Battle of Honey Springs

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Citation Needed

The statement that the 1861 Navy revolver was preferred by Cavalry because of lighter recoil is likely inaccurate. The great debate amongst cavalry officers and men was about the weight of this revolver in contrast to the weight of the larger Army model, not the recoil. Roundeyesamurai 11:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weight Difference

I'm pretty sure that the issue is recoil, especially since Colt Army Model 1860 lists the weight of the army as only 1 ounce greater. In a couple of days I'll be able to double check it in a CW Handgun reference work to be sure and add a citation. SU Linguist 01:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One ounce, unloaded. Add in the difference in weight in the ammunition, spare cylinders, holsters, etc., and it adds up. Roundeyesamurai 20:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday Night Special Link

I am removing the link on this page to Saturday Night Specials, since guns of that type are typically of inferior quality metals and poor manufacturing standards, neither of which characterizes the M1861 Navy Revolver. Having the link on this page gives the reader the impression that the M1861 is a firearm of that type.

You should read the SNS linked article. The link to Saturday night specials is there because of the attempts to ban handguns other than Army and Navy models for freed slaves. The M1861 Navy was specifically not a Saturday night special, hence the reason for it being mandated by legislative attempts in the 1870's just after the Civil War. The SNS article details this history to ban inexpensive handguns more clearly. Yaf 19:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Few Were Cut For Shoulder Stock

Your statement, "Also like the Army revolver, the frame was lugged for a detachable shoulder stock, but very few came with one" is not accurate. Very few 1861s were cut for a shoulder stock. This fact is readily verifiable on the Web. It is also apparent by observing the surviving originals. The Italian reproductions have "cut" frames, but these are not representative of the majority of originals. Also, your photo is of a Pietta, which has, for some odd reason, an 8" barrel. The Uberti has the correct 7.5" barrel length. Whitethronebooks (talk) 02:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC) FYI About one hundred were cut for shoulder stocks and about 100 had fluetted cylinders. They did exist but of course if you did not want the picture/references in the article, you have every right to remove them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.198.80.71 (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Colt M1861 Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Colt_M1861_Navy