Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How Military Guns Make the Civilian Market
Government Executive ^ | 28 July 2014 | By Matt Valentine

Posted on 07/28/2014 9:57:54 AM PDT by SLB

This week, the U.S. Army will brief arms manufacturers on the design requirements for a new standard-issue handgun. Several gun makers will compete for the lucrative contract, developing weapons that are more reliable and more powerful than those currently in service. Officials say the upgrade is overdue—it’s been nearly 30 years since the Army adopted the Beretta M9. But the last time the military challenged the industry to make a better handgun, all the innovations intended for the battlefield also ended up in the consumer market, and the severity of civilian shootings soared.

Studying gunshot injuries in the D.C. area in the 1980s, Daniel Webster of Johns Hopkins University noticed an alarming trend—as time went on, more and more patients were arriving at the emergency room with multiple bullet wounds. In 1983, at the beginning of the study period, only about a quarter of gunshot patients had multiple injuries, but in the last two years of the study, that proportion had risen to 43 percent. Over the same period, semiautomatic pistols with a capacity of 15-rounds (or more) were replacing six-shot revolvers as the most popular firearms in the country. It’s not difficult to see the correlation—more bullets in the guns, more bullets in the victims. But why had guns changed so radically in such a short period of time?

(Excerpt) Read more at govexec.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: banglist; gun; military
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last
Good news today about carrying in DC so I thought I might go ahead and take the opportunity to remind everyone that not all of the establishment supports an armed public.
1 posted on 07/28/2014 9:57:54 AM PDT by SLB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower; Squantos; Lion Den Dan; Jeff Head

Original article was in The Atlantic.


2 posted on 07/28/2014 9:58:48 AM PDT by SLB (23rd Artillery Group, Republic of South Vietnam, Aug 1970 - Aug 1971.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SLB

I’ve heard the argument ‘yeah, but who needs a bazooka’. Well, if the local police have an MWRAP then I need an RPG.


3 posted on 07/28/2014 10:01:42 AM PDT by tbpiper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SLB

The military should be equipped with PaintSoft guns to minimize the impact on the civilian market.


4 posted on 07/28/2014 10:03:24 AM PDT by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson ONLINEhttp://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SLB

“Original article was in The Atlantic”

That explains the rhetoric


5 posted on 07/28/2014 10:06:00 AM PDT by Stormdog (A rifle transforms one from subject to Citizen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SLB

Hey, I’ve got a imaginative idea...

How about a Colt 1911......? or any brand of 1911....lol


6 posted on 07/28/2014 10:06:57 AM PDT by Cold Heat (Have you reached your breaking point yet? If not now....then when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SLB

This article is stupid. On-scene emergency medicine and response times have improved over the decades, so more victims are going to “arrive at the ER” with more bullet wounds. Previously, they would just bleed out on the scene. The availability of telecommunications to citizens (phones in more homes, cell phones, etc.) would improve the likelihood of a faster EMS response to a shooting scene. There are many factors that would affect these numbers beyond the number of evil bullets in an evil gun.


7 posted on 07/28/2014 10:09:34 AM PDT by 101stAirborneVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SLB

What a totally stupid article. The complete lack of logic and critical thinking should embarrass leftists into silence.


8 posted on 07/28/2014 10:15:45 AM PDT by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SLB
Assuming that the shooter stops shooting once his target is on the ground, more bullet holes in survivors reveals more about the projectiles used rather than how many were available to launch.

BTW, I used to term "projectiles" because so many folks don't seem to know the difference between a cartridge and a bullet.

9 posted on 07/28/2014 10:16:50 AM PDT by Buffalo Head (Illigitimi non carborundum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Stormdog

Yep. Gotta consider the source.


10 posted on 07/28/2014 10:19:44 AM PDT by SLB (23rd Artillery Group, Republic of South Vietnam, Aug 1970 - Aug 1971.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tbpiper

We have a right to Nukes.

We’ve just temporarily delegated the use of nukes to our government.

We can take back that right by a vote of the people to un-delegate the right of nukes.

People are in charge, and G-d gave “US” individuals the right of self defense, not “the U.S.”


11 posted on 07/28/2014 10:20:12 AM PDT by Uncle Miltie (The GOP-e scum enlisted Democrats to steal the Republican primary. The GOP-e can go to Hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SLB

Thanks for the posting. Makes me wonder what kind of crunch’nticker the military will come up with. I miss the opportunity of discussing this with you over coffee.
Dan


12 posted on 07/28/2014 10:24:38 AM PDT by Lion Den Dan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ozzymandus

Leftists are incapable of being embarrassed, let alone embarrassed into silence.


13 posted on 07/28/2014 10:29:55 AM PDT by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: tbpiper

Wasn’t one of the purposes of the “milita” was to counter the effects of and reduce the need for a standing army.


14 posted on 07/28/2014 10:30:42 AM PDT by Ouderkirk (To the left, everything must evidence that this or that strand of leftist theory is true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SLB

I see bloomberg is spreading his money around to get “journalists” to write anti-gun propaganda for him.


15 posted on 07/28/2014 10:39:08 AM PDT by Brooklyn Attitude (Things are only going to get worse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Free Republic


Click The Pic To Donate

Please Donate!

16 posted on 07/28/2014 10:48:03 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (The Fed Gov is not one ring to rule them all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SLB
Perhaps the relatively wimpy 9mm cartridge also contributes to victim survival.

The purpose of a military firearm is to incapacitate, not necessarily kill. A victim with multiple 9mm holes in him is much more likely to survive to get to the ER than one who has multiple 45 caliber holes.

Also, the man with only six shots available to him is much more likely to place his shots where he wants them, the high-capacity shooter tends to "spray and pray", hoping to hit something.

Therefore, it seems to me that the author should be grateful for the high capacity, wimpier modern handguns.

17 posted on 07/28/2014 10:52:58 AM PDT by snowtigger (It ain't what you shoot, it's what you hit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat

I remember hearing somewhere about a new pistol modeled on the 1911 with a double stack mag, 16 rds I think it said. Don’t know any details about manufacturer, production status. The extra rounds would be about the only thing I would change about that fine piece of historic machinery.


18 posted on 07/28/2014 10:58:09 AM PDT by jstaff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie

Sorry Uncle Miltie,
I would start a homeowners association to block you having nuclear material nextdoor to me.
A conventional howitzer could pass muster ....


19 posted on 07/28/2014 11:01:23 AM PDT by aumrl (let's keep it real Conservatives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jstaff
Yup....I agree...I have not seen it either but double stacking the mag is totally possible with some reworking of the frame and grip. The grip needed to be improved anyway. The hammer pinch was always chewing up my hand, but I could pound nails with it.

I'm guessing they will go to a .40....just a guess. With many women in the military having smaller hands, I don't see them going back to a .45 1911. Homeland Sec and others are using the .40 now. The 9mm is too light, they seem to think.

In the military they are not allowed to use hollow points,(Nato banned) (for most standard issue weapons)so the caliber and knock down ability is more important. The .45 has always had that. I like the .40 Sig...but there are a bunch of others.

20 posted on 07/28/2014 11:16:16 AM PDT by Cold Heat (Have you reached your breaking point yet? If not now....then when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SLB

She’s got me convinced. I need to go back and use older, less lethal technology, like the 1911 and the M-14.


21 posted on 07/28/2014 11:17:02 AM PDT by Rhinoman (SMSgt, USAF (Ret))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aumrl

You’re an arms control freak. ;-)


22 posted on 07/28/2014 11:28:54 AM PDT by Uncle Miltie (The GOP-e scum enlisted Democrats to steal the Republican primary. The GOP-e can go to Hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SLB; All

Complete B.S.The study was done in the 1980s, and gunshot victims have dropped radically since that time. Pure data picking and speculation.

Numerous other studies debunk this pile.


23 posted on 07/28/2014 1:01:55 PM PDT by marktwain (The old media must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lion Den Dan; SLB

Will be interesting for sure .... In my old age, soon to be second retirement I’m a fan of the 357 Sig caliber in Sig or Glock launchers. My BBQ gun is still a Clarke 1911A1 meltdown stainless I’ve had for a few decades.....

DOD needs to go to anything Sig, 357 caliber and or up to 45 ....

Just my two cents ....stay safe y’all !


24 posted on 07/28/2014 2:50:08 PM PDT by Squantos ( Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SLB
Yeah, it sounds like an Atlantic writer - cherry-picked statistics, outdated studies, hysterical claims backed up by no evidence.

Even if the industry were to overcome the technological hurdles, though, the Army isn’t likely to adopt smart-gun technology now or any time soon—why would they?

Why indeed? In the Army you are likely to have to shoot another soldier's weapon at short notice. Making that impossible is not going to increase anyone's combat effectiveness. A flashing "unauthorized access" light is not going to impress many opponents - the thing needs to go "bang".

If I had to speculate about a new caliber it would probably be a relatively cautious choice such as the .40 S&W, just because the government already owns so many of them and so much ammunition. I'd prefer the .45 ACP or the .357 SiG, personally, at least as far as wound capacity. I also think that the U.S. military needs to go to expanding ammunition for these platforms. The U.S. never signed the Hague Convention that forbids them anyway. We did sign this (from the GunZone article):

Where the U.S. did sign on, however, was with the Hague Convention IV of 1907, Article 23(e) of which Annex states: "…it is especially forbidden -
To employ arms, projectiles, or material{sic} calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;"

The purpose of expanding ammunition is not to cause suffering, but to prevent it. I think that might make a bigger difference than simply switching calibers.

25 posted on 07/28/2014 3:09:15 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie

The problem with nukes is that, per adaptation of Cooper’s Four Rules, and short of storage in many square miles of cordoned-off rank wilderness, a nuke is “pointed at” a whole lotta people all the time, and actual use risks a whole lotta people “beyond your target”. Hence, short of complete elimination, we delegate the right thereto.


26 posted on 07/28/2014 7:06:14 PM PDT by ctdonath2 ("If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun" - Obama, setting RoE with his opposition)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: snowtigger

“Perhaps the relatively wimpy 9mm cartridge also contributes to victim survival.

The purpose of a military firearm is to incapacitate, not necessarily kill. A victim with multiple 9mm holes in him is much more likely to survive to get to the ER than one who has multiple 45 caliber holes.

Also, the man with only six shots available to him is much more likely to place his shots where he wants them, the high-capacity shooter tends to “spray and pray”, hoping to hit something. ...”

Author Valentine knows even less about the topic than many forum members might suspect.

JSSAP was run by USAF, not US Army: a departure from prior DoD practice, as US Army was the formally designated “executive agent” for small arms development and acquisition, starting in 1903 or so. Reasons for this change in executive agency were never made clear, but many in the community have speculated that it had something to do with the decidedly odd behavior displayed by US Army Ordnance Corps personnel during test and evaluation of the M-14, and subsequent testing to compare the original AR-15 with the M-14.

JSSAP did bring together personnel from every service dept, but tests were conducted at Eglin AFB in Florida’s panhandle, using facilities and personnel of what is now USAF’s Armament Lab.

The 9x19 NATO cartridge actually develops more kinetic energy than the 45 ACP. 9mm penetration of soft body armor is superior to the 45, and the 9mm’s effective range is greater. The latter means little to US military users, as the max effective range for all handguns was officially set decades ago at 20m (about 65 ft).

No approved statement of need nor operational requirements document in US DoD documentation has ever contained any language requiring a small arms projectile to incapacitate in preference to killing. It’s conceded that any opposing unit loses total military effectiveness in a more serious fashion if a combatant is wounded and not killed (greater expense and logistic/organizational effort needed for recovering, treating, evacuating, rehabilitating combat-wounded troops, as opposed to simply shoveling the bodies under) but the difficulty lies in determining just what amount of energy the projectile must transfer to the target to cause serious injury, yet not cause death. Humans vary a lot, not merely in size/shape/organ location, but in their energy state and motivational level, especially on the battlefield. Thus, no short-of-death results can be assured.

In practice, this means that attributes of size, weight, usability, and the like constrain the size, mass, and velocity of any bullet fired from a small arm. If one wants a rifle that the average solider can carry, pack into the trenches, and fire effectively, one must give up the really speedy, really big bullet. Further constraints are laid on the situation by stuff like raw materials availability, ease of manufacture, anticipated service life, ease of repair. Someone has to make the gun that could handle that big fast bullet, and make it tough enough to fire more than a couple times. Yet more money.

“Spray and pray” - shots per minute - has been official US Army doctrine since the 1950s. Interested forum members might research Project Salvo, S.L.A. Marshall, and related items to gain a better picture of the situation.

No study of the psychology of combat (ref S.L.A. Marshall) supports the notion that a troop armed with a revolver will take any greater care in aiming than with any other (mostly higher capacity) small arm.

Revolvers (as implied by “only six shots”) began to go out of fashion for military issue circa 1905, partly because of their limited capacity, but also because they cost much more to make and are much more likely to malfunction when exposed to weather, mud, and rough handling. A unit needs highly skilled armorers to keep revolvers functioning and accurate in the field, compared to semi-auto pistols, most of which are now easily serviced by unskilled personnel.

Going back to the “tried and true” Colt’s Government Model autoloader (US M1911 pistol) might break the bank today, and would not improve things anyway. The design was very good for the year 1911, but is tied to manufacturing methods of that era, which would cost more now. And the arm retains features added expressly for the horse cavalry, which make no sense now (grip safety is one). And - questions of bullet diameter aside - the gun is inferior to more modern designs. New-made Government Models were tested by JSSAP, and found to be less reliable and less safe than the newer guns.


27 posted on 07/28/2014 8:43:37 PM PDT by schurmann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: schurmann
First, kinetic energy is basically non-existent in a handgun round. The 45 starts out with a larger hole. It lets more air in and more blood out. Unless you hit the central nervous system, that is all you got.

when I said "six shots" I was making the point that the man with limited firepower is more likely to know where each bullet is going to go before he squeezes the trigger. The guy with "unlimited firepower" does not have to know, he just hopes he hits something

I do agree that the first few seconds of a firefight are critical and lots of lead in the air can make the opposing force keep their heads down.

28 posted on 07/28/2014 11:04:39 PM PDT by snowtigger (It ain't what you shoot, it's what you hit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SLB















29 posted on 07/29/2014 9:51:24 AM PDT by devolve (-Tell VLADIMER after my ERECTION I have more 90% more FLEXIBILITY - pre-1899 Colt SAA frames needed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snowtigger

“First, kinetic energy is basically non-existent in a handgun round. The 45 starts out with a larger hole. It lets more air in and more blood out. Unless you hit the central nervous system, that is all you got.”

The JSSAP team senior analyst (I forget his formal title; he was interviewed by Soldier of Fortune magazine after the pistol selection decision caused such a stir in the gun enthusiast community) declared that after they studied the test data, and every bit of archival data they could scrape up, they concluded that energy transfer to the target was the best predictor of terminal effectiveness. In turn, energy transfer correlated to bullet mass and velocity, and bullet shape.

“Stopping power” - a term often thrown about by gun enthusiasts, as if they knew what they were talking about - was found to have no quantifiable definition and was in consequence of no use in predicting terminal effectiveness.

“when I said “six shots” I was making the point that the man with limited firepower is more likely to know where each bullet is going to go before he squeezes the trigger. The guy with “unlimited firepower” does not have to know, he just hopes he hits something”

“fewer ready rounds equals a surer aim for each round” expresses a hope, not any phenomenon measurable in action. Or at least, none yet identified. Natural abilities, training states, and mindset cannot help but vary for each individual. We’d like to see all troops getting serious about marksmanship, but once adversaries engage, most bets are off.

“I do agree that the first few seconds of a firefight are critical and lots of lead in the air can make the opposing force keep their heads down.”

I was merely citing US Army doctrine, which is based very tightly on the work of S.L.A. Marshall during WWII. I do not necessarily agree with it. Some have begun questioning the validity of his approach.

USMC doctrine is quite different: they believe hits per minute is the proper measure of firepower.

Military doctrine is not holy writ set in stone. It was defined by the late I.B. Holley Jr as the most current expression of what is believed to be the best way for a military force to prepare for and accomplish its mission. It is always in a state of flux, because technology impacts the state of things. So do political constraints, and the possible array of adversaries, and even shifting interpretations of historical events.


30 posted on 07/29/2014 8:29:08 PM PDT by schurmann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: devolve

Suitably stunning example of not only Sam Colt’s design genius, but his artistic sense as well.

Critics with far greater understanding of art have termed Sam’s last three revolvers (of which the M1860 is the biggest) as the ultimate expression of streamlining in firearms design produced during the 19th century. I happen to agree, but my vote is not adding much weight.

They don’t merely look good, they handle just as well. It’s as if they aim themselves.

This looks like a non-firing replica. Might devolve care to tell us more about its origin, and share any additional detail?


31 posted on 07/31/2014 6:14:17 PM PDT by schurmann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: schurmann

- I believe that is an actual authentic antique Colt revolver -

- Sam Colt was quite stubborn and resisted updating to a much stronger one-piece full frame with the barrel firmly screwed into to frame.

- Sam Colt died in 1862 - early in the War between the States.

- The US Army brass was demanding a full frame and after the ‘72-’72 Colt Richards, Richards-Mason, and Model 1872 Open-Top (I have M1872 grip frames and the original walnut one-piece grips on my circa 1898 Colt FSS .44-40 right now)

- Frank Henninger and Charles Mason designed the full-frame Colt Single Action Army in 1872 and Colt has manufactured the Colt SAA fom 1873 until today; the US Army finally got it’s way.

- Well-balanced but slow to load and remove cartridge brass and reload - Custer could have used the Smith & Wesson “.45 Scofield” on his last day; a hinged two-piece revolver that automatically ejected the six .45 Scofile brass and you could quickly reloaded - later with “moon-clips” you could load all 4 new cartridges at once, flip the barrel down and forward to lock the revolver in place and start firing at the Indians who had Civil War repeating Henrys, Spencers, and even the still made and sold lever-action repeaters: Winchester Model 1873 .44-40 carbines and rifles

- I am build several black powder cap & ball revolvers now using Pietta and Uberti revolver frames and parts and some conversion to cartridge cylinders (types used by Remington in 1860-1874) in the Model 1858 and in 1872 when S&W’s bored-thru cylinder patent ran out - the Colts

- “Pale Rider” type 1858 Remington Navy .38 conversion
- ‘’Good, Bad, Ugly” 1851 Colt Navy .38 conversion

- I am also doing some conversions to .22lr for Colts and Remingtons - Italian made clones and originals with the early frames and parts - these remain cap & ball percussion handguns -

- Ivory often is cracked as on that Colt revolver - morons now are going to ban elephant ivory and walrus ivory - mammoth ivory will still be legal.

- Millions will no longer be allowed to sell or give away their 600 year old carved ivory while countless tons of ivory sits in Africa and Russia - the Hell with the Africans who live their and are kept like monkeys in a zoo by the crazy environmental lefties.


32 posted on 08/01/2014 6:45:45 AM PDT by devolve (-Tell VLADIMER after my ERECTION I have more 90% more FLEXIBILITY - pre-1899 Colt SAA frames needed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

-

- PS -

That is likely to be a stainless steel or nickel-plated Model of 1850 Colt New Army revolver - likely a 1960’s-80’s 2nd or 3rd Generation Colt Black Powder Series (made for Colt by Uberti of Italy) or colt Signature Series - fitted with a drop-in cartridge conversion in .22lr

- Antique Colts are great - but can cost up to $75,000 or more in mint condition

- You can find one from $699 to $4,000 - to $25,000

- Unlike gold or silver they go up in value - not ever down -

- sources :

http://Taylors.com
http://KirstKonversions.com

http://gunsinternational.com


33 posted on 08/01/2014 6:58:54 AM PDT by devolve (-Tell VLADIMER after my ERECTION I have more 90% more FLEXIBILITY - pre-1899 Colt SAA frames needed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: devolve

-

- http://gunsinternational.com/Colt-Antique-Percussion-Revolvers.cfm?cat_id=33&CFID=166764&CFTOKEN=29592ce28eeca4af-B2AF2112-90B1-1C33-4613E7C7E419ADF3


34 posted on 08/01/2014 7:01:23 AM PDT by devolve (-Tell VLADIMER after my ERECTION I have more 90% more FLEXIBILITY - pre-1899 Colt SAA frames needed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: tbpiper

Your post inherently assumes a right to resist government,

and you’ve just cause brain aneurysms and wet panties in any libs that read it.


35 posted on 08/01/2014 7:02:47 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: schurmann

-

- example :

- $14,600

- http://www.gunsinternational.com/Rare-Colt-London-1860-Army-C9746-.cfm?gun_id=100453870

-


36 posted on 08/01/2014 7:04:47 AM PDT by devolve (-Tell VLADIMER after my ERECTION I have more 90% more FLEXIBILITY - pre-1899 Colt SAA frames needed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SLB

- nice on a Colt .36 Navy revolver - I built one for my daughter… for a circa 1859 Colt .36 Model of 1851 Navy

- I am now using a circa 1862 Confederate Colt .36 Navy round .36 barrel fitted to an antique Colt .36 Navy steel frame with mother-of-pearl grips hand-fitted on antique Colt hand-engraved brass grip frames converted to modern smokeless powder .38 special Cowboy Loads

- http://www.kirstkonverter.com/22-caliber-conversion-kits.html (and more)


37 posted on 08/01/2014 7:21:00 AM PDT by devolve (-Tell VLADIMER after my ERECTION I have more 90% more FLEXIBILITY - pre-1899 Colt SAA frames needed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB
you’ve just cause brain aneurysms and wet panties in any libs that read it

Thankyou and it was a pleasure.

38 posted on 08/01/2014 7:42:34 AM PDT by tbpiper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: devolve

“- I believe that is an actual authentic antique Colt revolver...”

If that is so, the pictured gun has been the subject of extensive rework. Refinish is either nickel or chrome plate: difficult to differentiate in a photo, easier in person. But the rounded edges and dished-out holes where the three screws come through give it away. The placement of the stop notches in relation to the nipple recesses does not match an original, and there aren’t any nipples.

Interesting caliber conversion.

“- Sam Colt was quite stubborn and resisted updating to a much stronger one-piece full frame with the barrel firmly screwed into to frame.

- Sam Colt died in 1862 - early in the War between the States. ...”

Sam might not be so highly regarded had he lived. As devolve has noted, he resisted every innovation that made the revolver such a success in the last 1/3 of the 19th century (metallic cartridges, solid frames, double action).

His cap-and-ball configurations (frame, cylinder arbor, barrel wedged on the front) were indeed less stout, but they are easier to clean and maintain than any competing design. And any arm firing black powder simply *must* be taken to bits for thorough cleaning, if the owner wants it to remain reliable and to last.

The Smith & Wesson hinged frame was another amazing innovation for its time, but total strength was scarcely any better than the barrel-wedge configuration of the original Colts. Henninger and Mason’s solid frame Single Action Army was a better bet for strength and durability - key attributes for the Ordnance Corps. Annoyingly, the latch is the weakest point of the Nr 3 and all smaller S&W top-break revolvers; only a little wear loosens the joint to the point where the arm will pop open on firing, with serious results. Far better was the Webley configuration (present on earlier British revolvers I think), reversing S&W’s arrangement by mounting the latch on the standing breech. Revolver buffs will recall that the Nr 3 variant modified by George Schofield for the Ordnance Corps bears a latch quite different from other S&W hinged frames.

With deference to devolve’s historical research, my memory of what I read tells me that on 25 June 1876 George Armstrong Custer was not carrying the latest issue revolver (Colt Single Action). He was carrying a brace of revolvers gifted to him by some notable personage: S&W Old Model 1-1/2 or Old Model 2, chambered in 32 rimfire. They were hinged frame but not auto-ejecting. The Nr 3 Schofield had not yet been taken into US Army service.

In fairness to all involved, I cannot dispel serious doubts about the 7th Cavalry Regiment’s chances, even if they had been armed with Schofields. The odds were not in their favor.

And even the most talented commander can have a bad day.


39 posted on 08/02/2014 11:37:48 AM PDT by schurmann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: devolve

“- I believe that is an actual authentic antique Colt revolver...”

If that is so, the pictured gun has been the subject of extensive rework. Refinish is either nickel or chrome plate: difficult to differentiate in a photo, easier in person. But the rounded edges and dished-out holes where the three screws come through give it away. The placement of the stop notches in relation to the nipple recesses does not match an original, and there aren’t any nipples.

Interesting caliber conversion.

“- Sam Colt was quite stubborn and resisted updating to a much stronger one-piece full frame with the barrel firmly screwed into to frame.

- Sam Colt died in 1862 - early in the War between the States. ...”

Sam might not be so highly regarded had he lived. As devolve has noted, he resisted every innovation that made the revolver such a success in the last 1/3 of the 19th century (metallic cartridges, solid frames, double action).

His cap-and-ball configurations (frame, cylinder arbor, barrel wedged on the front) were indeed less stout, but they are easier to clean and maintain than any competing design. And any arm firing black powder simply *must* be taken to bits for thorough cleaning, if the owner wants it to remain reliable and to last.

The Smith & Wesson hinged frame was another amazing innovation for its time, but total strength was scarcely any better than the barrel-wedge configuration of the original Colts. Henninger and Mason’s solid frame Single Action Army was a better bet for strength and durability - key attributes for the Ordnance Corps. Annoyingly, the latch is the weakest point of the Nr 3 and all smaller S&W top-break revolvers; only a little wear loosens the joint to the point where the arm will pop open on firing, with serious results. Far better was the Webley configuration (present on earlier British revolvers I think), reversing S&W’s arrangement by mounting the latch on the standing breech. Revolver buffs will recall that the Nr 3 variant modified by George Schofield for the Ordnance Corps bears a latch quite different from other S&W hinged frames.

With deference to devolve’s historical research, my memory of what I read tells me that on 25 June 1876 George Armstrong Custer was not carrying the latest issue revolver (Colt Single Action). He was carrying a brace of revolvers gifted to him by some notable personage: S&W Old Model 1-1/2 or Old Model 2, chambered in 32 rimfire. They were hinged frame but not auto-ejecting. The Nr 3 Schofield had not yet been taken into US Army service.

In fairness to all involved, I cannot dispel serious doubts about the 7th Cavalry Regiment’s chances, even if they had been armed with Schofields. The odds were not in their favor.

And even the most talented commander can have a bad day.


40 posted on 08/02/2014 11:37:48 AM PDT by schurmann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: devolve

“- I believe that is an actual authentic antique Colt revolver...”

If that is so, the pictured gun has been the subject of extensive rework. Refinish is either nickel or chrome plate: difficult to differentiate in a photo, easier in person. But the rounded edges and dished-out holes where the three screws come through give it away. The placement of the stop notches in relation to the nipple recesses does not match an original, and there aren’t any nipples.

Interesting caliber conversion.

“- Sam Colt was quite stubborn and resisted updating to a much stronger one-piece full frame with the barrel firmly screwed into to frame.

- Sam Colt died in 1862 - early in the War between the States. ...”

Sam might not be so highly regarded had he lived. As devolve has noted, he resisted every innovation that made the revolver such a success in the last 1/3 of the 19th century (metallic cartridges, solid frames, double action).

His cap-and-ball configurations (frame, cylinder arbor, barrel wedged on the front) were indeed less stout, but they are easier to clean and maintain than any competing design. And any arm firing black powder simply *must* be taken to bits for thorough cleaning, if the owner wants it to remain reliable and to last.

The Smith & Wesson hinged frame was another amazing innovation for its time, but total strength was scarcely any better than the barrel-wedge configuration of the original Colts. Henninger and Mason’s solid frame Single Action Army was a better bet for strength and durability - key attributes for the Ordnance Corps. Annoyingly, the latch is the weakest point of the Nr 3 and all smaller S&W top-break revolvers; only a little wear loosens the joint to the point where the arm will pop open on firing, with serious results. Far better was the Webley configuration (present on earlier British revolvers I think), reversing S&W’s arrangement by mounting the latch on the standing breech. Revolver buffs will recall that the Nr 3 variant modified by George Schofield for the Ordnance Corps bears a latch quite different from other S&W hinged frames.

With deference to devolve’s historical research, my memory of what I read tells me that on 25 June 1876 George Armstrong Custer was not carrying the latest issue revolver (Colt Single Action). He was carrying a brace of revolvers gifted to him by some notable personage: S&W Old Model 1-1/2 or Old Model 2, chambered in 32 rimfire. They were hinged frame but not auto-ejecting. The Nr 3 Schofield had not yet been taken into US Army service.

In fairness to all involved, I cannot dispel serious doubts about the 7th Cavalry Regiment’s chances, even if they had been armed with Schofields. The odds were not in their favor.

And even the most talented commander can have a bad day.


41 posted on 08/02/2014 11:37:48 AM PDT by schurmann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: schurmann

- Yes - dished frame around the threaded frame screw holes

- Custer split his forces - his subordinates did not stay in close contact - his ego was always a problem

- He left several Gatling Guns behind

- I have also heard he may have been carrying Bulldogs

- The single-shot Springfield Trapdoor .45-70’s tend to jam on the cartridge shells

- The Indians had repeaters and the troopers had long distance single-shot carbines - not too swift

- I have read that Custer had his men using Spencer carbines - but the brains far away knew so much better than Custer did

- You can even find pre Little Big Horn Colt SAA’s on guns international


42 posted on 08/02/2014 12:56:10 PM PDT by devolve (-Tell VLADIMER after my ERECTION I have more 90% more FLEXIBILITY - pre-1899 Colt SAA frames needed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: schurmann

- PS

- That Colt 1860 Army is fitted with a “drop-in” KIRST .22 Caliber Cartridge Conversion - the cylinder has a rimfire adapter at the back and the cylinder is made in two pieces - the forward half is right behind a short 2-1/2 Inch .22rf barrel

- A .22lr cartridge will slide into the rear of the cylinder without enlarging the frame as in most conversions or the SAA - not cheap - but no black powder cleanup and smell


43 posted on 08/02/2014 1:05:28 PM PDT by devolve (-Tell VLADIMER after my ERECTION I have more 90% more FLEXIBILITY - pre-1899 Colt SAA frames needed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: schurmann

webpage

-

- KIRST see all photographs : http://www.kirstkonverter.com/22-caliber-conversion-kits.html


44 posted on 08/02/2014 1:15:52 PM PDT by devolve (-Tell VLADIMER after my ERECTION I have more 90% more FLEXIBILITY - pre-1899 Colt SAA frames needed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

"Free Republic is here to continue fighting for independence and freedom and against the unconstitutional encroachment of ever expanding socialist government...

We believe in the founding principles with all our hearts and mean to defend them to our dying breath..."

~Jim Robinson



Please support Free Republic
click the pic!


45 posted on 08/02/2014 1:16:33 PM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: schurmann








with a KIRST KONVERSION .22lr cartridge conversion cylinder with .22 barrel insert

this is probably a Uberti made modern replica of a Colt Model 1851 Navy revolver

UBERTI made 2nd Generation Colt Black Powder Series revolvers for Colt






46 posted on 08/02/2014 1:27:58 PM PDT by devolve (-Tell VLADIMER after my ERECTION I have more 90% more FLEXIBILITY - pre-1899 Colt SAA frames needed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: devolve

“- Custer split his forces - his subordinates did not stay in close contact - his ego was always a problem”

George Armstrong Custer (West Point, Second Class of 1861) was described as the foremost American Indian fighter of the age. He had used the split force/multi-axis attack before, with a better success record than other commanders. What, on that morning in June 1876, would have caused him to suddenly lose faith in a tactical approach that had worked well before?

It’s an acknowledged truism that anybody who would presume to command troops in battle cannot do so without a very healthy ego. Custer was no standout among Army officers when it came to that aspect of character. And such egotism was no surprise: he pinned on the stars of a brigadier general only a couple years after graduating from USMA, then demonstrated the faith superiors had placed in him was justified, again and again during ACW.

It’s been argued that he ignored reports on the number of Indians present, but real-time battlefield intel has always been an iffy thing - truer in 1876 than today. Much had to be left to any commander’s discretion; difficult choices made in the heat of the moment, on scanty information, sometimes go wrong. So also do carefully considered choices, taken at a deliberate pace, backed by reams of data. One of the uncertainties of armed conflict.

“- He left several Gatling Guns behind”

I’ve walked the ground at the Little Big Horn site. Peering southeast from the monument, back over the terrain Custer and troopers crossed to arrive, it took me less than 30 seconds to realize that no Gatling gun could ever have made it in time. The chunk of territory in question was simply too rough and broken to allow anything with wheels to pass.

There’s every chance that even if the regimental Gatlings had somehow made it there with the troopers, they’d not have been much help. The 7th’s hurried ride to the field, frantic deployment, and general confusion preceding the engagement would have degraded their effectiveness.

“...- The single-shot Springfield Trapdoor .45-70’s tend to jam on the cartridge shells”

Little has been conclusively proven, but cartridge case metallurgy was still in its infancy. Solid-drawn brass cases were years in the future; the copper-case inside-primed 45-70 cases then being issued were notorious for sticking in the chamber after firing, especially during rapid fire on a hot day. Operational testing of the Allin-designed Trapdoor had been sketchy to nonexistent; no documented warnings nor special-use instructions were ever posted to field units about such jams. And the 7th’s defeat did not help the situation one bit; the site, remote even today, was past the far edge of beyond 138 years ago. Forensic science was unknown; even if an Ordnance Corps investigation team had been sent to collect evidence, precious little would have been usable, or findable, months after the fight. Not that the US Army would have admitted any errors; into the 1960s, the Army hierarchy was legendary for ignoring results it did not care for.

The poor reliability of 1876-vintage 45-70 ammunition may have worked its dark magic on Gatlings, had any managed to get there. Throughout the years 1865 to 1890, the Gatling earned a worldwide reputation for reliability and stoutness. But it also earned a reputation (thankfully less common) for falling victim to the most spectacular jams imaginable, always at the worst possible moment of battle. Cartridge cases of the day had an evil tendency to tear their heads off on occasion, thanks to the uncertain metallurgy. Additionally, primers had a much higher rate of delayed ignition, or hangfire. Bad enough in a single-shot rifle, pure disaster in a hand-cranked machine gun: if a primer chanced to delay ignition only a short while, the gunner rarely noticed (especially in the heat of action). When the round finally did fire, the barrel where it was had already been rotated part way along, the breech bolt often unlocked and cammed partially open. Now unsupported, the case head instantly split from the body and would be ejected, but the forward part of the case body stayed behind in the chamber. All unknowing, the gunner continued to turn the crank. Very shortly after, a fresh round would be driven forward, only to stick inside the remnant of the previous case’s body and fail to fully chamber. Result: jam, total tieup, gun out of action until it could be completely disassembled and the offending case body removed - a process that might require hours of false starts and frustration, even on a peaceful day back at the fort. In battle, defeat and disaster might be in the offing. Happened often enough that British forces composed a poem about it.

“- The Indians had repeaters and the troopers had long distance single-shot carbines - not too swift”

It seems blindingly obvious now, that repeaters were a good idea, but Army leaders in the 1870s argued constantly that any such weapon would tempt troops to exhaust their ammo too early. Please bear in mind that Plevna was still more than a year in the future when Custer was defeated.

Military doctrine of that period enshrined long-range fire, which could only be done with a large and powerful cartridge. Large cartridges are heavy, and require equally large, heavy rifles. It was decided that the average troop could not learn to use a repeater so large and heavy, and would balk at carrying around such heavy guns. If any forum member finds this spurious, I would urge them to go find an 1876-vintage repeater chambered for 45-70, load it fully, then carry it around for a day or two. But it cannot be done, because no repeater then in existence was strong enough, reliable enough, or durable enough to handle the 45-70, and keep it up for one battle. Gunmakers could not simply take, say, the Winchester 1873 and scale it up to handle the 45-70; the Winchester firm tried exactly that, but all they managed to bring forth was the 1876: shockingly large and heavy, yet still unequal to the 45-70. One would have to skip several years down the timeline, to the 1880s, to find viable repeaters like Winchester’s 1886, early Marlins, the Whitney-Kennedy, the Hotchkiss, the Remington-Keene, or the Chaffee-Reese. And each one of these is heavy empty, far worse when loaded.

No repeater made the grade until nitro propellant arrived (first fielded by the French, in 1886), fired from “small bore” cartridges of 25 to 32 caliber.

Accepted Army wisdom of the 1870s had it that trained troops firing single-shot rifles could defeat any enemy armed with repeaters, before the enemy could get close enough to render their repeaters effective.

“- I have read that Custer had his men using Spencer carbines - but the brains far away knew so much better than Custer did...”

George Custer is known for leading the first US troops into action firing repeaters: Spencers, at the battle of Gettysburg in 1863. But by 1876 it was peacetime (at least compared to the ACW), and peacetime rules were applied with a vengeance. It’s most unlikely that Custer would have flouted Army regulations by arming his troopers with weapons not officially approved, and for which no supply system of ammunition, spare parts, or trained armorers existed. It’s been reported he did take occasional advantage of his wife’s money (her father was a big wheel back in Monroe, Michigan), but for that purpose it would not have been very likely.

The “brains” - Army brass and civilian officials who bear ultimate responsibility for building up and controlling America’s military in this, our republic - have always held sway. A top-down system of hierarchy and constituted authority can really tolerate no other arrangement. And it’s true that sometimes the overlords are out of touch, behind the times, willfully flying in the face of reality, or merely incompetent. But sometimes they actually do know things the private soldier on the line doesn’t. Armed conflict is never so fully delineated, so completely understood that every possible alternative can be worked out beforehand. Sometimes the situation goes sour despite every effort of preparation and prior understanding. In those instances, the top-down command structure can be onerous, even deadly. But abandonment of all structure and negation of all authority may succeed no better: individual initiative can be a help, but it may not thrive nor survive long enough, once loss of cohesion degrades morale to the point where chaos sets in. Onerous and deadly after its own fashion.


47 posted on 08/02/2014 11:15:19 PM PDT by schurmann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: devolve

“- Custer split his forces - his subordinates did not stay in close contact - his ego was always a problem”

George Armstrong Custer (West Point, Second Class of 1861) was described as the foremost American Indian fighter of the age. He had used the split force/multi-axis attack before, with a better success record than other commanders. What, on that morning in June 1876, would have caused him to suddenly lose faith in a tactical approach that had worked well before?

It’s an acknowledged truism that anybody who would presume to command troops in battle cannot do so without a very healthy ego. Custer was no standout among Army officers when it came to that aspect of character. And such egotism was no surprise: he pinned on the stars of a brigadier general only a couple years after graduating from USMA, then demonstrated the faith superiors had placed in him was justified, again and again during ACW.

It’s been argued that he ignored reports on the number of Indians present, but real-time battlefield intel has always been an iffy thing - truer in 1876 than today. Much had to be left to any commander’s discretion; difficult choices made in the heat of the moment, on scanty information, sometimes go wrong. So also do carefully considered choices, taken at a deliberate pace, backed by reams of data. One of the uncertainties of armed conflict.

“- He left several Gatling Guns behind”

I’ve walked the ground at the Little Big Horn site. Peering southeast from the monument, back over the terrain Custer and troopers crossed to arrive, it took me less than 30 seconds to realize that no Gatling gun could ever have made it in time. The chunk of territory in question was simply too rough and broken to allow anything with wheels to pass.

There’s every chance that even if the regimental Gatlings had somehow made it there with the troopers, they’d not have been much help. The 7th’s hurried ride to the field, frantic deployment, and general confusion preceding the engagement would have degraded their effectiveness.

“...- The single-shot Springfield Trapdoor .45-70’s tend to jam on the cartridge shells”

Little has been conclusively proven, but cartridge case metallurgy was still in its infancy. Solid-drawn brass cases were years in the future; the copper-case inside-primed 45-70 cases then being issued were notorious for sticking in the chamber after firing, especially during rapid fire on a hot day. Operational testing of the Allin-designed Trapdoor had been sketchy to nonexistent; no documented warnings nor special-use instructions were ever posted to field units about such jams. And the 7th’s defeat did not help the situation one bit; the site, remote even today, was past the far edge of beyond 138 years ago. Forensic science was unknown; even if an Ordnance Corps investigation team had been sent to collect evidence, precious little would have been usable, or findable, months after the fight. Not that the US Army would have admitted any errors; into the 1960s, the Army hierarchy was legendary for ignoring results it did not care for.

The poor reliability of 1876-vintage 45-70 ammunition may have worked its dark magic on Gatlings, had any managed to get there. Throughout the years 1865 to 1890, the Gatling earned a worldwide reputation for reliability and stoutness. But it also earned a reputation (thankfully less common) for falling victim to the most spectacular jams imaginable, always at the worst possible moment of battle. Cartridge cases of the day had an evil tendency to tear their heads off on occasion, thanks to the uncertain metallurgy. Additionally, primers had a much higher rate of delayed ignition, or hangfire. Bad enough in a single-shot rifle, pure disaster in a hand-cranked machine gun: if a primer chanced to delay ignition only a short while, the gunner rarely noticed (especially in the heat of action). When the round finally did fire, the barrel where it was had already been rotated part way along, the breech bolt often unlocked and cammed partially open. Now unsupported, the case head instantly split from the body and would be ejected, but the forward part of the case body stayed behind in the chamber. All unknowing, the gunner continued to turn the crank. Very shortly after, a fresh round would be driven forward, only to stick inside the remnant of the previous case’s body and fail to fully chamber. Result: jam, total tieup, gun out of action until it could be completely disassembled and the offending case body removed - a process that might require hours of false starts and frustration, even on a peaceful day back at the fort. In battle, defeat and disaster might be in the offing. Happened often enough that British forces composed a poem about it.

“- The Indians had repeaters and the troopers had long distance single-shot carbines - not too swift”

It seems blindingly obvious now, that repeaters were a good idea, but Army leaders in the 1870s argued constantly that any such weapon would tempt troops to exhaust their ammo too early. Please bear in mind that Plevna was still more than a year in the future when Custer was defeated.

Military doctrine of that period enshrined long-range fire, which could only be done with a large and powerful cartridge. Large cartridges are heavy, and require equally large, heavy rifles. It was decided that the average troop could not learn to use a repeater so large and heavy, and would balk at carrying around such heavy guns. If any forum member finds this spurious, I would urge them to go find an 1876-vintage repeater chambered for 45-70, load it fully, then carry it around for a day or two. But it cannot be done, because no repeater then in existence was strong enough, reliable enough, or durable enough to handle the 45-70, and keep it up for one battle. Gunmakers could not simply take, say, the Winchester 1873 and scale it up to handle the 45-70; the Winchester firm tried exactly that, but all they managed to bring forth was the 1876: shockingly large and heavy, yet still unequal to the 45-70. One would have to skip several years down the timeline, to the 1880s, to find viable repeaters like Winchester’s 1886, early Marlins, the Whitney-Kennedy, the Hotchkiss, the Remington-Keene, or the Chaffee-Reese. And each one of these is heavy empty, far worse when loaded.

No repeater made the grade until nitro propellant arrived (first fielded by the French, in 1886), fired from “small bore” cartridges of 25 to 32 caliber.

Accepted Army wisdom of the 1870s had it that trained troops firing single-shot rifles could defeat any enemy armed with repeaters, before the enemy could get close enough to render their repeaters effective.

“- I have read that Custer had his men using Spencer carbines - but the brains far away knew so much better than Custer did...”

George Custer is known for leading the first US troops into action firing repeaters: Spencers, at the battle of Gettysburg in 1863. But by 1876 it was peacetime (at least compared to the ACW), and peacetime rules were applied with a vengeance. It’s most unlikely that Custer would have flouted Army regulations by arming his troopers with weapons not officially approved, and for which no supply system of ammunition, spare parts, or trained armorers existed. It’s been reported he did take occasional advantage of his wife’s money (her father was a big wheel back in Monroe, Michigan), but for that purpose it would not have been very likely.

The “brains” - Army brass and civilian officials who bear ultimate responsibility for building up and controlling America’s military in this, our republic - have always held sway. A top-down system of hierarchy and constituted authority can really tolerate no other arrangement. And it’s true that sometimes the overlords are out of touch, behind the times, willfully flying in the face of reality, or merely incompetent. But sometimes they actually do know things the private soldier on the line doesn’t. Armed conflict is never so fully delineated, so completely understood that every possible alternative can be worked out beforehand. Sometimes the situation goes sour despite every effort of preparation and prior understanding. In those instances, the top-down command structure can be onerous, even deadly. But abandonment of all structure and negation of all authority may succeed no better: individual initiative can be a help, but it may not thrive nor survive long enough, once loss of cohesion degrades morale to the point where chaos sets in. Onerous and deadly after its own fashion.


48 posted on 08/02/2014 11:15:19 PM PDT by schurmann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: devolve

“...probably a Uberti made modern replica of a Colt Model 1851 Navy revolver ...”

Very attractive piece. Good to know more manufacturers are offering conversion units. The Kirst setup looks like a step beyond, in terms of imaginative approach.

Handling qualities are irreducibly subjective, but the ‘51 Navy has always impressed me: the veritable pinnacle of perfection. Many have tried to outdo it, but it reigns supreme 164 years later. Simply the best combination of length, width, height, curves, and angles. Light enough to carry, sleek enough to wield quicker than a rattlesnake

The revolver in the image is suitably gorgeous, in blued steel, case-colored iron, and silver-plated brass. Alas, I fear we’re never going to see again, the paler slate-blue finish gracing the older (pre 1940?) guns. Nor the fire-blue screw heads either. Not on production guns.


49 posted on 08/02/2014 11:15:55 PM PDT by schurmann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: devolve

“...probably a Uberti made modern replica of a Colt Model 1851 Navy revolver ...”

Very attractive piece. Good to know more manufacturers are offering conversion units. The Kirst setup looks like a step beyond, in terms of imaginative approach.

Handling qualities are irreducibly subjective, but the ‘51 Navy has always impressed me: the veritable pinnacle of perfection. Many have tried to outdo it, but it reigns supreme 164 years later. Simply the best combination of length, width, height, curves, and angles. Light enough to carry, sleek enough to wield quicker than a rattlesnake

The revolver in the image is suitably gorgeous, in blued steel, case-colored iron, and silver-plated brass. Alas, I fear we’re never going to see again, the paler slate-blue finish gracing the older (pre 1940?) guns. Nor the fire-blue screw heads either. Not on production guns.


50 posted on 08/02/2014 11:15:55 PM PDT by schurmann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson