Best cap and ball revolver of the Cap and Ball Era?

[Nom de Forum]

When considering all relevant performance characteristics, what in your opinion is the best cap and ball revolver during their era? In making your choice I hope you will consider the following: handling characteristics, accuracy, reliability, loading, power, durability, strength, etc.

 

[WestKentucky]

I'm curious to see the responses as well. Please gentlemen for my sake (and what I believe the OP is asking) throw away the bias for and from modern replicas. At the time that they were "modern technology" what was the best design on the market.

 

[J-Bar]

Wild Bill Hickok could have used anything he wanted, but he stuck with his 1851 Colt Navies. I bow to his judgment.

 

[45 Dragoon]

Well, I will stick with Sams favorite. . . . . . . . almost! I do love the Whitney Dragoon (and yes, I can see the cartridge era coming so I plan to get it converted!)!!!! Even though Sams fav. was his 3rd Mod., they both handle well (though not like a Navy) and can be loaded to taylor your needs - from practice to topping off the second most powerfull handgun in the world! Durable yes, accurate yes, strong yes. Top it off with the elegant Walker grip and you have the total package!!! ( at least in the eyes of a goon!!! . . . . . and maybe Sam)

Mike
www.goonsgunworks.com

 

[Nom de Forum]

I'm curious to see the responses as well. Please gentlemen for my sake (and what I believe the OP is asking) throw away the bias for and from modern replicas. At the time that they were "modern technology" what was the best design on the market.

You are correct sir. I am only interested in the originals at the time of their peak before the cartridge revolver designs of the the 1870s.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Wild Bill Hickok could have used anything he wanted, but he stuck with his 1851 Colt Navies. I bow to his judgment.

Did Wild Bill stick with the '51 because it was the best pistol available or because it was what Hickok was comfortable with due to familiarity? What performance features does the Colt 1851 offer that other designs don't match or exceed?

 

[J-Bar]

I don't claim to "channel" Wild Bill Hickok. I will give my best guesses.

About the only significant design change in cap and ball revolvers that came after the 1851Navy was the top strap on the Remington. I suspect that Wild Bill simply preferred the feel of the plow-handle grip on the Colt.

The 1851 Navy .36 was a sufficient man-stopper for his work as a lawman and gunfighter. It was accurate in his hands and apparently he preferred the lighter .36s to the bigger .44s. His marksmanship is legendary..."Prince of The Pistoleers". In his line of work he needed reliability and speed and he must have felt his 1851s were guns he could count on.

More than that would be unnecessary conjecture. There is a well documented anecdote about another person killing a grizzly bear with a Colt Dragoon. Apparently Wild Bill was not concerned about grizzly bears.

 

[2RCO]

Form, balance, and shear beauty all make the 1851 Navy my top pick. I just like the way they feel in my hand.

 

[Fingers McGee]

J-Bar +1

There were more 1851 Navies made & sold than any other revolver - except the 1848/49 Pocket Models. I'm guessing that the reason behind the number sold had something to do with accuracy, ease of use, natural pointability, comfortable fit of the plow handle grip frame, lethality.

If it hadn't been for Col Colt's death and the on going war, I'd be willing to bet that more Improved Belt Model Pistols of Navy Caliber (1861 Navies) would have been sold than actually were. The '61s had three improvements over the '51s that made them a better pistol. (1-creeping/ratcheting loading lever. 2-Lighter weight streamlined round barrel. 3-Improved loading lever catch.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

There were so many some that Americans are only rarely familiar with. Like the Adams or tranter. Just for aesthetics weight and bark, my vote would be for the 1862 police colt.

 

[RON in PA]

Not used in its day (in storage, not issued), but I'll argue that the Rogers and Spencer was the best of the cap and ball era. Of the guns actually used in large numbers I'll go with the Colt 1851/1861.

 

[SleazyRider]

The characteristics of which you speak summon to mind the 1858 Remington. Its top strap design made it vastly superior to the Colt in terms of durability and accuracy, and its easily swappable cylinder not only gave it extra capacity, but lent itself to metallic cartridge conversion as well. Buffalo Bill seemed to like it too.

As an aside, I believe the virtues of the 1858 Remington reproductions make it the ideal first choice for folks new to the sport of black powder shooting.

 

[swathdiver]

Remington Double Action New Model Belt Revolver.

 

[jaxenro]

1862 Police small concealable and packed a punch. It was the concealed carry gun of its day

 

[HexHead]

1860 Army.

 

[StrawHat]

I vote for the Colt 1861. Everything you need in C&B revolver.

 

[Willie Sutton]

Another vote for the Rogers & Spencer. Too late to make an impact in the great conflict between the states, but a superior product. Second choice would be a Remington.

Why not a Colt? Take a look at how many original Colts are all matching serial numbers except for the wedge, and you'll figure out why. These were continued production of an obsolete design by the mid 1860's. They carried on by inertia, not merit, as better designs came to the fore. A wedgeless Colt is good for three throws of iron-chunks at the bad guys before you run outta revolver parts.


Yeah, I love Colts, but if I were walking into a Saint Louis hardware store about 1869 for a new revolver to head west with, it would be a new solid-strap without any easy to lose parts that would be Willies choice outta the glass cabinet. Due to availability, that would likley really have been a Remmie and not a Rogers & Spencer. Of course three years later I'd be kicking myself for not waiting for one of the new Cowboy Six-Shooters that stuff from the back, and likely be looking for someone to convert my Remmie to cartridges. Isn't that always the case? Sort of like buyin' a new iPhone and having it become obsolete next week....


The thing to remember is that the "Cap & Ball Era" is a long one (50+ years) of VERY VERY rapidly evolving technology. What Wild Bill used was relevent if you fix 1854 as your date of reference and is laughable if you fix 1864, only ten years later, as your date of reference. If you fix 1871 as your date of reference *any* cap and ball pistol is basically obsolete and just one year later things really changed. Things were moving FAST. The old timers didn't replace what they had become confortable with, but to say that they used them because they were "best" is an oversimplification of things.



Willie

.

 

[kBob]

It amazes me how many folk either forget or do not know that Colt DID MAKE top strap revolvers in 1855, the Root series. They went back to open tops for later guns.

There was a lot more out there than we see replicas of. Take not eof the mention of the Remington DA pistols above, most folks don't even know they existed.

Yep, various gun fighters carried C&B well into the cartridge era......and there are folks that still use revolvers today. I even still prefer the 1911A1 based guns and yet many would argue those were obsolete since as early as 1935 with the BHP or with the later DA high cap guns and the plastic crunch and tickers.

This is yet another of the Ginger vs. Mary Ann or Genie vs. Samantha threads.

So again Mary Ann, Genie, and in this case if I were magically sent back to 1866 and headed west, Whitney .36 belt revolver. Although that top strap did not do much for John Wilkes Booth's confederate when used as a club., I would not plan to use it for a hammer.

-kBob

 

[EljaySL]

So far I've been most impressed with the Rogers & Spencer. All cap and ball revolvers have that kind of transitional technology feel but it's the most refined.

 

[Texas Moon]

Ruger Old Army? LoL

Naaaa...my vote is Rogers&Spencer or '58 Remington.

 

[Nom de Forum]

J-Bar,

Nobody expects you to channel Wild Bill. The answers posted about his choice are much as I expected and agree that choice was not sole based on technological superiority of the design.

Kbob,

I really am not looking to stage a beauty contest. I shoot Glocks so obviously beauty is not much of a factor in my choice of pistol. I would like those with more experience than I to discuss the technological features that make a design the one they chose as the best.

I have some experience with the 1860 Colt and 1858 Remington and prefer the ’58 for the reasons Willie Sutton mentioned. I would like to know more about the less common pistols that were considered equal to or superior to the 1860 and 1858. For instance, why is the Rogers & Spencer held in such high regard by some people.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

My vote goes to the Remington 1858, but I have to add a strong caveat. Because of its lack of a bushing on the front of the cylinder, the Remington cylinder tends to bind up quickly from fouling blasted out of the barrel/cylinder gap and onto the cylinder pin. The Colts also lacked a bushing on the front of the cylinder, but because of the larger diameter of the arbor, and the helical clearance cut on the arbor, Colts tend to shoot longer without binding up then the Remington does.

I bought my first C&B, a brass framed, 44 caliber 'Navy' back in 1968. By about 1975 I decided I needed a Remington because of the solid frame design, which did away with the wedge arrangement for securing barrel. I still prefer the Remington design, but I like the grip shape of the 1851 Navy a bit better. The grip shape of the Remington is just a bit different and I prefer the Navy grip shape.

 

[Noz]

I like the 1860 for its horse killing ability, larger grip for bigger people, superior loading lever and natural pointability. Second choice would be 1861, then the 1851. Unless you intend to use the gun as a club, the strength gained with a top strap is of no importance until the advent of smokeless powders
Remingtons do not fit my hand and would be a handicap for me in a firefight. The much vaunted "swapping of cylinders" is more of a movie thing than a practical application. To make this work the gun and arbor would have to be wiped down between each swap.

 

[Hellgate]

I'm with Driftwood on this. Also the Remington held more powder and when it had a cap jam the cap was merely rotated out of the way by hand turning the cylinder. The Colts would jam under the hammer and prevent firing until it was cleared with more difficulty. The klunkiness and poor handling many (Noz?) associate with the Remington is because we handle the Piettas that are big & clunky. The Euroarms Remingtons are closer to the original Beals model and are noticeably lighter and have smaller grips. To me, the difference between a Euroarms Remmie and a Pietta Remmie is almost as much as the difference between a Colt Army and a Colt Navy.

 

[ZVP]

The '51 Navy of course!
It's near perfect as a Revolver could get! Balance ,Power and ,Accuracy! Sure it's old fashioned, slow to load and the caps fall off, but where could you get such perfection but with the '51?

it's too bad the world needs semi-auto speed, high magazine capacitys, and life in general is far more dangerous.
handguns weren't only made to shoot people with. Sometimes it's just great to shoot one for kicks! Not just killing.
I own 5 slightly different Navy models, pride of ownership shooting enjoyment and plain fun is #1 with the '51's.
Not the "ONLY" BP revolver, but a truely unique Benchmark.
Ya need one of each, right?