L Ross
Well-Known Member
With the 51 size grip frame I drop my pinky finger below the butt.
What is it with S&W...
- Thread starter Matt_G
- Start date
358156 hp
At large, whereabouts unknown.
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.
CZ93X62
Official forum enigma
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.
Last edited:
Rick H
Well-Known Member
The Navy grip is small. The gun is nose/barrel heavy. Somehow if just feels right in my medium to large hand and more importantly seems to point naturally too. Recoil management wont be an issue. I think the smaller grip facilitates one handed manipulation. It certainly isn't my first choice of a fighting weapon. In its day it was state of the art. All for fun now.
RBHarter
West Central AR
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 .
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 .
Bret4207
At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
I suppose the thing to do would to gather some "flaming dirt", balls and caps and try it out. After, of course I add the gun to my permit. In NY you can have an antique steekin' peestol with out permit as long as you don't have the stuff to make it go bang. Weird, but...whatever. Also have a Walker here. Needs a part or two but it reminds me of a long barreled Smith or Old Super BH Ruger. Horse pistol indeed!!!
StrawHat
Well-Known Member
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.
Step down to the little pocket revolvers, then you are getting a smaller frame. And with the 5 shot 36 calibers, some recoil. Not much but still more than the Model 1851.
Brass framed Model 1851s? Not from Colts.
Kevin
Bret4207
At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
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!
Thumbcocker
Active Member
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.
The 1873 grip frame is a carry-over of the 1851; the military didn't want the 1860 grip frame. The 1860 is basically an 1851 with a rebated cylinder (and the accompanying frame cuts) to allow the use of a .44. It makes a nice belt gun.
Funny story: my family hung on to cap and ball Colts for a long time. In the early '70s--1970s--one of the older representatives of the family shot a burglar with an 1860 Army, loaded with original Civil War era cartridges. I was spending a fair amount of time with the old man in those days, but I was a child so nothing was said in my hearing. I heard about it from the burglar in 2013 or so!
Funny story: my family hung on to cap and ball Colts for a long time. In the early '70s--1970s--one of the older representatives of the family shot a burglar with an 1860 Army, loaded with original Civil War era cartridges. I was spending a fair amount of time with the old man in those days, but I was a child so nothing was said in my hearing. I heard about it from the burglar in 2013 or so!
Thumbcocker
Active Member
There are some YouTube videos where the .36 Navy is tested against top break cartridge revolvers from the late 19th and early 20th century. The cap and ball is ahead on energy and penetration. I am not a fan of the grip frame or open top revolvers in general, but they were effective in their day.