Wild Bill and His Navy Colts

[filmokentucky]

It has always struck me as odd that Bill Hickock stayed with his Navy Colts as long as he did. As a man who knew his firearms and whose life depended upon his guns stopping power, why wouldn't he have switched to the 1860 Army model? For the same weight he would have got a lot more punch. My second generation 1860 Armys have pretty much the same balance as my second generation 1851 Navys and the longer grip gives a better hold, so I don't see handling as a reason to stay with the older model. And he must have seen the '60 Army's effectiveness during the Civil War.
   I've never seen a convincing explanation for this. Does anyone have any ideas about this?

[Will52100]

This is just a guess, but it is possible that the 36 hits a little harder/higher velocity than the 44 army.  Just my own personal test with pine boards and such but the 36 penitrated a good bit further than my 60 army.

One thing I noticed with the 51', you can seat a ball over a completly full chamber of powder, though you can't use a wad.  I couldn't quite do that with the army.

Then again he may have had small hands and the 51's grip fit him better. :lol:

[HWooldridge]

Familiarity may have played a part and they were a bit smaller plus cheaper to shoot than a bigger gun.  Why did Hardin use 1860 Army's instead of something else?  I doubt we'll ever know.

[Gatofeo]

I seem to recall that Hickock's Navies were heavily engraved and had his name along the backstrap.
He may have been enamored of them for that reason. Besides, they served him well for many years so there was little need to change.
But like yourself, I've often wondered why he didn't carry a Colt Model 1873 single action. Perhaps its .45-caliber had to heavy of a recoil and created too much smoke for a quick, follow-up shot.
The .36 caliber had a long history of being a good fight-stopper, contrary to its relatively small ball. With a full load, and a ball, you can get 1,000 feet per second from a 7-1/2 inch barrel.
Recoil is negligible, allowing quick succeeding shots.
Hickock is known to have carried a small cartridge gun as a hideout piece. I can't recall the make or caliber, offhand.
His silver plated Navies were very recognizable to the public and there was surely a psychological advantage in carrying two revolvers that had participated in so much gunplay. Anyone seeing them in Hickock's sash would be inclined to wonder how many men had been killed by them. This would certainly give anyone second thoughts about challenging or insulting Hickock.

[Sundown Holly]

Gatofeo may be right about Hickok's sticking with the Navy Colts because  of their beauty. I have seen one of them at the Autry museum in Los Angeles. It had a lot of wear, but was in very good shape. It was well cared for. I have read that toward the end of his life that he carried two Colt Navys tht had been converted to cartridge, but have not been able to varify this. Their seems to be some doubt about it.

     It must be remembered that Hickok died in August of 1876 (August 8th). At that time self contained metallic cartridges were still in their infancy, not completely accepted and not available every where, especially on the fromtier.  Also, only 199 Peacemakers were made in 1873. They really didn't get started in quanity till 1874 but still less than 1500 were made that year and nearly all of them went to the Army. It wasn't until 1875 that the gun was made available to the general public. Hickok in all probability had little experience with them.  

     The .36 caliber Navy had a reputation for good stopping power on the frontier, as long as you used the round ball.  The military used the .44 because they preferred the conical  bullet(loaded faster using paper cartridges, greater penetration than the round ball, and accuarate at a greater distance than the round ball). Hickok used the round ball, not the conical bullet in his Navys. He said that he would aim at about a persons belt buckel. The belly shot did not kill a person immediately, but as he said it "took all the fight out of them." For his purposes the Navy wasn't just "good enough" rather, it was what he preferred.

     When he died he had on his person a Sharps four barrel pepperbox as a hide out gun.

[filmokentucky]

I hold my squareback Navys in great esteem, but they aren't any more accurate than my '60 Armies and they definitely do not have the penetration capabilities of the Armies. As recoil isn't a factor with either model, I guess Bill probably was just a creature of habit.
   He must have had his Navys rebuilt or repaired on occasion, given the amount of use he gave them. He is supposed to have emptied and reloaded them every morning to be sure the loads were fresh. That alone would have put some wear and tear on them.
    I recall reading that he may have used a Dragoon model in his fight with Dave Tutt and that does seem more likely than making an instant one shot kill with an 80 grain ball from a Navy model at a range of 75 or so yards.

[Sundown Holly]

Filmokentucky, about Bill using a Dragoon in his fight with Dave Tutt in Springfield Missouri, I read the same thing.  One account even said that he used .32 caliber Smith and Wesson! (Next they'll have ole Bill walking on water!).  However, in a 1998 interview with Joseph Rosa (considered the most accurate of all the Hickok biographers and a first class historian)  hequoted the February 1867 interview that Wild Bill did with Colonel George Ward Nichols for Harpers New Monthly Magazine as stating that Bill used an Colt Navy in that fight (the Hickok interview by the way also took place also in Springfield Missouri). Rosa went on to  say that the evidence given to the coroner after the fight led Rosa to believe that the gun used was a Navy. I lived in Springfield in the early 90's, and while I never met Rosa, I know that he was often in town (all the way from England!) to do research in the Green County Archives on Wild Bill.

     I once read an article by Phil Spangenberger who is the Black Powder Editor for Guns & Ammo (2001 Guns & Ammo Annual), in which he claimed that John Capen Adams, other wise known as "Grizzly Adams" (the real one, not the TV character) used a Navy to kill grizzly bears in California!  He claims that Adams would shoot them with a big bore plains rifle, then empty his Navy  into the bear, and then wade in and fight with a bowie knife.  Spangenber claimed that Adams did this on several occassions, having been a hunter who killed more California grizzlys than any other person.  I have great respect for Spangenberger and have followed his writings for years, but find this a little tough to swallow. I do not know why Adams  would not use a Dragoon or something similar.  If this story is true than Adams was truly a wild or crazy man!  Spangenberger is very respected for his research (and has often been featured as a source on the History Channels' "Tales Of The Gun"). I have not seen any documentation on this topic but for Spangenberger to quote it there must be some somewhere. He concludes "While much could be argued against the sanity of his method of killing these bears, it is certainly a testimonial to the '51 Navy Colt's reliability for Adams to continually rely on it in such dangerous situations. This is especially significant when one considers that he could selected one of the more powerful Colt .44 Dragoon revolvers, or some other big-bored weapon."  Well, go figure!

[1860]

Hickcock and some of the other gunfighters of his day stated that the key to success in gunfights was accuracy first...Many of us have our favorite guns and the ones I like best are the ones I can shoot the best.  Kickcock probably just had confidence in his 51s and that's the key to good shooting, confidence.  

At the time of his death, his eyesight was starting to fail like it does for many of us.  It would of taken alot of work for him to get profficient with a new revolver and bad eyes, maybe he just stuck to what worked..

60

[filmokentucky]

Bill's eyesight started to fail later in life. The '60 Army was available long before then. And the '60 represents a big leap in stopping power and penetrating capability.
   Years ago (maybe 30) we tested a "C" series Navy and a Uberti '60 Army against each other for penetration. I no longer remember how many inches each penetrated (we used pine boards) but I remember being surprised at how much more powerful the Army model was. We also had a Dragoon and a Walker on hand, but they were in a league of their own.
   Anyway, given his choice of life style, I would have thought he would have gone for the most bang for the buck-- both pistols costing about the same. Maybe he simply couldn't afford to replace his Navys-but this is a man who emptied both pistols every morning according to legend. I guess in the end, force of habit is the best explanation.

[HWooldridge]

Although he was tall, I have read that Bill had relatively small and delicate hands.  Note that he was not a traditional cowpuncher or farmer - he made his living hunting, gambling, marshaling, etc. so he was the equivalent of a Wild West white-collar worker (how's that for alliteration?).  The Navy's are lighter and smaller than the Army's and he carried them ALL the time, so he was likely more interested in weight and bulk reduction while still having something bigger than a pocket pistol.  The 38 Special was the standard for all police revolvers for many years and the '51 Navy is a better manstopper so he wasn't undergunned.  With regard to weight, a 44 Dragoon is fine for battle or hunting but how many folks would want to carry one every single day from dawn to dark?

[filmokentucky]

That's a good point about the grips. I find the longer grips of the Army model give me a better hold than the Navy's shorter grips do. Actually, the Walker's grips feel the best of all. I'd never heard that Hickock had small hands before, but that makes a lot of sense.

[mec]

The most popular versions of the story say that the inscribed navy's were given to Hickock by a US Senator whom he guided on a western hunt and that this took place in 1868. Other's have cast asperigus on the story and the authenticity of the Autry museum Colt and its missing mate.  Others  have argued about whether Hickock used the Navy or some other gun.  

In any case, his sticking with the navy's is not too great a stretch. If this is what he was using when he marshalled in Abilene, there would be no particular reason to change as he seems to have instantly killed several people.  That sort of success does not send you out looking for a bigger gun.  It also appears that Hickock was pretty well finished with gunfighting after Abilene and might not have been motivated to hunt up a Single Action Army.

[Sundown Holly]

I too thought that Bill's other Navy was mising, but I recently have read that it is in the Buffalo Bill Museum in Cody Wyoming. As far as power is concerned, it is clear that the 1860 Army or the Dragoons are all more powerful guns than the Navy.  Bill appears to have had great success with his Navys, so why switch? If you hunt with the .44 Mag and are happy with it why switch to the .454? Bill seemed very satisfied with what he had, and with the engraving and are they were certainly a cut above the average gun.

     I had not read that Bill had small hands. I do know that he was a scrapper, and unlike other gun fighters he was just as competent with his hads as with his guns.

[HWooldridge]

I can't remember where I read about his relative hand size but I did find an old article written in "Guns of the Gunfighters", published by Guns and Ammo in 1975, that states he used 1860 Armies in 1871 to kill gambler Phil Coe and his unlucky deputy Mike Williams.  They also state that Buffalo Bill probably gave him a S&W #3 in 44 American when Hickok left the Wild West show.  Not sure how they know this but if it's true, he may have used a variety of guns from time to time and the Navies are just what his is remembered for.

[Sundown Holly]

HWoolridge, I too have a copy of the "Guns of the Gunfighters" 1975 edition. Pretty good issue, wasn't it?  Joseph Rosa in his "Guns of the American West" elaborates on the S & W story regarding Hickok. It seems that Hickok received not one Smith & Wesson revolver as a gift, but two. One was a gift from Buffalo Bill, and the other was from another famous frontier scout, Texas Jack Omohundro, both given to Bill when he left the Wild West Show. Rosa goes on to quote another author who quotes an un named Colorado newspaper in stating that they did an interview with Bill while he was in Colorado. The other author quotes the paper as saying that Bill was armed with "a pair of heavy Smith & Wesson revolvers which shoot nearly as accurately as rifles." Rosa tried to verify the quote but thus far has been unable to locate it's source. So, who knows?  We will probably never know for certain.

     In a different situation Rosa states that in 1867 while scouting for the army that Hickok carried a message through dangerous territory from Fort Hays to Fort Harker. At that time, Rosa states, that Hickok carried two Navy Colts (obviously not the engraved pair as they were not presented to him until 1869) and a carbine rifle. Hickok's affinity for the Navy model is well documented through the Civil War and on through his scouting days and law enforcement days. After that we don't have much
in the way of documentation as to what he used. But I must admit that it does make interesting reading and thoughtful speculation!

______________________________

Gun control is being able to hit what you aim at

[Big Paulie]

Dear Guys,

       Don't forget another possible factor, that plays on all us even today.  Superstition!   Those Navies were Bill's "lucky" guns, that had saved his life many many times. You don't just switch to something else because it may be more powerful.

    A hundred years from now, someone might be asking why people today didn't just ditch all of their single actions for a Ruger .450 casull.

Just my thoughts.

Big Paulie

[Dan Chamberlain]

I'm particularly fond of the Navy pistol.  I don't believe the 1860 was an overall improvement in any way but caliber.  The grip is too shallow. It has the length, but is no deeper than the Bisley...great for target shooting, but not for combat!  

The Navy was superior in size, weight and handling capability.  Remember, that back then, there were few men who had any formal training in the use of a one-hand gun.  It was learn on the job, trial and error!  The Navy lent itself to instinctive shooting.  It pointed like a laser!  The Army came along and did not supplant the Navy's popularity!  That says a lot.  Heck, the best selling C&B Colt made was a .31!  People weren't so enamoured by caliber.

Bill stayed with the Navys because they were the first "perfect" fighting handgun, and all the improvements that came along afterward were not so significant as to render a pair of Navy pistols totally obsolete.  

Dan C

[Sundown Holly]

Dan C, very well put. I'll have to give your comments some thought. I hadn't thought of it that way before, but I bet you are right about people not being enamoured with caliber. Before the .30-30 Winchester was invented, America's deer cartridge was the old  .44-40.  Today this cartridge would not be considered as a good deer cartridge. One old timer once said that it (the old west) was a time of experimenting as far as caliber, etc. Remember, the .31 caliber c&b was considered a perfectly good self defense cartridge. In the  1980's gunwriter Rick Hacker described the .31 caliber as being good only for misquito season in Texas, and as he said "but even then you may have to shoot twice." Quite a difference in attitude. What a difference 150 years can make in the way people think.

[Sundown Holly]

Oops! I didn't mean to call the .31 caliber round ball a "cartridge."

[filmokentucky]

Well, I dunno. Back in the day, bore size was rather neatly categorized-
at least as it pertained to C&B revolvers. .31 was for pocket pistols. .36 was belt pistol caliber. And .44 was holster pistol caliber-the holster in question being attached to the saddle of a Ranger or Dragoon's  mount.
The New Model Army of 1860 came about as an attempt to get the big Dragoon revolver's power in a lighter, more compact package. And it was actually quite successful. The longer grip (compared to the '51 Navy) is supposed to have made the gun more manageable as this the first Colt that some might consider to "kick".
 Then, as now, folks knew the importance of power in a firearm, and that bigger was an important part of  the power equation. Witness the change from the Kentucky rifle to the plains or mountain rifle as Americans moved west and game became larger and ranges longer.
  My own experience with my Army and Navy Colt's is that as the range extends, the advantage in penetration quickly falls to the Army. Given it's much heavier ball at nearly the same velocity, this isn't much of a surprise.
  In reading the responses to this thread and doing a bit of research on my
own, I've come to the conclusion that Wild Bill probably used his Navys for a good long time, but used a number of others as well. I think the fact that he was photographed with the Navys is a big reason why they are
thought of as "his" guns. I wonder what he had with him in the years just
prior to his demise?
   I am very fond of my Navys. I admire their looks and balance. And I
enjoy firing them--they are quite accurate. The same can be said of my
'60 Armies-but if I had go into harm's way there is not a doubt in my mind which ones I would choose to carry-I'd have my .44 Armies to hand-and no second thoughts.

[Sundown Holly]

filmokentucky, if I read your thread right, then with all due respect I must disagree with you on a minor point. By the way, I must say that I have read your posts on this and other threads and find them to be intelligent and well reasoned. I enjoy reading them.
      There is no question that the .44 whether in the Colt, Remington, or any other C&B revolver is more powerful and superior to the .36 caliber, especially at greater ranges. The .44 had greater penetration and greater down range accuracy, due to a large part to the greater mass of the .44 round ball.  All this is basically accepted as true.  Even so, it is also true that the Navy had a reputation, based on experience, as an effective man stopper. One truth that no one has mentioned is that while the Union Calvary preferred the .44, the Confederate Calvary preferred the .36! Sometimes those boys were known to carry as many as 8 revolvers on their person as well as on the saddle using pommel holsters. There must be some reason for this.  
     No one today in their right mind would argue that the .44 Magnum is much more powerful than the .40 Smith & Wesson.  But that doesn't mean that the .40 Smith & Wesson isn't a good fight stopper in it's own right, just that it is less powerful than the .44 Magnum. Although this illustration stretches things a bit, I believe the principle is true  and could apply to our discussion.
     Elmer Keith, in his book "Sixguns" told about the experiences of Civil War veterens he knew from both the North and South. The consensus seemed to be that for bringing down an enemy's horse the .44 was vastly superior, but that as a man stopper the .36 was very good.  He tells the story of a Confederate Major by the name of Stratton who used two Navy Colts in the Confederate Calvary and then used the same two Navys for nine years on the border as a Texas Ranger. He told Elmer that those two Colts probably saw more use as man killers than any other Colts in existance at that time (early 1900s when Elmer knew him). Elmer purchased one from the old man and when he inquired about the other Major Stratton said that he lost it in a gunfight in Cheyenne Wyoming, along with the use of his left arm. In his book Elmer has a photo of this beautifully engraved and ivory stocked old war horse.  Again, I give these examples to illustrate the confidence the old timers placed in the .36 caliber.
     In reference to your thoughts on what Hickok used, I would have to agree with your conclusions.  He seemed to prefer the Navys, but was known to use other pistols as well, And a far as what he used toward the end, we really don't know.

[filmokentucky]

It's just a thought, Sundown, but maybe the reason those Southern boys
needed all those revolvers was because they were .36s--and they needed
the extra shots to put their enenies down. Actually, I know better---it was to keep from having to reload  as often.
  I remember an article a few years ago about stopping power in which the author compared modern handguns. Pretty much every cartridge you can stuff into a handgun was rated and much to his surprise, the .22 long rifle wound up pretty high on the scale. And there must be a solid reason wht the various .31 caliber pocket Colts were such good sellers-as well as the .36 pocket Navys. I most definitely agree that the old timers would not use a gun that wouldn't get the job done. When you live with your gun every day you know its ins and outs intimately, and I believe this often overcame any ballistic shortcomings the guns may have had.
   In the end, we'll probably never know why Bill carried the guns he did,
but I like to think, each time I heft my Colts or, better still, fire them, that
I can feel just a tiny glimmer of those long ago days.

[Sundown Holly]

Alright filmokentucky,  I guess you got me there, friendly ribbing and all.  Actually, the reason those Union boys needed such a big caliber as the .44 was that they were such poor shots- the .44 left more room  or margin for error. When a person was as good a shot as those southern boys were they didn't need to throw all that over weight extra lead! Okay, okay, just kidding. One good turn deserves another.  In all seriousness though, I agree with you about  firing the old guns and getting a glimmer of what it may have been like in the old days. I think you and I see eye to eye in such things, and as for the rest, well, maybe we aren't that far apart.
     Whatever he used, ole Bill was something, wasn't he?

[filmokentucky]

He sure was. And in a way he still is. After all we're still talking about him
and finding much about him to be relevant all these years later. And you're right--we're pretty much in agreement. 'Course, we could discuss which is best-the square back Navy or the round guard. Or the later ones with the bigger guards...

[Sundown Holly]

filmokentucky, triggerguards? I like the larger one. I own an original 1851 Navy made in the fall of 1861 and it has the larger triggerguard. I was fortunate to find it at a low price because some one had tried to restore it using a file! Over the last three years I have been lovingly restoring it a little at a time and it is a sure dream to shoot. Never thought in a million years that I would ever be able to have an original. Before that I looked with envy at those fortunate few who had the reissue Colts.
     A few years back my dad bought a Navy 1852 manufacture (!) that was found in an old house wall with some cash and a few other guns. Nobody knows how long they had been in there. It was in an original early style hand made holster and my dad has both gun and holster. It has the smaller trigger guard (but not the square back). I like the feel of the bigger trigger guard.

[filmokentucky]

Yikes! I've got a pair of second generation "C" series squarebacks and they are handsome but my fingers just fit inside the guards. There is no way that I could fire them with any sort of gloves on. For that I would have to go to my Walkers-but that's a story for another day.

[Sundown Holly]

I had one of the Italian repoductions a few years back that I picked up from EMF. It was a fine shooter but like yours was a square back triggerguard. I could barely get my finger in and one time I foolishly tried to spin it (yes, I checked to make sure it was unloaded first!).  It spun alright but nearly pinched my finger off in the process!

[Magnumjh]

I have read some were and it was also on the History Channel show about wild Bill that he was carrying a S&W .32 rimfire #2 when he was kill.

[Cuz]

"those Southern boys"

by this statement I see ya ain't never been South. them Southern boys carried so many guns is 'cause they killed Yankees from sunup to sundown and reloaded at night, while the Yankees counted their dead.

If you will check history, you will find that the "sniper" is basically a Southern invention, or at least perfected. 'Nuf 'bout that.

Now, to 'bigger' is better. Not, if so, why has US military gone from 30-06 to .223?? Putting the bullet in a good place is better than putting it anywhere. "bigger is better" has been the downfall of many a 'man'. Penetration, now that is a subject. . IF penetration is important, then why are you not using a bow?? For penetration, one wants an arrow.

The .36 Navy was popular for its easy of handling, accuracy and low recoil giving time for a second shot, if needed.

"those Southern boys" indeed. The Spencer and the Henry brought about our demize more than any .44 revolver.

Phew, now I feel better.

Cuz

[1860]

I can tell ya this from experience, I'd sooner "hump" 200 rounds of .223 than I would of either 06 or 308.  If you kill an enemy, it only ties up one other trooper and only for a short while, but wound one and 2-3 others are often taken out of the fight for awhile and you can get another shot at one.  Economics killed the south, sadly...

60