L Ross
Well-Known Member
With the 51 size grip frame I drop my pinky finger below the butt.I have what I think is an 1851 Navy, never shot it yet. The grip is tiny IMO, far too small for my hands. Am I alone in this take?
With the 51 size grip frame I drop my pinky finger below the butt.I have what I think is an 1851 Navy, never shot it yet. The grip is tiny IMO, far too small for my hands. Am I alone in this take?
I've had perhaps 3 or 4 of them. They're very difficult to control without K frame sized grips on them, so I don't see any advantage in them. The concealability advantage is lost, and I believe one would be better served by a 2 inch K or L (preferably) frame. I never seemed to keep them very long and I bought different variations to see if they'd work better. None ever did, and many compact 9mm semi-autos are roughly the same size, plus they carry better.Allen, I always enjoy your posts.
You make me laugh.
I didn't know they had ever chambered a J-frame in 357.
Just shaking my head at that one...
Not at all. Thankfully both the 1851 and 1860 have pretty light recoil. 70 and 140 grains running 700 FPS doesn't push back very hard. I never tried conicals in my C&B revolvers. Please note--I used 20 grains in 36 caliber and 25 grains in 44 of Goex 3F Flaming Dirt, and these are about 10% downloads from spec max (22 and 28 grains) in the '51 and '60 respectively. Better powders and full fuel loads might have improved things--dunno. Colt 44 Dragoons could manage 40 grains of 3F, and the Colt Walker could run 60 grains--though they had a habit of burst cylinders, so maybe Walkers were a bit much of a good thing. Dragoons and Walkers were known as 'Horse pistols', meant to be carried in saddle holsters that draped over saddle pommels. The Walkers weighed 4# 9 oz, so they were a chunk.I have what I think is an 1851 Navy, never shot it yet. The grip is tiny IMO, far too small for my hands. Am I alone in this take?
Smaller than what? Smaller than the horse pistols (Walker and Dragoons) but it is the same frame as the Model 1860. Nothing J frame at all. The grip straps on the Model 1860 are bigger but the frame is the same.The 51' is a smaller version and fully scaled to its 36 cal .
For those not fully engaged 36 cal C & B is requires a .375-.380 ball or conical . They are kind of a J frame relationship to the 1860 . Those that are true to the Navy design in 1858s or 1860s will be a reduced size profile and 36 cal not 44 and both steel and brass versions existed .
If you've wondered how hard they actually hit . A 36 over the full charge of FFFg will dent 1/4" CRS at 25 yd from the 58 Navy .
It will all be round ball here if I get around to playing with them. I have a Walker here too that need mending. That thing is a hunka steel for sure!Not at all. Thankfully both the 1851 and 1860 have pretty light recoil. 70 and 140 grains running 700 FPS doesn't push back very hard. I never tried conicals in my C&B revolvers. Please note--I used 20 grains in 36 caliber and 25 grains in 44 of Goex 3F Flaming Dirt, and these are about 10% downloads from spec max (22 and 28 grains) in the '51 and '60 respectively. Better powders and full fuel loads might have improved things--dunno. Colt 44 Dragoons could manage 40 grains of 3F, and the Colt Walker could run 60 grains--though they had a habit of burst cylinders, so maybe Walkers were a bit much of a good thing. Dragoons and Walkers were known as 'Horse pistols', meant to be carried in saddle holsters that draped over saddle pommels. The Walkers weighed 4# 9 oz, so they were a chunk.
I feel that many of the old Colt grip frames, especially the 1873, were designed for small hands. My pinky finger gets lonesome hanging out there by itself.I have what I think is an 1851 Navy, never shot it yet. The grip is tiny IMO, far too small for my hands. Am I alone in this take?