Odd question.

imported post

So, I now have this 1851 Navy in .44 cal, and I would like to be able to carry it on occasion. You know, matches the outfit sometimes.

Anyway, the thing is, It has a safety position on it, which is putting the hammer down between cylinders.

The question I have is, would I still have to have 2 chambers empty, or would the safety position count?

You would have to pull the hammer back, then pull the trigger to fire.

Thoughts?

Oh, and for those people who are going to tell me not to carry it, I'm going to once in a while anyway.

They're safe to carry, and I think that it would pack more of a punch than a 9mm.

Thing's a beast.

imported post

thx997303 wrote:

Anyway, the thing is, It has a safety position on it, which is putting the hammer down between cylinders.

The question I have is, would I still have to have 2 chambers empty, or would the safety position count?

Click to expand...

Utah law defines "unloaded" with two requirements:

1. There must be no round "in firing position". Everyone seems to take that to mean no round in the chamber lined up with the hammer and barrel. You're covered there.

2. At least two manual actions must be require to fire. You have to pull the hammer back and then pull the trigger.

So, I think you're good to carry with all chambers loaded and the hammer down between chambers.

imported post

The NAA mini revolvers are built the same way, with the safety notches in between each cylinder. They are made in Provo, and I believe that they were designed this way with Utah law in mind. Sounds like you are covered.

imported post

While I agree that you OUGHT to be safe carrying that way (2 manual actions), the law does not differentiate between single and double action revolvers. Many police officers understand the 2 actions rule, others know the two empty chambers rule - so you MIGHT run into some issues there, if stopped. To them, the revolver would appear to be fully loaded

Just a heads up, hopefully you never have any problems with it - cool replica by the way!

imported post

GeneticsDave wrote:

While I agree that you OUGHT to be safe carrying that way (2 manual actions), the law does not differentiate between single and double action revolvers. Many police officers understand the 2 actions rule, others know the two empty chambers rule - so you MIGHT run into some issues there, if stopped. To them, the revolver would appear to be fully loaded

Just a heads up, hopefully you never have any problems with it - cool replica by the way!

Click to expand...

There is not a 'two empty chambers rule'. That is just the result of the 'can't fire with one manual action rule' applied to double action revolvers. There is no need to differentiate between single and double action revolvers.

When something like the 'two empty chambers rule' gets repeated enough people start believing it.

imported post

Sounds like I should be good, but the same worry as Open carrying in general, a LEO may not know it's legal.

I wouldn't mind carrying this thing. It would match my western wardrobe quite well.

imported post

althor wrote:

There is not a 'two empty chambers rule'. That is just the result of the 'can't fire with one manual action rule' applied to double action revolvers. There is no need to differentiate between single and double action revolvers.

Click to expand...

Dave knows that. His point is that some officers don't, which may cause you some grief.

I say fine, just plan on causing the officers some grief, after it's straightened out.

imported post

I think I'll keep a copy of the law on me.

And not talk to Police. Yeah, that's what I'll do.

imported post

thx997303 wrote:

They're safe to carry, and I think that it would pack more of a punch than a 9mm.

Click to expand...

There's some info around on the internet where somebody did a chronograph and some math and came up with the result that a Ruger Old Army .44 (.45) had roughly the same muzzle energy as a .38 +P. Can't recall where I saw it. It didn't specify ball or slug.

If nothing else, its kinda cool to have your defensive weapon and smoke screen generator all rolled into one. Check the manual. If you can stuff the chambers full of black powder you can also have a mini flame thrower. Well, spark thrower, anyway.

If the ball misses your assailant, maybe you can set them on fire!!

imported post

Well, in any case I have seen the holes these things make, and let me tell you, its scary!

The other thing is that with blackpowder, the load varies quite a bit. Different grains of powder and such.

I want to see some ballistics.

Anyway, with similar energies, and I'm pretty sure lower velocities, and a larger projectile, and the flattening that happens when they hit the target, I imagine that they will do considerable damage.

imported post

thx997303 wrote:

Well, in any case I have seen the holes these things make, and let me tell you, its scary!

The other thing is that with blackpowder, the load varies quite a bit. Different grains of powder and such.

I want to see some ballistics.

Anyway, with similar energies, and I'm pretty sure lower velocities, and a larger projectile, and the flattening that happens when they hit the target, I imagine that they will do considerable damage.

Click to expand...

Just for knowledge, you could:

1) Hunt for some black powder gun forums and ask around.

2) Hunt up 19th century newspaper stories on "affrays."

3) Get a copy of Mark Twain's Roughing It. There are accounts in there of people being shotwith cap-and-ball revolvers. Maybe those shootings were with .36's. I don't recall. I just remember the impression that those old guns weren't as effective as today's.

imported post

thx997303 wrote:

Well, in any case I have seen the holes these things make, and let me tell you, its scary!

The other thing is that with blackpowder, the load varies quite a bit. Different grains of powder and such.

I want to see some ballistics.

Anyway, with similar energies, and I'm pretty sure lower velocities, and a larger projectile, and the flattening that happens when they hit the target, I imagine that they will do considerable damage.

Click to expand...

Keep in mind that the diameter of the hole is less important than the depth of penetration (both matter, but penetration is more important). A less-energetic slug/ball with a large diameter will not penetrate far.

You might find this post interesting. Or maybe not. I thought it was interesting to write

imported post

He said that the kinetic energy was equivalent to a .38 spcl +p. Therefore IMO the larger slug would be more damaging.

Plus the round is less likely to fragment because it is a solid piece.

Penetration may be a problem here, but not expansion.

I say we need a test using ballistic gel.

imported post

thx997303 wrote:

He said that the kinetic energy was equivalent to a .38 spcl +p. Therefore IMO the larger slug would be more damaging.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. The larger cross-section will cause the bigger slug to expend it's energy faster (because it's making a hole that's larger in diameter), which means that it won't penetrate as far. If it doesn't manage to penetrate far enough to reach the vitals, then it won't do as much damage as a smaller slug with the same energy that makes a smaller hole but goes deeper.

I'm sure that it would work just fine if fired into the torso from the front or back, but a hit from an unusual angle might not work so well. The requirement for 12-16 inches of penetration that is generally used to evaluate defensive weapon performance is chosen because it allows for the possibility that the bullet has to pass through an arm, some bone, maybe some heavy clothing, etc., before actually entering the chest cavity.

My biggest concern about carrying a cap and ball revolver for self-defense would be reliability. If you're careful with your loads, keep your caps clean and set properly, you can be pretty sure it will go bang, but there's just no way you'll get the kind of reliability you will out of factory cartridges.

If you had a CFP, I'd tell you to carry the 1851 Navy proudly, and tuck a 9mm or .40 subcompact away somewhere to use for self defense.

imported post

I'll agree, Open carry the hog leg (as if there was any other way) and conceal a 9mm.

With reliability, it's dry here, and as long as I didn't get a dud cap, I'll be fine.

The other thing to think about is we are only looking at velocity and muzzle energy.

And we know that smaller rounds lose energy quicker than larger rounds. What's it called? Uh, momentum, that's it. Anyway, the larger slug has more momentum.

So, I think you would need to factor in Kinetic energy, then momentum.

I'm not sure how they relate exactly, must figure it out.

ETA: I very well could be wrong. This is the stuff I remember from physics.

imported post

momentum (p) = mv

(mass x velocity)

Kinetic Energy = p^2/2m

Momentum squared divided by 2 x mass

imported post

Oh, I see.

So, since I know I did it wrong, and got the wrong number (huge)

Can somebody give me a hand on this?

Given a .454 diameter lead ball at we'll say 300 meters/sec

Versus

a 150 gr .355 diameter bullet at the same velocity.

imported post

Just thought of something else.

I do believe that the wounding mechanics of a Round lead ball are different than that of a conical bullet. Would they not tear instead of cut?

And there are some older texts written saying that the round ball was superior to the conical bullet in wounding. Not sure this is true.

I will have to look this stuff up.

imported post

And there are some older texts written saying that the round ball was superior to the conical bullet in wounding. Not sure this is true.

Click to expand...

Maybe true if you shooting FMJ as your defensive round but with JHP the bullet isn't conical when it tears through your flesh. That is the point of expanding ammunition. It makes a nasty looking chinese star of doom that lessens the penetration but makes the hole much bigger and transfers more energy into the target instead as opposed to a bullet that would go right through.

As to your equations diameter has nothing to do with momentum or kinetic energy and mass is different than weight.

imported post

I know that diameter has nothing to do with momentum, and weight and mass are different, but they tend to be related. And when you consider that the larger ball is made with the same material as the smaller bullet, then yes the .44 cal ball has more mass, and therefore more momentum then the smaller bullet.

At least this is the way I see it.

And IMO energy transfer has nothing to do with lethality. Temporary cavitation IMO does not do damage.

While energy and momentum have something to do with penetration and expansion, it is the wound channel resulting from the penetration and expansion that does the damage.

The kinetic energy and momentum merely facilitate the penetration and expansion.
But the energy transfer itself does nothing to wound.

Again, all of this is just my opinion.