow is plugged with cloth or leather from clothing, it acts like a full metal jacket and goes in like a drill bit, creating a small wound channel.
The 80-grain ball may be driven to about 1,000 fps with a maximum charge of FFFG black powder (26.5 grains of Goex FFFG in my Colt 2nd generation 1851 Navy). The heavier conical bullet, depending on its weight, from 800 to 900 fps. I know, because I've chronographed them.
Keith's quote is posted often. It's found in his 1955 book, "Sixguns." In 1955, the only commonly available factory loads for the .38 Special were the 158 gr. roundnose, 158 gr. full metal jacket, and 148 gr. wadcutter target load. The .38/44 load, which was a more powerful loading of the .38 Special, was restricted to large-frame revolvers and not often available off-the-shelf. It bridged the gap between the .38 Special standard loads and the .357 Magnum, but was not particularly popular.
Almost every police department used the .38 Special with the 158 gr. roundnosed bullet at 850 fps. It was and remains a notoriously poor bullet to stop a human's focus on whatever he's doing at the time (trying to attack you or another, engaged in rape, looting, etc.).
So, Keith was comparing the .36 Navy to a notoriously ineffective bullet. This should be remembered when comparing the .36 to the .38 Special.
Handloading was not as widespread in the 1950s as today. Most folks used factory cartridges in their .38s.
Today's .38 Special is a much better focus-shifter than it was back then, with a plethora of hollowpoint or semiwadcutter loads that are far better than the old 158 gr. RN.
Duplex loading of the .36 Navy, with fine-grained powder at the bottom of the chamber, and a coarser-grained powder to top it off, duplicates what target rifle shooters did for decades from the 1850s through 1890s. I rather doubt it was ever done with revolvers. It's more cumbersome to load, requires carrying two types of powder and the effect at the short range that handguns are employed would probably not be noticed.
Soldiers tended to use what they were issued, except for the murderous irregulars who were the barbarians of their day. Most officers and NCOs believed in military standardization, and made sure their troops didn't stray too much from it.
The British Army loved the Colt Dragoon .44 during the Crimean War, though it was a large, bulky, heavy arm. Against horses and Cossacks, it was decisive. The Navy .36 was considered too light against horses and adrenaline-charged Cossacks.
The first British percussion revolver was the Beaumont-Adams, a .442-caliber six-shooter. When the pecussion era was waning, many Beaumont-Adams were converted to rimfire cartridges. It was a good revolver, though I once handled one and realized that it lacks the wonderful balance of the Navy and the sturdiness of the Dragoon. The British did well with it, though.
Is the .36 Navy underpowered?
I think contemporary accounts give a resounding, "No!"
The ghosts of hundreds of thousands killed by the Colt Navy .36 would sigh and agree.
