New revolver shooter-Colt or Remington

[wurfless]

Hi Guys,
I’d like to make rapid fire smoke and noise, and shoot at paper on the weekends. Haven’t shot BP much for about 10 years, and then only traditional front stuffers, but I’ve caught revolver fever! Have narrowed it down to either Cimarron/Uberti 1851 Colt Navy steel frame 36 cal. or Cabellas/Pieta 1858 Navy 36 cal. I know this is like Chevy vs Ford, but I know ya’ll got good opinions by reading your posts.
THANX

 

[Smokin_Gun]

1858 Remington NMA .44 cal Steel or Stainless Steel...Hands down for a first, second , or third Revolver choice...

SG

 

[jmaubin]

Well darn I have both, and love them both. Its kind of like asking which child does a father love best.

 

[Shultzhaus]

Ditto on having both. Everyone should have one each.

 

[madcratebuilder]

The top strap revolver may be more forgiving for a new user. No wedge to deal with. If you like shooting bp revolvers you well end up with several of both.

 

[A. Walker]

The Uberti will be a little better made and won't be covered in warning stamps like the Pietta, which will make it look slightly more authentic. You'll get arguments from both the Colt and Remington fans that their choice is the best for the new shooter, but it's all hogwash based on personal bias. The Colts are as accurate as the Remingtons, and both have their drawbacks. Get whatever suits your fancy, and you won't regret it.

 

[Voodoochile]

I have both Colt & Remington Clones & love em both & like was mentioned they both have their good points & their bad but for a new shooter the Remington design is more forgiving in terms of ease of maintenence & that is about the extent of it.

If you have a shop local that has both designes the best thing to do is put either in your hand & see for your self which feels more natural to you.

 

[Old Fuff]

Always remember that Colt was the pioneer - he invented the first practical revolver and starting making them in 1836. He also took out strong patents on his invention, and hired the best sharks (lawyers) he could find to keep anyone else from making anything similar.

The first big-bore Remington revolver didn't see the light of day until 1860, and its designer, Fordyce Beals, had the advantage of being able to look back at the Colt experience" and what the good and bad features of Colt's revolvers were. With that advantage he came up with what many - both then and now - believe was a better mousetrap. Colt fans would strongly disagree.

I will admit that the Remington is somewhat more modern then the Colt's, but on the other hand Colt's 1951 Navy has a feel and balance that Remington couldn't match.

A new shooter should consider both, because both played an important part in this country's history. What ever you decide, don't stop at one...

 

[messerist]

As usual you are getting excellent advice from the members. If you are just starting and don't want to break the bank, I would go for a .36 cal. Pietta. Remington or Colt. Cost wise they are the least expensive to acquire and shoot

 

[sundance44s]

Only thing I can think of ...if the Colt open top wedge barrel design ...is a good strong design ...why do the Colts today have a top strap like the Remingtons ...it`s an easy choice ...Strenght vs. weak design .
I shoot Remingtons and tinker with Colts .

 

[ArmedBear]

The Remingtons are usually sighted in properly for the ranges where you'd be playing with them, and they have solid sights, not the sight-on-the-hammer design of the colts.

They're a lot like shooting a modern single action; they arguably were the first modern single actions.

OTOH, the Colts may be easier to clean, since the whole gun comes apart easily. The Remington is the nook-and-cranny gun, and with BP, that can be a bit of a pain.

why do the Colts today have a top strap like the Remingtons

There is an answer. And you're 100% right about the reason.

Colt tried to sell the US Army the open top design, essentially the 1860 Army changed just enough to load with cartridges.

The US government rejected it, and asked for a solid frame like the Remingtons used in the Civil War. So Colt kept the grip frame and mechanism from the 1851 Navy, the loading gate and ejector rod design from the Open Top, and put a Remington-like frame around the cylinder. This was submitted to the Army for testing, and became the Colt Single Action Army (1873) we know today.

 

[AdmiralB]

I'm fairly new to BP myself, been into it for about ten months...although I've been shooting for over thirty years.

I've got four revolvers (all Cimarron/Uberti) - a Walker (really only for the 'mine is bigger' thing), an 1860 civilian, an 1851 Navy London, and an 1858 NMA.

I shoot the Navy the best - it literally makes a big ragged hole at ten yards freehand.

OTOH, the 1860 fits my hand the best, and is IMO the most elegant.

But if I had to get rid of all but one, I'd keep the NMA - it's just a superior and more practical design.

 

[fatelk]

I'm fairly new into the BP thing too. I bought a used 1851 .44 with brass frame last year (someone called it a "Reb Colt Navy"?), and then just last month I found a really nice 30 year old 1858 Remington.

The Colt really does seem to handle and balance better, but I prefer the Remington because I like not having to deal with the wedge.

I was also told to not use more than about 15 grains of powder in the Colt, or the brass frame would stretch. Any truth to this?

I think if I get another one, it's going to be one of those neat little .31 caliber revolvers.

 

[Old Fuff]

if the Colt open top wedge barrel design ...is a good strong design ...why do the Colts today have a top strap like the Remingtons ...it`s an easy choice ...Strenght vs. weak design .

As I pointed out in post #8, Colt was first, and the much later Remington was designed to eliminate some of the weak points in Colt's. However the open-top design and large cylinder pin in the Colt revolvers gave powder fouling an easier path to get away, and contemporary military reports during and shortly after the Civil War took note that the Colt would keep ticking after the Remington gave up. Colt continued to find a market until they discontinued the cap & ball revolvers in 1872. But they continued to make metallic cartridge open-top guns until the mid-1880's. Obviously the open-top revolvers had something going for them.

 

[mykeal]

Just to be sure the entire picture is presented:
The open top Colt design features a much, much stronger cylinder arbor pin. It had no need for the top strap. Saying that the Remington is stronger because of it's top strap ignores half the picture.

Yes, the military eventually chose the Remington design. And we all know how good the military has been at making procurement decisions.

The comment about the Remington being the first modern single action revolver is puzzling. I always thought the definition of a single action revolver was that the trigger pull caused only one single action to take place: dropping the hammer on the in battery chamber, as opposed to a double action revolver where the action of cocking the hammer is also accomplished by the trigger pull. Do you have some new definition I'm not aware of?

 

[A. Walker]

The Colt design has proven itself to be more than adequate for over 170 years. What else has withstood such a test of time?

Here are some of the results of my own research. The Army changed over to Remington during the last few months of the war not because the design was superior, but rather due to the fact that they were offered at a much cheaper price than the Colts. And they had plenty of problems with the new pistols, including burst barrels and cylinders, sight orifices being drilled straight through into the bore, slag left on the frames and the Remington's Achilles heel--the cylinder pin would foul up after only a few shots. After the war, Remingtons were dispatched to the troops out West, and General C.C. Augur, commanding the Department of the Platte, wrote to his superiors regarding the pistols: "Defects of the Remington pistols are as follows. They are made of very poor materials as shown by the great number burst at ordinary exercise; in some companies 10 or 12 burst in one year. Capt. Ball took 3 of them out for trial with ordinary charges and all three burst at the trial. The springs are not strong enough to burst the caps, and in many of them the hammer is not long enough to reach the cap... At a firing drill on the 27th, 40 pistols were loaded carefully, and out of 240 loads, not more than 150 could be discharged at all. All of this has so disgusted the Company commanders here that they prefer to have no pistols at all; they consider them almost a usless weight for the men to carry. On the whole, I think if it were left to Company commanders, they would not take them into the field... The Cavalry should by all means have revolvers and these should of course be reliable. Colts have never to my knowledge been found fault with in any important particular, [but] if Colts cannot be supplied, [than only] Remingtons which have been thoroughly tested and found to be perfect should be sent to replace those found defective..."

In other words, you get what you pay for. Shortly after, Remington lost favor (and orders) with the Army, with most in stores being sold as surplus to the European market. In London, many were sold off for as little as eight shillings apiece.

The Army did believe that the top strap made the pistols more rugged, true or not, and required any new pistols submitted for trials be fitted with this design. It was this requirement, rather than any defect with the open-top design, that prompted Colt to add the top strap to their pistols.

 

[ArmedBear]

Fuff-

I have always understood that Colt quit making parts for the Open Tops when they started producing the SAA for the government and they quit making the OT when they ran out of parts -- and that there were only a few thousand of them produced.

Is that not true? Good source for the real story?

I'd love to get better info.

A. Walker, black powder revolver target shooting is utterly dominated by top strap revolvers (high-end European Remington and R&S repros, Ruger Old Armies). There is no evidence whatever that suggests that a top strap isn't a superior design -- in some ways, anyway.

That doesn't mean I don't like the old Colts. However, I'm not sure what 170 years those would be, since Colt stopped producing open top revolvers in either the 1870s at the earliest or 1880s at the latest.

The design works fine, if that's what you mean. That doesn't mean that other designs aren't more user-friendly to shoot. Depends what you like.

"Defects of the Remington pistols are as follows. They are made of very poor materials as shown by the great number burst at ordinary exercise; in some companies 10 or 12 burst in one year. Capt. Ball took 3 of them out for trial with ordinary charges and all three burst at the trial. The springs are not strong enough to burst the caps, and in many of them the hammer is not long enough to reach the cap... At a firing drill on the 27th, 40 pistols were loaded carefully, and out of 240 loads, not more than 150 could be discharged at all.

Hard as it is for me to believe, Remington actually appears to have improved since then.

 

[Old Fuff]

I have always understood that Colt quit making parts for the Open Tops when they started producing the SAA for the government and they quit making the OT when they ran out of parts -- and that there were only a few thousand of them produced.

Is that not true? Good source for the real story?

Not exactly true.

There is a general belief that right after the Civil War Colt started converting cap & ball revolvers to use metallic cartridges. The truth is that they couldn’t make or sell conversions that used common metallic cartridges of the day because Smith & Wesson controlled a patent that contained a feature consisting of making a chamber drilled all of the way through the cylinder.

They could however convert revolvers for Uncle Sam, and the Army and Navy both had Colt and Remington make some conversions. Remington also obtained a license from Smith & Wesson that allowed them to make some conversions (actually new revolvers using surplus or currently manufactured New Army parts) for commercial sale. These often came with 2 cylinders, one C&B and the other for metallic cartridges, so a user could switch back and forth as necessary. They were understandably popular in some of the more isolated parts of the western frontier. Colt however was unable to come to an agreement with Smith & Wesson.

On the part of both Colt and Remington, most of the cartridge revolvers they made were original cartridge guns, sometimes using a mix of old and new parts.

Colt got into the business in 1872, after the patent Smith and Wesson was using expired in or about 1868. At first the revolvers were made using Civil War era parts (sometimes modified) as well as the new parts that were necessary to go from cap & ball to metallic cartridge. But over time they ran out of some parts, barrels in particular, and had to make new ones. They also made some new frames for pocket model revolvers based on the 1862 Police and Pocket Model of Navy Caliber guns. These continued to remain in they’re line until they sold the last ones to Winchester (don’t ask me why) in 1885.

Most of the open-top Model 1872 revolvers were made at the same time that Model 1873 Single Action Army revolvers were being produced, so obviously Colt didn’t get out of the open-top revolver business when the 1873 Model arrived. Also keep in mind that they were making a complete line of new production guns that included everything from 1849 Pocket Model to 1860 Army based guns, but of course they were in the process using surplus parts left over from the Civil War. You might be interested to learn that during the late 1940’s and early 1950’s they put together a small number of complete 1851 Navy cap & ball revolvers made entirely from Civil War era parts, and that the U.S. Navy continued to use their cartridge converted 1851 Navy revolvers until 1888.

Want to learn more?

A Study of Colt Conversions and Other Percussion Revolvers, by R. Bruce McDowell

Variations of Colt’s New Model Police & Pocket Breech Loading Pistols, by John D. Breslin, William Q. Pirie and David E. Price.

 

[SWC Bonfire]

Also not mentioned is the fact that many existing cap and ball colt revolvers were sent back to the factory for conversion to cartridges. This allowed the owner to shoot cartridge ammunution for a much lower cost than buying a new revolver. There were thousands of them around; more than any Remington and maybe even in numbers approaching the SAA for several decades.

From what I understand, the main reason the Colts have an open frame is to vent the blast from a ruptured cap upward and outward away from other cylinders to prevent a chain fire. With a top strap, it has to go out the sides.

Top strap frames are great for cartridge revolvers, but less than ideal for cap and ball. I would imagine that the Remingtons were made with the top strap originally so that they could use lower-quality metallurgy for the frame. It is overkill using modern steels.

In their time, they both made sense for different reasons; with modern steel and the relatively low pressure/forces involved with black powder & substitutes it really doesn't matter. I go for Colts because of how they point and the fact that no one ever had a Remington anywhere around here back in the day.

 

[wurfless]

GREAT INFORMATION!! Just snagged a great deal on a hardly shot ROA. Ships tomorrow! I'll use this info later, after my other half gets over today's shock. Still want an "authentic" revolver, but couldn't pass up the deal.
THANX

 

[Old Fuff]

Much to my suprise I learned that the number of newly assembled revolvers substantially outstriped the number of older ones that were returned to Colt to be converted. The largest number of older guns being converted occured when the U.S. Navy, over a period of time, returned all of their remaining 1851 Navy revolvers, and never adopted the 1873 Single Action Army. They didn't adopt or purchase any new sidearms until 1888. On the civilian front, I suspect more revolvers were converted outside the factory then in.

After the Civil War, most of the revolvers in the hands of central Texas residents were either those purchased before the war, or those that they brought back, most of which had been picked up on the battle field. I can assure you that among the mix, there were Remington revolvers of various models, and that they were popular.

It is not my intention to get into the Colt vs. Remington battle, that also raged back in the "old days." My point is that both were historically important, and both are fun too shoot. This comes from someone who is so far over the hill that he has on various occasions fired both original Colt and Remington revolvers, including a Colt 2nd. Model Dragoon. None of them failed to work as they should, age not withstanding.

And I almost killed the Boy Scout who ask me if I had bought the 1851 Navy I was shooting brand new...

 

[sundance44s]

I heard Remington was America`s oldest gun maker ....anything to this myth ?

 

[Old Fuff]

I heard Remington was America`s oldest gun maker ....anything to this myth ?

Yes, that one is true.... sort of.

The company was started by Eliphalet Remington in 1816, and produced barrels for frontier gunsmiths who built hand-made flintlock and percussion rifles and single-shot pistols. They may have also made complete rifles, but this would be hard to determine because there are a lot of rifles with barrels marked "E. Remington" that were made by someone else. We do know that in 1845 "Remington & Son" got a contract to make muskets for the U.S. Army. This unquestionably set Remington up in the firearms business.

But later times turned bad, and in 1886 Remington & Sons went bankrupt, and the Remington family exited. In 1888 the company was reorganized as the Remington Arms Co. and it has continued to this day, but under several corporate owners.

 

[Gaucho Gringo]

In Dennis Addlers book on conversion guns it is interesting to see the way the barrel changed on the 1851 Navy. The early ones used a barrel that was a regular percussion barrel with just the holes plugged for the rammer assembly and the full cutout on the right side for the balls. Then you have a series of barrels originally intended to be percussion barrels but may not have been drilled for the rammer assembly, holes plugged for the rammer assembly or the full cutout on the right side for the balls, in any combination of these features. Lastly you have the new barrels on the later conversions that have none of the early conversion features which are essentially an open top barrel on an older frame. This may sound confusing but if you look at the pictures it becomes clear.

 

[AdmiralB]

The open top Colt design features a much, much stronger cylinder arbor pin.

I guess I'd have to say 'duh' - it has to be stronger, since it's the only stressed member in the design. The frame, such as it is, bears no load at all.

The Remington cylinder pin is completely non-load bearing - it serves to locate the cylinder in the frame and that's it. So there's no reason for it to be any bigger/stronger than it is.