The Russian Mosin Nagant Forum

After finding the Ruger Single Six yesterday, I still had a couple hours before I had to pick up my son. So I made 1 last stop at one of my local gun shops. This was my last stop of the day but they had a lot of new inventory. They had no milsurps today, but I did spot a black powder revolver on the bottom shelf on a display case. I asked to see it and found what I believe to be a Pietta 1860 Army. If anyone can confirm this or correct me, please do. I have not been able to get a good look down the barrel, but the cylinder looked good. I seen no pitting or powder residue. The cylinder has a pretty cool Navy scene and the text "Engaged 16 May 1843". Here are a few pictures.

1851 Army. The 1860's "loading" area under the barrel is way more sculpted than that. Still fine pistol. I actually prefer the 1851's grip, it fills my hand better than the 1860's.

No, this is a Pietta creation, a steel frame version of their brass frame "Reb" revolvers. The 1851 Navy was only a .36 weapon, all Army models were .44, that would include the big Dragoon models and the 1860 Army. This is a fairly rare piece, I would say 98% or better of the Pietta "Navy" .44's are brass frame, it's uncommon to find a steel frame version on the loose, good catch. Colt never made the 1851 Navy in .44, only .36, this is a $300+ revolver from Cabelas. Uses the .454 ball.

Very cool, thanks for the information. I paid $150+tax, so I think I made out pretty good on this. I was wondering if the frame was steel. I thought all Piettas were brass frames, but the more I searched the more I was wondering. Thank you for clearing that up for me. Now I need to see if I have all the pieces to shoot this beauty. I think I do.

Only the "Reb" revolver in the Pietta "Navy" lineup is brass frame. $150 for the steel frame is a good deal, it looks unfired. I shoot mine all the time.

Not only is out a steel frame, but also color case hardened. You found a great deal on a great looking revolver.

Very nice! I have the brass framed version, it is a blast to shoot.

So what about this single six? Are you gonna post it on the forum?

I have a steel frame one like this and they called it an 1851 navy 44

desdem12 wrote:I have a steel frame one like this and they called it an 1851 navy 44

The one he has is the steel frame Pietta .44 "Navy"

bunkysdad wrote:So what about this single six? Are you gonna post it on the forum?

It's hidden down in the small caliber forum. Although I dont think I updated my post since cleaning. http://russian-mosin-nagant-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=18964

desdem12 wrote:I have a steel frame one like this and they called it an 1851 navy 44

Sales gimmick. Colt NEVER made the '51 Navy model in .44.
Jon

musketjon wrote:

desdem12 wrote:I have a steel frame one like this and they called it an 1851 navy 44

Sales gimmick. Colt NEVER made the '51 Navy model in .44.
Jon

They didn't, but they should have, I always wondered how a slick operator like Sam Colt missed that opportunity early on. Not until the 1860 Army did we get a .44 that was comfortable to hang off the belt.

I refered to it as an 1851 Army because that's what DGW and IIRC, Navy Arms, marketed them as. Yes, I know the standard Army issue pistol was the Third Model Dragoon until the Remington M1858 was fielded, and then the !860 Army shortly after.

Junk Yard Dog wrote:

musketjon wrote:

desdem12 wrote:I have a steel frame one like this and they called it an 1851 navy 44

Sales gimmick. Colt NEVER made the '51 Navy model in .44.
Jon

They didn't, but they should have, I always wondered how a slick operator like Sam Colt missed that opportunity early on. Not until the 1860 Army did we get a .44 that was comfortable to hang off the belt.

Maybe because the earlier military contract versions were intended to hang from saddle holsters rather than belt holsters.

walnut red wrote:

Junk Yard Dog wrote:

musketjon wrote:

desdem12 wrote:I have a steel frame one like this and they called it an 1851 navy 44

Sales gimmick. Colt NEVER made the '51 Navy model in .44.
Jon

They didn't, but they should have, I always wondered how a slick operator like Sam Colt missed that opportunity early on. Not until the 1860 Army did we get a .44 that was comfortable to hang off the belt.

Maybe because the earlier military contract versions were intended to hang from saddle holsters rather than belt holsters.

Sam sold to the civilian population as much as the military, the military had them off the horse, but most others wore it stuck in a sash or primitive belt holster. The 1851 Navy was popular due to it's size, some complained that it needed more punch, Colt didn't listen until 1860

I recently read in a book about these revolvers that the .44 was kept to the Walker & the Dragoons because the steel available then was not strong enough to support the large caliber in the smaller 1851 platform. As I recall the story, a new steel called "silver spring steel" allowed building the .44 in a smaller lighter revolver resulting in the 1860 Army. Now there is no issue making the 1851 Navy reproductions in .44 as we have better materials.

Italy has been making that .44 Navy with a brass frame since the 1950's

hudson29 wrote:I recently read in a book about these revolvers that the .44 was kept to the Walker & the Dragoons because the steel available then was not strong enough to support the large caliber in the smaller 1851 platform. As I recall the story, a new steel called "silver spring steel" allowed building the .44 in a smaller lighter revolver resulting in the 1860 Army. Now there is no issue making the 1851 Navy reproductions in .44 as we have better materials.

Bessemer Process steel. Henry Bessemer patented the Bessemer Process in 1856. It didn't take Remington long to jump on that wagon, the New Army Model was adopted two years later. Colt took another two years to come out with the 1860.