Colt vs Remington

[user 51067]

I've been "fussin'" with this black powder nonsense since 1967 when I bought (new) a Navy Arms 1860 Army and a Navy Arms 1858 Remington directly from the "Big Man" himself-Val Forget. Each have their own nuances, but it's more like being asked, "Which are better-blondes or redheads?" For me, I love them all!

 

[kaotikross]

I like them all too but it's obvious which design set the stage for future development as there are no modern unmentionable open top revolvers of note. Even Colt saw the writing on the wall soon afterwards.

 

[Pete453]

Old Duckman, you have some kool pistols, enjoy them. They're of different designs so have their own personalities. Enjoy the differences, that's what makes life grand. Which do i have? 51, 60, 62 colts, and one 58. Favorite? The one im shooting at the moment!

 

[Stantheman86]

I like them all too but it's obvious which design set the stage for future development as there are no modern unmentionable open top revolvers of note. Even Colt saw the writing on the wall soon afterwa

I like them all too but it's obvious which design set the stage for future development as there are no modern unmentionable open top revolvers of note. Even Colt saw the writing on the wall soon afterwards.

Colt and Remington both continued to fill US Govt weapons contracts and still do to this day.

Colt did go with a solid frame for the 1873 because the Army Ordnance Dept wanted a solid frame, and the Army rejected the open top 1872 model. No doubt the solid frame 1873 held up better under long term field use.

There had been open top revolvers chambered in powerful cartridges used by European armies but no way could there be an open top modern revolver.

 

[45D]

I like them all too but it's obvious which design set the stage for future development as there are no modern unmentionable open top revolvers of note. Even Colt saw the writing on the wall soon afterwards.

They're cheaper to manufacture.

There had been open top revolvers chambered in powerful cartridges used by European armies but no way could there be an open top modern revolver.

What exactly do you mean? I mean Uberti makes Navy conversions, Army conversions, '72 open tops in .38, .44 and .45 .
Folks every day make their own with Kirst converters in brand new revolvers in .22, .38, .44, .45, and 45acp.

I just mentioned, a few posts back, that i have an Uberti '60 Army that shoots 45acp (single stack - 5 shot capacity ! Lol)
There's a reason all Single Action revolvers made today are immediately recognizable . . . They all operate basically the same.

Not sure what you mean

Mike

 

[Stantheman86]

They're cheaper to manufacture.

What exactly do you mean? I mean Uberti makes Navy conversions, Army conversions, '72 open tops in .38, .44 and .45 .
Folks every day make their own with Kirst converters in brand new revolvers in .22, .38, .44, .45, and 45acp.

I just mentioned, a few posts back, that i have an Uberti '60 Army that shoots 45acp (single stack - 5 shot capacity ! Lol)
There's a reason all Single Action revolvers made today are immediately recognizable . . . They all operate basically the same.

Not sure what you mean

Mike

Modern as in, there won't be an Open Top .44 Magnum from Ruger anytime soon , as cool as it would be

 

[45D]

Modern as in, there won't be an Open Top .44 Magnum from Ruger anytime soon , as cool as it would be

Oh I'm with ya on the "COOL" factor. And since you thought of it there's bound to be others that have as well!! One of them somebodys would be me!!! My thoughts were on the Dragoon platform. The arbor is considerably larger and I think it's substantial enough to support the 44Mag unmentionable! Certainly the cyl and barrel lug offer a generous supply of material. So, it's very possible (and fairly easy) that a prototype could be assembled. Don't give up hope!! Lol

Mike

 

[M. De Land]

Remingtons are fine too, so are Rogers & Spencer, and LeMats, Spiller & Burrs, and Starrs. They are all good guns in original and repro form.

It's just that people will assume the Remington to be "better" because it looks more like a cartridge revolver or a "modern" gun so it must be "stronger".

I just bought a stainless Uberti 1858 .44, it's a neat gun, I can't wait to shoot it. If someone favors the Remington designs then enjoy them. The originals were used hard from the Civil War through the Indian Wars, they're obviously capable guns.

I myself heavily lean toward the Colt designs.

Shooting Walkers out to 100 yards and actually hitting something is something special, and the big Dragoons are in my opinion some of the most fun to shoot firearms ever produced. The Colts just have a certain magic to them.

I have noticed though that you won't find many open frame guns competing with solid frame guns in match shooting that is not specifically set up for them. They are equally accurate in my opinion but and open frame gun does not lend itself to match quality sights at the same sight radius as does sold frame guns thus giving up some accuracy potential that means point advantage to the solid frame design .
One of my favorite open frame guns is the little Colt Police 62 five shot with a 6.5 inch barrel.

 

[Boston Bill]

So basically the open frame design is just as accurate as the solid frame. Except the solid frame has a better site system than the open frame.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

AND way too much reference to cartridges for a moderator to weed out the comments. Conversion cylinders too.

LD