Colt 1860 Vs Remington New Model

[Snake Pleskin]

Most of the time when people have trouble putting their cylinders back in a Remington it's because they are fighting the hand that sticks out of the rear of the frame.

You need to insert your cylinder while twisting it slightly in the direction of the hand and work the hammer a bit.

It should drop in easily.

Yes, that is what I have to do!!!

 

[Stantheman86]

Back to line shooting, the 1858 is the preferred pistol when it comes to winning. Have never seen a Colt win the "As Issue" revolver match.

Friendship offers an open revolver match, very few enter it. If Colt was superior, how come very few enters it, if they are the pistol of choice?

Why cannot Uberti and Pietta put a taller front sight on Colt's so they do not shoot one foot high? That is dumb! My Remington's shoot at POA.

Well, when someone makes a blinged up Colt repro with a Match barrel and carefully machined chambers , you'll see them

These "Match" 1858 Remington repros have nothing in common with the actual 1858 Remington- Beals revolver except external similarity and the action is mostly the same. These are made just for Match shooting.

You can't compare a modern, Match grade Repro of an 1858 to anything. It is not real, it is a facsimile. How many people are shooting original 1858 Remington revolvers at these matches?

We are descending into reproduction, modern technology and manufacturing techniques, Match grade Fantasy Land here.

I honestly don't and would not care if an original or a stock Uberti repro of an 1858 was more accurate then a Colt model. But saying "More 1858s are featured at Matches " is not an accurate comparison of these two designs. Of course people are going to choose a high end Match model to compete.

This is why the fast twist Parker-Hale s aren't allowed in the rifle matches in England, they are basically an Enfield P53 repro with a match barrel. They can't be compared to originals.

A higher front sight on an 1860 Colt would make it look weird and people want them to look cool, to keep it simple. The Pietta 1851s are starting to come in with higher front sights because it's easier to keep them from looking weird. They hit high because they were designed to kill people, not punch paper at Friendship. Sam Colt didn't think about people using his guns at 25 yard Bullseye matches and complaining about reproductions of them hitting high, he designed them for military contracts .

 

[maillemaker]

I honestly don't and would not care if an original or a stock Uberti repro of an 1858 was more accurate then a Colt model. But saying "More 1858s are featured at Matches " is not an accurate comparison of these two designs. Of course people are going to choose a high end Match model to compete.

All of the reasons why modern competitors choose solid-frame revolvers were present on original solid-frame revolvers.

There is nothing on the reproductions that make them more functionally desirable or different than originals. There's nothing about an out-of-the-box $400 Uberti or Pietta 1858 Remington that is going to make it a "match gun". In fact, many serious shooters buy them and then send them off to make them "match guns" through gunsmiths who ream chambers to be bore-aligned with the barrel, rebarrel the guns, add forcing cones and crowns, and tuned triggers.

The main reasons why I think competitors choose the 1858 Remington design (and that is not all that competitors shoot for solid-frame revolvers - the Rogers and Spencer is still also popular despite not having been offered for some years now) are these:

1. Ability to easily remove the cylinder for loading off-the-gun.
   Most competition shooters in the N-SSA use an external cylinder loading stand. This allows for faster, easier, and generally more consistent loading of the chambers. It also takes the loading stress off of the loading lever of the gun. This is the biggest reason, in my opinion.
2. Solid-frame designs are generally more mechanically consistent.
   With the Colt, you have to take the gun to pieces. And while yes, if your wedge is just right and your wedge slot in your arbor is aligned with the wedge slot in the frame just right and your arbor isn't too long or too short and if your arbor isn't loose in the frame then yes a Colt can be just as mechanically consistent. But a solid-frame design always is.
3. Solid-frame revolvers are less prone to cap jams.
   With solid-frame revolvers, the hammer face is narrow and passes through a narrow slot to reach the nipple. This small window acts like a cap rake that helps prevent the cap from following the hammer face and falling down into the crotch of the hammer where it can get flattened and stop the hammer from falling completely on subsequent shots or drop down into the action from above. With Colts, the window for the hammer is the entire width of the hammer and so caps can easily be blown off or stick to the hammer face and be pulled off and so cause the problems above. Some people fill the safety notches on the face of the hammer to try and prevent this pull-off effect, and some people install a tiny "cap rake" pin in the frame that the safety notch falls over but it stops the caps from falling straight backwards. This is unnecessary with solid-frame revolvers.

This is why the fast twist Parker-Hale s aren't allowed in the rifle matches in England, they are basically an Enfield P53 repro with a match barrel. They can't be compared to originals.

I'm not sure what you are referring to here. Parker-Hale made pretty faithful copies of the Type IV Enfield series. They made Pattern 1853 muskets, but they also made Pattern 1858, which historically had faster twists. This was not a Parker-Hale thing, this is the way they were made historically. It is a modern lore that during the first NRA matches in England, if you shot a P58 you were automatically given a 10% penalty due to the increased accuracy of them. But I have been recently informed there is actually no evidence of this. (if my memory is serving on this story) The P1853 Enfields had a 1:78 twist historically. I believe the P1858 was 1:48. It also had a 5-groove barrel as opposed to the Pattern 1858 that was 3-groove. The Pattern 1861 was similar to the Pattern 1858.

Generally speaking the evolution went like this:
P1853 3-band musket. 1-78 twist, 3-groove
P1856 2-band musket. 1-78 twist, 3-groove. Found to be inferior in accuracy to P1853.
P1858 (navy) P1860 (army) 2-band musket. 1:48 twist, 5 groove.
P1862 2-band musket. Like P1860, but with Baddley bands and 1200 yard sights.

At some point in all of this progressive-depth rifling was introduced on some or all of them and I'm not sure the details there.

So this was not an original vs. reproduction thing, nor a match vs. non-match thing. Just entirely different rifling mechanisms.

 

[smoothshooter]

Me.
I found me at goonsgunworks.com. lol!!

Mike

What is your backlog?

 

[smoothshooter]

Well, when someone makes a blinged up Colt repro with a Match barrel and carefully machined chambers , you'll see them

These "Match" 1858 Remington repros have nothing in common with the actual 1858 Remington- Beals revolver except external similarity and the action is mostly the same. These are made just for Match shooting.

You can't compare a modern, Match grade Repro of an 1858 to anything. It is not real, it is a facsimile. How many people are shooting original 1858 Remington revolvers at these matches?

We are descending into reproduction, modern technology and manufacturing techniques, Match grade Fantasy Land here.

I honestly don't and would not care if an original or a stock Uberti repro of an 1858 was more accurate then a Colt model. But saying "More 1858s are featured at Matches " is not an accurate comparison of these two designs. Of course people are going to choose a high end Match model to compete.

This is why the fast twist Parker-Hale s aren't allowed in the rifle matches in England, they are basically an Enfield P53 repro with a match barrel. They can't be compared to originals.

A higher front sight on an 1860 Colt would make it look weird and people want them to look cool, to keep it simple. The Pietta 1851s are starting to come in with higher front sights because it's easier to keep them from looking weird. They hit high because they were designed to kill people, not punch paper at Friendship. Sam Colt didn't think about people using his guns at 25 yard Bullseye matches and complaining about reproductions of them hitting high, he designed them for military contracts .

 

[smoothshooter]

I am not sure the originals all shot really high,
The arbors on most of the repro’s are not the correct length and that can cause an open topped revolver too high.
Colt and his engineers were surely knowledgeable enough to know that very, very few men or horses were going to be hit at ranges past 50 to 75 yards, even in the hands of the best shots, with most of the shooting and hitting being done at 30 feet or less.
Remember, in those days almost nobody in military service ever did any target practice or developed any real skill at shooting anything, especially handguns.
As for a taller front sight looking weird, about 3 years ago I built up the front sight on my 1860 Uberti with JB Weld, shaped it with needle files, and painted it black. Looks like a factory job, and does not stick up much higher than the sight it came with.
I has occurred to me that with paper cartridges being issued on a large scale by the Quartermaster Corps, the original percussion revolvers may not have shot so high.
One reason may have been the graft and corruption common with vendors at the time, who were notorious for undersized uniforms, cheaper than required boots and shoes, and probably paper revolver cartridges that may have had less powder in them than they were supposed to have.

 

[Horse]

Short arbor with the wedge hammered in tight = pie shaped barrel cylinder gap with barrel not parallel to cylinder bore = gun that shoots way high. Pettifogger points this out.

 

[Stantheman86]

All of the reasons why modern competitors choose solid-frame revolvers were present on original solid-frame revolvers.

There is nothing on the reproductions that make them more functionally desirable or different than originals. There's nothing about an out-of-the-box $400 Uberti or Pietta 1858 Remington that is going to make it a "match gun". In fact, many serious shooters buy them and then send them off to make them "match guns" through gunsmiths who ream chambers to be bore-aligned with the barrel, rebarrel the guns, add forcing cones and crowns, and tuned triggers.

The main reasons why I think competitors choose the 1858 Remington design (and that is not all that competitors shoot for solid-frame revolvers - the Rogers and Spencer is still also popular despite not having been offered for some years now) are these:

1. Ability to easily remove the cylinder for loading off-the-gun.
   Most competition shooters in the N-SSA use an external cylinder loading stand. This allows for faster, easier, and generally more consistent loading of the chambers. It also takes the loading stress off of the loading lever of the gun. This is the biggest reason, in my opinion.
2. Solid-frame designs are generally more mechanically consistent.
   With the Colt, you have to take the gun to pieces. And while yes, if your wedge is just right and your wedge slot in your arbor is aligned with the wedge slot in the frame just right and your arbor isn't too long or too short and if your arbor isn't loose in the frame then yes a Colt can be just as mechanically consistent. But a solid-frame design always is.
3. Solid-frame revolvers are less prone to cap jams.
   With solid-frame revolvers, the hammer face is narrow and passes through a narrow slot to reach the nipple. This small window acts like a cap rake that helps prevent the cap from following the hammer face and falling down into the crotch of the hammer where it can get flattened and stop the hammer from falling completely on subsequent shots or drop down into the action from above. With Colts, the window for the hammer is the entire width of the hammer and so caps can easily be blown off or stick to the hammer face and be pulled off and so cause the problems above. Some people fill the safety notches on the face of the hammer to try and prevent this pull-off effect, and some people install a tiny "cap rake" pin in the frame that the safety notch falls over but it stops the caps from falling straight backwards. This is unnecessary with solid-frame revolvers.

I'm not sure what you are referring to here. Parker-Hale made pretty faithful copies of the Type IV Enfield series. They made Pattern 1853 muskets, but they also made Pattern 1858, which historically had faster twists. This was not a Parker-Hale thing, this is the way they were made historically. It is a modern lore that during the first NRA matches in England, if you shot a P58 you were automatically given a 10% penalty due to the increased accuracy of them. But I have been recently informed there is actually no evidence of this. (if my memory is serving on this story) The P1853 Enfields had a 1:78 twist historically. I believe the P1858 was 1:48. It also had a 5-groove barrel as opposed to the Pattern 1858 that was 3-groove. The Pattern 1861 was similar to the Pattern 1858.

Generally speaking the evolution went like this:
P1853 3-band musket. 1-78 twist, 3-groove
P1856 2-band musket. 1-78 twist, 3-groove. Found to be inferior in accuracy to P1853.
P1858 (navy) P1860 (army) 2-band musket. 1:48 twist, 5 groove.
P1862 2-band musket. Like P1860, but with Baddley bands and 1200 yard sights.

At some point in all of this progressive-depth rifling was introduced on some or all of them and I'm not sure the details there.

So this was not an original vs. reproduction thing, nor a match vs. non-match thing. Just entirely different rifling mechanisms.

P-H made 1:48 twist P53s for the American market to sell to Skirmishers and Match Shooters but they aren't legal in some or all "official " matches

What I call this whole scenario, is "Competition Creep" , I've seen it at the Handgun shoots I go to. There's always those guys who show up with $8000 1911 Race Guns and dominate guys like me with my .45 Redhawk or stock CZ75. People will buy the best equipment to win

I'm sure whenever Friendship matches started there was a mix of original and stock revolvers of all types. Then guys started shooting Feinwerkbau Rogers and Spencer , and 1858 revolvers tuned up to the Max, with secret loads , shooting Swiss powder, lube made from the fat of goats born on a North facing plain in Wisconsin, after being cleaned with Holy Water and taking 1st place, so now the bar is high and everyone "needs" a high end, worked solid frame revolver to not embarrass themselves

Or like my friend warned me about CAS shooting.....I'll be shooting against guys with worked Vaqueros and I'm not going to be competitive unless I shoot 1000s of rounds per week and have a matched pair of Rugers with 3lb hammer draws .

If I were going to shoot in a military muzzleloading match, of course I'm going to take my Parker-Hale P53 with the windage adjustable rear sight that has a consistent, match grade barrel made in Birmingham , that the previous owner did a trigger job on, and not my Pedersoli CS Richmond or original 1861. I'd want the "worked" rifle that gives me a better chance.

I'm not going to bring a box stock Uberti Navy to a percussion handgun match to shoot against guys with match grade 1858 Rems if I actually expect to do anything. It's just logic. People stay competitive and want the best equipment. Thus, why the Friendship match is 1858 heavy.

 

[Stantheman86]

I am not sure the originals all shot really high,
The arbors on most of the repro’s are not the correct length and that can cause an open topped revolver too high.
Colt and his engineers were surely knowledgeable enough to know that very, very few men or horses were going to be hit at ranges past 50 to 75 yards, even in the hands of the best shots, with most of the shooting and hitting being done at 30 feet or less.
Remember, in those days almost nobody in military service ever did any target practice or developed any real skill at shooting anything, especially handguns.
As for a taller front sight looking weird, about 3 years ago I built up the front sight on my 1860 Uberti with JB Weld, shaped it with needle files, and painted it black. Looks like a factory job, and does not stick up much higher than the sight it came with.
I has occurred to me that with paper cartridges being issued on a large scale by the Quartermaster Corps, the original percussion revolvers may not have shot so high.
One reason may have been the graft and corruption common with vendors at the time, who were notorious for undersized uniforms, cheaper than required boots and shoes, and probably paper revolver cartridges that may have had less powder in them than they were supposed to have.

I know that some cartridges were rejected because of light powder charges

I had also thought, given the intent for the 1860 to use a shoulder stock, it may have a "shoulder stock zero". My .36 Navy hits much lower and closer to the sights when stocked, but will still function as designed and hit without a stock

Members of the forum state that their originals hit high but I don't know what kind of loads they're using

 

[Stantheman86]

I was inspired to take a quick range trip to fire my new Uberti 1858. I haven't fired an 1858 repro since the Pietta I had probably 20 years ago

I was basically shooting by moonlight at this point, since my range allows shooting a half hour past sunset . So not being able to really see the sights , and just basically seeing if it works, it did well at 25 with a one hand hold

I had no problem hitting the paper basically doing a Night Fire and point shooting at the mostly dark target

I lubed up the cylinder pin with MicroLube 2000 and fired 6 rounds. After loading 6 more with 30gr of 3f Old Eynsford, the cylinder got sluggish and I had to pull the pin and push it back in. 2 shots in , I had to help the cylinder by hand

I didn't do a good job wiping the factory oil off and the pin probably still had petroleum based oil on it, which could have gummed it up. Also this is my first stainless percussion revolver, I don't know if galling with the stainless on stainless is a bigger issue vs carbon steel.

Once I clean it up thoroughly and break it in, it should be a nice shooter. I paid about $600 for this thing so I have no reason to bash it, I obviously want it to work. But these first few shots with it didn't make me too warm and fuzzy inside.

30 grains is also a healthy charge, it may do better going down to 20 with a lubed wad over the powder, with conical bullets.

This thing will probably drive tacks once I get a load down and can actually see the sights. It will probably need some break in.

Just my personal preference but I'll be sticking with my Colt clones , even if they need a little work out of the box. My first outing with the 5 new Uberti and Pietta Colt types I just bought left me with a much more contented feeling

 

[Flintlock Whiskey]

This thread is going to be a record in length before long.
Great stuff though.

 

[TDM]

No end that I can see...


Everybody really knows that Colts are best.

 

[Stantheman86]

No end that I can see...


Everybody really knows that Colts are best.

This thread made me buy another Colt

 

[maillemaker]

P-H made 1:48 twist P53s for the American market to sell to Skirmishers and Match Shooters but they aren't legal in some or all "official " matches

I was not aware of that. I only knew of the 1:48 twist in the P58 and P61.

 

[Stantheman86]

I was not aware of that. I only knew of the 1:48 twist in the P58 and P61.

They're not very common, I tested all 3 of my P-H P53's with the "cleaning rod" test when I got them but they're all the standard slow twist . It wasn't a big deal. I know Armi Sport makes or did make 1861s and 1855 Springfields with a 1:48 twist , I'd guess to attract buyers who want to shoot solid base conicals

 

[Stantheman86]

No end that I can see...


Everybody really knows that Colts are best.

Plus the internet is full of threads going back 20 years with people trying to keep Remingtons running past 3 cylinders, including cutting lube grooves in the cylinder pin, using Mobil 1 red grease on pins, ...and lots of info about Remingtons being more prone to fouling than Colts during the War, but it is what it is.

Repros inheriting the strengths and flaws of originals is part of the charm I guess

 

[TDM]

Plus the internet is full of threads going back 20 years with people trying to keep Remingtons running past 3 cylinders, including cutting lube grooves in the cylinder pin, using Mobil 1 red grease on pins, ...and lots of info about Remingtons being more prone to fouling than Colts during the War, but it is what it is.

Repros inheriting the strengths and flaws of originals is part of the charm I guess

I had completely forgotten about some cutting lube grooves in the Remingtons. I remember reading about that now.

 

[Stantheman86]

I had completely forgotten about some cutting lube grooves in the Remingtons. I remember reading about that now.

It seems like the newer repros have a "grease cutout", I was wondering why the front of my pin had a flat spot.

The originals didn't have this I would guess?

I have a bunch of Johnston and Dow conicals, I'm going to try them with light 20 gr charges and see how they work.

 

[45D]

Plus the internet is full of threads going back 20 years with people trying to keep Remingtons running past 3 cylinders, including cutting lube grooves in the cylinder pin, using Mobil 1 red grease on pins, ...and lots of info about Remingtons being more prone to fouling than Colts during the War, but it is what it is.

Repros inheriting the strengths and flaws of originals is part of the charm I guess

I have found a cure for the Remington cyl / pin binding. Thanks to the Colt "fouling groove" found on the arbors of original revolvers. That groove linked to a reduced diameter section of the base pin ( like found on the ROA) seems to be an answer.

The groove is in line with the cylinder face and allows most of the fouling to blow past the cyl / pin intersection. As the cylinder rotates, linking grooves provide access to the reduced section of the pin which allows any fouling that does enter the area to migrate to the rear.
It works very well for the competition folks and is "standard" for all removable base pins.

Mike

 

[FishDFly]

This thread is going to be a record in length before long.
Great stuff though.

Actually the record was over 50 pages about Hawken rifles in about 2008 or 2009.