Colt Single Action Design Question

Why didn't you put this in the black powder section? I'm sure what ever problems they had they have had worked out for a hundred years now.

Check out this video Mr. Mosin; Mike Beliveau goes into great depth on the 1873 SAA and why it was the most popular in the Old West. He also has several videos on the Colt 1860 Army, 1851 Navy, etc. From what I have seen they were actually far more popular at that time than any other arms from any other company including Remington.

I'm strictly a black powder cartridge shooter but follow threads and comments about cap-n-ball revolvers, it all being part of the black powder family. I've noticed over the past several years hobbyist seem to favor the Remington '58 over the Colt '60 & '51. Likewise I've run across CAS types who proclaim the 1875 Rem was actually superior to the 1873 Colt.

Oddly enough, back in the 19th Century Colt percussion revolvers out sold Remingtons by a very wide margin. Later the Colt Single Action Army and Frontier Six-Shooter outsold the 1875 Remington by an equally wide margin.

One wonders if people who actually used these guns might have known something today's hobbyist is missing. Just sayin',

Dave

Dave T said:

I'm strictly a black powder cartridge shooter but follow threads and comments about cap-n-ball revolvers, it all being part of the black powder family. I've noticed over the past several years hobbyist seem to favor the Remington '58 over the Colt '60 & '51. Likewise I've run across CAS types who proclaim the 1875 Rem was actually superior to the 1873 Colt.

Oddly enough, back in the 19th Century Colt percussion revolvers out sold Remingtons by a very wide margin. Later the Colt Single Action Army and Frontier Six-Shooter outsold the 1875 Remington by an equally wide margin.

One wonders if people who actually used these guns might have known something today's hobbyist is missing. Just sayin',

Dave

Click to expand...

Perhaps Colt’s outsold all the others had something to do with the Government contracts? That accounts for a whole lot of units. Not saying they were not popular but those contracts did not hurt.

Kevin

Mr. Mosin said:

…After watching the above video concerning the Colt cylinder design and Remington’s improvements to it... does the 1873 Peacemaker (and it’s clones) share the design issue, and does the Remington 1875/1890 share the 1858’s improvements regarding the cylinder design ?…

Click to expand...

I am not aware of a design problem with the cylinder on Colt’s c&b revolvers. Or any other design problems. Simply put, the Colt open top revolver was the most advanced AND utilitarian design of the day.

Kevin

I couldn't watch the whole video because of the heavy BS in it... That guy, and I don't care who he is, hasn't got the slightest idea what he is talking about. He takes a poor fitted 1851 replica and then explains why Colt's original design got flaws in it... Comparing Colt Walker's bolt, which is a 1846 design, and DID NOT work the way he describes it - i.e. bearing the recoil from firing and comparing it to the later and evolved 1851 Navy and 1863 NMA is just wrong. All the open top Colts have a recoil shield and it serves exactly that purpose - to limit the cylinder rearward travel during recoil. The cylinder does not slap the hand, it does not disengage the bolt from the cylinder notches, earlier design oval bolts did not bear any recoil. More importantly, the B/C gap on original Colts was never that excessive as his example, so his remarks about excessive endshake on Colts is just adding more BS to the mix... It's like taking the poor fitted Uberti arbors as an example that open top Colts are a weak design. No, it's not - done properly those revolvers are pretty strong and the design is more than adequate to withstand years of use (with a Cap & Ball cylinder, mind you, not a cartridge conversion one which has completely different recoil forces). That guy should really start to read more and talk less, a lot less.

P.S. And yes, this post belongs to the BP section of the forum. Where we can enjoy watching fellow members tearing his rears apart... OP, you really missed the big fun posting it here.

Mizar is exactly right! Blackie doesn't have a clue what he's talking about !!! He's a legend in his own mind !! He always brings up Colts intentions about the design as if he was there helping design it and now he's saying it's a big disaster!!! I'd have to disagree whole heartedly and in fact am on the record for the SUPERIORITY of the Colts open top design!!!

Mike

Ok, erased my post to answer yours.

1. The grip screws can be an issue but it's never been one with me (open top or top strap version). Action screws were more likely to loosen (across the board (Rems too)) which is why "interference pins" are available now.

2. The top strap on a Remington doesn't allow "hotter" loads. Maybe you could explain? (Hint, I actually bent a Remington frame either loading, shooting or combination of both)

3. The loading lever on a Colt is sufficiently strong enough to shear the attachment screw (on Walkers and Remies) so no points for that one either.


Mike

Mr. Mosin said:

Colt won the military contracts by being cheaper- not better.

Click to expand...

Are we sure about that statement?
Quote from the article "Remington revolvers in the Civil war": "Samuel Remington traveled to Washington in the fall of 1861, offering to sell his revolvers to the government at a cost of $15 each—or $10 less than what Colt was charging the Ordnance Department for its .44-cal. revolvers. Even with the reduced cost, the Army, by the end of March 1862, had taken delivery from the Remington factory of only 7,250 .36-cal. revolvers and 850 .44-cal. Beals revolvers at a cost to the Army of $15 each."
https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2020/9/17/remington-revolvers-in-the-civil-war/

Mr. Mosin said:

History shows us that Remington’s were vastly preferred on both sides of the War by those who could afford them. Colt won the military contracts by being cheaper- not better.

And lousy metallurgy or faulty craftsmanship is a thing.

Click to expand...

Not gonna touch the first one, I don't know that nor care about popularity.

Not a point. Both designs being made of aluminum, the open top wins.

Mike

Furthermore, from the article mentioned above we have some excellent photographs of both original Remington-Beals and Remington NMA, clearly showing that Remingtons also rest the cylinder face on the barrel, much like a Colt revolver:

In all actuality, they both are excellent designs with each having their own deficiencies. What we have as reproductions today validate that. And, I'll add that even though the Colt design hasn't been correctly reproduced for the whole "reproduction period" (except as of late by Pietta), it still is robust enough to give credit to the design.

The top strap design, I believe, is still relevant today purely because of "ease of manufacturing". The addition of a cyl bushing sealed (see what I did right their?!! Lol) the deal on what design would move forward. The strongest S.A.'s made today carry 5 shot cyls in high tech cast frames with extremely thick top straps. Some with a 2 screw / pin action setup (reminiscent of the Rem action) and some with a 3 screw /pin action ( obviously of the Colt type action). Both designs still being paid homage to!!

Mike

In my opinion…

I have a little, little being the key word, experience with the 1861 model clones and the 1958 model clones. They both have their good and bad points. BUT, I look at the popularity of the 1861 over the 1858 through more modern eyes.
The Colt was more familiar to people due to it’s use in the militaries of the time.

Take the 1911, for example, would it be as popular as it is today if it had not been a small arm used in every branch of the US Military for decades? I think not.

Exposure breeds familiarity. People that are familiar or have experience with something tend to gravitate towards that which they are familiar.

As for that video, I couldn’t watch it. The guy’s annoying to me.

I believe it's worth mentioning that Colt himself was no stranger to the solid frame revolvers - the model 1855 sidehammer (Colt Root revolver). They even made an experimental Dragoon sized sidehammer revolver in .44 cal around 1860, but eventually ditched that idea in favor of 1860 Army. The only thing incorporated from the solid frame revolvers was the creeping loading lever.

Guy seriously pegged my BS meter with his interesting theories about spring breakage.

For me, the supposed advantages of Remington's sixguns have never seemed to be relevant and the Colt pattern guns have always handled better.

Without even considering which is stronger, better, etc. and having only shot repos I find the Colt designs to be my favorite. The Remingtons feel clunky and excessively front heavy to me. Others can argue the merits and short comings of each design.

What I find interesting about the whole
SA debate is that Colt changed the
grip configuration from the Navy when
it produced the Army percussion model.

Then with the 1873 Army model it went
back to the Navy grip configuration which
seems to be favored by most.

A gunsmith friend of mine fitted an Army
grip to a Peacemaker and said the gun
just didn't point right for him. (Actor James
Drury had the Army on his Peacemaker and
the gun handled better for him.).

I suspect the Navy really was more popular
which made the Navy 1851 so popular with
the likes of Wild Bill and his buddies. 20th
Century fast draw competitors seem to bear
out this opinion.

45 Dragoon said:

1. The grip screws can be an issue but it's never been one with me (open top or top strap version). Action screws were more likely to loosen (across the board (Rems too)) which is why "interference pins" are available now.

2. The top strap on a Remington doesn't allow "hotter" loads. Maybe you could explain? (Hint, I actually bent a Remington frame either loading, shooting or combination of both)

3. The loading lever on a Colt is sufficiently strong enough to shear the attachment screw (on Walkers and Remies) so no points for that one either.

Click to expand...

If you bent the frame on a Remington design gun that doesn't mean the design is weak, It means the gun was built of of soft metal. Its already been discussed in the BP forum that one of the reasons the Italians can build, ship and sell their BP reproduction guns relatively cheap is because they are made from soft, easily machined metal that doesn't wear out cutters and broaches like harder metal does.

You have stated before you thought the Colt was a stronger design. I wish you would share your reasoning on that. I for one would really like to know. To my mind the Remington is the stronger gun. But its a moot point because when made of good metal both are more than strong enough for the rounds they were designed to shoot. Its more like a Ford vs Chevy thing. Get the one that feels best in your hand and and is most pleasing to the eye.

That being said after Colt stopped making open top guns as far as I know no one else adopted the design. The "O" frame design pretty much became universal with the exception of some top breaks and the strange Merwin-Hulbert guns and even those used a top strap of sorts.

Comparing cap & ball to a metallic cartridge is apples to oranges - recoil forces are different. The first pushes the cylinder only to the back, towards the recoil shield, while the second one first slams the cylinder to the front and then to the back. So, a design that proved to be fairly adequate for percussion revolvers was not so good for cartridge ones. And that is only for the more powerful cartridges - there were plenty of European open top cartridge revolvers, dating back to 1854 (Lefaucheux Model 1854) that proved to be quite capable of withstanding shooting with metallic cartridges of moderate power. So, this topic is not exactly black and white... It all depends on powder charge, design and execution. In a nutshell - while the solid frame is a far better and stronger design, the open top, if engineered properly, is not so weak as some people like to think of it.