Stocked 1860 Colt Revolver

InRange is entirely viewer supported:
/ inrangetv
Stocked handguns have been around for a long time, so long in fact, that the first revolver ever commercially produced had a rifle variant. Laws have created a cooling effect on stocked pistols, but blackpowder percussion revolvers are exempt...yet we don't see stocked percussion revolvers commonly now, nor in the past. Why?

[@jughead8988]

Back in the day my dad had a 1860 colt replica. Each chamber shot different. He marked the top of the cylinder and memorized where that shot would hit. He got pretty accurate with it.

[@Paul_Sergeyev]

Jesus, that gun was cursed... Your dad on the other hand clearly wasn't

[@rotaman8555]

This issue can often be addressed with a chamber reamer to make all the chambers the same internal diameter. Not always, but most of the time.

[@jughead8988]

@@Paul_Sergeyev he shot on the US Army pistol team for several years and had 23 year of military experience including 2 tours in Nam.

[@assassinmanx6128]

That’s actually smart.

[@ravenslaves]

As a thought experiment, considering that his replica was (probably?) made on modern equipment, with what I would assume would be higher tolerances. Exactly how those tolerances compare with how the originals came, right off the factory floor. We always assume that modern is better. But there are many examples where this assumption has been proven very false.

[@zmanjace1364]

Gotta try again with a walnut stock. Everyone knows walnut is a +3 to accuracy. It's just science.

[@bellakaldera3305]

I used a tropical hardwood similar to mahogany, but redder and finer grained...rosewood or bubinga I think...not walnut but still +2 for accuracy! 'cause Science (and ballistics)!

[@mpetersen6]

Don't forget the checkering. Gotta to be worth at least +3 right there. Science you know.

[@bellakaldera3305]

Don't forget the shiny yellow brass bits! This is why modern guns suck, No Brass bits! @@mpetersen6

[@lordharvey5199]

Yeah but what about the -1 damage

[@juliannestingray5948]

​@@lordharvey5199don't worry man, this thing hits like a truck. Even if it's -2 dmg i wouldn't even mind.

[@erikdingman9806]

Mathematically, 1 out of 6 is still an infinite improvement over 0 out of 6. As always, an interesting and fun video.

[@Ostenjager]

The sights are probably holding you back more than anything. Colt sights are "good enough" at regular handgun ranges. Pushing that to 100 yards is a tall order.

[@bellakaldera3305]

My longbarrel '58 Remmie has target sights, so with a stock, it drives tacks, practically. I never liked the Colts as much as the Remmie.

[@Ostenjager]

@@bellakaldera3305 my Remington NMA with stock sights has a better sight picture than a stock Colt, so I feel you with the target sights. I've always been a fan of the Remingtons over the Colts, personally.

[@jeffbanks5103]

Plus with the Remington you get the stronger frame with the top strap. I've always thought it would be fun to take a cheaper RNA copy and tap it for an optic, then throw the stock on. Kind of a cursed civil war sbr. Something about the heresy of a civil war revolver with an eotech makes me laugh

[@Ostenjager]

@@jeffbanks5103 That is actually pretty funny. That's got mad Fallout vibes to it.

[@Dcm193]

@@jeffbanks5103it wouldn’t be complete without a pic rail held on the barrel with hose clamps so you can mount a light

[@tastychunks]

Babe wake up, more InRange black powder videos

[@opossum111]

Yeah but Lee Van Cleef made it look cool in a few dollars more.

[@leefortin2572]

I loved Lee Van Cleef and the movie.💙🤠🐕🐾 He was so cool! I do believe practice, practice, practice!!! Wednesday November 8th 1031am eastern standard time.💙🤠🐕🐾

[@seankane8628]

At way less than 100 yds

[@ExUSSailor]

I have an 1851 Navy replica, and, making any hits at that sort of range is miraculous with the sights on classic Colt revolvers.

[@healyburnham393]

Shoulder stocked 3rd model dragoons had fine flip-up read sights, which I cannot find today. DGW carried them in 1991.

[@rerd6614]

Being a german sportsman I must say that with a stocked P08 - even with the short barreld Lugers - the stock really makes a difference - at least for me. My groupings are doubled in tightness.

[@redactedanticretin]

schön das jemand neben den ganzen glocks auch noch was old school traditionelles aufn stand bringt, hab zwar schon ein par luger gesehen aber noch nie eine mit schulterstütze ist deine original?

[@brandtbollers3183]

Of Course

[@brittakriep2938]

​@@brandtbollers3183: The man tells surely no nonsens. Imperial German Army ( or better the four german armies) noted that the soldiers mostly had been not very good in pistol shooting, an additional stock helped the soldiers. But of course, few soldiers had to use a pistol for Shooting on longer distance. In peacetime before wwl , german military saw pistols as not very important, maybe for gun Crews, or Boarding Parties. For civilian market only, before wwl some real carbine Versions of P 08 or C96 had been produced as hunting rifles. But: For the reason of his Not healthy left arm, the Emperor Wilhelm ll liked such light rifles, but by current german hunting laws, a carbine in 7,65 Parabellum or 7,63 Mauser would be only allowed for final Shot of wounded Game, or as Schonzeitbüchse (literally : Non hunting season rifle).

[@rerd6614]

@@redactedanticretin Jein. Die 08 ja, das Frühstücksbrett nicht. Ich mag sie trotzdem. Halt ein Oldtimer aus der Zeit der Pferdekutschen. Aber auf einer Landesmeisterschaft gegen GSP und Konsorten brauchst du mit der 08 nicht antreten.

[@rerd6614]

@@brittakriep2938 Jägerin?

[@GurtTarctor]

4:05 you can actually see the bullet whizzing by for a frame.

[@robinlaszlo]

Sure can that is so cool! I was specifically looking for this while I'm watching and I thought I saw something in his one of his earlier shots as well for a frame. 2:45 I believe but it could be a rock flying up from where the bullet hits? I dunno.

[@nikitanugent7165]

Shows how bright out it was for the exposure time to be so short. I saw bullets on the 14th frame of 2:46 and the 21st frame of 4:06 , using the period and comma keys to move frame-by-frame.

[@rkirschner7175]

My late brother made me an aluminum and brass shoulder stock for my Stainless Ruger old army. Works great.

[@1maxxu]

I really enjoy your black powder content, especially that here - in Poland it's the only kind of firearms you can get without permissions

[@johnkilcer]

Might be interesting to see how it groups compared to off hand.

[@fjubben]

A flip-up or screw-in aperture post would perhaps be an enticing addition to the stock!

[@Rumblestrip]

Probably do better with conical depending on barrel twist. Pietta uses 1:30 uberti uses 1:18. Uberti usually groups tighter as a result regardless of projectile in my experience

[@kennydoggins1712]

I want one of those 1858 carbines uberti makes

[@Hiznogood]

Wasn’t there two hits on the last try? I thought I heard two metal dings!

[@sirvile]

In very long range revolver shooting I once heard that chamber alignment in the cylinder was the key to hits. Perhaps they aren't all lined up parallel.

[@solitariuslupus6704]

this could make a great hunt showdown weapon. caldwell conversion precision.

[@ZlyCholesterol]

Uppercut Precision was added in latest update🙂 but there should be stock attachement for all revolvers that you can add or remove during a match

[@CriticalShot1]

I know its obsolete but my god is it a gorgeous gun

[@wildgophers91]

wow the bullet whizzing by the second camera sounds ... really cool

[@Shankwagon]

With your eye closer to the rear sight, I'm sure having a more open sight radius didn't help accuracy either. I think that is a common problem with "PDW" conversion kits for modern handguns as well, and why they often are used with red dot sights.

[@bellakaldera3305]

With your face held too close to the sights, you get a bit of blowby from the cylinder in your cheek, you need to keep your face back or get stung.

[@mikequinn8780]

The "rear sight" is a notch in the hammer face. Since the hammer is mounted with some clearance to either side there's no guarantee that the rear sight is winding up in the same spot each time. Not really important at normal pistol distances but 100 yards is pushing it.

[@Shankwagon]

@@mikequinn8780 Good point, I'm sure that makes things considerably worse!

[@bezimienny_andzej6425]

@@mikequinn8780 Wonder how tightly this hammer is mounted. Probably "pretty tight", but "pretty tight" may still be too little for accurate 90m shooting. Would love to see what happens if the shooter attempts to "wobble it".

[@christinepearson5788]

I wonder if you started at 50 yards and walked back once you got zero.

[@MerihemXx]

I would've worked my way out from 25yds, then out. I think the ballistics of the 1860 army would've topped out at 50yds, but I'm not sure. I think this is a good concept for tightening your groups within it's effective range, but it might not be the "offensive pistol" of it's day. I think the dragoon pistol with conical bullets was where this concept shined, because that wasn't a holster pistol to begin with and gave you more firepower in an age of muzzle loading rifles.

[@christophernemeth421]

It would be interesting to see if the stock gives a vast improvement at normal handgun ranges

[@mattigator600]

I think out to 50 yards it would be pretty handy. I think the issue always was that you still effectively have a very large handgun: trade it it for a carbine or keep the handgun svelte for its intended use up close.

[@pripjatyfighter3786]

I think the same. Karl, please do some 25-50m pistol ranges with this setup.

[@christophernemeth421]

@@mattigator600 I agree. It's like those small chassis that you can drop handguns into. They help with accuracy, but a true PCC would still outperform it

[@mattigator600]

@@christophernemeth421 I haven't seen everything that's out there but these days i think you can effectively covert some pistols into PCCs, with optics, barrels,attachments and 33 round glock mags , etc. Those *are* a little more compelling than the old school 🙂

[@reeyuh526]

​@@mattigator600Glocks have them. Comes with a 16 inch barrel that you can use without the stock chassis, but it looks ridiculous lol. Also, it seems that a tilting 16 inch barrel is not conducive to accuracy. Probably better to use a purpose built PCC without a moving barrel, or maybe a kit for a straight blowback pistol.

[@MichaelDodge27]

Never been a huge single action revolver fan, but the last few videos about them have been a lot of fun! This video also had some excellent sound clips of the projectiles whizzing by, so props on the audio recording quality.

[@Night-Jester]

It may not have helped but I find that skeletal stock super cool for some reason. I'm normally not a fan of wire butt stocks like that but for a pistol it's lightweight and neat.

[@jmcr71795]

One thing that my late Gun Guru taught me about firing a single-action pistol accurately with two hands, is that you use your non-dominant hand to re-cock the hammer. As my Gun Guru used to run a group called "Guns of the Golden West" back in the day, giving trick shooting, fast draw, and wild west gunfights at the Calgary Stampede, and even into his late 80s could do some stunning trick-shooting with the pair of Pietta 1873 pistols I bought him. Thanks to him, I can hit a 4" spot at 50 meters 6/6 with my 4.25" Pietta 1873, in 44-40.

[@genghiskhan6809]

Stocked luger: who are you? Stocked colt: I‘m you but older.

[@jameshare5812]

Interesting content as always, detachable shoulder stocks for pistols is one of those ideas that keeps coming up and getting revisited every couple of generations. The history goes back pretty far, I have seen 18th century examples at auction intended for use with flintlock pistols.

[@d3w4yn3]

I love the history you build into these demo vids!!!

[@receiving9067]

I've seen these things go wild before. I'd be a bit too warry to put one that close to my face

[@andrewkruchoski7757]

// So thats what that scalloped cut in the bottom of the grip is for... my 1851 piettie bastard navy sheriff .44 has that notch, though it was for a lanyard swivel, but nope it's for carbine conversion. i learned something today! thanks Karl!

[@marty2129]

Even if the stock isn't historically accurate, it looks awesome. It has something of a steampunk vibe on the revolver.

[@srcottonmouth7824]

Interesting the pistol brace was in common use back in the day good argument for future reference!

[@chairzombie8378]

I did the Remington 1858 carbine, basically the same effect but with a longer barrel & better sights

[@EddieRiggsBF3]

Another great video with black powder old west gun. Thank you for making amazing content.

[@pipebombpete.6861]

Always love the antique arms videos.

[@TheMusketMan98]

It’s still a pretty neat attachment for the 1860 army.👌🏼

[@oddrocket2743]

You should shoot off hand at 25 yards and also with the stock at 25 yards and compare groups. That would be interesting since making shots at 100 yards are limited by both ballistics and the sights, but 25 yards are doable and the group size can provide measurable accuracy.

[@sstace69]

I've never seen that variant, thank you for sharing.

[@zensempai7371]

That crazy blacksmith has done it again!

[@debi5292]

At 50 yards it is a game changer to have a stock. At 100, with a rest of some sort you can do pretty good, maybe 50% or more. Off hand with or without the stock is the hardest way to test accuracy. Our experience is with a HP Browning and a Navy Luger shooting at 10" paper plates. The Navy Luger can prove really quick that at 150 yds your still in danger if it were shot at you.

[@markhilton1360]

Still cool! Good conversation piece. Thanks for sharing.

[@walkercustoms]

Thank you. Put a red dot on it lmao. I actually am trying a red dot on a modern Traditions .50 24" barrel black powder. The factory sights are great on the 28" but the 24" they are max elevation at 100 yard and still need more. Bought a rail and red dots are what i have laying around.

[@victorboucher675]

Thank you. Lymans spoke of testing each chamber to find the most accurate in the BLACK POWER HAND BOOK 1976(?). Also, past 50 yds I would use connicals, not wadcutters or balls.

[@chpet1655]

results are about what I expected but still I always thought the movies should have shown more stocked revolvers

[@jdfriar]

Hey! those stocked rounds were loaded quite a bit hotter. love the video!

[@MrWarwick15]

Nice. Thanks Karl! Richard.

[@munkSWE88]

Wasn't that kind of stock used in "For a few dollar more"?

[@kevinoliver3083]

That was a wooden stock on a SAA Colt. The metal frame stock is associated with the, probably mythical, Buntline Specials.

[@munkSWE88]

@@kevinoliver3083 I kinda Mandela Effected myself or something. It was in Metal Gear Solid 3, used by Revolver Ocelot who was based on Lee Van Cleef.

[@kevinoliver3083]

@@munkSWE88 Fair 'nuff! Thanks for explaining.

[@ronrobertson59]

I have made the Dave Tut shot at 70 yrd with several cap n ball revolvers. Its the sights that makes it hard however the Remington 1858 isn't any better. With the tiny sights on the 1872 open top I can hit an 18 inch gong off a sandbag at 100 yrs about 50% of the time.

[@mattheide2775]

A stock on a Glock is still an option😊 Run the drill again with a factory stocked G17 running a modern red dot sight. After 150 years the concept remains and the validity is still being questioned. Great video

[@dreamingflurry2729]

That new stock gives this a steampunk look! I like it!

[@ivankrylov6270]

I'm still maintaining the notion that stocked pistols are more useful one handed and shouldered, with a hand free to move/grapple/fight

[@robinlaszlo]

Super cool stuff Karl! Best I can do is stay subscribed and share your stuff online and I'll do that as long as you are yourself. 🙂

[@beefycheesecake]

Interesting video 👍

[@DaniTheGunsmith]

Limited data set here, obviously, but I'd have to say that the stock essentially removes the difficulties of shooting offhand from the equation leaving the capability of the gun itself as the limitation for accuracy. Between the less than optimal sights and ballistics inherent to the gun and ammunition, it definitely makes sense why this concept didn't take off until more modern firearms could bridge those gaps in performance.

[@alekseykuleshov111]

Carl extremely needs some kind of pirate stylized protection glasses

[@gregwright392]

That was another cool video!

[@InrangeTv]

Glad you liked it

[@ThomasPaine77]

I own an 1860 with the wooden stock. Also have the wooden grips for when i do not want a stock on it. Love this B.P rifle/pistol.

[@gvii]

Back when I was in the NSSA, more or less it's heyday, there were some guys that could smack 12x12 inch square tiles all day at 100 yards offhand. Not a lot of them, of course, but there were a few. I didn't have a snowballs chance in h**l. I don't even know how you see something like that at a 100 without the sight completely gobbling up the tile. Heck, if I had a score over 70 at 50 yards on the standard paper target, I'd be doing the happy dance once I got off the line. But the fact you hit it at all at 100 yards even with the stock attached is impressive enough to me. Especially on that thing with its God-awful hammer notch sight.

[@BertieW0oster]

I almost exclusively shoot my 7.5" 1851 Navy, and 45 Colt 1873 SAA at 100 yards, both with real black powder... So, I very much appreciate the challenge of making these shots! I'm at a point now where I do pretty well, most of my shots make contact on a full size silhouette target, however it still looks like a wide shotgun pattern up close. What's interesting is both guns are naturally zeroed for ~100 yards, so I don't have to account for bullet drop at all... POA=POI. It actually makes shooting closer a bit of a challenge, since I need to aim low.

[@BertieW0oster]

My 1873 is a black powder frame by the way, I think that very narrow V-notch sight helps a bit as well for those longer range shots.

[@Finwolven]

I wonder if there'd be a better result for shooting prone vs. shooting prone off-hand, or shooting with a support of some kind w. stock and shooting with support off-hand. To my understanding, generally shooting long distance you wouldn't want to try to shoot from standing position and unsupported but would look for some cover and support first. So this might be an option if you were looking to engage at longer ranges but didn't want to carry (or couldn't acquire) a full-sized rifle. Granted, with a long-arm 100yds/meters isn't really that tough of a shot even standing up.

[@tommyj1811]

That you were that close and did made hits was still impressive. Look at from the 1860 perspective. Back then a bullet was an infection and worse yet an amputation. Not many would hang around for that.

[@latergator3367]

Thanks !

[@terryschiller2625]

Have wondered about pistol butt stocks and if they really helped at all. A 100 yard shot with black powder firearms is very difficult to say the least. But you did get several hits so good shooting Sir.🤠🇺🇲

[@jantschierschky3461]

great video, always wonder about those stocks. Ian made an interesting observation as well, with a modern handgun using a stock. great close up, but at range you much better of with a longarm.

[@michaelwinsper6275]

Interesting video. It makes me wonder why someone thought it was a good idea to put 500 yard sights on the Mauser C96. Side note, I thought the sound of the bullets going past the camera was very cool, I haven't heard it so pronounced before, it was almost like a sound effect from a movie.

[@gwtpictgwtpict4214]

I think the 500 yard sights on the C96 came from the same idea as 2000 yard plus sights on Lee Enfields etc. Nobody was expecting you to hit individual targets at that sort of distance, rather that a unit, en masse, could create a beaten zone on a cross roads, bridge etc before the widespread adoption of machine guns.

[@ericschneider7294]

Nice, this opens up a lot of questions lol. How about starting close and working your way back, using maxi instead of round ball, working with better sights??

[@duybear4023]

The sights are my biggest challenge with those.

[@kevinbietry7527]

Looks cool

[@CommodoreFluffy]

a tang sight might be an interesting addition

[@me.ne.frego.]

I would totally love to have a stock for my 1860, specially a canteen one! I bet at 25-50 yards the improvement over hand held is much better.

[@GetTheFO]

I used to have one of those full sized stocks with my old Uberti 1860. Very neat, had no shortage of new friends at ranges wanting to give it a spin. However…. Not particularly practical. As others have said the rear sight trough being set for extended grips diminished a bit of the effectiveness potentially added. I had ideas to machine the rear of the barrel to set a more rifle-grip friendly sizing but ended up selling the stock for more than I bought it for. Such is life!

[@Exarian]

ohhhh a water canteen stock is a HELL of a vibe.

[@strangerranger3353]

I very much respect you for “proactive demonization”. Integrity is lacking in today’s world. The money is filth the moment they touch it anyways. It is a shame they will never know the value of what they’re being used to destroy.

[@dr.ryttmastarecctm6595]

The Italian _Repro_ strikes again. I would be interested in how a _Minié_ ball would work (# of hits, grouping size, etc.) with a stock at a range that hits are reproducibly made without a stock.

[@Devin_Stromgren]

The fact that we can't have new cartridge handguns with detachable stocks will never cease to piss me off and I don't care how limited their utility is.

[@SafetyProMalta]

Latest content is great! Is there any historical evidence that guys regularly practiced with their weapons in the West?

[@stevejohnson6593]

video incoming...

[@andrewmn3024]

what type of improvement would you get at 50 yards?

[@gunman11]

Just a great looking idea, that falls a little short. A little like the bullpup and multi ball rifle ammo. ( multi bullet ?)

[@mysss29]

very cool

[@koffeekage]

Seems like there is some sort of history and tradition to fixing a stock to a pistol.

[@dieselfrk13]

I think it would be more popular today if it wasn't a NFA item. And I think it would make a bigger improvement on ones that use cartridges.

[@509Gman]

It’s not an NFA item for blackpowder guns.

[@justhavingfun675]

I have always liked stocked pistols. I have always wondered with a percussion revolver would there be to much sparks and flash too close to the face.

[@dlwoxford]

You have to wonder if it would be better at 50 or 75? Fun video!

[@crankygunreviews]

If nothing else, it looks cool :) It's more stable and marginally better accuracy

[@SavageGreywolf]

god that looks so cool, mega cyberpunk energy

[@almartin4284]

I saw the ball fly by the target on the right and if you look carefully at the center of the target at 4.00 you'll see it too.

[@TheKajunkat]

Give it to angel eyes, he will ding it every time.

[@clonemarine1]

It kinda makes sense in my mind that these stocks weren't popular historically. If you really needed the extra accuracy at range, it would be more worthwhile to put up with the added weight and just carry a carbine or full length rifle. If your circumstances didn't make carrying a rifle worth it, then you probably didn't need the pistol stock, either.

[@thefirstmissinglink]

Interesting 👍. Stock helped my air pistol immensely, obviously not 100y. Was handed a 45 lc revolver carbine barely legal barrel length and lobbed one into the gong @ 400y on the second shot. Lastly, my GP100 is zeroed at 100y because that's where it starts to get fun. Would appear that the muzzle loaded round ball lacks consistency and accuracy for distance. Maybe a sabot or something would help 🤔

[@morgs456]

What a cool vid

[@Sableagle]

Yes, I think you need one more set of six, now that you know where to aim, but without the stock again. Also, I'm curious how well you could do at that range with a modern revolver with better sights.

[@abelincoln95]

Conical is better than ball in my 1858 at distance.

[@Whathe1790]

Cool audio around target

[@charlesbronson7618]

Atf enters chat "is that a pistol brace"?

[@sirvile]

I don't think that long range is what these were for, it seems more likely that they were for fast stable acquisition at close and medium ranges.

[@1SaG]

I think it's safe for me to quote Matthew Quigley here... "This ain't Dodge City ... and you ain't Bill Hickok ..Karl!" :P Nice shooting all the same... stock or no stock, that kind of a distance seems like a pretty tall order with that gun.

[@lordjosh9000]

Try that again with a red dot mounted on the pistol(if you can find a way to mount one). I would be interested in seeing this test done again using a red dot over the crude iron sights of the revolver. The gun should theoretically be capable of hitting a target at that distance reliably, and I'm curious how much the accuracy improves with a modern sight.

[@jacobwilbert1018]

May be a big ask for that platform, 100 yards is not a big ask for powder, ball, percussion in general.