Colt Single Action Design Question

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

I must say, I agree with just about everything Mke Beliveau said. Mike is the Black Powder editor of one of the fancy gun magazines, I don't recall exactly which one right now.

Let's make one thing clear. Everything Mike said has direct bearing on cartridge revolvers, so there is no reason this post should be moved to the Black Powder section of this forum.

Think back to what Mike said about grip shapes. At the bottom of this photo is a modern replica of a Remington Model 1858 Cap and Ball revolver. (Yes, it has a cartridge conversion cylinder mounted in it, but that does not affect the grip shape.) Look how little space there is between the grip of the Cap and Ball revolver and the rear of the trigger guard. I completely agree with MIke that because there is so little space between the grip and the trigger guard, that revolver is an excellent knuckle whacker. In particular, the knuckle of the index finger behind the trigger guard. Now look at how much extra space there is between the trigger guard and the grip of the Model 1875 Remington at the top of the photo. That is not a replica, that is an original Model 1875 Remington.






Now compare the space behind the trigger guard of the Remington at the top of the photo to a Colt Single Action Army at the bottom of the photo. Again, that is a real Colt, not a replica. I completely agree with MIke that Remington went overboard with the shape of the grip, and put a little bit too much space behind the trigger guard. I agree with Mike that ergonomically, long before the science of ergonomics existed, Colt got it right. Nothing points like a Colt.






Now let's look for a moment at the Smith and Wesson Top Breaks Mike was talking about. Working our way up from the bottom is a Russian 2nd Model, a Schofield, and a New Model Number Three. These are all originals, not modern replicas. First off is that abominable pointy hump on the grip of the Russian model. Mike was calling it a pawl I believe. I have always heard it referred to as a knuckle. Mike is absolutely correct about the purpose of that feature. The Russians wanted it there specifically so the grip would not slip in the hand during recoil. The big hump does an excellent job of that, the grip does not budge in recoil. But now I want to point out the hammer spurs on all three of these revolvers. Notice how short they are, and that they all point up, rather than back. I can tell you for a fact that with the Russian model I cannot reach the hammer spur with my thumb unless I shift my grip on the gun and place the palm of my hand against the pointy part of the grip. Then I have to regrip to get my palm back under the pointy part. If I don't and pull the trigger with my palm in contact with the pointy knuckle, it hurts when the revolver recoils, even with a mild recoiling cartridge such as 44 Russian. For this reason I always tell shooters not to buy a replica Russian model if they want a replica S&W Top Break. In the middle is a Schofield. Easily identified by the serpentine shaped latch mounted to the side or the frame. Again, Mike is correct. Major Schofield patented his latch design and S&W had to pay him a royalty of $.50 for every Schofield revolver they produced. Daniel Wesson directed his engineers to design an alternative latch that would get around Schofield's patent, but the Schofield model was only produced from 1875 through 1877 and only about 9,000 were ever produced. So the redesign of the Shofield latch never happened. At the top of the photo is a New Model Number Three, first cataloged in 1878. I disagree slightly with Mike, I think the NM#3 was the best of the big #3 Top Breaks, but we differ slightly on that. Notice the grip shape of the NM#3 has a much smaller knuckle than the Russian model. I can shoot both the Schofiield or the NM#3 all day long. Neither is punishing in recoil, and I do allow the grips to rotate in my hand during recoil, which brings the hammer spur closer to my thumb so I can reach it. Then I regrip slightly to get my palm down where I want it.






So talking ergonomics again, here is a Colt Single Action Army at the top of the photo and a Schofield Model at the bottom. Look how different the ergonomics are. The Colt shape is just about perfect, in my humble opinion. Notice how much bigger the Colt hammer spur is. Really easy to grab. Then too, notice how much less metal there is in front of the cylinder of the Colt compared to the Schofield. All that iron (yes, the Schofield frame was iron, not steel) in front of the cylinder of the Schofield makes it muzzle heavy. The 7 1/2" barrel of the Colt does not make it anywhere near as muzzle heavy as the Smith.






So other than my preference for the New Model Number Three instead of the Schofield, I completely agree with Mike. The Colt simply handles better than all the others.

Of course it did not hurt that Colt had a two year jump on Remington. The SAA came out in 1873. The Remington came out in 1875.

 

[Mosin77]

IMHO the Remington 1858 gets a lot of accolades today for a couple of reasons.

A great deal of these are probably sold to re-enactors. In a highly choreographed battle scene put on for the enjoyment of the men and the watching spectators, it’s not much fun, and also not too practical, to stop your charge and crouch down in the field to laboriously reload your piece. The Remington allows cylinder swaps more easily than the Colt, but moreover, the Remington lends itself to the modern conversion cylinder. When you’re putting on a show, cartridges make your life a lot easier. And the top strap gives a bit of psychological “insurance,” (more like assurance really) that the gun is “stronger,” in the event of some kind of mischance. The other main reason seems to be that people say the Remington doesn’t have an issue with loose caps jamming up the works the way the Colt can. This is much more of an issue with modern reproductions + modern caps + possibly less than proactive shooters who don’t take the time to iron out their gun and make sure caps fit right.

 

[CraigC]

I must say, I agree with just about everything Mke Beliveau said.

I hadn't heard Mike's opinion on this before now but it would seem that I agree with both of you. The added room behind the triggerguard is my biggest complaint about the Remington 1875/1890 cartridge guns. IMHO, they swung and missed with that one. It's not that the Remington is bad but that the Colt is 'that' good. I will always contend that William Mason has never received the proper credit for his masterpiece, the Colt Single Action Army.

Then with the 1873 Army model it went back to the Navy grip configuration which seems to be favored by most.

I don't know why. I've always found the 1860 Army to be a near perfect sixgun and no small part of that is the grip frame. Which is why the Open Top is one of my favorite sixguns extant.

 

[BobWright]

Why was the Colt so popular? The answer is Sam Colt himself. Colt was a promoter, not only of his guns, but of himself. He saw to it that the name Colt was kept to the forefront. Even letters to newspapers praising Colt revolvers, were found to be written by Ol' Sam himself, using different aliases.

First of all, Colt revolvers were serviceable, reliable, and accurate. And, in the hands of many men during Army service, they were well known. A good product plus good promotion of brand name recognition = success.

Bob Wright

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Why was the Colt so popular? The answer is Sam Colt himself. Colt was a promoter, not only of his guns, but of himself. He saw to it that the name Colt was kept to the forefront. Even letters to newspapers praising Colt revolvers, were found to be written by Ol' Sam himself, using different aliases.

Howdy Bob

I agree, Sam Colt was a master promoter. Let's not forget the years between the introduction of the Paterson Colt and the Walker Colt, when he pretty much was running a medicine show and promoting himself as "the Celebrated Dr. Coult of New-York, London and Calcutta".

But Colt died in 1862 at the age of 47 from complications of gout, 11 years before the Single Action Army was made.

 

[BobWright]

Howdy Bob

I agree, Sam Colt was a master promoter. Let's not forget the years between the introduction of the Paterson Colt and the Walker Colt, when he pretty much was running a medicine show and promoting himself as "the Celebrated Dr. Coult of New-York, London and Calcutta".

But Colt died in 1862 at the age of 47 from complications of gout, 11 years before the Single Action Army was made.

True, Sam Colt died, but the name, and reputation, lived on. Names like Stetson, Levi's, Winchester, and Colt lived on to the benefit of the manufacturers.

While Sam Colt died before the introduction of the Single Action Army, the grip was introduced in the 1851 Navy model. What input he might have had on that grip I'm not sure, but he did call the plowhandle grip "the grip that fits every hand."

Bob Wright

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

IMHO the Remington 1858 gets a lot of accolades today for a couple of reasons.

A great deal of these are probably sold to re-enactors. In a highly choreographed battle scene put on for the enjoyment of the men and the watching spectators, it’s not much fun, and also not too practical, to stop your charge and crouch down in the field to laboriously reload your piece. The Remington allows cylinder swaps more easily than the Colt, but moreover, the Remington lends itself to the modern conversion cylinder. When you’re putting on a show, cartridges make your life a lot easier. And the top strap gives a bit of psychological “insurance,” (more like assurance really) that the gun is “stronger,” in the event of some kind of mischance. The other main reason seems to be that people say the Remington doesn’t have an issue with loose caps jamming up the works the way the Colt can. This is much more of an issue with modern reproductions + modern caps + possibly less than proactive shooters who don’t take the time to iron out their gun and make sure caps fit right.

With all due respect, you have watched Clint Eastwood reload his Remington in Pale Rider too many times.




A few things.

I don't believe reenactors account for many sales of replicas of the 1858 Remington. There just are not that many Civil War reenactors. Most guys buy a replica of the 1858 Remington just because they like the design. I bought my old EuroArms Remmie way back around 1975 or so, if I recall correctly. I was not interested in reenacting. I already had a Colt style open top Cap & Ball revolver that I had bought in 1968. I just wanted to try the 1858 with its topstrap design. I was not part of any group doing reenacting, I was just bringing it to the range to shoot it with Black Powder. You are correct the 1858 is easier to pop the cylinder out of than a Colt. With a Colt if you want to change cylinders you have to drive out the wedge and pull off the barrel. Then you can change cylinders. Watch the 1993 film Gettysburg sometime. There is a scene during the climactic battle for Little Roundtop when Jeff Daniels, playing Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, can be seen changing cylinders on his 1860 Colt Army. Probably a bit of Hollywood make believe. During the Civil War it was much more common to carry extra revolvers than to bother changing cylinders.






Even though it is quicker and easier to pop a spare cylinder into a Remington, I never owned any extra cylinders. I loaded it up, fired all the chambers, then reloaded.


Another thing you may not be aware of about the 1858 Remington design is they bind up with Black Powder fouling very quickly. This is due to the lack of a bushing on the front of the cylinder to prevent Black Powder Fouling blasted out of the barrel/cylinder gap from being deposited on the cylinder pin. Fouling blasted onto the cylinder pin is the main reason any revolver fired with Black Powder binds up.

Study this photo for a moment. It is a comparison of the frames and cylinders of my old EuroArms Remmie and a Pietta replica 1860 Colt Army. Notice how much larger in diameter the Colt cylinder arbor is than the Remington cylinder pin. The Remington pin is about 1/4" in diameter. I don't recall how large the Colt pin is, but the diameter appears to be almost twice as much. Next, notice the helical relief cut on the Colt arbor. This relief cut is there to provide clearance for BP fouling blasted out of the barrel/cylinder gap. The fouling will tend to settle in the helical groove, where it will not bind up the cylinder. You can see that long ago I cut some grooves around the cylinder pin of my old Remmie to try to mimic the clearance groove on the Colt. It did not help very much. Of course, looking at the front of both cylinders, we can see they are flat. There is no bushing to block fouling from being deposited on the cylinder pin or arbor. The fact that the Colt has a larger diameter arbor, plus the clearance cut, makes it less prone to binding when fired with Black Powder.






I did not buy a cartridge conversion cylinder for my old Remmie until I started Cowboy Action Shooting around 2000 or so. I can tell you there were very, very few shooters using Remingtons with conversion cylinders at that time. I remember seeing one guy, and I thought that was pretty cool. Of course, he was shooting Smokeless cartridges in his Remmies, not Black Powder. I bought a cartridge conversion cylinder for my old Remmie a year or two later. Here is my old Remmie with its cartridge conversion cylinder:






Here is what the cylinder looks like. It is chambered for 45 Colt, and I only shoot cartridges loaded with Black Powder from it.






Soon after I bought the cartridge conversion cylinder for my old Remmie I came across a used Stainless Uberti 1858 Remington that came with a conversion cylinder as well as the original Cap & Ball cylinder. I have always felt the contrast of the blued cylinder against the stainless revolver was interesting. Anyway, now I had a brace of Remmies with cartridge conversion cylinders, so I could compete in CAS with my Remmies. (We always shoot two pistols in CAS.)






So getting back to how badly the Remington binds up when fired with Black Powder. My conversion Remmies have no loading gate. In order to reload I have to remove the cylinders, pop out the empties, reload them with fresh ammo, then pop the cylinders back in. While I was at it I would wipe off the front of the cylinders with a damp cloth and wipe off the cylinder pin too. That is the only way I could keep the Remmies running for an entire match of six or eight stages. Your theoretical reenactor would have to do the exact same thing between cylinders, or his Remmies would bind up after just a couple of cylinders full of Black Powder. Trust me on this.



When the Colt Single Action Army came out in 1873, it had a bushing on the front of the cylinder to shield the cylinder pin from fouling blasted out of the barrel/cylinder gap. Left to right in this photo are cylinders from an Uberti Cattleman, a Ruger 'original model' Vaquero, and a 2nd Gen Colt. The Uberti and Colt bushings are removeable, the Ruger bushing is integral with the cylinder. With bushings like these shielding the cylinder pins from fouling blasted out of the barrel/cylinder gap, I can shoot these revolvers with cartridges loaded with Black Powder all day long and the cylinders do not bind up.






And when Remington brought out their cartridge revolver in 1875, it too had a bushing on the front of the cylinder. Left to right in this photo is my cartridge conversion cylinder for my old 1858 Remington, the cylinder from my original 1875 Remington, and a 2nd Gen Colt cylinder. Notice the Cap & Ball cylinder (or the conversion cylinder) is flat across the front, affording no protection to the cylinder pin. The bushing on the front of the 1875 Remington cylinder is integral with the cylinder, and it is not very tall. The bushing on the Colt cylinder is removable, plus the scalloped contour helps deflect away fouling blasted from the barrel/cylinder gap. Another reason why the Colt was a better revolver. I can attest that the Colt will keep shooting Black Powder cartridges longer without binding than the 1875 Remington will.

 

[Mosin77]

With all due respect, you have watched Clint Eastwood reload his Remington in Pale Rider too many times.

View attachment 1032471


A few things.

I don't believe reenactors account for many sales of replicas of the 1858 Remington. There just are not that many Civil War reenactors. Most guys buy a replica of the 1858 Remington just because they like the design. I bought my old EuroArms Remmie way back around 1975 or so, if I recall correctly. I was not interested in reenacting. I already had a Colt style open top Cap & Ball revolver that I had bought in 1968. I just wanted to try the 1858 with its topstrap design. I was not part of any group doing reenacting, I was just bringing it to the range to shoot it with Black Powder. You are correct the 1858 is easier to pop the cylinder out of than a Colt. With a Colt if you want to change cylinders you have to drive out the wedge and pull off the barrel. Then you can change cylinders. Watch the 1993 film Gettysburg sometime. There is a scene during the climactic battle for Little Roundtop when Jeff Daniels, playing Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, can be seen changing cylinders on his 1860 Colt Army. Probably a bit of Hollywood make believe. During the Civil War it was much more common to carry extra revolvers than to bother changing cylinders.

View attachment 1032472




Even though it is quicker and easier to pop a spare cylinder into a Remington, I never owned any extra cylinders. I loaded it up, fired all the chambers, then reloaded.


Another thing you may not be aware of about the 1858 Remington design is they bind up with Black Powder fouling very quickly. This is due to the lack of a bushing on the front of the cylinder to prevent Black Powder Fouling blasted out of the barrel/cylinder gap from being deposited on the cylinder pin. Fouling blasted onto the cylinder pin is the main reason any revolver fired with Black Powder binds up.

Study this photo for a moment. It is a comparison of the frames and cylinders of my old EuroArms Remmie and a Pietta replica 1860 Colt Army. Notice how much larger in diameter the Colt cylinder arbor is than the Remington cylinder pin. The Remington pin is about 1/4" in diameter. I don't recall how large the Colt pin is, but the diameter appears to be almost twice as much. Next, notice the helical relief cut on the Colt arbor. This relief cut is there to provide clearance for BP fouling blasted out of the barrel/cylinder gap. The fouling will tend to settle in the helical groove, where it will not bind up the cylinder. You can see that long ago I cut some grooves around the cylinder pin of my old Remmie to try to mimic the clearance groove on the Colt. It did not help very much. Of course, looking at the front of both cylinders, we can see they are flat. There is no bushing to block fouling from being deposited on the cylinder pin or arbor. The fact that the Colt has a larger diameter arbor, plus the clearance cut, makes it less prone to binding when fired with Black Powder.

View attachment 1032473




I did not buy a cartridge conversion cylinder for my old Remmie until I started Cowboy Action Shooting around 2000 or so. I can tell you there were very, very few shooters using Remingtons with conversion cylinders at that time. I remember seeing one guy, and I thought that was pretty cool. Of course, he was shooting Smokeless cartridges in his Remmies, not Black Powder. I bought a cartridge conversion cylinder for my old Remmie a year or two later. Here is my old Remmie with its cartridge conversion cylinder:

View attachment 1032474




Here is what the cylinder looks like. It is chambered for 45 Colt, and I only shoot cartridges loaded with Black Powder from it.

View attachment 1032475




Soon after I bought the cartridge conversion cylinder for my old Remmie I came across a used Stainless Uberti 1858 Remington that came with a conversion cylinder as well as the original Cap & Ball cylinder. I have always felt the contrast of the blued cylinder against the stainless revolver was interesting. Anyway, now I had a brace of Remmies with cartridge conversion cylinders, so I could compete in CAS with my Remmies. (We always shoot two pistols in CAS.)

View attachment 1032476




So getting back to how badly the Remington binds up when fired with Black Powder. My conversion Remmies have no loading gate. In order to reload I have to remove the cylinders, pop out the empties, reload them with fresh ammo, then pop the cylinders back in. While I was at it I would wipe off the front of the cylinders with a damp cloth and wipe off the cylinder pin too. That is the only way I could keep the Remmies running for an entire match of six or eight stages. Your theoretical reenactor would have to do the exact same thing between cylinders, or his Remmies would bind up after just a couple of cylinders full of Black Powder. Trust me on this.



When the Colt Single Action Army came out in 1873, it had a bushing on the front of the cylinder to shield the cylinder pin from fouling blasted out of the barrel/cylinder gap. Left to right in this photo are cylinders from an Uberti Cattleman, a Ruger 'original model' Vaquero, and a 2nd Gen Colt. The Uberti and Colt bushings are removeable, the Ruger bushing is integral with the cylinder. With bushings like these shielding the cylinder pins from fouling blasted out of the barrel/cylinder gap, I can shoot these revolvers with cartridges loaded with Black Powder all day long and the cylinders do not bind up.

View attachment 1032477




And when Remington brought out their cartridge revolver in 1875, it too had a bushing on the front of the cylinder. Left to right in this photo is my cartridge conversion cylinder for my old 1858 Remington, the cylinder from my original 1875 Remington, and a 2nd Gen Colt cylinder. Notice the Cap & Ball cylinder (or the conversion cylinder) is flat across the front, affording no protection to the cylinder pin. The bushing on the front of the 1875 Remington cylinder is integral with the cylinder, and it is not very tall. The bushing on the Colt cylinder is removable, plus the scalloped contour helps deflect away fouling blasted from the barrel/cylinder gap. Another reason why the Colt was a better revolver. I can attest that the Colt will keep shooting Black Powder cartridges longer without binding than the 1875 Remington will.

View attachment 1032478

Nah I didn’t watch Clint reload, I just talked to a guy who is a re-enactor, who bought a used conversion cylinder from me. As I could never see the point of such a thing myself, I asked him what the draw was, and he proceeded to tell me all about why he’d rather load cartridges (I’m assuming smokeless) for reenactment and competition. (I didn’t ask what type of competition.)

I personally have a Colt 1860 Army, and like it for a fun day at the range. I’d never think swapping a cylinder, even on a Remington, would be practical under fire, but I can see how the myth got started and why nowadays it might be more convenient for some. We have the luxury today to be able to order such things pretty easily.

My point, belabored as it may have been, was that the Remington seems to have acquired an “internet reputation” as being unquestionably better than, or superior to, the Colts, in terms of design and function, and I do not believe this is the case.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Nah I didn’t watch Clint reload, I just talked to a guy who is a re-enactor, who bought a used conversion cylinder from me. As I could never see the point of such a thing myself, I asked him what the draw was, and he proceeded to tell me all about why he’d rather load cartridges (I’m assuming smokeless) for reenactment and competition.

The draw is you load up your cartridges at home, then you can shoot without needing to handle loose powder, balls, and caps. All the work has been done at home. I have never fired Smokeless ammo through my Remmies, only cartridges loaded with Black Powder. So the boom and the flash is there, but no messing around handling loose components and ramming stuff into the chambers. In fact that nickel plated one I have never even fired it with the Cap & Ball cylinder. My old EuroArms Remmie I fired lots of times with the C&B cylinder in the past, but after buying the cartridge conversion cylinder for it I have not bothered shooting it Cap & Ball with it for many years.

I'll tell you something else. The recoil with about 30 grains of FFg and a round ball that probably weighs something like 150 grains or so, is nothing compared to the recoil of 35 grains of FFg and a 250 grain lead bullet fired from a cartridge. I'm talking stout!

 

[Miguel Loco]

The draw is you load up your cartridges at home, then you can shoot without needing to handle loose powder, balls, and caps. All the work has been done at home. I have never fired Smokeless ammo through my Remmies, only cartridges loaded with Black Powder. So the boom and the flash is there, but no messing around handling loose components and ramming stuff into the chambers. In fact that nickel plated one I have never even fired it with the Cap & Ball cylinder. My old EuroArms Remmie I fired lots of times with the C&B cylinder in the past, but after buying the cartridge conversion cylinder for it I have not bothered shooting it Cap & Ball with it for many years.

I enjoy the cartridge conversions....but generally just use my '72 for that. As for the loose powder and balls, all that is easily handled by making your own paper cartridges at home.....which....when you figure it out, is quite easy and quick to do. I haven't handled loose powder in the field for many years.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

It is even easier to load up some metallic cartridges. Just pop them into the chambers. With paper cartridges you still have to mess with caps.

 

[Miguel Loco]

I agree it's easier.....but you still need to remove the cylinder to reload cartridges. Not such a big deal with a 58. I guess I never found capping to be a big deal either. The Polish Capper makes it damn simple.

You make a valid point.....it's a bit less hassle overall. A bit expensive.....but definitely could save a little time.

 

[mjsdwash]

I'm strictly a black powder cartridge shooter but follow threads and comments about cap-n-ball revolvers, it all being part of the black powder family. I've noticed over the past several years hobbyist seem to favor the Remington '58 over the Colt '60 & '51. Likewise I've run across CAS types who proclaim the 1875 Rem was actually superior to the 1873 Colt.

Oddly enough, back in the 19th Century Colt percussion revolvers out sold Remingtons by a very wide margin. Later the Colt Single Action Army and Frontier Six-Shooter outsold the 1875 Remington by an equally wide margin.

One wonders if people who actually used these guns might have known something today's hobbyist is missing. Just sayin',

Dave

McDonalds sells more hamburgers than all independent restaurants, probably combined.
Ford sold far more Mustangs than Thunderbirds.
Harbor Freight sells more tools than Snap-On.

Today, Taurus sells far, far more pistols than Les Baer.
Today, Hunter Biden sells $500,000 scribbles.

Marketing plays a major role, and buying government officials is usually a good investment