Can't say that I'm a fan. I love how the octagonal 'shank' on the 1848 Dragoon transitions into a round barrel and opted for a Navy that had the same effect. Luckily there are such round-barrel 1851 Navy models available as Confederate "Colt clones": the Griswold & Gunnison by Pietta, and the Leech & Rigdon by Uberti.
The interchangeability of the colt revolvers is one of my favorite parts of the design. It allows you to have anything from a snub-nose with a birds head grip to a revolving carbine depending on what parts you have. And if you do want a shoulder stock emf has them on sale at the moment.
Great side by side explanation and comparison of the two revolvers. I own both and actually own 3 different 51’s. Funny thing, I just put up a video of the 1860 and how it shoots for me. I’m still working with it. I really enjoy your videos Dustin. Thanks Compadre.
Colt called the lever system,- 'Creeping Lever'. Patented. Of course. The cylinders 'switchability' is why there is the caliber stamping on the trigger guards.
Your videos are always such quality videos. Well done Sir. I happen to really like the extra thickness of the walls between chambers on the cylinder of the .36 Navy. Thickness of the barrel as well. Those guns are so fun to shoot. I bought extra cylinders from Cabelas and when shooting, I load all the cylinder with a loading press making the loading much quicker and easier, then nothing left but a bunch of shooting. Absolutely love the relaxing experience of shooting black powder... tks for the video!!!
Love both those guns! Love the silhouette shape of the 1860, but love the octagonal barrel of the 1851. Plus the 1851 always reminds me of the gun Blondie used in The Good The Bad and the Ugly. :) Subscribed. :)
Super helpful thanks, as I'm eyeballing both of these repro pistols as cartridge conversions. -And it's not like most local gunshops actually carry them in stock to pick up and hold.
"I think the Army is actually somewhat better looking as a revolver..." *unsubscribe* Hah, just kidding. Always appreciate and enjoy your videos, Dustin.
More great content. I will note that the 1851 was available in a couple of odd calibers in very limited numbers back in the day. First was a handful made in .34 caliber and they were marked so. So if you look at some originals you just might find one in .34. Be prepared to pay a premium as there were not a lot of them made. Even more rare (with only 5 made for testing by the US Navy Bureau of Ordnance) is the 1851 in .40 caliber. Thanks once again for your work. Keep it up as I love seeing your videos.
@@rwbimbie5854 I'm not sure about the original technique, but the modern made replicas start with a rough blank of solid steel that then gets machined. You can see some of that on Pietta's Facebook page. They feature some photos of parts during the production process. From those I deduced that they're machined using modern techniques, so if I'm wrong then someone else can correct me.
@@blacksheep_edge1412 Oh. I was just wondering about caliber changes, or extended barrel liners. I guess it would take reaming out a 44 barrel assembly, and using 36/9mm/32 turned barrel insert.
@@rwbimbie5854 You can buy a separate pistol in .36 and swap the barrels and cylinders back and forth as you wish (both the 1851 and 1860 replicas come in .36 AND .44). And I wouldn't try to create a barrel insert that would use modern ammo as the cylinder and frame won't be strong enough to handle the higher pressures and stress that come from using modern smokeless powders.
@@blacksheep_edge1412 I want thinking about Cartridge conversion, just a bore to use slugs of those calibers. Light weight 9mm slugs are cheap. But to buy factory specialty barrels is almost the cost of a new gun
And if you put that longer grip / frame on the 1851 you have a cap and ball Alchemista lol! Nice to see the comparison, I always thought the streamlined 1860's designs were neat, but can't get away from how cool the 1851s look. They have this almost art deco look. Plus I've found that the octagonal barrel gives it a nice balance. Shot mine today for the first time, and after a few shots going high, was ringing steel despite never firing a cap and ball sixgun before (been shooting mostly muzzle loading single shot pistols / rifles). It seems to aim very naturally. I will say after shooting a .50 kentucky pistol, a .36 with a mild charge does not have hardly any recoil, so I understand why you recommend it for new shooters, but my first reaction to that first shot was: "hey did it actually go off?"
Thanks for the video, the 1860 will hopefully be my next BP pistol. Happy Easter! Question, even though Colts shoot high, how are they for using more of a flash sight picture, on horseback? More of a truly 1800s combat pistol.
I just love the look and feel of the 1851, the grips fit me better and it just points so naturally and that's important as the sights on all these replicas are rudimentary. I went for a Pietta "London Model" with the silver back-strap and trigger guard, l that is pieced together with a 1860 frame and cylinder but a 1851 (44 cal.) barrel and grip. I wanted the bigger 44 cal. I know it's not authentic but none of the replicas are really and those are the features I liked. I might add I got a good one the action is as smooth as slick with all the wonderful clicks in the action and a crisp/smooth trigger.
Great vid man. Can't get enough of BP revolvers and have several. Great to actually be able to take it all the way down and reassemble, simple yet efficient in design. Plus so much fun to shoot.
Hello, now I understand why Clint Eastwood preferred the Colt 1851 and not the 1860, which is heavier and more uncomfortable to handle... he chose it for a reason, it was his favorite weapon. Kind regards from Argentina.
You left out about the 1860 Army's cutouts on the bottom of the "recoil shield" (well, on cartridge revolvers) and the notch in the base of the grip which were also for the shoulder stock attachment.
I have the Authentic Colts. Navys, old and new, and Armys too. I was surprised to notice the New Navy Model is j u s t as heavy as the New Model Army! The Army actually f e e l s lighter and sleeker. Good job.
I don’t think they made the forcing cone longer to accommodate a shorter cylinder on the 1851. Since it came out first....but you know a lot more about it than me. I could be wrong. Great Video 👍
I may have just worded that poorly. You’re right that it came out first. The forcing on the 1851 cone is long to fill that space, but they weren’t changing an 1860 to do it. Thanks for watching!
I would conject that Colt made the frame that long for the 1851 Navy to maintain the same cylinder/forcing cone length found in the 1848 Army, keeping the conical cutout in the barrel shoulder proportionally consistent. That would preclude any potential complaints of .36 conicals not being able to fit in the Navy.
Today is the first time seeing your channel. As I was watching, I thought to my self, “ self, this dude’s from utah!” And not to my surprise, you are. Nice videos “brother”.
What was the reason for changing the barrel of the 1851 to the 1860/61 style? It's obvious Colt was efficient in their manufacturing process given that they all use the same frame, like the Dragoon and Walker. It seems odd to develop new machining just to have a slightly smoother loading process, as you point out.
There was more models being developed at Colt than just these two guns, you know. Between 1851 and 1860 you see the sidehammers, Root's patent on the creeping loader, and various revolver rifles and carbines. Of course they were going to spiff things up in the intervening nine years.
If you like the longer grip of the 1860, then you should know that the trigger guard, backstrap and grips of the 1860 will fit the 1851 Navy, 1861 Navy and the 1873 SAA. I did that on my .45 LC 1873, and it's great.
I own both a Navy and an Army both .44 and when I took them apart I decided to custom them and swap parts and they look great and function well no problems at all
were these both with Pietta guns? I have an Uberti 1860 Army that i would like to put an 1851 Navy barrel onto. The only company that makes a Navy barrel in 44 is Pietta of course. Do you know at all about if Pietta .44 Navy Barrel should fit on Uberti 1860 frame?
Thanks for the nice video. To me, the 1851 Navy is altogether nicer aesthetically. If I remember correctly, the 1860 Army and 1861 Navy were both more practical than the 1851 Navy, particularly the catch on the loading lever, but who cares when it's all for fun. The 1851 is on my wish list. Didn't they use to do the post 1868 bore-through conversion on the 1860 & 1861?
Apparently my Pietta model 1851 has an army style cylinder but with a naval scene engraved, so they got that wrong. But maybe they had to, to avoid copyright infringement laws. It also has a brass frame instead of a case hardened one. I also inlayed my grips with turquoise.😁
Something your forgot to mention is historically the 1851 and 1860 had engraved on its cylinder “Engaged 16 May 1843”. The battle depicted was, 1843 second texas Campeche Mexican-American naval battle scene." just saying :)
I came across some interesting numbers. What would you say is a nominal load for a Colt Army and a Colt Navy? For the Army, a 140-grain round ball charged with 30 grains of powder? And the Navy, it'd be an 80-grain ball with 20 grains of powder. You can't call those loads paltry at all... ...now, a quartet of those Army rounds comes out to 560 grains of lead that need to be cast, and a total of 120 grains of black powder to fill those four chambers. Take those same totals to the Navy load, what do we get? _Seven_ lead balls, and enough powder to fill all six chambers. The ammunition resources needed to fill an Army revolver only 2/3rds the way are enough for a full load in a Navy revolver (with one lead ball to spare).
@@1337penguinman indeed. i wasn't concerned with it at the time though as I never handled either and wasn't really sure how the grip would naturally rest in the hand. maybe just a bit too eager to get a BP pistol, and should have done more homework first.
I'm a big fan f the 1860 Army I own three c&b and two conversions and an open top. Great grips colt missed the target by choosing the 1851 Navy grips for the SAA 1873 in my view.
I've done the interchange and actually shot my 36 cyl and barrel on the 1860 frame, just because I could. Or, you can take the grip and grip frame from the 1860 and put it on the '51. Just don't mix mfg. (An Uberti barrel probably won't fit on a Pietta frame.) Have you decided yet if you prefer the Colts or the Remington?
Jakeway Rewa that’s what I’d like to know as well. I have the Remington NMA and 1851 Colt, but not the 1860 (yet). Haven’t decided if I like the open tops or the Remmies more yet. Would be interesting to hear which Mr. Winegar prefers and why. 🤠 Awesome vids btw
Dustin, could you clear up for me please if 1851 Navy barrel in 44 from Pietta should fit on an 1860 Army frame from Uberti? I been looking all over the interweb... I have a beautiful Fluted cylinder 1860 Army from Uberti that i would like to make a custom sized "block front" Navy Barrel for. Of course Uberti does not make a 1851 Navy in .44 cal for me to work with. I need to find out if the Pietta Navy Barrel will fit an Uberti 1860 Army frame, preferably with little modification.
I just bought one of the 1860 but it’s a navy and it’s a .36 but for the life of me I can’t seem to get the wedge out and I ain’t gonna shoot it until I can get that wedge out so I can clean it afterwards smh🤦🏻♂️
The design philosophy of the guns were very different with each having its own merits. The Navy had an octagonal barrel that was overbuilt to strengthen the design, since steel quality of the time was inconsistent. That makes the design more durable since there is more metal containing less pressure. The .36 caliber was a compromise; just enough punch for 2 legged foes, not enough for a horse. And it accomplished it with less lead and powder during wartime supply shortages. The grip was designed to be unobtrusive during typical carry. The loading lever was a simple and unrefined rack and pinion that juts out like a sore thumb, but still seats a ball. Overall, the Navy embodies minimalism, durability, economy, handiness, and all the humble charm of a competent workman. It does only the job you need without getting in the way and it may be ugly, but it’s handy in hard times. The 1860 has a different appeal. Its barrel is thin, because it can take more pressure with less metal. It’s also elegant and larger, seeming to boast about itself. The loading lever is refined and better suited for seating a ball. The .44 is an arrogant caliber. The cylinder practically bends at the sides to aspire to the power of a horse pistol, but ends up holding only a mere 5 more grains of powder, and despite its pretense of exceptional power, it hits only marginally harder than the Navy while using more powder and lead. The extra screws are ornamental and serve to further inflate the ego of this weapon, suggesting it would actually be a carbine if it wasn’t already succeeding so well as a belt pistol. At its core, it too is a Navy, but the grip juts out like a proud jawline, seeming to purposefully occupy more space on a belt. It projects youth, newness, braggadocio, and naïve bravery. It’s also strong enough that it can narrowly get out of bad scrapes with just enough confidence that its bluff is never called. Of the two brothers, the Navy is the smaller, muscular, older brother with hard learned humility and a utilitarian ethic. The Army is the taller, brash, younger brother with a slicked back hairdo concealing the same basic frame under a veneer of charisma , vanity, and bold self congratulation. Both are good companions for the trail. Happy shooting!
Can you please do side by side review shooting video I know have single video by why not compare shooting side by side would be more entertaining power accuracy handling I have colt navy 36 n use to have 1858 remington sheriff I only shoot 777 more powerful n doesn't rust my gun at all even if I don't clean for month or two I just think be cool if you shot both one after another anyways I always enjoy your videos just think would be more exciting
The originals would have been interchangeable as well. I doubt that was the intention though. I think Colt was just saving money by using the same frame on the Army that was used on the Navy. Thanks for watching!
They shoot high because of using the hammer as the rear sight. And you can always do what the old timers did, Kentucky Windage it. Kentucky Windage is basically a fancy short hand way of saying adjust your point of aim to compensate for where the gun (or rifle) will hit based on the weapons natural point of aim, the wind, and other factor that will affect the point of impact of your shot. As to changing the front sight post to compensate? You'd have to talk to a gunsmith that is familiar with BP Colt revolvers to get that answer, as I'm sure most current BP Colt owners like using them unaltered for the historical aspect.
I'm also wondering if they shot high because it was the army that was leading the designs on these and armies typically had longer engagement needs. 50 feet or more might've been what they thought they wanted the guns to shoot at thinking they'd be use across battlefields.
@@MarkTarsis Probably? They are said to have an effective firing range of 50 - 75 yards on the 1860 Army model. Which means that without adjusting your point of aim you should be able to hit, and kill, your target from 150 - 225 feet. Which for a pistol is a long distance shot for the poorly trained soldiers of the 19th century.
If you compared both guns for self defense purposes ( using 44. caliber for both, and same grain)....which gun is best? Would barrel length be the deciding factor?
Just a little snack, regarding why the Naval Scene is on the Navy and Army pistols,- Colt Didn t make them for the Navy nor the Army. He simply made them for all! He didn t call them Navy nor Army either. (These 'monikers' came later by users, The Colt Company adopted these names as nomenclature, as well as the .36/.44 ref to Navy/Army). Colt Simply called them 'Belt and Holster Pistols'. He didn t make a 'Navy' or 'Army' pistol. He simply made Belt and Holster Pistols. The Naval Scene is on both of them because Colt did this as an homage to the Naval use of his earlier pistols. It wasn t meant to signify them as Navy , .
If this line of Colts were introduced today instead of 170 years ago, the .31 caliber would be known simply as the Colt; the .36 caliber would be the Colt Pro; and the .44 would be the Colt Max. Pocket/Navy/Army = Standard/Pro/Max. We have to remember Sam Colt was a salesman of the highest order and branding was his thing.
Remember when the Ugly assembled his pistol after surviving the desert march in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly? Then the old store proprietor shows him the shitty pistols but The Ugly ain’t havin those. “Revolvahs!”
Well the 1851 navy In 44cal is better then both lol. You get the power of the 1861 44cal while having less screws on the frame and the bead sight of the 1851 is easier to shave down for sighting in. Also the 1851 in 44cal is smaller in most dimensions then the 1861.
You probably don’t understand how correct you are. During the 50s and 60s, some celluloid cowboys discovered that the model 1873 grip frame was too small for larger hands and prop masters simply substituted the 1860 grip frame! I believe that Colt used the 1851 grip frame on the 1873 because people preferred it on the 1871-72 transition model(available with both grips). The 1851 grip frame was also better for concealed carry on the shorter barreled models(you drop the butt into your upper right interior coat pocket and draw the barrel with the left hand).
@@BogeyTheBear The only ones people seem to complain about loading is the pointed tip Confederate/Eras Gone conicals. Lee makes a round nose bullet mold in .375 and it loads as easily as a ball in the Pietta.
Not at all. The arbor of an 1847 Walker is thicker than the one on a Navy (or 1860 Army). You could try installing the arbor of an 1847 Walker into the frame of an 1848 Dragoon, if you want the longer cylinder and barrel of Walker but the larger grip and more reliable mainspring of the Dragoon.
@@GunsOfTheWest ah I knew that you can get BP in the US without any FFl transfer but since the ATF is a bit fucky wucky with things i thought it applies to all gun like objects per say
Also how about the ammo?Today's replica of these 2 guns-are they just like the usual bullet loads you'll find e.g 38 or 357 magnum or they do still require those ammo with wrapped paper? Thanks for the input.
If you acquire a conversion cylinder for either model, the rounds they will accept (.45 Colt for the 1860, .38 Special for the 1851) will have to be "cowboy loads"-- comparatively low-velocity charges pushing a solid lead (unjacketed) projectile.
Hello, so the cylinder of the navy can fit into the army does it work okay with the army barrel too? If it does I guess the army can shoot either a 44 or 38 using its own barrel? Thanks
4:32 The Army barrel has a much shorter forcing cone, the tube in the back of the barrel assembly that bridges the gap between the cylinder and barrel. You put the Army barrel with the short Navy cylinder, you will see a large gap open between them.
@@GunsOfTheWest thank you Dustin! I'm in the market for a 1860 Barrel in .44 but can't seem to find one anywhere, seems like parts are harder to find than the guns themselves!...if you have any suggestions I'd greatly appreciate!
The cylinders were made of wrought iron in those days, and you had to have a lot of metal between the chambers if you wanted the cylinder to hold together under use. Boring chambers for .44 caliber required the large cylinder you find in the Walker and Dragoon. Colt wanted to produce a much lighter gun, but all he could manage to get out of such a design was .36 caliber-- if you try boring out the chamber to .44, the walls would be too thin and weak. It would take a few more years before the Bessemer Process was patented to change the rules.
Both models can use the same caps, as the back half of their cylinders are identical in dimension. Means the nipples can be replaced between them as well.
I guess that, since the guns are not recognized as 'firearms' at the Federal level, they wouldn't become a short-barreled rifle because the definition of one hinges on it being a firearm in the first place.
My channel now has merch! Click on this link to see the available products. Thanks for supporting the channel!
teespring.com/stores/guns-of-the-west
There is just something about the octagonal barrel that I love.
Me too. I would much rather have an octagonal barrel. The Army is a beautiful gun I just love the barrel on the Navy.
Octagon looks like it’s better quality idk but I love the barrel on the navy it is just amazing !!
I adore the octagon barrel it was my choice for my first.
Can't say that I'm a fan. I love how the octagonal 'shank' on the 1848 Dragoon transitions into a round barrel and opted for a Navy that had the same effect.
Luckily there are such round-barrel 1851 Navy models available as Confederate "Colt clones": the Griswold & Gunnison by Pietta, and the Leech & Rigdon by Uberti.
It is so westerny
I really love the grips on those, too. Not that overly shiny polyurethane coating like the Ubertis.
Terrific info, man!!
Thanks, Santee!
Guns Of The West are
I put those shinny Uberti grips in my case clean tumbler for an hour, took that gloss right off.
The interchangeability of the colt revolvers is one of my favorite parts of the design. It allows you to have anything from a snub-nose with a birds head grip to a revolving carbine depending on what parts you have. And if you do want a shoulder stock emf has them on sale at the moment.
Great side by side explanation and comparison of the two revolvers. I own both and actually own 3 different 51’s. Funny thing, I just put up a video of the 1860 and how it shoots for me. I’m still working with it. I really enjoy your videos Dustin. Thanks Compadre.
"Porters Place" in Lehi Utah is the back ground at the beginning of this video. Great food and a part of pioneer history as well.
Colt called the lever system,- 'Creeping Lever'. Patented. Of course. The cylinders 'switchability' is why there is the caliber stamping on the trigger guards.
Thanks for explaining the purpose of that extra screw on the 1860 Army. I've always wondered about that.
enjoyed the Colt comparison Pard. Some day I'll add a .36 to my collection. *LIKED* the video.
Your videos are always such quality videos. Well done Sir. I happen to really like the extra thickness of the walls between chambers on the cylinder of the .36 Navy. Thickness of the barrel as well. Those guns are so fun to shoot. I bought extra cylinders from Cabelas and when shooting, I load all the cylinder with a loading press making the loading much quicker and easier, then nothing left but a bunch of shooting. Absolutely love the relaxing experience of shooting black powder... tks for the video!!!
Thanks for watching!
I like your username. He’s one of my favorite historical figures in The Book of Mormon.
Nice video! I was looking for this information. By the way, I love your "sombrero cordobés" (Cordoba hat). Greetings from Spain!
Interesting. An owner of both could actually have a large grip Navy if they so pleased.
Love both those guns! Love the silhouette shape of the 1860, but love the octagonal barrel of the 1851. Plus the 1851 always reminds me of the gun Blondie used in The Good The Bad and the Ugly. :)
Subscribed. :)
The 1851 IS the gun Blondie used in The Good the Bad and the Ugly.
@@ericsmith5919
That’s why it reminds me of it !
This was, in fact, very informative. I think the army has nice, sleek curves, but I think it would look even better with that octagonal barrel.
Good video.
I do not have a 1860 army. So did not know about the frame size .
Super helpful thanks, as I'm eyeballing both of these repro pistols as cartridge conversions. -And it's not like most local gunshops actually carry them in stock to pick up and hold.
Thanks for watching!
"I think the Army is actually somewhat better looking as a revolver..."
*unsubscribe*
Hah, just kidding. Always appreciate and enjoy your videos, Dustin.
Thanks for watching!
Lol I love the look of the 51 barrel much better.
I prefer the "primitive" look of the two-hinge barrel in the 1851. The sleeker barrel of the 1860/1861 is almost sci-fi ray-gun in appearance.
Navy is far better looking. And has better ergonomics.
More great content. I will note that the 1851 was available in a couple of odd calibers in very limited numbers back in the day. First was a handful made in .34 caliber and they were marked so. So if you look at some originals you just might find one in .34. Be prepared to pay a premium as there were not a lot of them made. Even more rare (with only 5 made for testing by the US Navy Bureau of Ordnance) is the 1851 in .40 caliber. Thanks once again for your work. Keep it up as I love seeing your videos.
How is the barrel assembly made?
Is the bore drilled into the full form, or is a separate rifled barrel insert screwed/pressed in?
@@rwbimbie5854 I'm not sure about the original technique, but the modern made replicas start with a rough blank of solid steel that then gets machined. You can see some of that on Pietta's Facebook page. They feature some photos of parts during the production process. From those I deduced that they're machined using modern techniques, so if I'm wrong then someone else can correct me.
@@blacksheep_edge1412 Oh. I was just wondering about caliber changes, or extended barrel liners.
I guess it would take reaming out a 44 barrel assembly, and using 36/9mm/32 turned barrel insert.
@@rwbimbie5854 You can buy a separate pistol in .36 and swap the barrels and cylinders back and forth as you wish (both the 1851 and 1860 replicas come in .36 AND .44). And I wouldn't try to create a barrel insert that would use modern ammo as the cylinder and frame won't be strong enough to handle the higher pressures and stress that come from using modern smokeless powders.
@@blacksheep_edge1412 I want thinking about Cartridge conversion, just a bore to use slugs of those calibers. Light weight 9mm slugs are cheap. But to buy factory specialty barrels is almost the cost of a new gun
And if you put that longer grip / frame on the 1851 you have a cap and ball Alchemista lol!
Nice to see the comparison, I always thought the streamlined 1860's designs were neat, but can't get away from how cool the 1851s look. They have this almost art deco look. Plus I've found that the octagonal barrel gives it a nice balance. Shot mine today for the first time, and after a few shots going high, was ringing steel despite never firing a cap and ball sixgun before (been shooting mostly muzzle loading single shot pistols / rifles). It seems to aim very naturally.
I will say after shooting a .50 kentucky pistol, a .36 with a mild charge does not have hardly any recoil, so I understand why you recommend it for new shooters, but my first reaction to that first shot was: "hey did it actually go off?"
I own three navies love the balance and feel. Will probably get 1860 army at Some point maybe from Dixie
Well done. Short and to the point.
By the way, I enjoy your program very much.
Thanks for the video, the 1860 will hopefully be my next BP pistol. Happy Easter! Question, even though Colts shoot high, how are they for using more of a flash sight picture, on horseback? More of a truly 1800s combat pistol.
They’re fine for that, since they’re great for point shooting anyway. Thanks for watching!
learning lots,,,,,thanks for the great videos,
Thanks for watching!
I just love the look and feel of the 1851, the grips fit me better and it just points so naturally and that's important as the sights on all these replicas are rudimentary. I went for a Pietta "London Model" with the silver back-strap and trigger guard, l that is pieced together with a 1860 frame and cylinder but a 1851 (44 cal.) barrel and grip. I wanted the bigger 44 cal. I know it's not authentic but none of the replicas are really and those are the features I liked. I might add I got a good one the action is as smooth as slick with all the wonderful clicks in the action and a crisp/smooth trigger.
Great vid man. Can't get enough of BP revolvers and have several. Great to actually be able to take it all the way down and reassemble, simple yet efficient in design. Plus so much fun to shoot.
both beautiful, thanks so much !!!
Hello, now I understand why Clint Eastwood preferred the Colt 1851 and not the 1860, which is heavier and more uncomfortable to handle... he chose it for a reason, it was his favorite weapon. Kind regards from Argentina.
It's a movie bro😂😂
You left out about the 1860 Army's cutouts on the bottom of the "recoil shield" (well, on cartridge revolvers) and the notch in the base of the grip which were also for the shoulder stock attachment.
I have the Authentic Colts. Navys, old and new, and Armys too. I was surprised to notice the New Navy Model is j u s t as heavy as the New Model Army! The Army actually f e e l s lighter and sleeker.
Good job.
With the "interchangeability" I get reminded of the scene in the gun store of "The Good The Bad and The Ugly"
Great video very helpful to alot of people getting started in these revolvers.Thanks for sharing God bless. 👍
Thanks for watching!
I don’t think they made the forcing cone longer to accommodate a shorter cylinder on the 1851. Since it came out first....but you know a lot more about it than me. I could be wrong. Great Video 👍
I may have just worded that poorly. You’re right that it came out first. The forcing on the 1851 cone is long to fill that space, but they weren’t changing an 1860 to do it. Thanks for watching!
I would conject that Colt made the frame that long for the 1851 Navy to maintain the same cylinder/forcing cone length found in the 1848 Army, keeping the conical cutout in the barrel shoulder proportionally consistent. That would preclude any potential complaints of .36 conicals not being able to fit in the Navy.
This switching of parts created the 1860 Marine Corps.
Another great video Dustin.
Thanks!
Today is the first time seeing your channel. As I was watching, I thought to my self, “ self, this dude’s from utah!” And not to my surprise, you are. Nice videos “brother”.
Thanks for watching! Are you in Utah too?
@@GunsOfTheWest yes up in plain city
What was the reason for changing the barrel of the 1851 to the 1860/61 style?
It's obvious Colt was efficient in their manufacturing process given that they all use the same frame, like the Dragoon and Walker.
It seems odd to develop new machining just to have a slightly smoother loading process, as you point out.
There was more models being developed at Colt than just these two guns, you know. Between 1851 and 1860 you see the sidehammers, Root's patent on the creeping loader, and various revolver rifles and carbines. Of course they were going to spiff things up in the intervening nine years.
If you like the longer grip of the 1860, then you should know that the trigger guard, backstrap and grips of the 1860 will fit the 1851 Navy, 1861 Navy and the 1873 SAA. I did that on my .45 LC 1873, and it's great.
Thank you, very helpful
Nice video Sir.
0:10 What's that rider statue below the picture behind you? I'd like to see it in detail. Great video!
Where can you find a shoulder stock???👍🏾😀❤️🇺🇸
Found one at Dixie gun works!!!! 🎊🎉🎊🎉❤️🇺🇸
I would try Taylor’s & Company. Thanks for watching!
I own both a Navy and an Army both
.44 and when I took them apart I decided to custom them and swap parts and they look great and function well no problems at all
were these both with Pietta guns? I have an Uberti 1860 Army that i would like to put an 1851 Navy barrel onto. The only company that makes a Navy barrel in 44 is Pietta of course. Do you know at all about if Pietta .44 Navy Barrel should fit on Uberti 1860 frame?
It will not
@@couerleroi1 it will but with a little milling
Both are very nice guns!
I love the blocky look of the Navy. It's just a good-looking revolver. I definitely want one converted to 44 magnum cartridge.
Thanks for the nice video. To me, the 1851 Navy is altogether nicer aesthetically. If I remember correctly, the 1860 Army and 1861 Navy were both more practical than the 1851 Navy, particularly the catch on the loading lever, but who cares when it's all for fun. The 1851 is on my wish list.
Didn't they use to do the post 1868 bore-through conversion on the 1860 & 1861?
I'm so torn!
Great video, thank you.
Thanks for a great video.
Apparently my Pietta model 1851 has an army style cylinder but with a naval scene engraved, so they got that wrong. But maybe they had to, to avoid copyright infringement laws. It also has a brass frame instead of a case hardened one. I also inlayed my grips with turquoise.😁
The Colt 1860 Army cylinder actually did still have that engraving on it.
I like the looks of that 1855 1/2 Aavy. :) I have large hands and would appreciate the grip size as you do.
LOL!
The octagonal barrel automatically makes the navy better
It does look nice. Thanks for watching!
I think the Colt Navy is the most beautiful hand gun ever made.
Great video
Something your forgot to mention is historically the 1851 and 1860 had engraved on its cylinder “Engaged 16 May 1843”. The battle depicted was, 1843 second texas Campeche Mexican-American naval battle scene." just saying :)
Both are fantastic weapons, absolutely beautiful, precise and deadly even for our today standards.
I came across some interesting numbers. What would you say is a nominal load for a Colt Army and a Colt Navy?
For the Army, a 140-grain round ball charged with 30 grains of powder? And the Navy, it'd be an 80-grain ball with 20 grains of powder. You can't call those loads paltry at all...
...now, a quartet of those Army rounds comes out to 560 grains of lead that need to be cast, and a total of 120 grains of black powder to fill those four chambers. Take those same totals to the Navy load, what do we get? _Seven_ lead balls, and enough powder to fill all six chambers.
The ammunition resources needed to fill an Army revolver only 2/3rds the way are enough for a full load in a Navy revolver (with one lead ball to spare).
The 1860 is my favorite cap and ball of all time.
i actually like smaller grips on handguns. can you replace the army grip with the navy grip, or would the frame not line up with the screw holes?
Better option these days would be to get a .44 Navy.
@@1337penguinman indeed. i wasn't concerned with it at the time though as I never handled either and wasn't really sure how the grip would naturally rest in the hand. maybe just a bit too eager to get a BP pistol, and should have done more homework first.
I was wondering if a 70's model Uberti will interchange with a modern Uberti?
I just bought the 1860 uberti army. Which cap primer would you recommend sir?
I like Remington #10 caps.
I'm a big fan f the 1860 Army I own three c&b and two conversions and an open top. Great grips colt missed the target by choosing the 1851 Navy grips for the SAA 1873 in my view.
Nice video. However, it is not correct to refer to a "rack and pinion" system on the loading lever for the Army. There is no rack, and no pinion.
I've done the interchange and actually shot my 36 cyl and barrel on the 1860 frame, just because I could. Or, you can take the grip and grip frame from the 1860 and put it on the '51. Just don't mix mfg. (An Uberti barrel probably won't fit on a Pietta frame.) Have you decided yet if you prefer the Colts or the Remington?
Jakeway Rewa that’s what I’d like to know as well. I have the Remington NMA and 1851 Colt, but not the 1860 (yet). Haven’t decided if I like the open tops or the Remmies more yet. Would be interesting to hear which Mr. Winegar prefers and why. 🤠
Awesome vids btw
The 1873 SAA seems to have the same hand-grip as the 1851 Navy...
It does. They’re actually interchangeable.
eu sou Admirador do Oeste Americano e suas armas histórica 🇧🇷
Dustin, could you clear up for me please if 1851 Navy barrel in 44 from Pietta should fit on an 1860 Army frame from Uberti? I been looking all over the interweb... I have a beautiful Fluted cylinder 1860 Army from Uberti that i would like to make a custom sized "block front" Navy Barrel for. Of course Uberti does not make a 1851 Navy in .44 cal for me to work with. I need to find out if the Pietta Navy Barrel will fit an Uberti 1860 Army frame, preferably with little modification.
I just bought one of the 1860 but it’s a navy and it’s a .36 but for the life of me I can’t seem to get the wedge out and I ain’t gonna shoot it until I can get that wedge out so I can clean it afterwards smh🤦🏻♂️
The design philosophy of the guns were very different with each having its own merits. The Navy had an octagonal barrel that was overbuilt to strengthen the design, since steel quality of the time was inconsistent. That makes the design more durable since there is more metal containing less pressure. The .36 caliber was a compromise; just enough punch for 2 legged foes, not enough for a horse. And it accomplished it with less lead and powder during wartime supply shortages. The grip was designed to be unobtrusive during typical carry. The loading lever was a simple and unrefined rack and pinion that juts out like a sore thumb, but still seats a ball. Overall, the Navy embodies minimalism, durability, economy, handiness, and all the humble charm of a competent workman. It does only the job you need without getting in the way and it may be ugly, but it’s handy in hard times.
The 1860 has a different appeal. Its barrel is thin, because it can take more pressure with less metal. It’s also elegant and larger, seeming to boast about itself. The loading lever is refined and better suited for seating a ball. The .44 is an arrogant caliber. The cylinder practically bends at the sides to aspire to the power of a horse pistol, but ends up holding only a mere 5 more grains of powder, and despite its pretense of exceptional power, it hits only marginally harder than the Navy while using more powder and lead. The extra screws are ornamental and serve to further inflate the ego of this weapon, suggesting it would actually be a carbine if it wasn’t already succeeding so well as a belt pistol. At its core, it too is a Navy, but the grip juts out like a proud jawline, seeming to purposefully occupy more space on a belt. It projects youth, newness, braggadocio, and naïve bravery. It’s also strong enough that it can narrowly get out of bad scrapes with just enough confidence that its bluff is never called.
Of the two brothers, the Navy is the smaller, muscular, older brother with hard learned humility and a utilitarian ethic. The Army is the taller, brash, younger brother with a slicked back hairdo concealing the same basic frame under a veneer of charisma , vanity, and bold self congratulation. Both are good companions for the trail. Happy shooting!
Can you please do side by side review shooting video I know have single video by why not compare shooting side by side would be more entertaining power accuracy handling I have colt navy 36 n use to have 1858 remington sheriff I only shoot 777 more powerful n doesn't rust my gun at all even if I don't clean for month or two I just think be cool if you shot both one after another anyways I always enjoy your videos just think would be more exciting
We’re they originally designed interchangeable?
The originals would have been interchangeable as well. I doubt that was the intention though. I think Colt was just saving money by using the same frame on the Army that was used on the Navy. Thanks for watching!
Off subject but I have made a small amount of black powder granulated to fff. My problem is that the powder burns to hot. What am I doing wrong?
Very nice video! My first time watching, but I'm for sure gonna subscribe.
Interesting, learn something today,thank you sir☕️☕️👍
Can both of the wedges be interchangably used by both revolver Dustin ?
In theory, yes, the wedges are the same. In practice, every gun has its own quirks.
Why do they shoot high, Did the originals? How much would be needed to be added to front sight to bring on to target?
They shoot high because of using the hammer as the rear sight. And you can always do what the old timers did, Kentucky Windage it. Kentucky Windage is basically a fancy short hand way of saying adjust your point of aim to compensate for where the gun (or rifle) will hit based on the weapons natural point of aim, the wind, and other factor that will affect the point of impact of your shot. As to changing the front sight post to compensate? You'd have to talk to a gunsmith that is familiar with BP Colt revolvers to get that answer, as I'm sure most current BP Colt owners like using them unaltered for the historical aspect.
I'm also wondering if they shot high because it was the army that was leading the designs on these and armies typically had longer engagement needs. 50 feet or more might've been what they thought they wanted the guns to shoot at thinking they'd be use across battlefields.
@@MarkTarsis Probably? They are said to have an effective firing range of 50 - 75 yards on the 1860 Army model. Which means that without adjusting your point of aim you should be able to hit, and kill, your target from 150 - 225 feet. Which for a pistol is a long distance shot for the poorly trained soldiers of the 19th century.
If you compared both guns for self defense purposes ( using 44. caliber for both, and same grain)....which gun is best? Would barrel length be the deciding factor?
Just a little snack, regarding why the Naval Scene is on the Navy and Army pistols,-
Colt Didn t make them for the Navy nor the Army. He simply made them for all! He didn t call them Navy nor Army either. (These 'monikers' came later by users, The Colt Company adopted these names as nomenclature, as well as the .36/.44 ref to Navy/Army). Colt Simply called them 'Belt and Holster Pistols'. He didn t make a 'Navy' or 'Army' pistol. He simply made Belt and Holster Pistols. The Naval Scene is on both of them because Colt did this as an homage to the Naval use of his earlier pistols. It wasn t meant to signify them as Navy , .
If this line of Colts were introduced today instead of 170 years ago, the .31 caliber would be known simply as the Colt; the .36 caliber would be the Colt Pro; and the .44 would be the Colt Max.
Pocket/Navy/Army = Standard/Pro/Max. We have to remember Sam Colt was a salesman of the highest order and branding was his thing.
I like the Navy better, eventhough i'm more of an army guy 😁
Edit: After watching the video through, i might like the conversition better.
Remember when the Ugly assembled his pistol after surviving the desert march in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly? Then the old store proprietor shows him the shitty pistols but The Ugly ain’t havin those. “Revolvahs!”
Well the 1851 navy In 44cal is better then both lol. You get the power of the 1861 44cal while having less screws on the frame and the bead sight of the 1851 is easier to shave down for sighting in. Also the 1851 in 44cal is smaller in most dimensions then the 1861.
What about manhattan firearms company? Who did they sell to
The info was helpfull, indeed. Thanks ;)
What is engraved on the cylinders?
Can you put an 1860 loading lever on an 1851?
No, the loading lever on the 1860 is a very different design from the one on the 1851. Thanks for watching!
Dustin Winegar okay thanks. I like the octagonal barrel of the navy but I like the curves of the army
Colt should have used the 1860 Army grip on the 1873 SAA not the 51 navy.
You probably don’t understand how correct you are. During the 50s and 60s, some celluloid cowboys discovered that the model 1873 grip frame was too small for larger hands and prop masters simply substituted the 1860 grip frame! I believe that Colt used the 1851 grip frame on the 1873 because people preferred it on the 1871-72 transition model(available with both grips). The 1851 grip frame was also better for concealed carry on the shorter barreled models(you drop the butt into your upper right interior coat pocket and draw the barrel with the left hand).
Has anyone had luck using conicals in the 1851 Pietta without alterations? Wouldn't it smash the tip the way that it's made?.
ruclips.net/video/NAVi0QIqrxQ/видео.html
@@BogeyTheBear The only ones people seem to complain about loading is the pointed tip Confederate/Eras Gone conicals. Lee makes a round nose bullet mold in .375 and it loads as easily as a ball in the Pietta.
i miss my navy wife got it in the devorce
Jeremy Gunslinger You shoulda used it on her first, then you could have kept it
... and I guess, since you'd end up as a convicted felon, a blackpowder Navy is all you'll be allowed to have from then on out.
Are the arbors for 1847 Walker and 1851 Navy interchangeable?
Not at all. The arbor of an 1847 Walker is thicker than the one on a Navy (or 1860 Army).
You could try installing the arbor of an 1847 Walker into the frame of an 1848 Dragoon, if you want the longer cylinder and barrel of Walker but the larger grip and more reliable mainspring of the Dragoon.
Wouldn't the shoulder stock make it an illegal sbr unless you have an atf tax stamp?
Not with these black powder guns. On a modern gun, it would though.
@@GunsOfTheWest ah I knew that you can get BP in the US without any FFl transfer but since the ATF is a bit fucky wucky with things i thought it applies to all gun like objects per say
Dustin could you do a table-top style video comparing the Remington New Model Army and the Colt 1860 Army?
That one’s coming. Thanks for watching!
Also how about the ammo?Today's replica of these 2 guns-are they just like the usual bullet loads you'll find e.g 38 or 357 magnum or they do still require those ammo with wrapped paper? Thanks for the input.
These won’t shoot any modern ammo without conversion kits. They use a projectile over loose powder or a paper cartridge.
If you acquire a conversion cylinder for either model, the rounds they will accept (.45 Colt for the 1860, .38 Special for the 1851) will have to be "cowboy loads"-- comparatively low-velocity charges pushing a solid lead (unjacketed) projectile.
Hello, so the cylinder of the navy can fit into the army does it work okay with the army barrel too? If it does I guess the army can shoot either a 44 or 38 using its own barrel? Thanks
4:32
The Army barrel has a much shorter forcing cone, the tube in the back of the barrel assembly that bridges the gap between the cylinder and barrel. You put the Army barrel with the short Navy cylinder, you will see a large gap open between them.
So I just bought a snub nose 1851 with 3 inch barrel in .44 cal will the the 1860 barrel in .44 fit the 1851 in .44 frame?
It should if they’re from the same manufacturer.
@@GunsOfTheWest thank you Dustin! I'm in the market for a 1860 Barrel in .44 but can't seem to find one anywhere, seems like parts are harder to find than the guns themselves!...if you have any suggestions I'd greatly appreciate!
Why was there a caliber difference between the army and navy revolver? Wouldn't it make more sense to only have only one caliber pistol?
36, you wouldnt puncture the ship
The cylinders were made of wrought iron in those days, and you had to have a lot of metal between the chambers if you wanted the cylinder to hold together under use.
Boring chambers for .44 caliber required the large cylinder you find in the Walker and Dragoon.
Colt wanted to produce a much lighter gun, but all he could manage to get out of such a design was .36 caliber-- if you try boring out the chamber to .44, the walls would be too thin and weak.
It would take a few more years before the Bessemer Process was patented to change the rules.
What size caps to use for the army?
I prefer Remington #10. When those aren’t available, I use CCI #11.
Both models can use the same caps, as the back half of their cylinders are identical in dimension. Means the nipples can be replaced between them as well.
Love them both I trust both guns in a firefight, all though in a modern gunfight I prefer a auto shotgun.
2:35 yep you dont wanna create an sbr on camera
Different rules for these guns.
I guess that, since the guns are not recognized as 'firearms' at the Federal level, they wouldn't become a short-barreled rifle because the definition of one hinges on it being a firearm in the first place.
Very Good!... 153
I like the Army grip but Navy everything else