Pistols, common or uncommon

[Dave Tercek]

Interesting thread. What is the safest way to carry one of these loaded pistols ?

[Justin Urbantas]

The one I shared has a sliding safety that engages the tumbler at half-stock. Perfectly safe to carry on half cock in a pocket, or tucked away somewhere.

[MuskratMike]

Not primed with frozen stall.

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

I carry mine in simple leather holsters.  I don't prime 'til I'm at the firing line station.

[hanshi]

Very fine pistols showing up on this thread.  I spent many years carrying a pistol daily as an LEO but very seldom carry one now.  The exception is when I'm headed to the bush.  I learned long ago in Georgia that once you wander in the woods it's foolish not to carry.  So anytime I go out I'm armed.  Never worried about two legged threats but the wild (feral) canines were ubiquitous and a very immanent or at least a very existential threat.  I did get into some "sticky" situations, but being wood wise (a little at any rate) extricated myself without shooting.  Which, by the way, would have enraged more than a few attackers.  Two neighbors, a retired couple, up the road weren't so lucky and were attacked and killed by a pack.  They were simply taking their normal walk along the road.  So out of habit I routinely pack a sidearm when hunting.

My only pistol is a .50 flintlock of modest size.  I carry loaded in a holster that keeps the frizzen closed tightly and the cock at half cock.  The 10" barrel is capable of accuracy on par with my modern target centerfire.  Thirty grains of 3F is the all around load and about as much recoil my hands can take during a shooting session.  In the woods I load a minimum of 40 grains.

[MuskratMike]

Sad to hear about the neighbors. I do agree in the woods, any woods go prepared and armed. I never want to die for a lack of being able to shoot or shoot back!

[Steeltrap]

My 50 caliber 12" barrel flint pistol. Accurate out to 50 yards. I use a PRB for target but for hunting I use the Hornady Pa. Conical with 50gr. FF.

[Craig Wilcox]

Spent most of my life in the woods or swamps, and always carried a modern weapon.  I used a shoulder type holster, as many things caught on a hip holster.  More worried about feral hogs than dogs, tho I have come across some packs of those.  Shoot the closest one, the others will run off.  That is not always true of hogs, however.

[Dphariss]

I like the idea of an overcoat pistol like this one. Big bore .58-.70 caliber, and easy to conceal with a 5"  barrel. Big ball at close range stops problems in a hurry

It you shoot such a thing be sure you use enough powder.
I shot an original English 58 percussion overcoat pistol with a light charge, 15 grains IIRC, (its been a while) ball bounced off the piece of pine I shot at and whacked me on the shin. Hurt like $#*!... Wished I had not been so cautious with the old thing. Increased the powder charge for the next shot. Ball then entered the wood a little way and no rebound.

Dan

[Dphariss]

My 50 caliber 12" barrel flint pistol. Accurate out to 50 yards. I use a PRB for target but for hunting I use the Hornady Pa. Conical with 50gr. FF.

A 50 caliber ball from a 6" FL  pistol will make 800 fps with 40 grains of FFF. This load at 20-25 yards would shoot completely through a grown Antelope buck and throw up a cloud of dirt on the far side. Would penetrate all the heavy shoulder muscles of a Mule Deer buck. Angled through the lungs and stopped at the off side hide at the diaphragm. I sold it and it later killed a really POed cow elk that my friend's client had shot in the front leg as she came for him (she had been cornered by terrain features). Head shot in the forehead got to and borke the vertebra at the back of the skull. I never saw any need for a conical in a ML for hunting. But the gun writers always liked them. If the maker was buying advertising anyway.


Dan

[Steeltrap]

A heavier projectile has always proven to penetrate deeper than a lighter weight projectile. I'll take 240gr. moving slower vs a 180gr. chunk of lead moving faster. It's just ballistics. I shoot whitetail which are a much tougher breed than the antelope. I base this on fact as I've shot antelope.

It matters little what the gun writers tout. Just run the ballistics. Science is science.

FWIW

[WadePatton]

A heavier projectile has always proven to penetrate deeper than a lighter weight projectile. I'll take 240gr. moving slower vs a 180gr. chunk of lead moving faster. It's just ballistics. I shoot whitetail which are a much tougher breed than the antelope. I base this on fact as I've shot antelope.

It matters little what the gun writers tout. Just run the ballistics. Science is science.

FWIW

This is not consistent with the findings of many. I'll let them chime in.  But I'm pretty sure Daryl has written here about the horrible record of conicals on moose.  I'll never use anything but a ball on game.  Long distance targets are a different matter altogether, but I am convinced by those with much more field experience than I, that balls are best for critters of this continent. Lots of "ballistic science" fails to adequately explain the ball/critter interaction and effectiveness.   But then this is another subject, and not on the topic of this thread.

Here's some discussions from the past on the subject, if you're interested:


     https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=50837

     https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=10719

     https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=42134

     https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=1952

[Daryl]

The lack of straight line penetration on moose with the conicals was due to the 48" rate of twist of the rifles used.
Winchester rifles of the buffalo era also had that conical/rate of twist problem and were "despised" by the buffalo hunters (apparently).
That makes perfect sense.

[Steeltrap]

Essentially....anything hit at 50 yards or less....the projectile type doesn't make a big difference. At 100 to 125 it could make a difference. OTOH, the issue has always been....and will continue to be debated. None of this changes the type of projectile I shoot.

[bob in the woods]

Essentially....anything hit at 50 yards or less....the projectile type doesn't make a big difference. At 100 to 125 it could make a difference. OTOH, the issue has always been....and will continue to be debated. None of this changes the type of projectile I shoot.

I strongly disagree, based on my own experience in the field, as well as my friends.  Back in the 80's we shot conicals in our TC " Hawkens " rifles when hunting .  More power and lethality was our reasoning, but the results proved otherwise.
Deer were lost and never recovered more than once or twice . Shoulder shots or if you hit bone...down they went , but lung shots not so much.  Since switching to round balls, we haven't had this problem .  90% of all shots taken here are inside of 50 yards.   

[MuskratMike]

...and if we are still talking pistols as the thread suggests why would anybody be shooting one at anything much past 25 yards?

[bob in the woods]

Well, things have digressed, however you are right to bring up the 25 yard limit.  In taking a look at the historical references , I found some HBC stock lists of both pistols and "plain" pistols.  This dating from the early 1800's
I believe that they were probably more common than we used to think, although economics play a part.  If could afford it, I definitely would have had one [ or two ]

[Bob McBride]

...and if we are still talking pistols as the thread suggests why would anybody be shooting one at anything much past 25 yards?

I don’t think they would’ve been.

[alacran]

Just started re-reading The Northwest Gun By Hanson. He quotes from La Salle's memoir. " a hundred pair of pistols, to be worn in the girdle" This was in the 17th century, to outfit his expedition down the Mississippi.
 

[45-110]

My western take on the matter is a pistol is just short of a necessity. Since most trappers, mtn. men  and wanderers had a horse the extra burden could have been carried in a pommel holster. Lewis and Clark had pistols on their journey supplementing the spontoon and knives carried. At night the rifle is nearby but the pistol is in the bedroll.
kw
montana

[Longknife]

There are only four pistols recorded as being taken on the Lewis and Clark Expedition and all four were "owned" by Capt. Lewis. Two, were obtained from the  Schuylkill Arsenal in Philadelphia and it is assumed that they were of the North and Cheney pattern, a copy of the common French military pistol.  Lewis also purchased " 1 Pair Pocket Pistols, Secret Triggers $10" from a private merchant. These were probably a cased pair of those little screw barrel pocket pistols with folding triggers. Pistols are mentioned several times in the Journals and they are always in the hands of Capt. Lewis. With only four pistols recorded for a group of 33 (Actual number is not verified) men then in this case I would say that pistol's were uncommon on that journey.
  On another note here is a interesting entry that Capt. Clark made in his Journals December 4. 1805.
 """" Soon after Several Canoes of Indians from the village above came down dressed for the purpose as I Supposed of Paying us a friendly visit, they had Scarlet & blue blankets Salors jackets, overalls, Shirts and Hats independant of their Usial dress; the most of them had either war axes Spears or Bows Sprung with quivers of arrows, Muskets or pistols, and tin flasks to hold their powder; Those fellows we found assumeing and disagreeable, however we Smoked with them and treated them with every attention & friendship"""""
 

[Mike from OK]

This is going to come out wrong, but I'm sick and can't think of a better way to say it...

I always got the impression that (prior to repeating arms becoming common) pistols saw most of their use by people mounted on horseback. Of course there are exceptions... "Wealthier" individuals may have had them, and the cased sets for dueling, etc... But in my mind the common man may have had a harder time justifying the expenditure versus their effectiveness... Another long gun would probably be what he would choose to purchase.

Just my opinion.

Mike