Colt .44 vs. Remington

[Lone Star]

I gather that it's generally conceded that Remington's New Model Army .44 would foul sooner than the Colt M1860 Army .44.

But how soon does the Remington gum up to where it becomes difficult to operate?

How many shots could a Civil War soldier fire before he had trouble?

If Remingtons were so bad, why were more supposedly sold to soldiers leaving the service than were Colts?

Anyone know?

Lone Star

 

[RON in PA]

The problem I've had with the Remington has been with the cylinder pin becoming almost impossible to remove after two cylinders of shots. I always try to remove the cylinder after six shots and do some cleaning to prevent this. I don't know how many cylinders I can shoot in a Colt replica, but it's lots. I would want a Colt if I was living in 1860, even with the lousy sights.

As far as more Remingtons being sold to discharged soldiers maybe it was due to the fact that due to a fire at the Colt factory and higher prices the Army acquired mostly Remingtons in 1863, 64 and 65. There were just more available at the end of the war. From what I have read, the preferred revolver during the Civil War was the Colt.

 

[Old Fuff]

I think Ron is right. At least one officer protested after the war that he didn't want Remington's converted to use cartridges, he wanted Colts. He then listed various problems, the most pressing being that they started to hang up after several cylinder loads. I suspect that during the war officers didn't fire *a* revolver that much during an engagement. Usually they only carried enough ammunition for six reloads (that's cartridges, not cylinders).

It was the practice of "irregular forces" (read that Quantrill's Raiders among others) to carry a large number of revolvers - up to ten on the person and/or horse - to keep up a running fight without having to reload.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

whelp, after 60 rounds through my remington, the cylinder became a little harder to turn, and the frame turned gray. both of those were fixed after a good cleaning.


I don't really inderstand why people preferred colts, as they were more complicated, had worse sights, and were open frame. IMHO, the remington is a far superior fightin' gun.

 

[Gunhamr]

One reason the Colt was preferred was that the cylinders could be exchanged much easier than the Rem. Many troopers carried extra cylinders charged with powder and bullets and changed cylinders when empty. My personal preference when shooting in the N-SSA was the Rem. 58 because of the better sighting system. I still don't like the idea of the rear sight being a notch on the cocked hammer.

 

[Jim K]

One problem the Remington had is that fired caps would drop into the action and could not be gotten out easily. With the Colt, it was only necessary to turn the gun upside down and shake it.

Jim

 

[Gunhamr]

Many shooters use the wrong size cap on the Remingtons. The proper size is No. 10 but a lot of shooters use the No. 11 because of the availability and some even pinch them between the fingers to make them fit the nipple tighter. No. 10 fits tight and will not bounce off under recoil.
This will also usually cure the split and fall into the action problem.
Remington still produces the No. 10 cap and I still buy and use them.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

One reason the Colt was preferred was that the cylinders could be exchanged much easier than the Rem.

on the colt, you have to drive out a wedge, and remove the barrel to exchange cylenders.

on the remington, you lower the loading lever, pull the center pin, and the cylinder falls out. everything's captured and there's nothing to lose.

 

[Jim K]

Hi, Gunhamr,

True in modern terms, but in the old days the caps were split caps which almost always blew right apart and fell off the nipple as soon as the hammer was cocked. It was those caps that fell into the gap in front of the hammer if the revolver was not turned over while cocking.

Jim