Remington Versus Colt Revolvers

[woodnbow]

Thanks. Are you saying the part of the frame that the arbor screws into has 5 threads also?,

Yessir I am.

 

[jax katz]

Yes, the arbor is torqued into place, then the barrel assy should be installed with the wedge driven in. Next, an oversized staking pin is driven in to lock the arbor in place. Trim the pin, file it flush with the frame. The arbor will be flush with the frame as we!! If the arbor is new, it may need some minor filing to get it flush.

Mike

The 1858 Remington pattern – Steel frame and the less expensive brass frame examples of the finest percussion pistol ever made. It is said that soldiers returning from the Civil War elected to purchase these revolvers at a rate of 2 to 1 as compared to the 1860 Colt Army. ( Guns America Digest )

It is articles like this and follow-ups that helped me decide on Remington.

I have read quite a few complaints of loose arbors but not any guns coming apart except over the wedge issue. About the only complaint I read of remingtons is fouling , which is a problem , and grip. But colt’s foul too if not as bad.
My questions about the arbor is concerning strength. The arbor it’s self is pretty stout, granted, but how it fastens seems like a weak link to me. The threads are over sized, the lug of the arbor does not have the same diameter as the arbor, and it all comes down to a what ? a 1/16th stake-pin? While I don’t think there is any danger of the gun coming apart , if the cylinder is misaligned enough couldn’t it explode the gun when fired ?
Anyway it seems to work good enough that there is a large diehard following for colt’s. My point is that the arbor is not the guns strength, as beefy as it is, and if all five threads engage with five threads in the frame it is a good joint, but if not the gun is weaker still. The solid construction frame does not need the beefy arbor because it is inherently stronger and I have not seen any complaints of cylinder pin trouble. Given the same grade steel. The molecules are bonded, not jointed and screwed together.
I still have not run across a Remington complaint similar to yours, only that it is stronger by every source or mention I have found. Conversely, while colt owners are extremely loyal , I find complaints about the wedge, the loading process, sights, loose arbors, and it’s over engineering.

 

[45 Dragoon]

Jax, at the expense of sounding like a broken record (again, and again, and again, and again . . . ) the complaints you say you read about/hear about are all made about a revolver that isn't produced correctly to begin with. This subject has been explained be me and many others ad nauseam. You obviously don't understand the principals behind the design and I am much too busy to sit a peck out each time the "science" of how and why. If you'd read just what I've written in just this thread alone, it would answer everything you've brought up once again. Here's a little clue of the "science" behind the Colt open top S.A. - it has to do with the way "force is applied" - along with the ability to handle "harmonics". (Yes, they new about that back then). It's actually a rather ingenious construct.

I thought you were a car guy? The " dainty" front spindles (on a rear wheel drive car/truck) deal with wheel weight, support vehicle weight, and the forces applied when turning . . . at high speed!! How in the world can it be?!!!! 4 tires with 30 lbs pressure ea. hold a 5,000 lb car off the ground!!! Amazing (bad design I guess?!)

(Back to the broken record) I won't be convinced that the Remington designed frame is stronger than the Colt pattern and that's all there is to it. I used to think the same thing until my "incident" happened. Then years later learning about the actual setup of the Colt pattern and applying what I just layed out for you here, that l realized what the Colt pattern was all about. There's a lot more going on than "meets the eye".

Converting both patterns to the much more punishing smokless cartridge setup helped cap my thoughts on the Colt pattern.

Mike

I forgot about the 1/16 staking pin you mentioned. I use an 1/8" dia. mild steel pin and it is used for locking the affixed arbor ROTATIONALLY (as in making sure it won't lose it's position). So no, it doesn't come down to the size of the pin. Size of the pin . . . hmmmm . . . you know what a Schrader valve is I presume . . . the little valve that holds the 30 psi in the tire that mounts on the skinny spindle that handles all kind of forces that ultimately holds the 5,000 lb car off the ground . . . (another bad design I guess lol ).

 

[jax katz]

I thought you were a car guy? The " dainty" front spindles (on a rear wheel drive car/truck) deal with wheel weight, support vehicle weight, and the forces applied when turning . . . at high speed!! How in the world can it be?!!!! 4 tires with 30 lbs pressure ea. hold a 5,000 lb car off the ground!!! Amazing (bad design I guess?!)

I’m a truck and boat guy using GM diesels. I like cars, boats, motorcycles, heavy equip, if it rolls I probably like it.
The spindles are simply strong enough to support the weight ( dainty as they might be but there was a formula for their construction ) and bearings reduce the friction. The tires are not radically unlike the way a boat floats. The tires hold 30 pounds per square inch. If there are not enough square inches of tire to road contact , the tires won’t hold the vehicle up much less the extra force required to make them roll. Plus there is the added strength of the sidewall ( topstrap ? ). Some tires nowadays will support the car without air. If a boat displaces less water weight than the ship weighs, it sinks.
Sorry I had an opinion and asked a couple of questions. If your time is so precious why waste it with me. You don’t owe me any answers. You aren’t the only gunsmith out there (I looked at a couple vids of goonies and you seemed knowledgeably and professional ) and are in the minority with your opinion ( in fact the only place I’ve heard colt’s are stronger than remingtons , at least during the ACW ) so don’t hold it against me that I go with the consensus. If it is important to you provide some demonstration or evidence.
Being new to BP I am bound to ask questions that have been asked over and over. If it bugs you don’t answer.
My final thought and I’ll let this thread go and try to find a more appropriate thread for my questions.
If you want me to understand something just explain it specifically with tested data and rates of occurrence , etc. instead of just telling me “you don’t understand”.
Later Jax

 

[45 Dragoon]

I'm with ya Jax, you ask questions, others and myself answer. You keep asking (which denotes a "how do you know" flavor (along with "need of proof" . . . really?)) the same thing and bringing up the same questions . . . I understand you are new to the arena and asking questions is normal but to keep on asking , then arguing about the answers . . . Ive stuck with this thread longer than even I can believe . . . just trying to help.

Ultimately, I think you alluded to the problem a few posts back when you said something about not wanting to make mistakes /getting it right the first time (something like that) . . . How do you think folks (that have been in this for 50+ yrs) figured this out with no mistakes? If you're not willing to make mistakes, or at least take some of the advice you ask for and find out for yourself, you'll never have any advice of your own to teach someone else . . .
I don't think there's really anybody on this forum that would intentionally tell you something bogus but, each of us have our own experiences and opinions. So just take what you're comfortable with and see if it answers your question. You may be surprised!!
Happy shooting.
Mike

 

[woodnbow]

Bottom line, if built by a reputable manufacturer of modern steel (no brass!) kept clean and in good repair, I can’t see either design failing during normal use. This means full charges up to and including 4f Swiss or Olde Eynsford behind either ball or conical bullets. They each have advantages and each of us will choose what we will based on how we evaluate those advantages.

If I were shooting in competition I might choose a tuned up Old Army if allowed, if not maybe I would choose the Remington and tune it up. Knowing myself and how stubborn I can be, I might just stick with a Colt, spend a bunch of money on it and consequences be damned...

I’m not competing though, so groups around inch or inch and a half at 25 yards are completely acceptable and attainable even with the “vastly inferior” Colts sighting system.

 

[Bruce D Pease]

I only own one. It’s a Pietta Colt 1851 semi clone, cuz it’s (horror of horrors a “brasser” in 41 caliber). Be that as it may , I love the fit in my large hands, I agree the sights suck, but it is the best pointing handgun I’ve handled in my nearly 79 years on this orb we call home. It’s just a hoot to shoot and btw the accuracy is great. I can understand why so many of the old pistoleros carried colts. If I had the where withal I’d own a dozen more.
(Plus a few other things too)

 

[Jackrabbit1957]

I've owned both Remmies and Colts, to me the Colt feels and points better, as Mike says shoot whatever pleases you, learn by doing, keep an open mind. A lot of us out here have been doing this for a long time, we've all been there, we might not have documented the failures, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. We post here to share our knowledge and experience so others can learn.

 

[Eyrie G. Dogg]

C&B Remington's and Colt's are the same … only different. I use Pietta repros - five Colt's and three Remington's, regularly, one at a time. If you're not shooting both types you're missing at least half the fun.

 

[Don Van Winkle]

As you can see I am an 1858 Remington shooter. Largely because I have many friends that wroked at Remington Arms all the way back east in NYS. If I had friends that worked at Colt................This is what I have, this is what I shoot. To each his/her own. Is this a Great Country or what?!!!!!!!