Posted: 9/18/2016 10:58:39 AM EDT
 </a>" />
Was the reason for the long (7 1/2") barrel length on the cavalry model SAA to achieve the desired velocity using black powder as the cartridge propellant? I seem to recall that was the reason for the barrel length chosen but I`m unable to verify it with any of my information sources. I know that at a later date these same revolvers were modified by having the barrels shortened to 5 1/2" and I wonder if that change coincided with a change from black to smokeless powder. I`m beginning to develop a single action itch and my budget is most certainly in the Colt copy range. If anyone has advice on a preferred barrel length for a .45 Colt single action I`m interested in hearing it. |
|
Sight radius bigger is better.
Some cavalry guys could hit with revolvers at very long distance for handgun according to gun writers like Elmer Kieth. Sight radius was less important to Elmer Keith in his own revolvers since he used higher quality better designed sights |
|
I was just researching this my self the other day. My concern was that I wanted an "authentic" looking replica and I thought 7.5 was the only original length, but I found out it wasn't. 7.5s were called "cavalry" models, 5.5s were called "artillery" models and the 4.75s were called "civilian" or "gun fighter" models.
IMO the cavalry used a long barrel for accuracy because they were using it as their primary weapon and it was filling the role of a rifle. My own opinion, I can't stand the long barrel. It looks cool on the mantel but it feels wrong in the hand. I have a 4.75 bounty hunter in 22 and a pietta 5.5 in 45. I wanted the 4.75 but Cabela's was out of them so I bought the 5.5. it's OK, but I still want a 4.75. I'm not sure how the 3.5"s would feel, I'm considering buyer the thunderer as well. 4.75 just seems to point real natural. Now that I know the originals came with short barrels I feel better about my choices. I can't stand the 7.5 barrel on my Redhawk either. I got my info here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Single_Action_Army |
|
I think 03 rn has it right the barrel was roughly the same length as the precursor cap and ball revolvers. Just arbitrary no science necessarily.
They cavalry of the time carried sabers and carbines. The pistol was not considered primary. After 1890 ( actually some time after the last single action contract and after the primary first line pistol became the 38 cal Colt 1892 series- which came with a shorter barrel) the military decided to cut down the 7.5 to 5.5 which incidentally is what the rough riders carried to Cuba. Roosevelt was carrying the later 38 cal revolver - history indicates it may have been a navy revolver recovered in the salvage operation from the sunken uss Maine |
|
The 7.5 point shoots better. I think there was some military requirement that the round should penetrate a horse's chest, but I cant confirm that. The original 40 gr BP round went about 1000 fps with the RFN 250 gr in the 7.5 inch barrel. There were complaints about the recoil and the charge was reduced.
There was no Artillery Model. When the 38 Long Colt was found to be lacking in power, some 1873s were refurbished with a 5.5 inch barrel and issued as a stop gap. They often have mixed serial numbered parts. They also sent some DA Colts over. They had oversized triggers and guards. The older stock of ammo had hard primers and would not fire properly. So they added a heavier spring and longer trigger. These are sometimes called the "Alaskan Model' but were really the "Philippine Model." |