Remington Versus Colt Revolvers

[jax katz]

but when it comes down to testing head to head...the colt wins.

Don’t you see that you are doing exactly what your post complains about ? And if you have no experience and books written by gun smiths are not to be trusted , who do you trust ? Some guy on the internet ?no offense Mike.
I don’t take any one persons advice unless it is all there is . I trust the preponderance of evidence and that involves more than one source.
On soldiers : they want a gun that works, is simple, has stopping power, and can be reloaded fast. They don’t care about nuisances in the heat of battle. In large part, according to multiple sources, they preferred the Remy.
I read an article quoting a soldier in the Spanish American war ? Can’t remember but he wrote a letter to the colt company thanking them for the double action revolver. He said if he had had to cock his pistol every time he would be dead. He was fighting in such close quarters , with so many enemy that he didn’t have time to cock the hammer each time he shot. That is how important reloading is to a soldier. I read another where the ACW soldier carried extra cylinders loaded with caps on to speed up reloading. Jax

 

[arcticap]

There may be an important detail that 45 Dragoon is leaving out about his bent frame at the loading lever, and that is it was an older ASM Remington.
Whether the bent frame was due to abuse or poor heat treating or an impurity in the steel, I have no idea and honestly, I don't know if Mike does either.
Mike showed the photo of the thin metal in that part of the frame and it is thin.
But how many others have ever bent their Remington frame besides his friend that it also happened to?
If it ever happens to current Ubertis or Piettas, I don't recall reports about it.
But I do hear about ROA owners who bent their cylinder pin or loading ram.
That doesn't mean that the ROA doesn't have the strongest frame of them all because many will say that it does.

You want to know why?
Because every Colt is capable of having its barrel fly off the gun and land downrange at any time when the gun is fired.
If the wedge falls out, the barrel won't be secure and it happens to people.
That won't happen to a Remington because the barrel is threaded to the frame.
A loading lever isn't even necessary to fire the gun since it can be loaded off the frame with a rock and a stick.

So an old Remington with possibly a flawed frame or construction is used as an example of why the Remington frame is weaker than Colt.
Even if it did happen to a gun made with top quality steel, that's not the most important part of the design , the threaded barrel part of the design is stronger just like the US Army decided.
The Colt 1860 frame can handle a .44 magnum, but if the wedge can fall out at anytime then how strong is that?
Let's admit that every gun has flaws with some being worse than others.
Which flaws are worse is only a matter of opinion.

 

[45 Dragoon]

Ok, I'm beginning to see how folks that don't hold to the "correct view" about certain things just don't remember things "correctly". I guess what really happened is I just got tired of the Remington that I bought new in 1977, shot the fool out of it and just tossed a serviceable pistol in the trash.
I have seen the error of my ways and will from now on preface this subject with " in my opinion ". . . . NOT !!!
I understand and agree that no particular revolver design is perfect . . , that's what I try to accomplish almost every day . . . to make each particular revolver the absolute best example of its particular make. It's not my decision " just because " about which design may or may not be the strongest, it never occurred to me to try and figure it out, it showed itself to me during a session. Pure and simple. The lead may have been too hard of an alloy or oversized but what happened happened and l'm not going to change the story and I don't throw serviceable guns away.

Just like arcticap says, I forgot about the screw in barrel (I didn't really, it didn't bend there, but let's go on) the screw in barrel is definitely a much easier design and is exactly why they are still made that way today. The screw in barrel is what gave us "barrel constriction" which is a problem written about since before I was born. No system is perfect . . . The O.T. has a wedge . . . they also have short arbors (every one of them! Of course some folks will swear theirs isn't, until they drive the wedge in far enough). Here lies the biggest difference in the examples we have today. The construction of the OT is much more complicated and to make it correct would drive up cost. So, a more correctly made design (Remington) is constantly compared to an example not made correctly from the get go!! No system is perfect . . . especially when it's not made as designed to begin with.
Back to arcticap's post - wedges can work loose or fall out (I guess) but not by design. If "driven in" (as by design) in a solid wedge slot (because the arbor is bottoming out - as designed) the wedge won't/can't work loose/fall out . . . no moreso than nails will fall out of your house.

So, (I've got to get in the shop) it's back to a Ford /Chevy thing (yes OutlawKid, it's Chevy!) I would shoot either design (after I "fix" either design), and with a smile on my face (no, the Remington doesn't bust my knuckles like some complain about . . . another design fl. . . never mind) because they just won't break!!
I like um both.

Mike

 

[TheOutlawKid]

Im gonna end this debate by editing wikipedia...being that its where some of the info was gathered. Wikipedia is the worst place for research being that just about anyone can edit/add anything as its a user edited database thats updated by users who dont always rely on facts, and sometimes will add things to be vindictive or for laughs... Wiki has started a lot of false facts online...which is why its not considered an accurate refrence guide by any academic party. I can edit wiki to say remington is the worst and uses silly putty instead of iron to make their cylinders and that colts are more advanced than an f-117 stealth fighter jet. So word of caution to everyone...wiki info should not be taken as fact but with a grain of salt! I remember when wiki had tons of links that would "rick roll" you... Such fun.

 

[45 Dragoon]

But Kid, what about the Chevy's ?!!


Mike

 

[jax katz]

w

Most sources are like that but wiki cites most of it’s sources, it may be a requirement or your post gets a flag for “citation needed”. You are free to follow up on their citations. A good researcher will look for supporting documents and evidence. When you are totally ignorant on a subject wiki is a good place to start. In my case my search led me to many sources that confirm that the US Army rejected the 71/72 open top for strength and colt solved the problem with a top strap on a new design frame that also eliminated the wedge. So to date I only have a preponderance of evidence but not the original record. I am searching patents and army ordinance records for the test results.
you would discount all printed evidence and go with one dude on the internet with unverified (at least by me ) experience and his say so, exactly what you were complaining about a post or two back. I don’t buy anything on somebody’s say so and do my own research. I only posted wiki’s comment because it mimicked , almost word for word , what every other source said and I don’t have to post a link for you to find it. Jax

 

[jax katz]

Mike, sorry again. No ill reflection on you. I don’t know you but am sure you are highly qualified . I just think you are wrong on this one. As @arcticap said to paraphrase “ the gun don’t shoot too good without a barrel “. Guns and metal wear. Wedges wear. Wedge slots wear. I have read many reports of the barrel flying off a colt but never your experience with a remy. I read somewhere that as the wedge and slot wear the barrel wobbles a bit. God forbid that in the heat of battle you drop your wedge and lose it. Anyway, didn’t mean to go on but I really don’t mean to be rude either. Jax

 

[45 Dragoon]

Jax, that's OK. Because arcticap made a funny about not shooting too good without barrels, you've decided his remarks are better than mine and that's OK. He hasn't collapsed a Remington frame and I have (I work on both so it's not a commercial for me , I could care less!) If you actually read all of my post about open tops and being produced correctly, maybe a knowledgeable person may figure out what I was conveying when comparing the two designs. So, since your are so steeped in your decision for the Remington all else is obliterated, I really have nothing more to offer. I don't care if I convince you or not, my job and specialty is fixing both. So, happy shooting!

Mike

PS, Glad you found evidence of folks carrying loaded cylinders for fast reloads, people around here have been trying to figure that one out for years!!

 

[TheOutlawKid]

Small block chevys are a perfect creation...whether the smaller crank diametered 283 or 327....or the stock 350...or a bore and stroked 383-388 stroker. Flat tappet or roller cam/lifter set up They are all great, simple, perfect machines....like a colt

 

[45 Dragoon]

Not to mention a SB 400 . . .

Mike

 

[TheOutlawKid]

The citations given arent from actual gun smiths or engineers who make comparison tests...just links to people regurgitating the same info as fact that remington is better. But are they gunsmiths and/or engineers who have made the side by side comparisons? Nope. Sure a colt will shoot its barrel off if the cylinder pin is out or comes loose...but failures could occur if someone doesnt lock in the cylinder pin of a remington. Both guns can fail if you dont do your part...and if you arent doing your part to make sure you are shooting a safe gun then please shoot far away from me please.. What mike was explaining was that the guns engineering makes it weaker. If all metallurgy on the guns equal that the physical makeup of the gun is far more flawed and weaker than a colt. Now...if you have years of gunsmithing and/or engineering under your belt and can speak of real world tests you have done...then by all means share. Links wont cut it because they arent actual tests by smiths or engineers. Mike has provided his results and takes apart and rebuilds these guns daily...im sure he knows a thing or two about them and what is stronger or flawed or better/worse...his reputation relies on it...and he has a great reputation of rebuilding bulletproof guns. I doubt he would be providing false information...unless hes just pulling the wool over our eyes...but i dont see mike taking the time and energy out of his day to do that. Wait...would you mike? Now im questioning everything you say mike! Hmmm. But even i can see how the remington gun is weaker. Nevermind mike...i believe you again

 

[jax katz]

just links to people regurgitating the same info as fact that remington is better.

No citations are given to references from people with some level of authority to speak on the subject, whether it be scholars, scientists, documents, and artifacts, etc. and whether they are contrary or harmonious , pro or con, affirmation or denial. It is up to you to sort it out.
What tests have been provided ? I haven’t read every post in this thread . Did I miss something ? In fact I have not discovered, yet, any mention of weapons test rejections except colt. Can you provide any certified results ? I did find some ballistic test results but they were not the basis any rejections or approvals . I believe I read that in equivalent type and caliber Remington fared better, at least in accuracy but I think also in penetration. I don’t remember where I read that but you have enough query combinations to find it yourself.
Have you ever been to Mike’s shop ? Had him work on anything for you ? Have you ever met him ? Are you his son ? What can you offer that validates your opinion of his experience and testing qualifications?
There is a guy in town that has been changing tires for 40 years. I am not going to let him work on my SB Ford, or my Cobra 289 or my Boss 302 or my 351W or my 427AB 750bhp @ 6300rpm. And let’s not forget the Clevor, A 351W with Cleveland heads. Talk about interchangeability . The 71/72 open top that was rejected by the army had no interchangeable parts with older models. I bought a boat with a GM V6 and I am thinking 4.3 right ? Nooooo! Mercriuser used a Buick engine. A 3.8. Completely different. Block crank cam firing order heads, everything. The same year Chevy would have been a 4.3, you can’t spit without hitting one. And of course since it’s marine it uses still another cam and water pump among other things.
This is not a dis on Mike. I am sure I could learn a lot from him but I am not going to acquiesce because you said so. I have no basis to judge Mike’s abilities. I do question his opinion. My question now is Who are you ? Why should I trust your opinion of an opinion of somebody else I don’t know. Mike at least has made claim to his experience and knowledge, what is yours ? I’ll bet you couldn’t edit wiki with your own data without citation flags.
This whole subject is ridiculous. If you like your gun , enjoy it ! If you want to make comparisons , do it at the range and let the pistol do the talking. I am sorry that I ruffled feathers and I am new here but took a little offense on the criticism of the gun I just picked out and I could have chosen a colt but my research led me to Remington and I am quite pleased except for the fouling problem. BP substitute helps a lot and I read , after dozens of recommendations on lubes and greases including “Pam” , which I might try, That the trick is shoot with the pin dry or maybe a little graphite. I think I’ll try the graphite first.
I bought the Taylor conversion cylinder and plan to get the Kirst conversion with a loading gate. Does anybody have any thoughts on that ? Mike ? Does the mod prevent you from using other cylinders ? Jax

 

[45 Dragoon]

Jax, I know you're new here and folks tend to be Remington fans or Colt fans and toes get stepped on when it comes to "which is better /stronger" type threads. Like you say, you did your research and came to a conclusion and you tend to pick the statements that support your decision. It's natural. I just wanted to shed some light on the "fact" that I have personally had a Remington frame fail but never a Colt O.T. So, since we were discussing design strength, the OT wins because there is more "meat" where it counts compared to the Rem. Also, the frame for the OT is much more compact (think of the arbor as a top strap). More material + a more compact framework lends itself to the strength side whereas the top strap design is thinner in places and is spread around the perimeter of the cylinder. Less material + bigger foot print = less overall strength.
That said, the fouling problem for the Remington can be addressed but graphite won't be the answer. A good synthetic grease ( Mobil 1 ) will be the better solution. The "racing community" (CAS) has been using it for years and is one reason why I switched to it years ago (cars /guns . . . very similar. Racing- best test bed ever!)! I also have a basepin mod which pretty much alleviates the build up of fouling. It along with the Mobil1 is an excellent combination. It is in use on many of my competition Remingtons and has won state championships. It's a combination of a Colt fouling cut (thank you Sam) and a reduced diameter section of the pin (thank you Ruger) with 3 passages linking the two ( GGW).

The Kirst gated conversion will allow the use of either cylinder. Some hand modification may/will need to be done. There is always the possibility/probability of some bolt fitting. It will depend on how far you want to go towards perfection. As far as that goes, a perfectly timed S.A. can not share or interchange parts with any other S.A. . Interchangeability of parts is just for function at best, new parts are over-sized so they can be fitted.

I got my training from Mr. Jim Martin who also taught Mr. Eddie Janis of Peacemaker Specialists.

No, the OutlawKid is not my son! Lol!! I have "coached" him in some areas and answered his questions about tuning others revolvers. He's a good guy, understands directions and the technical aspects of the S.A.

So, welcome to the forum Jax. Sorry you had a rather abrupt intro to a rather dedicated bunch !!

Mike

 

[jax katz]

The Kirst gated conversion will allow the use of either cylinder. Some hand modification may/will need to be done. There is always the possibility/probability of some bolt fitting. It will depend on how far you want to go towards perfection.

So, welcome to the forum Jax.

Thanks. I’m going to make my own ‘75 Remington Outlaw and still be able to shoot c&b and a spare Taylor cyl. of .45 colt. I really like the look of that gun in nickel. I’m going to pay them to do the mod so I have the parts and labor at the same shop and it’s their product. They do a competition performance setup that includes the frame mod and extractor install. I think the extractor parts are extra. Do you recommend that service ? Jax

 

[45 Dragoon]

Jax, well, I normally recommend my service lol!! But I totally understand . . . I have never seen their work . . . especially their "competition" setup. It's probably a spring package in addition to the conversion install. It would be interesting to see what their competition package is, maybe you could post a pic when you get it back.
My usual service for Remington is a switch to coil/torsion springs for the the trigger, bolt and hand. I'm pretty sure I'm the first to coil spring the Remington action. They are bullet proof!!

Keep us posted on how it goes.

Mike

 

[TheOutlawKid]

Lol...am i mikes son? Well...no. But um..i don't think anyone here has to have been to his shop to know the man can work on a gun. Have you not done a search for his work? Or the testimonials from hundreds of customers and a lot of them competition gun slingers? Goons Gun Works is pracrically THE shop to send your gun to if you want it worked on to be bulletproof. Now im not blood...but i find him to be a good friend and mentor. I too am a gun tuner and Mike actually goes out of his way to call and give advice/help to me...and asks nothing ij return...just to be nice and see to it that im delivering a quality project. I dont know ajy gun smith/tuner who would do such a thing. Now maybe he does this because hes bored...or whatever reason..but i like to think he does it because he wants me to get good enough to make a name for myself so that people have a different person to send guns too...hes swamped with work! Or maybe hes just doing it because he enjoys seeing our hobby grow. The point is...i have worked on guns and have a bit of feedback to my name...not as much as mike...but you dont have to be a blood relative or been to his shop to know his guns are anything short of amazing machines. And to make such improvements to a gun...that alone shows he knows what hes talking about. Buuuuut im going to just end this by saying you win...remingtons are better and colt is weak and might as well be made of cheese. You win buddy...you have proven me and mike wrong and we have seen the errors of our ways. And from now on ill refer all my customers to you being that you are far more knowledgeable than ill ever be and im sure mike will also follow my steps. And whenever this subject matter comes up we will send a link to this discussion and let them know you have done all research and provided links...none to actual engineers and gunsmiths with actual years of experience...but links none the less. So matter is closed...remington is better because you have done the research and mikes and my testing and real world experience and side by side comparisons are invalid and no match for the research you have done. Ill bow out...but chevy is still better. That i will fight to the death.

 

[TheOutlawKid]

Speaking of weaker guns....i dont own a brass gun myself...but i handled a newish 2017 pietta colt not long ago and it had a very tight .002 arbor spacing..it was actually a gun i tuned for a friend. And he shoots some hot loads, well 30 grains and round ball...i was very surpised to see it wasnt battered or had issues with the frame. Would any of you all assume its due to the tight cylinder gap spacing and the tight arbor/wedge fitment? I know for a fact he shoots this thing weekly, older retired gentleman and loves his brasser....and when he told me he wanted a hammer sheild (had declined to add one previously) i was expecting to tell him it may not be worth investing into a brasser thats been used hard. I was very surprised to see how tight everything was. Kinda proved to me the new brassers may not be as bad/weak as some folks have stated and experienced. I know the cylinder can ram indentations into the frame if the cylinder gap is too big...which i have seen myself. Could it be the "questionable" brass the italians are using is actually a harder and better quality or is it just the same as it was decades ago ...or is it only because the gun was tuned to have tighter clearances?

 

[arcticap]

Ok, I'm beginning to see how folks that don't hold to the "correct view" about certain things just don't remember things "correctly". I guess what really happened is I just got tired of the Remington that I bought new in 1977, shot the fool out of it and just tossed a serviceable pistol in the trash.
I have seen the error of my ways and will from now on preface this subject with " in my opinion ". . . . NOT !!!
I understand and agree that no particular revolver design is perfect . . , that's what I try to accomplish almost every day . . . to make each particular revolver the absolute best example of its particular make. It's not my decision " just because " about which design may or may not be the strongest, it never occurred to me to try and figure it out, it showed itself to me during a session. Pure and simple. The lead may have been too hard of an alloy or oversized but what happened happened and l'm not going to change the story and I don't throw serviceable guns away.
Just like arcticap says, I forgot about the screw in barrel (I didn't really, it didn't bend there, but let's go on) the screw in barrel is definitely a much easier design and is exactly why they are still made that way today. The screw in barrel is what gave us "barrel constriction" which is a problem written about since before I was born. No system is perfect . . . The O.T. has a wedge . . . they also have short arbors (every one of them! Of course some folks will swear theirs isn't, until they drive the wedge in far enough). Here lies the biggest difference in the examples we have today. The construction of the OT is much more complicated and to make it correct would drive up cost. So, a more correctly made design (Remington) is constantly compared to an example not made correctly from the get go!! No system is perfect . . . especially when it's not made as designed to begin with.
Back to arcticap's post - wedges can work loose or fall out (I guess) but not by design. If "driven in" (as by design) in a solid wedge slot (because the arbor is bottoming out - as designed) the wedge won't/can't work loose/fall out . . . no moreso than nails will fall out of your house.

So, (I've got to get in the shop) it's back to a Ford /Chevy thing (yes OutlawKid, it's Chevy!) I would shoot either design (after I "fix" either design), and with a smile on my face (no, the Remington doesn't bust my knuckles like some complain about . . . another design fl. . . never mind) because they just won't break!!
I like um both.

You responded to my post but seemed to ignore the part questioning the metallurgy of your old 1977 ASM frame that got bent.
And I understand that may be because no one is sure whether the quality of the steel was also at fault as well as the thin dimensions of that area of the frame that supports the loading lever.

My comment had to do with the quality of the metal that was used on the old ASM Remington.

And that also raises another issue about whether the modern production guns use better steel or have beefed up the frame dimensions in that critical area.
We know that Uberti now forges their frames which is supposed to add some extra strength.

Do you honesty believe that the modern Remington frames bend as easily yours did?
And the other question would be why yours bent so easily, if there were any other reasons besides the thin design.
It's an honest question since not all Remingtons are built the same, even if they have the same dimensions.
If the currently made Remington frame is truly capable of being ruined by trying to ram a hard and slightly over-sized ball, then everyone should be made aware of it to save themselves from ruining their frame too.
And someone should send Uberti and Pietta a message that their guns are defective and can't support the use of its own loading lever.
How many frame failures are just waiting to happen which could run them out business with complaints.
I would certainly hope that they use better steel than ASM did back in 1977.
Maybe they've been covering it all up for a long time now and everyone should load off the frame, especially if they cast their own balls.
And imagine all of the people who buy the originals would also need to be made aware to load off the frame because they are all defective by original design.
The Federal gov't must have really gotten scammed to think that the Remingtons were worthy of being purchased for the military during the civil war.
Imagine that everyone has been duped into buying Remingtons for generations now.

 

[Officers'Wife]

In my mind the only advantage of the Remington is you don't have to have three hands to change the cylinder to "reload" in the field. The Colt is far more pleasing to the eye.

 

[45 Dragoon]

Gooooood Lord !!!!!

Some of y'all are amazing!!!!! Lol

Arcticap, this is about DESIGN not Metallurgy!!! For crying out loud!!! My "incident" happened 35 yrs ago!!! I didn't think of running it to a lab for testing !!!! Are you kidding me ?!!!! I'm not quite as sure as you are about it being ASM either! It was an FIE import and I never said who the maker was . . . !!

As far as modern manufacturing I'm sure they are all much better than 70's production. I'm sure you've seen me post many many times about 2nd gen Colts having '70s parts in them . . . they suck!! All the reproductions sucked back then !!

As for the Design aspect, you know as well as I do that O T wedges don't just fall out as a design feature and you also know the flaws of the arbor in reproductions save for the later Pietta's so, it's a little surprising to me that you'd stoop to your statement about barrels going down range at any time . . . really? I'd bet that of the 100's of OT's that I've corrected, none has lost a wedge . . much less had a barrel go "down range" . If anything, it reflects on the one pulling the trigger on said gun !!! Nothing will work correctly if it's not made correctly or assembled correctly.

Guess what? The arbor is screwed into the frame on open tops (and, it's solid not hollow). Just because because a barrel is screwed in doesn't give a revolver super strength. In fact, it's just "there". The arbor is a substantial support structure for the assembled frame. Full of all the tensile strength the Remington has in its top strap. Comparing the loading lever sections of the Army and the Rem., the Rem. is lacking. Just below that area on the Rem, it's miniscule! The frame itself there is very skinny but at least gets wider as you go back. The recoil shield is smaller in diameter than the Colt as well. The Colt frame is fairly substantial width wise throughout. It's almost as if you took the same amount of material, made a perimeter frame (top strap) and then made one only half as tall (Colts arbor design). The shorter, stouter structure would definitely be the stronger of the two. Sorta goes without saying. (The Navy has even more material !!)

Mike

 

[whughett]

Looking back I at the posts I noticed one claim of shooting a 30 rounds, not questioning that, I’m luck to get 12 with the two I own, a Navy Arms in 36 and A Armi San Marco. And if I do two cylinders I have to use a light hammer to tap out the base pin.

Two summers ago I did a deliberate test to see just how many shots I could get off with several of my Colts. 96 shots, 30 grains 3F, lubed wad and 454 RB. I stopped at 96, the cylinder needed a bit of an assist with thumb but it rotated.
The technical conversations going on are above my expertise but the Remmies stay home the Colts go to the range.
Of course the ROA’s and Spencer’s are a different story.

 

[jax katz]

Lol...am i mikes son? Well...no. But um..i don't think anyone here has to have been to his shop to know the man can work on a gun. Have you not done a search for his work? Or the testimonials from hundreds of customers and a lot of them competition gun slingers? Goons Gun Works is pracrically THE shop to send your gun to if you want it worked on to be bulletproof. Now im not blood...but i find him to be a good friend and mentor. I too am a gun tuner and Mike actually goes out of his way to call and give advice/help to me...and asks nothing ij return...just to be nice and see to it that im delivering a quality project. I dont know ajy gun smith/tuner who would do such a thing. Now maybe he does this because hes bored...or whatever reason..but i like to think he does it because he wants me to get good enough to make a name for myself so that people have a different person to send guns too...hes swamped with work! Or maybe hes just doing it because he enjoys seeing our hobby grow. The point is...i have worked on guns and have a bit of feedback to my name...not as much as mike...but you dont have to be a blood relative or been to his shop to know his guns are anything short of amazing machines. And to make such improvements to a gun...that alone shows he knows what hes talking about. Buuuuut im going to just end this by saying you win...remingtons are better and colt is weak and might as well be made of cheese. You win buddy...you have proven me and mike wrong and we have seen the errors of our ways. And from now on ill refer all my customers to you being that you are far more knowledgeable than ill ever be and im sure mike will also follow my steps. And whenever this subject matter comes up we will send a link to this discussion and let them know you have done all research and provided links...none to actual engineers and gunsmiths with actual years of experience...but links none the less. So matter is closed...remington is better because you have done the research and mikes and my testing and real world experience and side by side comparisons are invalid and no match for the research you have done. Ill bow out...but chevy is still better. That i will fight to the death.

Dude you wrote the post telling us not to regurgitate the same stuff that “somebody said “. And I never claimed to be an authority so I sought out real authorities. Your argument is not with me it is with them. I didn’t prove you wrong but I did provide evidence and you did not. So if you want to make it a win or lose , I win by default.
I worked for 40 years in the automotive/trucking/marine industries. 25 years with the same Detroit Diesel Dealership. I worked for them while Detroit Diesel was still a division of GM and all the way through the Penske years and I worked in their fuel injection shop for 12 years building every brand pump, injector, and turbo on the market. I am a GM man but also like fords, and mopars. But the perfect machine / engine is the VW 1600 dp aircooled. Jax (lose the chip)

 

[arcticap]

Gooooood Lord !!!!!

Some of y'all are amazing!!!!! Lol

Arcticap, this is about DESIGN not Metallurgy!!! For crying out loud!!! My "incident" happened 35 yrs ago!!! I didn't think of running it to a lab for testing !!!! Are you kidding me ?!!!! I'm not quite as sure as you are about it being ASM either! It was an FIE import and I never said who the maker was . . . !!

As far as modern manufacturing I'm sure they are all much better than 70's production. I'm sure you've seen me post many many times about 2nd gen Colts having '70s parts in them . . . they suck!! All the reproductions sucked back then !!

You're making my point.
How do we know that your bent frame wasn't caused by poor metallurgy?

As for the Design aspect, you know as well as I do that O T wedges don't just fall out as a design feature and you also know the flaws of the arbor in reproductions save for the later Pietta's so, it's a little surprising to me that you'd stoop to your statement about barrels going down range at any time . . . really? I'd bet that of the 100's of OT's that I've corrected, none has lost a wedge . . much less had a barrel go "down range" . If anything, it reflects on the one pulling the trigger on said gun !!! Nothing will work correctly if it's not made correctly or assembled correctly.

Not everyone fixes their short arbor problem or send their guns to you to get Goonerized.
The forums are full of people who complain about the fit of their wedges being too tight or too loose.
They experience wear at the barrel lug slot whereas the Remington uses threads to attach the barrel.
Many remove them with finger pressure only, and they are forced to reset their barrel cylinder gap using their wedge after each and every time that they remove the barrel.
Some folks do lose their wedge because they can fall out, which has probably happened more times than a Remington frame has been bent.
Unfortunately, short arbors and wedge problems are a big part of the flaws related to the "stronger" Colt design.
It they weren't, then you wouldn't be in the business of fixing their manufacturing flaws.
Yet it seems that you want us to believe that Colts are stronger and maybe they are in some respects, but at what cost to the new unsuspecting owner.
Especially if needing to be sent to 45 Dragoon for the upgrades.
I like Colts, but the wedge system is often flawed even with today's high manufacturing standards whereas the Remingtons are usually good to go right out of the box.

You talked about the cost of correcting a benign problem such as barrel constriction, but look at the cost to fix a new Colt just to make it function as intended.
If anyone should know, it would be you.
Are these simply manufacturing defects or design flaws.
Needing a custom made cap post and shield seem to indicate a flawed design since they were left out when they're actually necessary improvements.
So the Colts seem to have a weaker functional design as opposed to a literal measurement of physical strength.
Physically speaking, both gun designs seem to be strong enough for their intended purpose.

 

[45 Dragoon]

Arcticap, well my Remie lasted almost 10 yrs with many pounds of lead through it. So the flaw took its time (if there was one).

And, you're right, "not everyone fixes the short arbor" . . . exactly my point!!!! You shouldn't have to!!! The originals didn't have this problem, they were built to the design!! Wow I figured you knew that. That's why folks have the problems you mention!!! I've been saying all along, compare correct examples of both!! The wedge is supposed to be DRIVEN in, not pushed in with the thumb. The arbor problem is the reason for all the modern problems you mention. I know this has been mentioned before too . (broken record). The wedge isn't a "gap" setter either . . . the arbor is!!

The Remington is by far the easier to manufacture (I've only said it a million times!! ) , which is why the top strap layout is in use today (and this will need to be repeated a million times again . . . ). The only way to make a top strap stronger is to increase the width/thickness of the top strap and the forward part of the frame (hello Ruger , BFR, Freedom Arms . . . ). I've pointed this out many times as well. To do the same to the OT , it would have to big gargantuan!!! The horse pistols are big enough and don't need to be made bigger. Even then, the design can be "modernized" (wedge less) and made to shoot 45 C Ruger only loads. (Can't do that with the Remington).

As far as me tuning S.A. revolvers, Colts have been tuned since they were ever offered, just like any revolver, car, motorcycle . . . some folks just like and appreciate things as close to perfect as they can be. Maybe you've never handled a truly tuned revolver . . . a cartridge version of the same . . . the "nicer" things . . . nobody has to send me anything . . . they can send it somewhere else . . . I don't know where but somewhere . . . I reckon it's my fault that I do what I do ?! I won't apologize . . .
Seems to me that when folks point out that one's living apparently shouldn't be needed, says more about the person saying it.
Welcome to The High Road folks!!

Oh, and as far as the cap post and shield are concerned, the caps apparently weren't the problem they are today (I've read posts in here about that surely you have). The shield is just a very functional addition, not necessarily needed.

Mike

 

[jax katz]

I found a couple interesting things on Colts and Remingtons....

http://www.nrvoutdoors.com/COLTREM/COLT OR REMINGTON.htm


Was that a chain fire ?