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/thr...on-army.77460/

https://www.ar15.com/forums/Handguns...rmy/33-196638/

https://forums.sassnet.com/index.php...-vs-1860-colt/

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/sho...-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.

[derek45]

speedloaders LOL

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

[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