Picture Request (Pocket/New Model Pocket)

[AdmiralB]

Does anyone have a picture of both a New Model Pocket (Pietta, I guess, is the only maker) and a Uberti or Colt pocket Navy/Police side-by-side? I'm trying to get an idea of the size differential.

Thanks, in advance.

 

[messerist]

I don't know if this photo will help but here is a 1862 police(Pietta) next to a Uberti Rem and a Uberti Walker.

 

[AdmiralB]

The Pietta is built on an 1851 frame, isn't it? So it's rather bigger than the Colt/Uberti?

 

[sltm1]

The Remmie pocket is about 1.5 in smaller than the 1849 and the 49 is smaller than the police pocket.

 

[AdmiralB]

Are those overall length numbers, or height?

The 49 is the same size as the pockets, isn't it? Except for cylinder diameter, that is (and assuming like barrel lengths). I know 49s and pockets use the same triggerguards and backstraps.

 

[Old Fuff]

The 1849 Pocket model was offered in .31 caliber, with either a 5 or 6 shot cylinder. In 1862 Colt did to it what they had done to make the 1860 Army. They took an 1851 Navy sized cylinder and made the front half larger in diameter. This so-called "rebated cylinder" made it possible to increase the chambers from .36 to .44 caliber, but retain the 1851 size frame with only a slight modification.

Returning to the Pocket Model; Doing the same thing allowed Colt to increase 5 chambers to .36 caliber. The 1862 Pocket Model of Navy Caliber and 1862 Police were the same size as the 1849 Pocket Model, but with a rebated cylinder in .36 caliber. The Colt and Uberti replicas are the correct size. The Pietta is built on the 1851 Navy/1860 Army frame, which is historically incorrect and the revolver is much larger then the original. Think of the Pietta as being an 1860 Army with a short barrel and 1/2 fluted cylinder.

Clear as mud?

 

[AdmiralB]

Clear as mud?

Quite, that's exactly how I figured.

My problem is, I'd like a small pocket-type. I bought a Pietta New Model from Cabela's...arrived yesterday and it's on the way back. Complete POS.

I did like the size, I figure the Police will be a little bigger (and at least an inch longer in barrel, since the shortest Police I can get is 4.5), but I'd like to know how much bigger!

 

[madcratebuilder]

Here is a Uberti 1849 Wells Fargo 5 rd, .31 and a 3rd Colt Trapper, 5rd .36. Same frame size, the .36 has a rebated cylinder.

 

[AdmiralB]

Never mind, got it in the other thread.

 

[Old Fuff]

Now I've become confused ... A not unusual condition.

I understand that you want a revolver with a short barrel (3" give or take) in .36 caliber, but on what frame? The 1849 - 1862 size or the 1851 - 1860?

Also keep in mind that these short length barrels have short lengh bullet rammers, which can make loading dificult. If there is no rammer assembly then you'll need to remove the cylinder and use a bench loader of some sort.

 

[Smokin_Gun]

The 1862 Pocket Model of Navy Caliber and 1862 Police were the same size as the 1849 Pocket Model, but with a rebated cylinder in .36 caliber. The Colt and Uberti replicas are the correct size.

1860 & 1862 Pocket Police

1862 Pocket Polices 5 1/2" and 6 1/2" Colts

 

[AdmiralB]

I understand that you want a revolver with a short barrel (3" give or take) in .36 caliber, but on what frame? The 1849 - 1862 size or the 1851 - 1860?

The '49/'62.

The Pietta Remington pocket would've been OK I guess - I wasn't jazzed about 31 cal, performance aside it'd be another size I'd have to keep balls for. The size was perfect, but it was utter crap. Even if it hadn't had numerous 'issues', it still felt like a toy - not worth the asking price by half.

A pocket Police in the 3.5" would be the next best thing I think, size-wise, but Uberti ain't making them anymore and nobody even knows if they can get the barrels as replacement parts.

I *can* get a pocket Police in 4.5", so I think that's what I'll do, and hope that I can either get a short barrel someday, or maybe have one turned down.

Loading effort doesn't really matter, I never use the levers (always use a press).

 

[AdmiralB]

SG, is that police in the picture with the 1860 a 5.5"?

 

[Smokin_Gun]

Yup Admiral that's a 5.5" 1862 Pocket Police... I find it to be an excellant sized Pocket or belly .36 cal Rev...

 

[madcratebuilder]

SG, my new Trapper appears to be the same frame as your 1862 Pocket Police, with out the loading lever and a 3.5 barrel. On second look the barrel shroud area is much different.

Also keep in mind that these short length barrels have short lengh bullet rammers, which can make loading dificult. If there is no rammer assembly then you'll need to remove the cylinder and use a bench loader of some sort.

Fluff, look at the bottom of the barrel shroud on the trapper. It came with a brass ram rod that you use to load the cylinder in the frame using the hole in the barrel shroud.
You sure would want a close fit on the balls.

 

[Old Fuff]

Fluff, look at the bottom of the barrel shroud on the trapper. It came with a brass ram rod that you use to load the cylinder in the frame using the hole in the barrel shroud. You sure would want a close fit on the balls.

The only difference between the regular 1862 Police model and the so-called "Trapper," is the short barrel without an attached bullet rammer. It is copied from a prototype that was in Col. Colt's personal collection. It came with the brass rammer you showed in your picture, and I don't think that many (if any) were sold during the 19th century.

The problem with all of the various short barreled (under 4 inches) configurations made on the small 1849 Pocket Model platform was how to load them. None of them afforded a way to have an effective method to ram the bullets or paper cartridges. However when metallic cartridge conversions came along in about 1872 this changed, because it was no longer necessary to do any bullet ramming.

I don’t believe that extra-short barreled revolvers were particularly popular during the cap & ball era, although I have examined a small number of ones that were cut down by gunsmiths or blacksmiths for their owners. This included one 1849 Pocket Model that was literally made into a pepperbox, and had no barrel – just the cylinder. In one story about Ben Thompson, the Texas gunfighter and gambler, it is mentioned that he sent a young (probably pre-teen) relative into town to a gunsmith “to have his six-shooter loaded” and I have often wondered if this might have been a cut-down model. The incident happened shortly after the Civil War in Texas.

Today these snubbies are popular with SASS shooters and others, but the reasons they weren’t so well received “back when…” haven’t changed.

 

[madcratebuilder]

Has anyone ever seen a period loader? I would think that someone would have thought of that back then.
I have collected several photos of old revolvers cut down to very short barrels and rounded grips, so the idea of a concealed gun was there. That 'pepperbox' Colt sounds interesting. How did they hold the cylinder in place, just a wedge?

 

[AdmiralB]

I don't think that many (if any) were sold during the 19th century.

I've seen statements that less than 500 were made/sold. I saw one on one of the auction sites a while back, that had been converted to a .38 cartridge (don't recall which).

 

[Old Fuff]

That 'pepperbox' Colt sounds interesting. How did they hold the cylinder in place, just a wedge?

I should have never cracked the door open. Now I've created a monster...

No, the wedge is too far forward. Whatever evil person did the dirty deed cut off the cylinder pin just in front of the cylinder. Then they drilled and tapped a hole in the front end to take a screw with a large but flat head. I don't believe that bench loaders were known at the time, but I wonder if the owner had a second, conventional revolver of the same kind, and swapped cylinders for the purpose of loading the pepperbox version. I suspect a professional gambler because it wouldn't have been much good beyond card table distance. In an overall view, very few revolvers were made into pocket-sized guns, and I believe that most of them were carried as a backup gun by peace officers or by gamblers - professional and otherwise.

At the time it was generally understood that if things got tense at a card game, dropping one's hand or hands below the table would likely start something of a potentially violent nature. Therefore a gambler needed a compact handgun that could be carried behind a vest but not show and be drawn quickly. All sorts of innovative methods and weapons were created to meet this need. But on the other hand it wasn't a widespread practice.

Ever see an early cartridge revolver with a small hole drilled through the front sight? Or in the case of an S&W top-break through the barrel rib? I have, and the purpose was so that the revolver could be suspended by a string, upside down – with the other end looped and tied around the shoulder. This set-up was rigged to be covered by a vest or coat, and the gun was drawn by grasping the handle and giving it a fast yank, that would break the string. Sneaky what?

 

[RyanM]

Those little 1862s are a lot smaller than I thought. Looks like about the size of a J-frame, with a longer barrel. Too bad no one makes pre-converted ones like the larger Ubertis.

I suspect a professional gambler because it wouldn't have been much good beyond card table distance.

I don't know if something like that would do much good at any distance. Haven't people tried shooting off cylinders only, when they accidentally seated a ball too long, and had the bullets bounce off soft wood?

According to my homebrew interior ballistics calculator, you'd only be getting about 350 to 400 fps for a .36 caliber ball over 25 gr of BP, seated as deep below the chamber mouth as possible. I guess that's a similar velocity to the bullet that killed Lincoln, but still, he was shot right behind the ear.

 

[arcticap]

Third_Rail from this forum had a Pietta .36 snubbie and when we went to the range together once, he was able to hit a bowling pin at 25 yards with it and a human torso sillhouette target [IDPA style] at 50 yards.

 

[Smokin_Gun]

My 1862 Pocket Police shoots well at 25 yards, makes a bean can at 10 yards jump about 6' high and 15 yards back to hit it till it's over the berm... :O)

 

[Old Fuff]

I don't know if something like that would do much good at any distance.

Well the paper ballistics aren't all that good, but if you were looking at five or six holes in the front of that odball pistol, and could see the balls in the chambers just 3 or 4 feet away....

You might be very careful about what your next move was...

 

[madcratebuilder]

Well the paper ballistics aren't all that good, but if you were looking at five or six holes in the front of that odball pistol, and could see the balls in the chambers just 3 or 4 feet away....

You might be very careful about what your next move was...

I would say that pair of fours beats my straight flush!

 

[kBob]

Reading some of the comments about loading the shorties has me baffled. The "WellsFargo" type '49s I looked at decades ago had the end of the cylinder pin machined out to allow it to be used to seat round ball in the chambers as a ram rod when the barrel was removed and the cylinder removed and set on a firm surface. No other loader was needed.

The shorties with rammers may have a length of pipe or stout tubng slipped over the ramer to give it additional length for better leverage.

nyet problemski or mutterings to that effect.

Years ago there was an article in some gun rag about olde west lawmen and one story was about a lawman named John Outlaw. In his later days of policing he apperently carred a cut down Colt 1860 sans rammer in each front coat pocket and was known for shooting through the pockets. His answer to the possible need for a reload in a short front stuffer was that he carried two revolvers. And to think folks today refer to that as a New York Reload as though it was not thought of until the mid 1900's.

-Bob Hollingsworth