Remington Versus Colt Revolvers

Status
Not open for further replies.
My favorite 1860 has fired many pounds of lead and powder since the 1960’s... for the last twenty years it’s been fed .457 round ball and .454 conicals. No stretching of the arbor, I replaced the wedge 15 years ago, but that’s it. I just can’t seem to wear it out.
 
My two bits,
The army / navy paid a dollar more apiece for remingtons ( starting with the Beals .36 ) I think ) than colts , which the top strap added to production costs, and which the army specified in a .44. So in a way it was about economics. Also Remington went in and out of production and improvements due to patent restraints and company diversification. The company went through bankruptcy among other factors.
 
Remington is still going through bankruptcy...theyve been through it not long ago and again right now. Dont see how with all the guns being sold right now
 
Funny how US firms are moving production to mexico.
As far back as 1989 I remember Cessna Aircraft light switches being mfg in mexico.
Polaris Atv electrical components had moved production to mexico.
Carhart work clothes mfg in mexico.
I wonder if there is a hurdle about a arms maker like Remington moving production to mexico for cheaper labor/ no union's?
 
Im a firm believer that colt is a stronger model...the whole thin cylinder pin and thin top strap of remington dont seem as strong as a thick colt cylinder pin ...and all the strength is centered right where it should be and thats right in the center of the cylinder as colt has it. Im not the only person who works on guns who feels this way...but alas i will still say its my OPINION and not say its gospel or anything like that. Yay colt...boo remington...except their caps...those are the best hands down. Wouldnt it be awesome if colt made their own brand of caps that were just like remingtons only a slightly thicker copper gauge material and a foil covered primer? That would be amazing...and we would all be happy...er...ish?
 
Its no secret I am a Colt guy. If you pull the cylinder off a Colt and put it back together and do the same with a Remington and compare them. Remington has a one-piece frame but it is not very strong look by the loading port. Looking at the Colt with the barrel keyed on it is made pretty darn strong. People complain about Colt sights on the hammer if you open them up with a hacksaw blade they work well if you want you can put range marks across the hammer. In the end, it is a chocolate and vanilla thing you like what you like.
 
It’s funny that the colt is preferred since they basically used remington’s design in the ‘73. I guess they did it cheaper at $13 per gun to the army. Remington was held up by first colt’s then S&W’s patents but was converting their C&B revolvers to metallic cartridges in 1868 using the solid frame design that everyone else opted to. Colt’s reputation is derived from a top strap design.
 
Remington is still going through bankruptcy...theyve been through it not long ago and again right now. Dont see how with all the guns being sold right now
I don’t know about now , but then it was because they were too busy with typewriters and sewing machines and what not. Remington would have made a reloadable, cylinder in gun, revolver first but was held up by a S&W patent. The year the peacemaker came out in ‘73 , Remington introduced the first commercial typewriter. Remington suffered more from losing it’s founding family than colt did by sam’s death.

Colt’s 71/72 breechloader.
Chambered in .44 caliber, the gun was submitted to the Army for testing in 1872. The Army rejected the pistol and asked for a more powerful caliber with a stronger frame. Mason redesigned the frame to incorporate a topstrap, similar to the Remington revolvers, and placed the rear sight on the rear of the frame; he consulted with Richards on some other improvements. (Wiki)
 
Colt was unwilling to move away from his own open-frame, single-action designs in order to compete with his British rival. In 1856, Colt was compelled to close his factory.
( Robert Adams Designed a Revolver to Outshoot the Famous Colt )

Original 1861 New Model Army revolvers ( Remington ) had an estimated production run of 122,000 from 1863-75. The ’61 revolvers with an original percussion system and those altered to take metallic cartridges remained popular for some time after the Great Rebellion. Remington’s top strap design added strength to the revolver. The Remington also eliminated a frequent problem found in open-topped revolvers—exploded percussion caps falling rearward into the revolver’s internal workings—because its hammer struck the cap through an opening in the frame. And its rear sight groove along the top strap provided better sighting than that of the simple notched hammer found on other handguns.
From “True West the Other Six Gun “


 
It’s funny that the colt is preferred since they basically used remington’s design in the ‘73. I guess they did it cheaper at $13 per gun to the army. Remington was held up by first colt’s then S&W’s patents but was converting their C&B revolvers to metallic cartridges in 1868 using the solid frame design that everyone else opted to. Colt’s reputation is derived from a top strap design.

Not really, Colt offered a top strap design in 1855 . . . beat the Remie by a few years. The top strap design is just a manufacturing model that makes production more cost effective. The Remington is NOT stronger than the Colt's Open Top design. I bent a Remington just loading it, nobody has ever bent an open top loading it. The Remington lacks material in so many areas that to call it "strong" is quite the understatement. It's strong enough to run .45 C rounds through it sure but so is the '60 Army! I would say over time, the Remington would end up with frame problems before the '60 open top would (I've owned both). The Colt pattern is just a "bomb shelter" compared to the Remington!!
It's truly a Ford / Chevy argument but you'll get more milage out of the open top design. That's true for the Cowboy Action shooters as well. But, I've even said before, if I were to shoot CAS , I would probably use a pair of my Remington "Outlaw Mules" !! They are the " Rugers" of the CAS arena!! (CAS events use lower power loads, if it were full power loads, I'd definitely use the open top platform!!)

Mike

BTW, Remington's hammer falls through a hole in the frame (one of the weaker areas) and the "cap problems" of today were not a problem then. Caps are not made the same as they were then.

As a side note, I'm hoping to bring to the market a Dragoon firearm chambered in 45C that will also shoot Ruger only loads (wouldn't think of doing that with a Remington platform!). Along that same line is a Ruger Old Army gated conversion with the same .45 Ruger only load capability.
 
Last edited:
Remington did not pioneer the top strap design. It was not a new idea but in my opinion a good idea.

I believe a top strap design is stronger than the open top but the Remington has very little metal holding the frame together where the loading port is. Because of this weak area I don't think the Remington exploits the benefits of the top strap.

I don't know when it was figured out that having a cylinder bushing would greatly help in reducing cylinder binding due to heavy black powder fowling but the Remington did not have a bushing and I can tell you that it will bind significantly after 12 to 18 shots using pyrodex requiring a good thorough wipe down and lubricating of the pin to prevent serious pin and cylinder binding issues. That is my understanding.

I don't know if Colt knew anything about cylinder bushings when the open tops were being made but he did have a winner because the open top functions very well in the presence of heavy black powder fowling. The huge arbor combined with the way the barrel and frame are wedged together in my opinion provides good support for black powder loads and is nothing to be dismissed.

As far as I am concerned open tops are cap sucking cap jammers and at the very least potential cap jammers however I will not dismiss what seems to be the fact that some of our more experienced cap and ball shooters have been able to SIGNIFiCANTLY reduce cap jams by carefully smoothing out the sharp edges of the safety notch in the hammer without making any modifications (aside from arbor corrections in Italian reproductions.) They fire with almost no cap jams.

Remingtons are certainly more convenient in a lot of ways but I have to run to work now more later.
 
I gotta side with Mr.Mike on this one.... I also feel the whole "remington top strap being stronger" was mainly a marketing deal. I can see how it would make sense...but in reality colts large diameter single cylinder pin beats it hands down in my book. And has anyone actually handled an old percussion cap from the 19th century? Those things were solid thicker gauged material! Not like the thin copper cap material we use today. Im sure those caps rarely exploded into pieces and most likely stayed whole and on the nipple...and i feel that allowed more gasses to hit the powder rather than escaping out the sides of an exploded cap
 
Mason left Remington Arms in 1866 to work for Colt as the Superintendent of the armory. Along with Charles Richards, Mason patented designs to convert percussion revolvers into rear-loading metallic cartridge revolvers. Those converted revolvers are identified as the "Richards-Mason conversion".[3] After working on these conversions, Mason began work on Colt's first metallic cartridge revolvers in 1871: the Colt Model 1871-72 “Open Top” revolver was the third such pistol, following the .41 caliber House Pistol and the .22 caliber seven-shot Open Top. The Open Top .44 was a completely new design and the parts would not interchange with the older percussion pistols. Mason moved the rear sight to the rear of the barrel as opposed to the hammer or the breechblock of the earlier efforts. The caliber was .44 Henry and it was submitted to the US Army for testing in 1872. The Army rejected the pistol and asked for a more powerful caliber with a stronger frame. Mason redesigned the frame to incorporate a top strap, similar to the Remington revolvers and placed the rear sight on the rear of the frame. The first prototype was chambered in .44 rimfire, but the first model was in the newest caliber known as the .45 Colt. (Wiki)
3rd Model (Merwin Hulbert) – Retaining the general look of its predecessors, the 3rd model had significant changes. The first was the addition of a top strap over the cylinder, which added to the strength of the design.
Early on, Colt was at a disadvantage. Many of the company's "open top" pistols were inherently weaker than full-framed revolvers such as the Remington Model 1858.
In 1870 when the Army tested Colt's latest revolver, they complained that the .44 rimfire round was too weak and that the open top design was too fragile.
So, shortly thereafter, Colt produced a pistol that fired a more powerful centerfire cartridge and had a stronger, more durable frame. William Mason, along with fellow Colt gunsmith Charles Brinckerhoff Richards, began to rework the 1870 design by incorporating a top-strap to increase the strength of the revolver's frame and remove the need for a barrel wedge, one of the biggest weaknesses of previous Colts.

“Yes, it would be the Remington. Matt had enough money to purchase the sixgun, powder, caps, lead, a bullet mold, and even a Slim Jim holster and wide belt. Matt had worked very hard that summer and now he was being rewarded. Little did he know what the not very distant future held for so many young boys all over the country. In just a very few short months he would be wearing that Remington when he joined the Union Army.

The Remington was available both as an 8” .44 New Model Army and a 7 1/2” .36 Navy Model. Percussion Colts were more readily available and in a greater profusion of models but the Remington cap-n-ball sixgun had several advantages over the Colt. The frame of the Remington was solid with a barrel that was permanently screwed into the frame while the Colt sixguns were all open-topped with removable barrels that were held in place by two small pins at the bottom of the front of the frame and a wedge pin that entered the barrel assembly from the side. A town marshal using his Colt to smack to a hard headed cantankerous drunk on Saturday night would surely bend his gun but the solidly built Remington would be no worse for wear.

The Remington also had a better sighting arrangement with a rear sight that was a hog wallow through the top of the frame mated up with an easy to see front sight. The Colt carried a brass front sight while the rear sight was a notch in the cocked hammer. The Colt did have two great advantages. Most pistoleros found it to be quicker from leather and slightly faster to handle with its easier to reach hammer and more comfortable grip, and it also would shoot longer without jamming from fouling. However, no less a legend than Buffalo Bill Cody said his Remington never failed him.“ Writer John Taffin

I’ll grant you this. The gun fouls easily. If it is the cylinder pin size , it is a problem. The overall solid , top strap frame design is superior though and is why the colt company went to it. Sam however was a proud man and stood by his open top while he was alive.

I also suspect colt’s popularity might be cultural. It is touted as the gun that won the west and was the issued in the confederacy , mostly knock offs made in the south, and coveted by it’s soldiers although they did have remingtons and every other gun they could get their hands on.
 
Last edited:
BTW Let me introduce myself. Jax here and new to black powder. I did a lot of research before buying my Remy. I just came from wiping her down and holding her and telling her to pay no mind to all the naysayers.
 
Mr.jax....welcome to the forum and black powder..although i would like to point out that Mr.Mike (45 dragoon) is one of the top gun tuners when it comes to 6 guns. Hes very credited and has decades of experience...so when he hands out information for free it is very wise to obsorb as much as you can being that there arent many in this field with the knowledge he has much less giving it away and is a well known name in the community. I have yet to meet anyone who has said he sent them a gun that has failed or wasnt worlds better than other competition fixed guns. Just wanted to give you a fair headstart backround on the person youre trying to convince a remington is stronger than a colt. His kung fu is strong...Bruce Lee strong.
 
Hey Max,
I'll elaborate . . . I freaking bent the frame of my Remington pattern 44 cal revolver while loading it. While loading, the top strap came in contact with the cylinder and from then, it was toast!! The most important thing to understand from this exercise is - the loading lever screw didn't shear, the frame bent. I've had screws shear when loading my Walker /Dragoons (back in the day) but you'll never bend an open top of Colts design while loading it. You also won't pull the arbor from the frame while loading it. But, I do know the frame will withstand you loading and impossible projectile to the point that the screw will be sacrificed . . . but not the frame. I'm not the only one this has happened to and in this forum another has expressed the frame of his Remington bent as well. So it's at least Rem. -2. Colt - 0

Like I've explained many times here and on other forums, the Remington frame isn't what folks like to think it is. The top strap is thin, the sight groove makes it even thinner, the hammer goes through the frame which is another weak point, the frame is very thin from the base pin down through the rammer and still extremely thin where it joins the frame in front of the trigger gaurd. Folks act as if you've slapped them in the face if you disagree that Remies aren't Rugers!! They aren't . . . they aren't even as strong as that ancient, archaic, obsolete, anvil known as the Colt open top.


As far as your history lesson, I've heard it many times before but your version is the first time I've heard that the Army wanted Colt to make a "stronger" frame . . . before it's always been the Army "requested" /required a top strap design . . . no mention of Colts design being weak. Oh well.
Also, as noted before, Colt already had a Top strap design to pull from, it wasn't foreign to them.

Colt designed a top strap setup for the Dragoon . . . but he abandoned it. The Root was abandoned and the 1860 Army made the scene. If the top strap design had been better, I believe Colt would have kept it in production . . . he didn't.

In the end, folks can believe what they want (and they will). My own experience taught me what I know and I believe experience is the better teacher. A lot of what folks think is just the continuous repetition of what "somebody said". Just remember, the even more ancient Walker was the most powerful production Revolver until the 357mag. . . . pretty good for such a weak design made with far inferior materials!!

Mike

Lol! Thanks Kid! (I'm a slow typer!! Kung fu slow!!! Lol)
 
Mr.jax....welcome to the forum and black powder..although i would like to point out that Mr.Mike (45 dragoon) is one of the top gun tuners when it comes to 6 guns. Hes very credited and has decades of experience...so when he hands out information for free it is very wise to obsorb as much as you can being that there arent many in this field with the knowledge he has much less giving it away and is a well known name in the community. I have yet to meet anyone who has said he sent them a gun that has failed or wasnt worlds better than other competition fixed guns. Just wanted to give you a fair headstart backround on the person youre trying to convince a remington is stronger than a colt. His kung fu is strong...Bruce Lee strong.
Thanks. I was not saying the Remington is stronger per se, just that the top strap solid frame is. That is why Colt adopted it and I guess every other modern gun maker. The army wanted a stronger frame to use a more powerful round. Hence the m1873 and the .45 colt. I don’t have the experience to judge so I turned to research and have not found any reference a open top Colt being stronger than a Remington solid frame . I have found the opposite to be true, according to that period in history and it’s contemporary commentary and today’s commentary, except here. In fact most folks who like the colt hate the open top and wedge design.
I guess I had more than two bits to say and my apologies to Mike if I was rude. The opinions stated by me aren’t mine and I provided sources for your interest. Jax
 
All that being said, it's all good that folks "love" their revolvers!!!! And, truly in the end, no matter your flavor, they all are (almost) good enough for what they are expected to do. They all handle black powder loads.

Jax, I didn't think it so much as rude as more on the very opinionated!! We here this all the time about how weak the open top design is and it just in fact is not. And just like I said about repeating the same incorrect info . . . folks don't hate the open top design . . . I set up way more O.T. revolvers for Cowboy shooting than Remingtons. I can set either design up to last a lifetime, as durable as a Ruger ever thought about being. In that venue, they are the same but the strength of design (again from my experience) goes to the O.T.


Mike
 
Last edited:
I'll elaborate . . . I freaking bent the frame of my Remington pattern 44 cal revolver while loading it. While loading, the top strap came in contact with the cylinder and from then, it was toast!!
Sorry still don’t get it.
I gave sources for what I posted. You are welcome to read them. Or you could post an article supporting your opinion.
The Army “rejected “ Colt’s 71/72 model. They said it needed a larger caliber and stronger frame. I posted that twice from different sources.
If a Remington is a sheep in wolfs clothes , it still stands that the wolf is what is desired.
Anyway I hope no hard feelings but I just bought a remy and you are raining on my parade. By all accounts I have read the remy was preferred by most troops until the colt ‘73. Jax
https://www.chuckhawks.com/remington_1875_revolver.html
 
Jax, I didn't think it so much as rude as more on the very opinionated!!
I did ALOT of research. I don’t doubt your experience but my published sources led me to the 1858 remy (Remington Beals) model. Loading , accuracy, and strength were the deciding factors , besides I think it looks good. It is funny that you think me opinionated because your posts back in the thread are what made me respond. I was trying to be polite and not reference you personally in my first post but made reference to opinions you raised.
Anyway you are right , it is tomato or tomahto and I like them both. Let’s not be antagonists. My apologies Jax
 
Haaaa!!! No hard feelings at all Jax, like I said folks are still going to think what they want to.( Sorry about your parade) !! No apology needed!!

Mike
 
Theres reading the articles others wrote and then theres real life experiences. And just as it is today...back then people preferred what someone told them was superior or what they read was the best. Im sure many soldiers were biased and preferred what they cut their teeth on first. So if someone started with remington...they were a diehard fan and nothing could shake their opinion. Same with colt. Same with Chevy vs. Ford (and we all agree chevy is better...right guys? ) i once felt my cold design guns were weaker than remingtons....because thats what all the sites stated and all the internet research i did...till i started working on them and handling them myself and disecting them. Then i made my own conclusions. Now some historians will say remington is stronger....but thats because its information thats been handed down for generations. How many top accredited gun smiths say the same? Mike...being one of them said smiths/tuners with credit and experience that is primarily with 6 shooters...has gave his experience. And he has worked on hundreds if not thousands of 6 guns. Keep in mind Remington really wanted a military contract and would have done anything to spread the rumor that two thin peices of metal on the remington are stronger than one larger thick piece of metal like on colts. So of course history will repeat any propaganda that says they were better or that soldiers preferred them. And any politician or government official can be paid to say that the military prefers one brand over another....if the price is right. Now this isnt from the mouth of soldiers doing side by side comparisons...nor soldiers writing home giving their honest side by side comparison either...which is too bad that all that is mainly lost to history. I dont know any civil war soldiers alive today who used both guns side by side in battle so i cant ask their opinion. So all we can go by is side by side comparisons, physics and metallurgy. Now this will always be a matter of preferrece...and there will alway be those who will say either make/model is better...but when it comes down to testing head to head...the colt wins. I didnt believe it for years either...but i proved myself wrong...and other gun smiths that actually work on these guns seem to reflect this notion as well. And i know you just got your Remington...and thats great too...the important thing is is that you're keeping this sport/hobby alive. I hope you love your gun and makes you a life long shooter...but i also hope you try colt out and give it a chance. Albeit most are biased when it comes to their first make and model of gun...its like their first love. So maybe you will always be a remington guy...or maybe you will turn into a colt guy...or maybe even a ruger old army buff. Point is...get your hands dirty and dont always believe everything you read...and have fun doing it.
 
Haaaa!!! No hard feelings at all Jax, like I said folks are still going to think what they want to.( Sorry about your parade) !! No apology needed!!

Mike
I use wiki as a starting point and then follow up their citations or look for government records. I am in a civil war group and have gotten pretty good at research. And no insult intended ,have won more than a few debates with the old timers, of which I am one. I posted other references besides wiki , even if the are opinion, and the army rejection is just a fact, not opinion.
I still don’t understand how you bent a frame while loading? Are you saying that you bent it with the loading lever ? Without breaking at the frame bottom ? Like I said I lack experience but that seems odd. One of my deciding factors is the loading lever. The web design is stronger than colt’s but you musta been putting 5lbs in a 1lb bag. I don’t have to use much force to load .454 ammo. Don’t get it.
I will say that I am disappointed in the fouling problem. And the fact that #10 cap are so hard to find. I shoot pyrodex with c&b and whatever substitute mag tech uses in cartridges. My mag tech are rated at 750fps and between them and pyrodex have had no trouble. However ! I have some buffalo arms black powder carts rated at 850fps and is the top speed recommended by Taylor & Co. they fouled my gun to a stop with 2 rounds. Jax
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top