Remington Versus Colt Revolvers

[Old Stumpy]

I just took delivery of a Pietta Colt 1851 Army revolver.
No, I,m not mistaken. Since it's the .44 caliber version it must be an Army and not a Navy.
(That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.)

Anyway, since I also have a Pietta Remington 1858 Army revolver, I felt a comparison would be interesting.

Remington Advantages:
- one piece solid frame, with only two screws to secure the hammer, trigger, and cylinder bolt.
- more solid and stronger top strap design.
- easier disassembly with no need to disassemble the grip straps like the Colts.
- hammer spring just pushes out side of frame without screw to remove like Colt.
- better sights.
- rapid cylinder removal without wedge and barrel removal like Colt.
- no cap jams.

Colt Advantages:
- cylinder arbor design resists fouling better.
- ratchet and pawl design seems stronger and more wear resistant.
- some prefer the balance and grip better, but this is subjective.

All in all, if practicality is your preference, then the Remington is the way to go.
Certainly history has proven this with practically all subsequent revolvers, including cartridge Colts and most DA revolvers, incorporating a one piece top-strap frame. Even top break revolvers lock up to become a de facto one piece top strap frame revolver.

But then, what is practical about owning and shooting C&B revolvers for most of us?

What do you think?

 

[W. Bittle]

I have two Pietta 1858 Remington replicas plus two extra cylinders. I just find the Remington
works better for me. I generally load the cylinders with this little loading press I have as opposed
to loading them while installed in the revolver. I'll load all four cylinders then
just go to my home range and shoot. That gives me 24 shots. It is pretty easy to swap out
cylinders on an 1858. Also, I like how stiff the frame is as compared to
a Colt. One of my Pietta '58's is a brass frame with a 12" barrel.
The other is a steel frame with an 8" barrel. I like these guys. They
are fun to shoot and so far have worked well. As for cap jams, these
guns have that issue just like any cap n ball revolver.
The next one I'd like to pick up is a Colt Walker. Always wanted one of those big dudes.

 

[45 Dragoon]

I just took delivery of a Pietta Colt 1851 Army revolver.
No, I,m not mistaken. Since it's the .44 caliber version it must be an Army and not a Navy.
(That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.)

Anyway, since I also have a Pietta Remington 1858 Army revolver, I felt a comparison would be interesting.

Remington Advantages:
- one piece solid frame, with only two screws to secure the hammer, trigger, and cylinder bolt.
- more solid and stronger top strap design.
- easier disassembly with no need to disassemble the grip straps like the Colts.
- hammer spring just pushes out side of frame without screw to remove like Colt.
- better sights.
- rapid cylinder removal without wedge and barrel removal like Colt.
- no cap jams.

Colt Advantages:
- cylinder arbor design resists fouling better.
- ratchet and pawl design seems stronger and more wear resistant.
- some prefer the balance and grip better, but this is subjective.

All in all, if practicality is your preference, then the Remington is the way to go.
Certainly history has proven this with practically all subsequent revolvers, including cartridge Colts and most DA revolvers, incorporating a one piece top-strap frame. Even top break revolvers lock up to become a de facto one piece top strap frame revolver.

But then, what is practical about owning and shooting C&B revolvers for most of us?

What do you think?

I think anybody that thinks the top strap design is stronger just by virtue of it closely resembling modern Single Action revolvers of today is extremely mistaken!! It's purely economics that dictates top strap design, NOT strength!! Nobody has ever bent an open top revolver just by loading hard or oversized balls but some folks have definitely bent the "super strong frame of a top strap Remington cap gun revolver" just loading the freaking thing!! That in and of itself it proof of an inferior design. Please quit spreading false information!!

No cap jams - B.S.! Maybe not as many because of frame restriction but they do occur.

Easier disassembly - subjective. How often does one disassemble their revolver? Not everyone does that for cleaning. If it is too complicated because of one screw then that's totally fine, I and most are capable of an extra screw in the mix. Not to mention the much better geometry (ease of operation) of the Colt action layout compared to the more compact single screw of the Remington. Also, the "knuckle busting" some folks experience because of the compactness of the grip/trigger guard layout.

The biggest problem with threads like this is it's a Ford / Chevy thing but then again, it's also a "chicken or the egg" thing. One preceded the other (the stronger one by the way!) but any time a "line is drawn" that is the mark to surpass - which is why the design (hopefully) gets better (sometimes at the expense of great attributes of the predecessor).

The "practicality" of the cap gun design for me is for the ability to shoot the excellent Colt design layout that I appreciate immensely along with the aesthetics of the "open top" design. That coupled with conversion to the convience of cartridge conversion (which is totally historic) allows me to enjoy my idea of one of the most excellent ways to send a lead projectile down range in the most elegant fashion. I just spent a day (yesterday) doing just that (which is quite rare for me to have time for). My first Mod. 45C Dragoon did a most excellent job of delivering lead, most accurately, to the target in a most satisfying way!! Others with me experienced the same . . . and expressed such.

Mike

 

[Old Stumpy]

45 Dragoon, I think that you are wrong in every way possible. IMHO you cling to a romantic fantasy for a design that became obsolete when the first top strap revolvers came into existence. If I didn't know your previous thoughts on the subject, I would assume that you were trolling me.
In any case, I do not appreciate being called a liar.

The basic Colt open top & wedged barrel design came into being with his Pearson-designed Paterson in 1836, and he modified it little after his 1847 Walker.
Like Henry Ford, he figured that his "Model T" design was perfect, and retained it until the bitter end, while everyone else moved on.
And like Winchester, who retained an obsolete toggle-link design through the 66, 73, and 76 models, they eventually had to abandon it in favor of a stronger and more practical design.

And certainly, if the Colt company believed that the open top design was superior, then they would never have introduced their top strap design 1873 Model P in .45 Colt. It wasn't economics. It was the reality that their design was obsolete and weak. Certainly they never made any more open top belt revolvers ever again after that.

I almost never have cap jams with my Remington, but I always hear about them in Colt revolvers from well-known You-Tubers Like "duelist1954", Mike Belaveau, who has been writing about them for a living over 30 years.
I encourage fellow THR members to check out his many channel videos for themselves.

As far as disassembly is concerned, it is something that is inevitable with cap & ball revolvers, as you well know.
With a Remington/Whitney design you remove the grips with one screw and the trigger guard with another, and then push out the hammer spring to get started. (2 screws)
With a Colt design, you remove 6 grip strap screws and the hammer spring screw to get started. (7 screws)
With a modern smokeless cartridge revolver, it matters little since you seldom need to take the revolver apart. With a cap & ball design, you MUST do it periodically just to clean out the gunk and oil that you squirt in there to avoid cleaning inside.

When I am shooting a Remington I can pop out the cylinder any time I wish, quickly and with no tools.
With a Colt I need a wedge drift and a mallet.

Frankly I don't know what you are rambling on about with cartridge conversions. Both companies produced them back in the day, and today you can buy either a Uberti cartridge conversion Colt or Remington.
Your choice.
Certainly however, if you want to use one of the drop-in cartridge conversion cylinders available, only the Remington is a practical choice thanks to its rapid removal and insertion.
Knocking out the wedge on a Colt every time that you want to load and unload your conversion cylinder is ridiculous.

Finally, I like the Remington grip, as do many others. I also like the Colt grip. They are just different.
Colts are pretty guns. That's why I bought a 51 Navy.
But superior to a solid frame design?
Absurd.
They are both great revolvers, but for ease of use and ease of cleaning, buy a Remington.
For history and romance, buy either one.

 

[expat_alaska]

IMHO you cling to a romantic fantasy for a design that became obsolete when the first top strap revolvers came into existence.

Your previous post about the Remington having only two frame screws for the trigger, bolt, and hammer was quite a teller. It shows that the Colt setup with 3 screws that carried on with the 1873 Model P was superior in design than the Remington because the Colt internal design carried on for many decades. How long did the Remington design carry on? Remington introduced the Model 1875 with the same internal design of the BP C&B revolvers which only lasted for 5 years until 1879 (25,000 made). Remington then waited several years (to get back in the market) to introduce the Model 1890 SA Army revolver (2000 made) with the same internals, and it only lasted for 4 years (1891-1894). Remington never again produced a similar revolver. Why? It could not be timed as accurately as the Colt design in 1873, when Colt used a hand that had two "noses" for a more sure cylinder rotation with no runover of the bolt to the cylinder stop slot.

Like Henry Ford, he figured that his "Model T" design was perfect, and retained it until the bitter end, while everyone else moved on.

You are not correct about Henry Ford's idea about his cars when his head was corrected by Edsel and others around 1928, but that is another story.

Like the Henry Ford Model T, Remington clung to the idea that their revolver was the better mousetrap. Looks like it did not work out.

If Colt was so wrong with the internals design, why did Bill Ruger make a fortune with the Blackhawk series of handguns produced until the transfer bar type revolvers? Why do all of the Italians emulate the Colt internal design with their modern reproductions of cartridge revolvers, and NO ONE manufactures a Remington cartridge revolver? It is because of the internals.

Any Colt replica (1847 Walker, 1848 Dragoon, 1848/1849 Pocket, 1851 Navy, 1860 Army, 1861 Navy, 1862 Pocket Police/Navy, regardless of manufacture) can be made to lock up concerning the wedge, arbor and barrel with just a bit of work. It all has to do with creating an assembly that is solid and does not move when fired. The Remington cannot be modified this way, so an owner is stuck with what he/she has.

Remington aficionados seem to be enthralled by the idea concerning easy cylinder changes. During the ACW in Missouri, irregular forces under the command of Quantrill, Anderson, Clement, Todd, Thrailkill, et al, carried as many as 6 or more revolvers while on horseback, some on their person and others in saddle pommel holsters. The axiom today that the fastest reload is another gun was more true back then.

Entertain your fantasies, sir.

Flame on!

Regards,

Jim

 

[45 Dragoon]

Couldn't have said it better myself Jim!!

Mike

 

[Tommygunn]

Your previous post about the Remington having only two frame screws for the trigger, bolt, and hammer was quite a teller. It shows that the Colt setup with 3 screws that carried on with the 1873 Model P was superior in design than the Remington because the Colt internal design carried on for many decades. How long did the Remington design carry on? Remington introduced the Model 1875 with the same internal design of the BP C&B revolvers which only lasted for 5 years until 1879 (25,000 made). Remington then waited several years (to get back in the market) to introduce the Model 1890 SA Army revolver (2000 made) with the same internals, and it only lasted for 4 years (1891-1894). Remington never again produced a similar revolver. Why? It could not be timed as accurately as the Colt design in 1873, when Colt used a hand that had two "noses" for a more sure cylinder rotation with no runover of the bolt to the cylinder stop slot.


You are not correct about Henry Ford's idea about his cars when his head was corrected by Edsel and others around 1928, but that is another story.

Like the Henry Ford Model T, Remington clung to the idea that their revolver was the better mousetrap. Looks like it did not work out.

If Colt was so wrong with the internals design, why did Bill Ruger make a fortune with the Blackhawk series of handguns produced until the transfer bar type revolvers? Why do all of the Italians emulate the Colt internal design with their modern reproductions of cartridge revolvers, and NO ONE manufactures a Remington cartridge revolver? It is because of the internals.

Any Colt replica (1847 Walker, 1848 Dragoon, 1848/1849 Pocket, 1851 Navy, 1860 Army, 1861 Navy, 1862 Pocket Police/Navy, regardless of manufacture) can be made to lock up concerning the wedge, arbor and barrel with just a bit of work. It all has to do with creating an assembly that is solid and does not move when fired. The Remington cannot be modified this way, so an owner is stuck with what he/she has.

Remington aficionados seem to be enthralled by the idea concerning easy cylinder changes. During the ACW in Missouri, irregular forces under the command of Quantrill, Anderson, Clement, Todd, Thrailkill, et al, carried as many as 6 or more revolvers while on horseback, some on their person and others in saddle pommel holsters. The axiom today that the fastest reload is another gun was more true back then.

Entertain your fantasies, sir.

Flame on!

Regards,

Jim

Uh ....yes, Uberti produces a copy of the Remington 1875 and 1890 too, I believe.

And IMHO the Colt design is just fine. Beyond that I don't care to get involved in a Colt Vs. Remington snit.

 

[Old Stumpy]

I'm not surprised that your friend 45 Dragoon agrees with you expat-alaska. That's what friends are for.
And, since 45 Dragoon makes his living off of tuning and slicking up primarily Colt-type cap & ball revolvers, I'm not surprised that he has a strong bias in trying to sell the idea that they are a better buy.
But you really should allow him to fight his own battles. He is a grown man, isn't he?

The fact that Remington only produced their revolvers for a short time doesn't reflect whether they were better revolvers or not. It only reflects that Colt already had a legendary mystique and the market largely to himself.

It's odd that you decry the single nose pawl as a poor design, since Colt used it on their cap & ball revolvers right up until the end. I guess that they were a poor design for that reason alone.

Ford produced the Model T from 1908 to 1928 until it was replaced by the Model A. When introduced, the Model T retained a pedal operated planetary transmission from earlier models and rear wheel only brakes, and nothing much changed in the chassis until it was discontinued. By then every other maker was using sliding gear transmissions and 4 wheel hydraulic brakes.

And Remington was the better mousetrap. That's why Colt copied it in 1873 and abandoned the open top design. And it is why every belt revolver since has used a top strap, and still does.

You are wrong about the Italian makers as well. Uberti produces 3 different versions of the Remington cartridge 1875 / 1890 design. All use the 2 screw lockworks, just as the originals did. If they are so difficult to time, then why do they bother? Also, I haven't seen anybody complain about ill-timed Remingtons of any kind.

Bill Ruger introduced the Single Six and Blackhawk revolvers based on the rising popularity of TV westerns and a new demand for western single actions. Since the Colt was king in these westerns, why would he produce a Remington copy when he knew the public wanted Colt style revolvers?
And, while Ruger does produce their Blackhawk revolvers with a 3 screw or 3 pin lock works now, they also have produced their fine Bearcat series of revolvers since 1958.
And by golly, Bearcats have a one piece frame and a 2 screw lock works. It is in fact a near- copy of the Remington series of revolvers. Why would he do that if they were not any good, as you say?

And, while Colt open top revolvers can be tuned to lock up well, they don't always stay that way. Wedges and wedge slots get battered and end play develops. It's the nature of an 1836 design feature that became obsolete with solid frame introduction.
Furthermore, solid frame revolvers don't need tinkering and adjusting and tuning for "lockup".
That's why Whitney and Remington used them, why Colt ditched open top frames, and why every belt revolver since then has used a top strap design.

As far as the idea of carrying spare cylinders is concerned, I never mentioned that.
I have no idea why you would bring it up.

 

[Old Stumpy]

Beyond that I don't care to get involved in a Colt Vs. Remington snit.

It certainly wasn't my intention either when I authored the thread. I was hoping for a less vitriolic discussion, but I will punch back when I am punched.

 

[skeeterfogger]

Really like the looks and feel of colt.
Don't care too much for the rear sight in hammer. Have had a few primer jams. Easy enough to deal with by quick twist right when cocking. Bit of a hassle to use spare cylinders. Can't easily remove grips to do a soak before cleaning.

Remington rear sight easier for me to use. Never had any primer jams. Easy to change out spare cylinders. Can easily remove grips to soak before cleaning. Never have any cylinder binding. Found using Permatex antisieze compound, on either model, really solves that. It also works great on internals. The 1600^ capability really holds up. Smooth as silk too.

 

[45 Dragoon]

Well O.S., you asked two questions and I answered them.

Just so you know, I work on about as many Remington's as I do Colts. I like Remies just fine and in fact , I've told many folks if I were to participate in CAS events I would use Remies. They are tougher than Rugers (the ones I do) as well as lighter. But, I'm not going to change my mind as to which design is stronger.

As far as Colt type open tops, they don't do any of what you say they do, and "tuning" means a whole lot more than cylinder lock-up. That's why the S.A.s I work on (Colt or Remington pattern) are equal or better than the Ruger standard (as far as longevity and the strength and accuracy of the action is concerned).
I'll refrain from participating in your posts in the future.

Mike

 

[Jackrabbit1957]

I gotta go along with Mike on some of this, I used to have a Remington 58 a long time ago. I did get cap jams rather frequently. I eventually sold it it. I now have 3 open top ASM revolvers that I really enjoy shooting. I really don't believe one design has it over the other, they both have their quirks, it's what you get used to.

 

[OrangePwrx9]

I like everything about the Remington except its balance/feel in the hand. Something's a bit off and I haven't figured out what.

Never owned or shot an open-top. I understand the balance/feel thing is one of its strong points. However, the open top, barrel-wedge removal to get at the cylinder, and the rear sight on the hammer (whatever happened to follow-through?) were all turn offs. Practicality won out. I've got 4 Remmys.

But I cut my teeth shooting SA Rugers. Remington's are a lot like them, Open-top Colts aren't.

 

[Eyrie G. Dogg]

Orange - Never shot an open top? Good of you to actually admit it but what are you waiting for? You're missing part of the party. You had better correct that ASAP.

Colt open tops are like themselves. That they are not Rugers is not really saying much about why one would not own/shoot a C&B Colt.

 

[skeeterfogger]

I like everything about the Remington except its balance/feel in the hand. Something's a bit off and I haven't figured out what.

Never owned or shot an open-top. I understand the balance/feel thing is one of its strong points. However, the open top, barrel-wedge removal to get at the cylinder, and the rear sight on the hammer (whatever happened to follow-through?) were all turn offs. Practicality won out. I've got 4 Remmys.

But I cut my teeth shooting SA Rugers. Remington's are a lot like them, Open-top Colts aren't.

Get a 36 Sheriff or 44 belt pistol. Balance is really good.

 

[arcticap]

This is a reminder that the Colt Root Model 1855 revolver and carbine had a top strap. --->>> https://thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/elisha-k-root-the-man-behind-sam-colt.279291/
Perhaps not all Colts should be stereotyped as being open tops when Root actually appeared to beat Remington to the punch with his top strap design.
The Rogers & Spencer is another innovative top strap, and each open top and top strap model has its own attributes.
Some folks have bias towards certain models while others like them all.

 

[1KPerDay]

Practicality? I’ve shot over 100 shots through my Colt Armys without cleaning or re-lubing on several occasions and they were still running. Can your Remington do that?

I don’t know if mine can as I haven’t tried it yet.

the colt feels better, points better, loads better, and handles better to me... which IMO are all practical issues.

 

[Old Stumpy]

Practicality? I’ve shot over 100 shots through my Colt Armys without cleaning or re-lubing on several occasions and they were still running. Can your Remington do that?

Seems to depend on the base pin a lot. Smooth and shiny is good. Grooved or textured traps fouling.
My last trip out I shot about 30 rounds without lubing.
But, I stopped there and it was still running fine.
Of course I can simply pop out the cylinder in seconds without tools if I want to wipe off the base pin.
With a Colt, I have to use a mallet and a drift every time.
Tedious.

 

[Old Stumpy]

the colt feels better, points better, loads better, and handles better to me... which IMO are all practical issues.

To me these are subjective opinions, not facts.
My opinions are:
I own a Remington and a 51 Navy and I like both.
But, I still like the Remington better.
The grip is different for the Remington, but comfortable with my medium hands.
For large hands, that might not be so.
The Remington also points better for me.
The sights line up naturally, while the 1851 Navy points high and I have to angle my wrist downward.
The Remington sights are well-defined, whereas the 51 Navy sights are tiny and hard to see.
The 51 Navy seems heavier than the Remington, even though they weigh about the same.
My Remington loads easily.
Handling is subjective again, but all things considered, I prefer the Remington.

The only real way to decide for yourself is to compare them objectively.
In the end, you will still probably end up with both, since these are fun guns, not carry guns.

 

[Mike OTDP]

I will merely note that on the firing line at the World Muzzle-Loading Championships, the Remingtons are 90% of the guns, Rogers & Spencer the remaining 10%. The only people shooting Colts are doing so in dedicated open-top revolver events.

 

[1KPerDay]

To me these are subjective opinions, not facts.

I guess “TO ME” and “IMO” weren’t sufficient enough qualifiers for you.

 

[Old Stumpy]

I will merely note that on the firing line at the World Muzzle-Loading Championships, the Remingtons are 90% of the guns, Rogers & Spencer the remaining 10%.

It also occurs to me that Bill Ruger chose to emulate the Whitney / Remington top strap design in the Old Army, since this was to be the strongest and most practically designed cap & ball revolver available.
Since this was also to be an adaptation of the Blackhawk, he retained the same grip frame, which was wise for reasons of economical manufacture and because it was familiar and well-liked.
There really was no reason to go with an open top design.

 

[Old Stumpy]

I guess “TO ME” and “IMO” weren’t sufficient enough qualifiers for you.

No need to take offense where none is offered.

 

[45 Dragoon]

Mike ODTP,
Not to mention the Remington's that are winning are Pedersoli Remington's not the "run of the mill" $200.00 -$400.00 versions. Not a cut but just telling it like it is . . . I've worked on some Pedersoli's. It mainly involves the barrel that is the difference. But hey!!! If that's what it takes . . . that's what it takes!!! I'm sure most if not all the Open Tops are basically "out of the box" open tops . . . again, not a cut but, if they "ain't right" they ain't right . . . I'm sure (positive!!) open tops correctly setup would be competitive (that's from the guy that shoots the Pedersoli . . . I set up a "Deadeye Mule" for him . . . so . . . he knows . . .
Also, not to mention, Bill made the Old Army close to the Blackhawk because it was purely economical.

Mike

 

[bannockburn]

Just as I love them both, they each have their own strong points to me, albeit they are somewhat subjective. I like the sights on the Remingtons as well as the having the ability to readily swap out cylinders. The gun has a very solid feeling to it but even though I have relatively small hands I feel the grip frame is a bit cramped with the Remington and not quite as comfortable as the comparable Colt. Also the trigger and action doesn't feel as smooth or as refined as the Colt does.

When it comes to styling the Colt takes a back seat in the buggy to no one! That sculptured barrel, perfectly shaped grip frame, and overall size and weight gives it just the right handling qualities for a single action revolver. Straight out of the box the trigger was smooth and crisp, as was the action itself. Never have been crazy about the sights but the gun has always been a natural pointer for me. Would love to have an easier cylinder replacement system in place but it's not a deal breaker with all of the other tangible things the Colt brings to the table.

Like I said, I love them both!