I have an 1858 Remington and an 1860 Colt Army. I have had a cap jam my works on the Colt more than once. It has never happened on the Remmy which I shoot more often. One difference I have found is the Remington starts to get stiff on cocking and the cylinder tends to seize after shooting for a while. This does not happen with the Colt. I read somewhere that the Remeington is built to tighter tolerances and thus is not as forgiving. I wonder how the Cavalry faired during the Civil War. They couldn't possily have spent as much time cleaning as we do, but I digress.
which cap n ball?
- Thread starter putodebabylon
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
ValleyForge
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2004
- Messages
- 105
- Reaction score
- 0
I would guess they did, as their lives depended on it. Like any soldiers, they'd've wanted to make sure their weapons worked when they were needed.
It'd been interesting to find some contemporary Civil War accounts of how the soldiers managed their pistols, and what official procedures were for that. Anybody know of any sources?
ValleyForge
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2004
- Messages
- 105
- Reaction score
- 0
Fisher -
I got the 'starter kit' when I bought mine, and wasn't very happy with it. I felt some of the items weren't of the best quality. I think you'd do better ordering what you want separately.
-- VF
I got the 'starter kit' when I bought mine, and wasn't very happy with it. I felt some of the items weren't of the best quality. I think you'd do better ordering what you want separately.
-- VF
On that Colt, the U.S. Army would not have adopted it if there was a problem with the caps. I had an old euroarms 1851 Colt replica that had caps popping off and fouling up the works. Fortunately I live near a gun shop dealing only in black powder. A better grade of nipples solved the problem. In any event, tinker around with the 1860 Colt, it should not cause any trouble.
Here is a thought, Wild Bill Hickok could have used any gun available, percussions, pecaemakers, S & W's. He picked the Colt.
Here is a thought, Wild Bill Hickok could have used any gun available, percussions, pecaemakers, S & W's. He picked the Colt.
Hickock shot his colts on a daily basis. and he was constantly cleaning and reloading them as well, which ensured good ignition. And that lil bit of attention made them his babies, he knew where they would hit every time and thats what counted till his eyes started going downhill. And then he got a pair of Colt 1851 navies converted to centerfire cartridges.
And as far as the military goes, they have no real interest in the quality of the weapons. Sure colt made really nice guns before the war, but once the civil war started the quality went down hill. Many articles talk about the poor quality in finished colts such as oval chambers, and chambers so out of place that when the cylinder was indexed by the hand, that only half the bullet was actually lined up with the bore.
And as far as the military goes, they have no real interest in the quality of the weapons. Sure colt made really nice guns before the war, but once the civil war started the quality went down hill. Many articles talk about the poor quality in finished colts such as oval chambers, and chambers so out of place that when the cylinder was indexed by the hand, that only half the bullet was actually lined up with the bore.
Russ T Frizzen
70 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,007
- Reaction score
- 424
Been shooting C&B revolvers for years. Never had a cap or cap fragment jam any of my Colts. Like any C&B revolver, you have to load them properly, using the right size cap on the correct size nipple. And the muzzle should be raised as you cock the piece for the next shot, but all of this is true of any make of revolver.
Some folks just don't like the Colts, I guess. Or perhaps they've had problems with poorly made imported revolvers. Funny that no one seems to mention one of the Remington's biggest design flaws--the weak ramming system. The link between the rammer lever and the ramming head is a flimsy stamping held in place with small diameter pins. If you consistently load .457 balls, you will get a failure here. It has happened twice to me. An old-timer--well, older than me anyway--told me what the problem was and I went to .454 balls and so far, so good. And yes, Bill Hickock chose his Colts for good reasons. They are accurate, reliable, better balanced, the grip-trigger-hammer relationship is just about perfect and they hit hard. And, best of all, they are COLTS!!! 'Nuff said.
Some folks just don't like the Colts, I guess. Or perhaps they've had problems with poorly made imported revolvers. Funny that no one seems to mention one of the Remington's biggest design flaws--the weak ramming system. The link between the rammer lever and the ramming head is a flimsy stamping held in place with small diameter pins. If you consistently load .457 balls, you will get a failure here. It has happened twice to me. An old-timer--well, older than me anyway--told me what the problem was and I went to .454 balls and so far, so good. And yes, Bill Hickock chose his Colts for good reasons. They are accurate, reliable, better balanced, the grip-trigger-hammer relationship is just about perfect and they hit hard. And, best of all, they are COLTS!!! 'Nuff said.
WV_Hillbilly
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2005
- Messages
- 707
- Reaction score
- 3
AMEN to that "brother"!
I'm sure the "buddy system" was in full effect at that point in history. I believe that Colt was quite adept at convincing the Gov't officials that make the contract acceptance decisions... by "gifts" and "pre-contract renumerations" among other even greater dubious and "under the table" means. Nuff said about that.
Something to think about too...How is Colt faring today in the commercial market compared to Remington...Hmmm?
This is not to say that Remington would not have stooped to the same methods to achieve a long term contract, but were more interested in preserving the character, quality, and heritage that the original Eli Remington maintained. Wasn't there a story about Remington once waited to test a rifle that he built for a gentleman, because it was Sunday, and felt that it was dishonourable to the Creator to do business (exchange money) on the Sabbath Day.
It is the ultimate in poor gun handling, regardless of supposed factory determined instuction, to point the firearm upward while cocking. An errant or unplanned discharge could send a ball/bullet into some unsuspecting poor oaf across on the next side of town or another street... it IS good gun handling to always point the firearm downward at the ground, so that you assuredly know where the projectile would impact in case of an accidental discharge occurrence.
On a "Colt" style revolver, I've had TOO MANY of those broken cap fragments fall inside the works and jam the action or break a very fragile internal part--putting the gun completely out of action and rendering it a useless paperweight.
I query this also... Where is the loading lever at all on some of the Colt designed revolvers? Must not have had a very good means of ramming down the ball into the chambers on some guns...
I do love the Colts as do I the Remingtons, they each have their own little quirks and foibles, but the Remingtons ARE the ONLY revolvers that I saw (there might have been an odd Colt or LeMat or whatever, but I didn't see it) at the 111th N-SSA National Skirmish Matches this past weekend. That obviously says a lot about the reliability and accuracy of the piece.
Shoot Safely!
WV_Hillbilly
Russ T Frizzen
70 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,007
- Reaction score
- 424
Anyone who points a C&B revolver at the ground while cocking is asking for a jam. The traditional, time honored and recommended cocking technique is and always has been to raise the muzzle while cocking. When I first started using blackpowder revolvers over 40 years ago, this is how I was taught. I do not know anyone who cocks his piece by pointing the muzzle down as experience (going back to the Paterson) has shown this to be a guarantee of a jam.
In responding to this thread, it never occurred to me that the technique used was responsible for the jamming problem, as it did not occur to me that the cocking technique was incorrect.
I have often heard the story regarding Remington and his holy ways regarding payment for his first rifle. I also have heard that Washington chopped down a cherry tree and Abe Lincoln walked half way to China to return a penny he overcharged a customer. In truth, Remington was a hard nosed businessman who was out to make a buck. One must always take with a grain of salt these stories that sanctify mere mortals-- even Mr. Remington. Rumors that he could walk on water have been discredited, as well. It is safe to say that Reminton and his company used all the usual tricks to procure contracts. Just how well his revolvers would have done without the fortuitous occurrence of the War Between the States is a moot point. Colt, as I am confident you will, albeit reluctantly perhaps, agree was already an American success story. He was not, however, a saint. Perhaps, having designed the Walker and the 1851 Navy revolver, he should be.
Some Colts do not have loading levers. The Paterson, even rabid Colt haters must concede, was his first effort, and not a bad one , and he designed it to use a separate ramming tool. Later Patersons were available with attached rammers as Colt refined his weapons. The pocket models often do not have rammers attached. Most buyers noticed this right away, but bought the gun anyway, as they realized that this was not an oversight on the manufacturer's part, but rather a deliberate measure to make the revolver smaller and lighter for more comfortable carrying in one's pocket. The ball was seated by breaking the gun down and using the cylinder arbor as a rammer. Mr. Colt may have assumed that if you got yourself into a shooting situation and were armed only with a pocket model, if you didn't resolve the problem quickly, say with the first cylinder full, you were likely to have concerms of a greater nature than reloading. Like where you would be buried, for example.
Remingtons tend to cease functioning due to fouling much sooner than Colts. This is less a problem in today's light-hearted shooting, but was a serious defect in a combat situation. Truth is, the Colt would still be in the fight long after Mr. Remington's little gem needed a good bath.
I am at a loss when it comes to the relevance Colt's position in today's market, as I do not see how it bears upon the discussion at hand. To my knowledge, they are dong fine. This is difficult to comprehend, I suppose, since, if you forget about the SAAs, M-16s, AR-15s, 1911s and such, I suppose business must be slow.
I can't wait to get my hands on a new Remington revolver...oh,wait. Remington doesn't make revolvers anymore. Not since they blew it with the 1875-1890 model. Could it have been that poorly designed grip and the fact that you had to shift your grip each time you cocked it. There's that pesky grip, trigger, hammer thing again....
In responding to this thread, it never occurred to me that the technique used was responsible for the jamming problem, as it did not occur to me that the cocking technique was incorrect.
I have often heard the story regarding Remington and his holy ways regarding payment for his first rifle. I also have heard that Washington chopped down a cherry tree and Abe Lincoln walked half way to China to return a penny he overcharged a customer. In truth, Remington was a hard nosed businessman who was out to make a buck. One must always take with a grain of salt these stories that sanctify mere mortals-- even Mr. Remington. Rumors that he could walk on water have been discredited, as well. It is safe to say that Reminton and his company used all the usual tricks to procure contracts. Just how well his revolvers would have done without the fortuitous occurrence of the War Between the States is a moot point. Colt, as I am confident you will, albeit reluctantly perhaps, agree was already an American success story. He was not, however, a saint. Perhaps, having designed the Walker and the 1851 Navy revolver, he should be.
Some Colts do not have loading levers. The Paterson, even rabid Colt haters must concede, was his first effort, and not a bad one , and he designed it to use a separate ramming tool. Later Patersons were available with attached rammers as Colt refined his weapons. The pocket models often do not have rammers attached. Most buyers noticed this right away, but bought the gun anyway, as they realized that this was not an oversight on the manufacturer's part, but rather a deliberate measure to make the revolver smaller and lighter for more comfortable carrying in one's pocket. The ball was seated by breaking the gun down and using the cylinder arbor as a rammer. Mr. Colt may have assumed that if you got yourself into a shooting situation and were armed only with a pocket model, if you didn't resolve the problem quickly, say with the first cylinder full, you were likely to have concerms of a greater nature than reloading. Like where you would be buried, for example.
Remingtons tend to cease functioning due to fouling much sooner than Colts. This is less a problem in today's light-hearted shooting, but was a serious defect in a combat situation. Truth is, the Colt would still be in the fight long after Mr. Remington's little gem needed a good bath.
I am at a loss when it comes to the relevance Colt's position in today's market, as I do not see how it bears upon the discussion at hand. To my knowledge, they are dong fine. This is difficult to comprehend, I suppose, since, if you forget about the SAAs, M-16s, AR-15s, 1911s and such, I suppose business must be slow.
I can't wait to get my hands on a new Remington revolver...oh,wait. Remington doesn't make revolvers anymore. Not since they blew it with the 1875-1890 model. Could it have been that poorly designed grip and the fact that you had to shift your grip each time you cocked it. There's that pesky grip, trigger, hammer thing again....
WV_Hillbilly
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2005
- Messages
- 707
- Reaction score
- 3
Russ T. (and all others)
I really did not intend this to become some kind of a wee-ing match between Colt lovers and Remington lovers... in case you're interested, I have had (and still have a few) MANY of BOTH companies revolvers. I know about pointing a Colt skyward to prevent the problem of cap jams, but was hoping to show, that when comparing that practice with modern pistol/handgun technique that it contradicts the latter.
I have a hard time conciously pointing the muzzle upward while cocking ANY firearm, as I had it drilled into me at a very early age, that if the gun should fire... where was that bullet going to end up??? That is why I instinctively aim it at a safe spot on the ground about 4 or 5 feet in front of me. Yet when I have my Colt styled open top percussion guns out, I have to force myself to point the muzzle skyward.
I do wonder why Smith & Wesson revolvers survived when Remingtons did not. BTW, The Remington grip shape VS the Colt grip shape... It's a matter of choice and personal preference. Remember that the average person's hand was much smaller back in the mid 19th century. I am built more like Sam Walker (who was quite a big fellow for the timel and his inspired Colt revolver (or should I say horse pistol?) is neither too big nor awkward for my hand(s). I do shoot with either hand, though not quite as well with the less used side. My latest ambition is to acquire a consecutive numbered pair of 3rd model Dragoons with the folding leaf rear sights. (I mean the replicas, NOT the originals; as I couldn't afford to mortgage every thing I own to get even ONE of them!)
A '51 Colt Navy grip disappears in my "bear-like paws" and those little pocket Colts (and Remingtons) I can practically palm one of them completely. I must say though, that the 4 screw '60 Colt Army has a grip size and shape that I just LOVE to pieces! If Colt would have just put a top strap on that gun... wait! They almost got it right with the SAA, but that is a modern cartridge firing gun, and a whole 'nother ball o' string to untangle.
The fact remains that the various cap-n-ball guns have a good enough and varied enough grip and styling to accomodate most every shooter who wants to try this facet of muzzleloading shooter out. Actually the term "muzzleloading" really doesn't apply to these guns--but to a single shot fixed barrel and breech pistol. "Cap-n-ball" could likewise be applied to a Lyman Plains pistol or CVA Kentucky pistol... so I don't know if there will ever be a proper name for these style of guns, but they are sure a ball to have and fun to both shoot and learn about.
FWIW, I probably would never have learned how to dis/reassemble (and repair, replace parts, polish, tune-up) some of the Colt revovlers, had I not had a cap jam occur. So my "words of wisdom" for the day is: "to let even a bad experience be your teacher instead of a dissapointment".
Shoot Safely!
WV_Hillbilly :front:
PS I bear no ill feelings towards anyone who commented regarding their preference, likes or dislikes, etc...
I really did not intend this to become some kind of a wee-ing match between Colt lovers and Remington lovers... in case you're interested, I have had (and still have a few) MANY of BOTH companies revolvers. I know about pointing a Colt skyward to prevent the problem of cap jams, but was hoping to show, that when comparing that practice with modern pistol/handgun technique that it contradicts the latter.
I have a hard time conciously pointing the muzzle upward while cocking ANY firearm, as I had it drilled into me at a very early age, that if the gun should fire... where was that bullet going to end up??? That is why I instinctively aim it at a safe spot on the ground about 4 or 5 feet in front of me. Yet when I have my Colt styled open top percussion guns out, I have to force myself to point the muzzle skyward.
I do wonder why Smith & Wesson revolvers survived when Remingtons did not. BTW, The Remington grip shape VS the Colt grip shape... It's a matter of choice and personal preference. Remember that the average person's hand was much smaller back in the mid 19th century. I am built more like Sam Walker (who was quite a big fellow for the timel and his inspired Colt revolver (or should I say horse pistol?) is neither too big nor awkward for my hand(s). I do shoot with either hand, though not quite as well with the less used side. My latest ambition is to acquire a consecutive numbered pair of 3rd model Dragoons with the folding leaf rear sights. (I mean the replicas, NOT the originals; as I couldn't afford to mortgage every thing I own to get even ONE of them!)
A '51 Colt Navy grip disappears in my "bear-like paws" and those little pocket Colts (and Remingtons) I can practically palm one of them completely. I must say though, that the 4 screw '60 Colt Army has a grip size and shape that I just LOVE to pieces! If Colt would have just put a top strap on that gun... wait! They almost got it right with the SAA, but that is a modern cartridge firing gun, and a whole 'nother ball o' string to untangle.
The fact remains that the various cap-n-ball guns have a good enough and varied enough grip and styling to accomodate most every shooter who wants to try this facet of muzzleloading shooter out. Actually the term "muzzleloading" really doesn't apply to these guns--but to a single shot fixed barrel and breech pistol. "Cap-n-ball" could likewise be applied to a Lyman Plains pistol or CVA Kentucky pistol... so I don't know if there will ever be a proper name for these style of guns, but they are sure a ball to have and fun to both shoot and learn about.
FWIW, I probably would never have learned how to dis/reassemble (and repair, replace parts, polish, tune-up) some of the Colt revovlers, had I not had a cap jam occur. So my "words of wisdom" for the day is: "to let even a bad experience be your teacher instead of a dissapointment".
Shoot Safely!
WV_Hillbilly :front:
PS I bear no ill feelings towards anyone who commented regarding their preference, likes or dislikes, etc...
Weak link between rammer and rammer handle? Thats a new piece of information to me as both colt and remington used the same size screw/pin to hold those parts together, at least when you spend some time looking at photos of both.
And as far as loading levers go, the web on the remington loading lever makes for a far far stronger lever, and helps make a very well balanced gun. And with colt revolvers, the area where the ball is rammed into the cylinder is pretty weak, only a thin piece of metal with a single wedge key, and two guide pins holding the barrel and cylinger on the gun, while that nice solid frame of a remington had twice the metal at top and bottom of the barrel.
Sure a remington may gum up a little bit quicker then a colt, but with a remington revolver its a simple matter of pulling the loading lever down, going to half cock, pulling the cylinder pin forward, and rotating the cylinder out for a swap or a quick wipe of the cylinder pin. normal time to swap a remington cylinder:30 seconds and down. Far far longer to do that to a colt, and thats if the alignment pins dont fall out....
And as far as loading levers go, the web on the remington loading lever makes for a far far stronger lever, and helps make a very well balanced gun. And with colt revolvers, the area where the ball is rammed into the cylinder is pretty weak, only a thin piece of metal with a single wedge key, and two guide pins holding the barrel and cylinger on the gun, while that nice solid frame of a remington had twice the metal at top and bottom of the barrel.
Sure a remington may gum up a little bit quicker then a colt, but with a remington revolver its a simple matter of pulling the loading lever down, going to half cock, pulling the cylinder pin forward, and rotating the cylinder out for a swap or a quick wipe of the cylinder pin. normal time to swap a remington cylinder:30 seconds and down. Far far longer to do that to a colt, and thats if the alignment pins dont fall out....
if you watch any of the really old westerns, they always pointed the pistols in the air while cocking. the men in these old westerns were probably raised with cap and ball revolvers and knew how to keep their guns from jamming''' :master:
The Nave arms is a Pieta Remmington army.
never been fired, but it has been dry fired and the nipples show wear where the hammer hit them,
A little surface rust and a minor scratch on grips. Nice wood thoough.
What is a fair price to offer?
never been fired, but it has been dry fired and the nipples show wear where the hammer hit them,
A little surface rust and a minor scratch on grips. Nice wood thoough.
What is a fair price to offer?
Russ T Frizzen
70 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,007
- Reaction score
- 424
W V Hillbilly
Spirited discussion is one of the many things I treasure about this forum. It is, for me, a chance to speak and be heard, and even more important, to listen and learn. So, have no concerns, in the eternal Colt/Remmie equation, we all remain friends--valued friends. I think Smith & Wesson revolvers succeeded because S&W continually altered their design and went into double action models in a big way. They offered a unique, quality product at a fair price.
I agree on the grips. I find the Navy grips a tad short. I like the '60 Army better, but my favorite is the Walker. I suppose a Navy model would look silly with Walker sized grips, but an extra inch would be nice.
Bezoar, pick up your Remington and hold it so that you are looking at the bottom of it. Now look at the rammer area, specifically where the rammer lever and rammer button appear to join. You will see a thin stamped steel link there. It attaches at either end with very small pins. These pins have been known to fail. They will not fail on the Remington that I am holding in my hand at this very moment, beacause I replaced them with heavier pins . There is no screw holding a Remington rammer together. There is a screw that holds the rammer assembly to the frame. Is that the one you refer to?
I am unable to find the thin area of metal where the ball is rammed. I am carefully scrutinizing my 1851 Colt squareback Navy and can find no thin areas anywhere on the piece. The barrel is held by one wedge because more would be superfluous. Much has been written about this alleged weakness, but a large number of well used originals still exist and they have no problems in the wedge/arbor region.
In firing thousands of rounds through Colt revolvers, I have yet to experience a loosening of the weapon, or a failure in the wedge or arbor. I have never found reference to such a failure anywhere. Once more, I ask you to take Remington in hand(you can put down your Colt, reluctantly I know, for it feels so good in your hand. So perfectly balanced...)Look at the Remington from the side. At the bottom front of the frame, where the rammer enters the frame there is a thin area of metal, and if you now look at this area from the bottom of the revolver, this thin area is actually split Further weakening it. Looking at the gun fronm the side again, the much vaunted top strap isn't all that robust either. I truly enjoy my Remington, but Never once did the notion that it was stronger than a Colt figure in my decision to buy it.
Despite all these flaws--real and contrived-- both of my revolvers have hundreds of rounds through them. Neither is loose. Neither is inaccurate. And neither is for sale. The bottom line is that in this situation, we have the classic Ford vs.Chevrolet thing happening. I would suggest that we agree to dis-agree, but I would miss the give-and-take of the discussion. Probably I needn't worry, as the difference of opinion has been running since the 1860s with no end in sight.
Spirited discussion is one of the many things I treasure about this forum. It is, for me, a chance to speak and be heard, and even more important, to listen and learn. So, have no concerns, in the eternal Colt/Remmie equation, we all remain friends--valued friends. I think Smith & Wesson revolvers succeeded because S&W continually altered their design and went into double action models in a big way. They offered a unique, quality product at a fair price.
I agree on the grips. I find the Navy grips a tad short. I like the '60 Army better, but my favorite is the Walker. I suppose a Navy model would look silly with Walker sized grips, but an extra inch would be nice.
Bezoar, pick up your Remington and hold it so that you are looking at the bottom of it. Now look at the rammer area, specifically where the rammer lever and rammer button appear to join. You will see a thin stamped steel link there. It attaches at either end with very small pins. These pins have been known to fail. They will not fail on the Remington that I am holding in my hand at this very moment, beacause I replaced them with heavier pins . There is no screw holding a Remington rammer together. There is a screw that holds the rammer assembly to the frame. Is that the one you refer to?
I am unable to find the thin area of metal where the ball is rammed. I am carefully scrutinizing my 1851 Colt squareback Navy and can find no thin areas anywhere on the piece. The barrel is held by one wedge because more would be superfluous. Much has been written about this alleged weakness, but a large number of well used originals still exist and they have no problems in the wedge/arbor region.
In firing thousands of rounds through Colt revolvers, I have yet to experience a loosening of the weapon, or a failure in the wedge or arbor. I have never found reference to such a failure anywhere. Once more, I ask you to take Remington in hand(you can put down your Colt, reluctantly I know, for it feels so good in your hand. So perfectly balanced...)Look at the Remington from the side. At the bottom front of the frame, where the rammer enters the frame there is a thin area of metal, and if you now look at this area from the bottom of the revolver, this thin area is actually split Further weakening it. Looking at the gun fronm the side again, the much vaunted top strap isn't all that robust either. I truly enjoy my Remington, but Never once did the notion that it was stronger than a Colt figure in my decision to buy it.
Despite all these flaws--real and contrived-- both of my revolvers have hundreds of rounds through them. Neither is loose. Neither is inaccurate. And neither is for sale. The bottom line is that in this situation, we have the classic Ford vs.Chevrolet thing happening. I would suggest that we agree to dis-agree, but I would miss the give-and-take of the discussion. Probably I needn't worry, as the difference of opinion has been running since the 1860s with no end in sight.
THe thin area i was refering to is where the two alignment pints are located on the colt frame. The stress of loading an oversized ball would be rather large for these two small steel pins. Sure the barrel assembly will transfer some of the stress to the wedge pin and cylinder pin, but isnt that a bad thing as too much stress could end up bending the cylinder pin and rendering the colt useless? Those pins are essential for proper alignment of the barrel group and correct operation of the whole gun. And it easy to find reenactor websites where they continually discuss how those pins are falling out too easily and needing replacement. Maybe you dont have a problem with those areas as you might be using mild target loads and properly sized balls.
i admit the little split where the rammer goes through is not going to help the strengthof the frame, but if you look closely it follows the form of an ARCH, which is a very strong item, and then look up at the top strap, it may not be thick but at least half of all loading stress is being distributed to this area, which does not happen on a colt revolver.
Yes its fun to disagree on this topic, but in the 1990s an engineer in england converted a remington to use SMOKELESS powder and conical bullets. all he did was build a new cylinder and put a flat piece of steel along each side of the barrel. no modifications to the frame. and they work fine, i doubt the same could be done with a colt.
i admit the little split where the rammer goes through is not going to help the strengthof the frame, but if you look closely it follows the form of an ARCH, which is a very strong item, and then look up at the top strap, it may not be thick but at least half of all loading stress is being distributed to this area, which does not happen on a colt revolver.
Yes its fun to disagree on this topic, but in the 1990s an engineer in england converted a remington to use SMOKELESS powder and conical bullets. all he did was build a new cylinder and put a flat piece of steel along each side of the barrel. no modifications to the frame. and they work fine, i doubt the same could be done with a colt.
Guest
How was the connection between the piston from the steam cylinder and the couplings even of the most powerful steam locomotives (like the "Big Boy") made?
You guess it! WEDGES (just 1 per cylinder).
So much for the "weak" wedge in the Colt-style revolvers.
You guess it! WEDGES (just 1 per cylinder).
So much for the "weak" wedge in the Colt-style revolvers.
darn, about the Navy Arms Remmi
I forgot to add it's a steel frame amd .44 cal.
I enjoyed the reading the great disscussion.
I am sure you all must have seen "tales of the Gun" when they were talking about the paterson that the texas rangers bought for themselvs.
The engaged the Commanchies and the Commanchies being THE smart Indians they were,knew that once the first shots were fired and with the long reloading times of the single shot pistols of the period they could Charge the Rangers enmass, close with them and use the edged weapons that they had to good effect.
BAD IDEA, One of the few serivours of the charge was quoted while pointing at a COLT REVOLVER "HIM NO GOOD"
I forgot to add it's a steel frame amd .44 cal.
I enjoyed the reading the great disscussion.
I am sure you all must have seen "tales of the Gun" when they were talking about the paterson that the texas rangers bought for themselvs.
The engaged the Commanchies and the Commanchies being THE smart Indians they were,knew that once the first shots were fired and with the long reloading times of the single shot pistols of the period they could Charge the Rangers enmass, close with them and use the edged weapons that they had to good effect.
BAD IDEA, One of the few serivours of the charge was quoted while pointing at a COLT REVOLVER "HIM NO GOOD"
If I remember correctly, the U.S. Army preferred the Colt not because of price but because they thought the finish work and handling was superior to the Remington. Don't blame me! I'm talking the Army. Maybe some of our historians have the story on that.
Some of the cavalry units on both sides opted for cylinder changes. At first glance, it would seem the Remington is tops but the fit is so tight that it is actually harder(at least for me) than with a Colt. On the Colt you have to forget about the wedge screw(A definate safety no-no). In any event I can do a cylinder change in about the same time it takes to reload a Colt SSA using cartridges from a belt loop.
Regarding accuracy, you can't argue with the facts. Remingtons are good target pistols. What about some of the fast events like at SASS? I think a lot of Colts are used.
Some of the cavalry units on both sides opted for cylinder changes. At first glance, it would seem the Remington is tops but the fit is so tight that it is actually harder(at least for me) than with a Colt. On the Colt you have to forget about the wedge screw(A definate safety no-no). In any event I can do a cylinder change in about the same time it takes to reload a Colt SSA using cartridges from a belt loop.
Regarding accuracy, you can't argue with the facts. Remingtons are good target pistols. What about some of the fast events like at SASS? I think a lot of Colts are used.
Similar threads
