Dragoon vs 1860 army

[Norton Commando]

Well we've compared and contrasted the Walker and the Dragoon, what about the Dragoon and the 1860 Army? Does the Dragoon have a longer cylinder than the Army? And what about the barrel lengths, are they the same between the two weapons?

Thanks,

Jason

 

[madcratebuilder]

The overall size difference and weight favor the 1860. The shorter cylinder holds less powder but it holds enough for any purpose you may need. 40 grains more or less, more than it's most accurate load. 30-35 grains seem to be the sweet spot on mine.

 

[Norton Commando]

So, are you saying that the Dragoon cylinder is longer?

 

[StrawHat]

Yes, the Dragoon has more capacity than the 1860. It also has a heavier barrel and frame resulting in an overall heavier revolver. That is why it was considered a horse pistol and the 1860 a belt pistol.

Based on memory, my 1860 can not hold 40 grains but a 28 grain load was certainly easily achieved. Using the round ball. With a conical, I can't rememebr as I rarely loaded one even though I have the mold to throw a hollow pointed 44 conical. Not authentic but I thought it would be cool. It is but not in the C&B revolver. I now load that bullet in my Richards COnversion 44 Colt.

I will post a photo of the Dragoon and the 1860 as soon as I take one.

 

[Norton Commando]

Thanks there StrawHat, photos would be great. It sounds like a Dragoon can hold 40 grains of black powder with a round ball?

 

[Slamfire]

Thanks there StrawHat, photos would be great. It sounds like a Dragoon can hold 40 grains of black powder with a round ball?

I have a Colt Signature Third Model Dragoon.

It is a monster, have to use two hands to hold the thing.

The cylinders are longer, front to back, than later versions, and they are also much thicker. This reflects the metal technology of the day. Sam Colt used English crucible steels, which were the best of the time, but still properties varied. Metal technology was such there was no standardized testing, and designers used rules of thumb and best guesses. The Walkers and Dragoons have much thicker cylinders than later pistols because it took time, through the trial and error (blow up) process to gain confidence in thin wall cylinders.

Even though you can put about 40 grains in a Dragoon, velocities are not impressive. Big gun but you are pushing a 142 grain bullet at 38 special velocities.
.

[SIZE="3"]Colt 3rd Model Dragoon mfgr 1999	 	 	 	 	 
 	 	 	 	 	 
 	 	 	 	 	 
142 gr .454 Round Ball 40 grain Volumetric Measured GOEX FFG RWS cap	 
 
24 July 1999 T= 99 -100  ° F

Ave Vel =785	 		 	 
Std Dev =30	 		 	 
ES =	73	 		 	 
Low =	741	 		 	 
High =	814	 		 	 
N =	4	 	 	 	 
 	 	 	 	 	 
 	 	 	 	 	 
142 gr .454 Round Ball 40 grain Volumetric Measured GOEX FFG	CCI#11 cap

24 July 1999 T= 99 -100  ° F 90 ° F at 930 !


Ave Vel =837	 			 
Std Dev =18	 			 
ES =	56	 			 
Low =	814	 			 
High =	870	 			 
N =	8	 			 
 	 	 	 	 	 
 	 	 	 	 	 
142 gr .454 Round Ball 40 grain Volumetric Pyrodex	Rem #1 cap 
	 	 	 	 		  	 	 
24 July 1999 T= 99 - 100 ° F

Ave Vel =920	 		 	 
Std Dev =0	 	 	 	 
ES =	0	 		 	 
Low =	920	 	.	 	 
High =	920	 	 	 	 
N =	1	 	 	 	 

too many solids caused  chronograph to malfunction
	 	 	 	 	 
[/SIZE]

 

[Malamute]

40 grains in a Dragoon? They will take 50 grains. My Colt's 3rd Dragoon has room left over with a 50 grain charge of 3f and a ball seated.

The Dragoon is a much larger heavier gun than an 1860. The Dragoon is the same frame as the Walker, just a slightly shorter cylinder. The Walkers would take a max load of 60 grains. Judging from posts on forums, modern plinkers and range shooters don't seem to load them to capacity all that often, but that's what they were desgined to shoot for a service or max load.

 

[mainmech48]

IMHO, the Walker and the subsequent Dragoon models were designed to be what used to be referred to as "horse pistols". IIRC, they were usually issued in pairs and carried in a holster rig intended to be slung across the pommel of a saddle. Their role was to provide the 'heavy' cavalry troops of the day (Dragoons) with a versatile and effective replacement for the single-shot percussion carbine.

The role of Dragoons especially, and cavalry in general, in the tactical order was changing fast. Formerly, Dragoon units would usually ride into battle but end up doing the majority of their fighting dismounted, infantry fashion. The advent of a reliable, powerfull repeating firearm (the Walker revolver) enabled them to be much more effectively utilized in a "shock-and-awe" type role where full advantage could be taken of their speed and mobility.

Also just MO, but I believe that the design of the 1860 reflected another rather significant paradigm shift, as it was obviously intended to provide roughly-comparable power in a package which could be routinely carried on one's person. Try doing that with one Walker or Dragoon for a while, much less a pair of them!

P.S.: Every time I rewatch "Lonesome Dove", I always wonder how Gus managed to keep his pants up with 4 1/2# of Walker hanging on his hip.

 

[Malamute]

It was common for cavalry to carry the Dragoons on them. There were holsters made by various non-regulation makers at posts. I don't recall exactly where I read it, either in "Packing Iron" or "Firearms of the American West" where the author discussed contemporary accounts of the troopers carrying their pistols (one) with them, not leaving them on the horses. It was very popular, and it was mentioned how much the men liked to have their guns on them. Very much a moral boost in tough country. I believe the comments were about a need for issue holsters to allow them to carry them easier, rather than having holsters made privately.

Perhaps they were shaped differently in those days (before so much unhealthy food and sedentary lifestyles), and most wore suspenders, which I find makes a huge difference in carrying a heavy pistol. I've carried various heavy pistols on a daily basis at different times (not a Dragoon yet tho), if worn right, they don't "pull your pants down", but can bother your back or hip after a while, tho in those days, the horse carried most of the weight most of the time.

The 1860's are definately easier to carry.

 

[mainmech48]

Don't doubt that at all. My comments were based upon what the "official standard" military doctrine of the times called for.

If I were the one with his Personal Favorite Behind at risk, I'd sure as hell want to find a way to make sure that I could keep a longer range alternative to my saber on me, especially when the chances for being rendered suddenly "mountless" were so high.

Suspenders or not, the extra stress from having the weight of even one heavy revolver, plus a saber, plus whatever additional gear an individual might favor (or be obliged to carry) constantly hanging on his hips, even while mounted, had to take its toll on the toughest body. Especially when one considers their being bumped and jostled about in the saddle for hours on end, day-in and day-out.

Just a reasoned guess, but I'd bet things like this were no small factor in how relatively quickly the folks who led that life got worn-out and used-up.

 

[Racebannon]

The Dragoon was not designed as a belt pistol, however the 1851 and 1860 were.

 

[45-70 Ranger]

I view the 1860 Army as a blend of the best pointing pistol (1851 Navy), with the same size bore as the Dragoon, but with a lighter load. Kinda like a hybrid pistol. None the less it was produced in more numbers during the conflict than any others if I remember right. In all, not a bad bit of engineering on Colt's part. I like 'em all though

 

[Berkley]

FWIW, this illustration is from " 'Pistol-Cases', The Army's Earliest Hip Holsters" by Lee A. Rutledge, published in The Gun Report, September 1990.

 

[StrawHat]

Okay, I finally found a photo of the Dragoon and an 1860, with a Pocket Police revolver thrown in so all three frame sizes of the C&B Colts are represented.



You can see the differences in the size of the frames, cylinders and barrels. The grips on the 1848 and 1860, while not interchangeable, are similar.

The barrel on the 1848 is 7 1/2", on the 1860 the 8" barrel was standard although some came with a 7 1/2" barrel. Other lengths were available but not common.

Hope this helps.

 

[Norton Commando]

Thank you for the great photo comparison there StrawHat!

 

[Fiv3r]

Dang it, guys, now I really need a Dragoon

I find the 1860 more romantic, but those Dragoons just look flat mean. I've been on the fence about the Walker for some time. I dunno. I guess I'll just have to save my pennies and see what falls in my lap first

 

[Voodoochile]

I still kick myself for letting my brother keep my Uberti 3rd model Dragoon for a while because now he claims it as his & won't let it go..

Oh well I guess I need to get another.

 

[wittzo]

I posted some pics I just took in a new thread comparing the Walker, Dragoon, and 1860 side by side with a ruler.

 

[StrawHat]

wittzo

I posted some pics I just took in a new thread comparing the Walker, Dragoon, and 1860 side by side with a ruler.

Ruler??? We don't need no stinking ruler!!!!

 

[Pulp]

Actually, the Walker is not that bad to carry on your hip. I've made through many Cowboy Action matches with one. And if I ever get around to getting another holster, I'll carry two at CAS matches.

 

[tpelle]

The real difference between the Dragoon and the 1860 was in the metallurgy. In the era during which the Dragoon was designed, the Bessemer process (which made for a stronger, more homogenous steel) had not yet been invented, so to make a revolver that had enough strength to withstand the pressures of the .44 caliber they had to just use more steel in the gun's construction. That made for a bulkier, heavier revolver. However, after the Dragoon was engineered, the Bessemer Converter was invented, and Colt adopted the resulting "Silver Spring Steel" to use in the construction of the 1860 Army. That allowed Colt to make a .44 caliber revolver on a .36 caliber frame.

 

[Jim K]

The 1860 Army was the result of an Army requirement for a pistol of Dragoon caliber without the length and mass of the Dragoon. The Army wanted the .44 caliber (vs the "Navy" .36) because of the need to stop a cavalry charge by shooting the horses; a horse was a much bigger target than the rider, and a horse with a bullet in him, even if it was not killed, was unmanageable.

So Colt, always eager to satisfy a major customer as long as it could be done without too many tooling changes, took the basic Navy frame and cut it for a rebated cylinder bored for .44, then lengthened the grip a bit to help control the heavier recoil, and "presto!" the 1851 Navy became the 1860 Army. The fact that the change was really minor was covered up to some extent with eyewash like a streamlined barrel and a different loading lever system. (Sort of like updating last year's car with a grill change and a horsepower increase!)

Jim

 

[Curator]

The 1860 Army was a step forward in firearm design with superior "silver steel" cylinders. It gave nearly the same ballistics as the 1849 Army (Dragoon) but with substantually less weight. The 38 grain load gave about 150 fps less velocity over the 50 grain load on the 1849 shooting the round ball. In all areas except accuracy the 1860 was a better gun. Unfortunately the Colt open top design allows for considerably more barrel flex with the 1860 Army firing full charges which degraded accuracy. The Dragoon's larger wedge and frame/barrel mating surface holds the barrel quite stable even max loading. So too will the 1851 "Navy" Colt in lighter .36 caliber, which is often very accurate with full power loads. So upgrading the 1851 frame and barrel to .45 caliber came at a small cost. The same thing can be said for the .36 caliber "Police" revolvers built on the 1949 .31 caliber pocket pistol frame. More power but less accurate.

 

[Caliper_Mi]

Okay, I finally found a photo of the Dragoon and an 1860, with a Pocket Police revolver thrown in so all three frame sizes of the C&B Colts are represented.

You may have just given me a new must-buy gun! Is that Pocket Police really as much fun to shoot as it looks?

So, let me get this straight on Colt frame sizes... Horse pistol, belt pistol and pocket pistol. The horse pistol was designed for .44 originally. Then along came the belt model, designed for .36, but it was also made in .44 with a rebated cylinder (and corresponding notch in the frame). Finally, the pocket pistol was designed in .32, but also made in .36 with a similar rebated cylinder and notched frame? This sounds like great fun. And to think I've survived all this time with only two Colts! Seems like I need at least three more...

And how come nobody has ever made a rebated cylinder for the Horse Pistols to fit a .50 or .54 cylinder? Seems like with modern steel one could make an even more powerful Walker!

 

[arcticap]

A THR member had posted here about having built .58 revolvers but I don't recall ever seeing one.
And Clements Custom Guns converts the Ruger Old Army into a .50, which are actually loaded with a .490 ball.