Pietta vs. Uberti vs. Pedersoli / Remington 1858

[Ugly Sauce]

You guys forgot: "More-Parts".

 

[armoredman]

Of course there's more parts, plenty in the junkyard to choose from!
I say this as a guy who drove a Dart 30 years ago...

 

[hawg]

Of course there's more parts, plenty in the junkyard to choose from!
I say this as a guy who drove a Dart 30 years ago...

I've had quite a few MOPARS. Heck I drive one now. Most of them were crap. The best ones were Jeeps which I drive now.

 

[red rick]

I use to work at my dad’s service station . What I hated about the mopars of the 60’s and 70’s was the hood latch . It was designed for you to hit your head on it .

 

[woodnbow]

I've had quite a few MOPARS. Heck I drive one now. Most of them were crap. The best ones were Jeeps which I drive now.

We picked up a government surplus (Department of the Navy) 4 door Cherokee many years ago and it was one of the best little grocery getters and for a time Mrs. commuted in it. Solid drivetrain and no frills at all.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Of course there's more parts, plenty in the junkyard to choose from!
I say this as a guy who drove a Dart 30 years ago...

Dang. I'm still driving one. Had another that was still going at 300,000 plus. Used a little oil, but ran just fine.

 

[Jackrabbit1957]

I have a yard full of Mopars. I have actually ridden in and worked on a 57 cheby. I'll take a Mopar over a GM stamped car any day. My current Mopars are a 49 Plymouth, a 59 Desoto, 01 Dakota pickup, 06 Dodge Charger.

 

[Big Bore 44]

Old Mopar Maniac here. Been driving them since 74. Current ones are a 78 W150 DIESEL, and a 90 Cherokee. Looking for a 78-79 RamCharger DIESEL. I know they're out there, just gotta find one.

 

[armoredman]

Dang. I'm still driving one. Had another that was still going at 300,000 plus. Used a little oil, but ran just fine.
View attachment 1239431

Mine was a 75 with the 225 slant six that would...not...die...

 

[hawg]

Mine was a 75 with the 225 slant six that would...not...die...

I had a 1970 Duster with a Twister package and a slant six. My first wife killed two engines and a rear end in it.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

I had a 1970 Duster with a Twister package and a slant six. My first wife killed two engines and a rear end in it.

How do you kill a slant-six? Drain the oil out, and run it dry?? The light 7&1/4 rear ends...that I can understand. Killed one of those myself.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Mine was a 75 with the 225 slant six that would...not...die...

My '72, in the pic, has a 360. That engine was in a car I used to bracket race. I have it badged as a 273...Chevy and Ford bait. However, my street racing days are long gone. Made some money though, back in the day, racing guys who thought a 273 was easy pickings. Hey, I never SAID it was a 273... it just said so on the air cleaner. Cleaned the clock on a 409 Chev at the track one day. They were very annoyed and couldn't figure it out. Kept re-adjusting their carb after every run. (which didn't help them either)

Dang, the moderators are going to KILL us!!!!

 

[Ugly Sauce]

My current Mopars are a 49 Plymouth,

I have it's cousin...'48 Dodge. However, the windshield wipers don't interchange. I call her "Lumpy-Lou". Or..."The Lump".

 

[hawg]

How do you kill a slant-six? Drain the oil out, and run it dry?? The light 7&1/4 rear ends...that I can understand. Killed one of those myself.

Trying to drive it like the 66 Chevelle with a hopped up 327 and a 4 speed she just got out of.

 

[woodnbow]

My '72, in the pic, has a 360. That engine was in a car I used to bracket race. I have it badged as a 273...Chevy and Ford bait. However, my street racing he 273 days are long gone. Made some money though, back in the day, racing guys who thought a 273 was easy pickings. Hey, I never SAID it was a 273... it just said so on the air cleaner. Cleaned the clock on a 409 Chev at the track one day. They were very annoyed and couldn't figure it out. Kept re-adjusting their carb after every run. (which didn't help them either)

Dang, the moderators are going to KILL us!!!!

Let ‘em try!

Kid brother bought a brand new ‘67 Dart with the 273. after a few different drivelines he settled on a 383 from a wrecked roadrunner and a Ford 9” rear end. Nice little car and he was a tall, long haired good looking rodeo cowboy and the combination netted him more than his share of ‘tang.

Another auction find, I bought a 1973 Plymouth Fury that was in a previous life a South Dakota State patrol owned vehicle. Undercover version (HAHAHAHA!) so blind lawbreakers would never see it coming. Used it for a running into town for a movie car for a few years. I honestly can’t remember what prompted me to bid on the damn thing. It was a lot of fun on dirt roads though.

 

[Captain*kirk]

But the roll stamp on the original said:

PATENTED SEPT 14, 1858

E. REMINGTON & SONS ILION NEW YORK. U.S.A

NEW-MODEL​

Not to change the subject from cars back to the original subject...1858 Remingtons...but the 1858 patent was for the Beals, which Eli Remington morphed into the Remington New Model Army (NMA) "of 1858", piggybacking on the Beals patent.
I now return you to your current subject of discussion.

 

[armoredman]

That was the point - regardless of the Beals patent, that was the roll stamp on the New Model Army, hence the confusion.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Not to change the subject from cars back to the original subject...1858 Remingtons...but the 1858 patent was for the Beals, which Eli Remington morphed into the Remington New Model Army (NMA) "of 1858", piggybacking on the Beals patent.
I now return you to your current subject of discussion.

But, wasn't the Beals patent for the loading lever? How it captured the cylinder pin?

 

[Ugly Sauce]

I now return you to your current subject of discussion.

Thank you, I was starting to sweat. Possibly facing a couple weeks in THR jail or something. Sometimes I just can't help myself. You have indeed pulled our chestnuts out of the fire...or something like that. On the other hand, it's fun to live dangerously. Kind of like wandering around in a grizzly recovery area with a flintlock, and a 1863 Remington for a sidearm. !!!

 

[hawg]

But, wasn't the Beals patent for the loading lever? How it captured the cylinder pin?

Beals was an employee of Remington. He designed the pocket revolver the Beals was based on. He also had the patent on the winged cylinder pin and loading lever granted in 1858. Thus the Beals was born and evolved from that to the Elliot transitional models which was another short lived loading lever patent. There were several changes from the Beals to the 1863. The final change came in 1863 where the front sight went from a dovetailed cone to the screwed in pinched sight we all know.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Dang. Hawg knows stuff. I can't remember anything. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that the final version, the 1863, had a lowered hammer spur, (Army said it was too high) and also the '61 and '62 versions did not have the safety notches.

I find it interesting, that when they accepted and bought that batch of Rogers and Spencers, the R&S had/has a very high hammer spur, and no safety notches. Somebody was pulling strings, or getting a kick-back !!!!??

 

[Captain*kirk]

Dang. Hawg knows stuff. I can't remember anything. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that the final version, the 1863, had a lowered hammer spur, (Army said it was too high) and also the '61 and '62 versions did not have the safety notches.

I find it interesting, that when they accepted and bought that batch of Rogers and Spencers, the R&S had/has a very high hammer spur, and no safety notches. Somebody was pulling strings, or getting a kick-back !!!!??

The R&S never made military issue during the ACW other than to a few civilians and privy officers. The majority were bought up by Bannerman and sat in a warehouse until 1909, IIRC

 

[Ugly Sauce]

The R&S never made military issue during the ACW other than to a few civilians and privy officers. The majority were bought up by Bannerman and sat in a warehouse until 1909, IIRC

Yes that is true, but the Army/Govt. bought them during the war, albeit at the end, although they were not actually issued. (indeed, a few "slipped out", and could have ended up in the field on some officer's belt...or "REM") The curious thing to me is that they did that, approved and bought them, while they had two "issues" that the 1862 Remington was rejected for. The high hammer spur, and lack of safety notches.

Just thunk of something. If even one was given to an Army officer...would that not qualify as being issued during the ACW? Hmmmmm...???

 

[21H40]

I love the wood on yours. Were those stock? If not, where'd you find them?

 

[hawg]

Yes that is true, but the Army/Govt. bought them during the war, albeit at the end, although they were not actually issued. (indeed, a few "slipped out", and could have ended up in the field on some officer's belt...or "REM") The curious thing to me is that they did that, approved and bought them, while they had two "issues" that the 1862 Remington was rejected for. The high hammer spur, and lack of safety notches.

Just thunk of something. If even one was given to an Army officer...would that not qualify as being issued during the ACW? Hmmmmm...???

800 R&S were sold on the civilian market. All of the military contract were put in storage and sold to Bannerman for 25 cents each. I have seen nothing about the 62 being rejected for a high hammer spur. The issue was with the Elliot patent that allowed the cylinder pin to slide forward under recoil and lock the gun up. Safety notches were also an issue.