The Perfect Single-Action Revolver
Resolved: The 1851 Colt Navy is the standard by which all succeeding single-action revolvers must be judged. Now that that’s established, let’s take a look at this ground-breaking product of the mind of Colonel Colt, how it changed forever the concept of what a revolver should be, and how it affected every single-action sixgun model that followed – including its famous offspring, the Single Action Army.
The Forerunners
Colt’s production of revolvers up to this point had not yielded a reliable, effective piece for belt holsters. The Paterson guns were underpowered and had fragile folding triggers; their popularity was mostly due to their being the only effective mass-produced revolver available in the 1830s and 1840s.
The Paterson guns had five-shot cylinders, but prudence dictated loading only four and leaving the hammer down on an empty chamber; this precaution was required for Colt revolvers up to and including the Single Action Army. Further, the Paterson guns were loaded using a separate tool for seating bullets. If that tool was lost, what the shooter was left with was an expensive and rather ineffective hammer.
The later Colt Walker and First, Second and Third Model Dragoon revolvers were significant improvements. They had a loading lever attached to the gun under the barrel. They were also big, powerful guns, firing a .44 caliber ball propelled by a stiff charge of black powder from a six-round cylinder. The Walker and Dragoon guns were reliable and powerful, but they were also heavy and cumbersome, so much so that many were fitted with shoulder stocks, making rather effective carbines. But it’s important to note that these were, as named, dragoon pistols, meant to be carried in saddle holsters by mounted troops.
Contemporaneous with the Dragoon guns were a small selection of Colt “Pocket” revolvers, .31 caliber six-shot revolvers that began with the 1847 Baby Dragoon and continuing with the 1849 and 1850 Pocket Models. These were, effectively, scaled-down versions of the Dragoon pistols. Barrel lengths ran from four to six inches, allowing for a decent sight radius for the small-framed guns, but the .31-caliber cylinder put them back in the Paterson level for power; most loads yielded performance roughly equivalent to a modern .32 ACP full-metal-jacket round.
So as of 1850, your choice in Colt revolvers faced a strange dichotomy; you could either have a big, powerful, heavy horse pistol, or a pocket-sized pipsqueak. Clearly something new was needed. Colt decided the answer was obvious: Split the difference.
The New Holster Gun
In 1851 Colt revealed their new gun. The 1851 Colt Navy revolver was a scaled-up 1849 Pocket Model, but it differed in several significant ways: It fired a .36-caliber ball, yielding power roughly equivalent to the later .38 Special 158-grain RNL standard loads; it had a 7 ½” barrel, yielding a good sight radius while maintaining portability; and it was lighter than the Dragoon models, making it easily portable in a belt holster. It did retain the odd sighting arrangement from the earlier guns, using a small conical brass front sight and a notch on the hammer as the rear sight; despite the rather crude sighting arrangement the new gun quickly developed a reputation for accuracy.
Another innovation, oddly, didn’t quite catch on; some early Navies were made with a “safety peg” in between chambers on the six-shot cylinder that fit into a recess on the hammer face, allowing the gun to be safely carried with all six chambers loaded. For some reason this feature wasn’t carried over into later models, and even the famous Single Action Army is only safely carried with the hammer down on an empty chamber.
The new revolver was well received, and with good reason. It was more powerful than the Pocket Models or the Paterson guns, while still being light enough to allow easy carry in a belt holster. Its grip frame, adapted from the earlier guns, was designed for a one-hand shooting style, making it easily usable either on horseback or on foot. Further, the curved grip meant that, like later single-actions from Colt, revolved upwards on recoil rather than slamming into the web of the hand. This made follow-up shots a fraction slower but was much easier on the hand and wrist in repeated shot strings.
While the majority of Colt Navies were made in the Colt works in Hartford, Connecticut, some were also made in the London Armoury near Vauxhall Bridge; a few other copies were made in Belgium and (unlicensed) in Russia. They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and that holds true for guns as well as people. During the war, the Confederate Army widely used the Leech & Rigdon revolver, an unlicensed copy of the 1851 Navy made in several locations throughout the war.
Interestingly, the appellation “Navy” was not intended to denote a sidearm designed for naval use. In fact, the production 1851 Colt revolvers cylinders were engraved with a scene of the victory of the Second Texas Navy at the Battle of Campeche on May 16, 1843; this decoration was intended to commemorate the Republic of Texas’ purchase of Paterson Colt revolvers, which was Colt’s first major commercial success. In fact, most of the Colt Navy revolvers were sold to Army and civilian customers.
The 1851 Navy proved a great commercial success, remaining in production until 1873, when its niche as a fast-handling holster gun was taken by the next Colt Legend: The Single Action Army. It’s important to note that while the SAA improved in several ways over the Colt cap-and-ball guns, it retained the grip shape introduced with the Colt 1851 Navy. You don’t mess with success, and it was largely the shape of the grip that made the Navy handle so well.
The Gunfighters
During the years leading up to the Civil War, the 1851 Navy gained a strong following. The new gun was popular among outdoorsmen and Army officers, but it also gained a powerful following amongst professional guntwists and outlaws. Why? The Navy Colt, even today regarded as perhaps the best-handling single-action sixgun ever made, was the ideal model at that time for the gunfighter.
The 1851 Navy was the best sidearm yet made for the guntwist. It was lighter than the Dragoons and thus faster to place into operation. It was more powerful and, with a longer sight radius, more accurate than the pocket models. It could be carried on a saddle or in a belt holster and was slim enough to be well concealed beneath a long coat or vest if one was of a mind to do so.
Famous users of the Navy sixgun were legion, including such historic names as John Henry “Doc” Holliday, Jack Hays, Ned Kelly, John “Rip” Ford and Frank Gardiner. And, not least, one of the West’s more notorious professional guntwists also favored the Navy Colt: John Butler “Wild Bill” Hickok.
Bill Hickock and the Navy Colt
Wild Bill would be a great subject for a future Profile in Toxic Masculinity, but a lengthy discussion of his life is probably well outside the scope of this article.
Suffice it to say that Hickock was one of the more notorious figures of the Old West; in his career he worked as a scout for the Army, a cattle drover, a wagon master, a lawman, a gambler and, not least, a gunfighter. He was involved in several high-profile gunfights and was said to prefer the Navy Colt for its power, light weight and accuracy.
Unlike many of his contemporaries, Hickock took shooting seriously as an art unto itself, reportedly practicing quick-draw, rapid-fire and slow fire for an hour or more each day. This served him will on July 21, 1865, when he took part in one of the few actual, recorded instances of the kind of quick-draw duel generally only seen in movies.
On that day Hickock was playing cards in the Lyon House Hotel in Springfield, Missouri. Another gambler, one Davis Tutt, stood nearby. Tutt was known to dislike Hickock and was continually lending the other gamblers money as they continued to lose to Wild Bill.
One thing led to another and, eventually, the two repaired to the street to settle their differences. They faced each other at the range of 25 yards; when hostilities commenced, Hickock drew his Navy Colt and promptly plugged his adversary between the fifth and sixth ribs. Tutt shouted to his friends, “Boys, I’m killed,” and collapsed.
Eventually Wild Bill was himself killed over a card game, yielding the famous “dead man’s hand” legend, but his death was not due to any failure of his pair of Navy Colts, who continued to serve him well until the end.
Today
There are a wealth of 1851 Navy replicas for sale today. Colt themselves reintroduced the 1851 Navy in the late 1970s and made them for a while, but it was a pricey item and had difficulty competing with the many cheaper versions. I had one for a while, a brass frame model made by an outfit called Early Modern Firearms (EMF), about which I’ve written here before. It was a neat piece and I shot it until the brass frame deformed so badly that it wasn’t safe to operate.
Uberti makes a great steel-frame replica. So does Cimarron. There is a wealth of replica guns on the market, but I’d give one precautionary note based on my own experience: Avoid the brass-frame guns if you intend to do a lot of shooting. A steel-frame gun will last a lot longer.
As time goes on, I’m thinking more seriously of picking up one of the Uberti replicas. I’ve handed a few Uberti guns and find them to be excellent pieces, and I still remember my original Navy Colt replica fondly. As I’ve written before, it was light, accurate, fast to clear leather and slick as a snake. Even at the age of fourteen, when I bought the gun and started practicing quick-draw and reflex shooting, I could easily see why the old gunfighters preferred this piece.
The 1851 Colt Navy was a ground-breaking gun, one which set the pattern for all single-action sixguns that followed. It was a seminal piece, changing the sixgun market and the expectations of sixgun shooters more than any preceding gun. The Navy Colt also had long-lasting impact on sixgun design, not just by Colt but also Remington and later, Ruger, as well as Great American, Cimarron, Uberti and other replica makers; this qualifies it as the Gold Standard of single-action revolvers.
Nobody needs two kinds of actions on their gun.
On Topic: I’d love to get a replica in a modern cartridge because, frankly, I just want to do pew-pew cowboy cosplay and don’t care about authenticity. It can go with my imaginary Henry Golden Boy in 22LR with a side-loading gate that doesn’t exist.
Off Topic: I haven’t shot anything but striker fired pistols in a few years. Yesterday my friend let me try out his PX4 in .45AARP. I started pulling the trigger on the first DA and I was like “when the fuck is this going to” BANG and a hole appeared right in the middle of the bullseye (it was only 5 yards away). Then I go to take the second shot and I thought I was still staging the trigger when it went BANG again and another hole appeared in the center of the next bullseye. “OK, I know where this breaks now” and so I put 5 more rounds down range and they were all 1 inch low. Fack.
(it was only 5 yards away)
Humble Brag Fail.
Look man, I don’t mean to show off, but if we are ever attacked by vicious, man-eating, static pieces of paper with two-inch circles on them that don’t get any closer than a car-length, I’m going to be in pretty good shape.
And now you know how to cure flinching.
Oh, I know *how*. Its actually doing it that’s the hard part.
I don’t flinch with .22 or 9mm, just the big, masculine, 45AARP that makes me flinch.
You need a revolver. load two or three cartridges in random chambers. Spin the cylinder and close it without looking. You won’t know when it will fire. Keep practicing carful aim and trigger pull. Bang, click, bang, click, click, bang. After about 100 repetitions you will be right on target every time. No flinching.
It is as good a day at the range as any.
I load a couple of snap-caps randomly in the mags of my autloader at the range. Pretty revealing when I’m flinching or pushing.
In the USMC, our instructors at the pistol range loaded dummy rounds in now and again.
“You’re flinching – that’s why the rounds are low and to the right.”
“I Am NOT!!” Dummy round slipped in.
“Oh.”
It’s how I taught my daughter not to flinch, by using a revolver and not letting her know how I had (un)loaded it.
“You’re anticipating the recoil.” click.
“Oh. Wow.”
I’ve done the snap-caps before when I was first learning how to shoot. Now I put a dime on the slide of my pistol when I do dry fire.
Like I said, I only flinch with 45 and I don’t own any 45, so I’ll worry about it if and when I start shooting that regularly. Right now I’m focusing on developing my marksmanship and handling with the 9mm shield I do actually own.
“Get good with what you got” is pretty sound advice on almost anything. If .45 ACP isn’t “your bag, baby!” and 9mm is, then shoot the 9 until you can’t miss.
FWIW, my .357 snub with +P’s was an absolute hand-cannon, to the point that it would start to hurt after firing it for more than a box of ammo. I started to notice some flinching, so I stepped away from it for a while. No problems like that at all with my Sig .40 – so yeah, not you. Pretty normal, really.
I really only like shooting rounds designed for women and Europeans.
5 more rounds down range and they were all 1 inch low.
That’s actually good accuracy with a self-defense handgun at five yards.
A shooting buddy has a PX4 9mm. I like it – the rotating bolt is cool and makes the recoil soft. How was the recoil compared to average 9?
Felt the same as the HK USP in .45 that I shot right before it. But kind of hard to say. This guy puts a Hogue overmold grip or something like it on any gun he owns. He’s really into girth, I guess, but I’ve never held a double stack .45 and thought “how can I make this wider?”
Yeah – that’s the exact opposite of what I would be thinking.
He’s really into girth, I guess, but I’ve never held a double stack .45 and thought “how can I make this wider?”
I have a double-stack .45 (Para–Ordnance P-14) and I put a grip like that on it. I got a more consistent hand position, and even less felt recoil. I don’t have big hands, really, but I’ve always been partial to a big grip.
Almost every woman knows girth beats length.
My “grip” is short…but at least it’s not too big around
I have a Glock 21, also a double-stack .45. I have few issues with it, but I have enormous gorilloid hands.
Excellent piece. I was never a fan of cap-n-ball, or of black powder in general because of the corrosive nature of black powder. Too much cleaning involved.
If I were to purchase that style this gun would definitely be it, possibly a conversion….yeah, I know, cheating. Cap-n-ball is a bit tedious to load.
Although thinking about it, I could go for a LeMat.
In fact, the production 1851 Colt revolvers cylinders were engraved with a scene of the victory of the Second Texas Navy at the Battle of Campeche on May 16, 1843;
Now i’m going to spend an hour in the Wikipedia Wormwhole looking that battle up. Great Artricle Animal!
Me too.
It’s a pretty crazy story. Basically the Republic of the Yucatan declared independence and hired Texas’s Navy to defend its coast. Sam Houston became President while they were out. He was a fiscal conservative, and also hated Lamar (probably partially due to Lamar’s removal of Houston’s adopted tribe, the Cherokee, and the killing of Chief Bowl), so he tried to recall the Navy mid mission.
So Commodore Edwin Moore went rogue, took the navy, pillaged a Mexican town for money for repairs, and continued defending the Yucatecos.
The Mexican Navy, getting rather pissed off, purchased two steamer warships from Britain to deal with the Yucatecos, and these ships all clashed at Campeche.
Despite being heavily outgunned, Moore ended up getting the better end of the deal (victory is overselling it a bit, but it was the Mexican Navy that retreated, so it’s technically correct.)
IIRC it was the only time a squadron of sailing ships defeated a force with steamers.
Why Republicans Will Sidestep Their Garland Rule for the Court in 2020
“Garland Rule” being “we don’t have the votes rule”. . .
Senator Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican, majority leader and unapologetic mastermind of the 2016 Garland blockade, has made clear that he would move ahead with a Supreme Court nominee from President Trump. The only potential barrier would be resistance from his own party on the grounds it would be hypocritical and unfair for Republicans to do what they prevented Democrats from doing four years ago.
Cry me a river. If Dems held the Senate then Garland would be on the court. They didn’t so he isn’t.
Hopefully the elephants are learning playing by the rules is for suckers, because good is dumb.
I thought the Garland Rule was that a second-term President wouldn’t have a nominee approved within a few months of the election of his successor.
Obama was a lame duck president, and his party did not control the senate.
Trump will almost certainly win in 2020 (assuming the economy doesn’t collapse before then), and his party controls the senate.
The dems can make a campaign issue of any appointment Trump make to SCOTUS.
Obama was not running, so he did not have to bear the consequence of any appointment he made to SCOTUS.
The dems can fuck right off.
“Garland” rule? are they referring to the Biden rule?
Yes.
I believe you are correct. It was first put forth in a floor speech during the 1992 election, when President Bush was up for re-election, so it wasn’t a “lame duck” rule. It was never actually formally adopted or applied, I believe, until Garland.
Calling it the Biden Rule may be a nice bit of political jujitsu, but it was never really anything but a statement in a speech. Now, a “rule” (really, more of a protocol) that a lame duck President shouldn’t have a nominee considered late in the election season has some rationale to it. I don’t know that it has ever been stated in those terms, though.
Some ratiionale, yes, but keep in mind that the Democrat’s rationale is ‘heads we win, tails you lose’ along with ‘It’s ok when we do it’.
The R’s need to take off the gloves and give them some of their own medicine.
Honorable men might win, but they do not conquer.
Rhaegar fought valiantly, Rhaegar fought nobly, Rhaegar fought honorably. And Rhaegar died.
My post is a quote from my current character’s views on warfare.
Fighting isn’t about honor. It is about survival. Pick a fight and expect me to go for the testicles, eyeballs, ears, kneecaps, throat, whatever.
I had a recent reminder what a fight vs sport is all about. He ended up in the morgue, I didnt.
In my early starry eyed years of karate, my style of karate was affectionately referred to as street karate: win by any means necessary. The upper black belt tests involved guns.
The gun-fu was strong with that bunch.
George fights dirty.
You can’t leave it at that!
Oh, now that the Dems are not in control we are back to the Queensbury rules? Bullshit. This is more Republican passive-aggressive fucking the people on behalf of government. Their promises blow away like farts in the wind as soon as elections are over.
I don’t vote for anyone to go to DC and ‘get things done’ or be bipartisan. I vote for them to go kick some commie ass.
Unapologetic mastermind
little Democrats could do to impede a nomination, because a series of rules changes has neutered the filibuster when it comes to judicial picks-
I mean that happened in a vacuum. The filibuster just disappeared.
and that would be the Harry Reid rule.
Everyone warned them. Fuck ’em, let them eat it and like it.
“Garland Rule” being “we don’t have the votes rule”. . .
Quack, quack…
Meh, Captain Terrill carried one of those 51 navys but Josey preferred the Walker, and we all know how that worked out.
Um…. Yeah. Yeah i know how that worked.
Yeah he killed Terrill with Terrill’s sword….
Have you ever held a Walker? They didn’t call it a hog’s leg for nothing.
Two gun corky carried a walker colt, too…
But only one.
Well, he couldn’t carry two.
*teasing. It is a beautiful gun and I would take one in a second. It is just so damned heavy…seems a bit much weight and size for 45 balls and black powder. That does, however, seriously dampen recoil.
.457 ball = 143 grains
Velocity about 1100 fps, about 400 ft/lbs energy
*This is roughly equivalent to a 38spl +P
“Even at the age of fourteen, when I bought the gun…”
*a gun grabber faints*
I bought my first gun at 16…just sayin’. Winchester model 70 in 30-06. God, I loved that rifle. I still remember the joy I felt when it came out of the box new and I could smell the gun oil. A magical moment.
Marlin 60 @ 15 years of age.
It wasn’t my first. I think my first was a Mossberg bolt-action .22, when I was maybe twelve.
Christmas present when I was 15. Mossburg 500 with a 28 inch barrel and a slug barrel. It was fudd-tastic, but I only ever fired it at clay pigeons.
My first was a 270 Ruger M77 when I was 12. Still have it and it is still great. I didn’t purchase it, but it was mine.
Mine was a 12th birthday present from my dad. A Western Auto .22lr semi-automatic with 18 round tube magazine. It predates serial numbers as dad received it from his father for his 12th birthday. G/d willing, I’ll give it to my daughter when she turns 12.
Remington 1100 at 14. Still have it.
I’m sure someone put this out already but LOL
https://twitter.com/subschneider/status/1200536409179873280
OK Doomer
I may have to use that.
“To change everything, we need everyone. Each and every one of us must participate…”
Must. Must she says. We don’t get a say in it. Participation is mandatory.
And if we don’t? Dirt pits and FMJ’s for us? Which style of communism do we get? 8×57 or 7.62×54?
Communism in a nutshell.
“Which style of communism do we get? 8×57 or 7.62×54?”
Seems more like ‘strategic famine’ to me.
Like Stalin had control of the weather?
Record bad crop yields again, Comrade. Imagine how bad it would be without rationalized, collective farming.
I was told there would be no math.
I always enjoy the history, Animal, even if I’m not a SA kind of guy. We need to learn history to find out where we’re going. Thanks.
My grand daughter got the Marlin 336, she’s getting a copy of O’Connor’s book, The Rifle, for Xmas along with a book on Deer Hunting. Wish the other two were outdoors girls, maybe some day.
Give it a couple years and you can help me teach little unicorn girl to shoot.
(We call her our little unicorn because she like glitter and she’s more destructive than 1,000 lbs of steel-shod, horn-wearing horseflesh)
Mr. and Mrs. Virginia, turn ’em all in.
Next year, Democrats will control both houses of Virginia’s state Legislature as well as its governorship. On November 18, State Sen. Dick Saslaw introduced a bill that he will sponsor in the 2020 legislative session. That bill will outlaw not only the sale or transfer but also the possession of certain firearms.
Saslaw’s bill — SB 16 — provides that “It is unlawful for any person to import, sell, manufacture, purchase, possess or transport an assault firearm” and makes such actions a Class 6 felony. (In Virginia, Class 6 felonies are punishable by imprisonment for between one and five years.)…
Thus, every rifle of the common AR-15 design and a great many pistols and shotguns in common use for personal defense, target shooting, and hunting would be banned.
Not only would they be banned, but because SB 16 makes it illegal to possess such firearms, they also would have to be either surrendered to or seized by police authorities in the jurisdiction in which they are located.
Article 1, Section 13 of the constitution of the commonwealth be dammed.
i don’t see it passing as-is. at a minimum, a grandfather clause will be inserted. regardless, every Dem in a toss-up district *cough* Spanberger *cough* is already fucked over this.
Start a Recall campaign – If such a thing exists in the Olde Dominion.
A little hard to tell what exactly will be banned, other than every semi-auto rifle with a pistol grip (every AR, M1-A, etc.). I refers to “fixed magazine capacity in excess of 10 rounds”, which I guess refers to guns that don’t have detachable/swappable magazines.
For pistols, it refers to “the capacity to accept a magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip”. I have no idea what such a gun would be.
I do think they will require nearly every shotgun in the state to be turned in, though, if it has ” a fixed magazine capacity in excess of seven rounds”. Now, you may be thinking “most shotguns have a tube magazine that will only take four or five shells. Sure, four or five 2 3/4 or 3 inch shells. Guess what, though: they also make mini and short shells, and a lot of shotguns with standard tube mags can take more than seven of those.
Tec-9s come to mind, Scorpion pistols, etc.
Tec-9 – right, that’s the one I couldn’t remember.
So UZIs and MAC-10s are good? *thumbs up*
*1980’s action movie intensifies*
And AR15 pistols. And broom handle Mausers.
It sounds like they have no idea what they are talking about or they are poison-pilling it.
On shotguns, how long before the manufactures offer replacement tube mags that only take 7 minis and the sale of that ammo goes up exponentially?
Someone, I don’t remember who, is making a mini shell receiver in an 18-inch barrelled gun. I think its a pump, because I assume getting a semi to cycle would be a nightmare, but I don’t remember any of the details.
For shotguns, one wonders what clause (vi) means:
Each category of gun has a similar clause. It can’t be completely redundant with the listed characteristics, so it must expand them, be additive to them. What would be a characteristic of like kind to having a mag capacity in excess of seven rounds? Or “(ii) a thumbhole stock, (iii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the shotgun,”? If there is an aftermarket part for the prohibited characteristic, would that trigger clause (vi). regardless of whether it was installed?
Have you ever seen NY or CA compliant AR’s? CA ones have a blade extending out the rear of the left side of the grip so that your thumb can’t go all the way around. NY ones look like an AR and a Tiny Tim’s crutch had a love child. The “bullet button” turns a standard AR mag / receiver into a fixed mag that can only be disassembled with a tool (the tool happens to be the bullet of a .223 cartridge).
I assume this is the drafters attempt to preemptively turn into a 14 year old girl, stomp on the ground, and yell “I DIDN’T MEAN DO THAT!!”
There is also this:
The actual prohibition is this:
Looks like if you have a prohibited aftermarket part, you are guilty even if its not installed.
“…characteristics of like kind…”
“It shoots.”
No, you said characteristic…s, plural.
“It shoots forward.”
“the capacity to accept a magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip” was part of the Clinton-era assault weapons ban. I can’t remember the name of it, but it covered some cheap, scary-looking, pistols that were usually made from a square steel tube for a receiver. Now-adays it would seem to sweep in AR and AK pistols with braces, which have become popular because SRB’s are a pain in the ass and have a $200 tax, while a brace is easy and cheaper.
good call. AR pistols looks like the intended target.
Honest question – has anyone, anywhere, ever been murdered with an AR pistol?
Dayton shooter?
AR pistols look to me like a solution desperately searching for a problem.
But, as my Grandpa used to say, every cat its own rat.
AR pistols are a solution to the same problem you solved with a skunk at the dance. The problem of boredom.
And I’m OK with that.
the volume of a rifle with the accuracy of a pistol!
It makes it easier to put a suppressor on a rifle and it not be eight feet long or paying a tax and waiting six months to get your gun.
i think the shotgun capacity limit is for “the maximum sized shell made for that model” or something like that.
That language shows up in different sections, on carrying shotguns in public areas and possession/transportation by minors. It is conspicuously absent from the definition of assault weapons.
Looks like the typical 12 gauge mini shell is 1 3/4 inches long, meaning that a shotgun that can take 5 3″ shells can take 8 mini shells with some slack, and one that can take 5 2 3/4″ shells can take 7 mini shells with room to spare, and very possibly 8, depending on how much slack there is in the magazine. There is usually some, as the spring that pushes the shells toward the action isn’t fully compressed even when “fully” loaded.
The Model 12 will hold six 2 3/4″ shells in the mag. Most pumpguns only hold five.
I believe a Remington 1100 will hold five 2 3/4″ shells (with the bird plug removed). But if memory serves, there’s around an inch of slack – you can start the sixth shell, but you can’t fully load it. I think it would take 8 mini shells.
And, of course, that begs the question of whether they would include the one in the pipe in calculating capacity. I bet they would.
And you know some fuckwhit judge is going to accept the argument that a shell on the elevator and another in the chamber are part of the magazine.
it would be hypocritical and unfair for Republicans to do what they prevented Democrats from doing four years ago.
Oh, yes. Because we all know that if there’s one thing that’s like kryptonite to politicians, it’s being hypocritical and unfair.
This coming from the newspaper that was opposed to the filibuster for decades, right up until people they liked needed to wield it. Then it became a precious safeguard of our democracy. Right up until it wasn’t, anymore.
Yeah. hypocritical and unfair. That’s a good one.
the Left can keep Ginsburg’s spot. i want a re-do on Chief Justice Penaltax.
https://www.vox.com/2019/12/2/20991785/supreme-court-second-amendment-guns-roberts-new-york-state-rifle
Richard Dearing, the lawyer for the city, repeatedly and emphatically insisted that the city would not do so. And, in response to a question from Justice Elena Kagan, Dearing even promised that the city’s law department would protect the plaintiffs if a city official tried to sanction them for their past behavior.
Notably, Chief Justice Roberts seemed to think that these assurances were enough. Roberts asked Dearing whether dismissing New York State Rifle as moot would prevent the plaintiffs from bringing a new claim for new relief. He also asked Dearing for an assurance that the plaintiffs would not be prejudiced in future applications for a new gun license — an assurance Dearing gave Roberts.
These questions are a sign that Roberts believes the case is moot, and that he was looking to tie up any loose ends that could prevent his Court from reaching such a decision.
An assurance? Roberts seems to think that is enough?
Ladies and Gentlemen, our Chief Justice. Yeah, I want a do-over on him too. He sucks an awful lot of proggie dick.
Even Judge Judy knows to get it in writing. It’s all back and forth between the two goofballs and she asks “was there a contract?” Bamn! that’s what you get stuck following, the written contract. Not “assurances” from one party to the other.
And, of course, if NYC goes back on their assurances, exactly what is he going to do about it? This guy is beyond useless. Even the stories defending his penaltax ruling make it clear that he’s more interested in the Court’s public perception (among “those who count”, but that’s never actually noted) than in any genuine principles of law. Frankly, if you’re going to have a politically minded Justice, can’t the Republicans at least make them political on their own side?
What an embarrassment. Since when does “Oh, don’t worry, we won’t enforce this facially unconstitutional law so that it it prejudices anyone” mean a goddam thing?
Yup. The irony here is that Roberts, whose goal in life seems to be “maintaining the legitimacy of the Court” seems ready to turn the Court into a laughingstock to gain the approval of the chattering classes. Imagine, for a moment, what the response would be if someone tried to defend an abortion restriction bill with “Oh, but we don’t intend to actually enforce it…”
He forgot the first rule of maintaining respectability: Be respectable and act respectably.
No one respects a sniveling coward.
Roberts is all about outcomes, the law be damned. He won’t put the USC in the position of rocking the boat if he can help it at all.
Much as I want the Court to rule on this, the since when is when the law in question has been repealed and the State has prohibited future laws of the type. This case is moot. The Court has authority over cases and controversies. It doesn’t have authority over issues in the abstract.
No – the law was amended to only allow access to the 6 specific ranges mentioned in the challenger’s brief. You can’t even go to a different range, just the 6, specific ranges that these challenger’s happened to list as wanting to go to.
Not an expert on mootness. However, if the law currently is as you state, why did Roberts even ask the question?
I’m curious as to why the requested relief was so minimal, also. The premises license sounds like a blatant infringement on “bearing” arms, regardless of any limited exceptions as to specific places you could take your guns.
I don’t know why the plaintiffs only challenged on that hyper specific basis, and I don’t know why they listed ranges, nor am I an expert on mootness or this case. I overstated above, but my understanding is that the City changed the law to comply with everything the plaintiffs asked for, which is pretty much the definition of a case being moot. I admit I have only a media knowledge of case so it is possible that some actual controversy still exists.
The controversy is not completely gone.
The RBG looks dead even in cartoon form.
ha
they should’ve drawn her 40 years younger wearing a red superhero cape, pussy hat, and straight spine.
Kav and Thomas had no comments during oral argument. i take that to mean they know how Chief Justice Beltway Cocktail Party is going to vote and aren’t wasting their breath. the dissent will be epic.
I’m getting the distinct impression that Justice I Like Beer is pretty fond of those Beltway Cocktail Parties himself.
Serious question: why?
I assumed he was now a member of the Conservative Militant after the debacle where the Left defamed him very very publicly.
He is a Republican establishment guy. The Republican establishment is not conservative, it is the openly pro-crony party as opposed to the disguised pro-crony party.
As opposed to the “Hands off my Medicare!” Tea Party swamp drainers?
I would almost be willing to bet money those people were astroturf. As my doctor said “The only people that support Medicare are people who aren’t on it”
My wife is on it. It is more expensive and covers less than the private insurance she was required to drop, substantially. Medicare is not optional and it is shit.
I never joined the Tea Party. It was a coalition of a few constitutional conservatives with a lot of ‘right wing’ populists and it was clearly earmarked for the coopted destiny it ended up fulfilling. Populists get used, it’s what they are for.
I agree with you that Medicare is shit, but there is a significant percentage of Boomers who forgot that the average American life expectancy was 75(m)/81(f) and went hog-wild in their late 50s and 60s. Thus, they don’t qualify for any decent private plan because they are diabetes mellitus made manifest in flesh.
I considered myself a Tea Partier for about a month. The minute Sarah Palin became the face of the movement, I packed up my tent and moved on.
I still think cockades should make a comeback, though.
Kav hasn’t seen a police blue cock he hasn’t felt the urge to suck.
We can’t do anything that might jeopardize Fearless Fosdick from coming home safely to his family.
I assumed he was now a member of the Conservative Militant after the debacle where the Left defamed him very very publicly.
I think his distress at being attacked was in part because he felt betrayed. He’s a member of the establishment in good standing; why was he being attacked by other members of the establishment?
Having remembered the “who has put pubic hair on my Coke?” days, the Kav debacle was especially dirty politics.
“Wall similarly urged the court to adopt a test that focuses on whether a restriction on gun is consistent with the text, history and tradition of the Second Amendment, describing such a standard as following from the court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. Sotomayor was dubious, dismissing it as a “made-up new standard”
There’s some of that wisdom for you
“We’ve established a precedent of not adhering to the Constitution as written. Why would we not show deference to that?”
I guess we are going to have to change the name of a chicken’s tail from ‘pope’s nose’ to ‘Justice’s nose’.
Consider the implications of what she is saying. Considering what the document actually means is a “made-up new standard”.
What is the point of having arguments and writing opinions? She thinks the court should just issue edicts legislative style.
the curved grip meant that, like later single-actions from Colt, revolved upwards on recoil rather than slamming into the web of the hand
I adore gun history, so a solid article like this is always welcome.
But the only model for recoil particulars I can devise is the relative height of the centerline of the barrel above the centerline of the shooter’s grip, with more being better for delivering rotation. This article calls that “bore axis.”The metal frame of the revolver allowed that step forward: the plowhandle was a small stock of wood that took no interest in the rest of the design’s geometry which could now be whatever it wished: it was a big chuck of metal featuring whatever details the designer’s heart commanded. Contrast this freedom with the curl of a cap-lock inherited from flint-locks: the lock was a small matter wholly dependent on the stock; the same piece of wood carried from nearly muzzle to butt-plate and was unlikely to naturally include an arc that elevated the barrel much at all above the shooter’s wrist; those stocks end when the carver runs out of real estate with more than a few grips
In second place is posture: any of us can trade rotation for translation and back again depending on how firmly we resist the rotation. A light grip in the lower fingers (like in archery) would enhance rotation, for example.
I’m open to other vectors and ideas, but that’s how I see the kinematics after more than a little reflection.
You are correct. I never reflected on it much. My understanding is intuitive based on experience. When you talk about it in abstract terms like that the inexperienced don’t understand the dramatic difference even a little change in handle shape, width (contact area) or bore axis makes.
I have two S&W model 57’s. That is a double action, large frame chambered in 41 magnum. One is one of the first ones made. The grip is finely carved and slightly slimmer than the other. The later pistol with its wider grip (by less than 1/8″) is much more comfortable to shoot. My model 629 in 44 mag is painful to shoot without wide rubber grips and even with that it is trying. These single actions have a low bore axis.
I have the exact equivalence in single action pistols. Ruger makes two grip sizes for their Blackhawk pistols, large and small. The 44 with the large grip and larger bore axis than the single actions is the easiest to shoot, but even the one with the small grip is more comfortable than any of the single action pistols.
Here’s a video of a lawnmower having an orgasm.