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

[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.



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.



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!

Attachment 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.