Author Topic: Why 31, 36 or 44 revolvers? (Read 2670 times)

m-g Willy · « **on:** June 10, 2007, 02:35:41 AM »

How did we end up with these bore size.

Why not .30 ,.40 and .50 ?
It couldn't be the size of the cylinder that dictates the cal. (look at the Le Mat )

just wondering

Willy

Flint · « **Reply #1 on:** June 10, 2007, 09:28:46 AM »

I can't comment on the 31, except that it is a shot size. "0" Buck, I believe.

The requirement creating the 44 caliber ball was that it be 50 GA, that is 50 round balls per pound.

The bore before rifling (land diameter) is .44 inch, after rifling (groove) about 454.

The "Navy" 36 has a conical bullet weighting the same as the 44 round ball, at 50 per pound.

Bore 36 before rifling, with a .375 groove diameter.

m-g Willy · « **Reply #2 on:** June 10, 2007, 07:13:14 PM »

Thanks Flint

Willy

m-g Willy · « **Reply #3 on:** June 12, 2007, 09:52:34 AM »

Wait a min there Flint!
Wasn't the Patterson a 36cal.?
Then the Walker came along after that.
If so , then how did they come up with the 36 cal. bore size before they had a 44 to match the bullet weight too?

Just wondering.

Willy

Flint · « **Reply #4 on:** June 12, 2007, 12:34:36 PM »

Pattersons came in 28 (265), 31,34 and 36 caliber. Buckshot sizes are .27 #2, .32 "0", .34"00" and .38 is "0000". The sizes may have come from that.

Why the Patterson evolved to the holster size 36 cal is a mystery, other than the "0000" buck size, but the conical bullet for a 36 Navy is indeed 140gr, the same as the 44 roundball, at 50 per pound.

Perhaps the 50 per pound just reaffirmed the 36 caliber as a choice. The .28 and .34 calibers were not used after the Pattersons except for the .28 (actually .265) in the Colt Root pocket pistols.

A note of trivia from James Serven's book on the history of Colt is that the .54 caliber single shot horse pistol roundball weighs the same as the 44 caliber conical at 1/2 oz. (approximately).

m-g Willy · « **Reply #5 on:** June 12, 2007, 04:33:51 PM »

Thanks for the info --again-- Flint

Willy

Echo4Lima · « **Reply #6 on:** July 07, 2007, 11:26:20 AM »

would the .36 be 000 buck?

Flint · « **Reply #7 on:** July 07, 2007, 06:02:19 PM »

Yes, indeed, #000 Buck is 36 caliber.

longcaribiner · « **Reply #8 on:** July 11, 2007, 04:08:55 AM »

OK, and the 58 cal cap and ball revolver made in England in the 1850's?

Heck with the Lemat, I'd like the Italians to copy that 58 cal.

lrrice · « **Reply #9 on:** July 15, 2007, 08:38:16 AM »

I don't have one handy, but I recall a write-up in the back of the Dixie Gunworks catalog that theorized that the each popular size round ball was roughly double the weight of the next smaller...or something like that. Other than that, I have no idea.

Echo4Lima · « **Reply #10 on:** August 28, 2007, 10:28:25 AM »

Flint, the only 000 buck I've found is Hornady it's .35 Rolls in and out of the cylinder. Hard to find buckshot bagged here. I wonder if someone elses is the right size?

Flint · « **Reply #11 on:** August 29, 2007, 08:10:18 PM »

Looks like the Hornady is a bit small, it should match the bore size (but not the groove) of a 36 Navy. Apparently, there is no .375 or .38 shot size, which would be needed to match a Navy cylinder chamber. The 36 (000) shot would only work, patched, in a 36 caliber rifle.

I was misled somewhere down the line. 31 caliber pocket pistols can be loaded with No. 0 buckshot. (32 caliber)

sui generis · « **Reply #12 on:** August 30, 2007, 04:37:09 AM »

You should not rely heavily on this answer

I believe that in the good old days, small-arms bore sizes were not normally specified in diameter, but in 'balls per pound' (= gauge) as most shotguns are today -

I don't know if Dixie's current catalog lists nominal gauge to diameter conversions, but it used to.

I think the .28/.31/.36/.44 series approximated a logical progression in effectiveness with roundballs.

longcaribiner · « **Reply #13 on:** August 31, 2007, 04:28:25 AM »

I had heard a old timer claim that the each of the "popular" calibers were in increments that the shot used was approximately a 1.75 times the weight of the next smaller caliber. a ball for a 31 cal is about 50 grains, for a 36 cal 81 grains and for a 44 cal. 138 grains. That story seems close. Using that formula, the next size would have been around 57Cal. Didn't the Birits make an early cap and ball revolver around that size?

Flint · « **Reply #14 on:** September 01, 2007, 07:45:32 PM »

A 28 caliber ball ( .275) weighs 33 gr., is 212 gauge
A 31 caliber ball (.320) weighs 50 gr., is 140 gauge
A 36 caliber ball (.375) weighs 80 gr., is 88 gauge
A 44 caliber ball (.454) weighs 140 gr., is 50 gauge

Shotgun gauge is balls per pound, a 12 gauge shotgun bore is .729 inch diameter, 12 balls of that diameter weighs one pound.

flintman · « **Reply #15 on:** July 14, 2008, 06:34:59 PM »

Why shouldn't we have called the .44 magnum a .43 magnum?That is the correct sizing die if you are using cast bullets...

longcaribiner · « **Reply #16 on:** July 18, 2008, 03:29:16 AM »

There were some other oddities in caliber, however, as to the most common ones, I once heard that each step up was approximately double the weight or half the numbr of balls per pound, something to that effect.

As I recall there was a 40 caliber and a 46 and even a 58 caliber cap and ball revolver made in England,

Gatofeo · « **Reply #17 on:** November 29, 2008, 12:52:59 PM »

31-36-44 were the measurements of Samuel Colt's mistress.
And few stranger looking women ever walked the planet. Ol' Sam had odd taste in women ...

jlchucker · « **Reply #18 on:** November 30, 2008, 03:46:13 AM »

Quote from: Echo4Lima on August 28, 2007, 10:28:25 AM

Flint, the only 000 buck I've found is Hornady it's .35 Rolls in and out of the cylinder. Hard to find buckshot bagged here. I wonder if someone elses is the right size?

Back in the 1970's when I first got interested in Cap and Ball revolvers, I found out, probably thru the extensive material that used to be printed in the Dixie Gun Works catalog, that 000 buck was .380 dia. I ordered a 5 lb bag of it, and it worked fine in the EMF Colt clone that I had back then. Likewise the smaller buckshot in a 31 copy. If I remember correctly, those 5 lb bags were Remington brand. Lots of shots for the money. I haven't had those guns for years--wish I did.

Echo4Lima · « **Reply #19 on:** December 03, 2008, 04:34:18 PM »

jlchucker, I believe you. There is so much stuff now that isnt what it once was. Flint was most likely right to begin with. The shot is probably smaller now for some manufacturing reason. Who knows!?