Another special post, because he has a lot of good information.
This post is specifically a question on the old blackpowder arms.
As near as I can tell from the literature, the difference in designation between the "Army" and "Navy" names on the mid-19th century Colt's revolvers is in the first, or perhaps primary, caliber in which they were manufactured.
Specifically, the "Navy" designations (1851 and 1861 and possibly more) were in .36 caliber. That is, in fact, the actual caliber of the one blackpowder replica revolver (an 1851 Navy style) that I own (so far). The "Army" designations (1860 and others) are in .44 caliber for the front loaders, and larger for the cartridge revolvers (1873 and later).
Now, it is true that the Navy revolvers (as in that other post) were also manufactured in .44, and the Army and Police models were built in .44 and .36 (also .38) calibers. But I suspect that the primary designation of Army or Navy was based on the originally intended caliber for the model. And I suspect that the calibers chosen were because of weight requirements on land as opposed to onboard ship (meaning land could accomodate a greater weight per shot than ships could). But of course, this is all speculation on my part, and I'd love to hear some better information from folks in the know.
Even if those folks might (God forbid) be sheep-molester Bingley.
Iz out!
2 months ago
7 comments:
Ken, I'm not an expert on small arms by any means, but your question intrigued me, so I did a bit of searching.
About the best article I could find is this one, which describes the history thusly:
"In 1848 the 1st Model Dragoon [Colt revolver] arrived and was rapidly followed by the 2nd and 3rd Models. All of these were huge .44 caliber sixguns weighing over four pounds. At the same time Colt also offered small .31 caliber pocket pistols such as the Baby Dragoon and Wells Fargo. Would it be possible to combine the two ideas and come up with a sixgun easier to carry than the Dragoons and yet more powerful than the diminutive pocket pistols?
Shape Of Things To Come
The result was the Model of 1851, the .36 Colt Navy. The gunfighter's weapon had arrived. For the first time it was possible for the competent pistolero to be just as dangerous with his sixgun belted on as he was with it in his hand. The era following the Civil War would produce numerous gunfighters, however Colt had already produced the sixgun. The only task left was a continual refinement over the next 20 years.
The Model 1851 went big bore in 1860 with the .44 Army. This was the number one revolver supplied to the Union troops during the Civil War as well as the United States Cavalry as we pushed westward in the late 1860s."
Essentially, the Navy Colt was a compromise design (no doubt influenced by the metallurgy of that period) to get something easy to carry, but still lethal in use.
According to Wikipedia (grab yer salt shaker!):
"The designation "Colt 1851 Navy" was applied by collectors, though the popular name "Navy Revolver" is of early origin, as the gun was frequently called the "Colt Revolving Belt Pistol of Naval Caliber." (ibid, Wilson) The cylinder was engraved with a scene of the victory of the Second Texas Navy at the Battle of Campeche in May 1843. The Texas Navy had purchased the earlier Colt Paterson Revolver, but this was Colt's first major success in the gun trade; the naval theme of the engraved cylinder of the Colt 1851 Navy revolver was Colt's gesture of appreciation. Despite the "Navy" designation, the revolver was chiefly purchased by civilians and military land forces(ibid Wilson 1985)."
The Army Colt Revolver, according to another Wikipedia article, was simply a Navy Colt frame modified for a larger caliber. I'm guessing the Army went .44 caliber because, firearms, bigger is better, especially when your only projectile of choice is a lump of lead (these days, bullet design is as important to accuracy and effect as is size and powder charge).
But I really don't know why the upgrade, given how the Army went back to .38 revolvers around 1900 or so, and then back to .45 with the Model 1911 ACP. Which we dumped for the 9mm Beretta, God knows why (supposedly so we could be compatible with wussy NATO standard ammo calibers). Rumor Control has it that the Army is considering going back to the .45. Again.
Well, the story about why the Navy Colt was called the _Navy_ Colt is also in a book I have called _The Story of the Gun_, by grandmaster small-arms expert Ian V. Hogg, so I'm willing to accept it as tentatively true.
I suspect the Navy Colt was designed as a medium-caliber sidearm, something smaller and lighter and less expensive than the big-ass .44 Army revolver, but still plenty lethal. Much like modern .38 and .44 revolvers, or 9mm and .45 ACP.
The most obvious reason for the Army downgrading to .38 is cost: both the gun and the cartridge are smaller, therefore cheaper to make. And the period between roughly 1890 and 1910 was a slack one for the US Army. The Indian wars were over, and it had little to do. In such situations the beancounters always get the advantage. Then came the Spanish-American War, the Mexican border war, and especially the campaigns against Filipino nationalists, and the Army quickly found that .38 caliber just didn't cut it in combat. Thus, the Browning automatic pistol model M1907, and then its descendant the Army M1911 .45 ACP.
Yeah, that makes sense, Wolfwalker. The bean counters always rule between wars. Cost was likely a factor in shifting to 9mm from .45 as well; smaller cartridges, relatively smaller pistols, etc.
And that's a pity, because the Beretta ain't nowhere as good as an M1911A1. I imagine the soldiers of the 1890s felt the same way when they were issued a .38 revolver.
Great information, guys, thanks!
Caliber (diameter) alone ain't everything, though. The .38 auto replaced by the .45 auto after the Phillipine insurrection was no match for the .38 special, which was the caliber (I think) the revolvers were in before the army adopted the automatic pistol. If the .38 auto had the power of the .38 special, I doubt it would have been replaced.
Still doesn't explain why the military would downgrade to the 9mm Europellet, though.
Ken, the driving force for adopting 9mm sidearms was logistics. This was discussed even when I was a lieutenant, in the early 1980s (way too many damn years ago!).
Back then (i.e., prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union), The Next Big War was expected to be fought in Europe. So that was the focus for the US military, in a big way.
So everything was about meeting NATO standards. EVERYTHING. (Drove me nuts, it did, because the Guard had a lot of material that was developed prior to the NATO standards feeding frenzy. It took a while for new doctrine to trickle down into the Guard back then; more than once, I had to pull out newer manuals to show Guard officers they were using old doctrine. Made me real popular it did, especially with senior officers.)
Sound logistics in the modern military means interchangeability, which is a problem given the various nationalities and politics involved. We didn't drive the same vehicles, so interchanging those parts was a nightmare. But they used the same fuels. Likewise with firearms. 5.56, 7.62, 81mm, 155mm, etc, not an issue. They were (and are) all standard).
Except that the Europeans loved the 9mm, and not the .45, and I can't say why. I've heard arguments for and against each caliber, but it all comes down to the simple fact that one .45 bullet has more stopping power than the NATO standard 9mm. So I dunno.
But that's why we adopted 9mm as the standard sidearm caliber, for better or for worse. We could exchange ammo easily enough.
Mostly for worse, I think; during the 2003 Iraq invasion, and subsequent occupation, there were a lot of problems with the Beretta, the biggest one being a crappy spring for the magazine; it wouldn't feed after 9 rounds or so, a definite minus for a 15 round magazine carried by troops in combat.
No, I don't like 9mm. I've owned several, and fired many. I can use it. But since I get to choose my own bullet launchers these days, I lean towards the .45, a tried and true caliber.
As an interesting side note....the Soviets planned around this. For example, all of their portable infantry mortars were 82mm; they could fire captured NATO standard 81mm mortar ammo (probably with less accuracy), but we couldn't use theirs.
This was NOT the case for their standard rifle ammo, 7.62x39mm; NATO standard rifle ammo back then was 7.62x52mm. Later, it was 5.45mm versus 5.56mm.
As the old saying goes, amateurs focus on strategy, professionals focus on logistics.
Jeff, wasn't there also an argument about "smaller caliber round means a soldier can carry more rounds for the same weight?" Also something about how scientific design made each bullet more effective despite its smaller size?
That's why we shifted from 7.62mm (i.e., .30 caliber, both .308 and .30-06) to 5.56mm for our battle rifles, Wolfwalker.
Ballistics and metallurgy improved vastly after World War II, so one can design bullets for specific purposes. I recently picked up two vastly different types of bullets of exactly the same caliber. One was a conventional design, and the other a hunting bullet specifically designed to expend it's force within the game. The final designs are vastly different.
Thus, in terms of killing people, shifting to 5.56mm was a smart move, especially for logistics.
The shift did come at a price, though. The .30 caliber bullet simply packs a bigger punch. It's more effective against armor and fighting positions than 5.56mm will ever be. That's why crew served weapons remain 7.62mm and larger.
Pistol ammo, though, is a different matter. At least, I think it is, from the perspective of someone who spent his time supporting logistical operations.
In combat, a pistol is intended for self-defense, exactly the opposite of a rifle. Even under ideal circumstances, neither a 9mm or a .45 is effective beyond 30 meters. It seems obvious that employing a pistol in combat is a measure of last resort, where you have little time to do more than "pray and spray".
I've heard two schools of thought with the 9mm versus .45 argument, and it all came down to "quality versus quantity":
A .45 slug should take a person down on the first or second shot, more often than not. But you only had a maximum of 8 shots with the M1911A1 (officially, hot loading was a no-no in the military. Unofficially, I planned to ignore that). So you had to be a decent shot with the M1911A1, which meant more range time, and thus more training ammo.
The 9mm might take a person down on the first or second shot, but you can walk the rounds in, so who cares? Training focuses on that, and (theoretically) less range time is required (yeah, bean counters again).
This argument is now, more or less, overcome by events. Some .45 automatics have a higher magazine capacity (e.g., the Glock 21 (13 rounds) than the M1911A1.
But that was the school of thought way back when.
Post a Comment