never knew 1861 Navy was such a pain!

[makos_goods]

ive had much more trouble with colt designes when the cap blows off and jams under the hammer.this is not such a concern with light loads but when
you start getting toward full loads it becomes more apparent.

this guy explains the problem very well at about 5.20 time frame

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7nf52k3jIA

basically the gun was pointed to the sky to cock so that the spent cap
falls from the revolver.very slow i think but if you dont do it you
have a very good chance of cap jams

yep the remington 58 was a much better revolver i think

oh ive had the caps squish down so snug you could hardly notice a cap was jammed in there

damoc,
This isn't meant as a slight against you, but Mr. Kershner is merely perpetuating a myth that continues because of posts, well intentioned advise and even articles in publications. There is no evidence that raising a revolver while cocking was ever the case anytime before the advent of motion pictures.

The silent movies was where it began because they "mimed" everything. They theatrically exaggerated almost every motion and facial expression including the slow raise to cock and then drawing down in a deviously aimed motion because they had no dialouge or sound. In later years the motion turned into a "slinging" motion, screen stars and villains alike slung those bullets at their foes.

This gentleman no matter how well intentioned is misinformed (I also doubt seriously from watching his handling of the revolver that he competes or even regulary shoots his '60). To tell you the truth he is an accident waiting to happen in the manner he caps and handles his pistol. If he showed up at one of my clubs and I was the R.O. or the loading table safety officer for the stage I would first admonish him and show him how to safely handle and cap his pistols. If he continued I would issue a safety warning for the stage, if it happened again we would award a stage penalty leading up to match D.Q. if he persisted.

There are many shooters who gather all over the US and the world every Saturday shooting in CAS matches, of those there are shooters who compete with Colt's style revolvers several times a month and I can guarantee you that there isn't one shooter who is competitive who raises, rotates or manipulates his revolvers in order the dislodge or keep caps from falling into the action. Whenever I have heard someone suggest that is the order or arms for a Colt's style pistol I inquire what class they shoot in on a regular basis and how long have they done it. To a man they either don't shoot SASS Frontiersman, NCOWS or WG3 with a C&B revolver (or they shoot Rugers or Remington pattern pistols and think they understand shooting Colt's pattern pistols). At most they have done it a "few" times and not on a regular basis.

I almost exclusively shoot Colt's pattern 1860s in competition. When the season is right I shoot as many as three matches a month. There are others on this forum who also shoot Colt's pattern pistols as their regular competition revolvers and I can pretty much guarantee you they would be laughed to scorn by the other cap gun shooters if they made the "Hopalong Cassidy" motions he describes. We push our pistols towards the target and try to maintain our sight pictures while cocking them. This has always been the manner in which men (whether they were cowboys, civil war participants or men today) have fought with pistols when engaging a threat.

Someday (many years from now) there will be posts on some holographic forum telling and showing us how the gunfighters of the 20th and 21st century canted their pistols to the side as has been depicted in movies by some of the "gang bangers." The person relating it will be some older gentleman who did not live in those centuries, but will be looked to as an "authority" because of his age or some group he is a member of.

That's all...

Regards,
Mako

 

[TheRodDoc]

I agree with Mako.

As I have posted before, the colt design is very dependable. To prove it I shot a total of 300 shots without a single cap jam or misfire through my 1851 Colt. Chambers loaded full. 278 of those shots were with no lube of any kind or wads in the gun and with no cleaning at all. Then it was cleaned to finish the test to 300 the next day. still no lube or wads.

I shot as Mako said. No twisting, tipping, flipping or aiming to the sky. And could shoot as rapidly as I wanted.

 

[damoc]

no problem mako i dont take any offense at all

but i do tend to agree with him from trying the method as it did release a cap that would have otherwise been under the hammer.

may i suggest that the colt is reliable with less than full loads but when shooting full loads the cap is more prone to fall/blow off and jam?

im sure individual nipples and different caps plays a huge part but it also seems that most people here shoot much lighter loads than what the guns
were originally loaded to.

maybee we could try that as an experiment.

just saw road docs reply and am impressed

 

[makos_goods]

Hey damoc,
I was trying to avoid the appearance of bragging, but I have similar experiences to TheRodDoc all through the year. Like I said I shoot a minimum of one match a month and I try for three. That is 60 to 240 rounds (60 to 80 shots per match) per month with two different pairs of Uberti 60's.

No magic, no Manhattan Conversion shields just Treso cones and the slots (for the safety post between chambers) in the hammers have been filled in. I go for months without a cap fragment problem.

Last year I didn't have one that locked the pistol up. The most common problem is a piece of the copper cap in the hammer channel which softens the blow and the cylinder has to be advanced to the cap that failed to fire and a second hammer fall will set it off.

The year before I had to ground one pistol because it was locked up and lost three shots counting as misses. I also had one I quickly cleared after holstering the other empty pistol using a small blade I keep on my belt. I practice the techniques to clear a malfunction you learn toremain calm and either ground the pistol if it can't be safely cleared or to safely clear it. I have had to clear problems with Remington pattern '58s as well.

I don't know how many rounds I put though my '60s in competition in 2009, but I kept track of the 2010 numbers. I cast 2300 balls, shot over 1510 in competition. And like I said I didn't ground a pistol once in 2010.

In 2009 I switched from 27 grains of FFFg to 30 grains, which is a full power martial load. 27 isn't wimpy either, some people shoot as low as 22 grains with a 147 grain ball. A 30 grain load will almost always open up the cap in a flattened petal shaped pattern.

The original design by Samuel Colt did not expect the cap to remain intact hence the clearance channel on the starboard side of the pistol. I switched to the original combat loading because I decided that lower charges were "wimping" out on my part. That is not an indictment of anyone else shooting a target load below 27 grains, after all we are dressing up and playing "cowboys." It is just a personal decision on my part, plus I like the boom, fire and great smoke. I don't consider myself a "warthog," I'm just trying to reproduce traditional loads, for instance I shoot .44 Spl in my '66 rifles to reproduce the original .44 Henry loads.

I do use lubed wads which I cut from 1/8" felt and lubricate with the traditional Mutton Tallow/Bees Wax/Paraffin lubricant. That has nothing to do with cap issues, but as you can tell I run relatively trouble free. I am very competitive and usually place in the top 5 of a club shoot of 35 to 40 shooters. This includes the kids shooting .38cal B-B loads with the two handed grips. I load my cylinders off pistol with a cylinder loader which allows me to inspect and do superficial cleaning between stages. That is the secret to running trouble free cap guns, or as close as practical. I could shoot Rugers, but then I could dress as a saloon girl and compete in the women's class if I was just looking to game the brackets.

Loads below 25 grains with a round ball will often leave the cap relatively intact if you are using Treso cones which attenuate the back blast through the flash hole. You will find there are many successful Colt's shooters that use those target loadings to minimize cap fragmentation and dislodging for the cones. No experimentation necessary, been there, done that. If Noz reads this post he will tell you that's his experience.

Regards,
Mako

 

[damoc]

hehe i did not know what a tresco cone was and assumed it was some sort of
constrictor for the nipple channel any way i did a search and up pops a conversation from the end of last year very similar to this one on another board.

what i gleaned from this and the other conversation is that many other people
are having similar problems and that the secret was these tresco cones and JB weld

but i have to ask is this faithfull to the original model and problems that may have been assosiated with its operation and if not could that guy on youtube
i posted have been correct as to what was done back in the day to overcome a shortcoming of the original designe?

 

[arcticap]

But the original Colts didn't have Treso nipples available, so what modifications did they need if any?
Were the original nipples better than today's stock nipples, or did most folks just not shoot very much, or was the cap metal thick enough to stay put on the nipples or something like that?
Did they fill in their hammer slots in the old days, or did none of the original Colts have problematic hammer slots?
Did the soldiers in combat have a chance to clean there guns between stages on the battlefield to keep their guns running smooth & problem free?
Could any of them have been taught or deduced to turn their wrists as a precautionary anti-jam measure when in battle?
I also look at the fact that the Colt designs began back with the Patterson in ~1836, through the Walkers in ~1847 and all of the rest on up through the Civil War. That's quite a few years of production where the nipples, caps and actions were supposedly perfect enough to be able to function more trouble free and without jamming than today's modern reproductions, and they were basically all stock and without modifications.
I don't know if the old Colts had jamming problems or not, but we don't hear much research presented on THR about the functioning of the originals except that they were manufactured with looser tolerances to not be as prone to fouling and lack of lubrication.
This is the first that I've heard it posted on THR that the Colt wrist twist motion is directly attributable to the silent movie era and that there's no evidence anywhere of it being used before then.
Even then it might have only been an oral tradition among the military, lawmen, frontiersmen or cowboys based on their personal experience and not a universal or widespread practice. Maybe the practice started small and spread as folks learned over many years.
The same can be said for the quality of caps regarding how well they actually worked is not talked about much. How many brands were there and were they all as good as any other? Could some have been more prone to jams? That information might be lost to history unless someone recorded information one way or another.
But if the record is actually silent then how does anyone really know about how reliably the different Colt models or brands of caps functioned?
Isn't it possible that some guns, caps or nipples were problematic? Maybe some had more or less problems as they were broken in or developed them as they started to wear out?

 

[jhngardner367]

You fellas are lucky,if all you get is occasional"capcrap"!Back in the '70s,when bp was starting to catch on,again,I bought a CVA 1851 Navy.I loved the way it shot,for about a year.Then I experienced my first (and last)chain-fire! I got off very lucky,with only a slight burn on my hand,and a very numb hand---and soiled drawers!Since then,I make SURE I grease the chambers,after loading !

 

[makos_goods]

damoc and articap,
What we do as competitors is very different than what was done by the gunfighters or soldiers of the 19th century. Reloading revolvers on the battlefield was the exception rather than the rule. They often carried two or more pistols if that was their primary firearm and then they often carried a large knife as their back up to that.

For instance in the "Big Fight" that Jack Hays and his company fought against the Comanches that put Colt's name back on the map there is no mention of reloading in the action report from the event, in fact it was to the contrary. After dismounting and using their single shot rifles in typical dragoon fashion the Comanches made their attack as was their tactic after the rifles had been discharged. The Rangers had a pair of Paterson revolvers each for a total of 10 rounds each. They killed the majority of the attacking hostiles and sent the balance into flight with two loaded pistols each.

Standard issue with the Walkers and the later Dragoons was two revolvers in pommel holsters. Powder flasks were carried in saddle bags and no attempt was made to quickly reload.

We have grown used to high capacity magazines and quick magazine changes which color our expectation of the use of firearms by our great grandfathers and great great grandfathers. For instance a standard .58 caliber cartridge box carried by infantrymen in the war between the states held 40 rounds of ammunition and weighed 4 pounds fully loaded. The quartermasters typically issued 60 to 80 rounds per man per campaign, the balance were carried in the baggage of the regiment. The only enlisted soldiers who carried revolvers in any number were cavalrymen and by all accounts did not attempt to load from horseback.

The reason we now shoot revolvers with Treso cones and hammers with the notches filled is because we shoot more in an hour than the average cowboy or soldier shot through his pistols in a year. If I was carrying my pistols in 1867 I would be carrying a pair loaded with 6 rounds each with the hammer using that slot as intended between two chambers and I would have a Bowie knife as my backup. This is what men who fought from horseback or on patrol who had the resources to arm themselves did.

Don't confuse what we do in all out competition with how we fight. If that was the case I might be carrying a high cap .38 Super Comp with compensator, electronic sights and 4 spare magazines where ever I went, or maybe it is more likely I would carry a High Cap .40S&W like a limited class pistol. But the reality is that I carry a single stack .45 and usually no spare magazine. Even one spare becomes bulky. So do I carry a .45 with Bomar sights, and 200 grain competition loads just meeting the major power classification? Nope, I carry fixed sights and 230 grain hollow points.

Are you getting my drift? I can shoot with stock Uberti cones and standard hammers. I did that for years very successfully. But we tinker and do things that mainly give us a mental advantage. That's the reality of it. If I was a hard core gamer in CAS events I definitely wouldn't be shooting a cap gun. If I decided to be a gamer in Frontiersman I would do what I did for years in USPSA, I would be shooting the equivalent of one of my open class guns which for a C&B revolver would be a Ruger Old Army and 20 grains of FFFg behind a ball. Wimpy bang and a just enough ding on the target to score a hit.

Articap is right about the lack of documentation of cap reliability but we do know there were men who were loathe to switch to cartridge pistols when they were introduced because they trusted their personally loaded cap guns more. I've see it in the alleys of Iraq and the villages of Afghanistan men gravitate to what works when given the latitude. Those techniques normally get very entrenched, the lack of contraindication to the prescribed loads of 30 grains of BP with the issued cap speaks louder than all of our speculation.

Regards,
Mako

 

[TheRodDoc]

My Colt 1851 is all stock. Hammer slot is as was and colt nipples. I have never had a cap stick to the hammer slot.
(I did have to use a lathe to shorten the cones on the nipples so the caps of today will clear the recoil shield). The nipple length must be correct or you will have problems. Also Uberti and other company's use the wrong nipple size to start with. there all to big and use rifle type caps. My colt as the old ones used a small no. 10 type cap. (not the rem no. 10)

The caps now have too much powder in them. They are way too powerful compared to the ones I used in the 60's, which I still have some of and have used a while ago to check this.

Just popping a new type cap with no main charge now blows the caps open and in some cases even apart. With no main load the popped cap should remain as was on the nipple after it has been fired and have to be picked off the nipple.

arcticap made a comment that he thought the originals were fitted looser. It was the opposite. They were fitted tighter. Mainly the arbor cyl fit. They were hand lapped to a slip fit. And this is the main reason why they didn't seize up from fouling.
And also why mine also shoots dry. (plus a very light hand spring and close cyl. gap)

I know this because I had the pleasure to shoot and work with many mint condition originals in the 60's. All shot dry. They belonged to a very large collector that lived near me and I almost lived there.

 

[Noz]

I read once that many empty pistols were picked up on the battlefields. Soldiers shot them dry and dropped them so they could go to the sabre.
As MAKO say, we shoot out guns more in a weekend than 1860s era soldiers did in a year.
I have gone to a lighter load than MAKO shoots to preserve me and the guns from excessive battering. I load with the on board rammer and he loads off the gun. No apologies.
The Colt style open top pistols were state of the art in the 1860s and the desired belt weapon for most soldiers.
The Remingtons were also a desirable gun. Each style has/had it's problems and solutions to make a reasonable fighting weapon.
If you are a plinker/casual shooter, then shoot the load you want in the style gun you like.
If you are a cowboy shooter then tune, polish, lighten your guns to shoot the way you desire with the greatest degree of reliability. I choose this course.

 

[BHP FAN]

I believe the modern trick of lightening the hammer spring on the Colt pattern guns is a contributing factor. This allows the hammer to rebound slightly, and the cap balloons into the hammer face slot.If any burr or battering of the slot is present, the cap is likely to get stuck.I have yet to see an original Colt with the ''cobra'' modified mainspring.As Makos, Noz and Doc have already pointed out, the original, unmodified design worked pretty darn well.I think one of the reasons the Remington design is less prone to ''cap jams'' is the solid hammer face, but another often overlooked advantage is the adjustable hammer spring tension...because you can simply adjust the main spring tension with a screw, folks are less likely to over lighten the hammer, and thus are a bit less likely to suffer cap jams.This isn't to say that Remingtons are better [though I often do, just to yank the Colt fan's chains] I own both, and the Remingtons have their own problems, with a different set of solutions.

 

[damoc]

just a little note, caps jamming under the hammer in the colts is not a factor
of the extra shooting done in a modern event its just as likely to happen
with the first cylindar.In fact i think ive noticed slightly more reliability
when the cyl and probably nipples gets a little fouled.

ive never seen a true original did they have safety slots in the hammer?

 

[makos_goods]

damoc,
I have two original Colt's 1860s, one made in 1861 and the other in 1862. They both have the notch because the pistols were designed to be "six shooters." I also have an original 1849 which also has the notches. The older 1860 is a "family gun" passed down since it was issued.

The "FIVE SHOOTER" concept is also a modern phenomenon. It must be written on every bathroom wall in the shooting world. I wish I could find the point in time that "the writers" decided that the norm was 5 rounds instead of 6.

I'm not arguing that 5 isn't "safer" in a 19th century revolver. I just know that they didn't load a chamber short to be safe. Guns were dangerous, especially to those on the receiving end. A modern equivalent is the firing pin block in the Colt's 1911 today. That was the result of liability concerns. If you went to a match today and polled the shooters of any 1911 pattern pistol whether single stack or high cap you would find they had removed those blocks.

As far as fouling goes, I have found the opposite to be true with the fouled cylinders, however I will agree with you on the cones. A perfectly clean and polished cone doesn't hold the cap as well and people tend to use too much pressure when seating. Once there is some fouling on the sides it grips better.

HOWEVER the seating face needs to be cleaned to the metal to assure reliable ignition. As I said earlier I load off pistol and I brush the face of the cones every stage as I load. It's not an accident that I shoot clean matches and have very few failures to fire.

As Noz and a few others will tell you I will "wax elephant" on the nature of cones for the primary reliability of percussion revolvers.

BHP is VERY correct about hammer springs as well. I actually use USFA springs in my Ubertis to assure I have a hard hammer strike. The springs in the two original 1860s are probably twice as powerful as the springs being sent out in the current crop of Uberti and Pietta percussion pistols. In most cases they just use the same spring they do for their cartridge guns, or start with the same blank. There is a definite difference in thickness between the 148 year old springs and the Italian springs.

Regards,
Mako

 

[Old Fuff]

ive never seen a true original did they have safety slots in the hammer?

Yes they did, but they weren't like most of the replica revolvers. I am old enough to remember shooting 19th century revolvers in the late 1940's forward until the replicas came into the picture around 1960 or a bit later.

The notch in original Colt hammers were much smaller and less deep. So much so that today when you examine a well used one you may find the safety pins battered to the point of being gone. I believe this was caused by dropping the hammer on the pin, rather then gently lowering it.

I can easily understand that at today's prices everyone can't go out and buy an original, but if you happen to visit one of the better gun shows (as opposed to firearms flea markets) you may get an opportunity to examine one - and if you do make extensive use of your eyeballs. There is a lot that can be learned.

 

[BHP FAN]

Bill Ruger is the one that started the ''five shooter'' idea. Back in the sixties or seventies before they modified the Black Hawk, as a stop gap measure to avoid lawsuits, Ruger took out ads in the major gun magazines with a picture of a SAA superimposed over a gun fight scene, with a ten dollar bill rolled up for ''funeral expenses'' stuffed in one of the chambers of the cylinder.As a side note, even with the Colt SAA you can safely lower the firing pin in between cartridge heads, and carry six.

 

[damoc]

thanks I never did think they would only load 5 out of 6 especially in combat
maybee i will also try heavy springs if thats what the originals were like.

old fuff ill try to get somewhere i can make extensive use of my eyeballs

 

[Tommygunn]

The "FIVE SHOOTER" concept is also a modern phenomenon. It must be written on every bathroom wall in the shooting world. I wish I could find the point in time that "the writers" decided that the norm was 5 rounds instead of 6.

If I recall it was the advent of the Colt Singla Action Army. Because the gun used fixed ammo it had a cartridge with rims, but they were too close to allow the firing pin to fit between them in the cylinder so an extra safety step was incorporated into the hammer like the "half-cock" notch that allowed the gun to be, technically, loaded with six and the hammer was kept maybe ⅛ of an inch back. This was eventually considered to be not very safe because the metal of the sear could break. Hence, keeping the gun loaded with 5 and the hammer down on an empty chamber. It's said some people would keep an expended case in this chamber, and wad up paper money and put it in the case (hence the phrase "shooting the wad" for emptying the gun) for emergency use.
In one John Wayne movie he is shown sticking a sixth round into his Colt as he heads off to a confrontation.
However a John Wayne movie is probably not a qualified cite for a claim.... I mean, he was also using 1892 Winchesters in 1873......

Maybe the above is all wrong anyway, but it's the way I recall it.

 

[BHP FAN]

urban myth...on SAA's the firing pin fits between the cartridge rims quite nicely....but on early 1950's and 60's frame mounted firing pins before the transfer bar safety was introduced, [the Hawes Western Marshall and early Ruger Blackhawk] it was impossible to safely carry six, so as a stop gap measure, Alex Sturm and Bill Ruger took out ads in all the major gun magazines promoting the ''five for safety'' idea with ''gun fighter'' theme ads. Those of us who are a little older will remember the ad campaign.

 

[Noz]

We tried the idea of "funeral money" in the unloaded sixth chamber. I'm glad we used a dollar bill instead of something larger. Five shots from the Ruger and we had a charcoal paper filling in the sixth.

 

[BHP FAN]

LOL! Yeah it was always marketing BS. I once hid a hundred dollar bill [gun money] from the redhead in my double barrel coach gun, and just almost blew it to confetti before I remembered. Popped it open,shook out the shells and looked...yep, still there! Just bought an ASM 1860 with it, the other day.

 

[arcticap]

I don't know if the old Colts had jamming problems or not, but we don't hear much research presented on THR about the functioning of the originals except that they were manufactured with looser tolerances to not be as prone to fouling and lack of lubrication.

Maybe I should qualify my statement by saying that the old Colts had looser tolerances than the old Remingtons so they weren't as prone to fouling and a lack of lubrication. That seems to still hold true even today, that the Colts will run longer than the Remingtons before becoming too fouled.
But that's apart from knowledge about caps becoming jammed in the originals.

arcticap made a comment that he thought the originals were fitted looser. It was the opposite. They were fitted tighter. Mainly the arbor cyl fit. They were hand lapped to a slip fit. And this is the main reason why they didn't seize up from fouling.
And also why mine also shoots dry. (plus a very light hand spring and close cyl. gap)

You may very well be right with regard to the arbor/cylinder fit of a new 1st generation Colt. However read what this one writer states about the accuracy of the Civil War era revolvers:

None of the Civil War revolvers had good sights by more recent standards. The rear sight on the Colt was a notch in the nose of the hammer, but the hammer had some lateral freedom for movement. The moving rear sight, a poor front sight, and the Colt's removable barrel also moved around, were all detrimental to what would now be called long range accuracy. In the field, the average Remington could hit the same size target at about one and a half to twice the range of the average Colt. Some are better then others. These guns shot bullets that will go up to a mile (always use a good backstop), but the sights on revolvers had to evolve. The Smith and Wesson 44 cartridge revolver shooting from a rest a few years after the Civil War could regularly hit a man's torso at 200 yards, but the Civil War revolvers would be lucky to consistently do that at 50 yards, or less.

http://www.hackman-adams.com/guns/civilwarrevolver.htm

FWIW, the above statement sure doesn't make it seem that the old original production methods produced revolvers that would shoot as precisely as the Colt & Remington revolvers that are made today. And the quality of the materials back then probably weren't as good either. That would lead me to think that the quality of the guns of yesteryear could also deteriorate more rapidly than the one's manufactured today.
That's not to say that they didn't work and weren't able to be more reliable than some of today's production revolvers. However, with regard to the Colt wrist roll, where they so reliable that the Colt wrist roll was never developed or needed to be used with the originals?

 

[BHP FAN]

I think the reason you don't hear a lot of complaints in the old days is because they were comparing the revolver to single shot pistols like the 1855 Springfield pistol...nowadays folks are carping because they are comparing the cap and ball six guns to the modern weapons most shooters are used to.

 

[mykeal]

Bill Ruger is the one that started the ''five shooter'' idea. Back in the sixties or seventies

Hmm. I recall that Wyatt Earp, in his biography, said he carried 5 with the hammer down on his Colts. I think he preceded Bill Ruger's ad campaign by a few years. Or do I remember that wrong?

 

[makos_goods]

Hmm. I recall that Wyatt Earp, in his biography, said he carried 5 with the hammer down on his Colts. I think he preceded Bill Ruger's ad campaign by a few years. Or do I remember that wrong?

Actually I think that was in reference to an incident where he had a pistol fall from his holster while playing cards and he had an AD. He actually asked biographer, Stuart Lake NOT to mention it in his book. Once again I think this (Earp carrying 5) is a myth.

Come on...SERIOUSLY??? You really think he would give up 16% of his load?

Regards,
Mako

 

[makos_goods]

Quote:
None of the Civil War revolvers had good sights by more recent standards. The rear sight on the Colt was a notch in the nose of the hammer, but the hammer had some lateral freedom for movement. The moving rear sight, a poor front sight, and the Colt's removable barrel also moved around, were all detrimental to what would now be called long range accuracy. In the field, the average Remington could hit the same size target at about one and a half to twice the range of the average Colt. Some are better then others. These guns shot bullets that will go up to a mile (always use a good backstop), but the sights on revolvers had to evolve. The Smith and Wesson 44 cartridge revolver shooting from a rest a few years after the Civil War could regularly hit a man's torso at 200 yards, but the Civil War revolvers would be lucky to consistently do that at 50 yards, or less.

http://www.hackman-adams.com/guns/civilwarrevolver.htm

UHHHHHHHHHHHH...If you stand at 50 yards I will put 6 holes in you pretty consistently with any 1860, '61 or '51 I have.

It's not just me...In fact almost anyone can learn to hit a man sized target at least 1 shot out of a cylinder at 100yds pretty consistently with a little practice.

More "comic book" material from a writer who doesn't shoot them on a regular basis.

Practice it a bit and you will have a talent that will win you quite a few bets. My original Sergeant Instructor used to make bar room bets about hitting a milk jug at 100yds with a .45. The bet was one hit from a magazine. He rarely missed. I saw him do it once for $100 using a S&W M36 with the 1 7/8" barrel. Took him to the third shot and he shot it once more and missed the last.

It's all a matter of knowing where to put the front sight in the rear notch. With a 1911A1 put the front sight high to the point you have the top of the slide at the top of the rear sight and put the milk jug on top of your front blade. With commercial sights you're going to have to learn where the sight has to sit. In fact Kings used to make a sight with a horizontal bar on the front sight which was the 100yd hold over point.

The interesting thing about 1860s including the Italian reproductions is that they are "sighted in" for between 75 and 100 yards. This is what the original Colt's were set for as well. It is really too high for realistic 7 to 25 yard gunfighting ranges. They shoot about 6 to 9 inches too high at 10 yards. So for them you just aim barely high on a IPSC target. Like right in the top 1/3 of the "A" Zone and you will hit it at 100 yards. Aim dead on at 50 yards. These are with a 147 grain ball and 30 grains of powder (standard combat load).

~Mako