Photobucket

Author Topic: Remington .31 Pocket 1858  (Read 12144 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline G Dog

  • Ultimate Forum Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 3339
Re: Remington .31 Pocket 1858
« Reply #30 on: April 29, 2015, 04:25:33 PM »
Right on Johnnie.  I'll take your advice about keeping a loaded Remington with me on my hikes.  I may take a Colt now and again but I always take one of my two .44 Rems (my other is a .36 Pietta).  We have us a good number of puma around here.  I want me one of those boys and I only want to shoot it with a trusty Rem dog forty-four on full-house load.  An opportunity like that requires a bit of style be brought to the party and my 5.5 or 8 inch will provide that in spades.

Best wishes to you old scout.
You are at war now; the liberty of your enemies is not an important concern.

Offline rodwha

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 785
Re: Remington .31 Pocket 1858
« Reply #31 on: April 29, 2015, 06:35:41 PM »
I just frown when I know that someone without much money spends 2.5 times the cost on poWder when there are much cheaper choices that will give similar, if not better performance. But I guess we all make our own choices and deal with whatever consequences it may bring. I can think of plenty I'd spend the extra money on other than some fiddly little pellets, but that's just me I suppose. I guess it's much like the types who just go back to their abusive relationships...
"Were I to leave where else would I go? Your words of life and of truth You hold." - Third Day

Offline ssb73q

  • Ultimate Forum Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 3247
  • Gunsmoke junkie
Re: Remington .31 Pocket 1858
« Reply #32 on: April 29, 2015, 09:15:47 PM »
Hi Johnnie, yes, that target was shot with a 1849 Colt. Being a Colt, I thought you would be even more impressed. What can one do with an 1863 Remington with .32 S&W Kirst conversion cylinder when it comes to accuracy? How about 3.5" groups at 25yds? See:
http://1858remington.com/discuss/index.php?topic=8147.msg128674#msg128674

Here is a target using a .32 S&W Howell conversion cylinder at 7yds with the 1863:
http://1858remington.com/discuss/index.php?topic=8147.msg132342#msg132342

I think that some of the mouse BP guns get a poor accuracy reputation is because the user doesn't spend the time necessary to work up a proper loading. Both the Colt and Remington replica mouse guns have chambers and bore diameters that are not conducive to good accuracy with cap and ball without careful selection of shooting components. Hornady and Speer don't make correct sized balls. I spent many hours finding the correct diameter projectiles to produce good cap and ball accuracy. I tried casting my own and purchased a number of different manufactured balls. My best result so far is to use swaged 0-Buck. Even that buck has issues because it uses hardened lead. One can't simply blame a mouse gun for poor accuracy without doing the work to create an optimal load. There are more support loading materials available for .44 and .36 caliber BP revolvers that have better matching chambers and bores.

My intention isn't to get into the weeds with details on how to get good results with mouse BP guns. My main point is that even with the short sight radius of mouse guns, good accuracy can be achieved if the owner is willing to get into his hobby and find the right loads. The low recoil is also conducive to good accuracy with the .31-.32 caliber guns.

Regards,
Richard
« Last Edit: April 29, 2015, 09:22:52 PM by ssb73q »
There’s nothing better in the morning than the smell of bacon and black powder smoke!

Offline Captainkirk

  • Forum Caesar, Administrator Extraordinaire, Part-Time Gunslinger, Savior of used and abused, and neglected Remmies
  • Administrator
  • Ultimate Forum Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 7408
  • Black Powder Nut & Remmy fanatic
Re: Remington .31 Pocket 1858
« Reply #33 on: April 29, 2015, 09:53:18 PM »

Wow, distributer price for one with a steel frame is more than $200. Heck, the used blue book dealer value is higher than that.
Which is why I'm watching GB for a used one.
The one time I found one I was flat-broke.
"You gonna pull those pistols, or whistle Dixie?"

Offline ssb73q

  • Ultimate Forum Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 3247
  • Gunsmoke junkie
Re: Remington .31 Pocket 1858
« Reply #34 on: April 30, 2015, 05:39:40 AM »
Hi Captain, the 1863 Remingtons weren't available anywhere last year. It took me over a year to find a steel framed 1863 being offered on GunBroker. I paid ~$300 for a used steel framed 1863. Interesting on how Johnnie rails against the 1863, but there aren't that many dissatisfied willing to sell theirs. If it was such a miserable handgun, one would think they would be given away free with a half a pound of tea.  ;) ;)

While simple, the mechanism of the 1863 is like clockwork. I have already found that available replacement parts need considerable fitting to work properly. The 1863 is a lot fussier than the 1858 or Colts. Any used 1863 you may find available may have issues that will drive you nuts. IMO when buying an 1863, buy it new with a warranty.

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

Offline PaleHawkDown

  • Forum Legend
  • ******
  • Posts: 1110
Re: Remington .31 Pocket 1858
« Reply #35 on: April 30, 2015, 09:35:21 AM »
Hi Captain, the 1863 Remingtons weren't available anywhere last year. It took me over a year to find a steel framed 1863 being offered on GunBroker. I paid ~$300 for a used steel framed 1863. Interesting on how Johnnie rails against the 1863, but there aren't that many dissatisfied willing to sell theirs. If it was such a miserable handgun, one would think they would be given away free with a half a pound of tea.  ;) ;)

While simple, the mechanism of the 1863 is like clockwork. I have already found that available replacement parts need considerable fitting to work properly. The 1863 is a lot fussier than the 1858 or Colts. Any used 1863 you may find available may have issues that will drive you nuts. IMO when buying an 1863, buy it new with a warranty.

Regards,
Richard

HAHA. Yeah, I think we had you on the waiting list for one forever, and we finally got them in a month or two after you found one somewhere else.

Offline Captainkirk

  • Forum Caesar, Administrator Extraordinaire, Part-Time Gunslinger, Savior of used and abused, and neglected Remmies
  • Administrator
  • Ultimate Forum Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 7408
  • Black Powder Nut & Remmy fanatic
Re: Remington .31 Pocket 1858
« Reply #36 on: April 30, 2015, 10:51:26 AM »
Hi Captain, the 1863 Remingtons weren't available anywhere last year. It took me over a year to find a steel framed 1863 being offered on GunBroker. I paid ~$300 for a used steel framed 1863. Interesting on how Johnnie rails against the 1863, but there aren't that many dissatisfied willing to sell theirs. If it was such a miserable handgun, one would think they would be given away free with a half a pound of tea.  ;) ;)

While simple, the mechanism of the 1863 is like clockwork. I have already found that available replacement parts need considerable fitting to work properly. The 1863 is a lot fussier than the 1858 or Colts. Any used 1863 you may find available may have issues that will drive you nuts. IMO when buying an 1863, buy it new with a warranty.

Regards,
Richard

HAHA. Yeah, I think we had you on the waiting list for one forever, and we finally got them in a month or two after you found one somewhere else.

So, Palehawk...what kind of deal can you do on a NEW steel '63? PM me....
"You gonna pull those pistols, or whistle Dixie?"

Offline ssb73q

  • Ultimate Forum Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 3247
  • Gunsmoke junkie
Re: Remington .31 Pocket 1858
« Reply #37 on: April 30, 2015, 12:55:58 PM »
Hi Captain, if you intend on never wanting a conversion cylinder for your 1863, the lower cost brass framed revolver should serve you very well. The amount of powder that can be loaded in a chamber in that small revolver would never stretch a brass framed 1863. The first Remington 1863 revolvers were brass framed so there is historical correctness. There isn't any question in my mind that the brass framed 1863 is one beautiful revolver. Since I do conversion cylinders with the 1863, I shoot my steel frame 1863 and just display the brass framed 1863.

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

Offline Captainkirk

  • Forum Caesar, Administrator Extraordinaire, Part-Time Gunslinger, Savior of used and abused, and neglected Remmies
  • Administrator
  • Ultimate Forum Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 7408
  • Black Powder Nut & Remmy fanatic
Re: Remington .31 Pocket 1858
« Reply #38 on: April 30, 2015, 12:58:24 PM »
Hi Captain, if you intend on never wanting a conversion cylinder for your 1863, the lower cost brass framed revolver should serve you very well. The amount of powder that can be loaded in a chamber in that small revolver would never stretch a brass framed 1863. The first Remington 1863 revolvers were brass framed so there is historical correctness. There isn't any question in my mind that the brass framed 1863 is one beautiful revolver. Since I do conversion cylinders with the 1863, I shoot my steel frame 1863 and display the brass framed 1863.

Regards,
Richard

Thanks, Richard...I just like the way the steelies look compared to the brassers. Like a real gun. And the thought of a conversion intrigues me as well.
"You gonna pull those pistols, or whistle Dixie?"

Offline ssb73q

  • Ultimate Forum Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 3247
  • Gunsmoke junkie
Re: Remington .31 Pocket 1858
« Reply #39 on: April 30, 2015, 01:14:47 PM »
Hi Captain, if you intend on never wanting a conversion cylinder for your 1863, the lower cost brass framed revolver should serve you very well. The amount of powder that can be loaded in a chamber in that small revolver would never stretch a brass framed 1863. The first Remington 1863 revolvers were brass framed so there is historical correctness. There isn't any question in my mind that the brass framed 1863 is one beautiful revolver. Since I do conversion cylinders with the 1863, I shoot my steel frame 1863 and display the brass framed 1863.

Regards,
Richard

Thanks, Richard...I just like the way the steelies look compared to the brassers. Like a real gun. And the thought of a conversion intrigues me as well.

Hi Captain, I have to admit that a 32 S&W conversion cylinder buys you good accuracy right out of the box without screwing with cap and ball components. Having said that, I think that the brass framed 1863 would do very well with the low energy 32 S&W even though Howell says that a steel frame revolver is required.

I hope that Lee can do you a deal, you will not be disappointed with either an 1863 Remington or 1849 Colt. The 1863 Remington being made by Pietta is an advantage IMO.

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

Offline ssb73q

  • Ultimate Forum Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 3247
  • Gunsmoke junkie
Re: Remington .31 Pocket 1858
« Reply #40 on: April 30, 2015, 01:17:34 PM »
Hi Johnnie, yes, that target was shot with a 1849 Colt. Being a Colt, I thought you would be even more impressed. What can one do with an 1863 Remington with .32 S&W Kirst conversion cylinder when it comes to accuracy? How about 3.5" groups at 25yds? See:
http://1858remington.com/discuss/index.php?topic=8147.msg128674#msg128674

Here is a target using a .32 S&W Howell conversion cylinder at 7yds with the 1863:
http://1858remington.com/discuss/index.php?topic=8147.msg132342#msg132342

I think that some of the mouse BP guns get a poor accuracy reputation is because the user doesn't spend the time necessary to work up a proper loading. Both the Colt and Remington replica mouse guns have chambers and bore diameters that are not conducive to good accuracy with cap and ball without careful selection of shooting components. Hornady and Speer don't make correct sized balls. I spent many hours finding the correct diameter projectiles to produce good cap and ball accuracy. I tried casting my own and purchased a number of different manufactured balls. My best result so far is to use swaged 0-Buck. Even that buck has issues because it uses hardened lead. One can't simply blame a mouse gun for poor accuracy without doing the work to create an optimal load. There are more support loading materials available for .44 and .36 caliber BP revolvers that have better matching chambers and bores.

My intention isn't to get into the weeds with details on how to get good results with mouse BP guns. My main point is that even with the short sight radius of mouse guns, good accuracy can be achieved if the owner is willing to get into his hobby and find the right loads. The low recoil is also conducive to good accuracy with the .31-.32 caliber guns.

Regards,
Richard

Hi Johnnie, come on, I'm waiting with bated breath for your reply.

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

Offline Pat/Rick

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
Re: Remington .31 Pocket 1858
« Reply #41 on: April 30, 2015, 08:12:03 PM »
There has to be a reason why Colt's sold more 1849's than any other flavor in their inventory.... I think that the Remington design is superior, but I like 'em all. Sure would like to add one of each to my collection. I think the little '63 with a steel frame, would look even better with faux ivory or bone grips. Hmmm, maybe even stag or elk antler.....

I believe it to be the timeline in medical history that made the so called mouse guns more effective than their modern counterparts. But that's just a theory of mine. Could even add the natural lubes to the list as well I suppose, nothing like a chunk o lead with some rancid grease in the guts or lungs to get an infection started.
Nothing expresses Liberty more, than the report of a rifle shot fired in the defense of Freedom.

Offline G Dog

  • Ultimate Forum Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 3339
Re: Remington .31 Pocket 1858
« Reply #42 on: April 30, 2015, 08:53:16 PM »
I think you are on to something Pat/Rick.  (not 'on', read 'on to')

If not a head/heart shot, I would suppose most recipients of a .31 ball just bled out and that could take awhile. 

Lovely pictures of Pietta's Pockets:
http://www.pietta.us/products/Muzzleloadinguns/Pocket/index.html
You are at war now; the liberty of your enemies is not an important concern.

Offline Captainkirk

  • Forum Caesar, Administrator Extraordinaire, Part-Time Gunslinger, Savior of used and abused, and neglected Remmies
  • Administrator
  • Ultimate Forum Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 7408
  • Black Powder Nut & Remmy fanatic
Re: Remington .31 Pocket 1858
« Reply #43 on: April 30, 2015, 09:16:11 PM »
As was mentioned previously, I rather suspect a lot of victims were popped from across the card table, through a stagecoach window, or from just "down the bar a ways"....at which range I would think the little pocket Remmy that never saw could actually be quite lethal, at least at ranges up to 10-15 yards. And as also was mentioned, it might not kill you the day you were 'popped', but maybe days or weeks later.
I think it's a fascinating little gun that had it's quiet little role in history.
"You gonna pull those pistols, or whistle Dixie?"

Offline Pat/Rick

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
Re: Remington .31 Pocket 1858
« Reply #44 on: May 02, 2015, 10:57:01 PM »
GDog and Captain, I'm certain that most shots with these "muff pistols" were indeed close range and quite likely across the table or up close with a thug who would be attacking a gent and his lady, store keeper,or banker.

Somewhere in my list of "favorites" on the 'puter is an article on arrow wounds. The probing and sounding would probably cause darn near as much problems as the wound itself after following the channel and then working the point back out. Metal or stone were just as lethal as the other with stone points periodically leaving pieces behind.

During the ACW infection killed right along with the wounds. Sanitation and personal hygiene likely led alot of gunk to be carried into the wound as well, likely resulting in accelerated sepsis. I think alot of lethality by small, as well as large caliber bullets had alot to do with this, and just medical knowledge/practice at the time.


Great link to the photo's! Thanks! I'm thinking I may be "needing" a pocket remmie as well, LOL!  That pic would make a neat screen saver!
Nothing expresses Liberty more, than the report of a rifle shot fired in the defense of Freedom.