How effective were cap and ball revolvers as carry weapons?

[GatorFarmer]

Some miles from where I lives is the location of the Fetterman Massacre, near old For Phil Kearny. It happened just a few years after the Civil War. The infantry involved still had muzzle loading Springfields, breech loaders not arriving until around the time of the Wagon Box Fight (also nearby).

Cap and ball revolvers were still standard issue at the time, and continued to be found in use for a while, though rapidly lost popularity to cartridge arms.

By the time Elmer Keith took to writing, only a few of the oldest old timers were familiar with the older pre cartridge revolvers.


Noticing the sometimes bitter cold here, and other days that are just plain wet in the winter, I found myself wondering. Obviously these cap and ball revolvers were carried and used. But how reliable and effective were they?

If carried loaded,would the charges of blackpowder go bad or be degraded by temperature and humidity?

How effective were they as weapons, since the 36 caliber seems to have fired what amounts to a single piece of buckshot?

 

[rwsmith]

grease in the chambers....

Putting a wad of grease/tallow in the front of the chambers sealed them and protected them from some exposure and also prevented 'chain firing' with chambers being set off by fire from another round. The grease would protect them some, usually being carried muzzle down. I don't know how they dug the load out of a rammed ball in a cylinder if they thought a charge had gotten wet or was unreliable.

 

[J. W.]

Good questions!

My wife bought me a Uberti Remington 1858 New Army a few years ago. I've only shot it a few times but I've reached a few conclusions. First it's definitely better than a sharp stick and second, I wouldn't want to be shot by it.

I'm curious to see what those more familiar than me have to say.


Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk

 

[cmort666]

They seemed to work pretty well for Bill Hickock...

 

[Alpo]

I, personally, doubt that "back in the day" they put grease in the front of the chamber.

Visualize it. You are on the battlefield, at Chickamauga. The Yankees is comin'. You quickly reload your pistol. Then you get out your can of Crisco and seal the chambers?

Or, it's south Texas, summer, 1867. You're rounding up mavericks. You've got the Colt 1860 you retrieved from that good Yankee cavalryman. It's in the holster, at your side. It's 98 degrees. And the grease is melting from the front of the chambers and running down your pants leg.

In Sixguns, Elmer tells about taking an old felt hat and soaking it in tallow, then cutting plugs out to put UNDERNEATH the ball, making his own Wonder Wads. That I can see. Not on the battlefield, but in civilian life, for people wanting to lube the ball.

But I believe that they depended more on the tight-fitting ball to prevent a chainfire caused by flashover from the chamber mouths. I believe the whole "grease over the chamber mouths" thing started in the 50s, when people were starting to shoot them, recreationally, and no one remembered HOW, so were relearning, and did not know about the "tight fitting ball/shave a ring of lead off when seating".

Tom Ball - Ball Accuracy - made his living accurizing cap-n-ball revolvers. He told me once that he had seen exactly one chainfire in his life. The cause was a minute crack in the cylinder wall.

A .375 round ball of pure lead weighs 80 grains. That's not very big. Then again, neither is a .380 pocket pistol with a copper jacketed 90 grain bullet.

The Army, however, did not issue 36s. They used 44s. A .454 round ball of pure lead weighs 141 grains. That's a little better. On this site Black Powder Ballistics a man shows that he was able to get velocities over 850 fps with a 44 revolver and heavy charges. 140 grain bullet at 850 fps? That's up there with a 38 special. And since it's starting at 44 caliber, it doesn't have to expand.

His 36s? He got over 1000 fps with an 80 grain round ball. That beats that 90-grain 380 all to hell.

So to answer your question - I think they'd be pretty effective.

 

[ironhead7544]

The 44 revolvers were reportedly very effective. Power wise they are about the same level with 38 Special +P ammo. With the right loads you can get 900 to 1000 fps with a .45 diameter round ball. I have owned several and they were quite accurate. People use them for deer and boar.

The powder was protected against moisture by heavy grease at the front and back of the cylinder. You can get a misfire. There is a ball pusher that screws into the nipple threads.

The larger Colt Walker and Dragoon revolvers used 60 and 50 grain charges respectively. Some people claim the Walker was the most powerful revolver until the 357 Magnum came out.

Dont know much about the 36 cal but they were popular. You can carry a lot of ammo for it easily. Power is about like a 380 ACP. With a conical bullet around 150 gr you can get 700 fps or so. IIRC, Elmer Keith had a 36 Colt. He said it would shoot ragged hole groups at 25 yards.

 

[ibewbull]

cap and ball .36

Way back in 73 That is 1973 while stationed in Norfolk Virginia.
I wasn't 21 and had no way to purchase a center fire defense revolver, so chose to pack my High Standard Griswold and Gunnison.
I loaded it with Pyrodex and round ball, greased the cylinder with Vaseline hoping it would be better than lard.
I kept it loaded for several months at a time and never had a misfire.
I can not speak to 3F black powder which may have been effected differently.
I would not hesitate to rely on one again if need be.
She fit in my boot just fine next to my left thigh.
Here is a photo of the Polish Motorcycle I rode Kawlski at the time.
I don't recall any mention of this in a book I am in link here.

Sweepers Sweepers Man Your Brooms: An Enlisted Man's Story: Jeff Zahratka: 9781598586770: Amazon.com: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Se8QQnx-L.@@AMEPARAM@@51Se8QQnx-L





Photos from internet, bike and gun are long gone now.

 

[DR505]

One must also take into account the medical knowledge, techniques, and practices of the time. A wound that today could be taken care of at an urgent care center and forgotten about would have been life threatening back in the 1860's.

 

[BearBio]

I read an article in a gun mag (Rick Hacker?) that said cap and ball rifles were in use well into the 20th Century in some areas. Hickock carried Navies long after cartridge arms were available (Per Mari Sandoz in Buffalo Hunters).

On a more personal note, I have carried cap and ball rifles while hunting on a couple of VERY rainy, drizzly days and we emptied them by firing into a dirt/snow bank before going back to camp.

Have to remember, when comparing then and now, they used soft lead bullets. Lots of expansion.

When Walker approached Colt, one of the criteria was the ability to kill a Commanche horse and to kill an Indian out to 100 yards (if you could hit him).

Many buffalo, elk, moose and bears were killed with muzzle loaders in the hands of soldiers, early buffalo hunters, and Indians.

 

[wbraswell]

In the 1850's, anything that would put a hole in you was effective. A belly shot from a .31 would eventually kill you, much less a hit in the lungs. If the lead didn't kill you, the doctor would.

 

[Stevie]

I imagine the old revolvers were effective enough...however comparing the old revolvers(and new reproductions) to modern handguns is like comparing a Model T ford to a new F150...both will probably get you to your destination...it's just the convenience of it all..

 

[DeadAye]

I shoot a Ruger Old Army fairly regularly.
143g .457 ball over 32 g of 777 is VERY accurate.
Makes a wonderful crowd drawing noise at the range
EVERYONE wants to shoot it - and enjoys it.
It kills deer (think bow hunting with a gun).
What's not to like?

BTW - I use no grease and make sure my caps are TIGHT. I've never had a chain fire - - - - Knock wood.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

In my collection there are several originals including a Colt 1860 Army, Colt 1851 Navy (London), and two Remington New Army revolvers. All are fully functional and I have fired them.

I do not use grease on the chamber mouths. The Colt .44 uses a .454 ball. The Colt .36 uses a .375 ball. The Remingtons use .457 balls. When seating the balls it is not unusual for a small bit of lead to be sheared off at the chamber mouth, indicating a good fit.

Most of my shooting has been with Fffg black powder, but I have also used Pyrodex. I see no great advantage in one over the other (Pyrodex provides more shots per pound).

By modern standards the sights of these antique revolvers are rudimentary at best. The rear sight of the Colt revolvers is merely a notch in the nose of the hammer, and the Colt barrels are held to the frame by a wedge through the base pin; obviously not the best recipe for consistent accuracy in aimed fire. The Remington has barrel is permanently mounted in the frame and a groove in the top strap for a rear sight; much better design for accuracy in aimed fire.

One thing shared by all of these is a relatively long barrel (7.5" on the Navy, 8" on the 1860 Colt and Remingtons) and very good ergonomics overall. These revolvers point very naturally. Hitting a silhouette target at 25 to 50 feet is quite easy; 50 yards takes more concentration and care in aiming, but is not terribly difficult.

Power-wise, the lead balls can easily penetrate 2X4 lumber, and the .44's will usually penetrate two 2X4's back to back. I have no doubt that a hit on bone would break most bones. Any hit to the torso area would probably result in serious damage.

For use as in a combat situation these revolvers have a couple of serious drawbacks:

1. The time required to reload is considerable. Some reports exist indicating that extra cylinders were carried by some, pre-loaded, but in my experience I don't see that as being much faster or easier, especially while under attack (too many parts to fumble around with, way too easy to reassemble incorrectly under stress. Either way, a practiced shooter might be able to reload in about 2 or 3 minutes. Many of the period are known to have carried two revolvers, and some carried several, and this appears to be the most practical approach for a combat situation.

2. Black powder residue builds up rather quickly and can cause difficulty in keeping the revolver functioning. The Remingtons seem to be a bit more sensitive to this than the Colts, with residue binding the cylinder on the base pin making it increasingly difficult to cock the revolver.

In my opinion these revolvers were very effective at moderate ranges against a limited number of opponents. It might help to keep in mind that military personnel armed with these revolvers usually had other weapons such as sabers, and the bayonet was still considered a primary weapon for military combat. Swords, dirks, and Bowie knifes were in common use by quite a few civilian users as well. The major advantage of firearms is keeping combat from becoming an up close and personal experience.

 

[Eltioloco]

Also you have to remember that the army issued paper cartridges for their pistols. The paper cartridges used conical bullets. The soldier only had to push in the cartridge and cap. They didn't use powder horns, grease and ball.
Ken

 

[poordevil]

I have a bit more experience than just this story, but am on the way out the door.

I have seen a Fredric Remington pencil sketch from the time of the U.S. fighting the Morro and one solder is definably holding a huge Colt Dragoon Revolver. I guess he was not happy with his .38 Colt

 

[Stevie]

When I was a kid I had a 'Reb .44' revolver that I literaly wore-out(brass-framed)...This was so much fun..I still have BP revolvers to this day.

My latest one is a big Uberti third model Dragoon. These a serious hunk of handgun!

I recall an article in some gun-rag years ago that compared the power/penetration factors of a .44 mag revolver..either a Walker or Dragoon revolver(.44 loose powder)..and a .45 automatic...

...Of course in those days every issue of about any hand-gun magazine had some expensive custom 1911 .45 pistol on the cover...and the slant almost always went to the .45 auto in comparisons in about any article....so yeh..the 1911 .45 won the mentioned shoot-off/test. However the huge .44 percussion revolver did well or better than the .44 mag in much of the testing!

 

[Xfuzz]

Lord knows how long this has laid around here.
Still unfired. Seems like a lot of dang work.
1858 Remington copy..IIRC.

 

[Beruisis]

I expect that when those revolvers did fire they did the job. But there were times when they wouldn't fire & that is one reason the Bowie knives were carried a lot.....as back up. Bowies were fast, efficient & deadly....outlawed in several states even back then.
Beruisis

 

[BikerRN]

If you want to know how effective firearms were in a time period look at the size of the knife commonly carried.
In Jim Bowie's time they were less reliable, hence his large, by today's standards, machete size Bowie knife. Look at the size of the folding knife of the average LEO today. Jim Bowie would've likely used it for nothing more than cleaning his fingernails.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[Qball]

I shoot C&B at Cowboy matches, and most of the time it's in rain
Not one missfire, yet

Try to cover reloading with the hatt or coat
when no umbrella or tent is available that is.

I guess that back in the days, they were alot more used to that.
And with a full flap holster they were not exposed to rain.