which is better/1858 or 1860

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'.

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

Both

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

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.

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I admit that the Remington is the more "modern" of the two with its top strap, fixed rear sight groove, and easily-withdrawn cylinder base pin, I personally prefer the 1860.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.

It's mostly a matter of personal preference. Pick the one that stirs your soul the most. Get the other later.

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

I prefer Colt's. Remingtons don't fit my hand, are prone to binding up, and are harder to disassemble and clean IMNSHO

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mary Ann.

Indeed. The things that woman could do with coconuts........

and for the other comparison, Geanie.

and Morticia Adams for that other one.

-kBob

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.

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!

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

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.

oldpapps said:

...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...

Click to expand...

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

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'.

Straw Hat,

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

-kBob

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.