Range Report 09JUL2023: Remington New Model Army and Colt 1851 Navy Practice

I don’t often write range reports on this blog for my routine practice days; usually, I only write about days when I’m comparing loads or trying a new or improved weapon or type of ammunition, etc.   Today, however, was such a good day I felt like writing about it.  People often say a bad day at the range is better than a good day doing most other things, but this was a good day at the range—in fact, my best ever with the Remington.

First, as always, the weapons:  I was shooting my Pietta Remington New Model Army (no, it’s not an 1858, for god’s sake, please stop calling them that!) and my Pietta Colt 1851 Navy (no, they didn’t call them that, either, but at least that year is accurate).  Both weapons have been heavily modified by Mr. Gary Barnes of Barnes Conversions, and I urge you to read earlier blog posts I wrote to learn what he did to them.  The short version is that both revolvers are almost as easy to load as a metallic cartridge revolver and both are far more accurate and reliable than the factory models.  I cannot recommend Mr. Barnes highly enough.

Remington NMA, Eley Bros. cap tin, and a packet of paper cartridges.

Colt Navy, Eley Bros. cap tin, and a packet of paper cartridges.

Next, the ammunition:  For the Remington I was using .44 Kerr bullets in nitrated paper shells with 25 grains of Schuetzen 3F powder and dipped in grease made of tallow and beeswax.  For the Colt I was using .36 Richmond Laboratories bullets in nitrated paper shells with 15 grains of Schuetzen 3F powder and dipped in grease made of tallow and beeswax (except see below about the Pyrodex cartridges).  All of the bullets were cast by me from pure lead using Eras Gone Bullet Molds.
To learn how I load combustible revolver cartridges (including links to videos I did for both .44 and .36 cartridges), see my blog post HERE.

.36 and .44 cartridge packages.

.44 Kerr cartridges made using an Eras Gone bullet mold.

.36 Richmond Lab cartridges made with an Eras Gone bullet mold.

My intent today was to practice for accuracy, that is, not to see how the revolvers shot, but to improve my own shooting with them.  Usually, I use a full sight and a 6:00 hold when shooting in order to determine how the weapon does with that specific load, but when you’re actually trying to shoot to hit you have to know where your weapon shoots and then aim off to try to bring your hits to your Intended Mean Point of Impact—the bullseye, or deer’s heart, or whatever.  Thus while I still used a full sight (it’s hard to do anything else given how poor revolver sights are), my Point of Aim was wherever I thought it needed to be to hit the bullseye.  I finally have it dead on with the Remington, but, as my regular readers will know, I just got the Colt back from Mr. Barnes so I’m still working on the correct Point of Aim.

I always use the String Test to gauge the accuracy of my shooting—in other words, how well I shoot with that particular piece, rather than how well the piece shoots if I take the human factor out of the equation by shooting from a rest.  The String Test is a fantastic method of gauging accuracy, and is far superior to the nearly meaningless group size figures people constantly spout off about.  I have written about this extensively, so I won’t go over it again except to say that all historical shooters should be using the String Test, and you can learn all you need to know about it on my blog post HERE.

All shooting was done standing offhand, and all Tables of Fire were shot at 15 yards.  Weather:  Bright and sunny, 70 degrees, wind ~11 mph from 3:00, 35% humidity, and the barometer was steady at 29.85 in. of Hg.

Up to this point, my average String Test numbers with the Remington have been between 2-3 in./rd. at 15 yards, a score I consider more than adequate, but my most recent scores have been in the 1.8-1.9 in./rd. range at 15 yards, an average I was thrilled to achieve.  Today, however, my first Table of Fire scored 1.8 in./rd., and then, when I settled in a bit, I shot three Tables of Fire in a row at 1.5 in./rd., a score I consider damned pleasing.  (Note that the black disks on the attached target pictures below are 3 inches in diameter.)  On Table 4 I had two fliers (I’m old, and my hands shake, so this is always going to be the case), but four of the six rounds were within 1” of the center, so without the fliers the score would have been about 0.75 in./rd.; they were basically the same hole right on the bullseye.  Now that’s shooting I feel like crowing about.

I am still working on aiming off with the Colt so I have more work to do with it.  The groups in the pictures below aren’t as tight as they could be, but that’s because I was adjusting my Point of Aim to try to get the sweet spot.  It’s really shooting very well, I just need to practice with it more to find the right sight picture.  And god’s blood, how I despise Colt sights.

Figure One: Tables 1 and 2

Table One:  Remington NMA
11.0 in. for 6 rds. = 1.8 in./rd.

Table Two:  Remington NMA
9.25 in. for 6 rounds = 1.5 in./rd.

Figure Two:  Tables 3 and 4

Figure Three: A closeup of Table Four.

Table Three:  Remington NMA
9.25 in. for 6 rounds = 1.5 in./rd.

Table Four:  Remington NMA
8.75 in. for 6 rounds = 1.5 in./rd.

Figure Four:  Tables 5 and 6

(NB:  I taped the holes before remembering to take the picture, so the tape marks are the bullet holes for this target.)

Table Five:  Colt Navy
20.5 in. for 6 rounds = 3.4 in./rd.

Table Six:  Colt Navy
19.5 in. for 6 rounds = 3.3 in./rd. (the picture looks like it says 10.5, but the pen skipped, its 19.5).

Not Pictured
I shot one more table of fire with the Colt using Pyrodex “P” and got a score of 19.25 inches for 6 rounds, or 3.2 in./rd.  What’s interesting about this is that the cartridge packet is several years old (I haven’t used Pyrodex since then), and yet it shot as well or better than the brand-new Schuetzen cartridges.  I found that very interesting.

Conclusion
I cannot say how pleased I am with the Remington results today.  Honestly, I think that’s pretty much within the limit of accuracy of the piece and ammunition, so there’s very little room for improvement except with regards to perhaps speed of shooting.  I’m pleased with the Colt, too, especially since before I sent it to be worked on it was a nightmare, a true lemon that was miserable to shoot and not at all accurate while now it’s a dream to shoot and reasonably accurate, and it will be much better when I’ve had time to practice with it.