Remington vs Colt?

[Poor Private]

Now we get into the variations of both. Myself I prefer the brass framed Spiller&Burr which is copied by the confederates from the Whitney. I have smaller hands and the smaller grip fits me better. It looks alot like a Remington. Next up is the Dance Brothers which is a copy of the Colt with a few variations. Then comes my Remingtons the Remingtons are easier to load off the frame than the colts(less pieces), and to change cylinders.

 

[Billnpatti]

I must preface my comment by saying that, while I have shot cap and ball revolvers a good bit, my experience with revolvers is far more limited than many of the other posters. Given that, my nod goes to the Remington. The Colt is a beautiful gun and many find it aesthetically more pleasing than the Remington. However, my personal opinion is that I have found the Remington to be more accurate than the Colt and it is stronger in design. You will find that there will be many far more experienced shooters who will simply like the Colt better. I don't disagree with them but my preferences simply differ on this point. It's the steel framed target Remington for me.

 

[ZUG]

I shoot a cap & ball revolver for FUN only when I competed it was with modern stuff. I like the looks & feel of all the Colts except for the Walker & Dragoons they are more like a club than a handgun to me :grin: . I own 4 Remingtons and shoot them but for looks and handling I like a Colt (I have 7) :v .

 

[Bear Rider]

I have a Remington '58 and a Colt Navy '51. I carry the Navy as part of my CW persona. I shoot the Remington.

 

[M. De Land]

Yeah, when I compete I always pick up the Rem or Ruger.
All the Pietta's have had new triggers fitted and the paddle trigger on the Rem is by far more compatible with competition shooting.
My worked over Rem Pietta is the full equal of the Ruger, if not a bit better, for target work.

 

[kh0456]

I own and shoot both the 1860 colt and 1858 Remington.

Personally I prefer the 1860. It feels better and I like the way it looks better than then the Remington. All personal preference.
I will say that the 1858 is easier to shoot right out the box. The 1860's take a bit of work to be totally reliable. They tend to have the caps fall off and get jammed inside. There are easy ways to fix that however... First is to replace the stock nipples with better ones. I use Slix-shot but I believe Treso nipples work just as well. I also filled in the slot on the hammer face with JB weld and filed smooth. That little slot will sometimes grab a spent cap and pull it into the hammer area. The slot is only there to place the hammer down in between two cylinders for safe carry. If I carry them, I only load five and put the hammer down on an empty chamber. I shoot SASS matches and can only load five anyway.....

This is a photo of my 1860's with a pair of cross draw holster I made for them.

 

[Gee Dog]

J Dollar -- Fine photo of those Sixtys, nice leather too. I love Colt 1860's ... nothing lifts and points like one of those. I love to shoot them all but there is just 'somethin' bout a '60 Army.

 

[M. De Land]

Mine shot very high and to the left which required a front sight change for any decent target work.
It now will print them center with a six o'clock hold over the right ear of the hammer notch.
Windage adjustment was always a problem for the open frame guns unless one mounts a rear sight on the back of the barrel or holds off over a hammer ear as I do. The 60 Colt was designed to shoot high hence the stubby front sight, for battle purposes.
These guns were designed to kill horses and men using a "point shooting" method in standard configuration.
The front sight was more for appearance than any function purpose that I can determine, in my opinion. I have never seen one that would print to center when using them.

 

[Dphar]

For its original purpose the Colt C&B, the Colt navy sized frame (1851, 1860, 1861) wins hands down. Its a faster gun fighting tool than even the SAA Colt. The lack of a top strap makes them point far better.
I never owned a Remington. Too clumsy, just did not "fit". Most problems with any C&B revolver are based on using a cheap revolver or using the wrong sized cap. I don't see this as being a big issue though if we look at the sales figures for the various Colt open tops and their copies like the Manhatten then compare the production of everything else. Its no contest.
272000 1851s
200000+ 1860s
325000 31 cal Pockets
40000 +- 36 cal Pockets
18000+ Dragoons.
Over 800000 revolvers from about 1848 to 1873.
Manhatten made 50000+- Colt copies though its tough to know exact numbers.

Remington, as best I can see, made 230000 of all models.
There are others similar to the Remington, like the Rogers and Spencer. But these were lower production than the Manhatten, but I have no figures. If the open top design was a problem with the C&B revolvers Colt would have changed it by 1860 since they had a LOT of experience by then.

 

[Zonie]

Your numbers are interesting but it must be remembered that Colt had Patent protection that basically kept all of his competition from making a self rotating cylinder revolver in any form.

With his first (British) Patent issued in 1835 and an American Patent issued in 1836 plus additional Patents his revolver had no real competition until 1857 when his Patent's ran out. (He had asked for and was granted extensions on his original Patents).

 

[Wes/Tex]

Well, I"m a contrary old fart and you guys can have your Remingtons. Beat the crap out of my middle finger, too friggin hard to reassemble, too hard to get the cylinder out and shoot everywhere but where I aim! My free opinion and worth every penny of it! :wink: :blah:

 

[FiremanBrad]

I'm a Colt fan meself!

 

[FishDFly]

Sat next to a guy at Phoenix who was shooting a Colt, after watching him shoot it and clean in it a match I will keep my Remington.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

I tend to like both pretty well the same. Don't get me started on ford vs chevy now though!

 

[Dphar]

Your numbers are interesting but it must be remembered that Colt had Patent protection that basically kept all of his competition from making a self rotating cylinder revolver in any form.

With his first (British) Patent issued in 1835 and an American Patent issued in 1836 plus additional Patents his revolver had no real competition until 1857 when his Patent's ran out. (He had asked for and was granted extensions on his original Patents).

This is true. But the eronomics of the Colt Navy frame are superior to all others. This is its primary advantage over its competitors to this day and why the SAA is basically a Colt Navy and was only changed to allow a larger diameter cyl and a top strap. The primary revolver in CAS today is the SAA. It simply points better and the fact that some, like the actually better made S&W #3 had parts reliability issues made Colt the better choice. But moderns who view them as interesting toys usually don't get this angle.
At typical gunfight ranges the Navy frame size Colt is the winner hands down for hits in a short period of time and repeat shots. If used for self-defense as it was intended this is a VERY important factor. This can be proven easily by setting up 2-3 targets chest high a few feet apart at 20-25 feet and then spend an afternoon doing speed drills with different C&B revolvers. With its apparent flaws the Colt was still the better revolver when all factors were considered.

Dan

 

[RonRC]

After reading all this discussion, I took my Colt 1851 Navy, 1860 Army and Remington (all Pietta) to the range.
For ME, the Colt replicas just felt better in my hand. If I lined up the 3 on the table and had to decide to reach for one, it would be either of the Colts.
That said, I really like the looks of the Remington. It just doesn't fit me right.
This did not translate to how well I shot them. My performace with all was decidedly mediocre. :grin:
Ron

 

[sheepman]

Been some time since my last post. Got rid of most of guns when we moved to the Southwest. Recently picked up a Pietta 1858 Remington, made the mistake of stopping at a new pawn shop. Got it (steel frame) for $85.00 out the door. It is the first cap&ball that I have been able to shoot more than one cylinder through with out taking apart and cleaning. Have owned a 1851 brass navy, 1861 steel army and a Ruger old army and could not shoot more than one cylinder of loads with out cleaning and or stripping them down. Some of this was due to my lack of knowledge at the time, but really like the way the Remington shoots.

 

[bpd303]

For me the Rogers & Spencer beat the ergonomics of the Colt Navy, although it's a close second.

 

[Tinker2]

I like them all but win more bets with a 1851 .36 caliber than any other firearms of any kind.






William Alexander

 

[Ray-Vigo]

I like the '51 Navy and the '61 Navy because I like the size, caliber, and grip. I find the Remington a bit too "bulky" of a design. The sights on the Navies sort of stink, but you eventually get used to them and knowing when the target "looks right" behind your sights.

The most important thing is that you "get to know" whichever you buy. You will need to eventually disassemble them to service and fully clean them. Pick the one that appeals to you more and learn it.