Driftwood Johnson
Member
Howdy
Like Robert Duval said in Open Range, "Always liked me a sidearm with some heft".
I have always liked the style of the 1875 Remington, with its triangular web under the barrel, but because the modern replicas would not pass a drop test here in MASS I have never been able to buy one. Don't Ask.
A few months ago I won this original Model 1875 at an auction. This model was made from 1875 until 1889. I don't know exactly when this one was made, but the serial number is just two digits, so it must have been pretty early. This one is chambered for 44-40. The nickel plating is terrific, and I think it is original.
A little bit of history here. The percussion Remington New Model Army, often referred to by its patent date of 1858, was a direct competitor to the Colt percussion revolvers. Unlike the open top Colts, the Remington featured a solid frame with an integral top strap. This photo is of my old EuroArms 1858 and it is wearing its cartridge conversion cylinder, but you get the idea.
Colt beat Remington to the punch, winning Army contracts for the Single Action Army in 1873. When Remington brought out their new cartridge revolver two years later, Colt already had a firm toe hold with military contracts. Also, unlike the Colt, with an ejector rod contained in a housing underneath the barrel, the ejector rod of the Remington was attached to the side of the under barrel web, and it was exposed to the elements. About 25,000 Remington Model 1875s were produced, but they never reached the popularity of the SAA.
Stylistically it is interesting to note that the triangular web under the barrel of the 1875 model carries forward the triangular shape of the loading lever of the 1858 model. Personally, I think this is nothing more than a cosmetic style point. The web is attached to the barrel by one screw in the front, and a pin embedded in the frame at its rear. I don't think the web adds any real strength to the barrel.
As I said earlier, the nickel plating on my 1875 is in terrific condition, the only place it is peeling is on the cylinder.
When I got it home I started comparing it to photos of some other 1875 Remingtons. It turns out the hammer is not correct.
The firing pin on these was integral with the hammer, like the firing pin on the hammer of this Model 1890. Notice how the firing pin 'droops down'.
It turns out somebody substituted a Colt hammer at some point. I think it is a Colt hammer, I don't think it is an Uberti, but I could be wrong.
Unlike a Colt, the hand pivots on a screw mounted on the hammer. Somebody had fashioned such a screw, but it was a butcher job. So I had a friend make a new screw for me.
Notice there is no plating on the hammer around the firing pin. I don't know what the story is with that. Notice too there is wear on the bottom of the firing pin. That is probably because the hole in the frame for the firing pin is not in quite the same location as on a Colt.
One of the things I wanted to do with this old girl was to put in a lighter hammer spring. The original hammer spring was quite stiff, but the main problem was it was a bear to get in and out of the grip frame. I did not want to grind down the original spring, so I scrounged around in my parts box and found a spring, probably from a 1858 replica, that fit in and was not so stiff. I had a few of these springs, but one of them fit better than the others.
So I cleaned all the old oil and grease out, lubed everything up with Ballistol and put the 1875 back together again with the new spring. Everything works and she locks up fine, although there is a bit more cylinder rotation when locked in battery than I would like. But not too bad.
One of the things I have read about these is the cylinder throats in the 44-40 guns were way oversized. Mike Venturino mentioned this in his book Shooting Sixguns of the Old West. Mike states that when he fired a couple of these, the bullets were tumbling and not going through the targets point first. Mike has a theory for why the chamber throats were oversized, but let's not go into that here.
Anyway, I measured my chamber throats, and sure enough they are around .448 in diameter, far too large for a 44-40 bullet. I use a .428 diameter Mav-Dutchman Big Lube bullet in all my Black Powder 44-40 loads, and I was very concerned about whether these bullets would tumble when fired from my Remington. I slugged the bore with one of my .428 bullets, but because the rifling is five grooves I was not able to get an accurate reading of the groove diameter. But the rifling did put some nice deep marks on the slug.
So I took it too the Range and put about 30 or so rounds through it.
If you can read what I wrote on the targets, they were only out about 15 feet. Not too much different than CAS targets. Yes, the groups are terrible. The group on the left was actually shot from a rest. But the old girl managed to put all the rounds on the paper, and all the bullets went through the targets pointy end first.
The other thing I was concerned about was whether she would bind up after just a few shots. The bushing on front of the cylinder is quite short, only standing about .055 high. I don't remember off hand how tall a Colt bushing is, but it is taller than that. Also, a Colt cylinder pin is about .250 in diameter, the Remington pin is only about .195 in diameter. All these things would contribute to the Remington probably binding up quicker from Black Powder fouling blasted out of the barrel/cylinder gap than a Colt.
Well, to make a long story short, I took the Remington to a CAS Match on Sunday. It was a six stage match and I fired 30 rounds through her. All the bullets hit the targets, and she did not bind up on me. I did squirt a little bit of Ballistol on the cylinder pin towards the end, but that was all I did to keep her rolling.
No, I am not going to bring this nice old shooter to every match, but it sure was fun to bring it to one.
"Always liked me a sidearm with some heft".
The model 1875 weighs a hefty three pounds. A 2nd Gen 45 Colt SAA with the same 7 1/2" barrel length weighs 2 pounds 11 ounces.
Like Robert Duval said in Open Range, "Always liked me a sidearm with some heft".
I have always liked the style of the 1875 Remington, with its triangular web under the barrel, but because the modern replicas would not pass a drop test here in MASS I have never been able to buy one. Don't Ask.
A few months ago I won this original Model 1875 at an auction. This model was made from 1875 until 1889. I don't know exactly when this one was made, but the serial number is just two digits, so it must have been pretty early. This one is chambered for 44-40. The nickel plating is terrific, and I think it is original.
A little bit of history here. The percussion Remington New Model Army, often referred to by its patent date of 1858, was a direct competitor to the Colt percussion revolvers. Unlike the open top Colts, the Remington featured a solid frame with an integral top strap. This photo is of my old EuroArms 1858 and it is wearing its cartridge conversion cylinder, but you get the idea.
Colt beat Remington to the punch, winning Army contracts for the Single Action Army in 1873. When Remington brought out their new cartridge revolver two years later, Colt already had a firm toe hold with military contracts. Also, unlike the Colt, with an ejector rod contained in a housing underneath the barrel, the ejector rod of the Remington was attached to the side of the under barrel web, and it was exposed to the elements. About 25,000 Remington Model 1875s were produced, but they never reached the popularity of the SAA.
Stylistically it is interesting to note that the triangular web under the barrel of the 1875 model carries forward the triangular shape of the loading lever of the 1858 model. Personally, I think this is nothing more than a cosmetic style point. The web is attached to the barrel by one screw in the front, and a pin embedded in the frame at its rear. I don't think the web adds any real strength to the barrel.
As I said earlier, the nickel plating on my 1875 is in terrific condition, the only place it is peeling is on the cylinder.
When I got it home I started comparing it to photos of some other 1875 Remingtons. It turns out the hammer is not correct.
The firing pin on these was integral with the hammer, like the firing pin on the hammer of this Model 1890. Notice how the firing pin 'droops down'.
It turns out somebody substituted a Colt hammer at some point. I think it is a Colt hammer, I don't think it is an Uberti, but I could be wrong.
Unlike a Colt, the hand pivots on a screw mounted on the hammer. Somebody had fashioned such a screw, but it was a butcher job. So I had a friend make a new screw for me.
Notice there is no plating on the hammer around the firing pin. I don't know what the story is with that. Notice too there is wear on the bottom of the firing pin. That is probably because the hole in the frame for the firing pin is not in quite the same location as on a Colt.
One of the things I wanted to do with this old girl was to put in a lighter hammer spring. The original hammer spring was quite stiff, but the main problem was it was a bear to get in and out of the grip frame. I did not want to grind down the original spring, so I scrounged around in my parts box and found a spring, probably from a 1858 replica, that fit in and was not so stiff. I had a few of these springs, but one of them fit better than the others.
So I cleaned all the old oil and grease out, lubed everything up with Ballistol and put the 1875 back together again with the new spring. Everything works and she locks up fine, although there is a bit more cylinder rotation when locked in battery than I would like. But not too bad.
One of the things I have read about these is the cylinder throats in the 44-40 guns were way oversized. Mike Venturino mentioned this in his book Shooting Sixguns of the Old West. Mike states that when he fired a couple of these, the bullets were tumbling and not going through the targets point first. Mike has a theory for why the chamber throats were oversized, but let's not go into that here.
Anyway, I measured my chamber throats, and sure enough they are around .448 in diameter, far too large for a 44-40 bullet. I use a .428 diameter Mav-Dutchman Big Lube bullet in all my Black Powder 44-40 loads, and I was very concerned about whether these bullets would tumble when fired from my Remington. I slugged the bore with one of my .428 bullets, but because the rifling is five grooves I was not able to get an accurate reading of the groove diameter. But the rifling did put some nice deep marks on the slug.
So I took it too the Range and put about 30 or so rounds through it.
If you can read what I wrote on the targets, they were only out about 15 feet. Not too much different than CAS targets. Yes, the groups are terrible. The group on the left was actually shot from a rest. But the old girl managed to put all the rounds on the paper, and all the bullets went through the targets pointy end first.
The other thing I was concerned about was whether she would bind up after just a few shots. The bushing on front of the cylinder is quite short, only standing about .055 high. I don't remember off hand how tall a Colt bushing is, but it is taller than that. Also, a Colt cylinder pin is about .250 in diameter, the Remington pin is only about .195 in diameter. All these things would contribute to the Remington probably binding up quicker from Black Powder fouling blasted out of the barrel/cylinder gap than a Colt.
Well, to make a long story short, I took the Remington to a CAS Match on Sunday. It was a six stage match and I fired 30 rounds through her. All the bullets hit the targets, and she did not bind up on me. I did squirt a little bit of Ballistol on the cylinder pin towards the end, but that was all I did to keep her rolling.
No, I am not going to bring this nice old shooter to every match, but it sure was fun to bring it to one.
"Always liked me a sidearm with some heft".
The model 1875 weighs a hefty three pounds. A 2nd Gen 45 Colt SAA with the same 7 1/2" barrel length weighs 2 pounds 11 ounces.
