Cap and Ball

[mtnman]

Mtnman...I'll take a Colt Walker or Dragoon in .44 cal over that stone age flint lock any day of the week. I've fired replica models of all 3 and that flintlock has the same accuracy as a sawed off .410 shotgun shooting slugs...scary as hell to fire too. The Remington 1858 in in .44 cal with multiple cylinders is quite a nice weapon. If the originals were as sturdy as the replicas I'm surprised the Colts were as popular. All of the revolvers are very accurate within their effective ranges but a good shooter can do pretty well at longer ranges if he knows how to "fudge" the loads.



Of course a good shooter can make almost any gun perform with some practice.

Sounds like you shot a (or some) pretty crappy flintlock(s).  All of the decent ones I've shot have been capable of more accuracy than the shooters are.  The pistols I've owned and shot have been easily capable of three-inch groups (or less) from a rest at 50 yds, which is a heck of a long shot for a pistol.  I've found the single most limiting factor to be the sights, which have been much better on period-correct single shot pistols than on any period-correct revolver.  Not only better quality, but more adjustable, and with a longer sight-radius.

Most of the bad reputation flintlocks enjoy is from two factors.  Movies, which use incorrectly (over) primed locks to be more dramatic, and inexpensive low-quality flintlocks in inexperienced hands.  The locks on my pistols and rifles cost more than the complete guns I often see attempted to be shot, or for sale in stores.  There's more than one reason the militaries of the world utilized flintlocks for over 260 years, and why there wasn't a wholesale rush to replace them with the newfangled percussion locks when they became available.  The best thing about percussion is that it led to the cartridge; not that it was necessarily better than the flintlock, but that it pointed the way to something better.

The single shot pistols have longer barrels, which aids in accuracy, as well as power.  More powder is capable of being burned in a longer barrel.  Where with a revolver the length of the cylinder is the limiting factor in powder charge, in a single shot it's the barrel length.  An over-charge won't blow the pistol up, it just won't fully burn the charge before the projectile leaves the bore.  The single shot also doesn't waste power by leaking gas out of the cylinder/barrel seam.  Less leakage, longer barrel, larger powder charge (and being capable of fully burning that charge) all add up to more power...

The only advantage the revolver has over the single-shot (and in certain situations, it's a huge advantage) is in its rapid fire capability.  In target shooting, that's not an important advantage, unless the competition is taylored to it.  And the beauty of the revolver in battle is that it's easy to knock someone down for good (people go into shock, animals generally don't), even with a weaker gun.  In battle, six weaker shots is better than one powerful one.  Twelve is even better.

Flintlocks are old-style, but if well designed and cared for they're extremely fast, accurate, and reliable.  Shooting mine in competition against percussion guns and even inlines, I'm not handicapped, trust me.

"Scary as hell to fire"?  That's just plain funny!  

[mtnman]

Incidentally, the Walker had power roughly equivalent to the .357Mag. Powder charge went up to 60 grain.

Video is awful, but killer audio:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2N6FoKB4a0

Sorry, I stopped one book to soon, that one only showed charts up to their recommended 50gr. 

The data I have for the Walker with a 60gr charge of Pyrodex P with the 138gr .454 ball gives a muzzle velocity of 1215 fps, and ME of 452 ft-lbs, which is awful close to the low-end .357Mag charts (Generally 500-830 ft. lbs, depending on load, but can obviously be loaded with the lighter 38Spl).  They got up to 499 ft lbs when they substituted 4F black powder for the Pyrodex, and by using a .457 ball instead of the .454.  Of course, the 4F load isn't considered safe unless the manufacturer specifies it.  It generates quite a bit more pressure.

So it looks like a maxed-out Walker is about equal to a bottom-end .357Mag, which really is pretty impressive, considering the technology available then.  A bit heavy, but great at doing what it was designed for.  The only real drawback mentioned (and I've seen) is the loading lever.

Of course, they mentioned that accuracy was best with charges of about 30gr loads, and fell off as powder loads increased.

[Saxman]

Rich,

Don't pay much attention to the nomenclature. While the Navy WAS designed more for the US Navy due to its smaller size, the primary users of both it and .44 Army WAS the army. In fact the Navy was by far the more popular of the two--especially among cavalrymen--for all the reasons mentioned in the thread: it was smaller, lighter, and easier in the hand than the Army (weight was the main reason the Walker was ultimately replaced by the Dragoon, Navy, and Army). Testimony to that, it was in production far longer than the 1860 Army, (both ceased production in 1873) rivaled only by the Single Action Army.

mtn,

That's the scary thing about the Walker. It took them nearly a century to develop another sidearm with that sort of power.

Simple fix to the loading lever is a strip of leather around it and the barrel. Time-tested and Texas Ranger approved. 

[mtnman]

mtn,

That's the scary thing about the Walker. It took them nearly a century to develop another sidearm with that sort of power.

Six-shooter, anyway.  The Walker still doesn't pack the punch of my .54 flintlock (which is rifled, btw).  I also wonder if the reason it took them so long, was there really isn't any reason to do it.  It doesn't take a big pistol to do what the Walker did, which was to knock people down at close range.  The ease of fast fire was undoubtedly more important than the actual power.

Why didn't Colt design that with the lever latch like the other Colts?  That feature worked great on my Army.  I've always thought the lines of the Colts was much more appealing than the Remingtons, but tying the lever up with a strip of leather seems half-azzed.

BTW, when carrying multiple loaded cylinders in the field, did they leave them uncapped?  Or did they devise a "safe" way to carry them capped?  Maybe carrying them in a hazardous manner was considered safer than not being able to swap out an empty cylinder quick enough?  A loaded and capped cylinder wouldn't be something I'd want to carry around, but then I wouldn't want to try capping the chambers on a running horse either (lots of prairie dog holes out there...)

[Treize69]

BTW, when carrying multiple loaded cylinders in the field, did they leave them uncapped?  Or did they devise a "safe" way to carry them capped?  Maybe carrying them in a hazardous manner was considered safer than not being able to swap out an empty cylinder quick enough?  A loaded and capped cylinder wouldn't be something I'd want to carry around, but then I wouldn't want to try capping the chambers on a running horse either (lots of prairie dog holes out there...)

They would either load 5 of the 6 chambers and leave the hammer down on the empty one, or some (like the Rem, not sure on the Colt) had a notch in between the nipples that you could rest the hammer on. Half-cock, rotate the cylinder to a spot between chambers, and gently lower the hammer. Kept the hammer a bit elevated (could snag on the coat or the leather accouterments a bit easier), but it was as safe as you could make it and also help lock the cylinder in place so it didn't move with all the bouncing and jostling.

[RipChord929]

LOL, I've tried to reload a modern CARTRIDGE revolver (Python) on a galloping horse, LOL good luck!!!!  It was down the fenceline of my own pasture, so the speedloaders were easy to find, didn't loose any.. But it was close to impossible, very impractical... Wouldn't bother trying it with a cap n ball Remington, and forget it with an open top Colt... That would be humorous to watch someone try tho... Even tried it with a Schofield Smith, and it was still almost impossible with loose cartridges....

I own horses, tried these very things in reality... Stand pumpkins on the fence posts as targets for Indian bow and lance, swords, machety, pistols, shotguns, and carbines...  Ride down the fenceline at full gallop, take a single shot at every other target... Believe me, Its not an easy thing to do, even with practice... It is actually much easier to connect with a Sabre.... And no, my regular hunting animals aren't gunshy anymore... This is how I trained them NOT to be!!!  On a GUNSHY horse???   LOL, Have fun, LOL!!!!
Never mind hitting something, you'd be lucky to stay on the horse at all, LOL!!!

Thats why Cavalrymen or Bushwhackers would carry multiple pistols and a sword... In addition to the ones on their person, you could count on a couple more hanging on their saddle...  ALL of them, secured by lanyards.. And horseback tactics would involve a series of charges/recalls, so troopers could reload while waiting to reform the charge...


RC

[mtnman]

They would either load 5 of the 6 chambers and leave the hammer down on the empty one, or some (like the Rem, not sure on the Colt) had a notch in between the nipples that you could rest the hammer on. Half-cock, rotate the cylinder to a spot between chambers, and gently lower the hammer. Kept the hammer a bit elevated (could snag on the coat or the leather accouterments a bit easier), but it was as safe as you could make it and also help lock the cylinder in place so it didn't move with all the bouncing and jostling.

Yep, understand that.  That wasn't what I was asking.

[Saxman]

They would either load 5 of the 6 chambers and leave the hammer down on the empty one, or some (like the Rem, not sure on the Colt) had a notch in between the nipples that you could rest the hammer on. Half-cock, rotate the cylinder to a spot between chambers, and gently lower the hammer. Kept the hammer a bit elevated (could snag on the coat or the leather accouterments a bit easier), but it was as safe as you could make it and also help lock the cylinder in place so it didn't move with all the bouncing and jostling.

The Colts didn't have the notch, but they could still be carried with the hammer resting halfway between. However mtnman was asking about the extra cylinders.

I believe they carried them pre-capped. Obviously you wouldn't do that TODAY for safety purposes, but things kind of go out the window when it's a choice between being able to quickly reload in a firefight or an accidental discharge. However the belt pouches for the spare cylinders weren't just limp bags, they were made of formed leather so there was probably a very limited risk of accidentally touching off a cap.

Rip,

That's why the revolvers were often a secondary firearm. The Federal cavalry especially went to repeating carbines like the Sharps and Spencer very early on. The early metal-cartridge Henry rifles and carbines also appeared at this time, although they had SIGNIFICANT issues with knock-down power (the scene in Dances with Wolves where Costner is using a Henry against bison is total BS. The early Henry had problems knocking down PEOPLE, much less an animal like that).

[mtnman]

(the scene in Dances with Wolves where Costner is using a Henry against bison is total BS. The early Henry had problems knocking down PEOPLE, much less an animal like that).

That is a pretty humorous scene, isn't it?  There are some goofy ones in The Last of the Mohican's too.  Both of those movies did a pretty good job with accuracy overall, but could still be picked apart if you know waht you're looking for.

When I was first getting into BP firearms 25 years ago, the guy who helped me build my first rifle did demonstrations for our Boy Scout group.  He's the only one I've ever seen load and shoot a muzzleloading rifle on a galloping horse.  Impressive as hell, but not very accurate...  I wouldn't want to swap cylinders on a Colt while galloping, but can imagine a few instances where I'd sure give it a try.  And if I practically lived on horseback, and practiced enough, I bet I could succeed more ofetne than not.

[Treize69]

Oh, extra cylinders. Sorry, misunderstood.

From everything I've read, you carried them uncapped. They could go off in the pouch if you didn't. Or you could accidentally set it off while loading it into the frame.

[ariansworld]

I fired that bad boy yesterday.  I got to tell you I am amazed of how good it shoots.  It shot the same whether I was shooting a factory recomended load of 23 grains or the 60 grains of powder I crammed into the cylinder.  I will definantly be buying another now, this time in .44 cal.



Arian

[Saxman]

Be careful overloading the powder. The Walker Colt had a reputation for cylinders blowing up, but what's often left out is the fact that almost all of these failures were caused by troopers doing just that.

[Treize69]

Never put more than about 30 grains into a revolver. 60 grains is almost up to carbine levels of powder. You're liable to have it blow up in your face with no warning whatsoever.

[mtnman]

I fired that bad boy yesterday.  I got to tell you I am amazed of how good it shoots.  It shot the same whether I was shooting a factory recomended load of 23 grains or the 60 grains of powder I crammed into the cylinder.  I will definantly be buying another now, this time in .44 cal.

Arian

They sure are fun, aren't they?  Something about BP firearms just gets me going, in a way no modern firearm can...  I'm amazed you got 60gr into a .36!  I'd also warn you to be careful, you may not get any warning before you have a big problem.  At least with a .36, you probably have thicker cylinder walls?  I'm not sure though, it's been years since I've played with the revolvers.  Pressure will also vary depending upon propellant type and granule size; what are you using?

I've been of work for a while due to surgery, and as a result have had time to work on finishing my latest pistol.  I'll start a thread and post pictures when it's done, maybe even video of firing it.  All I have left is some final shaping of the stock, browning the parts, and drilling for the flash hole.  I'm hoping to get it doen and use it for deer this year.

[ariansworld]

They sure are fun, aren't they?  Something about BP firearms just gets me going, in a way no modern firearm can...  I'm amazed you got 60gr into a .36!  I'd also warn you to be careful, you may not get any warning before you have a big problem.  At least with a .36, you probably have thicker cylinder walls?  I'm not sure though, it's been years since I've played with the revolvers.  Pressure will also vary depending upon propellant type and granule size; what are you using?

I've been of work for a while due to surgery, and as a result have had time to work on finishing my latest pistol.  I'll start a thread and post pictures when it's done, maybe even video of firing it.  All I have left is some final shaping of the stock, browning the parts, and drilling for the flash hole.  I'm hoping to get it doen and use it for deer this year.

I had some jim shockey's powder  fffg.  I was also using some pyrodex RS powder.  Did 60 grain loads on both.  Shot great on both, but i prefered the jim shockey's because it burned a lot cleaner.  My average load was around 24 grains.