Remington Versus Colt Revolvers

[arcticap]

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

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


Was that a chain fire ?

It appears to be since the video's caption states:
"Fire from one barrel sets off the others. We've recorded it in slow motion!"

However it also could have been a simulated or staged chain fire to make it look just like a chain fire.
For instance, if balls weren't actually loaded into the chambers but only powder blanks of some sort.

 

[jax katz]

It appears to be since the video's caption states:
"Fire from one barrel sets off the others. We've recorded it in slow motion!"

However it also could have been a simulated or staged chain fire to make it look just like a chain fire.
For instance, if balls weren't actually loaded into the chambers but only powder blanks of some sort.

I watched it several times and the only title or caption I see says “colt explodes in shooters hand , we recorded it in slow motion.”
I use an iPad so maybe I don’t see what you see. ? I hate the thing and might have inadvertently turned captions off. The only reason I asked is because the fire is in puffs like a Roman candle that didn’t launch. Jax

 

[jax katz]

In response to another reference to my implied idiocy ...
I only thought it interesting that soldiers carried extra cylinders, if they could get them, not only charged and loaded but with caps on too. these were cavalry not infantry and that means a lot of jiggling but I also learned today that they probably did not swap cylinders ( even remingtons ) while mounted in action but had to carry extra pistols, if they had them , or stop to change cyl. or reload.

 

[45 Dragoon]

Nobody was implying idiocy sir. It's just a little humor thrown in since folks have been arguing for years here if that was or wasn't a practice. They've been looking for hard evidence to support either side . . . and you apparently found it.

Mike

 

[arcticap]

I watched it several times and the only title or caption I see says “colt explodes in shooters hand , we recorded it in slow motion.”
I use an iPad so maybe I don’t see what you see. ? I hate the thing and might have inadvertently turned captions off. The only reason I asked is because the fire is in puffs like a Roman candle that didn’t launch. Jax

The way to read the caption of a youtube video is to watch it on youtube and not on this page where you can only see the video but not the caption and comments about it that were made by watchers.
In order to do that, a person needs to right click on the video while it's being played [or has been activated] on this page, and then copy & paste the video's URL link into the address bar of a new window or tab.
Or go to youtube and do a search using the title of the video.
Sometimes there's a lot of information and reference links contained in the captions of videos.
And the comments can include replies and explanations from the video's poster.

 

[jax katz]

Here is an excerpt from popular mechanics. According to the author the ordnance dept. made suggestions to Remington but demands were made of Colt. :

Following a fire at Colt's Connecticut factory in 1864, the Army placed significant orders for Remington Model 1858 pistols to fill the gap. The solid-frame Remington was arguably a better, more robust pistol than the open-frame Colt revolvers. Remington continually improved the Model 1858 based on suggestions from the U.S. Army Ordnance Department.
The Colt 1871 "Open Top" was chambered in the popular .44 Henry rimfire cartridge. When the Army tested Colt's new pistol, they complained that the .44 rimfire round was too weak and that the open-top design wasn't as robust as rival pistols from Remington and Smith & Wesson. The Army demanded a more powerful cartridge and a stronger solid frame.
Colt quickly obliged producing a run of three sample pistols for testing and examination. This new revolver was the prototype for the now legendary Colt Single Action Army. The new pistol, developed by William Mason and Charles Brinckerhoff Richards, had a solid frame and fired Colt's new .45 caliber center-fire cartridge. This gun is still manufactured today.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a26625/us-military-handguns/
Matthew Moss is a British historian and writer specializing in small arms development, military history and current defence matters. He has written for a variety of publications in both the US and UK he also runs www.historicalfirearms.info, a blog that explores the history, development and use of firearms.

 

[45 Dragoon]

Colt Walker 1847
Built on apparently the weakest platform ever, with vastly inferior materials.
Most powerful production handgun for almost 90 yrs.
Go figure . . .

Mike

 

[Old Stumpy]

delete

 

[Old Stumpy]

Colt Walker 1847
Built on apparently the weakest platform ever, with vastly inferior materials.
Most powerful production handgun for almost 90 yrs.
Go figure . . .

If you build something large enough and heavy enough you can compensate for its' inherent weaknesses.

I mean, it did weigh 4 1/2 pounds.

 

[45 Dragoon]

If you build something large enough and heavy enough you can compensate for its' inherent weaknesses.

I mean, it did weigh 4 1/2 pounds.

Oh I hear ya and agree with ya but THAT S.A. put S.A.revolvers on the map. And just like every New technical innovation, that becomes the "mark to beat". After a dozen yrs of technical advances in the arms world, the so called " best platform ever" still couldn't best the second runner up (Dragoons) !!

What's funny about all this is I'm not going to change my mind. And I don't believe there's anything anyone can do to explain the "why I should". I've already conceded the size of the OT is pretty much the limiting factor for a reasonable size revolver. The top strap is definitely the best design as far as manufacturing. I guess folks just like to argue . . . you can't have your own opinion about something anymore. My Dragoons shoot 1000 fps 250 gr. rounds and still maintain .0015" bbl./cl. clearance (my '60 Army does too, I just don't want to rub it in!!! Lol!), so it can't be nearly as bad as some of you want it to be. Maybe someone could find the original orders / test comments from the military and see what was actually said (if anything) about "strength". It would definitely be a better argument instead of something written in 2017 for Popular Mechanics by someone that has no real care one way or another!! I think it's more of " this is what I heard so . . . " gets printed so it's by God the gospel! Find the real deal!!
One caveat, I'm still gonna make a Dragoon that can shoot Ruger onlys ( the only dimensional change being a very slight cylinder dia. increase for locking notches. Something I would allow for any competition . . . ). You can't do that with a Remington NMA (without major frame modification). Those are the kind of things I like to think about . . .
And, for the umpteenth time I still like Remingtons, it's a great design and is capable of what it's supposed to do (course, I know that doesn't matter . . . ).

Mike

 

[woodnbow]

“The US Army” in the cap and ball era felt the Remington and S&W were more robust. But does anyone alive today really believe an open top Colt is less robust than a top break Smith and Wesson?
Mike, I’ve got an 1860 that’s been blazing away since the 1960’s without a hitch unless you count replacing the wedge once in the 1980’s. These days I shoot 3 or 4 cylinders full per week but when I was younger I shot a lot more, (cap and ball as well as cartridges) and the gun has held up just fine.

 

[45 Dragoon]

Woodnbow, I agree totally!! And, your old '60 would be even better if the "short arbor" was fixed!!! They are anvils!!!

Mike

 

[Old Stumpy]

But does anyone alive today really believe an open top Colt is less robust than a top break Smith and Wesson?

The latch on those S&W revolvers looks pretty weak.

 

[jax katz]

If you build something large enough and heavy enough you can compensate for its' inherent weaknesses.

I mean, it did weigh 4 1/2 pounds.

And they could have picked it if they wanted it re-issued. The dragoon was still produced in 1860 and was based on the walker, the first ones sharing parts. Then there was the Colt 1860.
The army wanted more and the 71 open top , which was basically a 60 model that used cartridges, didn’t meet specifications.
Also 300 of the 1100 walkers had cylinder ruptures, that we know of , and the dragoon was just a down loaded walker.

Colt Walker 1847
Built on apparently the weakest platform ever, with vastly inferior materials.
Most powerful production handgun for almost 90 yrs.
Go figure . . .

Mike

Only in the US.
There are those who would say Adams-Beaumont Dragoon 1851 , .50 cal., was more powerful. It also had a solid frame and top strap. I think I read Jeff Davis had one.
The solid frame , top strap design has , through the passage of time, proved to be superior regardless of which Manufacturer you prefer.

I am still looking for the army reports but sifting through dept. of ordnance records is tedious and boring. I post them if I find them.

 

[45 Dragoon]

And they could have picked it if they wanted it re-issued. The dragoon was still produced in 1860 and was based on the walker, the first ones sharing parts. Then there was the Colt 1860.
The army wanted more and the 71 open top , which was basically a 60 model that used cartridges, didn’t meet specifications.
Also 300 of the 1100 walkers had cylinder ruptures, that we know of , and the dragoon was just a down loaded walker.

Only in the US.
There are those who would say Adams-Beaumont Dragoon 1851 , .50 cal., was more powerful. It also had a solid frame and top strap. I think I read Jeff Davis had one.
The solid frame , top strap design has , through the passage of time, proved to be superior regardless of which Manufacturer you prefer.

I am still looking for the army reports but sifting through dept. of ordnance records is tedious and boring. I post them if I find them.

Ah yes, and look at the difference in the amount of material in the specific areas previously mentioned as problem areas for the Remington . . . taaa daaa!!

Mike

 

[jax katz]

Ah yes, and look at the difference in the amount of material in the specific areas previously mentioned as problem areas for the Remington . . . taaa daaa!!

Mike

Taaa-daaa nothin ! The 71 open top failed period. I don’t really need the report because it was not accepted and Colt produced a solid frame top strap revolver instead. Huh the design proved so good that it was in service for twenty years.
By contrast when Remington supplied the Gov’t , they did so without modification.
One other point. You claim the walker was the most powerful but look how overbuilt it is and even then it was prone to explode if loaded to capacity . colt downloaded it with the dragoon which couldn’t carry the same load.
The 60 was downloaded farther. Remington worked in the opposite direction , increasing their loads. Now some say “well it’s no ruger” but ruger used the design , beefed up “ to use heavier loads , not 30 grain loads. So it stands to reason that remingtons Issued were designed to Fire a certain load reliably. However the design can be used to produce extremely high powered revolvers. The open top can not and had reached the apex of it’s power curve.
Finally, Colt’s had inherit problems with their design, primarily the wedge, that the solid frame did not. If any agency had a problem with remingtons’s design , reliability, or practicality, it is not reported or cannot be found by me. Except modern fouling issues.
On that I would like to ask, did folks in the 19th century use lubes or did they just oil them down when opportunity presented ? My research taught me that the flat side of the Remington cylinder pin is to give fouling material a place to go but it has no final exit. Fouling tends to be attracted to and mixes with the Lube was then has no lubricity and binds. The Colt evidently has spiral grooves down the arbor and and exit. So I am still looking to keep my cylinder and pin dry and am going to try Brownell’s powdered graphite or a moly application On the pin that hardens and lasts a long time. Jax

 

[woodnbow]

I’ll say one thing for the British... they know how to build the most beautiful and graceful long arms on the planet and the ugliest, most graceless handguns known to man.

 

[woodnbow]

The Old Army is far from a copy of the Remington revolver. They both have topstraps, barrels and under barrel loading levers. The Ruger lever design is unique in all the world and the revolver it borrows most heavily from isn’t even a cap and ball pistol. The Remington is an ok revolver, no more powerful than the Army Colt. It’s got better sights. Fouls more easily.

Look at your average firearm owner today though and ask yourself if their counterparts in the 1860’s and ‘70’s were shooting more than a cylinder full at a time. Probably not. There were outliers, shooters back then just like now and I don’t doubt the Remington fans of that day found ways to keep the gun running, reload it and then wipe the cylinder face with a wet rag or whatever. But for most shooters it probably wasn’t a concern, and if it was the solution soon presented itself, buy the new Colts Single Action Army with its cylinder bushing and your troubles were over.

 

[jax katz]

The Old Army is far from a copy of the Remington revolver. They both have topstraps, barrels and under barrel loading levers. The Ruger lever design is unique in all the world and the revolver it borrows most heavily from isn’t even a cap and ball pistol. The Remington is an ok revolver, no more powerful than the Army Colt. It’s got better sights. Fouls more easily.

Look at your average firearm owner today though and ask yourself if their counterparts in the 1860’s and ‘70’s were shooting more than a cylinder full at a time. Probably not. There were outliers, shooters back then just like now and I don’t doubt the Remington fans of that day found ways to keep the gun running, reload it and then wipe the cylinder face with a wet rag or whatever. But for most shooters it probably wasn’t a concern, and if it was the solution soon presented itself, buy the new Colts Single Action Army with its cylinder bushing and your troubles were over.

Never said the Remington was copied by Ruger. I don’t make the comparisons, Colt folks do. A colt 60 model wasn’t a walker. The power levels are determined by specification. The open frame had reached it’s limit. For comparison sake stick to the Remington-Beals against the Colt 60. My guess is that the Remington was stronger since it compared ( the 1875 model )evenly with the Colt 73 , basically unchanged in frame design from the 1858. The colt 60 disappeared .
All BP guns foul.

 

[jax katz]

Also...
the army had been asking colt for a solid frame revolver as far back as 1863.

There is a controversy surrounding the cylinder arbor (shaft) issue that is neither clear nor borne out by the history. Plus, it can have “implications” for reenacting and living history.
One of the driving factors in the changes made to the Beals revolver focuses on having to lower the loading lever and remove the cylinder arbor or shaft in order to be able to remove the cylinder. The Colt design used a somewhat effective but crude and at times hard to adjust not to mention the risk of loss wedge or barrel key system for connecting the barrel to the frame.
In order to remove the cylinder from an “open top” Colt, one has to first remove the barrel wedge/key. It is small and losable. In order to remove the cylinder from a Beals, one had to lower the loading lever and remove the cylinder arbor.
Why the big deal?
The argument here is, that it would be easy to disable one’s revolver by dropping either the Colt barrel wedge/key or the Beals cylinder arbor from the saddle. Some interpret this issue and attempts to resolve it by Remington but NOT by Colt (until 1871) as arising from cavalrymen changing out loaded cylinders for empties in the saddle (although there is no, to date. Research or documentation that speaks to a spare cylinder being ordered, issued, or used perhaps outside of spare parts for armorers).
So, it would seem to apply to field or barracks cleanings rather than a spare loaded cylinder issue.

 

[jax katz]

Now for something we hope you’ll really like !
I have a real question that I can’t find the answer to.
I have a Pietta model 1858. I also have a Taylor conversion cylinder. So I change cyl. a lot not to mention the fouling.
I remove the cylinder by slightly rotating it cw out of the right side. I install it by slowly rotating it ccw from the left side. I can almost do it with one hand. With the gun at half cock the indexing tab retracts but the ratchet (don’t know the correct term but the arm the pushes the cylinder around) arm is slightly protruded. To load I slightly slant the cylinder to push the ratchet arm in while slightly rotating the cyl ccw. Once the cylinder gets on top of the arm it pushes it in and the cylinder pops right in. Is this the “secret Remington handshake “ or am I out of time somehow ? If the former, why keep it secret ? Jax

 

[45 Dragoon]

Well, the arbor "issue" is very real, well known and very fixable (I fix them almost daily). The originals that I've worked on do not have the "issue". You just don't understand the design.

The Remington base pin is flat on the bottom so you can pull the pin and drop the cyl. Otherwise you'd have to unscrew the loading lever screw to remove the pin.

The Ruger Old Army is a 3 screw Blackhawk with a modified frame (longer) so it can accept a cap & ball cylinder. It has a 3 screw action (Colt, S&B, Whitney) rather than the Rem. 2 screw. Loading lever / base pin retainer from the R&S and naturally shares Blackhawk parts.

Mike

 

[45 Dragoon]

Now for something we hope you’ll really like !
I have a real question that I can’t find the answer to.
I have a Pietta model 1858. I also have a Taylor conversion cylinder. So I change cyl. a lot not to mention the fouling.
I remove the cylinder by slightly rotating it cw out of the right side. I install it by slowly rotating it ccw from the left side. I can almost do it with one hand. With the gun at half cock the indexing tab retracts but the ratchet (don’t know the correct term but the arm the pushes the cylinder around) arm is slightly protruded. To load I slightly slant the cylinder to push the ratchet arm in while slightly rotating the cyl ccw. Once the cylinder gets on top of the arm it pushes it in and the cylinder pops right in. Is this the “secret Remington handshake “ or am I out of time somehow ? If the former, why keep it secret ? Jax

I always roll the cyl out to the right and install from the right. Slight CW rotation will /should alow the cyl to push the "hand" (advances the cyl) back into the recoil shield. Installing from the left side means the hand has to pass by the cyl base pin hole which can be irritating. Your "indexing tab" is called a "bolt", Ruger calls it a " cylinder latch" (they also call the hand a "pawl" . . . they speak a different language over there!!).

Mike

When I read the first line, I thought you were going to pull a rabbit out of your hat (or cut to a commercial).

 

[jax katz]

When I read the first line, I thought you were going to pull a rabbit out of your hat (or cut to a commercial).

Again ? That trick never works.

 

[jax katz]

I always roll the cyl out to the right and install from the right. Slight CW rotation will /should alow the cyl to push the "hand" (advances the cyl) back into the recoil shield. Installing from the left side means the hand has to pass by the cyl base pin hole which can be irritating. Your "indexing tab" is called a "bolt", Ruger calls it a " cylinder latch" (they also call the hand a "pawl" . . . they speak a different language over there!!).

Mike

When I read the first line, I thought you were going to pull a rabbit out of your hat (or cut to a commercial).

So that is the way it’s built, my gun is , in this regard , ok ?
I tried from the right but that didn’t allow me the room to “grab an edge”, so to speak, to start pushing the hand it. So I tried from the left side and was able to slide the edge of the cylinder up the “ramp” of the hand then swing the bottom of the cyl. in. It just slides right in. I can rotate the cyl out , push it over the top strap, get it started in the frame, and with my index finger and thumb of the same hand get the cyl started up the ramp and push the bottom of the cyl in with my palm. It kinda swings in pivioting on the hand. Is this the secret handshake ? I know I can do this because I was using my other hand to hold the dadgummed ram lever up some and the pin pulled back. I don’t see how a person could do it on horseback.

on the Colt vs Remington debate, sorry I got off topic, here are a couple of videos I found interesting. They are short. Also I searched for Remington frame trouble or problems. Fouling was about all I found besides small things like grip. I also found a report from congress citing the ordinance dept recommendations of 1870 (if you read it ) even though the congressional document is from 1875. So it is before the “open top” was submitted or the 73 was developed and colt already had a gov’t contract for the 1860 model.
https://books.google.com/books?id=-hxlAAAAcAAJ&pg=RA23-PA15&lpg=RA23-PA15&dq=remington+revolver+bends+easily&source=bl&ots=AE8ajsaarr&sig=ACfU3U0I2QPQqzigSZAP0cAGeeJ0YRf_LQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiMtsa96ZLrAhVCmeAKHQ9CCTY4FBDoATAFegQIDBAB#v=onepage&q=remington revolver bends easily&f=false
the info is scattered through the document. Takes a little digging to find the report date and test procedures. The site won’t let me copy.