Cap n' Ball comparison Colt 1860 Army vs Remington 1858 Army

[curioushooter]

I was thinking of getting a cap and ball revolver. More or less for fun, and because they appear well made and are reasonably priced. I have muzzle-loading cap and flint rifles.

Only considering use of traditional loads (~30 grains) using black powder FFF and either round balls (most likely) or conical. Prefer it to be the larger "44" caliber. I am not interested in the 36 caliber stuff.

I prefer the appearance of the Colt. People say they feel better. I am considering the 5.5" barrel models.

Seems like the Remington has almost every other advantage. Stronger, solid frame. Better sights. Doesn't suck the caps out and jam up its works. Doesn't have a wedge retaining the cylinder pin which can get loose. Can carry all 6 chambers loaded safely using the safety notch between the cylinders.

The Colt has the dubious advantage of the barrel coming off more easily so it is easier to clean? Supposedly better ergonomics.

But some of the Remington advantages seem to me moot for me. I wont be shooting anything beyond standard loads or doing anything more than basically plink, so the superior strength seems kinda moot on the Rem. Don't really know much about the sights, I've never shot a Colt. I think the sights on Remingtons are lousy and they shoot very high. I understand that if the Colt's wedge is well fitted they are about as accurate.

The thing that bothers me is that silly loading 5 chambers of 6 stuff. Supposedly the pin-type safety system on the Colt is not reliable (to me that is worse than nothing)? I also don't like this stuff about sucking off the caps. In short, is this something that the more recently manufactured models don't have a problem with, or is this an issue of older poorly made models? Or is this just the Colt design having this problem?

Thanks in advance!

[Thumbcocker]

IMHO
Remington hands down. Colt was obsolete when the first solid frame was made. I have an Uberti Remington and like it a lot.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[curioushooter]

I mean, does obsolescence really matter? Were talking about cap and ball revolvers! All of them were obsolete by 1873, almost a century and a half ago!

This is strictly recreational. Everybody talks about the solid frame, even the Prophet Keith, but who cares? I am not doing a cartridge conversion and clearly the 150 year old originals, with inferior metallurgy, were good enough. I have a hard time imagining I am going to wear out the weaker Colt.

I'm really more interested in what people think about other things like safety notch, and cap sucking etc.

[Thumbcocker]

I also find that the Remington has much better sights. Buy what makes you happy. I will not judge.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[M-Tecs]

I mostly shoot my ROA's but I have both the Colt 1860 and the Remington 1858. I agree the Remington 1858 is superior design but it doesn't fit my hand well. I can't remember the last time I shot it.

Some varying opinions here:

https://www.thefirearmsforum.com/threads/1860-colt-army-vs-1858-remington-army.77460/

https://www.ar15.com/forums/Handguns/Colt-1860-Army-vs-Remington-1858-New-Army/33-196638/

https://forums.sassnet.com/index.php?/topic/248499-1858-remington-vs-1860-colt/

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?264188-1851-VS-1860-Thoughts

[Tar Heel]

As in fine dining, the first bite is with the eye. Most of us have an affinity toward one or the other based on the eye appeal of the revolver. Some folks love the look of the Remington, some the Colt, others prefer brass framed of either because the brass appeals to them. Get the one that appeals to your eye. Eventually you will have a Colt and a Remington. They reproduce.

Personally I think the 1861 Navy is the most beautiful revolver extant. A close runner up is the 1851 London Navy. The Colt's balance better and fit better in my hand. They (the Colt's) have a natural point of aim for me whereas the Remington frame doesn't. For others it might.

Eye appeal. Get the one most attractive to your eye and enjoy the heck out of it.

[Tar Heel]

Colt has a safety spud. Remington has a safety notch. I don't carry around a loaded C&B revolver so I am not particularly concerned about the safety system in use to prevent a hammer strike on a live cap. At the range I load 6, shoot 6. Caps get sucked mostly due to hammer slot burrs or incorrect caps being used or correct caps being forced onto mushroomed cones.
My Remington jams up at the range just like my Colt jams up at the range. After the grunge starts building up, jams of all types will start happening.

150 years ago, settlers and frontiersmen didn't "target shoot" at the range all afternoon. Powder and ball were commodities that were not wasted impressing friends. You probably got either a Colt or Remington based on what was available at the General Store or you had what was issued to you in the war and you kept it upon your discharge.

BTW, Elmer Keith loved his 1851 Navy! :-)

[Bent Ramrod]

A friend and I started shooting cap and ball revolvers in the 70s. We got them from Navy Arms. I got a replica 1860 Army Colt and he got an 1858 Remington.

We got them for plinking and fun shooting at the local dump; I don’t think we ever fired at a paper target. Both guns seemed to be equally accurate for the purpose, both had pretty rudimentary sights, both shot high (like the originals) and both were of excellent quality. I did notice that I could shoot five or six cylinderfuls before the cocking got sticky, while he was doing well to get three. The guns would be taken down, the cylinder arbors and the holes cleaned with water and relubed and firing would commence. Generally it would be a matter of diminishing returns: fewer and fewer cylinderfuls could be fired between cleaning/lubing and at some point the shooting session would be over and the guns taken back home for complete cleanup and lubrication.

That big arbor with the grooves on the Colt held more lube and kept things going longer than the skinny axle and small hole on the Remington. I also recall that Colt had a patent on the design of the front of cylinder/rear of barrel that served to blow the fouling away to an extent, delaying the buildup inside the cylinder axle.

The Colt grip fit my hand better, and the loading lever was much easier to use than any other cap and ball revolver. The wedge only wore loose after a couple thousand Lino-wheelweight scrap lead balls were rammed home, and a new wedge from Navy Arms fixed the problem. I can’t remember the Remington, but the Colt could be capped with the fingers; the cones were easy to get to without the need for a capper.

The Colt did need a wooden mallet or a hammer handle to tap the wedge in and out, while with the Remington you just dropped the loading lever and pulled the axle forward. Everybody has their own aesthetic standards, but the 1860 Army was much more user-friendly.

[Tar Heel]

A friend and I started shooting cap and ball revolvers in the 70s. We got them for plinking and fun shooting at the local dump

I miss shooting at the dump. All kinds of neato stuff to shoot at there including the evasive RATS!

[ktw]

I have the 1861 Navy because, like Tar Heel, I think it's the best looking revolver ever made. On top of that, the ergonomics are good and it points well. Any technical advantages the Remington might have are irrelevant since I don't think that looks half as good and if that were the only choice I probably wouldn't have bothered trying cap and ball revolvers in the first place.

Along the same lines, if you were only interested in technically sophisticated guns you wouldn't be bothering with flintlocks. The real fun is in learning the gun's idiosyncrasies and getting it to run well in spite of them.

-ktw

[Oyeboten]

The Remington one can have an extra Charged Cylinder on Hand for a fast 're load'...

Both are same easy to clean, taking the Barrel off does not make cleaning easier or faster.

If I had to live with it as only Side Arm, CCW, etc, I'd go with the Remington...and have a few charged Cylinders safely in ready.

Both have a safe place for Hammer Nose to rest between Chambers, with "Six" Loaded - no one ever loaded "five' unless they had a five shot Revolver.

[Battis]

I have an original Remington .44 and a Colt 1860 .44 that I shoot, and replicas of both. Each has it's own quirks: the Remington doesn't has a grease groove on the arbor, so it slows up faster (I use PAM as a lube). The open top Colts can work loose. Spent caps can get jammed on either. Switching out a cylinder on a Remington is not as easy as Clint makes it look.
I have a Pietta 1860 .44 that has an amazingly smooth action.
Which one should you get? The question will become, which one first? If you like one, you'll like the other.
A technical step up is the Ruger Old Army, but the history is in the Remingtons and Colts.

[derek45]

I think the Colt looks better, it feels slightly better in the hand

On the range, I like the Remington a lot better. sight that allow me to clang 50+yard steel, a cylinder that quickly removes to reload or clean.

that tiny rice sized 1860 sight makes mine shoot really high.

https://i.imgur.com/0O3NOqy.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/Wj716AB.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/4wFFaWx.jpg

[derek45]

speedloaders LOL

wonder-wads made from paper towel, dipped in hot beeswax & olive oil

https://i.imgur.com/S6CbQ3A.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/mBlDai5.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/ldiLoCq.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/7CYbpb5.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/qt4KRVB.jpg

[Green Frog]

I shoot at with the North-South Skirmish Association at Ft Shenandoah near Winchester, VA. At smaller regional shoots I see a variety of C&B revolvers up to and including repro Walker Colts. When serious events are going on such as at the Spring and Fall Nationals the huge preponderance of revolvers I see at the team events appear to be Remington copies.

If you just want something to shoot at cans, etc, pick whichever strikes your fancy, but if your serious about getting the best shooting possible out of a period type C&B revolver, the Remington is your #1 choice. I may be prejudiced because I shoot one of the last Ubertis that Navy Arms sold, but once it was tuned up a little it’s never let me down.

Froggie

[Battis]

I use lube pills cut from lube sticks. Pour the hot beeswax and paraffin into the barrel (muzzle blocked with ear plug), let it cool and harden, push the stick out and cut perfectly sized lube pills as needed (placed over roundballs in cylinder).

[MostlyLeverGuns]

I have the Remington 1858 .44, the Colt 1860 .44, the 1851 Colt in .36, the 1851 Colt in 44( not historically correct), an 1862 Colt "Police" .36 and an 1861 Colt .36 along with a few others. Mechanically the Remington seems like it should be and maybe is the best, but for 'feel' and handling the 1861 Colt .36 then the 1851 Colt .36 seem to handle better than most others. The short barreled "Sheriff's" in the 1860 Colt .44 and the 1851 Colt .36 or .44 have good feel also. Maybe you can find a few folks who have them and give each a try. I wear a Large to XL glove and cannot cock the hammer on the Remington without shifting my grip, though not a problem shooting with a two-handed grip.

[Ithaca Gunner]

We have 150 years of hind-sight to our advantage, D.A.-S.A. solid frame-break open frame, center fire-rim fire, lead-jacketed, magnum-standard, stainless-blue.

They're not overly expensive, choose the one you like, and if it doesn't work out, buy the other and sell the first. The army chose Colt and probably wouldn't have bought more than a few thousand Remington models had it not been for the fire that put Colt behind in production. The Colt does feel better in hand than the Remington, makes me wonder why they used the Navy grip on the SAA. The army determined the Colt superior and less prone to jams even though the Remington was a tougher gun and probably out last the Colt. The Colt was designed to better handle fouling as well as cap disposal. Of the modern makers, I would buy a Uberti. Pietta can make fine gun, but in either of these choices, Uberti is the better.

[FLINTNFIRE]

First mid 70's was a 1858 44 rem. the cylinder pin can be a bear to just pop out pop in , 90's got my first 1860 44 colt , like that one the most but the 1851 36 colt is a sweet and accurate , the 3rd model dragoon was huge and I sent it down the road , the 1858 36 rem. I bought as there it sit neglected and needing cleaned missing some blue , still have not shot it .

I like the colts better , but I wore out a lot of parts on that first 58 rem , was to young for a cartridge revolver but bought the kit assembled finished and shot it constantly .

Buy both shoot them see what you like , if someone you know has them ask to shoot them , best way to decide as everyone has their own like and dislikes , their own good or bad experiences and or a real nice one or a bad one that soured them .

The solid frame is not really a issue for strength , you are not shooting smokeless , have had brass frames at times , prefer the steel for looks but with firearms of all types and calibers you will most likely not shoot it all the time .

Cleaning , proper lube and no reloading press needed , if you want strength better sights find a ruger old army , if you like shooting the original style and a lot cheaper to buy get the colt or remington copies .

[derek45]

Ps -- get both lol

[Tar Heel]

....and there you have it in print. Get yourself one of each.

[bedbugbilly]

I have multiples of both models you are considering and both are good revolvers.

With any of them, you may have to do some front sight work as most will shoot high - requiring putting a higher front sight on them - not a biggie.

I have a 5" Remington NMA - it is a well balanced pistol and I use a 45 Colt conversion cylinder in it.

I have handled a 5" '60 Colt and it also is well balanced.

It boils down to what YOU like. IMHO, there is no reason to load a C & B revolver with as much powder as you can get in a chamber with a ball or a conical. Like any revolver . . . work at developing a load that works well in your particular revolver as well as you sights until you get POA and POI the same.

IMHO - cleaning a Colt and cleaning a Remington takes the same amount of time and work.

One of the reasons I prefer a Remington over a Colt is when I am gong to use a conversion cylinder in it - the Remington is quicker for me to remove the cylinder and reload and replace it in the pistol - but both a Remington and a Colt are doable when and if you ever decide to get a conversion cylinder for it.

I have always preferred a 1851 Colt Navy for 60 years now - tar heel prefers the 1861 model - which is a beautiful pistol. I prefer the .36 but also like and have the 44s primarily because I like 45 Colt and the conversion cylinders in them. Both tar heel and I use conversions cylinders in the .36 Navies. Everyone likes different things and don't overthink it. In the end you may choose one over the other but then again, later on, you can always add the one you didn't get.

There are minor differences in Pietta and Uberti revolvers but both are good.

Good luck in whichever one you choose and have fun. They are fun to shoot whether you just use them for plinking or hunting. When I was a kid on the farm more years ago than I lie to think about, I used a '51 Colt Navy to hunt rabbits and squirrels with. I didn't always hit them and I scared the bejeebes our of a lot of them by coming close, but it was all fun.

[charlie b]

Yep :)

My first firearm purchase was an 1858 Rem kit back in the 70's. Shot it a LOT. Yes, pin might cake up faster, but, it was just a minute to remove the cyl, wipe off the pin and go back to shooting. Multiple cylinders are easy to change, and, yes, with practice you can change one as fast as Clint :)

It also taught me the 'tip the gun up' when cocking so the cap doesn't fall back in the action.

But, I just love the look of the 1860 Army. It was another difference between me (retired Army) and my father-in-law (retired Navy) who liked the Colt Navy better.

The Navy in .36 did balance a little better than that big .44 barrel.

Had a Sheriff pocket pistol in .32 that was fun to shoot as well.

The biggest difference between the Rem and Colt was the grip. The Rem grip just did not fit my hand very well. It made the pistol feel really off balance. The Colts feel so much better to me.

I eventually 'fixed' the Rem. Shortened the barrel to about 5" and cut a 'bird's head' shape to the grip. Ended up giving it to a friend who shot SASS. He used it as a 'belt gun' companion to his holstered full size Rem.

So, yeah, buy one of each, and extra cylinders for the Rem :)

FYI, if you shoot a lot at the range, get or make a loading stand.

Sent from my SM-P580 using Tapatalk

[Mk42gunner]

The Colts of various models have always felt better to me, consequently I have never owned a Remington copy.

I like the Navy grip better than the 1860 Army, maybe because an 1851 was the first one I owned?

I had one of the "Sheriff's Model" 5½" 1851's in .36 that I modified into a sort of #5 copy with real sights, lowered hammer etc. It shot comparable groups to any service grade 9mm or .45 semiauto, i.e. fist sized groups or less at 25 yards.

My 1861 (also gets my vote as most eye appealing) will hit pop cans at fifty yards more often than not, at least when my eyes were working good.

My preferred load is a full charge of FFFg, a Wonder Wad and a round ball, with a well fitting cap. This tends to work for the tiny .31, the .36 cal Navy and the .44 cal 1860 Army. One of my navies requires a .380" ball, so that is what they all get fed.

I don't like the Walker and never had a Dragoon, one day maybe.

Robert

[armoredman]

My very first BP revolver was a no name .31 Baby Dragoon, so cheap the hammer has casting voids in it. It worked, mostly. Flash forward a lot of years and a buddy gave me a Pietta 1851 brass frame. I had it worked on, and it shoots well, but doesn't feel as good and solid in the hand as this 1860 Army I bought from a fine member here. First rounds through it weren't bad, shot 18 total and things started to gum up, not a lot of lube, my fault. But it feels just right. I have never fired an 1858, but it is on the bucket list to get one.

[curioushooter]

derek45...

thank you for the pictures. I ended up getting the Colt for a couple reasons. I actually had the oppertuninty at Bass Pro to feel a whole bunch of them right next to each other and the dude behind the counter loved "cap'n ball" as he said been shooting them since he was a boy. He father had an original Colt 1860.

Quick takes on the feel matter:

Hands down the 1860 army is the most natural pointing and most comfortable grip of any revolver I've ever felt. No question. Better than my Bisley Blackhawk (and I've tried XR3 Blackhawk, Vaquero, Super Blackhawks, GP100s, SP101s, Security Sixes [my favorite DA Ruger], Redhawk and Old Army), better than any Smiths I've tried (J through X frames), better than any Trooper or Anaconda, better than Nagants, which I used to mess around with.

The 1851 Navy girp is too short, like the Colt 1873/Standard Blackhawk. Greatly prefer the streamlined barrel/loading lever of the 1860 over the chunky looking 1851.

1858 Rem just doesn't point as nice as the 1860. Reminiscent of a modern revolver.

Just looking at them the 1860/1861 Colts are much slicker and elegant looking. I agree the 1861 Navy a bit more than the 1860 Army, with its smaller cylinder, but this is really very minor. They didn't have a 1861 Navy there, only a '51. Kind prefer the 44 to 36 as a caliber.

But the most important reason is that my friend and father in law have 1858 Remington and Old Armys exclusively, all in 44 Caliber. So I wanted something different, but the same caliber.

I was pleased to learn that the safety pin/spud on the Colt is a reasonable system. I had no problem using it.

The sights on the Colts are very poor. No doubt, but the incredible thing is that you pull that hammer back and the front sight is nestled in the v even if you have your eyes closed. My Bisley Blackhawk is almost a struggle to get the sights in the right place, and none of my Smith's have delivered instinctual sight alignment to me.

Derek45 I really appreciated your pics of the wads and paper cartridges you use. There is a lot of diversity out there in how people do this but the factory wads seem dumb to me. They are oily. I have to imagine that that stuff ruins some powder. I like your set up with prevents that.

I was going to open up the loading area so I could do paper cartridges with this thing. Want to do round balls or something like Lee's 200 grain round nose (I don't like those pointed bullets that are historical). I like the idea of leaving a tootsie roll twist end on the front of the paper cartridge to handle it more easily.

[derek45]

Lee's 200 grain round nose is difficult to load. it never wants to go into the cylinder straight

.454" roundballs are easy to load either after the powder/wad or with paper cartridges

https://i.imgur.com/Oxf62AB.jpg

[curioushooter]

Love that paper cartridge, derek45. Excellent!

What is your process if you don't mind me asking. Have you put it up elsewhere?

[derek45]

Love that paper cartridge, derek45. Excellent!

What is your process if you don't mind me asking. Have you put it up elsewhere?


I made wood dowel that fits the chamber in the cylinder, I used a file, sandpaper, and a drill press.

I've tried cigarette rolling papers, and coffee filters, soaked and dried in saltpeter.

the rolling papers leave more smoldering paper in the chambers, which could be really bad if you put in another charge.

this is a good reason to buy 2 revolvers, let one cool while you switch to the other



I use kids stick glue, the kind that comes in something like looks like a roll of dimes.

roll and glue.

wait to dry

pour in a measured amout of GOEX fffg

carefully place the .454" ball with more paste glue.

allow to dry

This method seems to work better than rolling papers, but involves more work and time.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQAxp8dUiJQ

[Walks]

The "Eras Gone" bullet molds probably have the best you-tube vids on making combustible cartridges. Easy to do with a bit of prep and patience.
I have a pair of both. And both type shoot well. I just like the Feel of the 1860 in My hand. better.

[Tar Heel]

I have used many methods to make paper cartridges. Of them all, the easiest to use is the kit from Guns of The West (https://www.etsy.com/listing/877906507/paper-cartridge-kit-44-caliber?ref=pla_sameshop_listing_top-2&frs=1). These kits are a recent performer on the market and a few different ones exist. I use all of them still but migrate back to the aforementioned kit for its ease of use. You can load both round ball and conical with the kit. Getting a conical bullet mold from Eras Gone is impossible until Lee makes more of his molds. The easiest conical to load both naked and in a cartridge is the Eras Gone 44 English Kerr bullet (https://www.erasgonebullets.com/store/product/-44-english-kerr-).

Enjoy!!

291500 291501 291506

[45 Dragoon]

The truth is, comparing a correctly made revolver to an incorrectly made revolver is a joke. The top strap revolver is the more economical design to construct (which is why they are still produced today). The open top design of the Colt hasn't been made correctly sine the originals made by Colt. The flaw is a short arbor which is the "back bone" of the design. The arbor is what determines the barrel/cylinder clearance or endshake. Only one manufacturer actually makes a "correct" (as far as the arbor is concerned) open top today and that is Pietta. For the last dozen yrs or so they have stepped up and made this correction. The user is supposed to DRIVE the wedge in and DRIVE the wedge out (as per Colts instructions). You can't do that with any copy made, since the originals, or the barrel will contact and lock up the cylinder. Therefore, a "which is better/stronger " conversation is flawed from the start. A correctly setup Colt open top is a stronger platform than the top strap Remington platform. Just to go against "wives tales", hearsay, repeating disinformation . . . The only revolver I've ever bent while shooting/loading was a Remington cap and ball revolver. The only revolver I've ever sheared a loading leaver screw while loading (too hard of balls probably) was on an open top. Point being, the open top didn't bend, your not strong enough to pull the arbor, but you can bend a Remington . . . be careful out there!! Lol!!

Mike

[Tracy]

I have and enjoy both. If I were only going to have one, it would be the Remington.

As far as I'm concerned, they are not obsolete. Especially when ammo and primers get hard to find. I can make my own caps, black powder and bullets for a c&b revolver.
Some people think all revolvers are obsolete.

[Soundguy]

I have many of both style. for me.. colts point better and I shoot them better using the hammer and blade as the sight. The wedge isn't an issue. caps.. either gun can loose a cap and have it hang... not a huge deal. I'll tell you one thing.. if you ever get a 58 close and an colt open top clone that someone didn't clean.. the colt will come apart WAY easier!!!

Ps.. some of the open top clones also have a post inbetween cylinders to lower the hammer on.

[sharps4590]

Without a doubt, the best, first thing I did to my two 1860 Army's, one '61 Navy.....well all my C&B open tops was disassemble them, clamp the hammer in my leather padded vise and widen and slightly deepen that hammer notch rear sight! THEN, clamp the barrel, tape it up so as not to skin it and thin that front sight. After shooting with sights I could actually see, I would make the elevation adjustment with the front sights. Twice none was needed!!!

[curioushooter]

45 Dragoon:


The user is supposed to DRIVE the wedge in and DRIVE the wedge out (as per Colts instructions). You can't do that with any copy made, since the originals, or the barrel will contact and lock up the cylinder. Therefore, a "which is better/stronger " conversation is flawed from the start. A correctly setup Colt open top is a stronger platform than the top strap Remington platform. Just to go against "wives tales", hearsay, repeating disinformation . . . The only revolver I've ever bent while shooting/loading was a Remington cap and ball revolver.

Please explain. I have a recently made Pietta Colt 1860. Boy, it took some force to DRIVE that wedge out. But I don't see how anyone could come to the conclusion the colt is stronger; it's not just the lack of a top strap...the lower frame doesn't bear any load either...just two little pins. The entire horizontal force is borne by that arbor and wedge. That is not a lot of surface area. There is just no way that is as strong, given the same material, as the Remington. Keith acknowledged this!

Now, is the Colt strong enough? Certainly. And I kind of like how easy it is to remove the barrel for cleaning. And how the adjustment of the wedge can "tighten" up the barrel cylinder gap as it stretches and wears.

Was the Remington you bent a brass frame? Or were you overloading it? I mean, you have to make a fair comparison. I have no doubt that a brass Remington will be easier to bend than a steel Colt. The fact you don't see 1860 Colts in brass while you do with 1858s tells you something of the design strength...the Remington can use weaker metals and be strong enough.

[curioushooter]

Tar heel:

Why do you think the guns of the west former (3d printed plastic currently, your picture seems to be wood) is better than the Mesa Winds, which is machined aluminum?

Are either of these long enough to leave a little twist on the bullet end for ease of handling the paper cartridge? I see you make yours with the bullet exposed.

[gunther]

If you read a lot of memoirs of Civil War vets, you will notice that the corporals, and sargents who watched the general's backs used Colt 1860's. If you have large hands, there is no comparison; Colt wins that one. Exceptions; Stuart carried a LeMat, E P Alexander(Artillery colonel) used an 1842 horse pistol loaded with shot. He was a grouse hunter. Lee had an 1851 Navy Colt.

[curioushooter]

It's funny because I don't think I have large hands, for a man at least. I wear large size sugical/winter gloves; sometimes they are a bit oversized. I can squeeze into medium surgical gloves without breaking. On the Navy and 1873 my smallest finger has no purchase on the grip. It's hanging on the toe. The Army/Bisley/K-N S&Ws...they have enough space for the small finger.

[Mk42gunner]

I think my hands are pretty close to yours curioushooter, back when gloves were actually sold in sizes, I normally wore a size ten.

The Navy grip just feels better to me than the 1860 Army grip. My little finger just seems to curl naturally around the base of the grip when holding one of them. I would like to hold an original 1851 or 61 some time, I have had ASM, Pietta and Uberti Navies. I have read that non of the Italian clones are exactly right.

Robert

[Winger Ed.]

When Remington came out with the top strap on the frame, and fixed in place barrel,
the open top Colt design was obsolete over night.

[Soundguy]

Except it has style and grace

[M-Tecs]

When Remington came out with the top strap on the frame, and fixed in place barrel,
the open top Colt design was obsolete over night.

Folks like Wild Bill Hickok did very well in actual gunfights with his obsolete 51 Navy's. Both the Colt open top 36 Cal and 44 Cal were converted for cartridge use and remained very popular for a long time. Hard to make the case they were/are no longer useful.

[Winger Ed.]

Hard to make the case they were/are no longer useful.

Sure they still worked and were useful, most obsolete things are.
And they have plenty of appeal with 'old timers'.

Like wooden spoke wheels, flat head engines, and side draft carburetors----
there's good reasons why they went away when newer and better things came along.

[M-Tecs]

Sure they still worked and were useful, most obsolete things are.
And they have plenty of appeal with 'old timers'.

Like wooden spoke wheels, flat head engines, and side draft carburetors----
there's good reasons why they went away when newer and better things came along.

Cartridge firearms made all C&B obsolete per your definition so the 58's are just as obsolete as the open top Colts. Reality is the open tops and and 58's both performed their assigned tasks well. Both had advantages and disadvantages and widely used.

What do you think the 58 did better?

[Soundguy]

I love my open top 38 Special richards-mason conversion

[Winger Ed.]

What do you think the 58 did better?

If nothing else- the added strength of the one piece frame around/over the cylinder and having more metal holding the barrel in place.

Seems like others in the day felt the same way.
After going head to head with the Remington for a few years,
Colt went away from the open top design also in 1873 when the SSA hit the street.

Without doing a lot of research--- I don't think Colt or anyone else ever went back to it either.

I call the Remington as being better, because its a stronger design.
I ask myself if I ever had a situation where a round was over pressure, had a barrel obstruction,
or the cylinder was out of time,,,,, which one would I rather be holding?

[M-Tecs]

If nothing else- the added strength of the one piece frame around/over the cylinder and having more metal holding the barrel in place.

Seems like others in the day felt the same way.
After going head to head with the Remington for a few years,
Colt went away from the open top design also in 1873 when the SSA hit the street.

Without doing a lot of research--- I don't think Colt or anyone else ever went back to it either.

Were the open top designs not strong enough of C&B usage? Stronger is strong but if stronger is not needed that does not make it better.

For me I shoot my 1860 way more than I shoot my 1858 since it doesn't point as well as my 1860. Same for hand fit.

[Winger Ed.]

Were the open top designs not strong enough of C&B usage? Stronger is strong but if stronger is not needed that does not make it better.

In your application--- I'd say the Colt is perfect, and I wish you all the best with it.

In its day, I think a big selling factor to the US military for the Colt was that by carrying extra cylinders,
you could reload it faster. Sort of like a first generation speed loader.

[M-Tecs]

In your application--- I'd say the Colt is perfect, and I wish you all the best with it.

In its day, I think a big selling factor to the US military for the Colt was that by carrying extra cylinders,
you could reload it faster. Sort of like a first generation speed loader.

On a Colts you have to pull out the barrel wedge and remove the barrel/loading lever assembly from the frame then the cylinder will slide forward off the cylinder pin. On horse back it would be a challenge but still way faster than loading an empty cylinder.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWneVLah_0k

On a Remington you only have to swivel the loading lever down then pull the cylinder pin forward. The cylinder will fall out to the side same as the single action cartridge's guns. On that the Rem 58 has less loose parts.

https://truewestmagazine.com/got-a-spare/

Got a Spare?
Did frontiersmen carry spare cylinders into the eras of percussion and metallic cartridge revolvers?
April 16, 2012 Phil Spangenberger

The debate over whether frontiersmen carried spare loaded cylinders for their revolvers, during the era of percussion revolvers and into the age of early metallic cartridge six-guns, continues to rage on.


On one side, the naysayers state that this is just one more bit of Wild West or Hollywood mythology, while proponents feel that, in those early years, when revolvers were slow to reload, if two six-shooters weren’t carried, some carried an extra fully-loaded and capped cylinder.

It is indeed a fact that the practice has been reflected in movies like Clint Eastwood’s 1985 flick, Pale Rider. True, recorded accounts of frontiersmen citing the use of a spare cylinder are almost nonexistent. Undeniably, the best-known example of this practice is that of Pony Express rider “Pony Bob” Haslam, who recorded that, just prior to riding across Nevada in 1860, he “adjusted…my Colt’s revolver, with two cylinders ready for use in case of emergency.”

In an age when many people couldn’t read or write, if one example can be found, then certainly several others must have gone unrecorded. During the Civil War, the Missouri raiders and Mosby’s Virginia partisans each carried several revolvers. It stands to reason that if a revolver was rendered inoperable, rather than completely discard it, you might salvage the otherwise useless cylinder and carry it loaded and ready for use.

For irrefutable documentation of the practice, one can refer to a number of studies by respected firearms historians, R.L. Wilson, Roy Marcot and R. Bruce McDowell, who not only write about it, but also show numerous photos of revolvers produced with spare cylinders. The manufacture of revolvers with extra cylinders was not uncommon, with some revolver makers, like Remington, advertising the sale of extra cylinders.

During the percussion age, especially with the five-shot Paterson Colts of the 1840s, extra cylinders were an aid in quick reloading, and many percussion firearms were sold with a spare cylinder. Later, when the first self-contained metallic cartridge revolvers appeared, arms producers found it expedient to offer their metallic cartridge revolvers with an optional percussion cylinder, for use in the event that the new copper cartridges were not always available in certain remote locales. These revolvers included the Colt Thuer conversion and the Plant (both loaded their copper cartridges from the front of the cylinder), as well as revolvers by Remington, which converted its cap-and-ball revolvers to handle both metallic cartridge and percussion cylinders.

Even in Europe, during the mid-19th century, England’s John Rigby & Sons produced pepperbox revolvers with spare quick-change barrels for fast reloads. Also, the Prussian Kreigsmarines were issued 1851 Navy Colts with a spare cylinder, as well as a belt and holster rig containing a circular pouch for holding it.

In the face of all of this evidence, the question must be asked, why would these major arms makers produce extra cylinders if the public was not buying and utilizing them? There’s no doubt they were used. I’ll put my spare cylinder on it!



Phil Spangenberger writes for Guns & Ammo, appears on the History Channel and other documentary networks, produces Wild West shows, is a Hollywood gun coach and character actor, and is True West’s Firearms Editor.

[45 Dragoon]

45 Dragoon:



Please explain. I have a recently made Pietta Colt 1860. Boy, it took some force to DRIVE that wedge out. But I don't see how anyone could come to the conclusion the colt is stronger; it's not just the lack of a top strap...the lower frame doesn't bear any load either...just two little pins. The entire horizontal force is borne by that arbor and wedge. That is not a lot of surface area. There is just no way that is as strong, given the same material, as the Remington. Keith acknowledged this!

Now, is the Colt strong enough? Certainly. And I kind of like how easy it is to remove the barrel for cleaning. And how the adjustment of the wedge can "tighten" up the barrel cylinder gap as it stretches and wears.

Was the Remington you bent a brass frame? Or were you overloading it? I mean, you have to make a fair comparison. I have no doubt that a brass Remington will be easier to bend than a steel Colt. The fact you don't see 1860 Colts in brass while you do with 1858s tells you something of the design strength...the Remington can use weaker metals and be strong enough.

Well first off, if you read my post you will notice that I mentioned that the Piettas of the last dozen or so yrs. HAVE a correct arbor setup, so you shouldn't notice a problem with your Pietta made '60 Army.
As far as the wedge being an adjustment for the barrel / cyl clearance . . . it isn't! The arbor is supposed to bottom out in the barrel assy. The arbor length is what determines the clearance or "endshake". The arbor transfers all harmonics to the barrel assy since it is under tension. This allows the revolver to respond as a single unit.

The lack of a top strap? Well, it runs through the cylinder not above it. It is torqued into the frame and pined. The front end is supported by a nice barrel lug that contains the locating pins you speak of. The compact structure just described has well more strength than a thin top strap that is weakened by a sight trough cut half way through it, a notch cut at the top rear corner for the hammer to enter and the front supported by material that is mostly made up of holes for the barrel, cylinder pin ,loading lever and finally a plunger. This section then meets a frame that starting at the rear is narrow and gets much moreso as you progress to the front.

If you understand the design of each as well as the forces applied to each, it's not that hard. A large cross section "internal" (compact) frame of like material is stronger than a "perimeter" (strung out) frame of thinner cross section. "Like material" - steel, brass, copper, glass . . . the open top wins.

I've had/have both in steel and brass. I've sheared loading lever screws on and open top, I've never pulled the arbor from a brass framed open top and you won't pull one from a steel one either. I have bent a brass Remington frame loading it.
All of my open top revolvers are converted to cartridge, all are for 45C and they all shoot over tier 1 loads. I'll be testing some Remington platform revolvers soon but may keep it to S.S only.

For the record I like the Remington platform very much and I spent a LLLLLLLLOT of time developing a coil spring action for them. I'm pretty certain I'm the first to do so and they are definitely the 19th century version of a Ruger! That said , the open top platform - done correctly- is even moreso.

Mike

[Ithaca Gunner]

Nobody imagined these things would be made new by the Italians or anyone else 150 years after they were in use. A bunch of, ''fans'' for lack of a better word going out week-ends maybe putting more rounds through these guns in a month than they put through them in their entire service life. The army bought these guns knowing they might have a service life of 1-2 years on average. Longevity didn't matter much, they would just buy more with tax payer dollars. I imagine in civilian hands the guns enjoyed an easier life than being rode around in all weather by cavalry.

The horse soldiers North or South liked their Colts, like I said, they didn't have em long enough to wear em out, so was it the name? Partly I suppose, but the Colt with it's open top and axis pin helped keep it shooting a little longer. Aside from neglect, I don't think you'll wear either out with normal shooting. The high card Remington holds is it's sights, about anything's better than the Colt notch in the hammer. Drop em or club someone over the head and I would give the Remington the nod for strength, otherwise I think they're pretty much equal.

[M-Tecs]

Adjusting the Colt rear sight V in the hammer is easy and straight forward.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPffq2pbggY

I use a milling machine. The above works for the average user.

[FLINTNFIRE]

No revolver is designed for hitting anything , a sure fire way of throwing something out of kilter , have had both and have had colts in 44 caliber brass frames , remingtons and colts in 36 and 44 in steel frames , both plenty strong with black powder pressures .

You will shear a loading lever with to hard a lead and to big a ball , you make your choices you pay the repair , easy enough guns to work on .

As a teenager I had some old 45 colt brass from gpas gun cabinet , those were my pocket reloads , those brass by the way were short as they had been used in a smith and wesson schofield a uncle owned , hey another so called weaker design , but they worked .

I am glad the Italians make these as without them , most of us would never get to shoot this style of pistol or argue the strengths and or weakness or fit , thank you mr Val Forgett for doing us all that favor .

Find what fits you and what you like the best , I find that everyone loves to shoot them , but may hate the cleaning .

[Tar Heel]

Tar heel:

Why do you think the guns of the west former (3d printed plastic currently, your picture seems to be wood) is better than the Mesa Winds, which is machined aluminum?

Are either of these long enough to leave a little twist on the bullet end for ease of handling the paper cartridge? I see you make yours with the bullet exposed.

I attempt to support the Mom & Pop manufacturers who make accoutrements for us to use. Having started with no direction, making my own mandrels, using 38 linear feet of wood dowel to find the correct taper and length, experimenting with ALL types of paper, trying to nitrate paper, making mistake after mistake, I can appreciate the effort these folks put into their products and the PITA it is to bring a product to market. I liked to try these products and support these guys making them if they look decent and seem to perform.

So having been down the road, and missing out on getting a hand crafted Manley tool because I had already made my own, I decided to purchase a wooden tool from Cap & Ball in Hungary. Nice looking tool and helps Balázs Németh feed his growing family. Cutting the paper from templates is time consuming but yields beautiful cartridges.

I then saw the tool by Guns of the West (Dustin Winegar) and since I want to support his efforts too I purchased his plastic tool with its really cool powder measure as part of the mandrel. I hope my support helps them all keep their great videos coming and they recognize how much we appreciate their contribution to the sport and in making our lives easier with their tools.

Since I have a wood and plastic tool, I do not see the need to purchase a metal one. All of my current ones work just fine. I like the one Dustin makes because I can roll a rectangular piece of paper onto the mandrel and trim off excess with a razor knife. There is no extra step involved with making trimmed paper from a template like we did with the originals.

Since my goal is to make authentic looking period cartridges, I mostly use conical bullets, the best of which, in my opinion, is the 44 Kerr bullet available from Eras Gone Molds. Again, I am attempting to support yet another small business which has contributed immensely to those of us who are trying to be as historically accurate as possible.

I make round ball cartridges to use in guns which have an incorrect reproduction barrel cutout area and do not accept cartridges with conical bullets to be able to rotate into the barrel assembly - under the loading ram. Rather than grind on the barrel assemble with a dremel tool and files, I load round balls for those guns or load a naked Kerr bullet atop loose powder and ram her home. The Kerr style bullet loaded into a cartridge will fit most of my reproductions without modification to the gun so I use it. The generous rebated heel also adheres well to the paper of the cartridge. In all, it's the best bullet to work with.

Anyone can roll a ball into a cigarette paper and twist it shut at the top and bottom I guess. Achieving historical accuracy is another adventure. Some of us enjoy the research, the trial and error of experimentation, and the thrill of success when we unwrap our period looking cartridges at the range.

I am not advocating one maker over another. If I had the wherewithal, I would get each of their products to recognize their efforts and contributions. 50 years ago I would have never thought I would ever get a chance to fire a civil war era cartridge. Now we have the guns and cartridges to use with reproductions available which are as historically accurate as possible. My hat is off to all of these guys who produce these products which serve the shooting community. Frankly speaking, they will have a limited run due to waning interest in the immediate future I believe. Hopefully we can get the younger shooters involved who have an interest in reproducing cartridges of the past.

What a time we live in!

291649

[Battis]

The best answer that I've heard on whether or not shooters, back in the day, carried extra cylinders, is...where are all the cylinders now? There should be alot more of them floating around.

[Bigslug]

The best answer that I've heard on whether or not shooters, back in the day, carried extra cylinders, is...where are all the cylinders now? There should be alot more of them floating around.

Nobody in the 1860's ever got to watch Die Hard or Lethal Weapon, therefore they never understood that you NEED an MP5 with 28 magazines for dealing with a single home invader.

These guys were only a generation or two from the days of one shot (maybe) with a flintlock to soften things up, with a solid assumption of needing to finish the job with sharpened steel. To actually have SIX chances to deal with the matter at hand probably seemed like plenty to anyone outside of military circles, and even there, it was probably only cavalrymen who saw the need to pack more than one handgun to increase round count.

I honestly doubt most military men in the era cared much between the two - if you're doing your job right as an officer, your privates with the rifles will keep you from needing it at all - let alone to the point where it quits due to fouling or structural failure.

[Tracy]

If you read a lot of memoirs of Civil War vets, you will notice that the corporals, and sargents who watched the general's backs used Colt 1860's. If you have large hands, there is no comparison; Colt wins that one. Exceptions; Stuart carried a LeMat, E P Alexander(Artillery colonel) used an 1842 horse pistol loaded with shot. He was a grouse hunter. Lee had an 1851 Navy Colt.

The Remington wasn't even available during the war, from what I've read.

[rintinglen]

Hint: What do the names 1858 and 1863 Imply?
Hint #2: what revolver was the second most commonly purchased by the Union Army during the Civil War?

I don't know what you've read, but the Remington was widely issued during the Civil War, especially in the West.

[curioushooter]

Hint: What do the names 1858 and 1863 Imply?

Do you? It IS NOT, as most think, the year of introduction. IT is the year of PATENT. With the Colts patent to production went fairly quickly and hundreds of thousands were produced for the Union and CSA, some even being delivered after the blockade. Remington, nor anyone else, had the production capacity of Colt, so fewer Remington were issued, fewer still of Star revolvers, which were #3. The 58 Remington most people think of came out in 1958 actually came out in 1863 with the safety slots found on every reproduction. There weren't many of those produced by war's end.

Regarding strength. The Remington is clearly a stronger design in terms of frame strength. But is the Colt strong enough? Yes. The Colt may be "stronger" in other ways like the loading lever for example. I frankly think Colts are better looking. And they point better for me. And I like their grip better. I also like how they are easily broken down with barrel and cylinder separating from the frame. This makes them MUCH easier to thoroughly clean. You can clean them with a stick or string or just about any improvised tool. You can dunk the barrel and cylinder in hot soapy water and wash them like dishes. You can't do that with a Remington or your action will get filled with water. This alone is reason enough in my opinion to prefer the Colt. Not that anyone needs to justify things.

[45 Dragoon]

Curioushooter, "clearly"?!! Please tell us how so. I laid out the comparisons from experience in my post above but all you give is an opinion. Of course we all know about opinions so maybe you could enlighten some of us.

Mike

[armoredman]

Can I just point out that even with minor historical inaccuracies, haven't started rolling my own paper cartridges so I am still loading from flask to powder measure to chamber at the range, regardless of which one is stronger/tougher/longer lasting...I am having a damn fine time shooting what I have. I will be getting a Guns of the West 44 caliber paper cartridge maker when I can, too. In the meantime, I am taking the 1860 back to the range as soon as I can

[Ithaca Gunner]

The Remington wasn't even available during the war, from what I've read.

The Remington was available during the war. First as the Remington-Beals, Model of 1861, (adopted year, and not quite the refined gun we know as a reproduction, but very similar) and the ''New Model'' 1863, (the one we know from reproductions). The Remington was numerous for two reasons, first, it was less expensive than the Colt, second, the fire at the Colt factory which caused a lapse in production of their Army model, (but quickly recovered).

Very few enlisted Infantry carried a handgun, and most who did bring a personal handgun to war brought a small pocket size gun which was soon abandoned, traded off, sold, or sent home. The enlisted, ''sidearm'' sometimes spoken of would be the bayonet. Officers bought their own and not only carried them, but used them if the fighting was close at times, but remember, these infantry officers would already have their swords out leading their men, the revolver even in this case was the last weapon used. Some enlisted artillerymen would carry a large revolver, and there's plenty of stories to back that up, but the revolver was a cavalry weapon and certainly used as a club from time to time in close actions. The horse soldier had three weapons, (normally) a shoulder arm, best employed dismounted, a sabre, and a handgun for mounted close in fighting. Confederate General, J.E.B. Stuart was mortally wounded at Yellow Tavern in May 1864 by a revolver fired from a Union horse soldier. Yes, they were effective.

[Soundguy]

I know the richards mason conversions sold by cimaaron can be had in 38spl. I love mine. shoots nice.. and no top strap...

[bedbugbilly]

It always amazes me the squabbles that break out over "which is stronger/which is better".

People point out how the Remington was more popular because it was stronger, etc. The main reason that the Remington became popular mid-war had nothing to do with strength or better . . . it had to do with price. Clt's contracts with the government for the 1860 army was $25.00 per unit (pistol). Mid-war . . . Remington, a competitor of Colt secured contracts with the government for their revolver at $12.50 per unit (pistol) - half the price of the Colt.

People also pass along the fallacy that "extra cylinders" were carried for quick reloads in battle. They often point out as proof original revolvers having cylinders that don't match with the pistol. The reason for this is simple and is pointed out in a book written by a Wii Marine who relates his friendship with Civil War Verterans. I have the book . . bought it years ago but can't for the life of me remember the author or title . . but is was mainly in reference to the 1851 Colt Navy. In it, he relates how a veteran told him how the pistols were cleaned after a battle. A wooden bucket or similar container was filled with hot water and made soapy with lye soap. The cylinders were removed and tossed in and the pistols wer hung by the trigger guard on the edge of the bucket or container and the barrels suspended into the water. They were allowed to soak, then removed and wiped down and cleaned the best they could and reassembled. The pistols were the same model so any of the cylinders would fit any of the pistols and they often were mixed up. I have studied the Civil War for 60 years, have collected for the same amount of time and worked professionally presenting programs on the lives of the common Civil War soldier. I have yet to see on documented first person account in regards to the common practice of carrying "spare cylinders". It is documented that many partisans such as some of Mosby's Raiders carried "multiple pistols" and that is certainly believable. A Cavalry Trooper (Union) was armed with a pistol, carbine and cavalry saber. Unmounted and acting as skirmishers, the carbine was utilized because in most castes, the models they carried were capable of firing more rounds per minute than a standard infantry rifles or smoothbore musket.

While some pistols may have been brought from home and carried initially by a infantry soldier, in the Union Army regulations required that they be armed with a musket and bayonet. The first long march weeded out any extra weight that they had to carry and a pistol would be one of the first thing to be discarded. The tactics of the time required the infantry soldier to utilize the longerm and bayonet.

I have also seen many reenactors who portray Artillerymen, carrying a pistol. wasn't so. Every man on a gun crew was assigned a number and that number was responsible for a certain job . . . loading with the ram, sponging with a ram or using a screw ram, thumbing the vent, priming the pieces, standing at the limber chest to cut fuses to length as ordered for time of flight, carrying the charge from the limber chest to the member who introduced it into the bore, etc. In time battle when engaged, the job of the artilleryman ws to "serve the piece" and keep it firing. When the enemy as charging the piece or close, an artilleryman armed with a revolver wold have been too tempted to defend himself if he carried a revolver and not do his assigned task in "serving the piece". Union artilleryman were issued the 1840 Artillery Saber but many considered this saber as "extra baggage" and many years ago, I read a first-person account of one Union Artillery battery that was on the march and when they left camp one day, they moved on and on the side of the road near where they had camped the night before, all of their sabers were stuck in the ground and abandoned.

Some say the Remington made the Colt obsolete. IMHO, this is hogwash. It's a view of people living in today's throwaway society. A soldier was required to use the weapon issued to them - whether it be a Colt or a Remington - THEY BOTH SERVED THEIR INTENDED PURPOSE. And . . . they both served people well many years after the war and after the introduction of the metallic cartridges. And yes . . many of the Colts and the Remingtons were converted and both shot the same cartridges with no real issues. And talking about "obsolete" . . . Colt's best selling revolver was the 1851 Navy . . . and the Colt company was not stupid. Even after the introduction of metallic cartridge revolvers, they had piles of parts left over and they continued to offer the 1851 Navy up into the 1870s - and people purchased them and they didn't consider them obsolete. There were issues with patent rights certainly . . . but they also offered the conversions and people purchased them as well.

I have been shooting cap and ball revolvers for 60 years . . . and as much as I hate to admit it, I have way too many of them . . Colt, Remington and other makes of various models . . and they are all good revolvers. Some have plusses and some have minuses . . . but some folks like Glocks and others S & W. In the end though . . . it's pretty silly to get i to debates over "which is better and which is stronger . . . because thee will never be a definitive answer. Life is too short to let those things become an issue. If a person likes a certain make and model . . . then go for it and have fun and enjoy it . . . that's what it's all about.

[Tar Heel]

^^^^^ What he said ^^^^^^^

[Tar Heel]

When we took pictures of each other in 'nam, we always hung every available piece of ordinance, every gun, and every knife we could muster on ourselves to look ******. I suspect that in 2100 some jokers will be debating what we carried in the field in 'nam. "Well I have a photo of a recon Marine carrying an M60, 28 grenades, dynamite sticks, lasers, smoke, 9 knives, a Saw, a M16A1, and a SAA 45 Colt to go with the 1911. That must have been what they were issued." Debates will rage on about what we carried and what was best, and how many magazines we carried for each gun. Too funny! In the end, I would have carried and used ANYTHING that worked.

If the Gunny said leave it behind, you left it behind and never missed it. If the Gunny said bring two, you can bet your butt it will be very very important for your continued breathing. You brought three.The reality in 65-75 and the opinions decades later are significantly divergent. Even now I hear these bogus stories and myths about this and that decades ago in a jungle far away. If it wasn't written down and vetted by a reliable source, it's all scuttlebutt.

[sharps4590]

I just wanna see an over pressure black powder load in a percussion revolver. Waddaya use, 4f in a Walker?

[M-Tecs]

I just wanna see an over pressure black powder load in a percussion revolver. Waddaya use, 4f in a Walker?

Not a Walker but actual 4F pressures here. Actual pressure testing showns 4f not quite the bogyman mythology has it.

https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/threads/4f-powder-in-a-revolver.128510/page-2

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?389699-4F-Blackpowder

[45 Dragoon]

Not to mention, I'm pretty sure a pocket model out sold all other models but let's not let facts get in the way . . .
The open top design is defiantly more costly to manufacture which is precisely why the top strap design is still made today. Too often what is "perceived" is regarded as something that it is not. There is no argument (only heresay and wives tales ) that the "over designed" open top Colts revolvers are superior in ergonomics and strength (how would they know otherwise?) Because all of the reproductions of such have been wrongly manufactured compared to a simpler design is a false claim that the Colt is a lesser example than the flimsy Remington. Just because the Remington can "survive" and the manufacture of a simpler design is prevalent in modern S.A. revolvers (although with very thick top straps and frames) today in no way is a statement of lesser strength or durability of the Colts design.

This thread is supposed to be a comparison of the Colt vs Remington and if what you say is contrary to "popular" belief or assumption rather than facts, you're chastised for submitting such . . . don't blame me, blame Colt for over designing his revolver!!! Sheeeesh!!!!

Mike

[Soundguy]

If open top was weak..how come no 'walker' Remington with 60 grain cylinders?

[warren5421]

If you collect tin types from the 1860's you see very few people carrying any type of powder dispensers. Most carried paper cartages if they carried any reloads. Changing cylinders was not much of an option, you ever ride a horse all fired up and try to do something that took dexterity. I have a book wrote in the 1880's or 90's with interviews of Calvary that were in the Civil War and how they used their guns, very few talked about carrying a Remington. Most liked the 1851 Navy over the Army or Remington. Remember most of the men were only 5'4"-5'6" so the 51 worked best for them. For the foot soldier the only people in the rank and file with a revolver was the drummer boy with an illegal S&W .22.

I started shooting a 1860 Army, carried by a neighbor's grandpa, in the late 1950's. I have both Colt Armies and Remington's but like the grip of the 1851 Navy. You need to get about a dozen of each and shoot them all several hundred times a week for a few months(12) to see which one fells the best in your hand, by then you will like them all or hate one design. The thumb reach is different for each. Most Civil War soldiers carried 6 in the chambers. Indian War troops had no set uniform but carried a big knife in case they could not reload, ammo load out most times was 20 rounds of rifle and 6 rounds of pistol so they would not wast ammo.

[Good Cheer]

It always amazes me the squabbles that break out over "which is stronger/which is better".

Especially when the best one is the .40 caliber 1851.

[45 Dragoon]

[QUOTE=bedbugbilly;5299058]It always amazes me the squabbles that break out over "which is stronger



Yep, but they do. . . and you can explain it till you're blue in the face so, you let them think what they want and go on. That's exactly how B.S. keeps moving on. Funny how some folks are so interested in history but they pick and choose what's important. Design be damned, "what I think is right and you can't change my mind" . . . so , there's your history . . . it's whatever gets told more than anything else.

Mike

[Tracy]

Hint: What do the names 1858 and 1863 Imply?
Hint #2: what revolver was the second most commonly purchased by the Union Army during the Civil War?

I don't know what you've read, but the Remington was widely issued during the Civil War, especially in the West.

You're right. I was thinking of another Remington product; the Zouave rifle.

[Maven]

To add to the reference to the ML Forum in post #69, Britsmoothy was using FFFFg powder, but the classification of the powder he used was actually FFFg. You can check it out yourself if you read all the posts in that thread. Hmm, FFFFg in a Colt's Walker? No thanks. In a Ruger Old Army, maybe, but FFFg works for me.

[Tracy]

To add to the reference to the ML Forum in post #69, Britsmoothy was using FFFFg powder, but the classification of the powder he used was actually FFFg. You can check it out yourself if you read all the posts in that thread. Hmm, FFFFg in a Colt's Walker? No thanks. In a Ruger Old Army, maybe, but FFFg works for me.

Yeah, I would be leery of 4F in a Walker. Weren't they known for blowing up? Modern metallurgy notwithstanding, I think I would stick with 3F in even a repro Walker.

[almar]

I use lube pills cut from lube sticks. Pour the hot beeswax and paraffin into the barrel (muzzle blocked with ear plug), let it cool and harden, push the stick out and cut perfectly sized lube pills as needed (placed over roundballs in cylinder).

boy i have to applaud ingenuity when i see it. Good thinking.

[almar]

I have both and getting rid of one over the other would be a difficult task. Maybe in my particular case i would choose my Remington, only because of its incredible accuracy with almost any load and projectile.

[derek45]

Adjusting the Colt rear sight V in the hammer is easy and straight forward.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPffq2pbggY

I use a milling machine. The above works for the average user.


I carefully did this and zero'ed my 1860 Army.

Man,.....is it much more fun to shoot. I shoulda done this years ago.

I may have to change my vote LOL to the 1860

took a VAC day and goofed off all day. It was wonderful

https://i.imgur.com/MTX86Kq.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/QB1DfBt.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/zB4JLZv.jpg

[BunkTheory]

I just wanna see an over pressure black powder load in a percussion revolver. Waddaya use, 4f in a Walker?

the exploding walker was due to several issues

1. the quality of the steel was hit or miss in that era, they couldnt always get the alloy right or the heat treat right
2. age of gun, bad steel, with age, use, rust... BOOM
3. the bullet. The walker was intended for a conical bullet. That MANY users loaded UPSIDE DOWN... tests have shown that nearly doubles the chamber pressure..
hmmmm bad load, bad steel, rust,,,, BOOOM ala that mcmurtray movie...

[M-Tecs]

the exploding walker was due to several issues

1. the quality of the steel was hit or miss in that era, they couldnt always get the alloy right or the heat treat right
2. age of gun, bad steel, with age, use, rust... BOOM
3. the bullet. The walker was intended for a conical bullet. That MANY users loaded UPSIDE DOWN... tests have shown that nearly doubles the chamber pressure..
hmmmm bad load, bad steel, rust,,,, BOOOM ala that mcmurtray movie...

All early Colts were made out of wrought iron not steel. Wrought iron is very low carbon and is not heat treatable. Today it is mostly used in ornamental fences and railings. Alloy steel begins in 1865, when American metallurgist Julius Baur created the first alloy steel by mixing steel with chromium.

Please post the test showing nearly doubling the pressure via loading a conical bullets upside down??????

https://www.forgottenweapons.com/why-the-most-expensive-us-martial-pistol-exploded-a-lot/

Why The Most Expensive US Martial Pistol Exploded A Lot
August 12, 2021 Ian McCollum Antiques, Commentary, Revolver 35


The Colt Model 1847 Walker is one of the most valuable of all US military handguns in the collecting community, with examples sometimes breaking seven figures. However, the Walker was in many ways a remarkable failure as a service sidearm, mostly because it tended to explode. By today’s standards, it exploded quite a lot.

Why?

Basically, a combination of several factors:

– The Walker was made of wrought iron, and not always the best quality wrought iron. Cylinders had internal flaws that became weak points and failed upon firing.
– The Walker had a huge powder capacity in its chambers, between 50 and 60 grains depending on the projectile used. This was basically rifle size, and it left the cylinder design with a very small margin of safety.
– Powder composition and grain size was less standardized in the 1840s than it is today, making overpressure loads more likely than today.
– The Walker was designed for a conical “Pickett” bullet that was tricky to load correctly (point forward). Loading it backward could increase the powder volume in a chamber.

Of nearly 400 Walkers issued for the Mexican-American War, only 191 were returned after a year’s service, and only 82 of those were serviceable. Some of those missing guns were lost and stolen, but a substantial number – generally accepted to be 20%-30% – suffered burst barrels, burst cylinders, and broken cylinder arbors. Whoops!

[Tar Heel]

I just wanna see an over pressure black powder load in a percussion revolver. Waddaya use, 4f in a Walker?

If you fill a Walker chamber with T7 and pull the trigger, this is what you get. Some folks just won't listen. It isn't a BP load but this can certainly happen if you ignore mfg and experienced advice.

292774

[45 Dragoon]

Great picture Tar Heel ! That wouldn't have happened if the arbor length had been corrected. When the end of the arbor isn't against the barrel assy (under tension), it gives the end of the arbor "somewhere to go". What SHOULD happen is energy transfers through the arbor to the barrel assy and the assemblies as a whole act as a single unit. I've set up many many Walkers that get shot regularly with full loads of Trip 7 and no problems. Like I've said at least a 100 times, you can't make a true comparison when one of the subjects isn't built correctly.

Mike

[ddixie884]

I attempt to support the Mom & Pop manufacturers who make accoutrements for us to use. Having started with no direction, making my own mandrels, using 38 linear feet of wood dowel to find the correct taper and length, experimenting with ALL types of paper, trying to nitrate paper, making mistake after mistake, I can appreciate the effort these folks put into their products and the PITA it is to bring a product to market. I liked to try these products and support these guys making them if they look decent and seem to perform.

So having been down the road, and missing out on getting a hand crafted Manley tool because I had already made my own, I decided to purchase a wooden tool from Cap & Ball in Hungary. Nice looking tool and helps Balázs Németh feed his growing family. Cutting the paper from templates is time consuming but yields beautiful cartridges.

I then saw the tool by Guns of the West (Dustin Winegar) and since I want to support his efforts too I purchased his plastic tool with its really cool powder measure as part of the mandrel. I hope my support helps them all keep their great videos coming and they recognize how much we appreciate their contribution to the sport and in making our lives easier with their tools.

Since I have a wood and plastic tool, I do not see the need to purchase a metal one. All of my current ones work just fine. I like the one Dustin makes because I can roll a rectangular piece of paper onto the mandrel and trim off excess with a razor knife. There is no extra step involved with making trimmed paper from a template like we did with the originals.

Since my goal is to make authentic looking period cartridges, I mostly use conical bullets, the best of which, in my opinion, is the 44 Kerr bullet available from Eras Gone Molds. Again, I am attempting to support yet another small business which has contributed immensely to those of us who are trying to be as historically accurate as possible.

I make round ball cartridges to use in guns which have an incorrect reproduction barrel cutout area and do not accept cartridges with conical bullets to be able to rotate into the barrel assembly - under the loading ram. Rather than grind on the barrel assemble with a dremel tool and files, I load round balls for those guns or load a naked Kerr bullet atop loose powder and ram her home. The Kerr style bullet loaded into a cartridge will fit most of my reproductions without modification to the gun so I use it. The generous rebated heel also adheres well to the paper of the cartridge. In all, it's the best bullet to work with.

Anyone can roll a ball into a cigarette paper and twist it shut at the top and bottom I guess. Achieving historical accuracy is another adventure. Some of us enjoy the research, the trial and error of experimentation, and the thrill of success when we unwrap our period looking cartridges at the range.

I am not advocating one maker over another. If I had the wherewithal, I would get each of their products to recognize their efforts and contributions. 50 years ago I would have never thought I would ever get a chance to fire a civil war era cartridge. Now we have the guns and cartridges to use with reproductions available which are as historically accurate as possible. My hat is off to all of these guys who produce these products which serve the shooting community. Frankly speaking, they will have a limited run due to waning interest in the immediate future I believe. Hopefully we can get the younger shooters involved who have an interest in reproducing cartridges of the past.

What a time we live in!

291649

Those look great...........

[Tar Heel]

Great picture Tar Heel ! That wouldn't have happened if the arbor length had been corrected. When the end of the arbor isn't against the barrel assy (under tension), it gives the end of the arbor "somewhere to go". What SHOULD happen is energy transfers through the arbor to the barrel assy and the assemblies as a whole act as a single unit. I've set up many many Walkers that get shot regularly with full loads of Trip 7 and no problems. Like I've said at least a 100 times, you can't make a true comparison when one of the subjects isn't built correctly.

Mike

Mike,

Having contemplated your response and visualized the forces at work, I respectfully disagree with your statement that this would not have happened. The amount of force applied remains the same regardless of the arbor position, the direction of force applied remains the same, and the application of force remains the same. The entire barrel assembly is being "pushed" off the frame but retarded at the muzzle end of the arbor by a wedge. If the arbor were touching the barrel recess or not, the actuation force is identical. This arbor broke at the point of least mechanical advantage (the thinnest part) due to exceptional force applied.

I have visualized this in my minds eye to make a comparative picture and for the life of me can not see any difference. If the arbor tip were resting on the barrel metal correctly, the force applied to it remains the same. I believe it would have failed at precisely this same point anyway.

I'll keep ruminating on this and perhaps have an epiphany in the shower. :-)

Thanks for your comments and perspective. I completely agree with apples to apples and .....

[Tar Heel]

Great picture Tar Heel ! That wouldn't have happened if the arbor length had been corrected. When the end of the arbor isn't against the barrel assy (under tension), it gives the end of the arbor "somewhere to go". What SHOULD happen is energy transfers through the arbor to the barrel assy and the assemblies as a whole act as a single unit. I've set up many many Walkers that get shot regularly with full loads of Trip 7 and no problems. Like I've said at least a 100 times, you can't make a true comparison when one of the subjects isn't built correctly.

Mike

OK...now I see it. The barrel is pulling the wedge forward and the for-end of the arbor can be stretched if it not up flush against the barrel recess. Makes sense now. I see the picture.

This gun however was an ASM and tuned in Germany by a master gunsmith decades ago. The user (my friend - now deceased) delighted in the exceptional work and assumed that the tuned revolver now could handle full cylinder loads of T7. It did for 3 shots. The fourth shot broke the arbor. I have this revolver now but unfortunately a new arbor is all but impossible to find. This revolver is beautiful. It was defarbed, high luster blued, cylinder finished in the white....just came in many pieces!

[45 Dragoon]

Yes!! Thank you!! There would be no stretching since the "transfer" would happen instantaneously and leave the arbor alone in its "position". As I said, with about a 100 Walkers out there, I would know by now if there was a problem. Some are local so, believe me, I would know!!!

Mike

[M-Tecs]

OK...now I see it. The barrel is pulling the wedge forward and the for-end of the arbor can be stretched if it not up flush against the barrel recess. Makes sense now. I see the picture.

This gun however was an ASM and tuned in Germany by a master gunsmith decades ago. The user (my friend - now deceased) delighted in the exceptional work and assumed that the tuned revolver now could handle full cylinder loads of T7. It did for 3 shots. The fourth shot broke the arbor. I have this revolver now but unfortunately a new arbor is all but impossible to find. This revolver is beautiful. It was defarbed, high luster blued, cylinder finished in the white....just came in many pieces!

Might be one available here https://www.vtigunparts.com/store/shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=79&cat=ASM+1847+Walker

These appear to be available but not sure if they will fit. https://taylorsfirearms.com/walker.html

[Tar Heel]

Might be one available here https://www.vtigunparts.com/store/shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=79&cat=ASM+1847+Walker

These appear to be available but not sure if they will fit. https://taylorsfirearms.com/walker.html

Thanks M-Tecs. The part at VTI seems to be available, but for the last two years it has not actually been in stock. The Uberti arbor is unfortunately a smaller diameter and won't work. If it had been larger, it could have been turned on a lathe. Shucks.

Every year now I take another look around real hard but it seems that unless I can get another ASM frame and cannibalize the arbor, I will remain out of luck.

[charlie b]

I would wonder if maybe the wedge was not inserted fully. Would let the barrel assy 'accelerate' before 'striking' the wedge. The additional force might be enough to cause a failure like that. Just guessing.

Or, it could have been a flaw in the arbor that chose that moment to let go.

[Bent Ramrod]

The Parts Lady at VTI is very knowledgeable, and can suggest substitutions, other makers’ parts that fit and work properly. Armi San Marco is, of course, long defunct, and available parts are few.

If they don’t have one in stock, your order goes on file and you wait for the yearly voyage of that slow boat from Brescia. You come to realize how those colonists at Roanoke felt, after one or two of these orders, but the part eventually shows up.

The beat-up ASM Walker I got in a trade had bad cylinder end-shake. I had to shorten the arbor (from the back) take a shave off the barrel lug at the breech, deepen the locating holes, and JB Weld the arbor into its seat, as it had started to wobble from firing, because of the coarse thread of the arbor and the thin section of the rear of the frame. It looks like a big, stout revolver, but it has its weak points.

The thing survived a six-chamber chain fire with 50-gr charges in all chambers, and is still tight and functional, so I guess the fix worked. I went to 0.454” round balls, and no chain fires since.

[derek45]

The Parts Lady at VTI is very knowledgeable, ....


Yes she is !

:drinks: