Army vs. Navy ??

[Marshal Hangtree]

No, not the football game.   I'm looking into BP revolvers, and I need some advice.  I like the open top Colt clones better than the Remington clones, so I'm interested in the 1851 Navy and the 1860 Army revolvers.  As far as looks are concerned, I lean slightly more toward the Army, but both look great to me.  So my question is, which of the two would be a better choice for SASS shooting?  I'd like to have info concerning the overall design, durability, quirks and shootability of both designs.   All input is greatly appreciated, as always.

[Sedalia Dave]

Both work equally well for CAS.  They have different grip frames and it boils down to which grip frame you like.  Only you can decide which feels better in your hand.  I highly recommend that you ask around and try each to see which you prefer.

[El diablo gringo]

Hi Marshall, both army and navy pistols require some tweaking for reliability and to speed you up. The grips are slightly different.  Whatever is more comfortable to you is all that matters. Also depends on whether you are using caps or going the conversion route.  

Gringo

[Marshal Hangtree]

I plan to use caps for now, but may graduate to conversion cylinders later.  I'm leaning toward shooting Frontiersman category.

Edited January 11, 2018 by Marshall Hangtree

[J-BAR #18287]

The classic 7.5 inch barrel on the 1851 Navy provides wonderful balance and pointability but it can be awkward to draw and reholster quickly.  The 8 inch barrel on the 1860 Army even more so.  I love their looks and enjoy shooting both, but my times are slower with these guns.  There are shorter barreled models available, mostly from Pietta, so you can overcome the draw/reholster problem and be more competitive with less historically accurate models.  (Pietta makes ".44 Navy" models, which never existed historically.)

 

The .44 caliber ball from the Army is better for pistol knockdowns than the .36 Navy, if you encounter a lot of knockdown targets.  Some say the spotters will not give credit for .36 hits like they do for a .44.  I have not seen much of that myself, but it could happen with sloppy spotting.

 

The grip size difference has already been noted, and it is a valid concern particularly if you have large hands.  Handle both types before you buy.

 

And as others have noted, consider these guns a kits.  Certainly they will go bang out of the box, but there are a lot of things you can do to make them less likely to jam and easier to shoot.  Those things have been discussed in other threads.

 

Frontiersman is a fun category, particularly for folks who like to be a bit different from the rest of the crowd.  Seems like the old guns draw attention whether we shoot them quickly or not!  

 

  

Edited January 11, 2018 by J-BAR #18287

[Goody, SASS #26190]

The best of both worlds. The sleek lines of the 60 Army, the grip and 36 caliber of the 51 Navy.

 

http://www.taylorsfirearms.com/hand-guns/blackpowder-revolvers/1851-1861-navy-collection/1861-navy-steel-4767.html

[Jabez Cowboy,SASS # 50129]

I prefer the 1851 Navy, the most comfortable easiest pointing gun out there ...

I mostly shoot FCD with 1871 Open-Tops in .44 special the ones with the Navy Grips ...

The Navy Grip is what feels best in my Not overly Large hands.

One issue with the 1851 in .36 caliber is lazy spotters calling hits as misses ..

But I shoot 1 1/2 ccs of Goex 3f  and this helps both with Knock-downs and with helping Folks hear the Hit ...

 

Jabez Cowboy

[Brimstone Bill Willson]

If you plan on doing conversions down the line, the bore of a .44 c&b is the same as a .45 colt/schofield.  That makes conversion of the .44 cal gun much easier.  On the other hand the .36 cal c&b bore is a little larger than your standard 38 special bore, there are ways around that but it is one more thing to think about.

I

[Fingers McGee]

2 hours ago, Goody, SASS #26190 said:

The best of both worlds. The sleek lines of the 60 Army, the grip and 36 caliber of the 51 Navy.

 

http://www.taylorsfirearms.com/hand-guns/blackpowder-revolvers/1851-1861-navy-collection/1861-navy-steel-4767.html

  +1  Love my 2nd Gen '61 Navies.

[LostVaquero]

Yep, agree 1861 is best of both

[John Henry Quick]

7 hours ago, J-BAR #18287 said:

Frontiersman is a fun category, particularly for folks who like to be a bit different from the rest of the crowd.  Seems like the old guns draw attention whether we shoot them quickly or not!  

 

That's funny - I thought it was everyone else that wuz different! 

 

 

7 hours ago, Marshall Hangtree said:

I plan to use caps for now, but may graduate to conversion cylinders later.  I'm leaning toward shooting Frontiersman category.

 

It seems to me that converting to suppositories is a step down! 

 

6 hours ago, Brimstone Bill Willson said:

If you plan on doing conversions down the line, the bore of a .44 c&b is the same as a .45 colt/schofield.  That makes conversion of the .44 cal gun much easier.  On the other hand the .36 cal c&b bore is a little larger than your standard 38 special bore, there are ways around that but it is one more thing to think about.

 

Marshall, If you really want to convert to suppositories and .44 to .45 Colt/Schofield is your plan, then DO NOT get the Pietta .44 Navy because it's a shorter cylinder and no one makes a conversion for it.  OTOH, there are conversions for the Pietta .36 Navy.  I shoot Pietta .44 Navies and I love them, but I have no desire to go back to suppositories. 

 

[El Hombre Sin Nombre]

4 hours ago, LostVaquero said:

Yep, agree 1861 is best of both

Not the best of both worlds. The 61 is still missing the most iconic symbol of the cap and ball era: that mean looking octagon barrel.

[Marshal Hangtree]

Thanks, all, for the great replies.  So I take it there are no particular advantages of the Army or Navy design.  Good to know.  Now I just have to go handle one of each to decide which grip I like the best.

 

John Henry, if I do decide to go the conversion cylinder route, it will be many moons from now, so suppositories won't be considered for now.

[Bittertrigger]

Marshall this is really a no Brainer 

get 2 of each and you will be a very happy camper 

[watab kid]

i like bittertriggers thinking , but that means buying six doesnt it ? 51 , 60 , 61 ? im thinkin on it ....

[Bittertrigger]

6 hours ago, watab kid said:

i like bittertriggers thinking , but that means buying six doesnt it ? 51 , 60 , 61 ? im thinkin on it ....

Don’t forget the 62 

[Brimstone Bill Willson]

14 hours ago, John Henry Quick said:

 

 

 

Marshall, If you really want to convert to suppositories and .44 to .45 Colt/Schofield is your plan, then DO NOT get the Pietta .44 Navy because it's a shorter cylinder and no one makes a conversion for it.  

 

 

John Henry, the "51" Navy in 44cal is just a 1860 Army with an octogon barrel and navy sized grips.  1860 conversion cylinders will fit a .44cal Pietta "51" navy.

From Kirst's website:

Specific reproductions of the 1851 Colt Navy that are manufactured as a .44 caliber percussion revolver will accept the .45 Schofield/.45 Long Colt caliber, five shot Kirst Konverter®. The current Pietta reproduction 1851 Navy “Sheriff” and “Civilian” revolvers in .44 caliber accepts the same Kirst Konverter as the Pietta made 1860 Army revolver.

[John Henry Quick]

33 minutes ago, Brimstone Bill Willson said:

 

John Henry, the "51" Navy in 44cal is just a 1860 Army with an octogon barrel and navy sized grips.  1860 conversion cylinders will fit a .44cal Pietta "51" navy.

From Kirst's website:

Specific reproductions of the 1851 Colt Navy that are manufactured as a .44 caliber percussion revolver will accept the .45 Schofield/.45 Long Colt caliber, five shot Kirst Konverter®. The current Pietta reproduction 1851 Navy “Sheriff” and “Civilian” revolvers in .44 caliber accepts the same Kirst Konverter as the Pietta made 1860 Army revolver.

 

Bill,

 

I'm glad to see they fit and thanks for the correction.  However, I'm curious what are all the differences between Army and Navy frames.  I would now assume that the frames are in fact the same size, but mine do not have the screw holes for the shoulder-stock brace.  Do they just do a run of Army frames without drilling those holes, or are there other differences?

 

[Brimstone Bill Willson]

27 minutes ago, John Henry Quick said:

 

Bill,

 

I'm glad to see they fit and thanks for the correction.  However, I'm curious what are all the differences between Army and Navy frames.  I would now assume that the frames are in fact the same size, but mine do not have the screw holes for the shoulder-stock brace.  Do they just do a run of Army frames without drilling those holes, or are there other differences?

 

I think that would be correct that the only differences between the .44 cal "51" and the 60's is the shoulder stock hole.   There is another difference on the 36 cal 51's though, if you look at a 36cal cylinder it has the same diameter for it's full length.  If you look at a 44 cal cylinder it bumps up in diameter on the muzzle end to accommodate the larger caliber, thus there is a step in all 44 cal frames to a clear that bump up on the cylinder.  Colt did this so they could start with the 1851 frame mostly as-is when they designed the 1860 Army.  They did the exact same trick when they bumped the 1849 Colt in 31 cal to make the 1862 Colt in 36 cal.

 

With a Pietta, the smaller 36 cylinder will fit on a 44cal, but I don't think a 44 cylinder will fit on a 36 cal frame.  Saying all that, you should be able to have a 36 cal barrel and cylinder and a 44 cal barrel and cylinder that you could swap back and forth if you started with the 44 frame.

 

You can just see the bump in the cylinder and the notch in the frame on this 1860:

Edited January 12, 2018 by Brimstone Bill Willson

[Sedalia Dave]

The seater design is different between the 1851 and the 1860/61. IIRC one is a simple pivot point and the other is more like a rack and pinion. But I cannot remember which is which.

 

You can also buy the Army grip frames with and without the hole for the shoulder stock brace.

 

[G W Wade]

Been a lot of words and info sent down range in this thread.  Barrel length, caliber on down to insults about catridges versus roll yer own the load table.   But call me stupid. I still don't understand the difference between Army and Navy grip frame which seemed to be what the post was origonally asking.  Guess have to go by the lgs and ask to look at each.      GW

[Griff]

On 1/11/2018 at 8:44 AM, Marshall Hangtree said:

I plan to use caps for now, but may graduate to conversion cylinders later.  I'm leaning toward shooting Frontiersman category.

Conversion cylinders will put you back into Frontier Cartridge with the other "girlie men".    It really depends on which grip frame you prefer.  The 1851 is the same as the 1873, whereas the 1860 is longer.

 

The .36 with RBs will cause  youto be counted w/misses where there's some inattentive spotters.  Plus, dead soft lead doesn't "ring" close steel targets any louder than the report of the pistol.  Spotters need to be more focused on clear evidence of a miss, rather than evidence of a hit. I don't have trouble with KDs, but do have hit in the upper ¼. of the target.  I sometimes use a 90gr conical with a slightly heavier charge to handle recalcitrant KDs!  But, generally if a 38Spl takes 'em down, so will my .36 and a 77gr RB.

 

BOTH will require some modification to be trouble-free.  And trust me, it's a WHOLE LOT more fun  to have  a trouble-free match, than to suffer thru the frustration of having cap jams, hangfires, etc., let alone trying to be competitive with same!

Edited January 12, 2018 by Griff

[Sedalia Dave]

Just sent these to a non-CAS shooter I work with.  Worth reposting the link.

 

 

[Red Hooker]

3 hours ago, G W Wade said:

... I still don't understand the difference between Army and Navy grip frame which seemed to be what the post was originally asking. ....

Army grip is longer, will accommodate a wider hand.

 

 

 

 

On the other issue...

Go Navy!

Wait'll next year

Edited January 12, 2018 by Red Hooker

[Shooting Bull]

[Long Gulch, SASS #53035]

1 hour ago, Shooting Bull said:

Me too Shooting Bull, but I don't recall any cap guns being issued! Course that was a few years back. 

[G W Wade]

2 hours ago, Red Hooker said:

 

Army grip is longer, will accommodate a wider hand.

 

 

 

 

On the other issue...

Go Navy!

Wait'll next year

Excellent   Mystery solved        Thanks      GW

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

As as been pointed out when it comes to conversions, the .44 converts to .45 Colt

The .36 converts to...    Well, I believe that the conversions cylinders ar setup for .38 Special, but I am not positive.   Even if they are, you can still use the more historically accurate .38 Long Colt in them.

 

In either case, you'll need to use a hollow base bullet bullet so it'll "expand" to engage the rifling on the oversized bore.

 

Or...   You could always consider trying something like this...

 

 

A custom creation by a gunsmith of my aquaintance.  .38 Specual, but I run Long Colts in it. 

[Sedalia Dave]

1 minute ago, H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 said:

As as been pointed out when it comes to conversions, the .44 converts to .45 Colt

The .36 converts to...    Well, I believe that the conversions cylinders ar setup for .38 Special, but I am not positive.   Even if they are, you can still use the more historically accurate .38 Long Colt in them.

 

In either case, you'll need to use a hollow base bullet bullet so it'll "expand" to engage the rifling on the oversized bore.

 

Or...   You could always consider trying something like this...

 

 

A custom creation by a gunsmith of my aquaintance.  .38 Specual, but I run Long Colts in it. 

 

Very nice 

[John Henry Quick]

On 1/11/2018 at 5:51 PM, John Henry Quick said:

It seems to me that converting to suppositories is a step down! 

 

18 hours ago, Griff said:

Conversion cylinders will put you back into Frontier Cartridge with the other "girlie men".   

 

18 hours ago, G W Wade said:

insults about catridges versus roll yer own the load table.

 

GW, it's all just good, clean fun, so please don't be offended.  You should hear some of the abuse thrown at me for smoking up the place and making so much noise. 

[G W Wade]

Mr Quick    If you knew me you would know I am usually the offending party     Thanks    GW

[R.M. Conversion]

Spend the extra and get a steel frame to start off.  That can accommodate conversion cylinders in the future.  I've heard brass frames will eventually stretch over time, but I've never shot one enough to notice a problem.  After a while, don't be too surprised if you end up with both and Army and a Navy and a Remington too.  Then you'll think..."Gee, that Leech and Rigdon is interesting...so is that Spiller & Burr...."