Help a Newbie - Cap n Ball
- Thread starter HKFan9
- Start date
Nope, I meant Cabelas because they do the advertizing. Pietta made the gun, not the ad that said it was a Confederate gun based on the 1851 Navy.
As far as a Ruger Old Army playing to be a C&B revolver...now that really puzzles me. But, to each his own. I was very against Rugers until I got one.
The South copied the Whitney to make the Spiller & Burr in brass, they copied the Colt 1851 Navy to make the Griswold & Gunnison in brass with a round barrel. And I'm sure there were others.
Smokin_Gun
New member
It's necessary to me
and turnin screws on Revs don't wear um out. People who can't use a screwdriver and strip the heads do wear um out. Letting a dirty gun lay can hurt a Rev...you mentioned lead starting to oxidize? How long do you think it takes BP once fired in an non-seasoned barrel, cylinder, or cones to have a reaction to the residue(it has about a 24 hour reaction & it starts). And then you have the left over residue all over the rest of the Rev. They ain't like Long Gun/Smokepoles. Oxidation starts when a chemical, be it gunpowder residue, a sodium from sweat off our brow, or white vinegar on steel. Well That and that the M-16 I carried allow me to feel the necessity to clean um when I'm done. Works for me.SG
Last edited:
Yes I do live off campus, obviously I would never bring a firearm near it. The only gun I keep in my house at school (my house is in the town I walk to class) is my PM-9 for conceal carry when I walk somewhere at night. My g/f doesn't live in a nice part of town, and she maybe weighs 100 pounds so I keep one of my CCW guns down here in case we walk to her place (also she doesn't live on campus)
I don't know why I like the brass frame more but maybe I will get steel to be on the safe side. I'm torn between buying one of these or a Ruger Mark II .22 at the moment. Decisions Decisions I think we Americans are spoiled, we get to many choices.
I don't know why I like the brass frame more but maybe I will get steel to be on the safe side. I'm torn between buying one of these or a Ruger Mark II .22 at the moment. Decisions Decisions
I think we Americans are spoiled, we get to many choices.1 lb. of powder equals 7000 grains of powder. If you load 25 grains per shot, that's about 280 shots from 1 lb. of powder.
At $20 per lb., the cost would be .07 cents per shot.
Round balls cost about $9 per 100 or .09 cents each.
Percussion caps cost about .04 -.05 cents each.
Then most people use some Bore Butter or Crisco over the loaded balls, or lube pills under the balls. Some use bore button wool wads (at .08 - .10 cents each).
There's also the cost of cleaning & loading accessories, wrench, nipples, nipple pick, flask, capper, measure etc...
You're looking at a minimum of about .20 cents a shot which isn't much different than shooting a 9mm or even a .45 ACP.
I know that some will say that powder is cheaper, but I'm talking about the average price of powder, whether it's 777, Pyrodex or real BP. BP costs well over $20 per lb. around here, and so does 777. APP is $18 - $20+. Maybe $2 can be saved by buying Pyrodex, but you need gas to drive around buying the stuff.
Sure you can cast your own round balls, but that's another investment cost too.
Don't blame the messenger for saying this, but on average BP pistols usually require more replacement parts than smokeless guns do which is another expense. Plus their resale and trade in values do go down more than a Ruger MK III's would, especially a brass frame model. The back of the brass frame gets battered due to the cylinder hitting it from the recoil of each shot and the brass shows more wear over time.
On the other hand, one round of Federal .22 bulk ammo from Walmart costs about 2.5 cents. Shooting one 10 round magazine costs .25 cents, and shooting 10 full magazines per hour costs $2.50 per hour.
That same $2.50 is equal to shooting about 2 full cylinders out of a .44 C&B revolver or about 12 shots worth.
Last edited:
Smokin_Gun
New member
Colt produced at least ONE that we are sure of probly more
Why can't you call a .44 cal on the Navy frame a Navy?
So Pietta reproduced a prototype en masse. They sell good and shoot great.
I have to say that it's an 1851 .44 Navy Repro...is that to be denied?
SG
Fingers McGee
New member
Can I put my $.02 worth in????
Cause a .44 with an octagonal barrel isnt a Navy. The Army and Navy frame are the same except for the cut in the frame for the .44 rebated cylinder. What we call the 1851 Navy now was originally known as the old model belt pistol of Navy caliber - that was later shortened to 1851 Navy - when it was in production. The Navy caliber designation meant .36 caliber. .44 cal pistols were designated as Army caliber. Therefore, a .44 caliber pistol with an octagonal barrel, hinged loading lever, and Navy style grips might have actually been a prototype of the 1860 Army, not the Navy.
During their production, Armies could be ordered with Navy grips and vice versa. The grip shape isn't what determined the pistols designation.
There were also some 1851 Navies made with round barrels and hinged loading lever as well as some 6 1/2 inch barreled ones.
Cause a .44 with an octagonal barrel isnt a Navy. The Army and Navy frame are the same except for the cut in the frame for the .44 rebated cylinder. What we call the 1851 Navy now was originally known as the old model belt pistol of Navy caliber - that was later shortened to 1851 Navy - when it was in production. The Navy caliber designation meant .36 caliber. .44 cal pistols were designated as Army caliber. Therefore, a .44 caliber pistol with an octagonal barrel, hinged loading lever, and Navy style grips might have actually been a prototype of the 1860 Army, not the Navy.
During their production, Armies could be ordered with Navy grips and vice versa. The grip shape isn't what determined the pistols designation.
There were also some 1851 Navies made with round barrels and hinged loading lever as well as some 6 1/2 inch barreled ones.
Smokin_Gun
New member
You said it the same frame as a Navy...an 1860 Army hadn't been made made yet. The .44 was a prototype correct? Well there you have it, 1851 Navy frame bored out .44 barrel in Octagon. Besides it's a reproduction what is the big deal? What are you gonna do tell Pietta to call it an 1851 Army(P) Prototype?
Come on...
What can I tell ya you Spelled it all correctly jus' din't say it right...
SG
Smokin_Gun
New member
LMBPAO! But the point is it was produced by Colt...it's in a Museum in Conneticut. So it wasn't available to the public. But Pietta apparently knows about it so they reproduced it and Pietta made it available to the public. Pietta brought forth a link if you will in the Colt chain of events. I feel even better now about the 1851 Navy .44 Pietta & I did say Pietta...I think I'll go buy one.
SG
I used the word 'produced' in the classic manufacturing sense; that is, a production process was implemented to build a large number of items for distribution and sale to the public. As opposed to building (not producing) a single item as an experiment. Making a single item isn't 'production', it's 'building'.
Pietta has no altruistic motives in producing a .44 cal revolver with an 1851 Navy barrel. They did it because people would buy it, plain and simple. And I don't have any problems with people owning and shooting them, any more than I have problems with people owning and shooting a Ruger Old Army (I own both myself). We just need to be accurate in our presentation of the data.
But, getting back to something useful for the OP, who I'm certain isn't interested in a bunch of old men arguing semantics, re his question on the costs of shooting, and articap's excellent response:
I was working up some numbers but articap's are just as well.
If the idea is to shoot inexpensively, then a good .22 pistol is the answer, hands down. I shoot a Ruger Single Six convertible for practice regularly, because I can put 300-500 rounds downrange every session without taking out a loan. It's a great way to maintain trigger control muscle memory, follow through and sightline control.
Unfortunately, there's just no way to do that with my Walker, which I'd love to do, or my Smith & Wesson Model 60 .357, which I should do.
The bp guns are for fun, pure shooting enjoyment, like no other guns I own. It's been that way for 30 years. If you're going to participate in a sport, you need find a way to enjoy it. Being satisfied with my skill level (practicing with the .22) and then shooting the boomers (the bp guns) is my way.
Pietta has no altruistic motives in producing a .44 cal revolver with an 1851 Navy barrel. They did it because people would buy it, plain and simple. And I don't have any problems with people owning and shooting them, any more than I have problems with people owning and shooting a Ruger Old Army (I own both myself). We just need to be accurate in our presentation of the data.
But, getting back to something useful for the OP, who I'm certain isn't interested in a bunch of old men arguing semantics, re his question on the costs of shooting, and articap's excellent response:
I was working up some numbers but articap's are just as well.
If the idea is to shoot inexpensively, then a good .22 pistol is the answer, hands down. I shoot a Ruger Single Six convertible for practice regularly, because I can put 300-500 rounds downrange every session without taking out a loan. It's a great way to maintain trigger control muscle memory, follow through and sightline control.
Unfortunately, there's just no way to do that with my Walker, which I'd love to do, or my Smith & Wesson Model 60 .357, which I should do.
The bp guns are for fun, pure shooting enjoyment, like no other guns I own. It's been that way for 30 years. If you're going to participate in a sport, you need find a way to enjoy it. Being satisfied with my skill level (practicing with the .22) and then shooting the boomers (the bp guns) is my way.
How far do you take the concept of historically accurate? If you're into pure history, then a .44 "Navy" is a no-no, unless you want to point to a Colt patent for the same gun and justify its existence. Driving your car to the range is not historically accurate. Answering your cell phone as you load certainly isn't. Altering a gun (adding screws, etc) is not historically accurate. What about buying a gun made in Italy as opposed to an American-made Ruger Old Army? Hmmmm...
I recently bought an original Whitney .36 Navy that I fired at the range. The turning knob on the loading lever is not original - does that disqualify the gun's claim to being original? What if I add new nipples to the gun?
I wouldn't get a .44 with a brass frame only because I don't think the brass is strong enough. That's the only reason I wouldn't get one. Then again, I might handle one in the store tomorrow and snatch it up because of its balance and feel.
I recently bought an original Whitney .36 Navy that I fired at the range. The turning knob on the loading lever is not original - does that disqualify the gun's claim to being original? What if I add new nipples to the gun?
I wouldn't get a .44 with a brass frame only because I don't think the brass is strong enough. That's the only reason I wouldn't get one. Then again, I might handle one in the store tomorrow and snatch it up because of its balance and feel.
Fingers McGee
New member
Well said Mykeal.
Well, Smokin', I think I did say it right. Once the cut in the frame was made, it was not a Navy frame anymore; but, a prototype of the future 1860.
To quote Pohill:
Depends on what book you read. The designation could have come from:
Colt's desire to market it to the Navy in a caliber that the Navy liked.
The 1843 Campeche naval battle scene that was roll engraved on the cylinder.
That the Navy bought more of them than the Army or civilians, even though it was the Army Ordinance Board that field tested them in 1850.
Well, Smokin', I think I did say it right. Once the cut in the frame was made, it was not a Navy frame anymore; but, a prototype of the future 1860.
To quote Pohill:
Depends on what book you read. The designation could have come from:
Colt's desire to market it to the Navy in a caliber that the Navy liked.
The 1843 Campeche naval battle scene that was roll engraved on the cylinder.
That the Navy bought more of them than the Army or civilians, even though it was the Army Ordinance Board that field tested them in 1850.
Quote from Chief of Naval Ordnance Commodore Morris in 1854:
"It has not been considered advisable heretofore, to purchase Colts revolvers for the general service. Pistols can seldom be used with effect in the Navy, except when boarding vessels with the view to their capture, which rarely occurs. At such time...swords or boarding hatches could be used by seamen with equal, if not greater certainty and effect, than pistols."
The author of the book, CIVIL WAR SMALL ARMS OF THE NAVY AND MAINE CORPS, John D. McAulay, goes on to say, "The revolver was never highly regarded by Navy officials."
From what I've read, the Army bought more Navies than anyone.
"It has not been considered advisable heretofore, to purchase Colts revolvers for the general service. Pistols can seldom be used with effect in the Navy, except when boarding vessels with the view to their capture, which rarely occurs. At such time...swords or boarding hatches could be used by seamen with equal, if not greater certainty and effect, than pistols."
The author of the book, CIVIL WAR SMALL ARMS OF THE NAVY AND MAINE CORPS, John D. McAulay, goes on to say, "The revolver was never highly regarded by Navy officials."
From what I've read, the Army bought more Navies than anyone.
A reasonably accurate clone.
I don't want to live in the 19th century...........At least not most of the time.
I just want my guns to be a decent representation of what was available.I have no problem with Italian guns. I have six of them. I don't want a Ruger Old Army or any other Ruger SA.
I don't have a problem with anybody that shoots stuff I don't like except maybe inlines.:barf: I do like to point out the historical inaccuracy of some of them just in case somebody doesn't know and thinks they're getting an accurate reproduction.
I'm with you on the way these guns are advertized. Cabelas used to annoy me with their ads and claims but, what the heck, at least someone is enjoying the sport. I just don't want to discourage someone who is happy and excited about a gun they bought and then someone tells them it's a fake copy of a copy of an original.
As far as the Ruger Old Army - I thought I'd never own one, then I got a good deal on an older one and I gotta say, I'm impresed. I have (if I remember correctly) 17 BP guns and they're all my favorite. The Ruger is the easiest to shoot in cold weather due to the larger chamber mouths. It never jams with spent caps, and it's accurate. Built like a tank.
As far as the Ruger Old Army - I thought I'd never own one, then I got a good deal on an older one and I gotta say, I'm impresed. I have (if I remember correctly) 17 BP guns and they're all my favorite. The Ruger is the easiest to shoot in cold weather due to the larger chamber mouths. It never jams with spent caps, and it's accurate. Built like a tank.
Fingers McGee
New member
You mean Col. Colt invented the inline?? Well, whadayano