my opinions on the colt 1860 army and remington 1858


PDA






jason41987
December 9, 2012, 06:58 AM
im speaking purely of my experience with their clones to be exact... ive used both... and these are just some of my thoughts.. not sure if anyone shares my sentiments or not.. but its purely opinion

first i had the 1858.. i liked it quite a bit actually... and i still think the 1858 is a superior design on paper... forcing cone gap will always remain the same, solid grip frame attached to the frame, basepin is easily removable allowing the cylinder to be a quick swap, sights on the frame and remain fixed with the barrel...

then i get the colt... sights on the hammer, disassembly is more tedious, im not sure if the design is inherently weaker or not, because although it does lack a top strap, it does have a massive fixed basepin the cylinder secures to and id be willing to bet this would add enormous amounts of strength most people would assume the pistol didnt have.. and disassembly requires moving the wedge which in my opinion id be happy with a screw

that being said... it would sound like i would prefer the remington.. but in fact i have to say i like the colt copy more... my remington had the 5 1/2 inch barrel, shorter, lighter... but even that didnt handle nearly as well as this 8" 1860 army.. the handling id have to say is pretty phenominal, i love it... it feels more trustworthy in me as far as knowing i can hit what i want without much effort

im just absolutely suprised that although the weights categorized as the same, even this colt with what id consider to be a massive barrel just feels essentially perfect... but i should admit one thing... my 1860 doesnt actually have the 1860 grip, it has a navy grip which im more used to from the SAA and in all honesty i feel i have more control in the pinky-under stype of holding these things as the pinky just isnt simply tucked under and out of the way, but gets a better grip on the pistol by adding another angle in which its secured to your hand, making it feel even more stable

so... agree, disagree, not important, just giving my unbiased opinion on the two

If you enjoyed reading about "my opinions on the colt 1860 army and remington 1858" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
brushhippie
December 9, 2012, 08:14 AM
Tell you what Jason Im gonna do something Im sure you are not used to seeing here........I agree!

BullRunBear
December 9, 2012, 08:22 AM
I always preferred the Colts, both 1851 and 1860 models. The grips fit my larger-than-average hands better than the Remingtons. The Colt balance and pointabiltiy are unmatched even with today's guns. For cleaning, it is easier to remove the barrel assembly. On a minor point, the Colts are easier to use with a capper. Having to play with the wedge is a bit of a pain but no big deal. And they are very accurate for me.

Then I finally got a couple of the Remington 1858s on a super-duper Cabelas sale. All my preferences above apply except for one thing: I shoot the Remingtons better than the Colts. :banghead: So much for my preferences and expectations.

As you mentioned, there's no right or wrong here, just what you like and use effectively. I enjoy having both makes.

Now if you want to add the Ruger Old Army into the mix .... :evil:

Jeff

Old Fuff
December 9, 2012, 12:26 PM
Back in the 19th century this argument was current, and many reports complained that the Remington would hang up after two cylinder loads or so because the top strap trapped the powder fouling. This wasn't the case with an "open top" Colt. The top strap question was settled in 1873 when they introduced the Single Action Army model. But it featured a cylinder bushing and fouling cup cut in the front/bottom of the top strap that the earlier Remington didn't offer.

I have found that the Colt's are better "pointers," while the Remington is the choice of most "aimers" that are serious target shooters.

The only good solution is to have both... ;)

unknwn
December 9, 2012, 12:47 PM
quote:
"....1860 doesnt actually have the 1860 grip, it has a navy grip which im more used to from the SAA..."
Which model 1860 are you referring to? And for that matter, which of the two prevailing brands are the guns in your post?
The Remington gets the thumbs down from me due to it's tight fit between the trigger guard and the forestrap -my 2nd finger's 2nd knuckle suffers during anything but a light loading. I am removing material from both sides of that area to provide just a little bit more clearance to a stainless framed gun I have.
The Remington is also deficient due to the smallish base pin diameter along with no shrouding of that base pin/cylinder face transition point. Too much opportunity for fouling to affect long term shooting without manual prevention methods employed.
I do give the Remington a big thumbs up due to the frame's design makes utilizing Kirst konversion products a top rate modification.
For some reason those favorite conversion cylinder makers don't take the Colt's designs quite as seriously, I wish there was more variety of the backplate available from them, If there were I might? just change my mind about which revolver design I'd prefer for the aftermarket conversion,or maybe I'd just konvert more of the Colt's clones in my collection.

Billy Shears
December 9, 2012, 01:09 PM
Back in the 19th century this argument was current, and many reports complained that the Remington would hang up after two cylinder loads or so because the top strap trapped the powder fouling. This wasn't the case with an "open top" Colt. The top strap question was settled in 1873 when they introduced the Single Action Army model. But it featured a cylinder bushing and fouling cup cut in the front/bottom of the top strap that the earlier Remington didn't offer.
My understanding was always that it wasn't the top strap of the Remington that caused the cylinder to bind faster from powder fouling. The Colt had a much thicker arbor pin (more surface area), which had spiral grooves cut into it to take some of the fouling, and the Remington, which had a much narrower, smooth arbor pin, lacked this feature and would thus bind earlier.

A gun that had a still better reputation for resisting black powder fouling was the Starr -- which also had a top strap. There was no arbor pin on the Starr; the frame was hinged, but it wasn't meant to be opened except for cleaning, and the cylinder had integral "pins" machined into the front and rear face, which fitted into recesses in the frame. Fouling couldn't build up all that much in this area, and the rotation of the pins tended to act like an auger and grind it away anyway.

jason41987
December 9, 2012, 02:53 PM
the two ive used were piettas... and my 1860 is their "london model" which has a blued steel grip frame from their 1851 london model, which unlike the other pietta 1851 grips, their london grips are actually the correct profile

as for someone who mentioned the trigger guard on remingtons, i have to agree with that because i had that same problem... it just seemed to me like the grip itself is too far forward for my rather large hands, in fact, im suprised to find the navy grip fit me so well, though occassionally my middle finger will rub on the back of the trigger guard

and i agree, having one of each is always good... in fact, id like to purchase a starr clone as my next purchase... when you think top break double action revolver, you just dont seem to picture the civil war as a backdrop so i find it to be such a curious piece

krupparms
December 9, 2012, 03:16 PM
Just picked up a 1860 Colt Revolver & a 1849 pocket. I have little experience with B.P.guns, but they were only $150 each. I though they would be a good addition to my shooting fun!;)

Hoof Hearted
December 9, 2012, 04:53 PM
Back in the 19th century this argument was current, and many reports complained that the Remington would hang up after two cylinder loads or so because the top strap trapped the powder fouling. This wasn't the case with an "open top" Colt. The top strap question was settled in 1873 when they introduced the Single Action Army model. But it featured a cylinder bushing and fouling cup cut in the front/bottom of the top strap that the earlier Remington didn't offer.

I have found that the Colt's are better "pointers," while the Remington is the choice of most "aimers" that are serious target shooters.

The only good solution is to have both... ;)
Great response here, Old Fluff!

As a gunsmith who works primarily on these types of revolvers (repros and originals) I will also add that Remington did drill a hole in the top strap right above the breech end of the barrel on many of their revolving carbines. I think this was done on the cartridge supplied versions so it would have been late in production and was probably an attempt to alleviate fouling of the cylinder pin.

HH

72coupe
December 9, 2012, 06:36 PM
I can't add anything except to say that of all the handguns I have fired, I prefer the 1860 Army.

unknwn
December 9, 2012, 07:20 PM
quote:
"....Remington did drill a hole in the top strap right above the breech end of the barrel..."
I'm having a hard time visualizing this and understanding how it would be an advantage to the design. It's also the first time I've ever heard it mentioned.

Hoof Hearted
December 9, 2012, 08:06 PM
It would be helpful to quote the whole post so that everyone else would understand my comment to Old Fluff.

He was speaking of the "relief" milled into the top strap of the 1873 model Colt and my comment was that Remington must have tried to address the shooters concerns later in the production of The New Model Army type frame as they drilled a hole there to relieve fouling.

HH

Crawdad1
December 9, 2012, 11:46 PM
I prefer the Colt because of its long and successful history of fighting and winning. Starting with the Teaxas rangers use of the Paterson to the '51 Navy use throughout the old west and Pony express riders declining a rifle for the Colt to fight off attacks and of course the Civil War. Got to love a Colt regardless of its quirks!!

Hellgate
December 10, 2012, 12:45 PM
Most, if not all of the comments regarding Colt vs Remington are dealing with the Pietta Remington they got from Cabelas. To handle a Euroarms Remington is another world: smaller grips, lighter frame, to me a better "pointer". The Uberti Remington is somewhere in between the heavy, klunky Pietta and the slim Euroarms. Each of these Remingtons has a different feel and size to the grip and frame. Grip panels are not enterchangeable. So, it is my opinion that we are comparing apples to different oranges (Naval, Valencia, & Mandarin). The comparisons regarding topstraps, fouling, cylinder removal are all valid but the feel & pointability vary so much among the Remingtons that they are as different as a Colt Navy is to a Colt Army. Just my opinion from having had all 3 types of Remingtons. I have not noticed a similar variation between the different makes of 1860 Armies.

jason41987
December 11, 2012, 12:47 AM
im not so sure id like a euroarms 1858 if they have a smaller grip, i have large hands and already my knuckles are pressed into hard metal objects, be it the front or the rear of the trigger guard.. and though my knuckle sometimes bumps the trigger guard on the 1860, its rare, and only when i have a loose grip on it

Hoof Hearted
December 11, 2012, 09:00 AM
Jason

I have big mitts also!

I own 15 or so Remingtons. Two are originals. I have a few Euroarm's and a few Uberti's, the remainder of them are Pietta's and I will tell you my right hand does not know the difference between any of them except the Euroarms ones (they are too tight behind the trigger guard). I don't agree with statements saying the Uberti grip is closer to the original, just don't see it (other than the bevel at the bottom sometimes being different) and think it depends on who shaped the original grip and on what day.

I do agree with statements made ragarding the 1860 grip in that they all feel the same to me and this is probably due to the extra length moving the flare or bell at the bottom farther away from the heel of the hand. It doesn't matter, Colts, Pietta or Uberti all feel the same to me.

Hope this helps!
HH

BHP FAN
December 11, 2012, 11:40 AM
http://i989.photobucket.com/albums/af11/hut-man/remingtons.jpg

jason41987
December 12, 2012, 05:17 AM
one more thing i should note... i had to sell my 1858 a few years ago... and besides occassionally using that... most the guns im used to using are either long guns, or pistols weighing half of what this 1860 does and i have to say that with repeated and frequent use to this thing im also starting to think 2.5lbs is quite a comfortable weight for a pistol..

going back to a conventional revolver you really feel that weight... and it feels like a lot at first... but right now it feels weightless to me and the true balance of this pistol is really coming out and im liking it more and more as my hands get used to this style of shooting again

Noz
December 13, 2012, 05:16 PM
I have owned 1851 Piettas, 1860 Piettas and Ubertis, 1858 Remingtons by Uberti and Pietta.
I have sold everything except the 1860 Army Piettas. I have 7 of them.

Hoof Hearted
December 13, 2012, 07:10 PM
I have owned 1851 Piettas, 1860 Piettas and Ubertis, 1858 Remingtons by Uberti and Pietta.
I have sold everything except the 1860 Army Piettas. I have 7 of them.
Bummer.............I hardly ever sell (just buy more)!

loose noose
December 14, 2012, 10:38 PM
I have 2 1860 Colt replicas and 2 Remington 1858's also replicas all made by Pietta, and I've shot both in CAS, I've shot a lot better using the Remingtons than the Colts and I've got large hands. Needless to say I wouldn't get rid of any of them, but when competing I prefer the Remingtons. BTW I never had a problem with the cylinder hanging up on the Remingtons, but I did spray the front of the cylinder with Pam cooking oil after loading them up after the first firing, I'm sure a commodity the pioneers didn't have.;)

jason41987
December 15, 2012, 02:39 AM
i do have one problem with my pietta 1860... the damned thing cut me.. the edges of the grip frame where it screws in at the top and the hammer itself is sharp.. sliced my hands a couple times.... im going to get a file and smooth those edges out so i wont get sliced anymore

Logan5579
December 15, 2012, 06:33 AM
I have 3 Remington 1858's and I think they are great guns. As far as cylinder hang ups, the Rems do jam if you don't provide some kind of lube for the cylinder pin. Some guys use lubed wads, grease over the ball, pam cooking oil (thats a new one for me, but hey if it works, it works). Once you figure out which method works for you to get you past the 1858's design flaw, they are very accurate and reliable guns. I haven't had the chance to shoot a colt design yet but a buddy of mine is looking at a colt 1860, maybe I'll get to shoot that one soon. As far as which is the better design, I guess its just a matter of preference...both designs have pros and cons.

Hellgate
December 15, 2012, 01:22 PM
My simple solution to the Remingtons gumming up quickly is to carry a small plastic squeeze bottle of oil (Ballistol, or olive oil) and after I have charged all the chambers I put a single drop on the front of the cylinder where it rubs the frame. I jiggle & twirl the cylinder a few times to work it down onto the cylinder pin and it frees everything up. Takes about 10 seconds per gun. No big deal. They will shoot all day like that. I also use a lube wad and grease over the ball. Interestingly, my 4 Euroarms Remingtons rarely gum up but my Ubertis are quick to do so without the oil.

ottsm
December 16, 2012, 01:26 AM
I have a Remington although I did shoot it when I was younger I don't anymore given the work it takes to keep it clean and it's age (ROA's in SS are just to fun and easy to shoot). The one thing I noticed on mine is the heavy trigger pull. That main spring takes a lot of force compared to something today although it may just be my example. I don't remember any issues with jamming, just getting the caps on is a pain as most standard cappers will not work.

http://i1208.photobucket.com/albums/cc361/ottsm/P0000409_zps2bd0bb0b.jpg

wap41
December 16, 2012, 09:26 AM
I have three original 1860 colts and two 1960 new army colts made in belgium in the 1960's They are hard to find but very high quality better steel different rifeling .451`diameter and very accurate makes them worth the effort to find one.But when all is said and done I still prefer my ROA'S

YumaKid
December 16, 2012, 10:55 AM
All this talk of Remington cylinders binding; and I've yet to experience either of my REmingtons doing so, and I've swapped around my 4 cylinders (I like spares) so often that it's hard to tell which one came with which revolver. Now sometimes I've felt a cylinder drag when I'm pulling out the pin; but I just blast it with some brake cleaner (EDIT: The PIN, not the cylinder), wipe it with an old washrag, and let it thoroughly dry while reloading the cyinder. A little dab of Ballistol or a light swipe of bore butter (whatever is closer), and I'm back to makin' smoke!

But never have I had it bind up while cycling the action...... maybe I just need to shoot more???? :rolleyes:

raa-7
December 17, 2012, 07:47 AM
I can only say that I like the Remington.But I only have the Remington :p :rolleyes:

BigG
December 27, 2012, 03:46 PM
I have a Replica Arms 1860 Army with the long fluted cylinder. Its code is XXV for 1969 and the maker is Uberti. It's a beautiful piece.

BHP FAN
December 28, 2012, 02:35 AM
http://i989.photobucket.com/albums/af11/hut-man/remingtons-1.jpg

BHP FAN
December 28, 2012, 02:36 AM
http://i989.photobucket.com/albums/af11/hut-man/remingtonset6.jpg

BHP FAN
December 28, 2012, 02:37 AM
http://i989.photobucket.com/albums/af11/hut-man/remingtonset7.jpg

BHP FAN
December 28, 2012, 02:39 AM
http://i989.photobucket.com/albums/af11/hut-man/remingtonset4.jpg

BHP FAN
December 28, 2012, 02:40 AM
http://i989.photobucket.com/albums/af11/hut-man/pistols.jpg

BHP FAN
December 28, 2012, 02:41 AM
I like both, but prefer Remmies.

Old Dragoon
December 28, 2012, 10:46 AM
I have owned several of originals and repro's of both the 1851, 1860, 1861 Colts and the Remy's.
In my experience the Colts all handle better than the Remy's. Due to one word. BALANCE.
I have small hands and found it hard to reach the hammer of the Pietta Remy's, Had no problem with the Uberti's or Euroarms.....Or the originals! Pietta's are just bigger overall. I did find that the conversion cylinders I had for the Uberti's will work in the EuroArms, also found they would work in the originals I had. BP Cylinders swapped between them also worked.
I really like both the Colts and Remy's, but my favorite of all is a 1851 Navy Colt. Would love to put Navy TG and Back strap n grips on a 1860 NMA and just see how that feels.
I feel that the Navy is the best all around, but only a 36 Cal.

rcflint
December 28, 2012, 02:49 PM
Hoof Hearted. I remember from many years ago in a collector's club in New York State, seeing Remington Revolving Rifles with the hole drilled as you describe. I recall that it was not done on 44's but only 36's, though my memory may not be serving well, as I saw them in the early 60's. (1960's, that is).

It could have been seen as a pressure relief due to the long barrel, and we theorized at the time it was to minimize the gas cutting of the topstrap at the cylinder gap, which was severe in some well used original revolvers, and the longer barrel may have torched the topstrap for a longer period.

Hoof Hearted
December 28, 2012, 03:12 PM
Hoof Hearted. I remember from many years ago in a collector's club in New York State, seeing Remington Revolving Rifles with the hole drilled as you describe. I recall that it was not done on 44's but only 36's, though my memory may not be serving well, as I saw them in the early 60's. (1960's, that is).

It could have been seen as a pressure relief due to the long barrel, and we theorized at the time it was to minimize the gas cutting of the topstrap at the cylinder gap, which was severe in some well used original revolvers, and the longer barrel may have torched the topstrap for a longer period.
I sure hope the OP doesn't see this as a hijack of his thread (and it has gone off track a bit here and there...)

RC
This is interesting info and I never paid attention to the different calibers but I do not see where it would hurt for the BP shooter to explore this "vent hole" in looking for ways to minimize fouling of the clinder and pin. It might make a large difference for the SASS BP shooter who uses some of the dirtier powders like Goex.

HH

CraigC
December 28, 2012, 04:22 PM
I've handled and shot them all and for me, the Colt's are more comfortable and handle better. Whether it's the 1851 or 1860 vs. the 1858; or the SAA vs. the 1875/1890.

Jim K
December 28, 2012, 06:54 PM
One complaint in the CW era was that fired caps could hang up the Remington if they fell into the action. The Colt, on the other hand, could be cleared by turning it upside down and shaking it.

That led to the habit of Colt-armed troopers pointing the gun back over the shoulder, shaking it while cocking it, then bringing it forward and down. And that led to the use of the same technique with the Single Action Army and even with the .45 pistol through WWII. Shooters were taught to "raise pistol", then to bring the gun down on the target. Not only a poor way to pick up the target, but when the inevitable happened on civilian ranges, the bullet went over the backstop.

Jim

Old Fuff
December 28, 2012, 07:20 PM
Which is where the term "throw down" came from. As in; "He made the wrong move and I threw down on him." In early western movies, later played on TV, actors would point they're six-shooter back over their shoulder and then swing it down to aim (?) and fire. They didn't have the slightest idea why but someone told them too do it. :D:

drjohn
April 20, 2013, 05:05 AM
That’s very interesting about the raise, point and fire style and makes a heck of a lot of since, historically and origin wise. I just got an older Armie San Marco clone of the 1860 Colt, my brother and nephew got 58 remeys. Brother a new pietta and nephew an 1977 Lyman which I understand to be a San Palo, now Euro arms. Like someone earlier said the Pietta does feel bulkier than the Lyman and the cylinder will not fit the Lyman, as if every part on the Pietta is just a fraction larger. The San Marco Colt on the other hand feels like it is an extension of my hand, or like being re introduced to an old friend. I took, and still take, a lot of ribbing from them for buying a “topless” pistol. I may pick up a Remington some day but there will be another colt first. Another 1860, this time in steel frame, or a Navy… hum…choices choices.

MIOkie
April 20, 2013, 10:51 AM
Hello Everyone.

I've been into the BP revolvers for five years or so now.

My first purchase was an overpriced, stainless Remmie from Bass Pro.
Beautiful Pietta clone. I went with that because of the simple design and ease of disassembly.

Then, with all of your experience and insight I gleaned from this forum, I was confident enough to go for the Open Top... a Pietta 1860. That thing fits like a glove. It also compelled me to learn a little basic gunsmithing.

That being said, in the effort to go even bigger, last year I went for the Walker clone.
Needless to say, when it arrived it received my undivided attention on the shooting range.
Well, after a full afternoon of two-handing that Thing with a permanent grin pasted on my face, I looked over and saw my already loaded 1860 sitting there on the table, patiently waiting. I figured that would be the way to properly end my session.

Well, one-handed at thirty yards I couldn't miss the paper plate even had I tried!
It seems the Walker served as "practice weights" making the 1860 seem like nothing.
It made a great shooter even better (the 1860, NOT me).
The grin turned to a full smile as for a six shot period in time I felt invincible.

To make a short story long... I loves me 1860!

rio nueces
April 20, 2013, 11:43 AM
To each his own.
To my mind, nothing beats a 5 1/2" Remington for handling.
And I like Pietta, the new ones. Mine is extremely accurate with full loads round ball and shoots to point of aim. I have no problem with correctly sized caps falling off and jamming the action.
I do have to remove the cylinder and wipe the pin down after 10 or 12 shots though. I've no problem with that.

dickydalton
April 20, 2013, 01:31 PM
I really like my Pietta 1860 but my Pietta 1858 5 1/2" outshoots it and is fun now that I filed off the sharp corner of the trigger.

Jaymo
April 20, 2013, 02:57 PM
I like them all. I don't like the looks of the 1860 Colt as much as the Remington, or as much as I like the other Colts.
That wouldn't stop me from buying one, though. My problem with it is that the grip doesn't feel right in my hand.
Then again, I've only handled Ubertis.
The Ruger Super BH grip doesn't feel right in my hand, either.

Now, if I could get a Bisley 1860 Colt repro, I'd jump on it in a heartbeat, as the Bisley grip feels great to my hands.
Funny thing, the 1862 Colt Pocket Police looks great and feels great to me.
Guess it's a scale thing.
I do like the 1860 Army, when it's had the barrel chopped by about 2-3 inches.
The grip still doesn't feel right to me. Shame. Maybe I should get one, chop the barrel, and install a Bisley or bird's head grip.

kituwa
April 20, 2013, 03:15 PM
I am not real particular about grips on cap and ball revolvers,i can do with any of them but i do like the 1860 colt grip the best.On ruger single action guns though,i like the bisley hands down.If you had a bisley grip frame on a dragoon i think that would be the cats meow for sure.

shafter
April 21, 2013, 08:32 PM
I much prefer the 1860. It's a natural pointer and feels very comfortable. If you've got a strong thumb it takes down in just a second or two really easily. I also find them easier to clean since the barrel comes off.

Plus a steel frame Colt is plenty strong for what its designed for.

Hellgate
April 21, 2013, 11:07 PM
I started out as a dyed in the wool Colt fan where my best guns are 44 Colt '51 Navies that I use when I seriously want to do my best in a CAS match that I feel counts. but over the years I have grown to appreciate the various Remingtons. What I gound it they vary considerably between manufacturers. The Pietta Remingtons are bigger (heavier) and seem more clunky to me. The Euroarms are like the Colt Navies: lighter and more pointable but not good for beefy hands. The Uberti Remingtons are in between in feel. To me, it's almost a tossup. The Remmies will accept heavier powder charges and any shape projectile whereas the various Colt clones may or may not take a conical without using an external loader. Original Colt 1860s were much roomier under tha rammer for the paper cartridge conicals issued suring the Civil War. The Colt Navy is the most natural pointer with the Euroarms and Uberti Remington tied with the 1860 Army.

If you enjoyed reading about "my opinions on the colt 1860 army and remington 1858" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!