1858banner

Author Topic: Comparing .36:es  (Read 2809 times)

Offline Len

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
  • Bloody foreigner
    • View Profile
Comparing .36:es
« on: May 29, 2018, 10:32:37 AM »
Here are three originals cal.36
On top 1851 Colt weighing in at 2 lb 8.5 oz
Middle Remington Riders, weight 2 lb 2.5 oz
Bottom 1857 Manhattan, weight 1 lb 14.7 oz
Internet is an electronical sewer

Offline mike116

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2170
    • View Profile
    • LeathersmithMike.net
Re: Comparing .36:es
« Reply #1 on: May 29, 2018, 12:29:16 PM »
That Remington looks to be in really good shape Len,  but it's still kinda ugly compared to the Colt and Manhattan.

Offline ssb73q

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3501
  • Gunsmoke junkie
    • View Profile
Re: Comparing .36:es
« Reply #2 on: May 29, 2018, 12:44:45 PM »
Hi Mike, ah, you have such a way with words. I agree, there is nothing is as beautiful as a Colt.

Regards,
richard
There’s nothing better in the morning than the smell of bacon and black powder smoke!

Offline 99whip

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: Comparing .36:es
« Reply #3 on: May 29, 2018, 06:40:23 PM »
Hi Len,

Nice originals. Would you mind posting a closer pic of the blade sight on the Colt? 

Thanks,

Whip 

Offline Len

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
  • Bloody foreigner
    • View Profile
Re: Comparing .36:es
« Reply #4 on: May 30, 2018, 04:01:31 AM »
Hi Len,
Nice originals. Would you mind posting a closer pic of the blade sight on the Colt? 
Thanks,
Whip

Here you go.
I had the sight removed and there's a mark from the tip off a drill at the bottom of the dove tail cut-out, so the original sight must have been a bead. Also checked the barrel address, and this text was found on the 74,000 first 51 Navies (but the frame is something like 193,347 which prolly is 1866 (Hawg will know better)).
Internet is an electronical sewer

Offline LonesomePigeon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 627
  • Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: Comparing .36:es
« Reply #5 on: May 31, 2018, 09:10:02 PM »
Very nice comparison. I did not know the Manhattan's were so small. Do you know how many grains of powder each will hold?

Offline Len

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
  • Bloody foreigner
    • View Profile
Re: Comparing .36:es
« Reply #6 on: June 01, 2018, 12:03:09 AM »
Don't know, but will check.
Manhattan is a 5-shot and very light and balanced, but still with some oomph.
Internet is an electronical sewer

Offline bigted

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 416
  • when all is said ... more will be said then done.
    • View Profile
Re: Comparing .36:es
« Reply #7 on: June 04, 2018, 06:45:00 PM »
i certainly do like that Manhattan ... very reminiscent of my second gen '62' Police except for the navy style oct barrel. sure do like the looks of the grips she wears. sorta like a smaller dragoon grip affair.

 have you shot it?

my 62 shoots very well and has the feel of a revolver going off what with the smaller frame/barrel ... even tho 36 cal she barks nicely and i feel like it has more punch then the 51 has just because of the bounce and recoil of the smaller revolver.
BIGTED

Offline Hawg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2473
  • Now you went and done it!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Comparing .36:es
« Reply #8 on: June 04, 2018, 07:35:57 PM »
Hi Len,
Nice originals. Would you mind posting a closer pic of the blade sight on the Colt? 
Thanks,
Whip

Here you go.
I had the sight removed and there's a mark from the tip off a drill at the bottom of the dove tail cut-out, so the original sight must have been a bead. Also checked the barrel address, and this text was found on the 74,000 first 51 Navies (but the frame is something like 193,347 which prolly is 1866 (Hawg will know better)).

1866 runs from 185,000 - 199,999.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and tasteth good with ketchup.

Offline Len

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
  • Bloody foreigner
    • View Profile
Re: Comparing .36:es
« Reply #9 on: June 05, 2018, 09:11:37 AM »
Don't know, but will check.
Manhattan is a 5-shot and very light and balanced, but still with some oomph.
without an under ball wad it would be about
Manhattan 20 grains
Remi Rider 26 grains
Colt Navy 21 grains
« Last Edit: June 06, 2018, 06:20:06 AM by Len »
Internet is an electronical sewer

Offline Len

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
  • Bloody foreigner
    • View Profile
Re: Comparing .36:es
« Reply #10 on: June 05, 2018, 09:18:32 AM »
i certainly do like that Manhattan ... very reminiscent of my second gen '62' Police except for the navy style oct barrel. sure do like the looks of the grips she wears. sorta like a smaller dragoon grip affair.

 have you shot it?

She's an early first Series S/N 515. The grip is the "Miss America Butt", nearly circular.
I shoot it frequently (did this morning). I really like it. I got it cheap at a gun auction, it was wrongly described as a Pocket and the interest was low.
Internet is an electronical sewer

Offline Dellbert

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 197
  • Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: Comparing .36:es
« Reply #11 on: June 05, 2018, 11:09:20 AM »
I like the Colt 51s in .36 cal more than the Remington Riders or the Colt Manhattan. For me the Remmie is to large and the Colt Manhattan to small. As far as having three that are originals that's pretty cool.

Offline Len

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
  • Bloody foreigner
    • View Profile
Re: Comparing .36:es
« Reply #12 on: June 05, 2018, 11:51:36 AM »
Hi Dellbert
I haven't really decided on my preferences yet. All of them have pros and cons. The '51 Navy is iconic and a nice pointer, but I find it a bit too big for a .36, weighs nearly as much as the Remington .44 NMA. The Rider has a pleasant size and weight, but it's a DA. I always shoot it SA but the last trigger pull still is a bit too hard. The Manhattan has got a very nice size and weight, shoots really good, but is just a 5-shot. The most noticeable thing is the Colt and Manhattan cap sucking, never happens with the Rider.

I have tried a new approach to fight the cap sucking by fattening up the nipples of the Colt Navy. Put up the nipples in the lathe and let them rotate slowly while silver soldering a layer onto them. Now have to press the caps on really hard with a wooden dowel. Shot a couple of cylinders yesterday and for the first time had no cap issues.
Internet is an electronical sewer

Offline ssb73q

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3501
  • Gunsmoke junkie
    • View Profile
Re: Comparing .36:es
« Reply #13 on: June 05, 2018, 12:36:32 PM »

I have tried a new approach to fight the cap sucking by fattening up the nipples of the Colt Navy. Put up the nipples in the lathe and let them rotate slowly while silver soldering a layer onto them. Now have to press the caps on really hard with a wooden dowel. Shot a couple of cylinders yesterday and for the first time had no cap issues.

Hi Len, it works better using a welding rod instead of solder.  (jh (jh (jh

Regards,
Richard
There’s nothing better in the morning than the smell of bacon and black powder smoke!

Offline Dellbert

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 197
  • Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: Comparing .36:es
« Reply #14 on: June 05, 2018, 12:39:09 PM »
I took some time out Saturday and loaded up my Colt 51 in .36. This was a new gun that had been sitting in the box for a while. I got it out and ready to fire. I noticed I went though three cylinders with no cap sucking problems. I had been loading with 20 gr black powder, 380 rd balls, and Rem #10 caps. I'm not a big fan of wads anymore, but had some in my bag and try some in the next couple cylinders, that's when I noticed that using my fingers to put the wads in and then using the same fingers to put the caps on was when I noticed the caps wanting to stick to the hammer. I think shooting without the wads the first time was the way to go. I guess if someone is going to use wads no matter what don't forget to use a capper.