Colt .36 Navy. Stopping power and use

[Jamie]

In response to the original question, I have to join the others who suggested an examination of Elmer Keith's works, most of which I've read - when speaking of C and B revolvers - always pointed back to individuals he knew personally who had used, or seen in use the very revolver/revolver types that are discussed in the question.  He was always quick to point out that they killed or disabled way out of proportion to their paper ballistics.  From a personal perspective, my T/C Hawken target (round ball twist barrel) is the quickest killer of woodchucks of anything I've got.  I've blown them apart with my 25-06, and had the front part still trying to get down the hole or look up at me when I arrive. Woodchucks are amazingly tough. The same shot placement has been an instant and I mean INSTANT kill with that half inch roundball.  No tail in the air, no nothing.  Dead.  I've shot hundreds with my 25-06, and only a dozen+ with the T/C, but it's amazing, and against ballistic rules.
     The other thing is that the Moros and many idividuals who are shot today are extremely high on some sort of personality altering drug, which tends to make them more or less "bullet proof"  whereas the normal human condition is to react pretty dramatically to having been shot, shock and terror more or less shutting many of them down almost immediately.  Read the "Armed Citizen" column in The American Rifleman, and you'll note how many perpatrators are listed as having been under the influence at the time of the attack.  I would suggest that perhaps the lower incidence of drug use (by no means unknown in the old West) may have helped the outward negative reaction to being shot by these "underpowered" rounds.  Just a thought as to one of many possible reasons for the positive experience of self defense with a .36 Navy.
Jamie

[Doug.38PR]

sounds like some of y'all are suggesting that the .36 ball is MORE effective than the .380 ACP pistol cartridge that it has been compared to

[Fox Creek Kid]

...If the .36 caliber is so powerful then why did the army go back to the .45 after the Phillipines?  I just think it is wishful thinking because the Colt Navy is cool and fun to shoot, but it's not a .45.

The .45 Colt failed as well on the hopped up Moros. Troops preferred a Model '97 with buckshot. Bullet design has far more to do with it than caliber. However, back then they did not know this nor did they have Gold Dot technology. A big heavy pointed bullet merely zips right through a body unless it hits a major bone. Elmer Keith wrote of this in "Sixguns."  

[Advertising]

[Doug.38PR]

The Army didn't go from the .36 to the .45 after the Phillippines.  It went from the .38 Long Colt to the .45 Long Colt (and later ACP 1911) after the Phillippines.

[Hoof Hearted]

My .02 is that at the time (1851) the 44 calibre firearms of the time were "horse" pistols and so Sam Colt built a smaller framed pistol for carry. Obviously stopping power was a concern as his next model was 44 calibre (1860). I suppose that the 1851 had enough followers to spur the redesign which resulted in the 1861..............

[SwampMouse]

The Army didn't go from the .36 to the .45 after the Phillippines.  It went from the .38 Long Colt to the .45 Long Colt (and later ACP 1911) after the Phillippines.

The .38 Long Colt is a .36 caliber cartridge. I found these pictures on a cartridge collector board.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.oldammo.com/38army.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.oldammo.com/august04.htm&usg=__KsHlO7oDCAArxXLI8tKFA1_GwQE=&h=645&w=1225&sz=81&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=aXTBVQEkeNrQ3M:&tbnh=95&tbnw=181&ei=yVfITYyjMMnr0gGE66n_Bw&prev=/search%3Fq%3DFrankford%2BArsenal%2B.38%2BLong%2BColt%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DHuD%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26biw%3D1320%26bih%3D678%26tbm%3Disch%26prmd%3Divns&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=104&vpy=98&dur=4141&hovh=163&hovw=310&tx=256&ty=55&page=1&ndsp=28&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0

I hunt with a .36 caliber long rifle and I know the limitations. You will have a hard time convincing me that those bullets in that picture are so much pointier than the balls that they don't work as well. If that was true then people wouldn't want heavier conical bullets for their hunting muzzle loaders. I've shot a lot of critters with a .36 caliber round ball. I know that a .38 special with any bullet hits a lot harder than a lighter round ball out of my 1861 or even a ball moving a lot faster out of my Kentucky rifle.  
I've loaded black powder with a 125 grain lead round nose and they hit harder. I saw where some people think the round balls make them somehow more of a killer. I don't believe that, I hunt with a .36 caliber ball rifle. The army switched because a .36 or .38 Long Colt or whatever you want to call it with lead ammo isn't as good as anything with a larger and heaver bullet. My point is .36 or .38 Long Colt, same difference. Either one wasn't as good as a .45 Long Colt or a .45 Auto. The .36 caliber Navy model is like a .380 auto, it is lighter and easier to carry but not as powerful as the .45 revolvers of the day.
SM

[Fox Creek Kid]

The .38 Long Colt is a .36 caliber cartridge...

Actually, yes & no. Technically the .38 Colt bullet diameter was circa. 0.375" to 0.380". Frankford Arsenal "spec'd" it at 0.376". Frankford Arsenal went to the small bullet diameter in 1893. All contracts for the old heel bullet ammo were terminated by 1897 and contractors also went to the new size. Spanish American and Philippine ammunition would probably have been the new type bullet, but the revolver bore diameter was not changed until 1904. During the Spanish American war and Philippine Insurrection troops we issued revolvers of a 0.365" (at least) groove diameter firing government-made issue ammunition with bullets as small as 0.350" or contract ammunition with bullets as small as 0.342".

It's confusing as hell. Moreso than the British .455 ctg.  

[Mako]

Kid,
I think the mouse is right and I think you sort of alluded to it.  The .38 "Short Colt" was a heeled bullet and it was Ø.376 thereabouts as you said.  The .38 Long Colt was the first .357 (or there abouts) and introduced in 1875.  The heeled bullets were intended for the conversions.  So what's a few thousandths of an inch among friends?  A .36 cap gun spits out bullets around .36 caliber, so does the .38 S&W, .38 Long Colt, .38 Spl and the .357 mag. (maximum, cro-magnum, maxillian, etc.)  He's very right about that.  And I like you have read Elmer Keith's accounts and I think he has "romanticized" them a bit.  Remember now what he cut his teeth on, he has a soft spot for the Navy models. 

I will tell you this I have heard veterans go on about the stopping power of M-1 carbines and I have almost bit my tongue in half in order not to contradict an older man and their memories.  Plus I would probably be banned from the hall  .  When I hear people go on about the "stopping power" of anything I have to many times take it with a grain of salt.  Now we have youngsters at the hall telling us that the 9mm replaced the .45 ACP because it is a higher velocity  and more "modern"cartridge than the .45 ACP.  I once made the mistake of pointing out the 9 X19 was introduced in 1902 and preceded the .45 ACP by 2 years.  It's amazing the kind of looks you get.   My whole point is that the recollections of very old Civil War veterans to a young man may not be the best source of field data.

I'm with the Mouse on this one.  I don't buy it that an 80 grain ball is a better killer, stopper, whatever you want to call it than a bullet weighing 150% or more than the ball in the 125 grain loading.  Neither is a modern deforming bullet, they both make .36 caliber holes like the mouse said.  The heavier bullet in the same velocity ranges will penetrate better, break more bones and if you are a believer in energy transfer it has more kinetic energy.

~Mako

[Fox Creek Kid]

...I will tell you this I have heard veterans go on about the stopping power of M-1 carbines and I have almost bit my tongue in half in order not to contradict an older man and their memories...

The late great retired NYPD gunfighter Jim Cirillo wrote that he NEVER had to shoot a perp more than once with an M1 carbine center of mass using the 110 gr. HP's and he shot a boatload of bad guys. FWIW, Audie Murphy used an MI carbine in WWII. Granted, in wartime they are using ball ammo.

IMO, yes the high velocity bullets work & work well. I still CCW Federal BPLE 115 gr. +p+ & Win. 115 gr. +p+ in my 9mm's. It works. Something happens when a lightweight bullet surpasses 1300 fps. I don't know what it is but it works. Not all veterans are full of BS. I knew some who swore off the .45 as for them it didn't stop enemy soldiers.

Sorry to get off on a tangent.  

[Doug.38PR]

Kid,
I think the mouse is right and I think you sort of alluded to it.  The .38 "Short Colt" was a heeled bullet and it was Ø.376 thereabouts as you said.  The .38 Long Colt was the first .357 (or there abouts) and introduced in 1875.  The heeled bullets were intended for the conversions.  So what's a few thousandths of an inch among friends?  A .36 cap gun spits out bullets around .36 caliber, so does the .38 S&W, .38 Long Colt, .38 Spl and the .357 mag. (maximum, cro-magnum, maxillian, etc.)  He's very right about that.  And I like you have read Elmer Keith's accounts and I think he has "romanticized" them a bit.  Remember now what he cut his teeth on, he has a soft spot for the Navy models.  

I will tell you this I have heard veterans go on about the stopping power of M-1 carbines and I have almost bit my tongue in half in order not to contradict an older man and their memories.  Plus I would probably be banned from the hall  .  When I hear people go on about the "stopping power" of anything I have to many times take it with a grain of salt.  Now we have youngsters at the hall telling us that the 9mm replaced the .45 ACP because it is a higher velocity  and more "modern"cartridge than the .45 ACP.  I once made the mistake of pointing out the 9 X19 was introduced in 1902 and preceded the .45 ACP by 2 years.  It's amazing the kind of looks you get.   My whole point is that the recollections of very old Civil War veterans to a young man may not be the best source of field data.

I'm with the Mouse on this one.  I don't buy it that an 80 grain ball is a better killer, stopper, whatever you want to call it than a bullet weighing 150% or more than the ball in the 125 grain loading.  Neither is a modern deforming bullet, they both make .36 caliber holes like the mouse said.  The heavier bullet in the same velocity ranges will penetrate better, break more bones and if you are a believer in energy transfer it has more kinetic energy.

~Mako

I don't know that anyone is suggesting that the .36/38LC is MORE powerful or even equal to the .45/44.  The question is whether they will do the job adequately and drop the opponent.

Of course a even a lighter smaller bullet, if jacked up enough, CAN outdo a .45 LC/ACP or .44 B&C/-40 in power and ability.  The .357 Magnum proved that in 1935.

[PJ Hardtack]

The British Royal Navy used far more Colt '51s than did the American forces, the guns being part of every ship's armoury. It was also popular with the British Army, thanks to Colt's tireless efforts to market it after the great Exposition featuring his guns. The Royal Engineers that served in British Columbia circa 1858-63 were each issued a '51 Navy in addition to their Lancaster oval bored 'Miner's & Sappers Carbine'.

The Navy fell into disfavour during the Sepoy Mutiny of 1858. There is a documented instance where an Officer put 5 closely spaced rounds into the chest of a Sepoy who lived long enough to cleave his shooter's skull right to the shoulder with his tulwar. Thereafter, interest shifted to the .44 calibre Colt's and the early Brit .44s and .45s with a heavier bullet.

Then and now, the best calibres for personal defence begin with the number '4' .....  It is one thing to kill a man with a pistol (a Derringer will do that), quite another to STOP him from killing you.

[Doug.38PR]

Major Bentley Royce: "I say say ol' chap, would you mind not charging me with thot blunt object.  Put it down, there, like a good fellow.   I might have to dispatch you with my Colt Navy.....veddy well then!"  *POP* *POP**POP**POP*POP*  "Oh dear.  I seem to have a blunt object lodged in my head.  Rather unpleasant.  I say, Carruthers, this .36 caliber pistol leaves much to be desired.   As I am about to depart the Queen's service and this life, would you mind very much informing Her Majesty's goverment that a .44 pistol might avoid these nasty little quirks in the future."

[Coffinmaker]

OK here it is.  "Stopping Power" is a myth.  PERIOD.  You cannot "stop" a determined, angry, adrenalin charged anything with a litte bitty bullet, regardless of its design.  After three tours in Vietnam , some time in Cambodia, a five year stint in law enforcement and Gulf War 1, nothing smaller than a 50 BMG round will "stop" anything.
The only effective way to terminate hostilities is to put the bullet in a place that causes the miscreant to de and lay down right there.  We always called it DRT.  Dead.    Right.   There.
Putting a bullet in the meaty, non-lethal part of te body is a painful inconvenience.  I'm living proof of that.  Two times over.  My assailants on the other hand, chose. To lay down and die, right there.
So, if you hit me, or a Bear, in te meaty part of the body, I or said bear will become very angry.  I will shoot you and it will be over quickly.  The Bear will pull your arms off.  That will hurt.  A lot.
Bottom line, a .36 ball will hurt in the meaty part of the body and really piss something off.  It won't stop whatever "it" is.  A .36 ball tru the brain will cause whatever "it" is to lay down and die right there.  Well ..... Maybe.  You gotta penetrate the skull first.  Don't shoot a bear with a .36 anything.  You'll just give it a splitting headache and reall piss it off 

[Slowhand Bob]

We were prevented from entering a loading dock one morning due to an 'old man' shooting himself there during the night.  They like to hose down the mess before letting the world in.  Witnesses said he walked onto the dock carrying a shotgun, sat down, put the gun to his belly and pulled the trigger.  He was alive and talking when the ambulance arrived, lived for about two days as I recall.  Weird stuff happens and nothing is perfect so we just play with the odds and some will even play with numbers to support a preconceived notion of how it should be.  Seems I keep hearing rumors that small groups of Uncle Sams finest, those who are allowed options, have been switching back to the 45acp?  When ballistic science fails, perhaps it is time to try a bigger club.

The more I read up on old Wild Bill, the more I seem to find that he was more a fan of the 44 than many seem to be aware of.  The Tutt fight was the one that he had time to plan ahead for and evidence suggests that he actually even by-passed the Army model to choose the even bigger Dragoon revolver before confronting Tutt.  Didn't someone famous once say something to the effect that "the bigger holes let more air in and more blood out"?

[rifle]

In thunk some recall from a Kieth book stated something agin to the fact Kieth assessed the pure lead round ball as the best killer of man or beast there was.
The Civil War vets Kieth talked with gave the assessment that a chamber of FFg  blackpowder and the round ball took the fight out of the enemy Cavarly better than the conicals they used back then.
It's commonly known that the wound channel made by a lead ball is a different animal than the one made by a conical. The nastiest wound channel comes behind a lead ball.
A person,wounded or killed more easily then most animals, getting hit at close range with a lead ball of 80gr. weight traveling around 900 feet per second would surely feel a little ill afterwards.
Personnally I'd prefer the wadcutter type flat metplat bullet over the round ball in a self defense type scenario. It would fly slower but slow down slower when it hit flesh and bone. The "round nose" conicals is what gives conicals a bad rap. The bigger and the flatter the metplat of a bullet is the more "WHAP" it makes. I've shot ground hogs on the old farm using the Lee conicals to good effect. What you say? Aren't they round noses that slip thru flesh and bone?  Well......they are flat nosed if you load they "backwards".
The semi-wadcutter came from that type "thunkin" The bigger and wide the metplat of the bullet the more damage it does to game and people.
Aywhoooooo.......round lead balls do some damage. I've shot plenty of deer with the balls and the balls work well. I did well shooting a lead conical round nose also until.....I had to track well shot deer all day to recover them a coupla times. I went to putting a flat on the end of the same bullet and never had a problem again.
Anywhoooo....I figure if a person peped up a 36cal cap&baller with some of the new powders like 777 ,that's HOT, or maybe used FFFFg black to fill the chambers and compressed the charge some the effects of a ball or flat nose wadcutter type bullet would surfice at close range defense. If that's all ya got to use.

[Graveyard Jack]

OK here it is.  "Stopping Power" is a myth.  PERIOD.  You cannot "stop" a determined, angry, adrenalin charged anything with a litte bitty bullet, regardless of its design.

I have to disagree with this entirely. Stopping power is a very quantifiable thing, particularly when you're talking about angry critters. You can "kill" anything with a heart/lung shot but that make take minutes and not necessarily "stop" them. What is needed to "stop" an angry critter is to either break down their support structure, through breaking heavy bones like the shoulders, spine or pelvis. Or to penetrate the CNS or brain, which sometimes means penetrating heavy skulls. It is a known, proven fact that some cartridges/loads are better at this than others. Hence the term, "stopping rifle".

The problem with "stopping" two legged varmints is that we are not built in such a manner that you can break a shoulder AND reach the vital organs. You can instantly "stop" any human with a knee or pelvis shot but those aren't necessarily ethical. Nor is a head shot easy.

Now the idea that kinetic energy is good for anything but filling up ballistics tables, that's a myth. As is "knockdown power".

[Coffinmaker]

Most folks use "stopping power" and "knockdown power" interchangeably.  Considering most folks ability to hit something as small as a shoulder joint, hip, etc.  when adrenalin charged and frightened the scholastic difference in the two terms is mute.

[Graveyard Jack]

Did you miss this part?

"The problem with "stopping" two legged varmints is that we are not built in such a manner that you can break a shoulder AND reach the vital organs. You can instantly "stop" any human with a knee or pelvis shot but those aren't necessarily ethical. Nor is a head shot easy."

Stopping power and knockdown power are not the same thing so if one uses them interchangeably, they're showing their ignorance. No cartridge/firearm will knock a person or animal down but some are better at "stopping" them than others.

[Coffinmaker]

Ignorance is a fairly common commodity.  Unfortunately this discussion is deteriorating based on some "other" ignorance.  I've personally witnessed human targets, hit in the knee and hit in the pelvis keep right on comming.  Slower, but still comming.

In a gunfight, there is nothing "unethical."  Usually, there is no second place

I do agree however, kectic energy, knockdown power and hydrostatic shock are measurements that only apply to printed medium.  My comments are taken from personal experience.

[Graveyard Jack]

Ignorance is a fairly common commodity.  Unfortunately this discussion is deteriorating based on some "other" ignorance.  I've personally witnessed human targets, hit in the knee and hit in the pelvis keep right on comming.  Slower, but still comming.

In a gunfight, there is nothing "unethical."  Usually, there is no second place

You want it to really deteriorate? Use the word "ignorance" one more time. I am NOT ignorant. I may be a new member here but shooting, hunting and revolvers have been my passion for nearly a lifetime. If there is one thing I'm NOT ignorant of, it's terminal ballistics. We can certainly have an intelligent discussion on this subject but not if your mind is already made up and anyone who disagrees is going to be labeled "ignorant". How convenient.

There sure is hell is something unethical about taking knee or pelvic shots in a gunfight. Shooting intentionally to wound will always result in a lawsuit. My point, if I may reiterate without being further insulted, is that due to a human's structure, it is not possible to affect an attacker's support structure AND reach vitals. Unlike a Cape buffalo, which may present a shoulder shot that will penetrate through the vital organs and potentially break a hip on its way out. So the only real option, is a shot directly to the vital organs, through the chest. Unfortunately, that may leave an attacker with enough strength to further facilitate an attack before he "knows" he's dead.

Obviously there are exceptions to every rule and no two situations are the same. However, I really don't think your experience in Vietnam, where the Hague convention restricts militaries to use non-expanding ammunition, is as valid as you seem to think it is. Sorry but that doesn't make you an expert. Nor does it qualify you to label me ignorant because I disagree.