Results 1 to 31 of 31
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Midland Michigan
    Posts
    1,346

    Default 1860 Colt 44. ARMY V.S 1858 Remington 44. ARMY

    okay boys,


    I wanna know where everybodys loyalties lie on which one is the best. Both were excellent pistols during the war between the states. I want to know what problems or complaints we have with either.........now this question does apply to modern replicas being made. (brass frames dont count) were only talking about the steel frame guns.

    Having owned both over the years, I have to say that the 60 Army is a sleek and pretty gun. but my 58 remington is quite a rugged brute.........and I've always called it a horse pistol because of its size.

    if I had to choose for all practical purposes between em, I'd probably take the 58 Remington.............I always felt it was easier to reload because of its easy to remove cylinder pin, instead of a sticky barrel wedge of a 60 army.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Well, I'll start with the Colt. It is a very neat looking gun. It also doesnt have the problem the Remmys do with spent caps falling and jamming it up. However, it's much easier to work on once you get it apart. Its biggest advantage to me is probably the balance and feel. It just feels better in my hand.

    However, the Remmy isn't exactly ugly. It has also been much more reliable than my Colt, minus the falling cap issue. I also find that i can be much more accurate with it compared to Colts. Perhaps best of all is the quick and easy disassembly, especially the cylinder removal. When reenacting it is very nice to be able to quickly switch to a different cylinder.

    Overall, I prefer the Remington. Its just a much better, more reliable design than the loose fitting Colts, and more conveniant in almost every way.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    st. cloud mn
    Posts
    380

    Default

    I would have to say that I like the Rem better than the Colt for it just looks better feels better and has the rear sight on the frame instead of the hammer. My only dislike of the Rem is the small cylinder pin for after shooting a few cylinder fulls the cylinder and pin become clogged with powder fowling and is hard to rotate the cylinder and pull the pin.
    Guns, Guts and Rock 'n' Roll.
    If you don't like the way I'm living, you just leave this long haired country boy alone!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Hofheim, Germany
    Posts
    7

    Default

    OK I am a Colt man so I prefer the 1860 ... but ....
    if the Remmie had larger grips I would give it the nod for bulls eye or other stationary shooting activities incl. long-range shooting.
    I have large hands and the trígger guard of the Remmie knocks my middle finger which the 1860 does not.
    When it comes to CAS however, the 1860 will be the king of the hill in my experience: faster to bring into action, natural pointer, much better grip geometry, easier to correct issues during the shooting of a stage, less affected by BP fouling over a longer period of time.
    We, the FROCS FRiends Of the Centaure Society in the Frankfurt/Germany area are currently doing a mostly standardized, broadly based feasibility and duress test on C&B revolvers in .44 cal and their conversions, of all makers that we can lay our hands on, in CAS scenarios.
    Preliminary results indicate 80 % preference for 1860 frame type pistols, 19 % for Remmie, 1 % the rest like R&S (which are virtually useless in CAS). These percentages are based on convenient handling and reliable function during the stages. There is one other observation that I like to share: if you are serious about shooting these irons in CAS or bulls eye and everything else being equal the pard next to you will beat you with his pistol if it has been timed and tuned by a knowledgeable gunsmith. Without timing and tuning these 1860s or Remmies and their conversions will not provide their full potential.
    Once the test is completed it will be published in Germany and the USA and will also be available as a download from www.1960nma.org.
    Long Johns Wolf

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    right in the middle of Gods little waiting room
    Posts
    11,758

    Default

    I like them both but for reliability and especially strength (mainly because of the enclosed cylinder frame) I would have to go with the Remmington. I have owned both originals and reproductions of both and like them. After all the years and all the guns that have come my way to date my favorite black powder pistol in the Ruger Old Army which is base on the Remmington.
    Oldgoat46
    " In Biblical times Samson slew 40,000 Philistines with the jawbone of an ass. Everyday an equal number of sales are killed by the use of the same weapon."

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    651

    Default

    In the N-SSA, Remmies and Rogers & Spencers rule. They are considered to be more accurate that the Colts when it comes to pure target work. Interestingly enough, most shooters prefer the round ball over the conicals.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Roswell, New Mexico
    Posts
    596

    Default

    +1 on Southron's comments. While I do not compete or participate, I prefer shooting my Rogers & Spencer to all the other choices. My accuracy load includes 30gr measure of 777, a felt wad, and round .454 ball. Except for the sights, it is the equal of the Ruger Old Army.
    "You may fire when ready, Gridley" (Admiral Dewey at Manila Bay)

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    651

    Default

    Several years ago, I purchased two of the Pietta "Shooter's" Revolvers. Pietta went to a lot of trouble to copy the original Remmie exactly. The revolvers are made on CNC machinery and then assembled by a skilled gunsmith. The barrels also have "Gain Twist" Rifling and these two revolvers are the most accurate pistols I have ever owned-including a "Match conditioned" .45 Auto.

    I also own a Colt "Colt" 1861 Navy Revolver and while it is a fine gun, it is nowhere in the class of those two Pietta "Shooter's" Revolvers in the accuracy department. Now, the International Shooters tell me that both the Pedersoli Remmie and the Hege Remmie and their Rogers & Spencer are considered to be more accurate that the Pietta "Shooter's" revolvers-but I cannot see how.

  9. #9
    Clyde's Avatar
    Clyde is online now Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    East Texas
    Posts
    57,527

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Southron, Sr., View Post
    In the N-SSA, Remmies and Rogers & Spencers rule. They are considered to be more accurate that the Colts when it comes to pure target work. Interestingly enough, most shooters prefer the round ball over the conicals.
    It is really hard (I'd be inclined to say "impossible" instead of "hard", but leave it at hard) to be sure the conicals are loaded dead straight, while RB loads always are. Accuracy is enhanced as a result.
    Absent comrades (sound of breaking glass)

  10. #10

    Default

    The NMA has lots advantages easier cylinder removal, it is lighter being built on a one piece frame like modern gun, the sights are on the frame a lot better place than the hammer. Now the down side to the NMA their is not much room between handle and the trigger guard, the small cylinder pin fouls out easy when shooting black powder but is not seam to be a issue when shooting Pyrodex.

    The down side to colts is lots of parts and screws, they require a little more tuning, you have to remove the barrel to remove the cylinder.

    The colts have a few big advantages the large cylinder arbor that has grease groves, the second big advantage at least for me is my Pietta 1860 Colt with Navy grips is a great shooter and points better than any handgun i have ever shot.

    I have a 200gr Lee conical mold it has a reduced heel so you can load them straight. To make loading them easier i size the heal by pushing the heel in to a cylinder then i lube them with Lee alox bullet lube. The sized and lubed bullets shoot very well but not quiet as good as round balls. I do not use any wads or lube over the Lee conical bullets.
    51

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    14,049

    Default

    At the end of the civil war, soldiers being released were given the opportunity to purchase their revolvers. Far more remingtons than colts were purchased. Now the people who purchased those revolvers were the same ones who had used them in action.

    If you needed to reload,(spare cylinder) you had to remove the barrel on the colt, but only remove the cylinder pin on a Remington.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    The Arizona Territory
    Posts
    8,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Southron, Sr., View Post
    Several years ago, I purchased two of the Pietta "Shooter's" Revolvers. Pietta went to a lot of trouble to copy the original Remmie exactly. The revolvers are made on CNC machinery and then assembled by a skilled gunsmith. The barrels also have "Gain Twist" Rifling and these two revolvers are the most accurate pistols I have ever owned-including a "Match conditioned" .45 Auto.

    I also own a Colt "Colt" 1861 Navy Revolver and while it is a fine gun, it is nowhere in the class of those two Pietta "Shooter's" Revolvers in the accuracy department. Now, the International Shooters tell me that both the Pedersoli Remmie and the Hege Remmie and their Rogers & Spencer are considered to be more accurate that the Pietta "Shooter's" revolvers-but I cannot see how.
    Been looking at cap & ball revolvers. My Dad had the New Navy.36 many years ago. Never could get any accuracy on paper & it was a fair plinker at best. Because of the marginal accuracy (that I always attributed to the-sight-notch-in-the hammer design) it lacked the necessary fun factor needed to want to shoot it anymore, my Dad eventually sold it. Remington had always been regarded as a better choice for accuracy.

    What can be considered reasonable 25 yard accuracy with the Pietta Shooters revolver? I'm also looking at the Pietta Target Model, which I'd assume is mechanically the same as the shooters, just with different sights.
    "Hey Look! We've got Guns ... and We've got Snacks!"
    - Cdr. Samuel "Sam" Axe, USN, (ret) -

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    664

    Default

    I have owned and shot both-replicas. The Remington is very heavily made and strong, but the Colt feels better to me...balance and grip feel. Remington has better sights, Colt points better. Remington OCCASIONALLY jams from broken cap, but I think they overall are pretty similar in performance and accuracy. Remington is stronger for heavier loads, but again that is preference. If I were buying again, I'd buy the Colt.
    FWIW, both my copies were Pietta, an they both were surprisingly accurate at 25 yards and well made. A lot depends on the load and hold.

    This is ALL subjective, or course. If you can handle a sample of each, you will have a better idea.

    mark

    Added: "Colt" re-issue BP revolvers were made in Italy, assembled and finished by Iver Johnson in Alabama, stamped "Colt", sold for big money.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    651

    Default

    Between 1861 & 1863 good ole Uncle Sam purchased M1860 Army Revolvers from Colt for, if I recall correctly $23.00 each. Colt was making a fabulous fortune on "War Work." Then, Yankee purchasing agents noticed that Remington was selling their Remmies for $12.00 EACH to the government!

    The net result was that Uncle Sam canceled his contracts with Colt and started buying their pistols from Remington! This is one of the "all time great" business triumphs of one manufacturer over another.

    Some of the ORIGINAL 1860 Colts CAME WITH A THREE LEAF REAR SIGHT. If one manufacturer were to replicate this particular model of the M1860 Army Revolver, the M1860's replica WOULD BECOME THE CHAMPION OF THE TARGET REVOLVERS!!!!

    So, contact your replica manufacturer and let him know you want a replica M1860 with the three leaf rear sight, Just like Sam Colt sold!!!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    8

    Default 1860

    Quote Originally Posted by Southron, Sr., View Post
    Between 1861 & 1863 good ole Uncle Sam purchased M1860 Army Revolvers from Colt for, if I recall correctly $23.00 each. Colt was making a fabulous fortune on "War Work." Then, Yankee purchasing agents noticed that Remington was selling their Remmies for $12.00 EACH to the government!

    The net result was that Uncle Sam canceled his contracts with Colt and started buying their pistols from Remington! This is one of the "all time great" business triumphs of one manufacturer over another.

    Some of the ORIGINAL 1860 Colts CAME WITH A THREE LEAF REAR SIGHT. If one manufacturer were to replicate this particular model of the M1860 Army Revolver, the M1860's replica WOULD BECOME THE CHAMPION OF THE TARGET REVOLVERS!!!!

    So, contact your replica manufacturer and let him know you want a replica M1860 with the three leaf rear sight, Just like Sam Colt sold!!!
    There is certainly some validity to your three leaf rear sight comment on the 1860 Colt Army , as was on some of the Dragoon Colts too .
    While these guns were regulated for longer ranges back in the day , the reintroduction of a rear sight on the reproduction 1860 regulated to moderate target ranges would be very nice indeed .
    We just took this beautiful Uberti Custom I built up to the Range last week and ran her on a diet of 30 gr. Goex FFF and Hornady RB .454 , and she ate my SS Uberti Target 1858 Remington NA in accuracy . Had this gun had a rear sight that is as nice as the Remingtons , the results would have been humiliating to the Remington .




    The Competition , that lost !


  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    209

    Default

    In my mind, the Remington is far the best constriction, but I love the Colt, the prettiest revolver ever made
    Last edited by jbw; 02-15-2012 at 03:15 AM.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Illinois USA
    Posts
    2,633

    Default

    I prefer the sleek looks of the Colts too. Forget about the hammer notch as a sight. I just bead sight them along the top of the barrel like a shotgun.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Below the knobs in Lincoln Co. KY.
    Posts
    1,654

    Default

    IMHO,
    I love the Colts. I like the grip frames, the looks, over the Remington.However, if I were to choose on ease of use, reloading, and strength. I would pick the Remington.
    Your most humble servent,
    Wendell

    P.S. I prefer the .36's over the .44's
    Last edited by wbrown; 02-14-2012 at 11:59 AM.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Idaho Falls, Idaho
    Posts
    516

    Default

    Originally Colt 1860s were selling in the $25 range in the 1861 time frame. Final contract price was $14.00 in mid-18683 I believe. Colt refused to match the $12.00 of Remington and also Whitney I believe. The last Colt revolvers of the Civil War were received in late 1863 and the government did not order more Colts. The Navy stopped ordering Colts before the Army did.
    Of course, in February 1864 Colt had their disasterous fire in their revolver facility so they would not have been in position to take more orders at that time but they probably wouldn't have received any until they matched other contractor prices which Root, the President, apparently refused to do. According to "Remington Army and Navy Revolvers" military wanted solid frame revolvers (or at least, a top over the revolver): apparently Colt had a model that would have served but they refused to sell for less than $14.00.
    The Remingtons came into widespread service in 1864 and were main revolver for the rest of the war for the Army. The Navy actually bought a few more Whitney revolvers than Remingtons according to figures I've seen. Starrs (the single action version) were also procured widely towards the end of the war, but Starr couldn't turn them out as fast as Remington did.
    Due to inflation, I think the last Remingtons were costing government like $14.50 or so each. These figures are from McCaulliff's (I may have that name wrong) "Civil War Pistols" and "Remington Army and Navy Revolvers" (forget the author of that book).
    As far as taking their revolvers home, Remingtons were purchased the most but Colt was not far behind. The other revolvers like Savages, Pettingills, Whitneys, etc. were bought in far fewer numbers, but, in most cases, had been procured in far fewer numbers as well. It should be pointed out that Colts on average probably would have been slightly older than Remingtons when troops were given the opportunity to purchase which could have factored in the decision to buy. The vast majority of ex-troops were more than happy to just take all the money they could get and go home.
    Purchases were deducted from muster out pay.
    Either gun would have served their users well, but either gun wouldn't tend to be as reliable as a modern handgun with modern ammo. I have often wondered about some of the very first cartridges in the day before such organizations as SAAMI, etc., but according to "Roundfire to Rimfire" Volume II (think it was), the Civil War paper era cartridges weren't always guaranteed to fit either.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    The Arizona Territory
    Posts
    8,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AZshooter View Post
    Been looking at cap & ball revolvers. My Dad had the New Navy.36 many years ago. Never could get any accuracy on paper & it was a fair plinker at best. Because of the marginal accuracy (that I always attributed to the-sight-notch-in-the hammer design) it lacked the necessary fun factor needed to want to shoot it anymore, my Dad eventually sold it. Remington had always been regarded as a better choice for accuracy.

    What can be considered reasonable 25 yard accuracy with the Pietta Shooters revolver? I'm also looking at the Pietta Target Model, which I'd assume is mechanically the same as the shooters, just with different sights.
    OOPS! I misspoke - Talked to Dad over the weekend & he still has the 40+ year old Navy Arms Colt, although I was the last one to fire it several decades ago. He's also got the original design bullet mold casting 1 roundball + 1 conical.

    I'll see if I can borrow it to make up some new conicals, although I found an old deerskin pouch from way back when I lived in Ohio (even still has a buckeye inside it) & there are a bunch of conicals. Nice sturdy leather pouch would make a great sap, filled with .36 roundballs.

    I don't really remember much about their accuracy, but they were difficult to seat straight, even though the base is rebated some to allow it to start easily into the cylinder.
    "Hey Look! We've got Guns ... and We've got Snacks!"
    - Cdr. Samuel "Sam" Axe, USN, (ret) -

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    651

    Default

    Five or six years ago I ran across a shooting website and that had a very interesting posting.

    Seems that this automotive engineer that worked for a large European car company had both a Uberti Dragoon and a Remmy. At his workplace he had access to some very sophisticated CAD equipment (used to design complex automotive systems) and on a lark, he did a "Design Study" of the Remmy vs the Dragoon. The results amazed him!

    According to the computer, the Colt "Open Top" design has a much more RIGID FRAME than the Remmie design!!!

    Of course, this goes against the "Conventional Wisdom" that the Remmy design is the more rigid design!

    But think about it, Old Sam Colt was a better designer than we give him credit for being. Consider both the Remmie and the Colt "Open Top" design with the cylinders removed. The rectangular "frame" of the Colt design (the top of which is the center pin the cylinder rotates on) is approximately 1/2 the size of the Remmie frame, i.e.,a smaller frame (all else being approximately equal) equals a more rigid frame.

    In addition, the Colt center pin performs TWO functions-it forms the "top" of the "frame rectangle and the cylinder rotates on THIS VERY RIGID PIN-that is much superior to the Remmie "center pin" which is approximately 1/3 the diameter.

    The "Weak Point" of the Colt "Open Top" design is the LOUSY rear sight that is in the nose of the hammer. That is why a M1860 fitted with a three leaf rear sight would be VASTLY SUPERIOR to either the Remmie or the Rogers & Spencer that has only a groove in the top strap as a "sight."

    For a target shooter, one leaf could be "Set Up" for 25 yards and another leaf could be "Set Up" for 50 yards.

    So, you see my point-a HIGH QUALITY replica M1860 (With a Match "Gain Twist" barrel,) and with a 3 Leaf Rear Sight would be an extremely accurate Match revolver. IF only one of the Italian manufacturers would put one on the market!!!!

    So, send an e-mail or letter to your favorite manufacturer asking them to produce a High Quality M1860 with a 3 Leaf rear sight!

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    14

    Default

    I love the Colts. To clean or load I have a old sock, tiny 2 oz. brass hammer, a flat popsicle stick. Lay gun on sock gently tap one time with hammer on stick against wedge. Pull the loading lever and the barrel comes off. A tiny kit to dissasemble the gun for cleaning! Takes 5 seconds to do.

    Actually the stick is an epoxy glue application stick, about twice the size & sturdiness of popsicle size, came in a box of 50 for about $2.

    Suggest either pipe cleaners or Qtips for cleaning around the hammer recess. Round balls easy & fast to center, conicals ain't.

    Yes the grease grooves are nice.

    Pretty much a perfectly easy and simple gun to load, use and clean.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    The Arizona Territory
    Posts
    8,587

    Default

    I've had my Remington .36 long enough now to have a couple hunnert rounds thru it. Thinking back to Dad's beautiful 1860 Colt Navy & loading, the Remington is MUCH easier to load: remove the cylinder & set it on the shooting bench. The CVA brass powder flask has a spout that dispensed 23 gr BP & I simply insert the spout completely into a cylinder & flick the lever. When I withdraw the spout, it dispenses 23 gr BP - repeat 5 more times & insert a wad over the powder charges, then reinstall the cylinder & seat the balls. No spilled powder & no having to put my finger over the end of the spout to first charge it, then pour, as needs to be done with the Colt.

    In several hundred rounds, I've never had any problem with the fabled cap dropping into the Rem action. Use tight fitting #10 Remington caps & they stay put & then open up when fired & come off on their own & fall onto the tabletop as the cylinder rotates. I've brought along a screwdriver set in case it ingests a spent cap fragment, but no problems so far & no need for the odd gyrations others have posted about holding sideways to drop spent caps.

    Remember - if you have to pinch a cap in order to make it stay put on a nipple, it's too big . You either need to go get a set of Treso Ampco #11 nipples to finish up your tin of oversized caps, or just buy some #10 Remingtons - the RWS #1075 caps' label may make you think they're #10's, but they are too loose for Pietta nipples.
    "Hey Look! We've got Guns ... and We've got Snacks!"
    - Cdr. Samuel "Sam" Axe, USN, (ret) -

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    The Arizona Territory
    Posts
    8,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frogbert View Post
    I would have to say that I like the Rem better than the Colt for it just looks better feels better and has the rear sight on the frame instead of the hammer. My only dislike of the Rem is the small cylinder pin for after shooting a few cylinder fulls the cylinder and pin become clogged with powder fowling and is hard to rotate the cylinder and pull the pin.
    Try stuffing in a small paper wad (1/4 square of TP for .36, or 1/2 square of TP for .44) over the powder & put in your crisco or ball lube, and then seat the bullet. Also, I've found that lighter loads tend to foul faster - try a heavier powder charge & see if you agree that it fouls less.
    "Hey Look! We've got Guns ... and We've got Snacks!"
    - Cdr. Samuel "Sam" Axe, USN, (ret) -

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    404

    Default

    This is an old thread, but worth restarting. I have been shooting these pistols for 30+ years and have owned many, and shot apart 3 or more Colt brass frame BP CB replicas. The cylinder pin will pull out of the frame on the brass framed Colts, if fired with full power loads. The first one I tried shot apart almost instantly after a few cylinders of use. A brass framed Remington will also stretch at the frame after a lot of use, but will take a lot longer to shoot apart. What will happen with the Colts is, the gun will shoot apart enough that it fails to fire, because the hammer is bottoming on the frame and not smashing the cap and igniting it. The usual fix is then, to weld or braze up the hammer face, then it will start firing again. But continued firing will eventually cause the cylinder pin to pull the threads out of the brass frame. The gun literally falls apart in your hand, or fails to cock due to jamming. I had one shoot the barrel assembly right off the gun with cylinder pin and wedge attached, and fall on the ground in front of me.

    This is why you should only buy a steel framed Colt replica, or Remington top strap design. The Ruger is the best of all due to high quality steel alloy used in the frame.

    This problem presented a challenge that I decided to address a few years ago. What I did was, drill the frame of a brass Colt revolver, and press in a roll pin to hold the cylinder pin threads to the frame. I used this mod on 3 different pistols, and it worked very well. The first one was pinned from the side loading chamfer of the frame. The next 2 pistols were pinned from the top through the hammer channel in the frame, vertically. Taking it one step further, looking at the design flaws, the last pistol was pinned vertically AND a hardened aluminum plate bolted to the bottom of the frame and barrel, just ahead of the trigger guard front mounting screw. This plate was only as thick and wide as the trigger guard, and used the same screws as the trigger guard. The frame and barrel were d/t and the screws countersunk just like the triggerguard screws are. That Colt brass frame gun was very strong and could withstand repeated endless firings of full cylinders of 3F powder, with no ill effects or damage. Cleaning after firing just required removing the 2 screws holding the bottom support strap on.

    Having said and done all that, a cheap $85 Navy Arms kit 1858 Remington, that I bought at Kmart in early 1980's, made by Fillipietta, was my first c/b pistol. It has literally 1000's of full cylinder chamber rounds fired through it and hasn't budged a bit, in 30 years. The Remington design is inherently stronger and requires no additional bracing or pinning.

    As good as the Ruger pistols are, the Remington is certainly strong enough, and in many respects the Ruger is overkill and exceedingly expensive for a bp c/b shooter on a budget. The Ruger is basically a high end c/b pistol. The only real advantage it has over a Remington design, in actual use, is some added cylinder powder capacity, and adjustable sights- but you can add adjustable sights to a Remington.

    The Remington 1858 is hard to beat, it's the best bang for the buck, and the first pistol I'd recommend to a beginner c/b shooter. The Colts are sexier looking, somewhat weaker by design, but also ok providing they have steel frames. The brass frame guns are basically just a cheap gun, somewhat like a Jennings 22 semiauto pistol is- you are going to have problems with a brass frame gun. Shooting 10 grain loads of blackpowder because the gun is weak, is like shooting a cap gun. The real fun starts at 30-40 grains of powder.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    pa.
    Posts
    2,468

    Default

    i took my rem 58 out and tested it to see how many rounds i could fire with out a misfire, i loaded it and fired it 36 times,with 37 pulls of the trigger. there was no time limite,just load it and fire. i lubed the cylinder pin once at the start and it got hard near the end to turn, the one misfire was due to fouling build up at the base of the cone,a second hit with the hammer set it off. the load was fff with a wonder wad and a little crisco wiped on the cylinder face. i would not have been under armed with this 58 rem in the civil war. eastbank.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    5,625

    Default

    I am a fan of the colt....just looks and feels so much better. But will eventually get a 58 NMA......want both, as I am into them for the history.

    I also don't do a lot of heavy loads out of my colt. I usually stay around 24-27 grns.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    The Arizona Territory
    Posts
    8,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eastbank View Post
    i took my rem 58 out and tested it to see how many rounds i could fire with out a misfire, i loaded it and fired it 36 times,with 37 pulls of the trigger. there was no time limite,just load it and fire. i lubed the cylinder pin once at the start and it got hard near the end to turn, the one misfire was due to fouling build up at the base of the cone,a second hit with the hammer set it off. the load was fff with a wonder wad and a little crisco wiped on the cylinder face. i would not have been under armed with this 58 rem in the civil war. eastbank.
    Omit gooping up the cylinder face with Crisco & just stick to the pre-lubed Wonder Wads. You should be able to make it thru an entire range session without having to do more than wipe off a little soot from the cylinder when you remove it to reload.

    I've settled on a paper wad over powder, with a TINY dab of bullet lube on the bottom of a ball before seating. 1/4 square of toilet paper makes a perfect wad for .36 cal & 1/2 sheet, or 2 - 1/4 sized sheets folded, inserted & rammed tight over the powder before seating a ball gives uniform powder compression & outstanding accuracy. Keep in mind that too much ball lube will squeeze thru the wad & into the powder while seating the ball & will give inconsistent powder burn & marginal accuracy.

    I routinely run a tin of caps thru one of several cap & ball revolvers & none have seized up or accumulated any significant amount of fouling after 100+ rounds fired.

    I posted a pic of my stainless ROA somewhere here recently & it shows that around 75 round s there was no appreciable fouling. If I can find it, I'll repost it later.
    "Hey Look! We've got Guns ... and We've got Snacks!"
    - Cdr. Samuel "Sam" Axe, USN, (ret) -

  29. #29
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    pa.
    Posts
    2,468

    Default

    azshooter, i didn,t goop it on, i just took a small amount of it on my finger and wiped it into the cylinder holes as i rotated the cylinder, i did not take the cylinder out to reload as i wanted to load as a soldgier would in the field. i feel sure that i could have fired more shots if they were needed in war,but i think 36 shots with a revolver in action would be alot. i did clean the rem 58 once by taking the grips off and dunking the whole gun in a bucket of cold water(like in a creek) and sloshing it around for alittle while, then drying off the cylinder inside and out with a rag along with blowing thru the cones and firing a few caps and was able to shoot again in short order. eastbank.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    clearwater,fl
    Posts
    26

    Default

    just get both and get to blowing smoke

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    The Arizona Territory
    Posts
    8,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eastbank View Post
    azshooter, i didn,t goop it on, i just took a small amount of it on my finger and wiped it into the cylinder holes as i rotated the cylinder, i did not take the cylinder out to reload as i wanted to load as a soldgier would in the field. i feel sure that i could have fired more shots if they were needed in war,but i think 36 shots with a revolver in action would be alot. i did clean the rem 58 once by taking the grips off and dunking the whole gun in a bucket of cold water(like in a creek) and sloshing it around for alittle while, then drying off the cylinder inside and out with a rag along with blowing thru the cones and firing a few caps and was able to shoot again in short order. eastbank.
    My point is, if you're using the pre-lubed Wonderwads, you don't need Crisco. Omitting the Crisco altogether will amaze you at how clean your revolver will be at the end of the day. During the time of that soldier in the field there was no Crisco - not until around 1911. Try it & you'll find that you won't have to use that bucket of water in order to resume firing, either.

    Next round you fire in your .36, listen carefully - you may hear that supersonic crack of the faster-moving smaller caliber ball that you won't hear from the larger & slower .45's.
    "Hey Look! We've got Guns ... and We've got Snacks!"
    - Cdr. Samuel "Sam" Axe, USN, (ret) -

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •