jason41987
member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2012
- Messages
- 1,293
im speaking purely of my experience with their clones to be exact... ive used both... and these are just some of my thoughts.. not sure if anyone shares my sentiments or not.. but its purely opinion
first i had the 1858.. i liked it quite a bit actually... and i still think the 1858 is a superior design on paper... forcing cone gap will always remain the same, solid grip frame attached to the frame, basepin is easily removable allowing the cylinder to be a quick swap, sights on the frame and remain fixed with the barrel...
then i get the colt... sights on the hammer, disassembly is more tedious, im not sure if the design is inherently weaker or not, because although it does lack a top strap, it does have a massive fixed basepin the cylinder secures to and id be willing to bet this would add enormous amounts of strength most people would assume the pistol didnt have.. and disassembly requires moving the wedge which in my opinion id be happy with a screw
that being said... it would sound like i would prefer the remington.. but in fact i have to say i like the colt copy more... my remington had the 5 1/2 inch barrel, shorter, lighter... but even that didnt handle nearly as well as this 8" 1860 army.. the handling id have to say is pretty phenominal, i love it... it feels more trustworthy in me as far as knowing i can hit what i want without much effort
im just absolutely suprised that although the weights categorized as the same, even this colt with what id consider to be a massive barrel just feels essentially perfect... but i should admit one thing... my 1860 doesnt actually have the 1860 grip, it has a navy grip which im more used to from the SAA and in all honesty i feel i have more control in the pinky-under stype of holding these things as the pinky just isnt simply tucked under and out of the way, but gets a better grip on the pistol by adding another angle in which its secured to your hand, making it feel even more stable
so... agree, disagree, not important, just giving my unbiased opinion on the two
first i had the 1858.. i liked it quite a bit actually... and i still think the 1858 is a superior design on paper... forcing cone gap will always remain the same, solid grip frame attached to the frame, basepin is easily removable allowing the cylinder to be a quick swap, sights on the frame and remain fixed with the barrel...
then i get the colt... sights on the hammer, disassembly is more tedious, im not sure if the design is inherently weaker or not, because although it does lack a top strap, it does have a massive fixed basepin the cylinder secures to and id be willing to bet this would add enormous amounts of strength most people would assume the pistol didnt have.. and disassembly requires moving the wedge which in my opinion id be happy with a screw
that being said... it would sound like i would prefer the remington.. but in fact i have to say i like the colt copy more... my remington had the 5 1/2 inch barrel, shorter, lighter... but even that didnt handle nearly as well as this 8" 1860 army.. the handling id have to say is pretty phenominal, i love it... it feels more trustworthy in me as far as knowing i can hit what i want without much effort
im just absolutely suprised that although the weights categorized as the same, even this colt with what id consider to be a massive barrel just feels essentially perfect... but i should admit one thing... my 1860 doesnt actually have the 1860 grip, it has a navy grip which im more used to from the SAA and in all honesty i feel i have more control in the pinky-under stype of holding these things as the pinky just isnt simply tucked under and out of the way, but gets a better grip on the pistol by adding another angle in which its secured to your hand, making it feel even more stable
so... agree, disagree, not important, just giving my unbiased opinion on the two