And then things got ugly..

oldiron

oldiron

CGN Regular
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
77   0   0
Location
central Alberta
This nasty looking old gal is a Pettengill Army. It,s a .44 cal. 7 1/2 inch barrel. The outside looks worn, but you can still see the tool marks in the rifling. These are a big thing, at 3 pounds before loading. Built for the Civil war by Rogers & Spencer. They weren't well accepted, so only about 3400 were made. Nice big cylinder, should hold lots of stuff.
Feel free to post your uglys. This was my Xmas thing to me. (from my lovin' Bride)
005-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Its like my Enfield ugly but I love it because its ugly. I do like some of the early transitional designs they sure are interesting very nice
 
heck of alot of smarts in that design, what were the complaints at the time? DA just to 'new fangled'? I bet it points like a dream and forms a nice sight picture.
 
Here is a pic of my DA my 1851 Adams with the Tranter Convertion trigger I think its a bit fugly
PC010115.jpg
 
oldiron said:
005-1.jpg
Click to expand...

Putting myself in the place of the trooper back then, the lack of a hammer and the complicated mech might have made it a pain to repair and might totally lock up impossible to fire after being gummed up with fouling with a hammer you can reef that thing into full battery, these guys liked things simple, easy, relyable and efficient.

We are very lucky nowadays to have dremils, abundant spring making material and inexpensive tiny files,
back then men able to make parts and fix it would have been few and far between---and The peerless colt and the adequate remington were around in abundance:p

I wonder how it would feel in the hand the grip/trigger geometry looks awkard....but that could just be my eyes reaction to its unique design.

The old hog leg is really ahead of its time though and looks like a quite strong design, I bet will serve you fantastically.
I think shes a beauty and very neat aswell!
 
oldiron said:
That Kynoc is a great looker. Do you still have it?
Click to expand...

NO I never had it I wanted it but it was sold before I could buy it always kept a picture to remind me you snooze you looze. It was so different I thought it would be a real conversation piece .
 
after being gummed up with fouling with a hammer you can reef that thing into full battery
Click to expand...

Not many times before you ended up with parts broken that there is no dremel around to fix. :p

The geometry of this revolver would likely result in a very quick reacquisition of a sight picture following recoil. Much faster then then a SA gun. I do not imagine there were too many opportunities in an hour long engagement to reload a CB revolver so it is likely that the 6 cylinders that you charged in the morning are the only ones you were going to shoot. The solid frame also has a lot going for it hammer or no hammer a colt of the time would not take the weight of a man falling from his horse on it any better then this would.

In the arms trade manufacturing cost, political connections of investors, charisma, materials delivery,luck and loyalty often have more to do with success then does practicality and usability. I would wait to hear what old iron reports from the range before I would rank the Pettingill offering with it's peers.
 
David makes another good point: That Pettengill would have made a hell of a hammer when it emptied & a good companion to a sword in the other hand when trying to get out of a close engagement.
 
This is my ugly gun it's a .320 I've fired this one more than any of my other antique guns.it looks a lot like skinny 1950s pinfire i think it may be some
kind of transition revolver from pinfire to center.
the top of the barrel says steel screwed barrel(not sure if that means rifled or the barrels removable)

DSCF0865.jpg


DSCF0872.jpg
 
Last edited:
made a hell of a hammer
Click to expand...

Yep any any 4 pound hunk of iron is your friend in a fight. Just for interest though (and not to discount what would work in a given situation):
most period training warned against the hammer technique in favour of a straight thrust (think knife). Much harder to block/counter and more energy transferred per square inch.
Myself I'd favor the, drop the ballast, lace up the nikes and make like a banana solution to any potentially bleedy situation......

One more vote for the hammerless design is that at hand to hand ranges someone's body parts, clothing, the ground, lanyard strings, straps, reins or anything else that Murphy throws at you can and did foul a hammer. I have a 1916 british publication that warns adamantly against the use of lanyards with hammer guns (the same work also pooh poohs DA fire for any thing other then room or trench clearing so pick you poison) Apparently more then one british/french officer found them skewered on a bayonet with a string under the hammer.
 
rgbai said:
This is my ugly gun it's a .320 I've fired this one more than any of my other antique guns.it looks a lot like skinny 1950s pinfire i think it may be some
kind of transition revolver from pinfire to center.
the top of the barrel says steel screwed barrel

DSCF0865.jpg


DSCF0872.jpg
Click to expand...

I love .320 revolvers.....:)
 
Yeah Dave whether you clubbed em with the butt end or knuckle dusted em with the muzzle, I think the delivery may slow their rebuttal... For a fast banana split!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom