Remington Versus Colt Revolvers

[Jim Watson]

Has anybody here shot a sound original?
Ray Ordorica wrote that C&Bs made when that was what there was were more dependable than modern toys.

 

[woodnbow]

I’ve shot original Colts, no original Remingtons though I have handled them. The best of the Uberti Colts are very close to the original Colts in function, and the details that matter, and one of those Colts even has a short arbor. I wonder how the originals would have held up to recreational use such as my replicas have endured. The 2nd and 3rd gen Colts are finished more like the originals but dollar for dollar I would take an Uberti over them any time. Unless I had time to sort through a few of them to find the right one. They sure are pretty.

The original Remington was small in my hands, just like the copies. I can’t make them work for me. I may be the only guy on the forum who has seen the immediate aftermath of this revolver being used defensively. They work just fine. And Colt or Remington, they’re far from toys.

But the ruger is very good as it rolled off the line. They generally shoot well without any tweaks. I know Goon could improve upon the factory gun but for 99% of us it’s damn close to perfection.

 

[.38 Special]

I had an original Remington and shot it quite a bit. It broke a lot, but it had obviously been abused before I got it.

 

[.38 Special]

Just as I love them both, they each have their own strong points to me, albeit they are somewhat subjective. I like the sights on the Remingtons as well as the having the ability to readily swap out cylinders. The gun has a very solid feeling to it but even though I have relatively small hands I feel the grip frame is a bit cramped with the Remington and not quite as comfortable as the comparable Colt. Also the trigger and action doesn't feel as smooth or as refined as the Colt does.

When it comes to styling the Colt takes a back seat in the buggy to no one! That sculptured barrel, perfectly shaped grip frame, and overall size and weight gives it just the right handling qualities for a single action revolver. Straight out of the box the trigger was smooth and crisp, as was the action itself. Never have been crazy about the sights but the gun has always been a natural pointer for me. Would love to have an easier cylinder replacement system in place but it's not a deal breaker with all of the other tangible things the Colt brings to the table.

Like I said, I love them both!
View attachment 897926

That engraved Remington catches my eye every time. Very nice!

 

[Mike OTDP]

Has anybody here shot a sound original?
Ray Ordorica wrote that C&Bs made when that was what there was were more dependable than modern toys.

Yes. And the originals were much better made than anything short of the very top tier (Hege/Feinwerkbau) of modern repros...and even then, there are some top-ranked shooters who would rather shoot an original. My own original Remington will shoot about 1.5 inches at 25 meters.

 

[woodnbow]

The originals I’ve had occasion to fire have been well used examples and so I am really guessing when I compared say an 1860 Army with probably a low round count but cared for in less than ideal conditions with a pristine Uberti, right out of the box. Our recent replica guns have far superior metals, generally good hardening and accurate machining. The advantages of the original guns were that they were assembled, fitted would be a better word, by craftsmen who strove for perfection in a time in which this was valued and expected by the consumers. Guiseppe the ham handed monkey wrencher might have been able to secure employment in the Colt factory as a janitor.

 

[The Old Redneck]

I'm not getting into a ford/chevy or any other type argument of personal likes or dislikes. I shot modern cartridge revolvers in single and double action, love both for different reasons. I own a car and a pickup, love both for different reasons. When younger usually drove a pickup, now work less and drive a car more. I own open top and Remington style, shoot both, like both for different reasons. If I am going to shoot a little or walk around the place and plink some I take a open top. Usually with a few loaded cylinders, mine does not require a hammer and punch to get apart. Cylinder change is not as quick and easy as the Remington, but I'm not in a hurry. Sighting on Remington being better isnt a issue when old eyes are not as sharp as they were 50 years ago. I just like the old open top guns, but will say it took shooting them to change my mind. Before shooting them I was convinced I wouldn't like them because of negative things I heard and read about them. The fact was most of what I had heard was BS from people that didnt shoot them. Just like most of the bad mouthing blackpowder gets is from folks that do not shoot it. I shoot both open top and Remington, like some things about both. Usually if just going to shoot one it is open top, like the way they feel and point.

 

[Rex in OTZ]

My first cap and ball revolver was a broken 1851 Reb brass frame .44
I knew from the beginning the limitations of the design.
If you want More power there are more powerfull revolvers out there.
As for cap jams, I knew that 1851's choke on caps.
If figure the 1851 is an anachronism.
If you want .50 cal get a .50 cal.
If you want something thats like a .357 magnum, then buy a .357 mag.
If you like Me appreciate the lines of the open top, and are willing to deal with all the issues associated with open top colts.
Get them just because they are anachronism's.

 

[expat_alaska]

Wow! That's a lot to digest.

My first cap and ball revolver was a broken 1851 Reb brass frame .44. I knew from the beginning the limitations of the design.

In what way was it "broken"?

If you want more power there are more powerful revolvers out there.

Yeah. The 1860 Army .44, all four versions of the 1848 Dragoon .44, and the Walker.

As for cap jams, I knew that 1851's choke on caps.

The 1851 Navy is much better in that regard than the 1848/1849 Pocket revolvers. Insofar as the 1851/1861 Navy and the 1860 Army having cap jams, one can either turn the revolver horizontally 90 degrees to the right when cocking the revolver, or modifying the hammer safety pin recess to eliminate any sharp edges and modifying the bottom of all the nipples with a slight V-groove so the powder gases blow downward upon firing the cap so as not to shove the spent cap into the revolver mechanism.

I figure the 1851 is an anachronism.

See above.

If you want .50 cal get a .50 cal.

If you want something that's like a .357 magnum, then buy a .357 mag.

Uhmm… what?

If you like me appreciate the lines of the open top, and are willing to deal with all the issues associated with open top Colts, get them just because they are anachronisms.

See above.

Regards,

Jim

 

[45 Dragoon]

So, you admit your first cap gun was broken when you got it so . . . that becomes the standard?!

Nothing like the voice of experience!! Lol!!

I know folks that shoot them faster than most folks can shoot their cartridge gun (can't do that if you have cap jams). I know there are "open tops" set up for fanning (yes, they work just like their supposed to). I set these ( and Remington's too) up to be as reliable as cartridge guns and some of my customers hold State Championship titles. Maybe you got off on the wrong foot ? Or maybe you just don't like cap guns . . . or maybe you don't know what your doing.

Mike

 

[CraigC]

And certainly, if the Colt company believed that the open top design was superior, then they would never have introduced their top strap design 1873 Model P in .45 Colt.

Let's be clear, the SAA has a top strap because that's what the Army asked for.

I won't delve into the strength issue because I really don't think it's relevant. Both designs are obviously strong enough for blackpowder and mild smokeless pressures. Note the only stretched Open Tops we see are either brass or 150yrs old.

I have multiples of both and find the Colt pattern sixguns preferable. Their grips are more comfortable. They are more pleasing to look at. They are more natural pointers and I like the way they handle. I like `em fine but don't see myself ever investing in engraving, fancy finishes or ivory for a Remington.

 

[expat_alaska]

Note the only stretched Open Tops we see are either brass or 150yrs old.

Brass frames don't stretch. The portion of the recoil shield around the arbor gets battered/indented by the ratchet teeth on the rear of the steel cylinder (causing considerable end shake) when fired with heavy loads. They can't stretch because the steel wedge in the steel arbor slot and steel barrel slot won't allow it to do so.

Regards,

Jim

 

[CraigC]

What's the difference? All beside the point anyway. The point is that we are not seeing worn out modern steel open top Colt replicas.

 

[Old Stumpy]

Let's be clear, the SAA has a top strap because that's what the Army asked for.

I won't delve into the strength issue because I really don't think it's relevant. Both designs are obviously strong enough for blackpowder and mild smokeless pressures. Note the only stretched Open Tops we see are either brass or 150yrs old.

I have multiples of both and find the Colt pattern sixguns preferable. Their grips are more comfortable. They are more pleasing to look at. They are more natural pointers and I like the way they handle. I like `em fine but don't see myself ever investing in engraving, fancy finishes or ivory for a Remington.

Lets be clear. All romantic nonsense aside, the top strap design was a logical evolution that replaced the first practical cap lock revolver that Pearson designed for Colt in 1836.
The grip on the Colt revolvers may be superior and the nostalgic qualities of them may evoke strong (though irrational IMHO) loyalties, but the top strap design was clearly necessary to eliminate the archaic wedged separate barrel design and to produce a superior product.
The fact that Colt stubbornly retained it for so long simply demonstrates that had no interest in improving his basic design as long as he could continue to trade on his name and reputation and his pistols continued to sell well.
Winchester, to some degree, trod the same tired trail, retaining the weak toggle locking action of the 1855 Volcanic pistol even when their rivals introduced stronger and better rifles.
It was not until it became clear that they could not produce a .45-70 toggle-locking rifle, and that the public wasn't much interested in weaker propietary cartridges that they finally gave in in 1886.

The fact is that even with strength considerations set aside, the top strap designs are far more user-friendly, allowing the shooter to pop out the cylinder for wiping and to deal with fouling.
The Colt of course needing tools to knock out its 1836 wedge every time the shooter wants to remove the cylinder.
The Remington in particular also simplifies a breakdown cleaning, with it only being necessary to remove the grips and trigger guard with 2 screws to access the internal parts. The hammer spring even just slides out. The Colt requires that six screws be removed to dismantle the grip frame and that the hammer spring also be unscrewed just to reach the same point.
Disregarding the romantic nostalgia, Colt Cap & ball revolvers are a pain in the ass for the shooter.

If you like their appearance and their pointability goody for you.
In terms of practical black powder shooting, they remain a poor second choice.

 

[dickydalton]

Oh well

 

[CraigC]

So any opinion that differs from yours is dismissed as "romantic" and therefore, silly and not to be taken seriously? Got it. Strong opinions for someone who just took delivery of their first Colt pattern percussion gun. The OP implies more of an open mind that any of the subsequent responses.

Fact is, the top strap was not necessary for blackpowder pressures and blackpowder backthrust. It only really became necessary as pressures increased. It's a funny thing that my modern cartridge conversions seem to hold up fine.

Handling qualities are not nostalgic. It either handles better or it doesn't. Same for comfort. The same way a Colt SAA handles better than a S&W #3. It's not nostalgia that makes the hammer closer to the thumb.

The swapping of cylinders is highly overrated. The ease with which Colt's are broken down for cleaning is not. Few swap cylinders. Everybody has to clean.

I would rate a sixgun that points more naturally as significantly more "practical" but I'm weird like that.

Pain in the ass? Poor choice? Isn't the whole point of blackpowder guns because we want the "pain in the ass" of archaic weaponry???

 

[expat_alaska]

What's the difference? All beside the point anyway. The point is that we are not seeing worn out modern steel open top Colt replicas.

Big difference, and not beside the point at all. You started the discussion about that, and if you cannot recognize the difference between a "stretched" frame and a battered frame, you basically don't know of what you speak. The cause has been discussed many times by many knowledgeable folks (I am only reiterating what I have learned from them). I'm just glad you are not my gunsmith.

I am done here.

Jim

 

[woodnbow]

Let's be clear, the SAA has a top strap because that's what the Army asked for.

I won't delve into the strength issue because I really don't think it's relevant. Both designs are obviously strong enough for blackpowder and mild smokeless pressures. Note the only stretched Open Tops we see are either brass or 150yrs old.

I have multiples of both and find the Colt pattern sixguns preferable. Their grips are more comfortable. They are more pleasing to look at. They are more natural pointers and I like the way they handle. I like `em fine but don't see myself ever investing in engraving, fancy finishes or ivory for a Remington.

View attachment 899329

I did invest fancy finishes and grips in a Remington once. I’ll try many things once...


Remington grips do not fit my hand. No matter how much I wanted them to... oh well, I’ll find something else to shoot.

 

[CraigC]

Big difference, and not beside the point at all. You started the discussion about that, and if you cannot recognize the difference between a "stretched" frame and a battered frame, you basically don't know of what you speak. The cause has been discussed many times by many knowledgeable folks (I am only reiterating what I have learned from them). I'm just glad you are not my gunsmith.

It is beside the point. You're just taking what you want to argue with out of context for the sake of your argument.

The point, which was MINE to make however I choose to make it, is that we are not seeing worn out steel framed modern replicas. So that kinda makes any strength that may or may not be inherent to the topstrap design irrelevant.

"Frame stretching" is not a literal term anyway. Frames don't really "stretch". They flex and allow the parts they contain to batter themselves loose. But I had no intentions of diving into that subject in any detail because I don't believe it's relevant to the discussion. Hence the vague/loose use of the term "frame stretching".

I'm not a gunsmith and never claimed to be.

I am done here.

Lighten up.

 

[bigstick6017555]

Actually I have never seen any gun i disliked or did not want to own. They are all must haves in my book. If only I was a millionaire

 

[TheOutlawKid]

I love colts. I love their simplicity and ease to modify and work with. Each gun, although mass produced, is very unique and its own individual. Unlike the plastic cartridge guns of today...i feel percussion guns have character and almost a soul. Theyre made of steel and wood and have an organic feel to them. A heft you can feel when you lift one in your hand. I love that with these guns i have to tweak each individual gun to make it into something more than how its life started...give it a personality or atleast bring it out. I love that i can make my black powder and percussion caps. I love that they have flaws like cap jamming yet can be made to overcome this obstacle. I love that it made me into an amateur gunsmith. They have taught me so much and started me on a lifelong love affair with black powder and black powder guns. Btw...none of my guns get jammed.

 

[Bill Raby]

I think Remington is a better design. But I like Colts better.

 

[The Old Redneck]

I own both steel and brass frame guns in both. Know steel frames are stronger and "better" because of added strength. I don't load heavy so it doesn't matter. The brass frames are fun for no special reason. The open tops even more so. I'm not a fan of the high Tec semi autos to get out and do the spray & play type shooting. I do carry a Glock in 45 acp as everyday carry gun. When I get out shooting for pleasure a single shot or cap and ball is where I'm happy. The cap and ball revolvers and double barrel external hammers double barrel shotguns are my favorite "high capacity" toys. The extra strength, speed of cylinder change, etc just really doesn't matter. Nor does the extra time it takes to load a front loading old double. If it did I would shoot a cartridge gun. Blackpowder shooting to me is a relaxing, take my time and enjoy sport. When I drank enjoyed sipping a really good single malt scotch. In the morning enjoy sipping a good cup of coffee. Old man said years ago that people that are always in a hurry miss the pleasures of life. The best memories come from things you take time to enjoy. Memories are the only things you can take with you.

 

[Jackrabbit1957]

Its a whole different attitude and philosophy, nothing more to say.

 

[.38 Special]

...we are not seeing worn out modern steel open top Colt replicas.

I am trying!