'58 .44 cal "Belt Pistol?"

[rodwha]

Does anyone make a .44 cal Remington "belt pistol?" I'd prefer to buy just one size ball and feel a .44 is more useful.

On a side note... I see the .36 cal uses the same sized cylinder, but with smaller chambers (.36). Since the chambers are so much beefier it seems they ought to handle non reduced 777 charges. Anyone do this on a regular basis?

What are the .36 cal max loads (steel frame)? What kind of velocity?

 

[rodwha]

I thought Pietta made a .44 cal "belt pistol", but I cannot seem to find one. And so I'm now wondering what it would cost to have one modified?
What should I expect to be charged for:

1) Shortening and recrowning the barrel, and reattaching the loading lever catch and sight?
2) Loading lever from "belt pistol" (SS)?
3) Opening the chambers to .452-453"?

 

[rodwha]

So I see that Cabela's shows a 5 1/2" .44 cal version (Pietta) yet Pietta doesn't reflect it on their site???

 

[kBob]

The 5.5 inch NMA (1858, as folks call them) seem very popular with this crowd. You really need to search the past messages even for this past week or so would give you some opinions on them.

Some like the way they handle.

Guess we have different views of belt pistols as to me there are three classes of classic Cap& Ball revolvers, Horse Pistols like the dragoon and Walkers, Belt pistols which includes the Colt 1851 and 1860 sized pistols to include the NMA with original length barrel or shortened and Pocket Pistols like the Colt 1849 & 1862 and Remington 1863 Pocket revolver sized guns. So I was a bit confused when you askd if anyone makes a Belt pistol 1858 since all but those Buffalo thingees would seem to be such to me.

-kBob

 

[rodwha]

Sorry for the confusion. I noticed that Pietta called the shorter barreled version a "belt" pistol. Went with it. I figured the "belt" part indicated it was short enough to tuck into your belt.

 

[Hellgate]

The heavy Walkers and Dragoons were often carried in pommel holsters on your horse. The medium sized guns ('51, '60, and full sized Remingtons) were light enough to be worn on your belt in holsters (or less securely tucked into a belt). The smaller, "hideout" pistols were called pocket pistols for obvious reasons.

 

[rodwha]

"The heavy Walkers and Dragoons were often carried in pommel holsters on your horse."

Unless you are Clint Eastwood!

I'm more like Festus... 5'8" and 150 with a bushy beard!

 

[Mr. D]

Originally, there were different models mfd by Remington during the 1860's. From largest to smallest they were

- New Model Army, .44 cal, 8" Barrel (what we call the 1858 Rem)

- New Model Navy, .36 , 7.5" Barrel. Looked just like the Army, but was a little smaller, unlike current repros which make the Army and Navy on the same frame. I wish someone would still repro the original smaller size

- New Model Belt Revolver, .36 cal, 6.5" barrel. A little smaller than the Navy. Boy do I wish someone would do an accurate repro of this gun! Dixie Gun Works sells Pietta's 5.5"-barreled version of the New Model Navy (which is again the size of the Army) as a "belt pistol." Their website is the only place I have seen this designation. They say it is smaller than the other New Model pistols, but from what I can tell reading about it online, it is the same size. Other websites list it as New Model Sherrif. The original Belt Revolver was available single- and double-action.

- New Model Police Revolver, .36 cal, 3.5-6.5" barrel, five-shot. Smaller yet than the "Belt Revolver," hence the first 5-shot in the lineup.

- New Model Pocket, .31 cal, 3.5-4.5" Barrel, five-shot. There are several repros of this pistol out there - it's the one without a trigger guard.

There were others as well, derringers, etc.

So that is the Remington Belt Revolver and where it fell in Rem's lineup. To add to the confusion, though, what everyone said about the generic "belt pistol" designation is ALSO correct. It their day, any of the above revolvers (except for the NM Pocket) would have been considered "belt pistols."

And, lastly, lest you think I am actually knowledgeable about this stuff, the source of my info: www.american-firearms.com. This website has pages for every manufacturer under the sun (almost) and is VERY helpful with pictures and everything.

~D

 

[rodwha]

Mr. D:
"New Model Navy, .36 , 7.5" Barrel. Looked just like the Army, but was a little smaller, unlike current repros which make the Army and Navy on the same frame."

It has made me wonder with all of that beef in the cylinder walls if reducing 777 loads is necessary.

 

[Mr. D]

Rodwha,

I wonder too. I don't have a .36, so I can't advise, but I would not be surprised at all if the .36 could actually stand much higher pressures than the .44.

~D

 

[mykeal]

You misunderstand the reason for reducing 777 loads. It's never been about strength of the gun, except perhaps some very extreme loads in long guns.

The reason for reducing 777 is to obtain the performance equivalent to a given amount of real black powder.

If you have determined that, for instance, 70 grains/volume of FFg real black powder provides optimum performance for a .490 round ball patched with .015 lubed ticking in your .50 cal Don Stith Hawken, and you wished to switch to 777, you would load .85*70=60 grains/volume of FFg 777 to obtain nearly the same performance in terms of accuracy, velocity and energy. Obtaining exactly the same performance would probably require some experimentation, however.

Simply using 70 gr/v of FFg 777 in the above scenario would not be considered unsafe, but it would likely result in reduced performance.

If, for some foolish reason you're loading your rifle at it's recommended maximum load of real black powder, using the same volume amount of 777 would be as unsafe as using a 15% overload of real black powder.

With respect to black powder revolvers, they are designed, and built, to withstand full chamber loads. They are almost always inaccurate with such loads, and using a full chamber of 777 simply enhances that effect.

 

[rodwha]

Mykeal: Would you have no problem loading full chambers of 777 in an all steel cap n ball? I wouldn't with my ROA, but from what I understand is that it's not something you'd want to do on a daily basis with any of the repros.

 

[mykeal]

I have a great deal of difficulty with loading full chambers of anything in any replica or original cap and ball revolver. It's a foolish practice, and nothing I said in my above post suggests I approve of it. The reason is that full chamber loads are universally less accurate than the optimum load in every cap and ball revolver I've ever owned, and I see absolutely no reason to subject the gun to what amounts to abuse for no practical gain. Yes, you get higher muzzle velocity and energy, but it comes at a price that's not worth it. If one is hunting something that really requires such energies, get a bigger gun, one that can shoot such loads accurately.

As far as structural strength is concerned, I believe today's replicas (including brass framed guns) can safely withstand full chamber loads of any black powder or black powder substitute. Continual, repeated full chamber loads over an extended period of time will undoubtedly cause damage even in a steel frame gun, but catastrophic failure is not likely even then. Brass framed guns will show damage, and become unshootable, well before steel framed guns do, if ever.

But, just because you can doesn't mean you should.

 

[rodwha]

mykeal: Please don't take my posts as being argumentative. I'm looking for answers from people who know. But I've also found so much conflicting information.

I asked if you would be OK with full loads of 777 because Uberti, despite claiming their guns are made better than the originals, gives reduced loads for max loads, and claims the use of anything other than BP or Pyrodex could be catastrophic. And I've read of steel guns having major problems.

I have read time and time again that a full load of powder isn't as accurate as ~ 2/3 load. I certainly believe that. But that doesn't mean that a full load can't give good enough groups. But it may change the ballistics from something unworthy to hunt with into something that at a proper range could be useful. I wouldn't subject any steel gun to full loads of 777, but I would my Old Army. And I might a .36 cal built from a .44 cylinder. Especially if it were to give say 9mm performance with fair enough groupings at whatever distance I may want to use it at.

I'll soon be ordering a sampling of Kaido's custom 240 grn bullets with 777 and I'll see just how well we all do. Maybe I'll find that it doesn't group well enough until I'm closer to 38 Spl +P power levels. But others have claimed 357 Mag levels and have pictures of the deer and hogs. I see no reason not to try it and see.

It's done fairly well with 190 grn conicals and 30 grns of Pyrodex. But not as good as 30 grns, wad and RB. I need to get into a more consistent loading routine, which I've worked on finding a spent 9mm case to use for my Malt O Meal, and wasting a little powder to top off the measure.

 

[mykeal]

Sorry if I sounded argumentative. My rant is based on years of hearing people espousing full chamber loads for hunting because of the irrational need for high speed and 'stopping power', to the extent of ignoring the ability to make an accurate, clean shot to a vital location reliably. Not that you were doing that; you weren't. But the rant is so well programmed that sometimes I can't help it.