Colt vs Remington

[45D]

Ok friend, I'm off the soapbox . . .
At least the op knows there's another side to this "Remington is the greatest" coin. I'll not perpetuate the things I heard when I was a "newbie".

It's funny that "truth" produces "drama".

Mike

 

[TDM]

Wow!!! That's news to me!! How so?!

Let's not spread old bs rumors. The op is new and shouldn't be told silly things like this.

Mike

I was discussing new reproductions with modern steel. If they're cared for and loaded as recommended I don't any problems with an open top steel frame. If we were talking about originals or brass frames the issue would be different.

 

[nkbj]

For me the 1851 is pretty and the 1860 and 1861 are lovely works of art.

 

[Stantheman86]

The Remington is not stronger, and in fact is more prone to binding up from fouling. The reason Colt designed the open top design and used a big arbor was to mitigate fouling and allow the revolver to function

This is just a fact, not adding fuel to the fire. I want new people getting into BP revolvers to be informed.

When the arbor is the proper length and locked solidly into and bottomed out in the arbor hole, the Colt design is very strong.

Uberti makes open top conversions in .38 and .45 LC, and they are legally required to be able to handle SAAMI spec +P loads. And these have short arbors. When this issue is fixed, the gun is locked up as one solid unit, the function of the wedge is to hold the barrel on. Not to absorb recoil. Uberti has itself diminished the strength of the entire Colt design by cutting production corners. It is easily fixed , however.

People can buy whatever they like, it's a free market economy but the Colt gets an unearned rep for being "less strong"

I just fired 60 rounds through a Pietta open top Colt clone with dirty Pyrodex and no wad, or lube over the ball and a dry arbor. It ran until the hammer got gummy at the 10th cylinder , an easy 2 second fix. They are very reliable.

Remingtons are just fine too, each design has strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Boston Bill]

I can shoot maybe 40 round balls before I get tired of shooting and the cylinder still isn't binding in my open tops. Of course when I have the cylinder off to reload I give the arbor a wipe and add more bore butter. But no cylinder binding.
Not so the Remington. I take the cylinder out and give the cylinder pin a wipe and some lube and after maybe the 3rd cylinder, after 18 rounds, the cylinder needs a start because it is binding. I haven't had the cylinder pin trimmed yet. But the open tops in my experience definitely operate much better.

 

[Stantheman86]

The fouling being able to blow out the top and that huge arbor with the grooves , was pure genius on Sam Colt's part.

My Uberti '51 Navy will shoot all day. I had it out a few months ago, taking breaks in between strings and never once had to take it down to wipe the arbor. I probably put a good 100+ balls through it over the course of a few hours. I had Wonder Lube on the arbor, that was it. I used nothing over the balls and no wads. I bought that gun in 2006 and put 1000's of rounds through it, so it's broken in enough to where it will run dirty for lots of rounds. Before I knew any better I used to top off the chambers with 777 or Pyrodex P and stuff Buffalo Bullets into the chamber mouths, I'd probably force 40gr into the chambers. And cap off several cylinders of these loads a few times a week for a winter before I learned it wasn't the best idea. It's still perfectly tight because it's one of the rare Uberti's that has a properly fitted arbor.

 

[Billy Boy]

New to this sport. Purchased a 3rd model Dragoon and an 1858 Remington 5.5 “ bbl, both .44 cal. and both Uberti. Shot 50 rounds last Tuesday, split between the two. Stripped and cleaned both thoroughly.

IMO without a doubt, the Remington is a superior design. I assume that this is debated among enthusiasts. Most videos I see are on Colt models. Makes sense since there are more Colt models.

My next BP revolver I hope to find a nice example of the Ruger old model army at a decent price. I like the look and history of the replicas but would surely appreciate the modern Ruger.

Is the Colt- Remington a Ford-Chevy thing or am I mistaken on that?

I shoot max loads and conicals in the REM and round balls in the Colt, both 44s.

 

[Boston Bill]

I shoot max loads and conicals in the REM and round balls in the Colt, both 44s.

Just curious. No binding in the cylinder after a few reloads?

 

[Stantheman86]

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.

 

[nkbj]

Can't help but suspect that the 1860's war redirected Colt into war production, away from further developments along the 1851 line. We'll never know but with improved metallurgy something in between the Dragoons and the 1851 design seems like a natural.

 

[Billy Boy]

Just curious. No binding in the cylinder after a few reloads?

Last act at each reload is turn the cylinder around with a damp patch against the front. Colt goes on and on, Rem needs something more after about 4 cyls of fun

 

[Mangonboat]

As noted above, the fouling criteria as applied between the two designs requires a sample size exceeding the total number of shots fired at the OK Corral or by any officer carrying an original example of either design in a military engagement. Part of the fun of repro C&P revolvers for many owners, as described above, however, is having and shooting in one session multiple cylinders that are reloaded at home or at the shooting range using a simple loading press. Otherwise, recent (last 50 year) manufacturers of all repros have made guns with varying degrees of manufacturing precision and tolerances so individual gun performance may not predict results across the board. In other words, its a personal preference for most with little distinction in action.

I have always been a slow, methodical plodder/plotter who enjoys seeing how close I can get to the center of my intended target from far away with one shot , so my revolvers don't have fouling issues and the current cost of caps and powder has not diminished my zeal.

 

[Zapadach]

I wish to apologize to the original poster, Old-Duckman, for my ignorance on the subject he enquired about, and my inability and lack of desire to write an exhaustive volume on the pros and cons of cap and ball revolvers, which is but a hobby I enjoy for pleasure. I am ashamed of myself for thinking that 45 years of experience with cap and ball revolvers, my degrees in civil engineering, world history and political science would in any way make qualified me to make a short and informed opinion on the subject at hand. I bow to the master. Sorry to all I mislead with my stupidity and ignorance. I repeat my apology again. Repeat.

What does a degree in political science have anything to do with a cap and ball revolver? Anyone who can read and write can immerse themselves in any form of knowledge and history in any subject they choose. One does not need a degree to do so. I once was a certified deep sea commercial diver who worked on the bottom of major rivers and harbors. There is a tremendous amount of information one must learn inorder to survive each dive, and I would not feel that knowledge and experience would give me anymore insight on a black pistols than anyone else.

 

[45D]

Ok, after getting my point across ( in an "uneasy" way !!) and the "polite" , slightly snarky ( but deserved ) comments back at me, I gotta say you guys are alright!!!

The truth about all of this is they are all good platforms ( Rem, Open-top, and ROA) and capable of excellent performance in their original role or as converted "unmentionables". The best thing about the unmentionable version is that it gives the platform a most excellent way to be "tested". We all know you can stuff a chamber full of bp or your favorite sub and that's pretty much the end of the road. The factory loads give you a good base and with reloading capabilities one can use the tables to help navigate the upper ends of the particular platform ( the Kirst cylinder will out last the platform). And there lies the "rub" concerning the "open-top strength" perception.

Obviously the ROA is the King since it's really a Blackhawk with an extended cyl window. The Remington is a worthy platform as well (but it ain't no Ruger! Lol). Both are generally very accurate platforms.

Then there's the open-top . . . the one "reproduction" that has never (until recent Pietta offerings) been a TRUE reproduction because the most important design feature, the arbor and it's fitment, hasn't been found to be correct in any of them. Therefore, the open-top has been greatly misrepresented and as such has been viewed as a "weak" platform.

To make a long story short, I'll just say, the open-top platform (corrected of course) is currently the most accurate revolver I've owned for some time now. The ammo I've shot in an Uberti '60 Army I would hesitate to shoot in my Remington. That same ammo MAY have moved my Pietta Frontier unmentionable!! I say that because I had to address some tight clearancing afterwards. I fired the "ammo" in the Pietta first just to get an idea of what I may expect. When I did, i gave it second thoughts about firing the same ammo in the '60!! But I was there to do just that so I did! The '60 ( with its 8 inch barrel) performed perfectly with easy manners and actually was most accurate with that ammo!

This is not my reasoning for my stance on the strength issue of the o.t., I've had my thoughts on that for the last 13 years. I'm just now "testing the platform" since I have a new perspective/ insight on the "testing" equipment!

Thanks to all,
Mike

 

[PastorB]

What does a degree in political science have anything to do with a cap and ball revolver? Anyone who can read and write can immerse themselves in any form of knowledge and history in any subject they choose. One does not need a degree to do so. I once was a certified deep sea commercial diver who worked on the bottom of major rivers and harbors. There is a tremendous amount of information one must learn inorder to survive each dive, and I would not feel that knowledge and experience would give me anymore insight on a black pistols than anyone else.

Sarcasm. In response to being told I was talking ignorantly and stupidly. Congratulations on your deep sea diving certification. I'm out.

 

[Lepewski]

I prefer Remington. The build is most comfortable in my hand. The first firearm I ever bought was a Remington cap and ball.

I own a number of Remington and Colt. The winner is always Remington for me.

 

[nkbj]

I prefer the Colt's design but I'd like to have a Pietta .36 Remington modified to shoot .44 bullets (from .43 diameter revolver molds).

 

[necchi]

I prefer Remington. The build is most comfortable in my hand.

Good share, That's kind of the key with each individuals preference isn't it?
What fit's/feels best,,
In @Old-Duckman 's case the comparison of the Dragoon and 1858 is kind of a tough one, considering the nearly 1.5 pound weight difference, but that's what he has

 

[Pukatea Bay Boy]

Atamarie ( Good morning ) everyone. I've only ever used colts , I do like them.
Have a awesome day out there .
Kind regards
Nga mihi
Ma te wa

 

[Stantheman86]

Can't help but suspect that the 1860's war redirected Colt into war production, away from further developments along the 1851 line. We'll never know but with improved metallurgy something in between the Dragoons and the 1851 design seems like a natural.

From what I read , the US Army Ordnance Dept wanted to standardize on the 1860 Army and use it for all personnel requiring a pistol......Cavalry would be issued a brace of 1860s, Officers would use them, the Navy would be issued them, etc and Colt would have the contract for the sidearms for the military. The Army wanted to have one issue sidearm and one caliber instead of all the .36's and some Dragoons still floating around in inventory.

But the 1863 Colt fire put a stop to that

There are prototypes for a .41 and a .44 Colt Navy but the Bessemer process allowed Sam Colt to achieve his vision of a sleek, robust .44 that was easy to pack and still powerful enough for military use.