1851 vs 1860?

Octagon vs round barrel, there's some small changes, loading leaves are a little different, think the 60 has a longer grip.

Both 51s and 60s differ in many ways. IIRC 51s were in .36 and 60s in 44. Frames and dimensions were different and the 60s were slotted for a shoulder stock. Both suffered from open frames and often excessive stresses on the the cylinder pins. The 60's have a greater gracefulness about them and were generally accepted as a better battle weapon over the 51s. Now there are so many models and variations by modern makers it is confusing. I have never really liked the 51 and brass framed ones in particular. Get one of each and you decide -- Just get good steel framed ones made by Uberti or (in a pinch) a more recent Piettas.

They are much the same. 1851 in .36 was the most powerful belt sized pistol possible until the 1860 was made with stronger Bessemer steel in .44. They are essentially the same gun except the 1860 has: bigger grip and stock cutout with extra screw, steel backstrap, cylinder has been expanded in front to hold .44 projectiles, frame water table has been cut out to fit the larger cylinder, the forcing cone is shorter, the barrel is round and 1/2 inch longer with much thinner metal, there is an actual front sight, the loading lever has ratchets that fit into the barrel and provide better seating leverage. Other than those differences, all Colt open tops are the same design scaled for caliber. Those differences also provide advantages to the 1851: smaller grip for easier carry, fully enclosed recoil shield, more robust cylinder, very ridiculously strong octagonal barrel, high visibility brass bead sight, less lead and powder consumption per shoot out.

How does one " suffer" from an open frame???, and excessive forces on the cylinder pin?

Jackrabbit1957 said:

How does one " suffer" from an open frame???, and excessive forces on the cylinder pin?

Click to expand...

Sorry to say we repaired many that came in pins pulled, snapped or stripped out of the frame. Despite what customer said on how it happened it was always felt owner misuse was usually involved. The threads on Brass frames were the worst but even steel stripped from knocking the wedge in too far or too hard in to "tighten them up". The force of firing may have helped but really too small unless a major chain fire occurred. Usual fix was either a larger threaded pin (now near impossible to get and must be made) plus a larger cross pin. Seen epoxy, solder, braze and even terrible weld repair attempt. Helicoil too. Some repos came from factory with excessive cyl gap spurring owners to attempt repairs. Attempts to remove cyl pin without removing cross pin may end in disaster requiring a stub drill out which is a PITA. May add that the pin takes the brunt of force is the pistol is dropped on the muzzle or used as a club. I have little doubt why solid frames like the Rem 58 lasted longer. iDo like the 1860 and will last a long time with care.

I tried hard to like the 1860 but the long butt has more "droop" and does not "point" like an 1851 or 1873.
If I were buying again, I would look hard at the 1861 Navy with the Navy grip but the modern creeping loading lever. Or more likely an 1872 Open Top Frontier with Navy grip.

Wow! In 7+ yrs I've not seen 1 stripped arbor in anything . . . had a lot of loose ones from customers as well as factory but never stripped. I've got to think the only way to "shoot one loose" is with a loose wedge and allow it to beat itself to death (which is obviously what happens). Never heard of a " too tight " setup! I set them up for that scenario every day! Don't know what a "cross pin" is . . . but the staking pin runs parallel to the arbor (so takes no fore or aft force) and is there to keep the torqued in arbor torqued and in place.
A properly set up open top will last every bit as long as any top strap revolver of the period and that right there is the problem. None have been made properly since Colt made the originals! Course, it gives some of us something to do . . . lol.

Mike

troy fairweather said:

Octagon vs round barrel, there's some small changes, loading leaves are a little different, think the 60 has a longer grip.

Click to expand...

1851 grip is short.. my pinky finger is on thr bottom of the grip flat part lol not sure howo an 1860 is.

To the tpic question

I havent fired an 1860.. but i do have two 1858 and two 1851... Im new to my 1858... both are brass... but both are much heavier than my brass or steel 1851s.

Also... the 1851 shoot high... so aim low. The 1858 shoot dead on the sights... however .. i think the 1851 are more accurate by far.. it could be because im newto the 1858s.. shot em first time today.

But my 1851s... ya im deadly with them... right is 4 cylinders on 1851.. left is 2 on 1858... right i also rapid fired meaning.. fired them very fast without aiming... but again im used to them.. i shoot em every week. This is 15 yards out

Hammer spring is also much lighter on the 1851.. even if you losen it with the 1858 its still easier to cock. Also maybe its because of my so3cific q858s.. but the 1851s dont jam after 2 cylinders.. my 1858 did.. the fouling really messed em up.

So far i like my 1851... and since i carry both 1851 as my EDC ima stick with them..

45 Dragoon said:

Wow! In 7+ yrs I've not seen 1 stripped arbor in anything . . . had a lot of loose ones from customers as well as factory but never stripped. I've got to think the only way to "shoot one loose" is with a loose wedge and allow it to beat itself to death (which is obviously what happens). Never heard of a " too tight " setup! I set them up for that scenario every day! Don't know what a "cross pin" is . . . but the staking pin runs parallel to the arbor (so takes no fore or aft force) and is there to keep the torqued in arbor torqued and in place.
A properly set up open top will last every bit as long as any top strap revolver of the period and that right there is the problem. None have been made properly since Colt made the originals! Course, it gives some of us something to do . . . lol.

Mike

Click to expand...

My 1851 brass.. the cylinder to barrel gao was HUGE i mean like bang bang bang back and forth bad... i filed down the arbor... but i did it too much.. was so tight that the hammer couldnt spin the cylinder Lol.. so i had to file very very slightly the barrel cone down.. and i got it perfectly.... HOWEVER doing this caused the pin to go in further.. if you jam it in good itll jam the cylinder again to the barrel... This is why those guns had screws by the barrel pins.. To keep the pin (sorry wedge i ment) from going in too far. Losen the screw just enough and jam the wedge in to keep the barrel from wiggling but not so much that the cylinder binds.. and your good.

There is such a thing as too tight

If you went too far then its back into the realm of the short arbor, a thin washer can be fitted to correct the issue. I don't think you want the short arbor thing on a brasser.

candymancan said:

My 1851 brass.. the cylinder to barrel gao was HUGE i mean like bang bang bang back and forth bad... i filed down the arbor... but i did it too much.. was so tight that the hammer couldnt spin the cylinder Lol.. so i had to file very very slightly the barrel cone down.. and i got it perfectly.... HOWEVER doing this caused the pin to go in further.. if you jam it in good itll jam the cylinder again to the barrel... This is why those guns had screws by the barrel pins.. To keep the pin (sorry wedge i ment) from going in too far. Losen the screw just enough and jam the wedge in to keep the barrel from wiggling but not so much that the cylinder binds.. and your good.

There is such a thing as too tight

Click to expand...

I got chewed on by the board awhile back for drawing that same conclusion. Apparently the ideal fit is for the wedge to be fully seated, but too tight to remove with thumb pressure and no more than a printer paper of gap between forcing cone and cylinder. If you have an Uberti, you can use steel washers stacked in the arbor channel to correct arbor length and file them until they allow you to just barely seat the wedge with a nylon smith’s hammer.

candymancan said:

My 1851 brass.. the cylinder to barrel gao was HUGE i mean like bang bang bang back and forth bad... i filed down the arbor... but i did it too much.. was so tight that the hammer couldnt spin the cylinder Lol.. so i had to file very very slightly the barrel cone down.. and i got it perfectly.... HOWEVER doing this caused the pin to go in further.. if you jam it in good itll jam the cylinder again to the barrel... This is why those guns had screws by the barrel pins.. To keep the pin (sorry wedge i ment) from going in too far. Losen the screw just enough and jam the wedge in to keep the barrel from wiggling but not so much that the cylinder binds.. and your good.

There is such a thing as too tight

Click to expand...

First of all you've got to understand the design concept before you devise a way to "fix" it. The open top design doesn't have a barrel/cylinder gap . . . it has a "clearance" or "endshake". A gap is a defined opening and the O.T. lacks that because the hand pushes the cylinder forward to " kiss" the barrel with each cycle of the action. That being said, that clearance or endshake is measurable and can be dialed in. The length of the arbor IS what defines the bbl/cyl clearance and to do this, it must extend the full length of the arbor hole and seat (under tension) against the end of it . . . just like the originals! That is the main thing wrong with every reproduction O.T. ever made . . . they all have short arbors except for the Pietta made copies of the last dozen or so yrs.

So you shortened an already too short arbor ( unless it was a later made Pietta and you REALLY shortened it) and ended up reducing the forcing cone area to gain clearance when a spacer (washer or two) down the arbor hole would have been a better choice. Ultimately, you can still drive the wedge in far enough to lock up the cyl. (proof of the short arbor) so your solution is to use the wedge screw as an "adjustment" screw for wedge depth rather than it being a wedge retaining device for which it was designed to do during disassembly.

With a correct length arbor you can dial in a nice .0025" - .003" clearance/endshake and that's what you'd get every time you assemble, and even if you could drive the wedge in further the clearance wouldn't change. It's a great and robust design if it's done right.

Mike

Jackrabbit1957 said:

If you went too far then its back into the realm of the short arbor, a thin washer can be fitted to correct the issue. I don't think you want the short arbor thing on a brasser.

Click to expand...

Filing the cone on the barrel fixed it.

45 Dragoon said:

First of all you've got to understand the design concept before you devise a way to "fix" it. The open top design doesn't have a barrel/cylinder gap . . . it has a "clearance" or "endshake". A gap is a defined opening and the O.T. lacks that because the hand pushes the cylinder forward to " kiss" the barrel with each cycle of the action. That being said, that clearance or endshake is measurable and can be dialed in. The length of the arbor IS what defines the bbl/cyl clearance and to do this, it must extend the full length of the arbor hole and seat (under tension) against the end of it . . . just like the originals! That is the main thing wrong with every reproduction O.T. ever made . . . they all have short arbors except for the Pietta made copies of the last dozen or so yrs.

So you shortened an already too short arbor ( unless it was a later made Pietta and you REALLY shortened it) and ended up reducing the forcing cone area to gain clearance when a spacer (washer or two) down the arbor hole would have been a better choice. Ultimately, you can still drive the wedge in far enough to lock up the cyl. (proof of the short arbor) so your solution is to use the wedge screw as an "adjustment" screw for wedge depth rather than it being a wedge retaining device for which it was designed to do during disassembly.

With a correct length arbor you can dial in a nice .0025" - .003" clearance/endshake and that's what you'd get every time you assemble, and even if you could drive the wedge in further the clearance wouldn't change. It's a great and robust design if it's done right.

Mike

Click to expand...

What i did worked... gun fires fine.. barrel doesnt wiggle . Cylinder doesnt move much at all foward or back.. snd gun is accurate... I have 0 complaints on what i did.

Show me proof in documentation the wedge screw is a retaining screw for the wedge when you pop it out... Thats one of the dumbest things ive heard people call it, when i first heard it awhile ago. In my mind its better suited as an adjustment scree for the wedge. The wedge end fits perfectly on the screw. And the screw clearly can thread in and out.. creating adjustment. The thought that somehow this screw is ment to catch the wedge spring is silly lol.

candymancan said:

What i did worked... gun fires fine.. barrel doesnt wiggle . Cylinder doesnt move much at all foward or back.. snd gun is accurate... I have 0 complaints on what i did.

Show me proof in documentation the wedge screw is a retaining screw for the wedge when you pop it out... Thats one of the dumbest things ive heard people call it, when i first heard it awhile ago. In my mind its better suited as an adjustment scree for the wedge. The wedge end fits perfectly on the screw. And the screw clearly can thread in and out.. creating adjustment. The thought that somehow this screw is ment to catch the wedge spring is silly lol.

Click to expand...

You first since you're making the accusation ( It's never been an adjustment device).

I know . . . let's have a spelling contest . . .


Mike

Wow, you're on your way to fixin that un!

Just tp stir the pot how about the effect of cylinder setback on brassers? Seen "ratchet " indents so deep they affect cyl rotation and "clearance" (i like that). One fellow expertly installed a steel "recoil washer" on one with an eye toward curing both "clearance" and a sloppy hand slot. IIRC he was 94 at the time and did a great job!!! He also put a new spring in the loading lever latch and reshaped it so the lever wouldn't drop after each shot. Oops my popcorn is done.

Not stirring the pot, it's all related. A cylinder that has .005", .008", .010" clearance is called a "slide hammer"! On a brasser, it will do damage quicker obviously but a clearance of .0025 - .003 allows you to use " normal " loads. It's the web between the nipples that imprints on to the recoil ring not the ratchet (the ratchet is under the ring). The clearance fix can't be done from the back of the cyl if the arbor isn't "correct". It (and other " remedies" mentioned already) may appear to be good for a time but all will fail eventually. The only correct fix is arbor length.

Mike

vintovka said:

Just tp stir the pot how about the effect of cylinder setback on brassers? Seen "ratchet " indents so deep they affect cyl rotation and "clearance" (i like that). One fellow expertly installed a steel "recoil washer" on one with an eye toward curing both "clearance" and a sloppy hand slot. IIRC he was 94 at the time and did a great job!!! He also put a new spring in the loading lever latch and reshaped it so the lever wouldn't drop after each shot. Oops my popcorn is done.

Click to expand...

How can one reshape the loading lever catch to reduce dropping?

gtrgy888 said:

How can one reshape the loading lever catch to reduce dropping?

Click to expand...

In this case he carefully tigged on some metal, recut the "notch" and modified the lever/catch to accommodate a much stronger spring. The lever was held firm by the deeper notch/spring and no longer required a rubber band to hold it up due to recoil. Those in the "buis" know that part of repair is enduring customer "show and tell" sessions. Some were great and miss the guy. He was an ex tool maker from McDonald Douglas and passed many years ago.

vintovka said:

In this case he carefully tigged on some metal, recut the "notch" and modified the lever/catch to accommodate a much stronger spring. The lever was held firm by the deeper notch/spring and no longer required a rubber band to hold it up due to recoil. Those in the "buis" know that part of repair is enduring customer "show and tell" sessions. Some were great and miss the guy. He was an ex tool maker from McDonald Douglas and passed many years ago.

Click to expand...

I had thought of shaping the cut deeper as well since the lever doesn’t appear to fully project, I’ll need to bust out the needle files and arthritis meds this weekend. Thanks for sharing the nice story.

IIRC he deepened the slot on the lever for the more powerful spring. His machining ability was amazing and we subbed out stuff we could not or did not want to do - like cockeyed scope holes.