Lets see you 1877 Colt double actions!!!

Those would be interesting with a healthy charge. I'vs a 4 1/2 bbl'd 41LC ( not in a '77 though so no pic ). I've worked with 4.5 - 5 gr Unique behind a 200 gr HB, definitely got some snap in a smaller pistol.
Interweb says it was Elmer Keith, who was of the opinion that the 41 LC was definitely a superior manstopper compared to a 38 spl.
I would tend to agree based on what the 41LC feels like to shoot and what it does to firewood when it hits ( my favorite target ).
Very nice wheelguns BTW
 
I wouldnt be scared to use a healthy load in a colt SAA in .41 because the cylinder walls are so thick, but on the 1877 double action the walls are quite thin plus the action is known to be fragile, I dont think I will even shoot mine even though I'm itching to.
 
I'm fond of them but almost everyone else kind of considers them as the Edsel to the Ford line. I've been tempted to start a thread about mine and call it ' The unwanted '
Colts earlier DA designs, they...well...they suffer fools poorly.
The timing is somewhat delicate and I find the hand and cylinder stop ( where applicable ) to be built of pretty poor material compared to what's available now days.
Therefore an amateur handling them makes me grit my teeth.
Too many movies prompt folks to want to spin the cylinder like a kid with a top. Don't you love that high speed cylinder spin and slam the cylinder crane shut with a wrist snap? Arrrgh!
I've not tackled a Thunderer yet, but I likely will in the coming days. They are kinda neat in the hand, quite a small frame actually. They would have been a welcome pocket pistol in an era of SAA Colts, full size S & W's & Remingtons. Particularly if you had small hands.
 
I don't have small hands but I just love the way the 1877 fits on my hand and with the .41 LC and 2.5" barrel it would have been a pretty powerfull little pocket pistol compared to the derringers and rimfire spur triggers of the time. Like a classier bulldog
 
This one has the rosewood grips. It's a 3 1/2 inch, locks up tight, and never acts up. I never use DA in old stuff. It's even fairly accurate for a shorter gun, mild loads, soft lead.
 
oldiron said:
Depending on what you call single action. I use them like Colt 73 SAA guns, #### the hammer, then fire. Not so many litle pieces moving at the same time. More fun to shoot than repair.
Click to expand...

Not to be a smart ass but what else would you call single action? Ive read that shooting them like that in single action is actually harder on the internals than shooting them in double not sure why that would be?
 
gutinater said:
Not to be a smart ass but what else would you call single action? Ive read that shooting them like that in single action is actually harder on the internals than shooting them in double not sure why that would be?
Click to expand...

Now I don't know which is harder on stuff either. Maybe we can get some votes SA or DA. (I wasn't trying to be that guy either, some think you pull the trigger, it goes bang, in one "single action").
 
I know Dingus has recommended on the S and W top break double actions to shoot them in single action because its easier on them. You would think these would be the same?
 
Yes thats true tho i have not had a 1877 Da colt for along time but my best guess is yes cocking the gun with the trigger which is whats called DA shooting is harder on the internals than cocking it with the hammer and your thumb.
The reason is simple the trigger has a part on it that has to over power the main spring when you fire it DA when you shoot SA you thumb is doing the work and the trigger gets a free ride.
Im sure the 1877 is simlar that way.
Shooting all antique handguns in DA is harder on them for this reason.
I like the 41 colt short barreled Sherif model DA 1877s and am going to get one one day. i dont care if there action is abit delicate there light weight and fast guns to shoot so thats a good enough reason to own one.
41 long colt reloading stuff is easyer to find now than it was 5 years ago to.
 
That makes sense to me, I have to find where I read the opposite (not saying its true It doesnt make sense to me, but I would like to know what the guys reasoning was behind it)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom