36 vs 44 revolvers,? Again...

Status
Not open for further replies.

ZVP

Member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
937
I have questioned,shot,and pondered this topic and STILl have no concrete answers.
My favorite arguement is Wild Bill and his favor of the .36 Navy even though more advanced guns exhisted.
Apparently, the Navy had a propensity for great accuracy, handling speed, and stopping power. His preference was not to be tak n lightly. The Navy loaded with perhaps the standard 18 to 25 gr charge(preferably) produc s good penetration evidently irked well in the Civil war stopping adiversarys
Yes I get the "igger is better" arguement but proof is proof and Bill ain't wrong!
I ownboth calibers and am always impressed with th Navy.
Any opnions why Bill chose the Navy's???
Please chime in.
ZVP
 
Apparently the .36 cal was effective. In the hands of someone with exceptional skill the .31 might have been quite effective as well.

In my mind the .44 cal is more versatile. It can better handle critters with teeth and claws wanting retribution for having shot them in the first place. Regardless I’ve always felt bigger is better when it comes to handguns. And where the number of shots isn’t an influencing factor all the more.

If men were the only concern I could see the argument for a lighter recoiling pistol possibly. Not sure how big of a deal that would really be though as Bob Munden had no issues with recoil and a large caliber. Not many made like him though...
 
I think it has to do with what you get comfortable with. I own many pistols myself but go back to a beat up Ruger Old Army or a Blackhawk in .357 for just about anything pistol related. My all time favorite is a camp Perry model Ruger mk1. I have taken many rabbits and a coyote or two with it. Point is if find what you like and practice with it you develop the skills necessary to make those shots others would say are impossible.
 
Still, why did Wild Bill choose and be so successful with the .36 Nav
Thanks guys!
ZVP
 
Maybe Wild Bill was just comfortable with the Navies. Even though other guns were available, he was already very proficient with the Colts. Why switch to something else when what you have works perfectly?

id have to strongly agree with post above.

I have some hunting rifles that are basically 1950's in their technology. for me they work well and I have supreme confidence in them. to me that means more than having a brand new whizz bang magnum that may very well outperform my older guns.
 
How big or small was Wild Bill, big hands, small hands ??. A friend and shooting pardner who is an absolute crack shot with rifle or pistol handles any of my 44's and remarks how small the grip is. The Navy may have just suited Bills grip and in the hands of a pistoleer accuracy trumps caliber in most cases.
 
I’ve often read that there’s no finer pointer than the ‘51 Navy. I’ve often contemplated a .40 cal Navy like Colt gave to the government to test alongside the .36 cal version. Apparently I’m not the first as one has been made along with a .41 cal Remington.

In essence I’d be happier with a 4 in the front and have the cool factor of something rare that was indeed made.
 
I personally like the feel of the navy grips. My hand is large but the grip is not small feeling . My 10 year old grandson handles it easily, I think it is just a versatile configuration, next time we go to the range my wife wants to try it, and her hands are small.
As to being a pointer I think it is the best I’ve ever handled, followed by the Luger and the 1911a1.
 
I agree wholeheartedly with the Navies comfort and pointability. I have a .36 Navy and love it. I just like the higher power factor of the .44 caliber guns. I know there are some folks that don't like shooting these C&B guns, if they aren't historically accurate. So the .44 Navy isn't very popular. I totally get that, but I give the .44 Navy a pass. The NRA museum has a prototype that Colt was working on. It is a .44 caliber Navy. So for me, technically the gun did exist. It was never put into production, but it did exist. So therefore, I shoot em'. But that's just me.
 
I like the small 1862 frame size .36 best, but have larger .36 that I also like. For shooting at targets to score higher I think the .36 Remington "Navy" can't be beat. That said when hunting , with a rifle and used as back up, I like a .44 . I like the .36s because they are cheap to feed (Black powder is costly) and very accurate.
 
I agree wholeheartedly with the Navies comfort and pointability. I have a .36 Navy and love it. I just like the higher power factor of the .44 caliber guns. I know there are some folks that don't like shooting these C&B guns, if they aren't historically accurate. So the .44 Navy isn't very popular. I totally get that, but I give the .44 Navy a pass. The NRA museum has a prototype that Colt was working on. It is a .44 caliber Navy. So for me, technically the gun did exist. It was never put into production, but it did exist. So therefore, I shoot em'. But that's just me.

.44 or .40? I have heard Colt made a handful in .40, but have not read of anything larger.
 
The "44 Navy" is actually the most popular revolver that comes through the shop. It seems folks do like the octagonal barrel of the Navy with a .44 hole in it lol!! It's the "culmination" of all the posts mentioned so far in this thread. The shooter likes it and the competition crowd likes it. It seems the .36 doesn't have quite enough "clang" factor for the competition bunch so they like the .44 version for the added "insurance". Pietta definitely made a hit with their " Navy of Army caliber " !!

Mike
 
I like both calibers(.44 and .36), both have manageable recoil and obviously the .44 created a bigger hole,
But I find the .36 with a 20 grain load to be extremely accurate for me and just the feel of the Navy is more comfortable.
51292A6B-4605-45E7-A42C-01668C01B3E9.jpeg
 
I love my .36's, ive had 44s but they just dont do it for me. I mainly shoot my custom 130ish grain conicals or kaido 140grn .36 cal conicals, rarely roundballs. I get just as good of accuracy with my conicals as i do roundball, and they do some serious damage if i were to use them on game. The kaido conical weighs just as much as a 44s roundball and i use just about as much powder (24-25 grains) so id say the knock down power is close to about the same. Cant say for sure exactly why wild bill preferred the navy, but i can definately see many reasons why he, or anyone for that matter, would prefer it.
 
I've wanted a .36 Navy for years. I always seem to cave and go with a .44 though. I've heard the .36 is a tack driver. I'd love to try one out. The first time I put a .44 through a paper plate at 25 yards off hand, I was sold on how viable the BP revolvers could be. Between the low recoil and the long barrel and the adjustable charge, they just dial in well.
 
Hmmm, could be .40 caliber. I will have to find that video again and see.

Look up Joe Salter's auction site. I have lost the link for the .40 but I stole a few pics from it earlier.

28383-01.jpg

28383-05.jpg

Since the 1851 Navy was nominally a .38, .40 would not be much of an improvement.

A .44 would necessitate a rebated cylinder and a cut water table.

Jim
 
Last edited:
Perhaps it was Bill's first handguns. He started his LE career as a constable in 1858, and the other C&B pistols would not have been prevalent or available. He had his first shooting in 1861 with David McCanles, then served in the War as a teamster. It's possible he just trusted he 1851 Navy and himself with them, so why change.

Besides, this is like someone carrying a Glock when other polymer pistols are now available: XD, S&W, H&K...but he just keeps on carrying that old Glock...
 
I also read somewhere that even though cartridge bullets were available to him he still prefered cap and ball revolvers...said he didnt trust that the employee on the bullet assembly line actually put powder in the shell/case...he just wouldn't take that risk considering it was usually a life or death risk. Stated he atleast knew for a fact his cap and ball guns had powder and were properly loaded. I wonder if that was a common issue back then...finding empty cartridges without powder etc. I do know a misfire saved his life...someone had a gun on him and pulled the trigger and the gun misfired. Wonder if that was due to a dud cartridge?
 
I also read somewhere that even though cartridge bullets were available to him he still prefered cap and ball revolvers...said he didnt trust that the employee on the bullet assembly line actually put powder in the shell/case...he just wouldn't take that risk considering it was usually a life or death risk. Stated he atleast knew for a fact his cap and ball guns had powder and were properly loaded. I wonder if that was a common issue back then...finding empty cartridges without powder etc. I do know a misfire saved his life...someone had a gun on him and pulled the trigger and the gun misfired. Wonder if that was due to a dud cartridge?

If the would-be shooter was using a rimfire cartridge, could be lack of fulminate of mercury at the point the firing pin hit.
If centerfire, maybe defective or lacking cap.
There's no way of knowing, now, but factory ammo was not highly trusted back in that day.
 
Unreliable ammunition is the reason that many early rimfires had 2 firing pins. To increase the chances of the pin hitting an area of the rim with primer in it.

When talking about 19th century pistols we need to remember that any wound was potentially fatal. Medical science at the time had no treatment for even simple infections. If you were shot in a limb it would be amputated but a torso hit could not be treated.

This made any caliber of projectile deadly. So a 36 could create the same deterant effect as 44. This would make the lighter weight and lighter recoiling 36 an appealing option. Especially when the majority of colt pistols sold, at the time, where for concield carry

Personally I prefer the 36 cal pistols. Especially my 36 Remington and 36 Colt Metropolitan Police.

IronHand
 
"At the time of his death Hickok was wearing a Smith & Wesson Model 2 Army Revolver, a newly released five-shot, single-action 38 cal. weapon.
Bonhams auction company offered this pistol at auction on November 18, 2013, in San Francisco, California, described as Hickok's Smith & Wesson No. 2,
serial number 29963, a .32 rimfire with a six-inch barrel, blued finish and varnished rosewood grips.
The gun did not sell because the highest bid of $220,000 was less than the reserve set by the gun's owners."--->>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Bill_Hickok

Smith & Wesson Model 2 Army Revolver--->>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_&_Wesson_Model_No._2_Army
 
Last edited:
Ironhand54, are u talking about the pietta new york metropolitan police .36? I have one of them and i love it. Its one of my faves. I got the steel framed with nickel plated trigger guard and backstrap with half fluted cylinder.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top