Colt 1860 Vs Remington New Model

[gunpa]

That's why modern wheel guns have full frames------ engineering common sense!

 

[TrapperDude]

That's why modern wheel guns have full frames------ engineering common sense!

Indeed. Just because a design can be made to work under one set of conditions doesn't mean that it's the best solution for all. Wheels might be great for a Stryker, but if you want to use them on an Abrams, they'll be pretty clumsy in application even if you can make them work.

 

[SPQR70AD]

Because technology advances and there's no need for smokeless cartridge revolvers to have an Open Top design to blow fouling out the top , and a double action swing out cylinder can't be an open top

All the modern thumb busters like Vaqueros are based off the Colt Model P

There are other revolvers that are also open top like the Austrian Gasser which used a powerful, but also blackpowder cartridge

There is just no need for it and it's cheaper to make solid frame revolvers. I'm certain if someone like Ruger decided to make an Open Top .44 Magnum they certainly could do it, it just wouldn't sell because people are used to what's already out there and gunmakers want to make money. Sam Colt didn't die as one of the wealthiest men in America at that time because he made garbage guns with a flawed design.

There were many copies made of the Colt Navy, and they sold well. Manhattan, Cooper , Belgian copies, even the Russians made copies of Colts. No one seemed interested in ripping off the Remington design.

I have no strong opinion either way, I've owned and shot both, I just own way more Colt type revolvers. They are definitely not "weak" or fragile because I have a few I use hard and don't baby, at all and they keep working. In fact I'm convinced I'm trying to wear some of them out just to see if I can.

pablo escobar made tens of billions off a faulty product

 

[SPQR70AD]

I can't even picture an open top 500 S&W mag!!

I could picture it blowing up in the "stronger" open to design

 

[Flintlock Whiskey]

I've heard its better to be hated than ignored, not so sure about that

Sounds like my ex's motto.

 

[Stantheman86]

It's Apples and Oranges, once smokeless powder came into use then previous technology became obsolete.

The Colt was an amazing design for a percussion, blackpowder revolver but velocity and power of new cartridges rendered this design obsolete. It was expensive to make and there was no reason to keep using this design.

The Enfield P53 was an amazing rifle, for the time, with the Pritchett cartridges that could fire all day but more effective technology made them obsolete.

 

[45D]

That's why modern wheel guns have full frames------ engineering common sense!

Nope, economic common sense.

Mike

 

[TrapperDude]

That's why modern wheel guns have full frames------ engineering common sense!

Nope, economic common sense.

Mike

Well, I picture a .500 Magnum open-top revolver having something as big around as a 12ga ammo tube under the barrel to hold it all together. That just doesn't sound like an option foregone in the name of economic sense, rather than engineering sense.

 

[manbat]

I say your choice depends on the experience you want. If you want a historical revolver experience, then you buy Colt. From the Paterson to the Walker, Dragoon, Navy, and then the 1860 Army - which resulted from Colt's use of the advanced metallurgy of the day to reduce the heft of a 44. A platform refined over time from success and failures. When you hold and shoot a Colt, you hold and shoot firearms history. No such history on the Remington side, and arguably a gun that exists as a Colt competitor at the level it achieved only because it was cheaper and could gain a foothold because the Colt factory burned down.

I own and shoot both. In my opinion, the shooting experience is not a defining factor. Neither is how long they shoot before fouling. BP load, powder grain size, powder manufacturer, and cleaning regimen play a larger role. Holding a Remington has a more modern revolver feel, and a Colt has its unique feel. Ease of cylinder removal is a nonissue as you are more likely to load when installed. A Remington is faster if you remove it for loading on a cylinder stand or have multiple cylinders to load and shoot.

Setting aside the brass frames, which should be completely eliminated as an option, all the replicas are obviously made from today's materials. It's a pretty questionable argument to make that one is stronger than the other when shooting BP loads. Maybe that argument mattered 162 years ago.

If your target experience does not focus on history, buy the one that is more appealing to you.

 

[45D]

I could picture it blowing up in the "stronger" open to design

So, a cylinder in a top strap revolver is somehow stronger than one in an open top . . . how's that?

Well, I picture a .500 Magnum open-top revolver having something as big around as a 12ga ammo tube under the barrel to hold it all together. That just doesn't sound like an option foregone in the name of economic sense, rather than engineering sense.

Well, you can picture what you want . . . I'm already shooting ( as a normal diet) some high psi rounds in an Uberti '60 Army with a standard "Italian steel" arbor. It's definitely not out of the question for "Ruger only loads" in a Dragoon platform revolver.

I have absolutely no interest in any .50 cal revolver from anybody.

The Colt was an amazing design for a percussion, blackpowder revolver but velocity and power of new cartridges rendered this design obsolete. It was expensive to make and there was no reason to keep using this design.

Velocity and power . . . see above.
It's cost, not ability.

Somebody mentioned in a thread recently about comparing "old design" with modern technology . . . see above.

Mike

 

[TrapperDude]

Well, you can picture what you want . . . I'm already shooting ( as a normal diet) some high psi rounds in an Uberti '60 Army with a standard "Italian steel" arbor. It's definitely not out of the question for "Ruger only loads" in a Dragoon platform revolver.

Modern pressures run 20,000 PSI and up, and I don’t think that any arbor is going to hold up to that unless it--and its anchor points--are beefy enough. They can be made that way, but it won't be narrow, and it won't be light.

 

[45D]

Modern pressures run 20,000 PSI and up, and I don’t think that any arbor is going to hold up to that unless it--and its anchor points--are beefy enough. They can be made that way, but it won't be narrow, and it won't be light.

I'm shooting 23K and it's still perfect.
My light loads are 21K.

Mike

 

[earlwb]

That frame stretching may be another myth. The Colt cylinder has less surface area on the flat than the cylinder on the Remington have. So theoretically the Colt might get loose more soon than a Remington might.That flat part takes the recoil when it slams up against the frame face. When fired the cylinder slams into the face on the frame a moment before the gun recoils. The incessant hammering effect over time can cause the frame face metal to migrate or be pushed away from the frame face. This is more true with the brass frame guns than the steel ones. But mild steel frames will still do it though. So as the metal gets pushed out it makes it look like the frame stretched and the cylinder has a bigger gap. The cylinders seem to be made from a stronger more hard steel than the frames are. Some gunsmiths have repaired brass frame revolvers by machining in a recess in the frame face and gluing in a thin steel washer shim.

 

[TrapperDude]

I'm shooting 23K and it's still perfect.
My light loads are 21K.

Mike

Are you using smokeless?

 

[45D]

I'm shooting 23K and it's still perfect.
My light loads are 21K.

Mike

This is by no means a "recommendation" but is in fact a "test bed" for exactly what is being discussed here. I've long thought about a "Top grade" Dragoon that would be in the Ruger Blackhawk arena which is where the "bolt lug" arbor setup came into thought. That's being "discussed" among parties . . .

Mike

 

[45D]

Are you using smokeless?

Of course, it's no secret lol!! All my SA's are unmentionables.
It's much more punishing on "our" type revolvers than bp.
I don't think you can get above 13/14K using bp.
I'm just proving that the open-top is much more the platform than many would give it credit for.

Using the ammo I use makes "testing" the platforms much easier.

Mike

 

[Andreas Jager]

In my never to be humble opinion, the Remington has superior sights for target shooting out of the box. The Colts have express sights which are more suited to combat as they are much faster and good enough for minute of man. I doubt the Remington design is any more accurate than the Colt design. If I am not mistaken, Colts were outfitted with barrel mount rear sights to prove their accuracy. Just like African dangerous game rifles are far more accurate with proper sights, they are still outfitted with express sights or speed and reliability.

I doubt there is a finer pointing revolver than the 1851-61 Navies. And for cylinder after cylinder reliability, I think the Colts win. Cap jams are a non-issue after debuting the hammer and installing SlixShot nipples.

I have been considering altering my Colt’s rear sight. The front sight is fine as my two Colts are ‘62s.

 

[45D]

That frame stretching may be another myth. The Colt cylinder has less surface area on the flat than the cylinder on the Remington have. So theoretically the Colt might get loose more soon than a Remington might.That flat part takes the recoil when it slams up against the frame face. When fired the cylinder slams into the face on the frame a moment before the gun recoils. The incessant hammering effect over time can cause the frame face metal to migrate or be pushed away from the frame face. This is more true with the brass frame guns than the steel ones. But mild steel frames will still do it though. So as the metal gets pushed out it makes it look like the frame stretched and the cylinder has a bigger gap. The cylinders seem to be made from a stronger more hard steel than the frames are. Some gunsmiths have repaired brass frame revolvers by machining in a recess in the frame face and gluing in a thin steel washer shim.

What you are describing is a problem with endshake. It's the main reason / argument for a close tolerance endshake such as .002" - .003" for the Colt platform. Obviously a larger ( .006" and up) endshake leads to many problems.

Mike

 

[TrapperDude]

Of course, it's no secret lol!! All my SA's are unmentionables.
It's much more punishing on "our" type revolvers than bp.
I don't think you can get above 13/14K using bp.
I'm just proving that the open-top is much more the platform than many would give it credit for.

Using the ammo I use makes "testing" the platforms much easier.

Mike

You have unmentionable open tops?

 

[45D]

You have unmentionable open tops?

Absolutely. It's what lead up to me tuning revolvers. I can't shoot bp in my county ( outdoors or indoors) so it's drive to another county or to a range 10 minutes from my house . . . I chose the latter !!
As stated, "smokyless" is a lot more punishing than bp so that lead to learning the how's and why's that will make these revolvers keep the same tolerances AFTER a range trip that they had before . . . otherwise, it's a fast trip to paper weight status.

Mike