[andy_cc]

OK, I have found lots of threads here with good and bad points of each but I would love to compare and contrast these firearms here in one place.

Now aside from the fact that the cylinders are supposed to be easier to change on a Remington what would be your opinion of these two firearms laid side by side, good points and bad? I can only get one right now so I am curious to see what people’s opinions are.

So far from what people have said and what I have read, I am leaning towards the Remington, also in my opinion, it’s the best looker out of the two (I know a lot of you are covering your eyes after reading that thinking "how could he say that!!!’" but it appeals to me. :)

Best Regards,
Andy

[mykeal]

The problem with your question is that the answer is simply a subjective choice. Yes, one can wax forever and eloquently about the strength of the Remington top strap vs the Colt arbor and the ease of changing cylinders on a Remington vs a tendency of the base pin to foul on that gun, and the Colt's primitive sights vs target sights on a Remington (these are NOT 100 yard weapons!). On and on.

But what it really comes down to is what feels best in your hand. And for that you need to shoot both, more than one cylinder full apiece.

I own both, and frankly prefer the Colt. Sometimes. And I don't know if that occasional preference is for any good reason. I also really like my Rogers and Spencer - it fits my hand better and points better for me. All .44's. Dear me, how am I ever going to make up my mind?

The answer is I'm not. I revel in the fact that I don't have to. Which isn't meant to make you feel bad - it's just a fact of where I live, which in turn is an accident of birth (BTW, I did live in the UK for several years and did qualify for resident status - the gun laws and the restrictions on private flying, plus tax rates and the medical system are the main reasons I chose to return to the US, ending what was a wonderful period in my life).

What it also means is that you can't make a bad choice. You are limited to acquiring one - you must make a choice. Choose the Colt, because you can't make a bad choice no matter what, and it comes first if you sort by alphabetical order.

[Steve499]

I will not keep a firearm which doesn't shoot where its looking. I have made both Colt and Remington replicas shoot to their sights so it can be done with either, but the Remington's back strap lends itself to the addition of a dovetailed, windage adjustable rear sight in the eventuality your revolver shoots off to the side. I always assume I will have to replace the front sight with a taller one since some revolvers shoot high and others shoot 'really high'. Some windage adjustment can be achieved during that replacement, but having the option of making additional adjustments by drifting an added on rear sight can't be easily done with a Colt's hammer nose.

A Remington can be fitted with a sight which, after being zeroed, can be dressed down to the original contour of the back strap and be almost unnoticeable.

I know lots of folks just live with using Kentucky windage, but doing that aggravates me as bad as having a rock in my shoe.

[ArmedBear]

A Remington can be fitted with a sight which, after being zeroed, can be dressed down to the original contour of the back strap and be almost unnoticeable.

The Uberti replicas have a dovetailed front sight, so that you don't need to do that just to get it to shoot where it looks. They also tend to shoot flat or even slightly low at true handgun ranges, so you don't have to replace the front sight.

The Remington is a superior design. The Colts are built like the 1836 Paterson, with minor tweaks and in different sizes. Remington came to the game much later, and as in many cases, an engineer looking back on 25 years of user experience with a device has an advantage. He needn't come up with 100% original ideas; he just has to solve the problems with existing designs.

Colt first submitted their open top cartridge revolvers (Essentially Colt BP designs with hand ejectors instead of levers and drilled-through cylinders) to the Army, and the US Army said, "no, keep that pinned-together relic. We want it to have a frame like the Remington so we can shoot heavy loads at the Injuns." That's how the 1873 came about. It still has 1851 Navy grip frames, but clearly the Army believed even at that time that the Remington was a better overall design for a big bore revolver than the open top Colts.

That said, the Remmie might or might not fit you. Also, the original Remmie was made in a few revisions, and different replicas have different grip sizes as a result. I have two 1858 replicas, and one has grips that are at least 1/4" longer than the other. Dixie also sells a Remmie with oversized grips and grip frame. So, there may well be one that does fit you.

The R&S has VERY different grips, and is probably the "best" original design. As the last BP revolver engineered, its designers had the benefit of 25 years PLUS the whole Civil War to learn from. Again, it might or might not fit you.

The Colt 1860 balances nicely and looks neat, and it doesn't foul up as much, since it's a lot more open at both the cap and bullet ends. It's a tad easier to clean. Those are its advantages. It has longer grips. That could be an advantage if you have larger hands, or it might not matter to you.

[andy_cc]

Thanks for the replies so far.

Mykeal..One day I am sure I will move back to the states, I was originally born there but my family moved here 10 years ago now. One step at a time though,... first I have my degree to finish, one more year to go.


Andrew

[mykeal]

andy_cc - enjoy your time there. Bath is a great city in many ways. We lived in Edinburgh, traveled throughout the UK, but really loved Edinburgh and the Highlands. Many, many great memories. My wife still goes back annually to visit the many friends we made.

[Jim K]

A major advantage of the Colt, and one that was recognized in wartime, is that the gun can be turned over when cocking and fired caps will fall out. In the Remington, fired caps can become trapped under the topstrap and hang up the gun. All in all, of course, the Remington is the later and better design and very suitable for cartridges. IMHO, the army selection of the SAA Colt in 1873 had more to do with its traditional relationship with Colt than with the quality of the revolver itself.

The strength question is not really important. In a percussion revolver, the whole cylinder recoils and the force is applied to the center of the frame, where the Colt is adequately strong. With cartridge guns, the case pushes back against the frame at a higher point applying greater leverage to the frame and making the top strap at least desireable with low pressure loads and necessary with high pressure loads. (A .44 Magnum built like the open top Colts would not last long!)

Jim

[ArmedBear]

WRT caps, if you use the really hot German ones, they'll blow themselves apart and won't get stuck.:)

The strength question is not really important.

True, but rigidity is. You can take a Remington revolver apart as much as you want, and it won't get loose. The rear sight will be in the same place every time. There are fewer screws to booger up, too.

None of that says "don't buy a Colt," of course.

[Cincinnati Slim]

Howdy,

I've got both so here's my take on it...

(1) strength and consistency...Remington. Solid frame is more like a "modern" revolver. Grips can be interchanged since the frame shape is consistent shape/size. Every Colt grip is a little diffferent and has to be fitted to that particular gun.

(2) clean-up...Colt. You can clean the removed barrel from the rear and look down it to check the bore. The parts that get really cruddy i.e. cylinder and barrel, slide right off the arbor. Dunk 'em in hot water, warm beer, horse piss, whatever. Meantime the grip frame and lockwork stay dry/clean/oiled. The flip side is the Remington is available in true stainless and the grips are easily removed so the entire gun can be tossed into hot soapy water for easy cleaning. True stainless Colts are harder to find. (which is really inexplicable..)

(3) modular construction...Colt. Change the barrel length or grip frame size, no problem. You can put a "Army" grip on for big hands or a "Navy" for more discreet carry.

(4) easy quick reloads...Remington (sort of...) OK "Pale Rider" fans, you can carry preloaded extra cylinders and swap out in seconds if, and this is a big if, the cylinder pin is not so fouled up it won't come out without beating on it.
This is the biggest Remmie weakness; no gas bushing or machined deflector ring to keep crud off the cylinder pin. If you have to use a hammer to get the cylinder pin out then you could just as well knock the wedge out of a Colt and stick a spare cylinder on it's arbor. I've timed this, it's a wash ! Of course if you drop the Colt's wedge into high grass or gravel you're pretty much S.O.L. The parts of the Remmie are all captive.

(5) Cap jambs...Remington. Colts can sure-nuff eat caps and jamb-up. The up side is most are really easy to clear since there isn't a top strap in the way. You can also see the condition of the cap on the nipple before the hammer falls

(6) Sights...Remington. No contest here. The Colt "Navy" brass bead "acorn" front sights are pretty darn useless. The "Army" sights are a little better but always shoot high. A lot of folks , including myself, cut a dovetail and instal a different front sight on the Colts. I use the Uberti Remington part from VTI or DGW.

(7) Accuracy...toss-up. My Pietta stainless NMA .44 Remmie shoots the same size groups as my Pietta "Old Silver" 1851 Navy using the same .457 balls and 30 Gr. fff Goex loads. Both have had cylinder chambers opened up to .452 and have Uberti Remington NMA dovetail mounted front sights.

(8) Ergonomics...apples to oranges. The Remington has a better trigger, better sights but the Colt points more naturally is just generally slicker, lighter and better balanced.

So If I only could have one I guess it would be a stainless Remington. Lucky for me I have both ! And I seem to have more fun with the Colts.

That's my two cents worth.

Slim

[ArmedBear]

#4: I understand that some types of grease/oil do a lot to solve this. However, I've had the experience, too.

OTOH, when I use Crisco over the balls, the cylinder doesn't seem to jam. It's messy, but the fouling is soft.

[K.A.T.]

Easy decision,you like the looks of the Remington,buy it.Sounds like you are going to buy the other one later anyway,so you can't go wrong.Both are great guns.

Everyone has allready listed the pros and cons.I would suggest spending a little more and buying the Remington in Stainless Steel.Uberti makes a model in Stainless called "World Class" that has some engraving on it .There was one on Guns America offered for sale by Jays Guns.Don't know if you want to spend the extra for the engraved model,but consider the Stainless Steel.

[DougB]

I can't add much new information, but I've owned a Pietta Colt 1860 replica for a year or so and really like it. Prior to getting it, I had for several years thought a Remington would be my first black powder revolver due to the advantages listed (stronger with topstrap, quick change cylinders, etc.), but the 1860 looked nice to me, and was more "different" from my modern revolvers, so I decided to get it instead. I don't regret my choice at all. My 1860 shoots fine (though it works much more reliably with Remington #10 caps than with CCIs). I've since handled Remington's, and will almost certainly get one eventually, but I can't say I like the look and feel as well as the Colts - even though there are some design advantages. I have a decent collection of handguns, and like them all, but that 1860 Colt replica, though it is one of the least expensive guns I own, is one of the ones I get the most enjoyment out of just handling and looking at (and shooting is fun as well, of course). So, I'd get the one you like the most - and not place too much emphasis on the design advantages of one over another. I'll probalby get a Remington before long, but I doubt I'll enjoy it quite as much as my 1860 (which sets the bar pretty high).

Doug

[andy_cc]

thank you all for your help on this one.

While phoning around gun dealers I have found a collector of american civil war weapons (who incidently owns both an orginal remington 1858 and colt 1860) who happens to be a gun smith as well.

with regards to the fact that the remington has "no gas bushing or machined deflector ring to keep crud off the cylinder pin"---he said he can easily repair this, and has done on his (new) 1858 and it works a treat. He'll throw that in for free if I buy from him which cant be too bad. I am not a gunsmith so Im afraid I cant give you details of the repair, but its quite simple apparently. Ill have to think about whether its worth changing if i get an 1858 though.


Andy

[mykeal]

It is a simple, although not amateur, modification. I'd say take him up on it, and let us know how it works out.

[andy_cc]

mykeal, sure thing. If i end up with teh remington ill let you all know how the modefication worked out.

Andy

[CaptainCrossman]

A major advantage of the Colt, and one that was recognized in wartime, is that the gun can be turned over when cocking and fired caps will fall out. In the Remington, fired caps can become trapped under the topstrap and hang up the gun. All in all, of course, the Remington is the later and better design and very suitable for cartridges. IMHO, the army selection of the SAA Colt in 1873 had more to do with its traditional relationship with Colt than with the quality of the revolver itself.

The strength question is not really important. In a percussion revolver, the whole cylinder recoils and the force is applied to the center of the frame, where the Colt is adequately strong. With cartridge guns, the case pushes back against the frame at a higher point applying greater leverage to the frame and making the top strap at least desireable with low pressure loads and necessary with high pressure loads. (A .44 Magnum built like the open top Colts would not last long!)



ancient thread, but very good topic worth reviving

The caps will fall out of a Remington just as easily, with a little diligent hand filing- take a small round file and file out the corner of the frame where the caps pass by and get stuck by the hammer, rear upper corner. The cylinder has to be removed to do it. Clearancing this area, will let he caps fall free, a lot easier than with a Colt. The Remington recoil shield is flat and lends itself to easy spent cap ejection when cocked on the next shot. But I have had ONE Remington that jammed up, and it was because this area was not properly relieved for clearance from the factory.

On the "strength" issue, this post leaves out that on a Colt open top, the only thing holding the barrel/loading lever on the gun, is the wedge. Every time the gun is fired, the blast and drag from the bullet going down barrel, is trying to pull the barrel off the arbor pin.

The arbor can be pulled loose from the frame eventually, or rip out altogether, which happened to me twice with brass frames. On the original guns, the arbor can break right off, back from the wedge slot, here's one that's been repaired, an early Dragoon- the arbor has been stepped and pinned.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=133730704

in the end, the Remington 1858 is FAR SUPERIOR to the Colt open top design, both in cartridge and cap/ball form, due to (2) main designs features:

1. threaded in barrel
2. solid topstrap/frame of modern design

it's also a historical fact, as noted earlier in this thread, that Colt copied the Remington design, when they made the 1873 SAA Peacemaker.

having said that, Colts are great fun to tinker with, and I own more than I can count. I own 3 Remingtons as well. If you want a Colt type pattern open top, try to find a stainless steel version, they are stronger- or buy a new Uberti with forged steel frame.

[flmason]

Is there a reason the belt buckle seems to be upside down, or am I just cross eyed?

[arcticap]

in the end, the Remington 1858 is FAR SUPERIOR to the Colt open top design, both in cartridge and cap/ball form, due to (2) main designs features:

1. threaded in barrel
2. solid topstrap/frame of modern design

it's also a historical fact, as noted earlier in this thread, that Colt copied the Remington design, when they made the 1873 SAA Peacemaker.

What makes you so sure that Remington didn't first copy the top strap design of the Root revolver and rifle - Colt 1855 model?

In fact, wasn't the Root the first model to have a top strap design? And it also looks like the Root revolver was the first to have a threaded barrel too. :rolleyes:

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=98299&d=1242624139

http://thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=47111&stc=1&d=1242623293

And while many might think that the Remington 1858 was the first model to have a top strap,
it would appear that the Colt 1855 designed by Root was first.
That is unless there was another model that pre-dated it that he copied.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=279291

[kBob]

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Root and Beal work together at one point? Before the Remington revolver?

That is a nice looking Root revolver. Original or repro? DOes it shoot? Are they still available?

Some where I should have some photos of a Root 10GA shotgun. Unfortunatly they are through glass. I handled it once years ago when the museum owner let me do so, but had no camera then.

A chain fire with a 10GA would be inereting.....in a bad way.

-kBob

[Wolfebyte]

Is there a reason the belt buckle seems to be upside down, or am I just cross eyed?

Well.. the article going along with the sale states: This is one of the Dragoons that belonged to the troops from Alabama that were mustered into the Confederacy against their will. Only fifty were produced. The Alabamian’s did not want to join the Confederates. They just wanted to guard their homeland. These troops used a very unique technique to protest, they turned their buckles upside down. It is easy to tell this is what happened with this rig. You can see this was set up intentionally to be worn upside down.

But upon reading that, I really figured that the US should have be a CS if it was in fact a Confederate issue.. :confused:

[kBob]

Wolfebyte,

Never heard that story, but heard that confederates in general turned captured US buckle upside down to signify down with the US by simply wearing the belt backwards. Uniforms and leather gear were in short supply from the git go in the south and make do was the name of the game for many soldiers.

-kBob

[Wolfebyte]

yep, I heard the same story from family history.. and I just pulled that tidbit from the Gunbroker story..

if they were made for the North, I could see them changing them and wearing them upside down, but the seller is implying that these weapons were made for the Alabama regiment.

I think the story on Gunbroker is an added embellishment.. :uhoh:

[arcticap]

The Root revolver pictured is original & for sale for $2500 on page 2 at the following dealer link. There's also other Root revolvers listed.

http://www.michaelsimens.com/Antique_Guns_Colt_Revolvers_Pistols_Rifles_Accessories.asp

I don't see Dixie listing the reproduction Root revolvers anymore, maybe because they were made by Palmetto.