Cap & ball self defence

[Good Cheer]

Sometimes I think that something along the lines of the Webley "Manstopper" hollow point & base wadcutter should have made a .44 percussion revolver totally adequate to the task in the 19th century. And then I remember what people do. They make something that works. I haven't been shot with a percussion revolver but I suspect they made what worked.

[TheNinthDoctor]

Howdy,

Could you? Yes

Should you? If you wanna.

First rule of a gunfight.... HAVE A GUN

[BrassMagnet]

I really like C&B revolvers, but unless you are legally limited to a C&B revolver almost any modern gun would be better. Seeing as you mentioned owning other guns I cannot fathom a logical reason you would opt for the C&B over a modern gun. In my opinion it would be like owning a tractor or combine but opting to plow your field with an ox. Sure it will work but this isn't the 1860s we don't need to make it hard on ourselves. If the perceived advantage is the smoke and flash you could load almost any cartridge case with black powder and have equal or better ballistics than a round ball C&B.

It's your hide not mine so do as you please. If my life is on the line I'll take whatever edge I can.

First off, I haven't read this thread yet so I could be off in left field.
My first pistol was a Hawes 1851 Navy brass framed cap & ball revolver. Caps would jam it or fall off or misfire. Why would you take that chance in self defense?
If the only pistol you could legally use is a C&B, then use a rifle, carbine, or shotgun!
Even if you are immune to law suit for self defense in your home (Think Colorado's Make My Day Act!) you lose immunity from lawsuit if you use hand loaded ammo, and probably do if you use a C&B!
Thugs run in packs. Use a high cap if possible or a revolver. A 44 Mag or 45 Colt comes to mind. Or a 12 Gauge with large shot, not bird shot.

Kenneth Ballew didn't do too well against the ATF back in 1970. One lesson you should take from that incident is not to own novelty grenades (Complaint Department - Please take a number!) and reloading supplies as the ATF will call it a destructive device or just create one in the evidence locker to justify their actions.

[GhostHawk]

Ever have a cap fall off a nipple when firing Cap and Ball?
Ever have a cap lock a cylinder up when firing Cap and Ball?
Ever had a chain fire happen when Cap and Ball?

I've had all 3, and in all 3 cases they are IMO not something you want to have happen when your life is on the line.
Your talking 1860's tech vs 2014 tech, guess which one is going to win most often?

Sure if you have no other option, yes it is better than nothing.

On the flip side I've fired thousands of rounds of shotgun ammo with nary a dud.
I've seen birds shot at close range (inside 15 yards) with 12, 20, even .410 with birdshot, its not pretty.
The words "Bloody rat hole" pretty well describe it.

Shotguns at close range are incredibly effective. What you can't do easily is conceal them.
But for home defense there is no need for concealment.

Ultimately it comes down to this. What you do with your life is up to you.

But for me and my life I'd not trust ancient cap and ball when I can have a modern pump shotgun.
I have 5 shots, much faster reloads, and a wide variety of ammo that I can change in a second.
At need those 5 shots becomes one long roll of thunder. Lighting in a bottle, just watch where you aim it!

[Mik]

It really isn't even a discussion from an effectiveness standpoint. A modern handgun can do anything a C&B can do but it will do it better.

People keep mentioning that C&B worked in 1866 so it will still work today. Well, yeah...but you know what else "worked" in 1866 - surgery without antiseptic or anesthesia. That doesn't make it a good option these days.

There are some things people just want to do, and that's great. Use the C&B if you want, they are cool and fun guns. Just don't waste time and effort trying to fool yourself into thinking C&B provides some tactical advantages over a modern gun, it doesn't.

[XinTX]

Not sure I'd use one for a HD weapon. Not unless there really was no other choice. It's better than angry words. But there are so many better options out there. Can it do the job? Sure. Is it the best option? No.

[waksupi]

Keep in mind that many of the old timers that got shot died of infection, rather than the ball. How long do you want to wait?

[1Shirt]

Seem to recall that it was said that Bill Hickcock , unloaded his revolvers every morning, and reloaded them, as a precaution, for what ever that is worth. That said, I have seen percussion rifles, and revolvers that were left loaded for long periods of time (rifle over 2 years)(revolver over a year) and both went bang. The rifle I did as a test, and it shot dead on at 50 yds.
1Shirt!

[swathdiver]

A modern handgun can do anything a C&B can do but it will do it better.

Would you like to qualify that statement?

I wouldn't rely on that untuned Hawes either for self defense. A cap and ball sixgun must have proper fitted caps and go bang every time trigger is pulled. They can be readily made to do that these days and they are far more potent than most of todays pop guns.

[Mik]

Would you like to qualify that statement?

I wouldn't rely on that untuned Hawes either for self defense. A cap and ball sixgun must have proper fitted caps and go bang every time trigger is pulled. They can be readily made to do that these days and they are far more potent than most of todays pop guns.

Sure, I'll qualify it. There are no absolutes.

Any modern handgun used by a military unit or a police department will be better for self defense than the very best cap and ball revolver.

There is a reason nobody uses them anymore....they aren't as good as the alternative. They work, a long bow will work, a steak knife will work, but I wouldn't build a self defense system around either of those weapons if I had a gun in the closet.

[swathdiver]

So we're now comparing a Beretta M9 and a Glock 22 to a cap and ball. Well, there's no question which round will do the most damage, the properly loaded and charged cap and ball sixgun. Which can be brought to shooting condition first? I believe it depends on whether or not the Glock has a round in the chamber. The Beretta would lose to both for a first round shot IMO.

[Mik]

1)I don't think its necessarily a fact that a .45 caliber round ball will do more damage than a .357 hollow point. I could be wrong. But, if round balls are so effective, why don't ammunition companies offer them in self defense loads?

2)I don't see how disengaging the safety on an M9 is any slower than cocking the hammer on a single action revolver.

3) Depending on the stats you read, 10-20% of shots fired by police officers in shootings hit the intended target. So, at best, you are likely to score one hit with 6 attempts. On the low end, you are likely to score less than one hit in 6 attempts (that would be zero). Then you would need to call a 10 minute timeout to grab your powder measure and reload.

With a Glock 17, you would have 6 more attempts, then 6 more on top of that, then a 2 second reload, and then 17 more. All of this before you could load and prime a single cylinder on a cowboy gun.

This seems pretty straightforward to me.

[garym1a2]

Wonder if the cap and ball will have night sights, since most break-ins occur at night!

My self have a Glock 22 with a good set of aftermarket night sights and 14 rounds of Gold dots in it.

My Ruger old army and my 1860 stay in the safe.

[swathdiver]

Ammunition manufacturers have made the simple complex. There's little money in a soft lead round ball and the armchair shooters are never satisfied with the simple. Automatics need hard lead or even smoother bullets to feed properly whereas as wheel guns can shoot anything.

Most policeman that I've shot with are mediocre marksmen at best, so no surprise there.

Sixguns, especially cap and ball, are natural pointers and have little need for fancy sights or high capacity magazines when their first shot is deadly enough to put down a horse, let alone a man.

To further qualify this friendly debate, we're talking civilian self-defense, an intruder coming into your home, not military combat. Most shootouts involve very few rounds fired.

At one time I had all three .40 cal Glocks (22,23,27) and carried and shot the 23 for nearly two decades. None are as comfortable to shoot and as natural pointers as a sixgun. Wouldn't you agree?

As for the comparison to cocking the hammer and flipping the safety off, you're right, both can be done while the weapon is being brought to target. The Glock has an aversion to dirt and mud and the M9 shoots wimpy bullets, make mine a GI 1911!

[Mik]

Ammunition manufacturers have made the simple complex. There's little money in a soft lead round ball and the armchair shooters are never satisfied with the simple. Automatics need hard lead or even smoother bullets to feed properly whereas as wheel guns can shoot anything.

Most policeman that I've shot with are mediocre marksmen at best, so no surprise there.

Sixguns, especially cap and ball, are natural pointers and have little need for fancy sights or high capacity magazines when their first shot is deadly enough to put down a horse, let alone a man.

To further qualify this friendly debate, we're talking civilian self-defense, an intruder coming into your home, not military combat. Most shootouts involve very few rounds fired.

At one time I had all three .40 cal Glocks (22,23,27) and carried and shot the 23 for nearly two decades. None are as comfortable to shoot and as natural pointers as a sixgun. Wouldn't you agree?

As for the comparison to cocking the hammer and flipping the safety off, you're right, both can be done while the weapon is being brought to target. The Glock has an aversion to dirt and mud and the M9 shoots wimpy bullets, make mine a GI 1911!

I can agree that old style revolvers are some of the coolest guns out there.

I think the world has moved on from them for good reason. It seems like your opinion is that handgun designs have evolved into something less effective. I just don't see it that way.

In fact, I'm pretty confident that cap and ball revolvers would never have been invented if automatic pistols firing metallic cartridges had been invented first. There just wouldn't be a need.

[swathdiver]

A SAA is one of the fastest guns to get the first shot off. If the right caliber is used, .44-40 or .45 LC for example, that's all one would need. Elmer Keith and Jerry Miculek have also demonstrated just how quickly a double action wheelgun can be shot on target. Magazine capacity is an attempted replacement for poor marksmanship skills. I bought that line of thought (quantity over quality) for years but not anymore.

[Mik]

A SAA is one of the fastest guns to get the first shot off. If the right caliber is used, .44-40 or .45 LC for example, that's all one would need. Elmer Keith and Jerry Miculek have also demonstrated just how quickly a double action wheelgun can be shot on target. Magazine capacity is an attempted replacement for poor marksmanship skills. I bought that line of thought (quantity over quality) for years but not anymore.

I still don't understand how a gun that requires you to cock the hammer before firing is faster than one that doesn't.

There is nothing inherently fast about a single action, black powder gun. To the contrary the extra step of cocking the gun makes them inherently slower. The longer lock time makes them slower still, and the longer delay between ignition of the primer and ignition of the main charge makes them even slower. Granted, the last two are imperceptible, but they certainly don't make the gun inherently faster. In many ways, one could argue the only thing slower than a cap and ball is a flintlock.

I'm not bashing modern double action revolvers, I think they are a viable self defense option.

I'm also not bashing cap and ball revolvers they are great fun.
As a fighting gun, there are better options.

You seem extremely confident that your first shot will find its mark and be instantly fatal. I hope it works that way for you if you ever find yourself in that situation.

In reality, a combination of stress, darkness, moving targets, and ballistic limitations of a handgun (any handgun) make the first-shot-instant-stop more of a fluke than anything to plan on. That's why I'm an advocate of a gun that gives you a lot of chances.

We won't even get into the moisture problem that could make a black powder firearm less than reliable. Its a problem you need not consider with a cartridge gun.

[waksupi]

I still don't understand how a gun that requires you to cock the hammer before firing is faster than one that doesn't.

If you had ever played in the quick draw game, you would understand.

[Mik]

If you had ever played in the quick draw game, you would understand.

OK, I certainly don't know much about cowboy shooting. How does it work? And why is the single action army inherently faster than something like a 1911? Is it the shape of the grip?

[waksupi]

OK, I certainly don't know much about cowboy shooting. How does it work? And why is the single action army inherently faster than something like a 1911? Is it the shape of the grip?

I didn't say anything about cowboy shooting. Quick draw is something different. There is a bit of over lap. The guy who taught me, had beat this guy in competition back in the day.