Colt 1860 Vs Remington New Model

[Stantheman86]

I've never shot a Rogers & Spencer, but yes, they're supposed to be very nice revolvers. There's been a few comments made on them.

They were a very advanced design that carries over to the repros. They designed a bushing to handle fouling and I've never heard anyone say their R&S was unreliable

 

[Stantheman86]

I will say this. I inherited a Remmy from my Uncle's estate. He got it in a trade deal with other things. Someone neglected and abused it pretty badly. They dented up the frame in what looks like they were trying to get the cyl pin out with a steel hammer. The barrel is pitted as is the forcing cone. He scrubbed it out, oiled it and stuck it on the back shelf for many years. When I inherited it the cyl wouldn't turn freely as the pin was a little bent, straightened it out. I gave her a good cleaning and did what I could with the cosmetics (which was very little unfortunately). Fortunately the muzzle was like new. Went to the range and it shot more accurate as any CB revolver I've ever shot, it does have adjustable sights. She's kinda battered and unsightly but I will never let go of it. She also handles (just barely) 40gr fffg without a problem but I only load it like that when she comes with me in the SxS. It's a joy to have one CB revolver workhorse that you don't have to worry about scratching.

I have a few like this and I honestly have a little bit more fun using them, because I don't have to get all OCD with them making sure I only put them down on surfaces with no busted caps, exposed nail heads, and I can use them in holsters without caring about holster wear.

 

[Packrat]

Until the 1872 open too, made from left over parts,, the sights on the open tops were not connected, front sight on barrel and rear on hammer, the Remington were connected together

 

[45D]

Until the 1872 open too, made from left over parts,, the sights on the open tops were not connected, front sight on barrel and rear on hammer, the Remington were connected together

The '71-'72 Open top was purpose built with a new barrel and a new cylinder. It was Colt's first cartridge revolver after the expiration of the Rollin White patent and not a "patched together" assembly of "leftover parts". The "conversions" came after the Open Top. As far as sight configuration goes, a rear sight made integral with the barrel seems a good idea but it cuts the sight radius in half! I'd rather have an almost as long as the revolver is radius than half. The sight notch in the hammer can be "manipulated" to one's liking giving a nice easy sight picture.

Mike

 

[dylan84]

@45D Is the Colt 2nd gen 1860 not worth the extra expense? A local gun shop has what I believe to be one. I was going to look at it closer and see what it really is. I think they wanted like $1250 for it so I definitely am not about to jump at the deal but if I had stuff that they would want for trade then it might be kind of cool to have! haha

 

[45D]

@45D Is the Colt 2nd gen 1860 not worth the extra expense? A local gun shop has what I believe to be one. I was going to look at it closer and see what it really is. I think they wanted like $1250 for it so I definitely am not about to jump at the deal but if I had stuff that they would want for trade then it might be kind of cool to have! haha

Wow, what a question!!!
That's pretty steep sounding to me but, it's "worth" what you're willing to pay ( or trade) for it. From the tuners point of view, they are typical '70's bp revolvers and frankly many times some of the worst ( but they are pretty!)!! Personally, the Uberti or Pietta offerings today are MUCH better than any from the 70's, 80's and 90's ! I'm not a "collector" of 2nd Gen Colts but I have collected other things so I understand that animal. If you've got to have the "pony" , you've got to have the "pony".
I've got 7 here from one customer all in perfect condition ( most unfired) that will leave here to be ultimate shooters!! Correct arbors, coil actions, all the good stuff.

So, you'll have to decide for yourself and then if it's worth "fixing" ( it'll need fixing).

Mike

 

[dylan84]

Wow, what a question!!!
That's pretty steep sounding to me but, it's "worth" what you're willing to pay ( or trade) for it. From the tuners point of view, they are typical '70's bp revolvers and frankly many times some of the worst ( but they are pretty!)!! Personally, the Uberti or Pietta offerings today are MUCH better than any from the 70's, 80's and 90's ! I'm not a "collector" of 2nd Gen Colts but I have collected other things so I understand that animal. If you've got to have the "pony" , you've got to have the "pony".
I've got 7 here from one customer all in perfect condition ( most unfired) that will leave here to be ultimate shooters!! Correct arbors, coil actions, all the good stuff.

So, you'll have to decide for yourself and then if it's worth "fixing" ( it'll need fixing).

Mike

Yeah that was kind of what I was thinking. I have 2 Piettas right now that are keeping my busy in the evenings correcting things as I learn more. The 1860 Army date code 1996 had a short arbor. Corrected that and I have to say that it shoots and feels better with the arbor bottoming out. I could "feel" a difference. The 1858 NMA has received some tinkering also. Deburred the forcing cone, smoothed out the hammer spring, and need to mess with the timing. Both guns have bolts that snap off the cam instead of rolling off. I want to eventually address that also. BTW I found out that dirt bike valve shims fit perfect in the barrel well on the 1860 to bottom out the arbor.

 

[GYJ]

I'd buy two Uberti's and send them to Turnbull before I spent $1250 on a 2nd or 3rd generation Colt percussion gun.

 

[Robert an saa fan]

I pm'd dylan84 and suggested he start a new thread on the 2nd Generation Colt so he could gain information and perhaps help other members. He replied he would post a new thread tomorrow after looking at the Colt again.

​

 

[FishDFly]

Excellent idea.

 

[Enfield58]

Colt, it shoots longer without fouling stopping it. My Remington after 2 cylinders gets sticky, then the hand spring bends when you try to **** it. The Remington was the first pistol I purchased and thought I liked it until I got the first of many Colts. YMMV

Try this modification. I did and problems were solved.

 

[M. De Land]

With modern steel , it could be done. There's just no reason to

Either way you'll have threads holding the arbor in against the bullet going down the pipe vs the threads of the Barrel doing the same job. The arbor would need to be beefy and screwed into the frame properly

Well, not quite, the threads are in line (co-axial) with the bullet pull on a solid frame gun and offset on an open frame gun, cantilevered by the lower lug. The pull is still linear but offset which is a physical lessening of overall strength.

 

[45D]

Try this modification. I did and problems were solved.

"What they were going for . . . "
He was there . . . listening in

The the "grooves" on a Colt arbor is "A" groove (just like THE groove on a vinyl record, there'sonly 1 per side) which promotes a "migration" of fouling . . .
What he doesn't say is synthetic grease is perfectly fine to use ( you can buy a can of it, such as Mobil1) and don't have to "concoct" a natural "rendering" of some sort.
The Colts first line of defense for fouling is a groove at the intersection of the face of the cyl and the arbor ( on the originals) to allow it to bypass the intersection. Anything past that got caught in the "migration" groove.
That's why I took both the Colt "fouling groove" and linked it to the "reduced" diameter of the Ruger Old Army's base pin to mitigate the fouling problem with Remingtons. It works for "all day" shooting but hey, now you know where "my fix" comes from because, I "wasn't there"!!!

Mike

 

[45D]

Well, not quite, the threads are in line (co-axial) with the bullet pull on a solid frame gun and offset on an open frame gun, cantilevered by the lower lug.

A "substantial" lug ( much more than what Remington allowed) and apparently good enough for 23K psi as a "norm" ammo.
Not bad for such an "antiquated" device.

No telling what the Dragoon/Walker platform will uncover for us.

I'll be loading some "test round"s for my Dragoons soon and report.

Mike

 

[Stantheman86]

@45D Is the Colt 2nd gen 1860 not worth the extra expense? A local gun shop has what I believe to be one. I was going to look at it closer and see what it really is. I think they wanted like $1250 for it so I definitely am not about to jump at the deal but if I had stuff that they would want for trade then it might be kind of cool to have! haha

The C Series and F Series 2nd Gens are two entirely different things

All 1860 Armies are F Series and aren't worth half that in fired condition. They aren't worth $1250 mint and unturned

 

[dylan84]

The C Series and F Series 2nd Gens are too entirely different things

All 1860 Armies are F Series and aren't worth half that in fired condition. They aren't worth $1250 mint and unturned

Yeah was just looking at Gunbroker. An original civilian model from the 1800's could be had for not much more. That would be a heck of a lot cooler! Might have to get my dad to buy one so I can shoot it!

 

[Stantheman86]

The C series are worth a premium just because they are collectible

The F series guns are just Colt label slapped Ubertis assembled at the old Iver Johnson factory by a guy who tried to form the "Colt Blackpowder Arms Co." That didn't make it. Colt was a disorganized shell company at this time anyway and didn't really care about these F series guns in the 90s and 2000s

You can't go wrong buying the real deal, just keep the loads on the lighter side.

 

[Bad Karma]

The C series are worth a premium just because they are collectible

The F series guns are just Colt label slapped Ubertis assembled at the old Iver Johnson factory by a guy who tried to form the "Colt Blackpowder Arms Co." That didn't make it. Colt was a disorganized shell company at this time anyway and didn't really care about these F series guns in the 90s and 2000s

You can't go wrong buying the real deal, just keep the loads on the lighter side.

Some of the F series are also lettered Colts. I don’t know why but I keep stumbling across the darn things. Have three of the 5.5” Butterfield Stage commemoratives and several (5 I think) of the full length 8” 1860 Army revolvers. Goon doesn’t have a very high opinion of the 2nd Gen guns but I’ve been pretty lucky with those I’ve picked up. I have sold a few that I wasn’t necessarily impressed with but for the money I like em… and they’re well ahead of any Pietta 1860 I’ve ever seen in form and function combined.

 

[Bad Karma]

Yeah that was kind of what I was thinking. I have 2 Piettas right now that are keeping my busy in the evenings correcting things as I learn more. The 1860 Army date code 1996 had a short arbor. Corrected that and I have to say that it shoots and feels better with the arbor bottoming out. I could "feel" a difference. The 1858 NMA has received some tinkering also. Deburred the forcing cone, smoothed out the hammer spring, and need to mess with the timing. Both guns have bolts that snap off the cam instead of rolling off. I want to eventually address that also. BTW I found out that dirt bike valve shims fit perfect in the barrel well on the 1860 to bottom out the arbor.

Carr McMaster has a variety of shims of the proper diameter in thicknesses from .002” to .020” in increments.

 

[M. De Land]

The '71-'72 Open top was purpose built with a new barrel and a new cylinder. It was Colt's first cartridge revolver after the expiration of the Rollin White patent and not a "patched together" assembly of "leftover parts". The "conversions" came after the Open Top. As far as sight configuration goes, a rear sight made integral with the barrel seems a good idea but it cuts the sight radius in half! I'd rather have an almost as long as the revolver is radius than half. The sight notch in the hammer can be "manipulated" to one's liking giving a nice easy sight picture.

Mike

AMEN, sight radius is the way to go even if you have to use one ear of the hammer notch for windage , which I do on my 60. Sounds weird but actually works surprisingly well. I should have cut a dovetail for the front sight when I replaced it with a blade but don't really care for a front sight that sets off center either.