• Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.

    We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.

    Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103

1851 or 1860?

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

parrett

32 Cal.
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
This subject has probably been kicked to death, but here goes anyway. I'm going to get a BP pistol and have narrowed it down to these two. What are the differences? Also, if I buy from Cabelas, will the pistol have "Cabelas" all over it?

Thanks,

Dan
 
The 1851 Colt Navy is .36 cal; the 1860 Colt Army is .44 cal. Other than that, I find little difference. Both are excellent guns.
 
The 1851 has a smaller grip then the 1860 so your hand size should be a factor. If you have small hands but don't care about historically correct and want a .44 they make .44 1851s even though Colt didn't. If you are just target shooting the .36 1851 is cheaper to shoot. A steel frame will last longer with heavy loads then a brass one and isn't that much more money.
If you get a chance you should try to handle one of each (shooting them would be nice as well) before making up your mind.
 
My 1861 navy is visually more attractive than my 1851 navy. My friends think so to as that's the one they want me to sell them. My best shooters are still my two Remingtons, one stainless one in blue.

Bruce
 
Visual attractiveness is a subjective thing and is therefore difficult to quantify. I like the look of my '61 Colt too, but my '51 Navy Squareback with its deep Colt blue and silver plated backstrap and trigger guard is prettier to my eye. And a '60 Army is a lovely old thing too. I like the extra range and power of the '60 Army's .44 caliber bore. I believe that I'd choose the '60 if I was going to have just one revolver. It's that extra little bit more versatile. The difference in the cost of shooting isn't enough to sway the argument in favor of the Navy model in my opinon though tightwads may have a different outlook on this.
 
I like the looks of the 51 and have always wanted one. I'm just not sure I'd like a .36. I like the buck and roar of a fully stoked .44. No I wouldn't have a 51 in .44. If Col. Colt didn't originally make it I don't want it.
 
Amen, brother! If Colonel Colt had wanted folks to have .44 caliber Navies, he would have built them that way! The '51 is a nicely balanced revolver and makes a great plinker and rabbit gun. Once you have a '60 Army, then Navy Colt is a good thing to have.
 
I've got a 60 Army and two 58 Remmys. Just traded for a 1911 so most of my pistol fetishes are fulfilled. The 51 is about all that's left I don't already have.
 
What the heck....just buy whichever one you get the best price on. You KNOW you will get the other one(s) sooner or later! I have 2 revolvers from Cabela and neither has a Cabela stamp on it. They do have Pietta stamped on the barrels though, and one has "Black Powder Only". Emery
 
The only thing I can add to what mazo kid said is cabelas has Great customer service and Super fast shipping.
 
I have quite small hands but find the 1860 Colt replica fits fine. IMO one of the advantages of a handle of that shape. graybeard
 
If Col. Colt didn't originally make it I don't want it.

Well, in a sense the Colonel did make '51 Navies in .44 caliber.

The Army 1860 weighing two pounds 11 ounces was production end of a three year search for lighter weight arms for the Dragoons and Cavalry. Originally in 1847-50, the huge .44 caliber Colt Dragoon models were issued for the use of mounted men. But four pounds is heavy for a pistol and the Dragoon revolvers never achieved the popularity of the 2 1/2 pound Navy M1851, though the latter was much lighter in caliber, being only a .36. To reduce weight was always an object.

The Navy frame from the .36 belt pistol was selected for improvement. Using a cylinder of enlarged front diameter, and a tapered inner chamber, it was possible to fit a .44 cylinder to a .36 frame. The fluted "rebated" cylinder first appeared on a model Navy pistol, the barrel of which had been pieced up by silver soldering lumps at the breech, to permit moving the barrel a little forward along a longer cylinder pin, and give adequate clearance for the .44 bullet loading cut. A Navy hinged rammer was fitted, the .44 cal. 7 ½ inch barrel being rounded, somewhat resembling the Dragoon barrel. This first experimental pistol proved a .44 was practical with rebated cylinder. Next, a small-guard Navy frame was taken, and cut for the fluted rebated cylinder. The barrel, partly machined, had been further pieced up with silver-soldered inserts to permit shaping a dirt shroud over the loading lever plunger. The lever, to give a "patent" claim to the arms (for Colt's other patents had just expired), was the Root-patent creeping lever ramrod. The shroud about the lever plunger had a dual purpose: it kept dirt from getting in to jam the plunger, and it also could be tightened up by hitting with a mallet, to tighten the sideplay of the plunger, in factory fitting. It also was a streamlined, esthetic style point, highly distinctive and giving a "new look" to the old Navy frame.

William B. Edwards, Civil War Guns, p. 317

In a sense the 1860 Army is a modified 1851 Navy in .44: rebated Navy frame, round barrel, shrouded loading plunger, and fluted cylinder to reduce weight (cylinders up to number 6500 were fluted, but they had a nasty tendency to burst). The Root creeping lever enabled them to stamp the revolvers with a patent number, Colt's original patents having expired.

Old Coot

I like the style of the '51. It's like a Model A Ford. Everyone turns their head to take a gander no matter what they're driving.
 
I made the same decision last year but bought locally so I could handle them both. The '60 Army with its larger grip was more comfortable in my large hands. My wife, with small hands, also preferred the '60 because she felt it was a little less muzzle heavy and balanced better than the '51.

Having said that, the differences are really minor and you won't go wrong with either. And it's a good bet that whichever model you choose now, you'll end up adding the other one soon enough. :wink:

Jeff
 
I've got some other points to ponder...

Why don't you spend a little extra and get either an '51 or '60 made by Uberti that's cut for a detachable shoulder stock? Stocks run about $150.00 and you can also have a fun little 'carbine'. Stocks for the Model 1860 are a little easier to find than the M 1851. I know that Dixie at one time offered Pietta's with a separate stock, I don't know if they do anymore.

Or why not an 1858 Remington? I have 2 from Cabela's, a blue and stainless one. IMHO they are a far better handgun. The top strap makes a stronger frame, take-down is a breeze by just pulling out the cylinder pin and not having to mess with that pesky Colt barrel wedge. The Remington has a REAL rear sight, a channel through the top strap. The Colt has a crude 'V' notch on the rear hammer.

When you get your pistol, think about purchasing a R & D cylinder conversion. This lets you fire either .45 Colt or .38 special metallic cartridges. The conversion cylinders run about $200.00. Reloading the cylinder is simple with a Remington, I would think more involved with a Colt. I also think there is some accuracy issues with the Navy, because the barrel is slightly oversized for .357 (38) caliber bullets. You also have to keep pressure down, but any Cowboy load would do. So you have a legal handgun that shoots modern ammunition without any paperwork or registration.

One final point. If you're getting just a shooter, why not stainless steel? The pistol does clean up much quicker, rust can occur but not as often. I've heard some people (I haven't tried yet) take the wooden grips off their dirty stainless revolver and put the componets into the dish washer to clean. Can't get much easier than that, except to explain to the wife why a diry pistol is in her washer.
 
I don't know how long you've been firing your Colts with the carbine stocks, but my experience is that these stocks turn a nicely balanced revolver into an ungainly and miserable carbine. And woe unto the shooter who forgets to keep his left hand behind the cylinder gap! There are sound reasons why these stocks weren't all that popular back in the day and aren't exactly loved by all now.
The Remington isn't a bad choice, but it lacks the balance of the Colt and the relationship between the grip-hammer-trigger is poor, making cocking while staying on target difficult. The Remington's thin cylinder arbor lacks grooves for lube, and tends to lock up from fouling much sooner than a Colt. And Bill Hickok used Colt Navies and seemed to be O.K. with the sights as were thousands of others. This is often thrown out as a strong point in favor of the Remington, but anyone who has actually done a lot of shooting with both types of revolvers knows that it isn't of that much consequence in practice.
 
Again I think handling them may be the best thing. I bought two 1858s in .36 for cowboy shooting and later got a deal on a Pietta 1862 "Amry Police" which is a cut down 1861 in .36. Basically a short 1851 with a round barrel. Anyhow it also came with the conversion cylinder. The Colt style fits my hand better, points better (for me), and looks better (to me). I am in the process of selling the Remingtons (I may keep one just because) and buying 1851s for cowboy shooting. I don't see the need for stainless steel (mine clean up pretty easy) but if you like it they go for it!

Also just a quick off the topic note, the Remingtons .36s (like the Colts) have a .375 barrel and .38 Special is too small for the bore. Yes wadcutters might expand but you really should use special oversized outside lubed bullets. 45 Colt will work out of a 44 cap and ball pretty well as they are really 45 caliber.
 
It looks like I'll be getting the 1860 for various reasons. Now...who makes the best one? Pietta, Uberti or should I look for a used 2nd generation Colt? Who makes the one Cabela's sells?

Thanks to all.

Dan
 
Dan Parrett said:
It looks like I'll be getting the 1860 for various reasons. Now...who makes the best one? Pietta, Uberti or should I look for a used 2nd generation Colt? Who makes the one Cabela's sells?

Thanks to all.

Dan


Pietta makes them. They're nice and the best bang for the buck in my opinion. Here's mine. BTW, I like the sights on the Colt better than the Remington. They're quicker to pick up.

Pietta1860.jpg
 
If you can afford the Colt get it. They are sweet revolvers and worth the extra money. Next best would be the Uberti.
 
Back
Top