oklahoma caveman
Member
You are right sir. Please fill me in on this model as well.
1858 remington or 1860 colt?
- Thread starter oklahoma caveman
- Start date
- Status
You are right sir. Please fill me in on this model as well.
sundance44s
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2006
- Messages
- 1,473
No one built Navys better than Colt
Less powder ... less lead... kills targets just as dead
Never split a pair .
Less powder ... less lead... kills targets just as dead
Never split a pair .
SixShootinSam
member
Oh for Pete's sake just get all 3!
oklahoma caveman
Member
That is something that I fully intend to do, but on a college students salary (which is paying in to the system, not getting back from) all 3 at this point in time would be an impossibility.
I purchased a Uberti Remington M1858 Revolver
To shoot it required .454 bullets and #11 percussion caps
This revolver showed excellent bluing and polishing. Trigger pull was crisp and light at 2 ½ pounds.
The revolver did not shoot to point of aim, as received, it shot low and to the left at 25 yards. It is much better to have one of these shoot low as you can file the front sight down. Which I did. It shot left because the barrel had not been perfectly turned to center, and the front sight was just slightly right. While this is a defect, I have never seen a replica blackpowder pistol where the sights were mounted correctly. Most are grossly off center. I have a Armi San Palo M1858 that I have never fired because the front sight is pointing at 10 OC. Because the front sight is in a dovetail, I was able to drift it to correct the windage. I was able able to file the front sight to shoot to point of aim at 25 yards.
Colt replicas are the often the worst for not shooting to point of aim and are not correctable for wind age. Often they shoot extraordinary high, like three feet high at 25 yards. This can only be corrected with a taller front sight blade, and I don’t know a source.
I miked the chamber mouths and found that five measured 0.449” and one measured 0.450”. I used .0454” soft lead round balls and did not have any major difficulties ramming the balls. With these front loader revolvers I believe you need to have just a little ring of lead removed from the ball as it is rammed. A tight fit and no any air gaps reduces the chance of flash over ignition.
The pistol shot best with 3F powder. I used a 32 grain nozzle on my flask, and I placed Ox-Yoke wads under the bullet. Ox-Yoke wads do an excellent job in removing powder fouling from the barrel. I highly recommend them. I used to use Crisco over the ball; Crisco will keep the powder fouling moist, but it will make the pistol and the shooter slick with vegetable oil.
The pistol shot accurately, not match accuracy, because the sights are tiny and hard to use, with more careful loading and better sights it may be capable of approaching match accuracy. No one should think that it is a blunderbuss as it shoots as accurately as my Colt factory Series 80 M1911.
The following is a comment on the Remington design. It is clearly superior to any Colt caplock. Firstly most Colts have 12 visible screws. The Remington has six. To access the inner lock works on a Colt you have to remove six screws, three trigger guard screws, one mainspring tension screw, and two back strap screws. On a Remington you have to remove one guard screw, one grip screw, and one mainspring tension screw. The Remington only uses two side plate screws to hold in lock works, the Colt uses three. There is one tiny screw on the Remington cylinder hand that I had to unscrew to remove the hammer and the hand. Maybe there is a trick that I have not figured out yet. Unfortunately, something that is true for all replica actions, most screws are unique, and a couple will be so very similar that it is easy to start them in the incorrect hole.
The cylinder in the Remington design is easily removed by dropping the ramrod and pulling out the cylinder pin. The parts fit is tight and requires jiggling, but it is far better than the Colt. The Colt requires an involved process: First, removal of the barrel wedge. This entails loosening of the wedge screw, and then driving the cylinder wedge out to the side. For me I need a drift in addition to a rawhide mallet. The barrel is usually tight on the cylinder pin, I use the rammer against the cylinder face for leverage. Considering the loss of coordination under stress, the number of hand movements, the number of loose parts involved, it is hard to believe that soldiers in battle exchanged cylinders for a quick reload. I wonder if this is some sort of a myth.
In the seventy rounds I fired, I did not have one exploded cap jam the action. This shows the intelligent design of the Remington. The closed frame prevents a cap from getting between the hammer and the frame. It is not unusual in six shots to have one or more exploded caps come off a Colt nipple and fall in between the hammer and the frame. If a cap falls into the lock works, sometimes it takes needle nosed pliers to clear the debris. If you fire a Colt enough, you will learn to flick your wrist as you cock it, in an attempt to toss the busted cap clear of the revolver.
The Remington nipples are slightly angled outward, making it easier to push a cap on. The Colt nipples are perpendicular to the cylinder. There are notches next to the nipple which are just the right size to clear a capping tool. Depending on the colt replica, you do not have safety notches between the cylinder. The Remington has them.
If you look at your history books, the Remington design carried over to cartridge revolvers with very little changes. The open top Colt went in the ash heap of history.
To shoot it required .454 bullets and #11 percussion caps
This revolver showed excellent bluing and polishing. Trigger pull was crisp and light at 2 ½ pounds.
The revolver did not shoot to point of aim, as received, it shot low and to the left at 25 yards. It is much better to have one of these shoot low as you can file the front sight down. Which I did. It shot left because the barrel had not been perfectly turned to center, and the front sight was just slightly right. While this is a defect, I have never seen a replica blackpowder pistol where the sights were mounted correctly. Most are grossly off center. I have a Armi San Palo M1858 that I have never fired because the front sight is pointing at 10 OC. Because the front sight is in a dovetail, I was able to drift it to correct the windage. I was able able to file the front sight to shoot to point of aim at 25 yards.
Colt replicas are the often the worst for not shooting to point of aim and are not correctable for wind age. Often they shoot extraordinary high, like three feet high at 25 yards. This can only be corrected with a taller front sight blade, and I don’t know a source.
I miked the chamber mouths and found that five measured 0.449” and one measured 0.450”. I used .0454” soft lead round balls and did not have any major difficulties ramming the balls. With these front loader revolvers I believe you need to have just a little ring of lead removed from the ball as it is rammed. A tight fit and no any air gaps reduces the chance of flash over ignition.
The pistol shot best with 3F powder. I used a 32 grain nozzle on my flask, and I placed Ox-Yoke wads under the bullet. Ox-Yoke wads do an excellent job in removing powder fouling from the barrel. I highly recommend them. I used to use Crisco over the ball; Crisco will keep the powder fouling moist, but it will make the pistol and the shooter slick with vegetable oil.
The pistol shot accurately, not match accuracy, because the sights are tiny and hard to use, with more careful loading and better sights it may be capable of approaching match accuracy. No one should think that it is a blunderbuss as it shoots as accurately as my Colt factory Series 80 M1911.
The following is a comment on the Remington design. It is clearly superior to any Colt caplock. Firstly most Colts have 12 visible screws. The Remington has six. To access the inner lock works on a Colt you have to remove six screws, three trigger guard screws, one mainspring tension screw, and two back strap screws. On a Remington you have to remove one guard screw, one grip screw, and one mainspring tension screw. The Remington only uses two side plate screws to hold in lock works, the Colt uses three. There is one tiny screw on the Remington cylinder hand that I had to unscrew to remove the hammer and the hand. Maybe there is a trick that I have not figured out yet. Unfortunately, something that is true for all replica actions, most screws are unique, and a couple will be so very similar that it is easy to start them in the incorrect hole.
The cylinder in the Remington design is easily removed by dropping the ramrod and pulling out the cylinder pin. The parts fit is tight and requires jiggling, but it is far better than the Colt. The Colt requires an involved process: First, removal of the barrel wedge. This entails loosening of the wedge screw, and then driving the cylinder wedge out to the side. For me I need a drift in addition to a rawhide mallet. The barrel is usually tight on the cylinder pin, I use the rammer against the cylinder face for leverage. Considering the loss of coordination under stress, the number of hand movements, the number of loose parts involved, it is hard to believe that soldiers in battle exchanged cylinders for a quick reload. I wonder if this is some sort of a myth.
In the seventy rounds I fired, I did not have one exploded cap jam the action. This shows the intelligent design of the Remington. The closed frame prevents a cap from getting between the hammer and the frame. It is not unusual in six shots to have one or more exploded caps come off a Colt nipple and fall in between the hammer and the frame. If a cap falls into the lock works, sometimes it takes needle nosed pliers to clear the debris. If you fire a Colt enough, you will learn to flick your wrist as you cock it, in an attempt to toss the busted cap clear of the revolver.
The Remington nipples are slightly angled outward, making it easier to push a cap on. The Colt nipples are perpendicular to the cylinder. There are notches next to the nipple which are just the right size to clear a capping tool. Depending on the colt replica, you do not have safety notches between the cylinder. The Remington has them.
If you look at your history books, the Remington design carried over to cartridge revolvers with very little changes. The open top Colt went in the ash heap of history.
SixShootinSam
member
Oh I understand completely Caveman, took me a while as well to get mine. 3 years I believe.
Magwa45
Member
Whatever you like, Slamfire. The Remington is good. I have one. But the old Colts are just beautiful. Wild Bill stuck with his 1851s long after the cap and ball was obsolete.
theotherwaldo
Member
I think that I bought 'em in the right order over the last 33 years. The '58 Remington was a good intro, the '51 Colt was a good addition, the ROA made for a fun digression, and the Walker is great for pushing the edge. More will follow, of course, but I haven't come close to wearing the fun out of any of the ones that I already have.
Old Cannonballs
Member
oklahoma caveman said:
It is the belief of many that the .36 caliber 1851 Colt Navy (it was only ever made in .36 caliber, although there are nowadays .44 caliber versions also available) was the best balanced hand gun ever made. People describe it as being like an extension of their arm, and having very intuitive "pointability." If you ever pick one up in your hand, you'll see what they're talking about. It was Wild Bill Hickock's favorite pistol.
RWBlue01
Member
bump, I had to, it is like watching a 9mm vs 45ACP fight.
RON in PA
Member
Give me an 1851 Navy or 1861 Navy for ergonomics and economy of shooting. My Ubertis shoot very close to point of aim. My experience with Remingtons is that they foul-up quickly and the cylinder becomes very difficult to remove. This was a complaint in the time frame that folks who used these guns for serious business made also.
Palehorseman
Member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2009
- Messages
- 736
I like the Remington for precision accuracy, not so much for one hand shooting. The 1860 Colt is much more practical for me when it comes to point (instinctive) and shoot, it just seems to be a much more balanced natural for that task.
Well...
'51 Navy is a .36 Caliber...and suited for small Hands...and is a different League.
'60 Colt, and the ( always mis-named ) '58 Remington, are .44 Caliber...and suited for medium to medium large Hands.
The '51 is too small a grip for me...while, the '60 Colt and '58 Remington are fine.
If I had to choose between the 1860 Colt, and, the 1858 Remington, it would be a hard choice. Though different from eachother, both are excellent Revolver designs, comfortable, easy to use and manage, and good looking.
'51 Navy is a .36 Caliber...and suited for small Hands...and is a different League.
'60 Colt, and the ( always mis-named ) '58 Remington, are .44 Caliber...and suited for medium to medium large Hands.
The '51 is too small a grip for me...while, the '60 Colt and '58 Remington are fine.
If I had to choose between the 1860 Colt, and, the 1858 Remington, it would be a hard choice. Though different from eachother, both are excellent Revolver designs, comfortable, easy to use and manage, and good looking.
BCRider
Member
I just want to know a little bit more about what this "or" term is all about. I don't remember ever hearing about any "or" when discussing the accumulation of classic BP clone revolvers. Only ever seen "and" or "soon".
Seriously, if you like BP handguns then you NEED at least one of each. I got a brace of Remington clones first but the Colt 1861 is different enough a feel while shooting and looks different enough to fully justify having examples of both in your BP gun collection.
Seriously, if you like BP handguns then you NEED at least one of each. I got a brace of Remington clones first but the Colt 1861 is different enough a feel while shooting and looks different enough to fully justify having examples of both in your BP gun collection.
- Status
Similar threads
