which is better/1858 or 1860
- Thread starter Lilbigun2958
- Start date
- Status
oldpapps
Member
"Colt design was plenty strong enough for a blackpowder percussion gun. While the Remington may indeed be stronger, I really don't think it mattered" CraigC
No argument here. However, my great-uncle carried a hammer, cause he thought that using his Colt would break or bend something. I can't image how much trouble I would have been in if I carried a hammer to wack people with when I was a COP. But uncle Lewis did. But that was in the 0's, teens and twenties and he was the elected City Marshal. Some weapons need to be stronger in other ways than just shooting
This is from old family stories. I was too young to ask him questions before he passed.
No argument here. However, my great-uncle carried a hammer, cause he thought that using his Colt would break or bend something. I can't image how much trouble I would have been in if I carried a hammer to wack people with when I was a COP. But uncle Lewis did. But that was in the 0's, teens and twenties and he was the elected City Marshal. Some weapons need to be stronger in other ways than just shooting
This is from old family stories. I was too young to ask him questions before he passed.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
A cartridge case thrusts backwards directly into the recoil shield, upwards of the basepin. This puts a lot of leverage between the basepin and the recoil shield. It is directly proportionate to chamber pressure. This is what causes frame stretching. A percussion cylinder does not bear against the recoil shield above the arbor/basepin but only at that point. This puts a lot less leverage against the frame and at a lower point. IMHO, this is what makes the strength issue between the Colt with its large arbor and the Remington with its little basepin, as percussion pistols firing black powder, a tossup.
DoubleDeuce 1
Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2008
- Messages
- 465
I prefer the 1860 Colt. It is beautiful to look at and a pleasure to shoot. It fits me better than the Remington also. Both have some drawbacks. But for me, it would definitely be the Colt as a favorite.
The Colt reminds me of the lower part of the leg of a beautiful woman. Elegant.
Mykeal, have you seen Mary Ann lately? Ginger isn't much better...
The Colt reminds me of the lower part of the leg of a beautiful woman. Elegant.
Mykeal, have you seen Mary Ann lately?
Ginger isn't much better...
BSA1
member
On the strength issue, I think too many people apply modern cartridge logic to percussion sixguns. A percussion gun does not stress the frame like a cartridge gun does. Think about the backthrust a cartridge applies directly to the recoil shield. In this case, the top strap helps the frame resist stretching. There is no such backthrust in a percussion gun. IMHO, the Colt design was plenty strong enough for a blackpowder percussion gun. While the Remington may indeed be stronger, I really don't think it mattered until they began using metallic cartridges.
Colt must of thought so or they would not designed it on the 1873 SAA.
Colt must of thought so or they would not designed it on the 1873 SAA.
Thought we were talking about the 44 caliber, 1858?
Not sure what that means. Could be wrong, but I interpret it to say that you believe a percussion cylinder only bears on the arbor. That's not the case; it impacts the recoil shield all around the arbor. The arbor itself reacts the moment created by the off-axis bullet motion in the Colt design, whereas the Remington top strap takes this force in compression. Not sure how that compressive load results in frame stretching.
kBob
Member
Straw Hat,
Wasn't trying to be a pill. You just wrote that Remington did not make any revolver with a brass frame.
I agree they did not make a New Model Army or what we call a '58 in brass
-kBob
Wasn't trying to be a pill. You just wrote that Remington did not make any revolver with a brass frame.
I agree they did not make a New Model Army or what we call a '58 in brass
-kBob
Tommygunn
Member
StrawHat said:
Well.....
The large caliber revolvers (.36 & .44) were never made with brass frames.
The 1863 model, .31 caliber with the spur trigger, had four major variations throughout its production. Two of these four did have brass frame.
The other two had iron frames. One of those two had a brass sheath for the spur trigger.
There were also variations in the cut-outs for the nipples and the front sight.
But Remington did actually make brass frame revolvers.
Noz
Member
Colt did not design the 1873 pistols. He was long dead by then.
kBob
Member
Folks tend to forget that Colt Firearms had a solid frame in 1855 for both pistols and rifles as well as shot guns with the Root series guns.
Appearently Root had an engineer working for him named Beals......that later worked for Remington and at some point forWhitney briefly. One might discribe the firearms industy of the mod 1800's as incestuous when you start looking at who worked where and with who or manufactured what for whom.
-kBob
Appearently Root had an engineer working for him named Beals......that later worked for Remington and at some point forWhitney briefly. One might discribe the firearms industy of the mod 1800's as incestuous when you start looking at who worked where and with who or manufactured what for whom.
-kBob
Attachments
Old Dragoon
Member
Being a Fprdyce Beals (Remington - Beal's) admirer, I believe that Beals worked for Whitney, before Remington. I believe Fordyce Beals made some great advancements in firearms during his time.
Mike OTDP
Member
Geoffery Boothroyd's book "The Handgun" had a great chart showing the relationship between the various American firearms makers in the 1800s. Incestuous doesn't begin to describe it.
What's surprising is that some of the firms are still in business - though the organization founded by Eli Whitney now makes jet engines.
What's surprising is that some of the firms are still in business - though the organization founded by Eli Whitney now makes jet engines.
Olmontanaboy
Member
Uberti Remington (imo) I have a 36 and a 44 with zero problems so far. The Uberti Colts look great but most suffer from the short arbor flaw. Don't know about the Piettas. I don't like the warning stampings Pietta puts all over the side of their barrels.
BSA1
member
Colt did not design the 1873 pistols. He was long dead by then.
I did not say Samuel Colt. However in your interest of historical accuracy when the management and designers employed by Colt Firearms created and marketed the Colt 1873 Single Action revolver for the blackpowder cartridge round they must of thought the top strap was necessary for the strength and durability of the revolver.
I did not say Samuel Colt. However in your interest of historical accuracy when the management and designers employed by Colt Firearms created and marketed the Colt 1873 Single Action revolver for the blackpowder cartridge round they must of thought the top strap was necessary for the strength and durability of the revolver.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
I'm saying that in a cartridge gun, the case head itself bears directly, straight back against the recoil shield at the firing pin. Due to headspacing, it also gets a tiny running start. It is this backthrust, as proven scientific fact, that causes frame stretching. In a percussion gun, there are no cartridges to backthrust against the recoil shield, nor are the forces it does endure so high on the frame, resulting in increased leverage. The forces are more of an indirect twisting action against the arbor. Those are two very different forces bearing against the frame. IMHO, it is very simplistic to say that the Remington is stronger than the Colt design because it has a top strap, when you do not take into account the forces encountered or their design intent.
William Mason designed the Colt SAA with a top strap because the Army asked for it. Only months prior, they would've been more than happy to supply them with the 1871-1872 Open Top .44 rimfire.
I'm not familiar with this proven scientific fact. I am familiar with the science of engineering statics and free body diagrams, and I'm unable to create a diagram that results in the frame stretching you claim. Perhaps you could refer me to the source of those scientific facts or provide the free body diagram.CraigC said:
kBob
Member
I think the COlt 1873 had a top strap because the US Army said "hey the other feela's got top straps. WHere's yer top strap? What if we wanna use our revolvers for clubs or hammers or they get dropped from a horse on to the cold hard ground? Them there top straps sure look stronger. You guys really over that fire thing yet? Whyn't you modernize when ya rebuilt......ya-da ya-da-da
OPen top colts go bang and are fun. They seemed to have worked well and just fine from1847 to 1873. Obviously a convertable is not as safe in a roll over as a hard top (or are they?) but some folks like convertables. SOme of us like shooting BP with the top down.
-kBob
OPen top colts go bang and are fun. They seemed to have worked well and just fine from1847 to 1873. Obviously a convertable is not as safe in a roll over as a hard top (or are they?) but some folks like convertables. SOme of us like shooting BP with the top down.
-kBob
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Find it on your own, I'm tired of spoonfeeding those who display open hostility toward me.
tpelle
Member
I's an interesting fact that Colt had a revolver with a top strap, the 1855 Root. It also had a small-diameter base pin, similar to that of the Remington Beals, except that on the Colt the base pin unscrewed and was removed to the rear. This necessitated that the hammer on the Root was a sidehammer.
Why didn't Colt stick with the design? Well, it seems that it was a not a commercial success. You see, revolver buyers who were in the market for a Colt wanted their revolver to LOOK like a Colt, which meant that it had to be an open top and that the barrel be retained by a wedge.
The Root WAS developed into a carbine - an easier conversion than that of a Colt open top or even a Remington, considering that there needed to be no special provisions for removing the cylinder base pin.
Why didn't Colt stick with the design? Well, it seems that it was a not a commercial success. You see, revolver buyers who were in the market for a Colt wanted their revolver to LOOK like a Colt, which meant that it had to be an open top and that the barrel be retained by a wedge.
The Root WAS developed into a carbine - an easier conversion than that of a Colt open top or even a Remington, considering that there needed to be no special provisions for removing the cylinder base pin.
MCgunner
Member
I want a 60, have a 51 brasser in .44. But, probably get a 51 steel frame .44 first, get a spare wedge and fit my 5" barrel to the steel frame. The '51 is OH so handy.
My Remmy is a 5.5" and it's a GREAT shooter. I load 30 grains Pyrodex, cornmeal filler over that, .454 Round ball and can get 2.5" 5 shot groups out of it off the bench at 25 yards nearly POA, is POA taking a coarse bead. It just don't get much better except for my ROA. The ROA is a big, heavy beast, though, and the Remmy is so easy to tote.
As a shooter out of the box, I vote 58. The Colts shoot high and it takes some filing to get 'em reasonable at 25-50 yards. I LOVE the quick change of cylinders, too, can fire up 18 rounds and not worry about binding. Wipe the pin down, go in the house and reload 'em again if you want. For safety, cap the cylinders after they're on the gun in the field. The spare cylinders are on sale at Cabelas, now, just got mine. I already have 3 for the Navy.
The '51 is OH so handy.My Remmy is a 5.5" and it's a GREAT shooter. I load 30 grains Pyrodex, cornmeal filler over that, .454 Round ball and can get 2.5" 5 shot groups out of it off the bench at 25 yards nearly POA, is POA taking a coarse bead. It just don't get much better except for my ROA. The ROA is a big, heavy beast, though, and the Remmy is so easy to tote.
As a shooter out of the box, I vote 58. The Colts shoot high and it takes some filing to get 'em reasonable at 25-50 yards. I LOVE the quick change of cylinders, too, can fire up 18 rounds and not worry about binding. Wipe the pin down, go in the house and reload 'em again if you want.
For safety, cap the cylinders after they're on the gun in the field. The spare cylinders are on sale at Cabelas, now, just got mine. I already have 3 for the Navy.BHP FAN
Member
I used to buy spare cylinders. now I just buy spare guns.
CraigC is correct that in a cartridge revolver, the cartridge itself thrusts back against the recoil shield and that tends to stretch the frame. A topstrap doesn't actually eliminate that but it reduces it to an insignificant level.
In a percussion revolver, regardless of design, the backthrust is not of a cartridge case but of the whole cylinder, recoiling against the frame. The size of the center pin or base pin is not relevant, it is simply a rod for the cylinder to ride on; it has no role in stopping or slowing the cylinder back thrust. But as CraigC also notes, the cylinder backthrust is at a lower point on the frame, where the frame is thick and there is less leverage tending to bend the frame than in a cartridge revolver. So, given the loads in use in the period, the Colt design was more than adequate.
The redesign of the Colt 1860 to the 1873 was not sudden. The open top cartridge revolver was a transition point. It was with that gun that Colt's designers realized that the early design was just not suitable for a cartridge revolver and went to the closed top frame. They did, though, try to keep as much of the early tooling as they could, which resulted in, for one thing, the tiny rim of the .45 Colt.
Jim
In a percussion revolver, regardless of design, the backthrust is not of a cartridge case but of the whole cylinder, recoiling against the frame. The size of the center pin or base pin is not relevant, it is simply a rod for the cylinder to ride on; it has no role in stopping or slowing the cylinder back thrust. But as CraigC also notes, the cylinder backthrust is at a lower point on the frame, where the frame is thick and there is less leverage tending to bend the frame than in a cartridge revolver. So, given the loads in use in the period, the Colt design was more than adequate.
The redesign of the Colt 1860 to the 1873 was not sudden. The open top cartridge revolver was a transition point. It was with that gun that Colt's designers realized that the early design was just not suitable for a cartridge revolver and went to the closed top frame. They did, though, try to keep as much of the early tooling as they could, which resulted in, for one thing, the tiny rim of the .45 Colt.
Jim
tpelle
Member
MCgunner,
You know that any "Navy" can't properly be in .44? Why spend the money for a "historical replica" when the thing it supposedly "replicates" never existed?
There are plenty of .44s out there that actually ARE replicas of actual historical guns - the Walker, the Dragoons, and the 1860 Army. Why not buy one of those instead?
I'm sorry, but I'm a history nut. A .44 cal 1851 "Navy" just gets under my skin.
You know that any "Navy" can't properly be in .44? Why spend the money for a "historical replica" when the thing it supposedly "replicates" never existed?
There are plenty of .44s out there that actually ARE replicas of actual historical guns - the Walker, the Dragoons, and the 1860 Army. Why not buy one of those instead?
I'm sorry, but I'm a history nut. A .44 cal 1851 "Navy" just gets under my skin.
rdstrain49
Member
I was going to reply, but after reading all this stuff I forgot what the question was. Seems I'm not the only one.
- Status
