1860 Army?
- Thread starter Bullet
- Start date
- Status
Hi,
The 1860 Army is a good start, it is a great and very matured design. Sleek lines, good balance.
But it is not a bullseye gun, for serious target work, buy a Remington or Rogers and Spencer replica.
For plinking, CAS, and reenactment, the 1860 is fine.
I have an Uberti, which is quite good in quality (although not perfect), I am able to hold 5 shots within 3" from 25 meters. (20 grain FFFg + .454 round ball).
The 1860 Army is a good start, it is a great and very matured design. Sleek lines, good balance.
But it is not a bullseye gun, for serious target work, buy a Remington or Rogers and Spencer replica.
For plinking, CAS, and reenactment, the 1860 is fine.
I have an Uberti, which is quite good in quality (although not perfect), I am able to hold 5 shots within 3" from 25 meters. (20 grain FFFg + .454 round ball).
RobW
Member
Most important: buy something with a STEEL frame, not brass! The Rogers & Spencer has the smoothest trigger of them all, and felt recoil is very much less than that of a Remington, or even a Colt Navy .36 cal!
In my opinion, the .36 are fine target revolvers. You can consider a Colt 1861 (like the 1860 but just in .36). I like my 1851 Navy.
As for the brand, nearly everyone agrees that Uberti is 1st notch (Uberti belongs to Beretta), with Pietta following at their heels.
Be careful! That stuff is addictive! I just wanted to try it out and bought a 1851 Navy, now I have a Remington New Army, a Rogers and Spencer, and a Lyman Great Plains Rifle, the next will be...
In my opinion, the .36 are fine target revolvers. You can consider a Colt 1861 (like the 1860 but just in .36). I like my 1851 Navy.
As for the brand, nearly everyone agrees that Uberti is 1st notch (Uberti belongs to Beretta), with Pietta following at their heels.
Be careful! That stuff is addictive! I just wanted to try it out and bought a 1851 Navy, now I have a Remington New Army, a Rogers and Spencer, and a Lyman Great Plains Rifle, the next will be...
captain obvious
Member
Loads of fun, controllable in .44, just take care to watch your front sight - i accidentally banged mine on a pistol bench at the range, and it knocked it off.
mainmech48
Member
For me, no other repro revolver fits my hand as well as the 1860. I have both Piettas and Ubertis, with a slight edge going to the Ubertis for overall quality of fit and finish. FWIW, there's a not inconsiderable difference in retail pricing between the two so that's to be expected.
Accuracy is pretty much a toss-up, as they all do their best with different combinations of ingredients, and the biggest limiting factor is me. Both are likely capable of better than I can hold them for on any given day.
With a little care, either flavor of Colt or Remington C&B will give you many years of fun.
Accuracy is pretty much a toss-up, as they all do their best with different combinations of ingredients, and the biggest limiting factor is me. Both are likely capable of better than I can hold them for on any given day.
With a little care, either flavor of Colt or Remington C&B will give you many years of fun.
Smokin_Gun
Member
Do yourself a Favor 1858 New Army .44
The 1860 is Great lookin and well balanced. If you want an accurate reliable revolver and period correct. Get an 1858 New Army Remington.44. I have had quite a few BP handguns and you can't beat the 1858. Now Pietta vs Uberti in price, I'd have to say that a Pietta for $164.99 at Cabelas is conciderably less than a Uberti at Dixie Gun Works for $249.90. I would suggest going to EMF http://www.emf-company.com/ and getting one of their Hartford series revolvers, I think the 1860 and the 1858 are about $189.90. They seem to have better grades of Pietta as they are a major importer. Hope this helps.
The 1860 is Great lookin and well balanced. If you want an accurate reliable revolver and period correct. Get an 1858 New Army Remington.44. I have had quite a few BP handguns and you can't beat the 1858. Now Pietta vs Uberti in price, I'd have to say that a Pietta for $164.99 at Cabelas is conciderably less than a Uberti at Dixie Gun Works for $249.90. I would suggest going to EMF http://www.emf-company.com/ and getting one of their Hartford series revolvers, I think the 1860 and the 1858 are about $189.90. They seem to have better grades of Pietta as they are a major importer. Hope this helps.
The Ruger has all the modern fixings and should be more trouble-free than any replica. Coil springs and extra heavy lock work really do mean something. I took a pound off the trigger pull by clipping a coil off the trigger return spring
Mine has definate load preferences but is very accurate with the fairly nice selection of loads that it likes. We've been shooting several Uberti 1860 Armys- One of them is a stainless Colt Re-issue but still made by Uberti. All have been accurate, reasonably reliable and most pleasant to shoot. We also have a couple of envelops full of spare parts just in case. With the Ruger, any unlikely repairs would be handled very efficiently by the Ruger factory.
Mine has definate load preferences but is very accurate with the fairly nice selection of loads that it likes. We've been shooting several Uberti 1860 Armys- One of them is a stainless Colt Re-issue but still made by Uberti. All have been accurate, reasonably reliable and most pleasant to shoot. We also have a couple of envelops full of spare parts just in case. With the Ruger, any unlikely repairs would be handled very efficiently by the Ruger factory.
Last edited:
Thanks Mec
After a little reading it sounds like Uberti is a great company. Ruger makes a great BP pistol but you pay a little more$$. One thing, it looks like you have adjustable sights, the one on sale for 290 is fixed...
Ill keep looking around and try to decide on one
After a little reading it sounds like Uberti is a great company. Ruger makes a great BP pistol but you pay a little more$$. One thing, it looks like you have adjustable sights, the one on sale for 290 is fixed...
Ill keep looking around and try to decide on one
The fixed sighted models are relatively new. Some matches in the Cowboy action game and maybe others require fixed sights. Probably an attempt to keep the events on an even playing field for the traditional revolvers. When the first adjustable sighted New Armies came out they drove the traditional shooters out of the game. Now, they have fixed sighted ones to carry the equipment race to the remaining matches.
Father Knows Best
Member
The Ruger Old Army is the one to get for reliable, trouble-free shooting. It's expensive, however, and not at all "authentic." It's a modern cap-and-ball sixgun that just kinda looks sorta mebbe a little sumthin like a Remington New Model Army.
In the replica category, the big three are the 1851 Colt Navy, 1860 Colt Army and the Remington New Model Army (often referred to as the model 1858, which is a misnomer -- it actually came out in 1862 or 1863).
All three have their advantages and disadvantages. The 1851 Colt is a real classic. It was one of the first true personal handguns that worked, and it worked well. They were made by the hundreds of thousands. Wild Bill Hickock carried and used a pair to legendary effect. They are extremely well balanced. The .36 caliber (actually .375) ball is very soft shooting and gets good velocity.
The 1860 Army Colt is just a beautiful pistol. The smooth lines of the loading lever are a sight to behold. It is more powerful (.44 caliber -- actually .451) and its larger grip frame fits many shooters' hands better.
Both of the Colts have open top frames. The advantage is that they are very tolerant of fouling and take down easily for cleaning. Just remove the wedge and the major pieces (barrel, cylinder, frame) come apart. You can easily clean the barrel from the breach end.
The disadvantages of the open top Colts are: (1) the wedges tend to loosen over time, especially under heavy loads; (2) they are inherently weaker than full framed guns; and (3) the rear sight is a notch in the hammer, which is necessarily tiny and susceptible to movement or damage.
The Remington NMA with its distinctive wedge-shaped loading lever and top-strap frame was revolutionary. The replicas can be somewhat sensitive to fouling between the cylinder and frame, however. They are large pistols, like the 1860 Army. The grip frame has a different shape, however, that you may or may not like. I have large hands and find that the Remingtons fit my hands better than the Colts, but people with smaller hands tend to prefer the Colts (especially the 1851 Colts).
In terms of manufacturers/brands, Ubertis used to be considerably better than Piettas, but the Piettas I've seen in the last few years seem to be as well made as the Ubertis. I have had the pleasure of meeting Alessandro Pietta, and he told me that his company has indeed made great strides in quality control. That being the case, I no longer see any reason to pay a premium for Uberti-made guns. You will still find some from both Pietta and Uberti that didn't get the attention they should have had, but the odds of getting a good one seem about equal for both companies.
In the replica category, the big three are the 1851 Colt Navy, 1860 Colt Army and the Remington New Model Army (often referred to as the model 1858, which is a misnomer -- it actually came out in 1862 or 1863).
All three have their advantages and disadvantages. The 1851 Colt is a real classic. It was one of the first true personal handguns that worked, and it worked well. They were made by the hundreds of thousands. Wild Bill Hickock carried and used a pair to legendary effect. They are extremely well balanced. The .36 caliber (actually .375) ball is very soft shooting and gets good velocity.
The 1860 Army Colt is just a beautiful pistol. The smooth lines of the loading lever are a sight to behold. It is more powerful (.44 caliber -- actually .451) and its larger grip frame fits many shooters' hands better.
Both of the Colts have open top frames. The advantage is that they are very tolerant of fouling and take down easily for cleaning. Just remove the wedge and the major pieces (barrel, cylinder, frame) come apart. You can easily clean the barrel from the breach end.
The disadvantages of the open top Colts are: (1) the wedges tend to loosen over time, especially under heavy loads; (2) they are inherently weaker than full framed guns; and (3) the rear sight is a notch in the hammer, which is necessarily tiny and susceptible to movement or damage.
The Remington NMA with its distinctive wedge-shaped loading lever and top-strap frame was revolutionary. The replicas can be somewhat sensitive to fouling between the cylinder and frame, however. They are large pistols, like the 1860 Army. The grip frame has a different shape, however, that you may or may not like. I have large hands and find that the Remingtons fit my hands better than the Colts, but people with smaller hands tend to prefer the Colts (especially the 1851 Colts).
In terms of manufacturers/brands, Ubertis used to be considerably better than Piettas, but the Piettas I've seen in the last few years seem to be as well made as the Ubertis. I have had the pleasure of meeting Alessandro Pietta, and he told me that his company has indeed made great strides in quality control. That being the case, I no longer see any reason to pay a premium for Uberti-made guns. You will still find some from both Pietta and Uberti that didn't get the attention they should have had, but the odds of getting a good one seem about equal for both companies.
Father Knows Best
Member
An interesting historical tidbit for you -- after the Civil War, Union troops were allowed to purchase their pistols from the U.S. Government when they were discharged. I forget the exact numbers, but I know that something like three times as many 1860 Colts were issued as were Remington New Model Armies. Despite that great numerical advantage for the Colts, far more soldiers elected to purchase Remingtons than did Colts. In other words the soldiers who had been issued Remingtons were something like 5 or 6 times as likely to purchase their issue revolver as were the soldiers issued Colts. That should tell you a little something about how well the Remington worked.
I like Colts, but I'm a Remmie man at heart.
I like Colts, but I'm a Remmie man at heart.
Father Knows Best
Member
+1. The only good reason I'm aware of for shooting conicals in a cap-and-ball is hunting. If you're hunting, you probably shouldn't be doing it with an 1860, anyway. The Ruger Old Army is by far a better choice. It will handle conicals and heavy loads with ease.
Of course, if all you have is an 1860, then yes, you can do it. Don't go too heavy on the powder charge, though. Stay away from Triple Seven.
Of course, if all you have is an 1860, then yes, you can do it. Don't go too heavy on the powder charge, though. Stay away from Triple Seven.
Thanx, I'd better take .451 round balls
But I thought conicals have increased accuracy and they are more disruptive. In my hunter's shot-gun long conical bullets are better than simple round balls. Maybe this rule doesn't work for BP revolvers.
But I thought conicals have increased accuracy and they are more disruptive. In my hunter's shot-gun long conical bullets are better than simple round balls. Maybe this rule doesn't work for BP revolvers.JNewell
Member
Any theories on why round balls would be more accurate? Logically, I would have thought it was the other way around. Never understood that...
the usual saw is that the bullets don't fit the rammer heads closely enough for uniform seating in the chambers. This may be why the lees and particularly the buffalo work pretty well. The have rounded noses and seem to seat without much distortion. I know it's pretty easy to seat one of the sharp pointed replica mound bullets off center. I've shot some groups with those that tried to be good but usually one or two would fly several inches out of the main group.
mainmech48
Member
IIRC, Uberti is now part of the Benelli/Beretta conglomerate. Nearly all of the Italian outfits have made huge investments in CAD and CNC equipment in the last couple of years, and their products are beginning to reflect it. Good news for us.
Ditto on the Buffalo conicals being closest to swaged RBs in consistent accuracy. I've used quite a few of the cast repros from Dixie which duplicate the designs originally offered from the Colt and Remington factories as molds and paper cartridges out of curiousity. While they are harder to keep concentric when you seat them (a major reason for spotty accuracy, IMO) they do tend to shoot closer to POA for elevation than RBs, IME. Makes me wonder if the sights on originals weren't regulated with CBs in mind.
For "social" purposes, conicals have an arguable edge over RBs due to extra mass and potential wounding effect. The differences in accuracy might not have been as pronounced when compared to the typical DIY cast balls of the day where voids and inconsistent symmetry would've been many times more likely than they are the stuff from modern molds. Swaged RBs and bullets today make it kind of an "apples and oranges" thing, as it's almost impossible to get that level of consistency in a DIY casting on a regular basis.
Ditto on the Buffalo conicals being closest to swaged RBs in consistent accuracy. I've used quite a few of the cast repros from Dixie which duplicate the designs originally offered from the Colt and Remington factories as molds and paper cartridges out of curiousity. While they are harder to keep concentric when you seat them (a major reason for spotty accuracy, IMO) they do tend to shoot closer to POA for elevation than RBs, IME. Makes me wonder if the sights on originals weren't regulated with CBs in mind.
For "social" purposes, conicals have an arguable edge over RBs due to extra mass and potential wounding effect. The differences in accuracy might not have been as pronounced when compared to the typical DIY cast balls of the day where voids and inconsistent symmetry would've been many times more likely than they are the stuff from modern molds. Swaged RBs and bullets today make it kind of an "apples and oranges" thing, as it's almost impossible to get that level of consistency in a DIY casting on a regular basis.
Zeke/PA
Member
Father Knowes Best beat me to the punch on this one stating the true values of the Ruger Old Army.
I own eleven handguns which I'll admit do not get shot with any regularlity,BUT, shooting a home cast .457 round ball over 30grs of fff/g the Old Army is without a doubt the most accurate handgun in my arsenal.
If you wish to stay authentic, and want a good revolver , consider a clone of the 1858 Remington.
Respectfully, Zeke
I own eleven handguns which I'll admit do not get shot with any regularlity,BUT, shooting a home cast .457 round ball over 30grs of fff/g the Old Army is without a doubt the most accurate handgun in my arsenal.
If you wish to stay authentic, and want a good revolver , consider a clone of the 1858 Remington.
Respectfully, Zeke
The main complaint against the Remington in the service was that fired caps tended to jam the action, where in a Colt the gun could be turned over and shaken to get rid of them. The cavalry go so much into the habit of bringing the revolver back over the shoulder and shaking it while cocking it that they continued to do that well into the cartridge era.
Jim
Jim
Jim Keenan:
Yup, and there are still folks that throw a six-shooter upward and bakwards in Arizona. Learned to do it that way from Pap and Grand-Pap. By the way that's where the term, "throw down" came from, as in ... "I saw he was going to shoot so I threw down on him."
Another reason that Colt's were sometimes more popular then Remington's is because the topstrap keeps black powder fouling from blowing clear between the cylinder face and barrel, causing the cylinder to bind after 18 shots or so.
Yup, and there are still folks that throw a six-shooter upward and bakwards in Arizona. Learned to do it that way from Pap and Grand-Pap. By the way that's where the term, "throw down" came from, as in ... "I saw he was going to shoot so I threw down on him."
Another reason that Colt's were sometimes more popular then Remington's is because the topstrap keeps black powder fouling from blowing clear between the cylinder face and barrel, causing the cylinder to bind after 18 shots or so.
I looked high and low for a ballistic coefficient value for the .454 round ball. Finally somebody found .065 in a ballistic program data base. The BC of a 200 grain RN conical bullet seems to be about .14- or close enough for government work. With these, I ran some numbers based on velocities I had gotten with both projectiles in replicas.
Ball Velocity Energy Flight time to target
muzzle 1050 fps 343 ft/lb 00000 seconds
25 yards 971 293 .074
50 yards 911 258 .154
75 yards 861 238 .239
Bullet
Muzzle 850 321 00000
25 yards 830 306 .090
50 yards 810 291 .181
75 yards 791 278 .274
I kind of don't think the end-recipient of these missles would be able to tell the difference in the terminal energies out at 75 yards and have stopped worrying about the greater flight efficiency of the bullets.
Ball Velocity Energy Flight time to target
muzzle 1050 fps 343 ft/lb 00000 seconds
25 yards 971 293 .074
50 yards 911 258 .154
75 yards 861 238 .239
Bullet
Muzzle 850 321 00000
25 yards 830 306 .090
50 yards 810 291 .181
75 yards 791 278 .274
I kind of don't think the end-recipient of these missles would be able to tell the difference in the terminal energies out at 75 yards and have stopped worrying about the greater flight efficiency of the bullets.
- Status
