Pietta Remington 1858, RGST36, is it on same frame as RGST44?

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

Onty

Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
957
Gearing up for Pietta Remington 1858, cal. 36, Target, 6.5" stainless, I think that it is listed as RGST36 model, please see http://www.pietta.us/products/Muzzleloadinguns/Remington/gallery/Remington_1858_18.html . Just got in touch with local distributor, hope to get it next year.

Is noted model RGST36 on the same frame as their cal. 44, listed as RGST44, Target, 8", stainless?

Also, those of you who have late production RGST36, what is your opinion about quality and accuracy? Several months ago I purchased Uberti Remington 1858, cal. 44, Target, 8" stainless. I am impressed with fit and finish. In that respect, it is equal to Ruger Old Army, if not tad better.

Thanks
 
I bought used a 36 NMA and have never shot it. Still in the box it came in. I bought it thinking it would be lighter than one of my 44s and it wasn't. I was going to bob it - 3" barrel, birdshead grip. Two Franklins would buy it if anyone is interested. It's in real nice shape.
 
Sir, would you please measure cylinder's diameter and over all length. If you do not have caliper/vernier, just ruler will do it. I am OK if you use millimeter scale. Thanks!
 
The Pietta New Model Army and Navy Remington replicas are the same except for barrel and loading-lever length / plunger diameter, caliber, and chamber size. Not a historically accurate copy of the original, which is a con for some, but maybe a pro for others. For me it is. I especially like the geometry of Pietta's .36-caliber New Model Navy; the look and heft of it. (I also appreciate that higher velocities can be had with it due to the length of the cylinder in comparison to Colt .36 replicas.)

Anyway, the stainless-steel target version shown on the page at the above URL would have the same dimensions as the regular Pietta Navies -- same frame; same cylinder length and diameter; same barrel width as Pietta's .44 Army Remington.
 
Last edited:
Thank you Sir. That is information I am looking for.
 
paul harm said:
I bought used a 36 NMA and have never shot it. Still in the box it came in. I bought it thinking it would be lighter than one of my 44s and it wasn't. I was going to bob it - 3" barrel, birdshead grip. Two Franklins would buy it if anyone is interested. It's in real nice shape.
Click to expand...
If I did ANYTHING with .36 I'd be all over that...
 
remnvyotft.jpg
I have an Uberti in .36", and it could be my favorite C&B revolver, although each one (all four of them!) is a favorite in one way or the other. This is a "good luck" gun, been with me on many successful hunts. Anyhow, yes with the smaller holes it's a bit heavy, mine is 42 ounces fully loaded, which is still in my comfort zone for all day carry. On the other hand, you can carry a lot of .36" balls or slugs for less weight than a .44.

The chamber capacity is "generous" for sure, and with a full load of 4fg and a slug, it ain't no pop gun, as some consider a .36 to be. I think of it as a ".38-44", kind of a .38 but on the "N-Frame". !!!!

I don't know about the Piettas, but the accuracy of my Uberti .36" on the New Model Army frame is outstanding. This pistol has taken more than a couple grouse, with a light load that .375-380" ball does not damage much meat.

So, a .36 on the New Model Army Frame is not a bad gun. Again, it's (mine) is a 42 ounce gun, which again is not "too" heavy for an all day field gun. And again, you can pack quite a bit more ammo for the same weight, which is good for survival purposes. (talking field guns, not range toys here)
 
The Uberti Remington Navy is a few ounces lighter than the Pietta version. This Pietta is 45.5 ounces unloaded. It's been a flawless shooter with very good accuracy.

PiettaRemNavy-Post1.jpg

To fully clarify the above reference to the Navy's plunger diameter, the second photo shows how it fits both the .44-caliber frame and the smaller chambers of the .36 cylinder. It's basically a .44 plunger with a reduced diameter at the loading end.

PiettaRemNavy-Post2.jpg
 
Yes, my only complaint is the plunger, sometimes you have to "help" it center on the ball or bullet. The Uberti (mine) is the same. Wow, yours sure extends into the loading port!
 
dirt-poor said:
It's been a flawless shooter with very good accuracy.
Click to expand...

Right, something that has impressed me from day-one is the pistol's reliability. I don't believe I've ever had any cap-jam or miss-fires with it. For many years that's why it always went hunting/hiking/trekking/woods-bumming with me and the 1860 stayed home. However, since Jack worked the 1860 over for me, it's 100% reliable now, and it's been getting more field time. !! But, I think the Remington .36" is more versatile, packs plenty of punch with a slug over 4fg, but is better on small game with a light/ball load. And, as mentioned, carries more ammo for any given weight.
 
Ugly Sauce said:
Yes, my only complaint is the plunger, sometimes you have to "help" it center on the ball or bullet. The Uberti (mine) is the same. Wow, yours sure extends into the loading port!
Click to expand...
Maybe that extension is helpful. The plunger in mine squarely makes contact with a ball to push it in, or squarely enters the chamber if the loading lever is dropped with no ball to push in. But if the loading lever is operated with the cylinder removed, the front end of the plunger drops down when it gets past the point where it would have otherwise entered into a chamber and remained supported. Maybe yours is doing a little of that same thing, just a bit earlier.

This loading lever did not always work right. I had to replace the original plunger because it had an off-center cut down the middle where it attaches to the hinge and overhangs the bottom of the lever on each side. That caused some binding in the frame and also caused the forward end of the plunger to hit the outer edge of the chambers on one side instead smoothly going into them. I've encountered this issue several times to one extent or another in Pietta's Remington replicas.
 
Ugly Sauce said:
Right, something that has impressed me from day-one is the pistol's reliability. I don't believe I've ever had any cap-jam or miss-fires with it. For many years that's why it always went hunting/hiking/trekking/woods-bumming with me and the 1860 stayed home. However, since Jack worked the 1860 over for me, it's 100% reliable now, and it's been getting more field time. !! But, I think the Remington .36" is more versatile, packs plenty of punch with a slug over 4fg, but is better on small game with a light/ball load. And, as mentioned, carries more ammo for any given weight.
Click to expand...
Although I haven't experimented with 4fg (and probably won't), I definitely agree with you -- the Uberti and Pietta New Model Navies are great performers, and they're the magnums of .36 percussion revolvers. In the debates that come up now and then about the value of percussion revolvers for self defense, a good argument could be made for these guns.

At http://poconoshooting.com/blackpowderballistics.html there is some interesting test info on muzzleloading ballistics. It lists an average muzzle velocity of 1,250 ft/s from a .36 Remington replica with 80-grain balls and 35 grains of 3F Pyrodex. Thirty-five grains by volume fills the chambers to the top, but Pyrodex is compressible enough to push a ball in over it. With 30 grains of GOEX black powder, there was an average velocity of 987 ft/s.
 
I don't remember how much powder I can/could get under a ball, but before I switched to slugs, my two "standard" loads were a .357 case of pixie dust for a heavy ball load, and the .38spl case for small game, and the small game load killed grouse very well (and accurate) with minimal meat damage. Also experimented on a fresh deer head, (buck) and found even the small game load would penetrate the back of the skull and enter the brain, so she's good for the coup-de-gras, even though Washington game regulations will only let you finish something off with a weapon that is legal to hunt the animal with. !!! No coup-de-gras allowed! (or not with one's pistola anyhow)

23 grains of Swiss or Scheutzen 4fg is pretty much max under any of my slugs, capacity wise, and still leaves a little wiggle room so that I don't get one seated too high and tie up the cylinder. I would guess that I could get 30 grains of 4fg under a ball, and being Swiss or Scheutzen might beat that 987fps. ? But, I've never chronographed that pistol. Anyhow, in that pistol I use the ball lightly loaded for small game, and the slugs with as much 4fg as I can get under them for wolf-repellent. Versatile caliber.
 
I would guess that 4fg Swiss is, but I've never seen any data. There was some data at one time where the author didn't really get an increase in velocity with 4fg, (don't remember what brand it was) but that of course is just one test, one chrono, one lot of powder, one revolver I believe, and a set of specific conditions on that day. Our results could vary!

Just a mention, the one and only time I ever used 777, I got my one and only chain-fire, (on the seventh or eighth shot) which blew off the front sight and loading latch. So...not a fan of that powder. I would suggest all and any precautions against chain-fire when using it, although I realize that other's results have...varied!
 
Ugly Sauce said:
I would guess that I could get 30 grains of 4fg under a ball, and being Swiss or Scheutzen might beat that 987fps.
Click to expand...
Some guys use 4Fg in percussion revolvers and have reported no problem with it. I'd guess it's not a safety hazard in light loads, but maybe there's a limit. Don't you think 30 grains of 4Fg in a revolver could be pushing too far?
 
Onty said:
@ dirt-poor , re http://poconoshooting.com/blackpowderballistics.html . Great Info, thanks!

Is anything similar for Triple 7?
Click to expand...
Everything I know about Triple 7 is what I've read. Have not looked for or happened across formal testing results, and have never tried it, but definitely should do all of that. Soon.

Triple 7 FFFg produces higher velocities than equal volumes of 3Fg black powder and 3Fg Pyrodex. Since it burns cleaner, it should be an especially good choice for use in Remington percussion revolvers. I suppose there would be less binding of the cylinder due to less fouling getting blown into cylinder pin hole.
 
dirt-poor said:
I suppose there would be less binding of the cylinder due to less fouling getting blown into cylinder pin hole.
Click to expand...

There is supposed to be less fouling, and the one time I used it, that seemed to be the case. First cylinder, "wow, this is clean burning". About the second shot out of cylinder #2....BAM! Where's the front sight? Why is the rammer down? Where's the rammer catch/stud??? !!! I never found either the front sight or the catch, I think they are still hurtling through the air.
 
dirt-poor said:
Some guys use 4Fg in percussion revolvers and have reported no problem with it. I'd guess it's not a safety hazard in light loads, but maybe there's a limit. Don't you think 30 grains of 4Fg in a revolver could be pushing too far?
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but I don't think there is any documented case of any revolver, or other black powder firearm ever being damaged by 4fg. I don't think there have ever been any warnings on any can of 4fg advising to only use it for priming. ? I don't think it's any hotter than 777, or more "energetic", and I kind of think that 777 pushes the limits. I would (personally/IMHO) trust any amount of 4fg over 777. So no, I don't think so. In any original revolver I'd stick to 3fg for sure. Modern steels/revolvers will take it in stride. ?
 
Ugly Sauce said:
I could be wrong, but I don't think there is any documented case of any revolver, or other black powder firearm ever being damaged by 4fg. I don't think there have ever been any warnings on any can of 4fg advising to only use it for priming. ? I don't think it's any hotter than 777, or more "energetic", and I kind of think that 777 pushes the limits. I would (personally/IMHO) trust any amount of 4fg over 777. So no, I don't think so. In any original revolver I'd stick to 3fg for sure. Modern steels/revolvers will take it in stride. ?
Click to expand...
Jackrabbit1957 said:
I've run 4f in my .36 and in my .44 s with no ill effects. It does get your attention in a ROA under a conical bullet. It's almost painful to shoot. I do have a different loading technique to try that will require me to re do my paper cartridges.
Click to expand...
Interesting info. Makes me wonder how Triple 7 and 4F black powder would compare in a test.
 
I suspect that 777 and Swiss 4fg would be very close. But I ain't gonna test it, as I'll never touch 777 again. !!!! :cuss:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Uberti and Pietta 1858 Remington barrel interchangeability
Replies
4
Views
2K
Doak
D
Crawdad1
  • Locked
Interesting original Remington.
Replies
9
Views
966
Crawdad1
Crawdad1
M
  • Locked
Miscounted!
Replies
9
Views
619
Manyirons
M
Crawdad1
  • Locked
Opinions on these Remmys
Replies
14
Views
1K
Crawdad1
Crawdad1
J
  • Locked
.36 Cal Remington 1858 ??
Replies
8
Views
4K
joe4702
J
Back
Top