Is the Colt Navy possibly the coolest gun ever made?

[Hawg]

The 1860 Army fitted with a 51/2 inch 1851 Navy .44 cal. barrel is the the best handling BP psitol I've ever picked up.  I'm just sorry that Colt never realized this and produced them.  It Would have been one his best selling revolvers.

It's not a question of Colt being short sighted. Colt never made a 51 in .44 because the 51 cylinders were made from wrought iron. To make a .44 wrought iron cylinder it would have had to have been the size of a Walker cylinder and some of those blew up. By the time the the 1860 came about silver steel had been developed in England. Most of Colt's 1860 production went to military contracts so short barrels were not considered.

[brazosdave]

I swear, you hang out in forums like this enuff, and you can totally ace history classes.  That's what makes this better!

[Captainkirk]

".....most of Colt's 1860 production went to military contracts so short barrels were not considered."

Let's not forget, Col. Colt had already addressed the short barrel/concealed carry issue with the Baby Dragoon, Wells-Fargo and Police models as early as 1847, so why put any cost and effort into altering the Navy, which was also a military contract gun? (except for the Civilian models)

[Hawg]

Let's not forget, Col. Colt had already addressed the short barrel/concealed carry issue with the Baby Dragoon, Wells-Fargo and Police models as early as 1847, so why put any cost and effort into altering the Navy, which was also a military contract gun? (except for the Civilian models)

Colt sold the 49 with or without loading levers. There never was an actual Wells Fargo model. I don't know how or when the ones without levers got started being called Wells Fargo models but its a popular misconception. Kinda like the .45 Long Colt deal. I'm sure some of their agents carried them but most WF agents furnished their own weapons. In the event an agent needed a gun WF bought whatever was in the closest hardware store. As an aside WF didn't mark their guns or other field equipment, so anytime you see a WF marked piece of equipment its a  99.999% probability its a fake.

[Kaboom]

I read somewhere that the WF moniker was an advertising ploy by Bannerman's.  I don't know that for a fact,  but, I read it and it does make sense.   

[Hawg]

It wouldn't surprise me any.

[Captainkirk]

Good info to know, Hawg!

[Pat/Rick]

I have preferances in revolvers for different aspect's of each design and while I claim one as a favorite, they really ALL are my favorite. The .36 navy is the first I ever shot back in '70 (no, the nineteen 70's ), so it will always be the favorite, it was also the first model I could call my very own after my wifey got it for me.

 I like the octagon barrel, it's size, balance,feel, and everything else mentioned. There's only one. While I would rather carry a .44 for self defense with C&B, the .36 is likely no slouch, as history witness to, and is quite capable of leaving one heck of a squishy mark. The Pietta Bros.faux paus ivory gripped,laser engraved, Wild Bill, navy version is definently on my list. Long list and the wife says I need to set goals .

Hawg, great info and I enjoyed it. A good book that give's alot of info on Colt's is "Samuel Colt, Arms, Art, and Invention" By Herbert G. Houze. Large color plate's, great information, and a wonderful book worthy of any coffee table. I highly recommend it.

Selling modern guns to buy BP replica's? Nothing wrong with that at all. Perfectly normal,healthy, behavior.

[Captainkirk]

Just noticed.....on page 2 CraigC posted a couple pix. In the first photo, there is a Navy with the barrel clearly marked F.LLI PIETTA......but the grip frame is definitely not the typical Pietta "bell-bottom" grip. Is this an early Pietta or a modified one?
Any ideas?

[Hawg]

Modified.

[Captainkirk]

I like it. Pietta really dropped the ball when they messed with a classic design.

[Stillwater]

you know, I go on my tangents with which guns particularly catch my fancy.  For a minute there, I was enthralled with Confederate styles, then it was the 48-49 pockets, then it was the 73's, then it was 51's, and then I really started likeing the 61, 62's.  I only wish that the guns of today could catch my attention as much as the guns of the 18th and 19th Centurys do.  I like some of the turn of the 1900's guns, but from then on, it's pretty much a dearth.

Some people, like you and I, just appreciate the firearms that were designed in the latter part of the Victorian Era.

They are classsic designs, and they will always be more beautiful than anything designed after 1900.

Bill

[Stillwater]

I love the Navys!  I actually like em better than my 1860, but I do like the lines of the 61 and 62's.  For a pocket gun, it is just impossible to beat the baby dragoon or wells fargo .31's, in my studied opinion.

I have a 1862 pocket Navy, and 1862 pocket police chambered in 36 caliber which I really like.

I have an 1849 pocker pistol that is chambered in .31 caliber that is one of my favorite toys.

I haven't considerred any of the other pocket pistols, because they don't have a loading lever. Maybe I should reconsider that.

Bill

[CraigC]

Just noticed.....on page 2 CraigC posted a couple pix. In the first photo, there is a Navy with the barrel clearly marked F.LLI PIETTA......but the grip frame is definitely not the typical Pietta "bell-bottom" grip. Is this an early Pietta or a modified one?
Any ideas?

It's not modified but is as it came out of the box. The London model does not have the "Pietta tail" on the grip frame.

[Stillwater]

I just picked up two London Model 1851's. That makes a total of eight 1851's that I own... Somebody around here must really like the 1851 Navy pistol...

Bill