Colt 1860 Vs Remington New Model

[Stantheman86]

The Remington was designed to be simpler and less expensive to make , and Remington sold them to the US Govt for less than Colt after the Colt fire

 

[Stantheman86]

I have both, and vastly prefer the grip snd frame arrangement of the Colt.
Since the Remington grip tapers so rapidly from rear to front, it is more likely tjo slip to the rear through your hand during recoil unless gripped very tightly than the Colt.
Too many people. Think they really need to drive in the wedge really tight, accelerating the wear and tear on everything. Mine will fully seat with moderate thumb pressure, and will usually pop out for disassembly with firm thumb pressure, If that does not release the wedge, a single pop with the butt end of a screwdriver will free it.
I have several Colts two of which have been fired hundreds of times. The Uberti 1851 Navy, in fact has well over a thousand rounds thru it, and is still as good as new. Over 90% of them full-powered loads.
Avoid the brass-framed guns. They cost a little less up front, but the resale value is less too.
If the open top shoots loose after a thousand rounds or more, simply have a percussion revolver gunsmith tighten it up, or simply buy another one. They are relatively inexpensive.

How long does a reproduction percussion revolver need to last?

I tap the wedges in lightly with a brass hammer , there's no need to pound them in

After a while they break in, my older Uberti Navy comes right apart after a push on the wedge

Properly cared for they will last a lifetime, some parts may break but unless it's a hand or a bolt, they're user replaceable without fitting. We're working with 150+ year old technology, parts broke back then too.

I just dropped 2 M5 9mm OD washers into my Uberti Leech and Rigdon to fix the short arbor

Ruger just took the cosmetic outer appearance of a Colt Model P and Ruger-ized it to make a nearly indestructible gun with the Vaqueros

The Italian and other repros of percussion and cartridge Colt , Remington and other revolvers retain the original designs and original "quirks " , besides Ubertis dreaded Short Arbor which is probably discussed once per week

I just read about a guy stuffing tin foil into his arbor holes until it compressed and was a solid column of metal, filling the gap and tightening the gun up. It may be something this stupid simple that actually works.

 

[William O.]

I've settled on these two contenders as my first big bore percussion pistol. I'm probably opening up a hornets nest, but which one would you recommend? Thanks

Remington, hands down.

 

[Jim in Wisconsin]

Someone talked about the grips on the Remington - for my hands, it seems like if I put my whole hand on the grip it works good for point shooting. For holding it up at eye level and aligning the sights, it works better to put my little finger under the grip. That puts it lower or at a different angle or something, seems more comfortable. I never had any problem with it slipping in my hand.

 

[sheriff john]

Remington - for all reasons stated previously. There seem to be differences of opinion on which manufacturer's best, but that's a topic for those who know more than I. What ever you choose, buy a factory new one and avoid someone else's problem. Have fun!

 

[Snake Pleskin]

The Remington New Model Army is a more technologically advanced firearm than the Colt 1860 Army.

• The cylinder can be removed without disassembling the gun.
• The solid frame on the Remington means you have more mechanical consistency inherent to the design.
• The grips can be removed with a single screw. On the Colt you have to remove the grip frame. This makes it easier to "dunk clean" the Remington.
• The rear sight is fixed on the Remington. On the Colt, it moves when you pull the trigger.

Solid frame is stronger. Fixed barrel, no problems in movement or realignment

 

[45D]

Solid frame is stronger. Fixed barrel, no problems in movement or realignment

Often repeated but it's just not true.

Mike

 

[Snake Pleskin]

Often repeated but it's just not true.

Mike

I have never heard, read or had anyone tell me the Colt is stronger than the Remington?

 

[Snake Pleskin]

I have never heard, read or had anyone tell me the Colt is stronger than the Remington?

The Remington revolver owes its durability to the "topstrap", solid-frame design. The design is stronger and less prone to frame stretching than the Colt revolvers of the same era. Wikipedia

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Have an 1860 Colt Army, have no use for a Remington.
If I wanted two, Id buy another Colt,
They weigh less too.

 

[Jaegermeister]

I’ve had both. I still have my Uberti 1860.

 

[45D]

The Remington revolver owes its durability to the "topstrap", solid-frame design. The design is stronger and less prone to frame stretching than the Colt revolvers of the same era. Wikipedia

You know anybody can change Wiki, right?
( not sure if you're teasing!!)

I've explained the difference at length here somewhere but the short version is the Remington's perimeter frame is more cost effective to produce which is why it still is familiar today ( just much more material for strength in high power versions). The sectional material in the front of the Remington frame is minuscule. Any engineer will tell you the 4 sided structure is weak for force containment in a corner. The Colt open-top platform is a more robust /compact structure ( think of the arbor as the top strap) which is how you make a 4 sided structure stronger. The same linear forces applied to both structures are handled better by the compact structure (when properly executed) . . .which is why I bent my 1st Remington ( my first bp revolver) while loading it (along with shooting max loads all the time).

Mike

 

[FishDFly]

If Colt is better, why do almost all competitive shooters use a Remington when national matches are on the line?

 

[45D]

I have never heard, read or had anyone tell me the Colt is stronger than the Remington?

SURPRISE!!! LOL

I'm just messing with ya ( couldn't resist!)!

That is how "stuff" gets perpetuated. Cheaper to make doesn't mean better or stronger necessarily.
Today's SA's like Ruger, Freedom Arms, Magnum Research still have those "pesky" screws for the grip frames but pins for the action parts and coil springs instead of flats.

Mike

 

[Snake Pleskin]

You know anybody can change Wiki, right?
( not sure if you're teasing!!)

I've explained the difference at length here somewhere but the short version is the Remington's perimeter frame is more cost effective to produce which is why it still is familiar today ( just much more material for strength in high power versions). The sectional material in the front of the Remington frame is minuscule. Any engineer will tell you the 4 sided structure is weak for force containment in a corner. The Colt open-top platform is a more robust /compact structure ( think of the arbor as the top strap) which is how you make a 4 sided structure stronger. The same linear forces applied to both structures are handled better by the compact structure (when properly executed) . . .which is why I bent my 1st Remington ( my first bp revolver) while loading it (along with shooting max loads all the time).

Mike

I can't imagine why anyone would want to go into WIKi and try and change anything on an 1858 Remington/ But then, I am not some fanatic, and really don't give a rats butt!

 

[45D]

If Colt is better, why do almost all competitive shooters use a Remington when national matches are on the line?

I'd say probably because Pedersoli doesn't make or have made a " premium " barrel for Uberti or Pietta open-top revolvers.
My most accurate revolver is a Whitneyville Dragoon that can stack bullets one on top of the other . All the rest of my revolvers aren't far from that! I believe a year or two ago a fellow won with an out of the box Walker!! It was a "Cap and Ball" video ( the Hungarian guy).

Mike

 

[Snake Pleskin]

Iam not familiar with the Nat'l matches or the rules. Pietta makes a "target" style Rem. Is it legal. It has real sights on it.

 

[45D]

I can't imagine why anyone would want to go into WIKi and try and change anything on an 1858 Remington/ But then, I am not some fanatic, and really don't give a rats butt!

Me neither!! ( that's probably why it's still there and folks believe it)

I'll just say I like both, have both and work on both for competition shooting (ROA's too) as well as "fun guns". When I shoot, I shoot "stout" loads (I'm always testing platforms!!!). My latest outing, this last weekend, allowed more " miles" on my Uberti '60 Army which easily handles the "hottest" loads I've ever put down any of the open-top platforms. Understand, I'm not increasing load pressures each outing ( it's factory premium loads), it's more the "steady diet" of the loads.

Mike

 

[maillemaker]

A lot of competition shooters prefer to load their cylinders off the gun, as it is faster and easier and easier to be consistent by using an external cylinder loader.

So in competition, with a Remington-style revolver it's easy to pop out the cylinder, load it, and pop it back in.

With Colts you have to take the gun apart.

It can be done (I won national N-SSA medals with a bone-stock Pietta 1860 Army, though with taller front sight blade), but most N-SSA shooters prefer solid-frame revolvers.

 

[Stantheman86]

The Remington revolver owes its durability to the "topstrap", solid-frame design. The design is stronger and less prone to frame stretching than the Colt revolvers of the same era. Wikipedia

Wikipedia articles are written by people like us, or pretty much anyone. They are not to be taken as reliable data