PDA

View Full Version : Colt vs Remington



Fly
04-03-2015, 08:21 PM
Well I have both & love them the same. But which would I use in battle?

You be the judge. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7A_w9-QXtg

Fly

Thumbcocker
04-03-2015, 09:36 PM
Cap and ball EU has a great channel. He is a competitive
bp shooter and has a phd in history. His English is much better than my mygar.

texaswoodworker
04-03-2015, 09:47 PM
Both are excellent guns. I think the Remington has the Colt beat though. It was the stronger gun, had an easily removable cylinder (the closest thing to a magazine you were going to get in the 1860s), and was less likely to jam from stray caps than the Colt. Colt ended up copying the top strap design when they created the 1873 Single Action Army.

M-Tecs
04-03-2015, 10:18 PM
Whatever I had but I would prefer the Remington.

StrawHat
04-04-2015, 07:13 AM
I wish I still had the publication but some engineer ran tests on the two revolvers and found the open top was actually stronger design than the top strap. Colt included the top strap at the request of the military design board who rejected the 44 Colt Open Top revolver. The case was also increased in size to allow the grease grooves to be protected.

Kevin

texaswoodworker
04-04-2015, 07:48 AM
I wish I still had the publication but some engineer ran tests on the two revolvers and found the open top was actually stronger design than the top strap. Colt included the top strap at the request of the military design board who rejected the 44 Colt Open Top revolver. The case was aos increased in size to allow the grease grooves to be protected.

Kevin

If you ever come across that article, could you post a link? I'd like to read what he said. From looking at the two guns, it doesn't look like that would be the case.

http://www.uberti.com/sites/default/files/styles/model_hover_large/public/originals/product-firearms/1858-new-army-revolver.png?itok=a-_2-aZX
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Colt_Army_Mod_1860_US.JPG

bob208
04-04-2015, 09:19 AM
having own and shot both a lot . if I had too carry a cap and ball pistol. I would carry a Remington two would be better.

curator
04-04-2015, 09:52 AM
The U.S. Cavalry thought enough of the Colt 1860 Army revolver to send most back to the arsenal for refurbishing and re-issue after the Civil War. Just like today, folks had their preferences. Some liked the Remington, others, the Colt. Realistically, almost no one reloaded a revolver in battle, they carried more of them if they needed more firepower. Mosby's boys carried four or more on the pommel of their saddles. While Colt did provide extra cylinders for their Paterson revolves sold to the Texas Rangers, the spare cylinder reload is mostly a Clint Eastwood/Hollywood fabrication.

A good way to determine "which is better" is to take one of each to the range and time how long it takes to load and fire 24 shots in each revolver, using a loading stand and the revolver's loading lever, not a cylinder press. Shoot off sandbags and place your targets at 50 feet, not the usual seven yards so you can get a better idea of actual accuracy. Both designs have their good and bad points. My experiences lead me to choose the Colt if I had to reload in the field, but the Remington if I had several guns and did not have to reload.

Dan Cash
04-04-2015, 11:23 AM
Curator, "A good way to determine "which is better" is to take one of each to the range and time how long it takes to load and fire 24 shots in each revolver, using a loading stand and the revolver's loading lever,..."

I agree to a point but can't go with the loading stand. To realisticaly test them, you will have to fumble with paper cartridges or worse, a powder flask while standing or lying behind cover or mounted on a scared horse.

My personal choice in the debate here is the Colt as the grip fits my hand better, particularly the Navy Colt but the 1860 sure has mor stopping power. For accuracy, I give the edge to the Remington but the Colt is good enough.

Golfswithwolves
04-04-2015, 02:08 PM
I don't think it makes any difference at all to a recreational shooter which one might be "better". Just use the one which pleases you the most, or use both.

Ballistics in Scotland
04-04-2015, 02:53 PM
The original question was about a battle, and it might depend whether it was a long or a short battle. For me the smaller and ungrooved Remington axis pin used to gum up with black powder fouling a lot faster than the Colt's, even with grease lubrication. I also agree about the Colt grip being better, especially for a large hand.

StrawHat
04-05-2015, 07:07 AM
If you ever come across that article, could you post a link? I'd like to read what he said. From looking at the two guns, it doesn't look like that would be the case.



As I recall, it had something to do with the size of the arbors, the wedge and the strength of the frame. But I read it decades ago and never thought it would be useful to maintain it in my files.

My preference has always been the Colt revolver starting with the 1861 and expanding to the 1860s and finally the conversions of the same. Never been a fan of the Remington as it does not fit my hand nor point as naturally. A brace of either would hopefully keep me going at the end of a battle.

Kevin

heelerau
04-05-2015, 09:02 AM
I have both, but would put my life on the Remington.

Ballistics in Scotland
04-05-2015, 12:05 PM
I have a great interest in the Chamelot-Delvigne French 1873 ordnance revolver, which in many ways was extremely advanced compared with what others were doing at the time. (It was double-action with extremely robust lockwork, and you could expose everything for examination and cleaning without separate tools, and without letting any small parts fall out. Delvigne was born in 1878, and his revolvers of 1870s manufacture were still giving good service with second-line troops in the Battle of France.

But Resistance members and others sometimes modified the chamber (it doesn't take much) for the .45 ACP, and it sometimes breaks the topstrap. I have seen calculations done by a French engineer, which suggest that the topstrap should stand the pressure of a moderate .45 ACP load. The trouble, he thought, was with the sharp impact of the GI hardball bullet.

In the cap and ball Colts a lot the pressure is held by the wedge through barrel and axis pin. When the wedge is tight, the pressure tends to force the barrel forward and compress the part where it adjoins the bottom lower frame. The French and Belgian Lefaucheux-style pinfires, though they look pretty spidery, may be even stronger, as the barrel is threaded onto the axis pin. (The only reason I can see why Colt didn't do the same, is that the wedge permits tightening up an increasing cylinder gap.) The reduction in rear cylinder diameter from the 1850s to the 1860s Colts was made possible by importing British Stubbs silver steel, around the time when Col. Colt's London factory was open. So the axis pin and wedge may be quite a bit stronger than the barrel or frame steel.

In the solid-frame Remington, however, frame steel is what you get, and the axis pin bears no longitudinal load. The topstrap bears most of the load, and the very thin front of the frame, though probably in tension rather than compression, must flex to permit it.

I wouldn't have liked to say that the solid frame is the weaker of the two. But if others have found it so by experiment or experience, I don't believe there is any reason to disbelieve them. Failures were surely very rare, but another ounce steel might have transformed it.

The French bought some cap and ball Remingtons as an emergency measure during the Franco-Prussian war, and thought their power and accuracy to be a marvelous thing. But their military doctrine was that cavalry charged home with sword or lance, and in other arms a revolver was a sort of short-range bludgeon to get an officer or specialist, with relatively little pistol shooting experience, out of trouble when something interfered with his real function.




136001

bedbugbilly
04-05-2015, 11:28 PM
Remember one thing when it comes to Colt versus Remington . . . the government had a contract with Colt for $25 per unit (pistol) . . . when Remington submitted their contract to the government . . their product was priced at half the cost of the Colt . . . i.e. $12.50 per unit (pistol). in the beginning, Colt knew how to make money . . . and Remington knew how to get business . . . ll in t the "marketing".

As far a Colt versus Remington - I have owned a number of both over the last 50+ years . . both have some good features and both have some bad features. Some think you cn remove a cylinder more quickly from a Remington than a Colt . . a Colt that is mechanically "tuned" as fa as the barrel wedge is just as quick. All it should need is thumb pressure to push the wedge out which is "captured" and to pull the barrel and slide the cylinder off - a sticky cylinder on a cylinder pin due to fouling? just turn the cylinder so the loading lever is between chambers and pull the lever down.

Lets face it . . . Colt must have been doing something right and people must have liked them . . the '51 Navy was made up until 1872 when the "open top" chambered in 44 Henry was introduced. What killed the '72 was the Army requirements for the top strap and Winchester introducing the '73 chambered in 44-40 (44 WCF).

I guess you could argue all day as to "which is stronger" but in the end . . both the Colt and the Remington handled the standard issue combustible cartridges just fine. I have experienced cp fragment problems wit both my Colts and Remingtons. No firearm works perfect all the time and I learned and was taught by several experienced Colt shooters (they were shooting originals) to do the "Colt twist" when cocking a Colt which usually will flick any cap fragments out of the way.

Ballistics in Scotland
04-06-2015, 06:12 AM
I don't know if any problems were documented, and the Henry round was probably made of brass rather than copper by that time. But a .44 rimfire is much more likely to give case swelling problems than a smaller one.

StrawHat
04-06-2015, 06:15 AM
I believe the Arsenal cartridges did not switch to brass until about 1879, commercial makers may have made the switch earlier.

Kevin