Colt 1860 Vs Remington New Model

[45D]

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.

I tuned a couple of those Butterfields about 7 or 8 years ago. Nice revolvers. Well, it's more my "experience" with them. They tend to be all over the map with spring tensions. I've got a pair here with about 8-9 lb hammer draws . . . a pair of Dragoons that are about 5lbs hammer draw. The screw holes in the bolt many times are so close to breaking through, sometimes they are cracked there, . . . The parts overall are very rough especially compared to today's Uberti parts.

Something to look for - the arbor hole is almost always broken through to the loading lever cutout in the barrel assembly. Just things you wouldn't find in even other reproductions back then. But, like I said, it's not up to me, if you like um that's fine, I still work on them . . . most folks won't work on any of the early revolvers any more.

I just finished one today that's on its way back home. It came here with a bent arbor, locking notches that had to be recut basically (because of the ill timed bolt moving metal into the notch). The bolt itself wasn't a factory part. The front triggguard screw was broken so I replaced it for him . . . It was such a wreck!!!
Needless to say, it now has perfect timing, a straight and correct length arbor, a 4lb hammer draw and a 2 1/2lb trigger pull.

That's worse than most of course but not far off !!! Lol

Mike

 

[Stantheman86]

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.

My C series 1851 Navy is a beautiful gun, the action is like oiled glass , the fit and finish is top notch......and I have an F series 3rd Model Dragoon that is basically the same as my Uberti except for the rifling, but both are very well fitted. My F series Pocket Navy is decent but nothing above what comes out of Uberti now. I went through a brief phase where I was looking for 2nd Gen Colt percussion revolvers . I think it's worth a premium $ to be able to call them a Colt but some prices I've seen are pretty crazy.

It does seem like they seem to pop up at gun shows on those days when you're "not really looking to buy anything " but everyone wants top dollar and then some for everything.

 

[Stantheman86]

I'm watching Godless and Jeff Daniels has the Remington revolver that came after the 1858, that we don't discuss here and I forgot how cool they looked. I would definitely buy a Uberti repro of one of them.

 

[Bad Karma]

My C series 1851 Navy is a beautiful gun, the action is like oiled glass , the fit and finish is top notch......and I have an F series 3rd Model Dragoon that is basically the same as my Uberti except for the rifling, but both are very well fitted. My F series Pocket Navy is decent but nothing above what comes out of Uberti now. I went through a brief phase where I was looking for 2nd Gen Colt percussion revolvers . I think it's worth a premium $ to be able to call them a Colt but some prices I've seen are pretty crazy.

It does seem like they seem to pop up at gun shows on those days when you're "not really looking to buy anything " but everyone wants top dollar and then some for everything.

There are a pair of 1860’s consecutively numbered on GB right now 1600 bucks or so for a starting bid… yikes!

 

[Stantheman86]

There are a pair of 1860’s consecutively numbered on GB right now 1600 bucks or so for a starting bid… yikes!

No I'm good, I'll leave them for a collector that will put them in a safe

 

[dylan84]

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

I work on motorcycles in my shop so had the whole shim kit. When I get this baby set up how I want it I will cut one off in the lathe. I think next step is to true up the frame and set it back a little bit to take up some end shake. I think I have a fixture imagined to keep this all square with the arbor when I mill around the pins. Once I get going on this I might just make another thread. I do love McMaster. I'm kind of off the beaten path and still get stuff next day from them!

 

[Bad Karma]

I work on motorcycles in my shop so had the whole shim kit. When I get this baby set up how I want it I will cut one off in the lathe. I think next step is to true up the frame and set it back a little bit to take up some end shake. I think I have a fixture imagined to keep this all square with the arbor when I mill around the pins. Once I get going on this I might just make another thread. I do love McMaster. I'm kind of off the beaten path and still get stuff next day from them!

Up to you naturally but you might try milling the underlug rather than the frame. Also, the pins could always be removed and replaced.

 

[45D]

I work on motorcycles in my shop so had the whole shim kit. When I get this baby set up how I want it I will cut one off in the lathe. I think next step is to true up the frame and set it back a little bit to take up some end shake. I think I have a fixture imagined to keep this all square with the arbor when I mill around the pins. Once I get going on this I might just make another thread. I do love McMaster. I'm kind of off the beaten path and still get stuff next day from them!

Just be careful that you don't over think it. Folks can measure this, measure that, line up the stars . . .
All you really need to do is add a correct size spacer that will give you the amount of endshake you're looking for. All the measuring you do will "go out the window" when you take up the tolerances by driving the wedge in. The "endshake" you want can only be measured with the wedge in solidly.
I've corrected 100's of open tops and I can't think of but 1 ( very old, early 60's) that had to have any frame / barrel lug "adjusting" . . . never anything even from the 70's or newer. Remember, your end result will be exactly the same result every time it's assembled. Any slight correction for cylinder /forcing cone being parallel can done with f.c. adjustment.
Consistent assembly is the goal.

Mike

 

[SPQR70AD]

Try this modification. I did and problems were solved.

Blackie compared the open top colt to a remington and showed how superior the remington is

 

[dylan84]

Just be careful that you don't over think it. Folks can measure this, measure that, line up the stars . . .
All you really need to do is add a correct size spacer that will give you the amount of endshake you're looking for. All the measuring you do will "go out the window" when you take up the tolerances by driving the wedge in. The "endshake" you want can only be measured with the wedge in solidly.
I've corrected 100's of open tops and I can't think of but 1 ( very old, early 60's) that had to have any frame / barrel lug "adjusting" . . . never anything even from the 70's or newer. Remember, your end result will be exactly the same result every time it's assembled. Any slight correction for cylinder /forcing cone being parallel can done with f.c. adjustment.
Consistent assembly is the goal.

Mike

I just noticed that it contacts the frame on one side before the other. I plan on shooting the crap out of it before I worry about much else on that revolver. After I installed the spacer I shot 5 rounds of 45 colt that I had 8.5 grains of Unique behind a 200 grain slug and the wedge stayed tight. It felt really good also!

 

[Stantheman86]

Blackie compared the open top colt to a remington and showed how superior the remington is

In other words, we need to slather a Remington in lube to get through 2 cylinders

 

[45D]

Blackie compared the open top colt to a remington and showed how superior the remington is

I missed it. What was the difference . . . other than all you need to do to a Colt is lube the arbor and you're good . . . no filing notches, wiping cylinder faces.
Just don't see it . . .

Mike

 

[Stantheman86]

I see nothing in that video proving the superiority of an 1858 Remington

Besides for match shooting, where loading off the gun is convenient and this facilitates wiping the gun out during matches....I fail to see any advantages to them. They are consistent after reassembly vs a short arbored Colt clone which I get for target shooting.

Remington had a history of war profiteering, and any gun company President or owner with a brain knew a Civil War was coming by the mid 1850s. Plus the US Ordnance Dept was struggling to modernize by the mid 1850s, so in 1858 Fordyce Beals designed an economical to produce and functional revolver that could stand up to hard field use , and function through the expected use of issued nitrate cartridges with the fine Pistol Powder. They did pass Testing and were accepted. There's nothing wrong with them as a military Service Revolver but for recreational shooting, big charges, weird lubes etc. They can tend to fall short of a Colt for how they handle fouling. It's really not a "dealbreaker " they are what they are , sidearms designed for 20-24gr of Pistol Powder with a heavy conical that may have lubricated grooves. They were made for a specific market and for that purpose. To profit from military contracts.

We're revealing more "flaws" in the design now than were found back then due to our use of them with a whatever mishmash of ammunition and powder types although during the war they were known to foul quicker than a Colt. A Colt 1860 was a prized trophy for a Confederate to capture because not only was it a Colt but he knew it would work. Sure they'd pick up a Remington off a dead US Officer but a pistol was a pistol.

Remington also burned the Govt when the Ordnance Dept ordered 3-Band Infantry rifles, and Remington dusted off the old M1841 "Mississippi " tooling, made some tweaks and stuck the Govt with thousands of 1863 2-Banders all like , oh well you wanted guns here ya go" which the Govt couldn't issue to line Infantry, had already paid for them and pretty much just stored them away.

So take some firearms designs with a grain of salt. The 1858 Remington was born of profit , not Eliphalet Remingtons deep intrinsic desire to make the best revolvers for his Nation's military

 

[M. De Land]

I see nothing in that video proving the superiority of an 1858 Remington

Besides for match shooting, where loading off the gun is convenient and this facilitates wiping the gun out during matches....I fail to see any advantages to them. They are consistent after reassembly vs a short arbored Colt clone which I get for target shooting.

Remington had a history of war profiteering, and any gun company President or owner with a brain knew a Civil War was coming by the mid 1850s. Plus the US Ordnance Dept was struggling to modernize by the mid 1850s, so in 1858 Fordyce Beals designed an economical to produce and functional revolver that could stand up to hard field use , and function through the expected use of issued nitrate cartridges with the fine Pistol Powder. They did pass Testing and were accepted. There's nothing wrong with them as a military Service Revolver but for recreational shooting, big charges, weird lubes etc. They can tend to fall short of a Colt for how they handle fouling. It's really not a "dealbreaker " they are what they are , sidearms designed for 20-24gr of Pistol Powder with a heavy conical that may have lubricated grooves. They were made for a specific market and for that purpose. To profit from military contracts.

We're revealing more "flaws" in the design now than were found back then due to our use of them with a whatever mishmash of ammunition and powder types although during the war they were known to foul quicker than a Colt. A Colt 1860 was a prized trophy for a Confederate to capture because not only was it a Colt but he knew it would work. Sure they'd pick up a Remington off a dead US Officer but a pistol was a pistol.

Remington also burned the Govt when the Ordnance Dept ordered 3-Band Infantry rifles, and Remington dusted off the old M1841 "Mississippi " tooling, made some tweaks and stuck the Govt with thousands of 1863 2-Banders all like , oh well you wanted guns here ya go" which the Govt couldn't issue to line Infantry, had already paid for them and pretty much just stored them away.

So take some firearms designs with a grain of salt. The 1858 Remington was born of profit , not Eliphalet Remingtons deep intrinsic desire to make the best revolvers for his Nation's military

One thing I do know is you will not find open top guns competing with solid frame guns in any bullseye match shooting events. If the same accuracy potential is available (which I think is often true) it simply cannot be realized in the sighting precision available in open frame guns.
For quick point shooting at modest ranges I don't think the 51s and especially the 60s have any peer!

 

[Stantheman86]

One thing I do know is you will not find open top guns competing with solid frame guns in any bullseye match shooting events. If the same accuracy potential is available (which I think is often true) it simply cannot be realized in the sighting precision available in open frame guns.
For quick point shooting at modest ranges I don't think the 51s and especially the 60s have any peer!

The Remington and any solid frame revolver will have a more target-friendly sight picture and when it comes down to group size for winning matches, that is desirable.

The new Pietta Navy type guns have a blued hammer and finer front sight that gives an excellent sight picture, vs a Uberti if that matters to anyone, along with the obvious fitted arbor of the Pietta for "repeatability " when re assembled.

Match use of these revolvers was never an original intent, it just kind of evolved through Civil War reenactor and rendezvous fueled target matches , and the European muzzleloading market that is big on match shooting.

The only obvious choice is just to own both and have all the fun sorting out the original strengths and flaws of both designs. And if someone can't stand one or the other, there's always a buyer for a lightly used cap and baller, and take the loss of $ on the sale as a "rental fee"

I'm actually looking forward to trying Kaido bullets and lighter loads in my 1858 and also in my Dragoons, and making some original type non-combustible cartridges so I have fun playing with everything.

Pietta and Uberti like the fact that people like one or the other, or both, because they make a profit off of both of them too, just like Sam Colt and Remington did.

If you watch YouTube you'll see everyone from University Professors and World Class Target shooters, to creepy convicted felons, talking about both of them. The market is really varied.

I never thought, after getting back into shooting percussion revolvers, I'd be able to use the internet to watch videos from well-spoken guys like Mike Bellevue and also a guy who can't carry modern guns because he "shot an assassin and continues to be threatened by cartels " both talking about a Pietta snub .44 Navy but it definitely keeps things interesting

 

[45D]

One thing I do know is you will not find open top guns competing with solid frame guns in any bullseye match shooting events. If the same accuracy potential is available (which I think is often true) it simply cannot be realized in the sighting precision available in open frame guns.
For quick point shooting at modest ranges I don't think the 51s and especially the 60s have any peer!

I think the availability of "Match grade" barrels figures in the mix somewhat. The Remington platform lends itself to installation of aftermarket barrels ( like Pedersoli ). Barrel assemblies for Colt would be rather expensive I suspect.
How many of the top tier shooters are shooting with "box stock" or non aftermarket barrels?

Maybe "Match Grade" liners are an option for the open-top ?

Mike

 

[dylan84]

The Remington and any solid frame revolver will have a more target-friendly sight picture and when it comes down to group size for winning matches, that is desirable.

The new Pietta Navy type guns have a blued hammer and finer front sight that gives an excellent sight picture, vs a Uberti if that matters to anyone, along with the obvious fitted arbor of the Pietta for "repeatability " when re assembled.

Match use of these revolvers was never an original intent, it just kind of evolved through Civil War reenactor and rendezvous fueled target matches , and the European muzzleloading market that is big on match shooting.

The only obvious choice is just to own both and have all the fun sorting out the original strengths and flaws of both designs. And if someone can't stand one or the other, there's always a buyer for a lightly used cap and baller, and take the loss of $ on the sale as a "rental fee"

I'm actually looking forward to trying Kaido bullets and lighter loads in my 1858 and also in my Dragoons, and making some original type non-combustible cartridges so I have fun playing with everything.

Pietta and Uberti like the fact that people like one or the other, or both, because they make a profit off of both of them too, just like Sam Colt and Remington did.

If you watch YouTube you'll see everyone from University Professors and World Class Target shooters, to creepy convicted felons, talking about both of them. The market is really varied.

I never thought, after getting back into shooting percussion revolvers, I'd be able to use the internet to watch videos from well-spoken guys like Mike Bellevue and also a guy who can't carry modern guns because he "shot an assassin and continues to be threatened by cartels " both talking about a Pietta snub .44 Navy but it definitely keeps things interesting

Yeah I was shocked how loaded the internet is with felons carrying black powder pistols. It is kind of one of those things that in a way I wish they would just shut up about as that is what our lovely governing body will use to further regulate antique firearms. Once they start learning about conversion cylinders and that Goon's Gun Works guy hopping these bad boys up, then the AFT will have a hay day....lol

 

[SPQR70AD]

In other words, we need to slather a Remington in lube to get through 2 cylinders

an old wives tale. I use crisco for lube in the 1858 and shoot it till I get tired of loading it and the cylinder never binds

 

[SPQR70AD]

In other words, we need to slather a Remington in lube to get through 2 cylinders

an old wives tale. I use crisco for lube in the 1858 and shoot it till I get tired of loading it and the cylinder never binds

 

[Stantheman86]

Yeah I was shocked how loaded the internet is with felons carrying black powder pistols. It is kind of one of those things that in a way I wish they would just shut up about as that is what our lovely governing body will use to further regulate antique firearms. Once they start learning about conversion cylinders and that Goon's Gun Works guy hopping these bad boys up, then the AFT will have a hay day....lol

I honestly cringe whenever I see any of this garbage with felons on YouTube talking about carrying cap and ballers , all like "you can get them shipped right to your door, and get a conversion cylinder!"

I'm like if the day ever comes when the ATF classifies muzzleloaders as licensed firearms a LOT of people are going to be PO'd to the Max. I honestly don't think the ATF is worried about "antique" firearms though , that is very low on the list for them.