CCW 1860 vs 1858

Status
Not open for further replies.
expat_alaska said:
Neither. Unless either one is the only pistol you own, it is folly to entertain this idea.
Ok..
Well my top break is a double action in 38 SW loaded with smokeless powder(not for training)


In a word, no.



Please don't pretend you are in a spaghetti western with Clint Eastwood or (heaven forbid) Eli Wallach. Carrying a loaded and capped spare cylinder around in a pocket or pouch is not a good idea. Chances for an AD (accidental discharge) are something I would be very leery of.

Jim
Click to expand...
45 Dragoon said:
NEITHER !!!! THE FOLLY OF SUCH!!! LEAVE T.V. WESTERNS TO Hollywood!!! YOU NEED A BOTTOM FEEDER, ANYTHING ELSE IS SURE SUICIDE!!

Don't you hate that?! Some folks just can't stick with the topic, understand the curiosity of the question posed, don't have the ability to stay within proposed parameters, . . . .
I'm pretty sure the question wasn't about -is there anything better than an open top or a Remington . . . .
From what I gathered from the OPs question, which of an open top or Remington would be your choice? Nothing whatsoever about a D.A., semi auto, rocket launcher, grenade, machine gun . . .

So, hoping I'm clear about the question proposed, I'd go with -

The open top if it were a correctly "sorted" revolver and a reload wasn't paramount. With a cap post installed, I wouldn't feel under gunned. (At least for 6 shots worth.)

The Remington if a reload was paramount. An extra cylinder for sure. I'd have a carrier for the cylinder rather than just in my pocket (kinda like those that feel the need for extra mags.)

In fact, I sold my El Patron Comp (my previous "carry") and until I replace it with an "Outlaw Mule" Cattleman, my "accompanying" revolver of choice is either of my .45 Dragoons! That's what I'm most comfortable with and besides still being the most accurate revolvers I've ever owned, a S.A. is second nature to me.


Mike
Click to expand...
 
Ok..
Well my top break is a double action in 38 SW loaded with smokeless powder(not for training)
 
1858 because it has less problem with cap jam.

Sorry guys my colts are pretty and lots of fun but not one of them are reliable as a 58.
 
I have no problems with caps jamming my Colts. I solid faced the hammer with JB Weld or you can send it to the 'Goon' for a permanent solution.

But the Remington is very reliable out of the box.
 
Bagheera said:
If you'd carrying a snubby BP revolver for self defense,
Would you carry a

>Remington1858 (bulldog homemade)OR an
>Avenging Colt 1860 ?
Click to expand...

The Remy will have safety notches (some fit better than others) so that would allow a full load of six chambers.

Many Colt repros do not have safety pins any more and so you usually use an empty chamber as a safety giving you only five shots.

If going with a pocket Colt (five chambers) repro you are then down to four shots.
 
Well both colts n Rem have safety notches n both require a bit of filing n smoothing out some sharp parts..
On my 51 I remember how surprised I was with the sharpness of the hammer..regarding colt n notches,the 1860 is supposed to have them.but I hear u.
Well guys more n more points for that 58 bulldog..I'm gonna be "gunsmithing" this spring:thumbup:
 
Bagheera said:
Well both colts n Rem have safety notches n both require a bit of filing n smoothing out some sharp parts..
On my 51 I remember how surprised I was with the sharpness of the hammer..regarding colt n notches,the 1860 is supposed to have them.but I hear u.
Click to expand...

Sorry to disagree with you but Colt percussion pistols never had "safety notches" on the cylinder, only safety pins between the chambers (with a slot cut into the hammer to engage the pins between chambers which were fairly fragile), to include the Paterson, Walker, Dragoon, Pocket, 1851 Navy, 1860 Army, 1861 Navy, Pocket Police, and Pocket Navy. Only the Rigdon & Ansley and the Manhattan revolvers had 12 cylinder bolt stop-slots insofar as safety notches on the cylinder. I have no idea what you mean insofar as the sharpness of the hammer (whatever that is) having to do with safety notches when they are non-existent on the Colts.

If you are familiar with Confederate copies of Colt 1851 Navies, this is a replica Pietta Rigdon & Ansley .36 pistol that I created. I had a machinist neighbor machine an additional 6 bolt stop-slots on a no-pins Pietta plain cylinder.

This what safety notches are.

Rigdon_And_Ansley_003.jpg

Please stop posting as if you are a teen with a phone with the u for a you, 4 for a for, etc, etc. It is not cute nor does it make you someone that has any experience with this area of knowledge.

I think it would be appreciated by all of us here.
 
Last edited:
What's up Jim,
Well I hear you but when I said safety notches on the colt I was talking about safety pins.
U file em and u recreate a safer wider slot like a Rem.
Although the 58 got wider slots.
I don't remember any on my 51s tho I never mentioned anything else but the question of the hammer.edgy on the sides and sharp on striker where many put some jb.(good God)
But here's another point for the 58 in this conversation..
Btw, Ringo is really nice but I posted the same thread and people lost their minds..:scrutiny:
Calling me a survivalist n stuff.
Lmao..
I had to make them understand they're too french for me.:alien:
A gun is a piece of art and technology but for them I think it's about it..
I think my question isn't an irrelevant one..
Back to colts..mmmyeahh,
no practical safety thus the eternal should u load 5 or 6..:cool:
Btw nice piece.
 
So we agree right,How do you make them,u file the slot to make it a notch?
Or are you talking about creating em from scratch?
 
Bagheera said:
So we agree right,How do you make them,u file the slot to make it a notch?
Or are you talking about creating em from scratch?
Click to expand...

You drill a small hole and add a pin. It’s much the same as the cap rake he installs.
 
Swhat I thought but he made me doubt.also send me to a french grandpa's french forum for black powder collectors.
o_O:scrutiny:
Just one thing,it ain't because you ask infos bout guns that you never shot, trained or have a logical awareness and defensive mentality, and the skills that goes with it.
U know Alaska , using the word" gunsmithing" wasn't to challenge ur ego..
But hey,each one his own..
 
rodwha said:
I’ve never handled a Colt revolver before so my thoughts are likely a bit uninformed. I do have a Remington NMA and ROA and feel the NMA would do nicely, especially if a new front sight were installed as I’d wonder about it snagging. The hammer on the Colt also seems more prone to snagging as possibly the wedge.

Reloads? Not likely. Most encounters, I’d think, wouldn’t be with such determined foes. Most people fear being shot and would either back down or run when a shot is fired. But if one is in that sort of situation a preloaded NMA cylinder would be quick and easy.

I’d think an Uberti Colt Police would make for a better CCW weapon, though you’d be trading .45 ACP performance for about .380 ACP performance. But then again most people don’t want to be shot and just having it would likely defuse the situation (unless you owe the drug dealer, pissed off the biker or local thug).
Click to expand...

Hey Rodwa do you got a mail ;)
 
The 1862 was my first Colt Style Revolver (another loss to my "great gun theft"). Up until then I had Remington Style. My observations were that the colt was easier to swap cylinders. The Remington pin would get too stuck to easily remove. I could push the wedge out with my hand and quickly reload.

That being said, I recently got a 1860 army. It is extremely hard to push the wedge out, and that is using a hammer and a punch. If that is the exposure that people have to Colt style, I can understand saying that it is hard to swap cylinders. I am thinking that I might thin out the spring in the wedge. I think that spring is a large source of the problems I am having with it. If you have only used an 1860, try the 1862, it is a totally different revolver.

As others have mentioned, the Colt Style revolvers have very small pins on the flats, between the caps, that serve as safety notches.

I will admit it, I was a dumb kid, that 1862 was my carry gun for several years. It saw a lot of general pinking and belt use when I was out riding my motorcycle in the National Forest. I will point out that this was in the 80's. To give you an idea to the attitudes in Northern California, my father contacted the Sheriff's department to make sure my revolver was OK, they told him that all I needed to carry was a letter from him stating that I had permission to carry the revolver and everything was fine.
 
Last edited:
Hasaf said:
The 1862 was my first Colt Style Revolver (another loss to my "great gun theft"). Up until then I had Remington Style. My observations were that the colt was easier to swap cylinders. The Remington pin would get to stuck to easily remove. I could push the wedge out with my hand and quickly reload.

That being said, I recently got a 1860 army. It is extremely hard to push the wedge out, and that is using a hammer and a punch. If that is the exposure that people have to Colt style, I can understand saying that it is hard to swap cylinders. the I am thinking that I might thin out the spring in the wedge. I think that spring is a large source of the problems I am having with it. If you have only used an 1860, try the 1862, it is a totally different revolver.

As others have mentioned, the Colt Style revolvers have very small pins on the flats, between the caps, that serve as safety notches.

I will admit it, I was a dumb kid, that 1862 was my carry gun for several years. It saw a lot of general pinking and belt use when I was out riding my motorcycle in the National Forest. I will point out that this was in the 80's. To give you an idea to the attitudes in Northern California, my father contacted the Sheriff's department to make sure my revolver was OK, they told him that all I needed to carry was a letter from him stating that I had permission to carry the revolver and everything was fine.
Click to expand...

Nononono I can't let you say colts swap cylinders easier n quicker than Remington 58 without saying nothing..
With training I think the cylinder switch can be done in less than 5 to 7 seconds
 
My base pin is was never difficult to pull. The cylinder would begin to bind by the third cylinder full. Ballistol on the base pin fixed that for me. However the base pin shouldn’t be so fouled after just one cylinder to pull easily. Then again I’ve not used a dirtier BP so maybe that could also be a part of the issue.
 
Bagheera said:
Nononono I can't let you say colts swap cylinders easier n quicker than Remington 58 without saying nothing..
With training I think the cylinder change can be done in less than 5 to 7 seconds
Click to expand...


I think it comes down to the individual revolver, as I mentioned, this current 1860 is close to impossible to swap in the field. The Remington was fine for the first replacement; but after shooting a couple of cylinders it became close to impossible to remove the pin.

If you had the bright (stupid) idea of shooting several cylinders, reloading them on the gun, and not removing the cylinders at all you would see the next problem. I had several instances that the pin was so solidly stuck that I had to disassemble the revolver, then take a punch and hammer the pin out from behind.

You might prefer the Remington style, both are good. I just would not want to leave a new BP revolver shooter thinking that the Colt has no merit. The being said, the 1860 is very different than the 1862 that I had. I handed the 1860 to the teacher, at my school, that teaches Civil War. He was shocked by how heavy it is. As stated, the 60 and the 62 are very different.
 
Hasaf

I have a Remington New Model Navy that I like because with the shorter barrel it gives the gun a very solid, center weight feeling. The Colt Model 1860 is noticeably different with a much more linear feel to it; like that long barrel makes for a balanced counterweight for the rest of the gun.

Q2bKHss.jpg

A0d5wpn.jpg
 
Hasaf said:
I recently got a 1860 army. It is extremely hard to push the wedge out, and that is using a hammer and a punch. If that is the exposure that people have to Colt style, I can understand saying that it is hard to swap cylinders. I am thinking that I might thin out the spring in the wedge. I think that spring is a large source of the problems I am having with it. If you have only used an 1860, try the 1862, it is a totally different revolver.
Click to expand...

I have all Pietta 1851 Navy .36 "type" pistols (6). You did not say who the manufacturer of your 1860 Army is.

Piettas do not have short arbors in relation to the arbor recess hole in the barrel lug, so no matter if you push the wedge into place using just your hands or you use a mallet to seat it, the barrel/cylinder gap will not change.

Ubertis are known for having short arbors, so the depth of the wedge can alter the B/C gap.

One of my 1851 pistols had a very tight wedge fit so I judiciously used 1200 grit paper to narrow it (front-to-back) to allow the spring lip to clear the barrel lug on the right side.

I would not advise modifying the thickness of the wedge spring other than polishing the spring "lip" where it meets the right side of the barrel lug.

Just my $.02 worth.

Jim
 
rodwha said:
You drill a small hole and add a pin. It’s much the same as the cap rake he installs.
Click to expand...

I think there is a language/knowledge problem with Bagheera and the rest of us. The safety pins are between the chambers on the rear of the cylinder that engage a slot in the hammer. The Rigdon and Ansley/Manhattan revolvers used 12 stop slots on the cylinder (6 of which were between chambers that engaged the bolt) and was a more secure system as opposed to the safety pins.

Rodwha, you are referring to a single pin installed on the frame between the modified hammer and the cylinder nipples as a cap rake, which Mike/.45 Dragoon does with excellence. Not the same as the Colt safety pins or the R&A/Manhattan cylinder safety "notches"/extra bolt slots.

I am not sure Bagheera understands this.

Jim
 
Actually I meant installing pins into the back of the cylinder just as with the Colt designs that have them. It can easily be done.

At times I have issues following who knows what I think.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

E
  • Locked
First black powder pistol.
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
45 Dragoon
45 Dragoon
T
  • Locked
1858 Remington for molding hosters needed
Replies
14
Views
2K
Tallbald
T
Gordon
  • Locked
.36 revolvers for me !
Replies
11
Views
1K
bannockburn
bannockburn
S
  • Locked
1858 Conversion Cylinder
Replies
22
Views
4K
Redsport91
R
D
  • Locked
1858 Remington Revolver Questions
Replies
20
Views
3K
Manyirons
M
Back
Top