50 yard range report/DGG 1860 Colt.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ugly Sauce

Ugly Sauce

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2020
Messages
6,234
DSC07545.JPG
This kind of concludes my 50 yard cap-N-ball pistol shooting. I wasn't on a mission to get all my shots on a plate, just wanted to see what they could do. "They" being the 1860 and the Remington.

Well, the Remington did out shoot the Colt. (man what a joy to shoot the Colt now) But I wouldn't call even the Remington reliable at that range. At 35 yards I got a "pattern" with the Colt that was as good as the Remington at 50.

Before I shot today, I made my rear-sight notch wider, and U-shaped. In the past I had filed it to the right, as the gun shot left. Recently it shoots right, so I centered my notch, now she shoots more on for windage. We'll have to see at 25 yards. The first six shots I held my front sight low in the notch, and she shot low, second six were shot with the front sight even with the top of the notch, and she shot a bit high. So the lowest shots were from the fist six, the highest from the second. The ones on in elevation....dang if I know!

Both guns have plenty of power left at 50. The round balls from the Colt still zip right through the heavy plywood and into the tires over 35 grains of 3fg. That thing really pops off with that load. The Kaidos over 23 grains of 4fg from the Remington don't have a problem either.

With a lot of fiddle-farting around with lubes and stuff, I could probably get both guns to shoot better, but for me their "mission" is 25 yard work, like most pistols. Both are fast to reload with what they are using now, and both good and powerful. And reliable. Just wanted to see what my limits were. Remington 50 yards max, Colt 35 yards max.

Now the problem is...which one to take with me to the mountains, when I'm not taking the Little Brat. (1862) ! I used to usually choose the Remington over the Colt, because of the Remington's fine tune and reliability. But now the 1860 is right up there with the Remington. Dang! Loaded down with ball, the Remington is a better small game gun, but double-dang, that Colt is a power-house. She really pops off. KA-BOOOOOM!

Okay, thanks for listening to this drivel.
 
Now you've got me wanting to stretch out the range on some of my current C&B six guns. The last time I did 50 yards was with a Colt (I think they're called 3rd gen?) '51 Navy I owned in the 90's then stupidly sold off for some other venture. From 50 it kept six RB's powered by Goex 3F in a paper plate, most within 5" of center. I was truly amazed how accurate it was and was not expecting that type of performance.
 
All of us here have probably heard of Wild Bill and his 75 yard hit on an adversary with his 1851 Navy.
At my gunclub I set up a 12x18 silhouette target at that distance and was able to keep 5 of the six in the silhouette.
I cheated though bracing my right forearm on a steel roof support with a two handed hold on the firing line. Hickok did it with a fast draw. ;)
 
LaneP said:
Now you've got me wanting to stretch out the range on some of my current C&B six guns. The last time I did 50 yards was with a Colt (I think they're called 3rd gen?) '51 Navy I owned in the 90's then stupidly sold off for some other venture. From 50 it kept six RB's powered by Goex 3F in a paper plate, most within 5" of center. I was truly amazed how accurate it was and was not expecting that type of performance.
Click to expand...

I'd be interested in what others get at 50. That last group with the Colt was pretty dismal, but at 50 my sight picture was not good, and I used two different sight pictures. My .36 Remington showed pretty good potential, and I plan to try it again at 50 with a different bullet. The 1860 I'll try again with lube over the ball, as I saw a video recently where a guy shot groups with both wads under the ball, and lube over, and the lube-overs tightened up the group considerably.

Although these pistols are best suited to 25 yard purposes, I think it's an interesting exercise just to see what they can do, and know what the effective range limit actually is.
 
Last edited:
It’s interesting that the sights seem to be set up for distances beyond what one would think are reasonable for a hand gun.
I shoot twice at week at my gun club. We have a 8 steel at 100 yards I’d like to say I’ve hit it more than once or twice with a ROA. with the emphasis on like.
I’ll give the 50 yard a try one of these days.
 
whughett said:
It’s interesting that the sights seem to be set up for distances beyond what one would think are reasonable for a hand gun.
Click to expand...

Yep, trajectory is one thing, but in it's self does not help when the group opens up to where hit probability is low, even though elevation is still "on". ! At 50 my pistols are still hitting high, but that seems to be about my limit as far as group (or pattern) size being effective.
 
You know, I don't think the Tutt shot is that difficult with the longer barrel, and lots of practice. The question is can one do it consistently with one's first shot, or keep six shots on a paper plate at that range. ? Billy Dixon said when he shot the dude off his horse at a million miles that it was a "scratch shot", meaning it was a lucky shot. I kind of think Hickcok's shot was a lucky shot, even though he had a lot of skill going for him.

Has anyone ever speculated as to how Bill's pistol was loaded? Loose powder and ball? Paper cartridges with slugs? I know some claim he used his Dragoon, but I have no idea how valid or truthful that is/would be. ?
 
I know Beliveau strongly believes WBH used his '51 Navies for the Tutt fight. It's likely to never be known for certain based on so many differences of opinion. From the 1975 edition of "Guns of the Gunfighters", Jim Dunham wrote,

"...on July 21, 1865, came the classic gunfight. It was in Springfield, Missouri and was the result of an argument over a card game, and most likely involved bitterness over a mutual girlfriend, Susannah Moore. Cards and women constantly meant trouble for Hickok throughout his entire life. The two men, James Hickok and Dave Tutt, agreed to settle their differences by shooting. They met at opposite ends of the city square, and as they moved toward each other, they both pulled pistols and both shots sounded as one. Tutt fell, having been shot through the heart. Without waiting to see if his bullet hit its mark, Hickok turned about and brought his pistol to point at Tutt's friends and warned them not to try and get involved.

Each writer has a different opinion as to the weapons that were used in this duel. Hickok was known to have owned at the time a .32 caliber Smith & Wesson Rimfire No. 2 Army revolver and a .44 caliber Colt Dragoon and, of course, his pair of 1851 Colt Navies. Since he had time to prepare for this fight, my guess would be he used the larger caliber revolver."
 
I'm kind of going with the '51. It was said he was seen walking around with the Navies. Also that he drew fast. I suppose you can draw a Dragoon fast, but not as fast, and I assume he was more practiced fast drawing a Navy, rather than a Dragoon. Unless he was planning to ambush Tutt, seems like he'd have his normal/usual fighting rig on. That Tutt drew first, I don't think he had a shoot on sight plan. ? And, it does not sound like he was expecting an encounter at 75 yards, so 12 shots at normal gunfight range would have made more sense than six shots from a more powerful, longer range pistol. I don't think he could have foreseen Tutt drawing on him at long range. ? Again, lucky shot. And, the better your marksmanship, skill and experience, the greater your luck.

I wonder it Tutt opened fire at that range thinking they would both miss, but save face by exchanging a couple of shots?

I once shot a bug out of the air, first shot with a .22 pistol and people watching. It would probably take me 300 rounds or more to do it again. Lucky shot, but my then better than now marksmanship skills helped a lot. !!
 
Ugly Sauce said:
I kind of think Hickcok's shot was a lucky shot,
Click to expand...
There's no doubt about that. He practiced a lot with his navies but even so nobody could reliably hit a heart at 75 yards with ANY handgun, then or now. Practice helped, but he could have perhaps counted on a torso hit (maybe) if he was exceptionally good offhand under pressure. I don't think any of us would claim to be that good, at least with any wager on the line.
 
When I lived in the dreaded Nevada I would hunt Jackrabbits with pistols, I eventually started hunting them with cap and ball revolvers. My best shot with one was used a Ruger Old Army shooting a 200 grain .452 bullet. Dropped a rabbit at around 75 yards. In the case of Hickok shooting Tutt I can see how Hickok could have made the shot, considering that a human is not a thick skinned critter I reckon any solid hit above the belly button and below the collar bones would most likely have been fatal.Can I make the same shot on a rabbit now? I kinda doubt it however a man sized target at 75 yards would be a definite yes.
 
1KPerDay said:
There's no doubt about that. He practiced a lot with his navies but even so nobody could reliably hit a heart at 75 yards with ANY handgun, then or now. Practice helped, but he could have perhaps counted on a torso hit (maybe) if he was exceptionally good offhand under pressure. I don't think any of us would claim to be that good, at least with any wager on the line.
Click to expand...

Not trying to toot your horn there 1k but your a pretty damn crack shot. I'm sure you coulf put at least 5 out of 6 in a mans chest at 75 yards
 
Ugly Sauce said:
But was it a ball, or paper cartridge conical?
Click to expand...

No idea but (pure speculation on my part) I would assign the greatest probability to paper cartridge/conical. Rationale for that hypothesis is that during that era as is the case in every era, people want to simplify things where ever possible. Maintaining a supply of loose powder, bullets and charge measuring tools would not have been as convenient as obtaining pre-fabricated ammunition to keep handy and load as needed. We see many examples of commercially sold combustible cartridges from the era, but I haven't seen examples of period powder cans or loose bullets that would have been sold as an alternative. If one did cast their own, I wouldn't know where they would have gone to source lead, though it was probably out there in some capacity somewhere, just nothing I've read about.
 
Blackpowderwarrior said:
The big and dandy highroad forum 50 yard BP revolver shoot off!
Click to expand...

Yep. It can be as simple as: "show us your 12 shot (or ten in the case of Little Brats) 50 yard cap-N-ball revolver group"! I'll shoot me a couple more groups (ah...I mean patterns) at 50 and post it up. I want to try my 130 grain slug in the Remington at 50, and also the 1860 with lube over the ball. The "KREAL" slug I have in .375" seemed to show best close range accuracy in the Rem, so I should also pop off a few of those.
 
LaneP said:
No idea but (pure speculation on my part) I would assign the greatest probability to paper cartridge/conical. Rationale for that hypothesis is that during that era as is the case in every era, people want to simplify things where ever possible. Maintaining a supply of loose powder, bullets and charge measuring tools would not have been as convenient as obtaining pre-fabricated ammunition to keep handy and load as needed. We see many examples of commercially sold combustible cartridges from the era, but I haven't seen examples of period powder cans or loose bullets that would have been sold as an alternative. If one did cast their own, I wouldn't know where they would have gone to source lead, though it was probably out there in some capacity somewhere, just nothing I've read about.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly, and that's what Bill would have been using in the war, and used to, and they were readily available in the towns and trading posts, he could afford them, so it seems highly unlikely that he would be using loose ball and powder. It would certainly be more convenient to carry a pack of cartridges in a pocket, and some caps, rather than a bullet pouch and a flask, if he carried reloads at all. Don't recall any pictures of him with the Navies and a powder flask. ?

Also, considering the projectile went through Tutt from side to side, it seems more likely, to me, that a slug would have the retained energy to do that, maybe not the ball. Or not, sounds like it missed the ribs on both sides, so perhaps a ball would retain enough energy to do that. ?

With that in mind, it seems funny that most people try to duplicate the Tutt shot with loose powder and ball, as did Mike B.
 
I have no where to shoot to 50 yards currently. The private club range I belong to banned handguns on the rifle range, and the pistols are limited to 25 yd outdoor (also have a 50' indoor range but no BP allowed on that one). BUT...in less than one year I'll be retired and moving back to the sticks from whence I began my working career and that issue will be over for good :)
 
There are some ranges in my area that won't allow pistols over 25 yards. What is the reasoning behind that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Crawdad1
  • Locked
My 1860 Colt
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
dickydalton
dickydalton
Ugly Sauce
  • Locked
50 yard range report Remington New Model Army-Navy Caliber
Replies
4
Views
209
Ugly Sauce
Ugly Sauce
Crawdad1
  • Locked
1860 Army vs ROA vs Remington
Replies
11
Views
1K
rodwha
R
Crawdad1
  • Locked
Range time with my 1860 Army
2 3
Replies
58
Views
4K
TOOT44
T
frontiergander
  • Locked
JSG SP in my 1860 Army Colt
Replies
7
Views
1K
Crawdad1
Crawdad1
Back
Top