my opinions on the colt 1860 army and remington 1858

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jason41987

member
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Messages
1,293
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
 
Tell you what Jason Im gonna do something Im sure you are not used to seeing here........I agree!
 
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
 
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... ;)
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
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!;)
 
Old Fuff said:
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... ;)
Click to expand...
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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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
 
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!!
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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.;)
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

P0000409_zps2bd0bb0b.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
Remington 1858 & 1860
Replies
5
Views
887
rodwha
R
O
  • Locked
1858 verses 1860
Replies
10
Views
811
Steve499
S
arcticap
  • Locked
Euroarms Limited Editions - Stainless Colt 1860 & Remington 1858
Replies
7
Views
619
ShotgunDave
ShotgunDave
electricfactory
  • Locked
1860 Army back from Outlaw Kid!
Replies
24
Views
2K
TheOutlawKid
TheOutlawKid
L
  • Locked
1860 army
Replies
7
Views
728
Foto Joe
F
Back
Top