which is better/1858 or 1860


PDA






Lilbigun2958
January 22, 2013, 04:12 AM
hi yall,i'm a newbie here & it's been a long time since i've shot any black powder & most of it was rifles.i'd like to get into rifles & pistols now & would like to know which model would be better:the 1858 or the 1860 in the steel frame for either???also would like any info on a revolving rifle in black powder.thanks.

If you enjoyed reading about "which is better/1858 or 1860" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
rio nueces
January 22, 2013, 05:51 AM
The new Pietta Remington, 5 1/2 inch, .44. Steel frame of course. With a full chamber of Pyrodex P, no wad, roundball, I can hit a pie plate off the bench two out of three at 50 yards all day. You do have to take out the cylinder after 12 shots or so and wipe it all down.
And I did not modify a thing on it, except for smoothing some sharp edges.
Handles great,stronger than Colt copy. No ' wedges'.

robert garner
January 22, 2013, 06:25 AM
Properly set up there is little to no difference.
It is more probable to buy a Remington that is properly set up "out of the box" than a Colt.
You will be well served to compare them side by side Aesthetics,ergonomics and go with the one that appeals to you the best, any faults that you may detect, in either, could with some research and care be handled by yourself(gunsmiths love us for this)Personally I've always chosen the Colt.
robert

Fiv3r
January 22, 2013, 08:16 AM
Both;)

Although I gravitate toward the Remington. That 5.5" barrel is a sweet shooter.

StrawHat
January 22, 2013, 08:27 AM
This is similar to the Ford/Chevy debate or 9mm/45ACP argument. Lots of opinions but few facts will be presented!

Personally, I prefer the 1860. With the long barrel and factory sights, it is great for plinking and small game.

tpelle
January 22, 2013, 09:25 AM
I have both. While I admit that the Remington is the more "modern" of the two with its top strap, fixed rear sight groove, and easily-withdrawn cylinder base pin, I personally prefer the 1860.

The 1860 has better-feeling grips and more natural pointing ability.

The loading lever feels more substantial on the 1860, and I have seen several reports of the loading lever on the Remington breaking at the pivot screw.

The fact that one can press out the wedge and remove the barrel means that a ball that creeps forward under recoil, or is pushed partially into the barrel because of a squib or mis-fire, can be cleared by simply removing the barrel to free up the cylinder or to drive the ball from the barrel. In the same situation a Remington is most probably locked up until you can get it home to work on it with shop tools, and then you are forced to operate with charged cylinder chambers pointed at you.

Most importantly, the 1860 is more tolerant of fouling, with it's large diameter arbor vs. the Remington's thin base pin, and that the gap at the forcing cone can be "adjusted" by means of the wedge.

Most of the 1860 advantages are, as I see it, directly related to loose powder and ball. Were I to be buying a revolver with the intention of doing a cartridge conversion, then I think the Remington is a better choice. But for cap and ball I'll stay with my 1860s.

CraigC
January 22, 2013, 11:45 AM
It's mostly a matter of personal preference. Pick the one that stirs your soul the most. Get the other later. ;)

Franco2shoot
January 22, 2013, 11:54 AM
I like my Remington but it only takes two cylinders shooting Pyrodex before it becomes all frozen. I've tried gun butter, Olive oil all to no avail. But it does shoot accurately.

KKKKFL

Fingers McGee
January 22, 2013, 02:10 PM
I prefer Colt's. Remingtons don't fit my hand, are prone to binding up, and are harder to disassemble and clean IMNSHO

kBob
January 22, 2013, 04:20 PM
I think the correct answer to the original question is "no"

Each has advantages.

Un modified COlt eats caps. Unmodified Remmie gets gunked up.

Both go boom and stink good.

Pretty is the Colt 1862 Pocket police, so the 1860 is closer to that but not quite that. I think botht the 60 and 58 look nice about equal, but that is subjective.

I would not mind a correct sized remington .36 Navy at all but would not turn up my nose at a colt 61 navy either.

I just like'em both.

-kBob

BCRider
January 22, 2013, 04:20 PM
I'm not going to be any help at all. I started with a pair of Uberti Remingtons but I've just recently completed getting my pair of Colt's in .44. I like both styles equally BECAUSE of their differences. Once set up and tuned each shoots just fine. I don't see that there will be any big differences between them due to the design. Differences in the actual manufacturing is possible but if well executed with well fitting tolerances each should be equally as able to withstand the rigors of shooting.

Now if a clumsy person that falls onto their guns a lot were choosing I'd say the Remington all the way simply due to the stronger frame vs barrel on a pin setup. In an accident where the gun "cushions" the fall the Remington design would be likely to suffer little or no damage. But really, is that an issue?

Franco2Shoot, I can't comment on the Pyrodex vs products you used but I can say for sure that true black and Canola work well. Even when getting gummy a few drops of Canola oil into the center pin area of the cylinder face and spinning the cylinder frees things up nicely. I've often shot 6 and 7 cylinders worth through each gun at CAS days and the cylinder is turning as well at the end as the beginning by putting two drops on the pin area and spinning the cylinder a couple of times before balling up. But the fouling from Pyrodex may call for something different since it's only a power equivalent to BP. Perhaps regular CLP oil for smokeless is what you need to cut through the Pyrodex gum?

Mike OTDP
January 22, 2013, 05:21 PM
For a shooter, especially if you want accuracy, it's Remington all the way. I did arms inspection one day at the 2012 World Muzzle-Loading Championships, saw exactly one Colt of any description. A handful of Rogers & Spencer originals and the FWB repro of that gun. Otherwise, Remington after Remington.

EljaySL
January 22, 2013, 06:44 PM
Well, I never had any trouble with my 1858 but my 1860 I had all the drama where I had one that needed some pretty serious pounding with a punch to get the wedge out the first time. I also had some drama involving marginal hits on the caps and them not firing - never had a problem with the 1858 which apparently has a stronger spring. I have high hopes for the 1860 actually working when I take it out Friday but we'll see.

It does feel nice in the hand. And the look is more unique - the 1858 looks more modern, but that's not necessarily a plus.

I'd say get whichever one has a better sale price at Cabela's. If they're both the same get the 1858, it's probably a little more newbie friendly if only because of the initial disassembly not involving a hammer! But you're going to get them both anyway, because they're both different and they're both cool.

OrangePwrx9
January 22, 2013, 08:08 PM
I reload my 1858 with a spare, loaded cylinder. It's easy to pull the pin, remove the empty cylinder, and slip the new cylinder in. The empty cylinder gets reloaded out-of-the-gun on a reloading stand when I have a moment.

Handling reloads this way, the cylinder binding problem is minimized (at least I've never had it). Also, the gun's loading lever doesn't see any stress. I also have better control over the consistency of my reloads.

Don't know if you've given this approach any thought. Also don't know if you can conveniently do something similar with the Colts. It does make for a relatively fast reload.

On Edit: I shoot Pyrodex only and use white lithium grease on the cylinder pin.

AJumbo
January 22, 2013, 08:39 PM
Get both, then tell us what YOU think. :)

Colts seem more tolerant of fouling. Remingtons seem to stay tighter, longer. Both are plenty accurate. Both require loving care.

mykeal
January 22, 2013, 09:54 PM
Mary Ann.

kBob
January 22, 2013, 10:12 PM
Indeed. The things that woman could do with coconuts........

and for the other comparison, Geanie.

and Morticia Adams for that other one.

-kBob

Grunt
January 22, 2013, 11:37 PM
Well, I got a pretty good selection of Remingtons and Colts and while I like my Navy colts, the Army colt is a little too long in the grip for best comfort but does pack more of a punch. So amongst the Colts, I prefer the '51 Navy. However, I tend to be more of a Remington man. My Remington Navy models are alright though a little light in the horsepower but I love my Army Remignton model. They don't fit my hand as well as the Colt Navy but I believe they are stronger, have a better sighting system and lend themselves to conversions a bit better. Their down side is that they don't take heavy fouling as well as a Colt though. As been said before, it's a Chevy/Ford thing and really you aren't going to have much of a problem with either one. Just realize that they have different strengths and weaknesses that is part of the design and work with those pros and cons rather than trying to make them do soemthing they weren't really designed to do and you should have no problems.

loose noose
January 23, 2013, 12:07 PM
I own both the Colt and the Remington, (two each) I definitely prefer the Remingtons over the Colts due to consistent ignition in the Remingtons, and failure to fire in the Colts once they get a little bit clogged up. BTW I use a small spray can of "Pam" cooking oil on the cylinder in order to keep 'em revolving properly. I'll bet the old cowboys didn't have that option! :)

Ifishsum
January 23, 2013, 12:34 PM
I started with the Remington myself, mostly because I had shot a few and had some familiarity with the design. My Pietta '58 Remington is great fun to shoot, accurate, shoots pretty much where the sights point and will go about 3 cylinders before needing at least a quick wipedown of the cylinder and pin. I've been 100% happy with it. But I do find the Colt to be more aesthetically pleasing, and couldn't resist picking up one (Pietta 1860 Army). It feels better in my hand than the Rem, and I've always liked the feel of that slim little trigger more than the wide flat Remington. It does shoot pretty high compared to the Remington, which is quite normal but I'm working on a remedy because it does make it harder to be accurate. I've got maybe a dozen cylinders shot through the '60 so far but it does seem like it will shoot more before it needs some attention. It does appear that I need to work on the cylinder bolt timing a little on this particular one also. Taking the grips off to clean the frame is more of a chore on the Colt design as well (I pull the cylinder and the grips and drop the whole frame into the sink for cleaning).

Based on my experience and reading others, the Remington is more likely to shoot POA without modification and it's somewhat easier to break down and clean so it may be a better place to start. But the Colt design will probably draw you in sooner or later :D

oldpapps
January 23, 2013, 01:14 PM
I'll jump in and stir up some on this.

I will only refer to the 'original' weapons on this.

The 1858 Remington was brass. Brass is softer than steel.
The 1860 Colt was steel.

The 1858 Remington has a 'top strap'. That makes it a more solid design.
The 1860 Colt pins the barrel on with a wedge and a couple of pins. That makes it 'wiggle'.

The 1858 Remington has a 'trench' down the top strap for a rear sight.
The 1860 Colt uses the hammer for the rear sight.

The 1858 Remington is prone to being stronger and better sights.
The 1860 Colt is smooth and elegant in it's lines.

So 'which is better/1858 or 1860'?
My answer is yes.

Of the original designs, get an 1858 Remington in steel, stick good sights on it and shoot with the best of them. Or, get an 1860 Colt and enjoy it's beauty and function.

Just want to shoot and maybe hunt (targets or game) get a ROA.
I have all three and some others too.

StrawHat
January 23, 2013, 02:16 PM
...I will only refer to the 'original' weapons on this.

The 1858 Remington was brass. Brass is softer than steel.
The 1860 Colt was steel...

Remington never produced a brass framed revolver. Only the copies were produced with brass frames.

oldpapps
January 23, 2013, 02:27 PM
I will eagerly differ to those who know best.

I've never played with a 'real one' and only have looked at some on display. I admit that I get over whelmed. The first/only 'real' Walkers I ever saw was at the Sanders Museum and every thing before and after became a blur. But I still like to look.

Thanks for the correction/s. I still can't determine which of the choices is 'better'.

kBob
January 23, 2013, 02:32 PM
Straw Hat,

Some claim Remington did offer the '63 .31 in brass based on old ads from the time.

-kBob

CraigC
January 23, 2013, 04:12 PM
On the strength issue, I think too many people apply modern cartridge logic to percussion sixguns. A percussion gun does not stress the frame like a cartridge gun does. Think about the backthrust a cartridge applies directly to the recoil shield. In this case, the top strap helps the frame resist stretching. There is no such backthrust in a percussion gun. IMHO, the Colt design was plenty strong enough for a blackpowder percussion gun. While the Remington may indeed be stronger, I really don't think it mattered until they began using metallic cartridges.

An easily installed dovetail front sight solves many of the sighting issues.

mykeal
January 23, 2013, 07:07 PM
There is no such backthrust in a percussion gun.
Huh?

Explain, please. How does the ignition system affect the recoil load paths?

oldpapps
January 23, 2013, 07:28 PM
"Colt design was plenty strong enough for a blackpowder percussion gun. While the Remington may indeed be stronger, I really don't think it mattered" CraigC

No argument here. However, my great-uncle carried a hammer, cause he thought that using his Colt would break or bend something. I can't image how much trouble I would have been in if I carried a hammer to wack people with when I was a COP. But uncle Lewis did. But that was in the 0's, teens and twenties and he was the elected City Marshal. Some weapons need to be stronger in other ways than just shooting :D
This is from old family stories. I was too young to ask him questions before he passed.

CraigC
January 23, 2013, 07:34 PM
A cartridge case thrusts backwards directly into the recoil shield, upwards of the basepin. This puts a lot of leverage between the basepin and the recoil shield. It is directly proportionate to chamber pressure. This is what causes frame stretching. A percussion cylinder does not bear against the recoil shield above the arbor/basepin but only at that point. This puts a lot less leverage against the frame and at a lower point. IMHO, this is what makes the strength issue between the Colt with its large arbor and the Remington with its little basepin, as percussion pistols firing black powder, a tossup.

DoubleDeuce 1
January 23, 2013, 08:57 PM
I prefer the 1860 Colt. It is beautiful to look at and a pleasure to shoot. It fits me better than the Remington also. Both have some drawbacks. But for me, it would definitely be the Colt as a favorite.

The Colt reminds me of the lower part of the leg of a beautiful woman. Elegant.:cool:

Mykeal, have you seen Mary Ann lately?:eek: Ginger isn't much better...:scrutiny:

BSA1
January 23, 2013, 09:11 PM
On the strength issue, I think too many people apply modern cartridge logic to percussion sixguns. A percussion gun does not stress the frame like a cartridge gun does. Think about the backthrust a cartridge applies directly to the recoil shield. In this case, the top strap helps the frame resist stretching. There is no such backthrust in a percussion gun. IMHO, the Colt design was plenty strong enough for a blackpowder percussion gun. While the Remington may indeed be stronger, I really don't think it mattered until they began using metallic cartridges.

Colt must of thought so or they would not designed it on the 1873 SAA.

StrawHat
January 24, 2013, 07:55 AM
Straw Hat,

Some claim Remington did offer the '63 .31 in brass based on old ads from the time.

-kBob
Thought we were talking about the 44 caliber, 1858?

mykeal
January 24, 2013, 08:18 AM
A percussion cylinder does not bear against the recoil shield above the arbor/basepin but only at that point.
Not sure what that means. Could be wrong, but I interpret it to say that you believe a percussion cylinder only bears on the arbor. That's not the case; it impacts the recoil shield all around the arbor. The arbor itself reacts the moment created by the off-axis bullet motion in the Colt design, whereas the Remington top strap takes this force in compression. Not sure how that compressive load results in frame stretching.
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/mykealsm/BrassFrameDamage_zpsb41a9d48.jpg

kBob
January 24, 2013, 08:38 AM
Straw Hat,

Wasn't trying to be a pill. You just wrote that Remington did not make any revolver with a brass frame.

I agree they did not make a New Model Army or what we call a '58 in brass

-kBob

Tommygunn
January 24, 2013, 11:49 AM
Remington never produced a brass framed revolver. Only the copies were produced with brass frames.

Well.....
The large caliber revolvers (.36 & .44) were never made with brass frames.
The 1863 model, .31 caliber with the spur trigger, had four major variations throughout its production. Two of these four did have brass frame.
The other two had iron frames. One of those two had a brass sheath for the spur trigger.
There were also variations in the cut-outs for the nipples and the front sight.
But Remington did actually make brass frame revolvers.

Noz
January 24, 2013, 12:35 PM
Colt did not design the 1873 pistols. He was long dead by then.

kBob
January 24, 2013, 01:10 PM
Folks tend to forget that Colt Firearms had a solid frame in 1855 for both pistols and rifles as well as shot guns with the Root series guns.

Appearently Root had an engineer working for him named Beals......that later worked for Remington and at some point forWhitney briefly. One might discribe the firearms industy of the mod 1800's as incestuous when you start looking at who worked where and with who or manufactured what for whom.

-kBob

Old Dragoon
January 24, 2013, 01:39 PM
Being a Fprdyce Beals (Remington - Beal's) admirer, I believe that Beals worked for Whitney, before Remington. I believe Fordyce Beals made some great advancements in firearms during his time.

Mike OTDP
January 24, 2013, 04:05 PM
Geoffery Boothroyd's book "The Handgun" had a great chart showing the relationship between the various American firearms makers in the 1800s. Incestuous doesn't begin to describe it.

What's surprising is that some of the firms are still in business - though the organization founded by Eli Whitney now makes jet engines.

Olmontanaboy
January 28, 2013, 10:14 AM
Uberti Remington (imo) I have a 36 and a 44 with zero problems so far. The Uberti Colts look great but most suffer from the short arbor flaw. Don't know about the Piettas. I don't like the warning stampings Pietta puts all over the side of their barrels.

BSA1
January 28, 2013, 11:52 AM
Colt did not design the 1873 pistols. He was long dead by then.

I did not say Samuel Colt. However in your interest of historical accuracy when the management and designers employed by Colt Firearms created and marketed the Colt 1873 Single Action revolver for the blackpowder cartridge round they must of thought the top strap was necessary for the strength and durability of the revolver.

CraigC
January 28, 2013, 01:05 PM
Not sure what that means. Could be wrong, but I interpret it to say that you believe a percussion cylinder only bears on the arbor. That's not the case; it impacts the recoil shield all around the arbor. The arbor itself reacts the moment created by the off-axis bullet motion in the Colt design, whereas the Remington top strap takes this force in compression. Not sure how that compressive load results in frame stretching.
I'm saying that in a cartridge gun, the case head itself bears directly, straight back against the recoil shield at the firing pin. Due to headspacing, it also gets a tiny running start. It is this backthrust, as proven scientific fact, that causes frame stretching. In a percussion gun, there are no cartridges to backthrust against the recoil shield, nor are the forces it does endure so high on the frame, resulting in increased leverage. The forces are more of an indirect twisting action against the arbor. Those are two very different forces bearing against the frame. IMHO, it is very simplistic to say that the Remington is stronger than the Colt design because it has a top strap, when you do not take into account the forces encountered or their design intent.


...when the management and designers employed by Colt Firearms created and marketed the Colt 1873 Single Action revolver for the blackpowder cartridge round they must of thought the top strap was necessary for the strength and durability of the revolver.
William Mason designed the Colt SAA with a top strap because the Army asked for it. Only months prior, they would've been more than happy to supply them with the 1871-1872 Open Top .44 rimfire.

mykeal
January 29, 2013, 11:52 AM
It is this backthrust, as proven scientific fact, that causes frame stretching.
I'm not familiar with this proven scientific fact. I am familiar with the science of engineering statics and free body diagrams, and I'm unable to create a diagram that results in the frame stretching you claim. Perhaps you could refer me to the source of those scientific facts or provide the free body diagram.

kBob
January 29, 2013, 12:18 PM
I think the COlt 1873 had a top strap because the US Army said "hey the other feela's got top straps. WHere's yer top strap? What if we wanna use our revolvers for clubs or hammers or they get dropped from a horse on to the cold hard ground? Them there top straps sure look stronger. You guys really over that fire thing yet? Whyn't you modernize when ya rebuilt......ya-da ya-da-da

OPen top colts go bang and are fun. They seemed to have worked well and just fine from1847 to 1873. Obviously a convertable is not as safe in a roll over as a hard top (or are they?) but some folks like convertables. SOme of us like shooting BP with the top down.

-kBob

CraigC
January 29, 2013, 04:44 PM
I'm not familiar with this proven scientific fact. I am familiar with the science of engineering statics and free body diagrams, and I'm unable to create a diagram that results in the frame stretching you claim. Perhaps you could refer me to the source of those scientific facts or provide the free body diagram.
Find it on your own, I'm tired of spoonfeeding those who display open hostility toward me.

tpelle
January 29, 2013, 08:18 PM
I's an interesting fact that Colt had a revolver with a top strap, the 1855 Root. It also had a small-diameter base pin, similar to that of the Remington Beals, except that on the Colt the base pin unscrewed and was removed to the rear. This necessitated that the hammer on the Root was a sidehammer.

Why didn't Colt stick with the design? Well, it seems that it was a not a commercial success. You see, revolver buyers who were in the market for a Colt wanted their revolver to LOOK like a Colt, which meant that it had to be an open top and that the barrel be retained by a wedge.

The Root WAS developed into a carbine - an easier conversion than that of a Colt open top or even a Remington, considering that there needed to be no special provisions for removing the cylinder base pin.

MCgunner
January 29, 2013, 10:03 PM
I want a 60, have a 51 brasser in .44. But, probably get a 51 steel frame .44 first, get a spare wedge and fit my 5" barrel to the steel frame. :D The '51 is OH so handy.

My Remmy is a 5.5" and it's a GREAT shooter. I load 30 grains Pyrodex, cornmeal filler over that, .454 Round ball and can get 2.5" 5 shot groups out of it off the bench at 25 yards nearly POA, is POA taking a coarse bead. It just don't get much better except for my ROA. The ROA is a big, heavy beast, though, and the Remmy is so easy to tote. :D

As a shooter out of the box, I vote 58. The Colts shoot high and it takes some filing to get 'em reasonable at 25-50 yards. I LOVE the quick change of cylinders, too, can fire up 18 rounds and not worry about binding. Wipe the pin down, go in the house and reload 'em again if you want. :D For safety, cap the cylinders after they're on the gun in the field. The spare cylinders are on sale at Cabelas, now, just got mine. I already have 3 for the Navy.

BHP FAN
January 29, 2013, 10:37 PM
I used to buy spare cylinders. now I just buy spare guns.
http://i989.photobucket.com/albums/af11/hut-man/remingtons-1.jpg

Jim K
January 30, 2013, 07:26 PM
CraigC is correct that in a cartridge revolver, the cartridge itself thrusts back against the recoil shield and that tends to stretch the frame. A topstrap doesn't actually eliminate that but it reduces it to an insignificant level.

In a percussion revolver, regardless of design, the backthrust is not of a cartridge case but of the whole cylinder, recoiling against the frame. The size of the center pin or base pin is not relevant, it is simply a rod for the cylinder to ride on; it has no role in stopping or slowing the cylinder back thrust. But as CraigC also notes, the cylinder backthrust is at a lower point on the frame, where the frame is thick and there is less leverage tending to bend the frame than in a cartridge revolver. So, given the loads in use in the period, the Colt design was more than adequate.

The redesign of the Colt 1860 to the 1873 was not sudden. The open top cartridge revolver was a transition point. It was with that gun that Colt's designers realized that the early design was just not suitable for a cartridge revolver and went to the closed top frame. They did, though, try to keep as much of the early tooling as they could, which resulted in, for one thing, the tiny rim of the .45 Colt.

Jim

tpelle
January 30, 2013, 08:18 PM
MCgunner,

You know that any "Navy" can't properly be in .44? Why spend the money for a "historical replica" when the thing it supposedly "replicates" never existed?

There are plenty of .44s out there that actually ARE replicas of actual historical guns - the Walker, the Dragoons, and the 1860 Army. Why not buy one of those instead?

I'm sorry, but I'm a history nut. A .44 cal 1851 "Navy" just gets under my skin.

rdstrain49
January 30, 2013, 08:50 PM
I was going to reply, but after reading all this stuff I forgot what the question was. Seems I'm not the only one.

MCgunner
January 30, 2013, 09:22 PM
You know that any "Navy" can't properly be in .44? Why spend the money for a "historical replica" when the thing it supposedly "replicates" never existed?

Well, when watching sci fi, my wife has a saying, "suspension of disbelief". I'm a shooter, not a historian, and have molds and am set up for .44. My brasser is .44, the 5" barrel is a .44 (won't work on a .36), and the spare cylinders I have for it are .44, so I want a steel frame .44.:D I have no desire to jump into .36 caliber at this time. I doubt a 5" Navy is historically correct no matter caliber, either, but hey, I WANT it, it's handy, and in .44, I can get a Navy and a wedge and set myself up.

I didn't buy a "historical replica", I bought a shooter. What's your opinion of the ROA? It's not historical and it's the absolute, without contest, the best shooter I own. Hell, I even have a CVA Wolf inline with scope mounted for hunting.

Oh, edit, BTW, did Remington ever make a 5.5" .44? I don't know, but I do love the short barrel version. I'd REALLY like to get a short barrel Vaquero style ROA, but the prices has kinda gone up and, frankly, the li'l Pietta is a heckuva shooter bought and an unbelievably low prices on sale at Cabelas. Hard to beat, methinks.

MCgunner
January 30, 2013, 09:28 PM
BTW, tpelle, if I ever buy YOU a cap and ball, I'll make sure it's historically correct. :D

MCgunner
January 30, 2013, 09:31 PM
I was going to reply, but after reading all this stuff I forgot what the question was. Seems I'm not the only one.

"which is better/1858 or 1860"

Yeah, kinda went off track. Sorry. :D I did vote Remmy, didn't I? Hell, I can't even remember.

tpelle
January 31, 2013, 09:24 AM
MCgunner,

Hey, I really appreciate the offer! In the meantime, good shootin'.

MCgunner
January 31, 2013, 09:48 AM
Yeah, If I had the spare cash, I'd order one for ya just to shock ya. ROFLMAO! Anyway, different strokes. I don't mind if a pistol is period correct, even with the "Pietta" stamp on it, but I'm really more about shooting than historical reenactment or something. That's sorta why I prefer the Remmy, it's just a better shooter than any Colt I've fired, though I've never fired an 1960. I sure like the way the 60 looks, it's a handsome piece, and I'll likely end up with one down the line just because of THAT.

Old Dragoon
February 1, 2013, 01:20 AM
Remington never made a 5 1/2 " bbl pistol (58 Remy) from the factory,(no "Sheriffs or in my case, Gunslinger, ( My cut down 58 Remy reproductions(Euroarms or ASP), Models. But I hazard a guess that many were cut down in the conversion timeframe to clear leather easier than the 8 " bbl's.

Look for the re emergence of the Gunslinger.

BTW I would love a 44 Colt Navy...if it had the original Grips,. TG, and Back Strap. One can add the said parts to a 1860/62 Army and I think it would be sweet for someone with small hands like myself. The 1851 Colt Navy still points and shoots the best of any I have held or shot. I suspect the 1860 or 62 Army might point and shoot just as well with the '51 Navy TG, Back strap and grips.

I choose to shoot the 58 Remy by Armi San Paolo or Euroarms as it is based on the Remington - Beals Elliot's Transition to NMA(second frame type, There were 3 types)) as it is patterned after the Remington - Beals frame which is smaller than the Remington NMA.

44 Dave
February 1, 2013, 06:14 PM
My 2 "cents worth"!
I shot my Remmy today, it solid, reliable, and if I had to have one to bet my life on it gets my vote.
Shot my 1860 last week, it feels better, looks better, loading lever is better, easier to cap and is easy clean. Just to shoot and make smoke the colt gets my vote.

mykeal
February 1, 2013, 09:33 PM
in a cartridge revolver, the cartridge itself thrusts back against the recoil shield and that tends to stretch the frame
Can you provide the free body diagram that supports that theory?

EljaySL
February 2, 2013, 12:00 AM
Just an update - I mentioned earlier I had some drama with the 1860 getting caps to fire. I took it out again with some screws tightened and Remington caps and everything's working now. I'm almost embarrassed to say that I'm getting tighter groups with it than my 1858. I think I like the sights a bit better with the 1860. The wedge thing's still a pain and I found that it gunked up and I had to clean the arbor about as fast as with the 1858. I think I should have used more lube though - I put in more the second time and it seemed to help to keep things moving.

I still think the 1858's more straightforward for a first timer but I can believe in a year the 1860 will be my favorite. Or not. Hard to say, really.

PRM
February 4, 2013, 11:23 AM
I've been shooting Uberti Colts and 2nd Generation Colts since the 70s. Never had problems with that design. Some of my favorite models are Colts.

A couple of years back I purchased a Uberti New Army (Remington) in Stainless. I really like it too. I will add that the older I get - the more I like stainless guns.

There is nothing wrong with either. Both, will outlast you given proper care and cleaning. Get which ever you like.

skeezer1
February 4, 2013, 12:43 PM
I like them all I have most all . I agree wiyh the get the one that stricks your fancy the most and get others later. All are good shooter some better than others. Ruger 45 old army.

MCgunner
February 4, 2013, 05:02 PM
^^^^ +1 ^^^^

Well, 'cept I'm still working on the "have them all" part. :D

CraigC
February 4, 2013, 06:01 PM
I'm a history nut too (wife has Masters in history) but I don't have a problem with .44 Navies. Actually, I'd like to have one as a cartridge conversion.

I also think that the only reasonable response to the original question is "one of each". Two or three of each is even better. :D

If you enjoyed reading about "which is better/1858 or 1860" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!