Bear hunting or use enough gun (circa 1859)

[4v50 Gary]

I was fortunate enough today to find a reprint of The Prarie Traveler by Capt. Randolph B. Marcy, US Army. Capt. Marcy's book was published back in 1859 and was used as a guidebook by those seek to blaze westward across the prarie. It was in print for about 40 years and sold for a $1 a copy. No small sum in those days. On pages 139-141 he discusses guns and in particular, the advantage of the heavier caliber Army Colt revolver over the lighter Navy Colt revolver:

"Notwithstanding Colt's army and navy sized revolvers have been in use for a long time in our army, officers are by no means of one mind as to their relative merits for frontier service. The navy pistol, being more light and portable, is more convenient for the belt, but it is very questionable in my mind whether these qualities counterbalance the advantages derived from the greater weight of powder and lead that can be fired from the larger pistol, and the consequent increased projectile force.

"This point is illustrated by an incident which fell under my own observation. In passing near the 'Medicine-Bow Butte' during the spring of 1858, I most unexpectedly encountered and fired at a full-grown grizzly bear; but, as my horse had become somewhat blown by a previous gallop, his breathing so much disturbed my aim that I missed the animal at the short distance of about fifty yards, and he ran off. Fearful, if I stopped to reload my rifle, the bear would make his escape, I resolved to drive him back to the advanced guard of our ecort, which I could see approaching in the distance; this I succeeded in doing, when several mounted men, armed with navy revolvers, set off in pursuit. They approached within a few paces, and discharged ten or twelve shots, the most of which entered the animal, but he still kept on, and his progress did not seem materially impeded by the wounds. After these men had exhaused their charges, another man rode up armed with the army revolver, and fired two shots, which brought the stalwart beast to the gorund. Upon skinning him and making an examination of the wounds, it was discovered that none of the balls from the small pistols had, after passing through his thick and tough hide, penetrated deeper than about an inch into the flesh, but that the two balls from the large pistol had gone into the vitals and killed him. This test was to my mind a decisive one as to the relative efficiency of the two arms for frontier service, and I resolved thenceforth to carry the larger size."

For those who aren't familiar with blackpowder percussion revolvers, the Colt Navy was .36 caliber and the Colt Army .44 caliber.

 

[sm]

Sounds like a great read...need to check on this myself. Thanks for sharing. Seems as if the same comparisons and results continue to be subject matter. Capt. Marcy, Robert Ruark, Col. Cooper...

 

[Preacherman]

A few questions... I always understood that the Colt Army model was introduced in 1860. If this book was published in 1859, how could a Colt Army revolver have been in use? Was it perhaps the Walker or Dragoon model? Was one of those earlier revolvers also referred to as an "Army" model?

I've seen modern reproductions of the Navy model chambered in .44, but I always thought that the Colt Navy originals were only chambered in .36. Am I wrong?

 

[Glamdring]

IIRC the .44 cap and ball revolvers would have about same ballistics as 45 acp at best.

I wouldn't think they would be enough for grizzly.

I remember reading Lewis and Clark and all the trouble they had with grizzly's, they would shoot and hit them with their rifles often 4 at a time and still didn't stop the bears.

 

[4v50 Gary]

Good point Preacherman. The Navy revolver was .36 caliber (50 conical or 86 round ball to the pound) and the Army was .44 caliber (33 conical or 48 round ball to the pound). I also had a modern "Navy" replica that was of the wrong caliber, 44. Regarding the dates, you're correct in that the Army was the Model of 1860 and how it came to be used in 1859 escapes me. Publisher error? Prototype? Serven's Colt Firearms is silent on it. Perhaps it was one of the smaller Colt Dragoons he saw being used?

 

[Keith]

Glam,

The Colt Walker had ballistics far superior to the .45 acp. It weighed nearly 5 pounds and had a nine inch barrel which could fire a 220 grain conical "ball" on top of 60 (SIXTY!) grains of black powder. Velocity was about 1200 feet per second, which is comparable to many modern .44 magnum loads!
The Colt Dragoon (which followed the Walker) had slightly lighter loads, but could still top 1000 feet per second. Better than a .44 special, but not quite up to magnum standards.
There weren't very many Walkers built, so I suspect Captain Marcy's troopers were armed with Dragoons of one model or another.

All of these heavy horse pistols are frequently referred to as "Army" models in this period since they are designed for horse troopers as true one-handed offensive weapons. The smaller 1851 Navy is a personal (Defense) sidearm which you could easily carry on your person.


Keith

 

[Glamdring]

keith: What source?

I'll have to dig thru my books, but I was sure I had seen a couple of people that had tested black powder handguns (revolvers and pistols) trying to get up to 44 mag powerlevels. IIRC they only things that came close were single shot pistols.

Arrgh, I must of have traded those books to my buddy that is into blackpowder.


Sixty grains of blackpowder, that is by volume not weight correct? So they were using loads close to the (later) carbine loads for the 45-70??

 

[Johnny Guest]

.45 carbine loads - - -

While the Springfield trapdoor carbine could fire the full rifle load, the .45-70-500 round, it was a bit vicious in the shorter, far lighter arm. Don't know exactly when the lighter .45-55-405 load was developed. It was in use by the time of the Greasy Grass battle (so-called by the winners at the Little Big Horn.) Less lead, less powder, but still more than any revolver at the time.

Certainly, much reloading of black powder cartridges was done by use of dippers and other powder measures, but they were set by actual weight of black rifle powder. Later loads by volume generally came into use in loading bulk smokeless powder to yield power equivalent to a certain number of drams of black powder. MUCH later, we came to use black powder substitutes, such as Pyrodex, loaded in a volume equal to a certain weight of black powder.

Best,
Johnny

 

[mete]

Here in the Catskill mountains of NY, in the early 1800s they trapped a bear that had been killing sheep. The captain of the militia decided to dispatch the bear with his pistols (single shot) .He fired both pistols and the bear immediately dropped. The captain sat on the bear bragging about his great talents. The "dead ' bear suddenly got up and the bear ran in one direction and the captain in the other !! For another interesting bear story see if you can find "The Bear Hunt" by Leo Tolstoy. It is his own experiences hunting bear.

 

[Keith]

Here's some stuff on Colt Walker and Dragoons.

http://www.pride-net.com/1998/january/civilwar/colt.htm

 

[Preacherman]

Thanks for posting that link, Keith. I don't understand, though... it refers to an 1861 Navy model, in both .36 and .44 caliber. I've never heard of that model before! I know of the 1851 Navy, but I always thought that the only 1860's model of Colt was the 1860 Army. Can anyone shed any light on this?

 

[Keith]

All of these big revolvers were generally referred to as "Army" (or sometimes "horse" pistols) until Colt actually created the model known as the "Army".
The Walker and Dragoons were created for army use, or actually cavalry use since they were so big that troopers strapped them to the horse rather than the belt. They were actually more like one handed carbines - these are VERY large handguns. And they were considered offensive weapons made for attacking the enemy from horseback, rather than self- defense guns like smaller revolvers - the Navy, etc.

Keith

 

[TallPine]

What about the 1858 Remington "Army" revolver? (44 cal)

 

[Johnny Guest]

Re: 1861 Navy

Preacherman - - -

There was indeed a later model Navy model revolver than the 1851, called the 1861, according to Colt collecting authority R. L. Wilson books here at the office.

The linked site above is from a magazine ("Civil War Times??") and was written by someone with less-than-complete knowledge of firearms nomenclature, and, I fear, running a bluff on his knowledge of vintage Colts. I DO NOT hold myself out as an expert, but have done some reading on the topic.

In Mr. Barlow's article, his lead illustration is of what he terms an 1861 Navy - - If you look at the closeup, you see that this revolver has a rebated cylinder - - The rearmost part is smaller than the front - - which leads me to believe it is actually a .44 revolver, quite similar to the design of the Colt 1860 Army. Also, see that the frame is brass. I really believe this is an Italian made "replica" - - I use the quotes because Colt never made that revolver with a brass frame. There may well have been some Confederate copies of the 1860 Army made at their smaller manufacturing facilities. The majority of the CSA produced revolvers were general copies of the '51 Navy.

The '60 Army was a far sleeker, lighter pistol than than the previous Colt .44 revolvers. This is due in large measure to the smaller diameter cylinder, especially at the rear. The stepped-down and consequently smaller chambers certainly didn't hold near as much powder as the Walker and Dragoon revolvers.

Anyhow, the '61 Navy was quite similar to the '60 Army, in having a much more streamlined appearance, with rounded barrel flowing into the underlug housing the rammer mechanism. It does not exhibit the rebated cylinder. There was no reason for COLT to build this particular model in .44 caliber - - the previous year's model Army revolver was quite satisfactory.

Barlow illustrates a REPLICA of one of the Griswold & Gunnison CSA revolvers at G. in his list. Note that it has the round barrel but flat sides where the rammer goes through.

The text under C. in the article states that

The 1851 navy had an octagon barrel,squared back trigger guard and no front sight,it would be more similar in looks to the walker style weapons.

Only the first several thousand had square back t'guards. They were made with front sights, a pointy-little brass pin. Maybe the author's replica didn't have one, the Colts did, unless the barrel was shortened or something.

Incidentally, the 1851 Navy was so-called, not because it was principally used by the US Navy, but because of the roll engraving on the cylinder. (Obviously, NOT on the barrel.) The scene, far more elaborate than the one shown at E. in the article, depicts the sea battle of Campeche between the Texas Navy and Mexican warships, engaged 16 May 1843, during the days of the Republic. Colt's sold a LOT of the '51s, but then, as now, there were some who believed the small bores didn't do quite as good a job as the big 'uns, and the older, somewhat more delicate Dragoons were still selling well. This, rather naturally, led to the introduction of the 1860 Army revolver.

The US Govt did indeed procure a lot of the Dragoons of various models, and most of these did go to the army. These were in cal. .44, or "Army bore," while the '51, being named for the cylinder scene, was of "Navy size."

Have I gotten far enough afield? Sorry for my typical (lengthy) post.

Best,
Johnny

(Late edits for dates and some details after checking references.)

 

[DFBonnett]

Heavy round goes deep..
Old news but good news..