Here is a thought. Up until 1858, Colt was (for all intents and purposes) the only revolver provider, especially to the U.S. Up until then, Colt said .44 caliber wheel-guns shall weigh 4lbs. and if you want something light enuff to carry on your hip, you get the .36 cal. Navy. Then, out of the blue, Remington gets a contract for their .44 revolver and it weighs no more than the Colt Navy. Suddenly (in two years--but that's pretty sudden for product development, even 1858) Colt takes it's .44 cylinder and rebates the back of it and then modifies a .36 caliber frame and barrel in order to jam the two together, resulting in the 1860 Army. Do you think the Remington 1858 contract lit a fire under the people at Colt?
1860 Colt Development
- Thread starter jvandy3
- Start date
Sam Colt was always hustling for money and government contracts were definitely the gravy train. I'm not sure that Remington's contract was a driver as much as just the opportunity to make some money (although I'm sure that Colt was happy to follow Remington's example!)
I'm pretty sure that by the late 1850s it was clear that push was coming to shove and there was going to be a need for guns for the Army.
A story goes that in 1861, the Army realized that the Springfield armory wasn't going to be able to produce enough rifles and Sam Colt stepped up and said that he could make an "improved" model for less money. The Army said that they didn't want an improved model, just a standard Springfield, thank you. Colt went ahead and produced 50,000 or so of his "improved" Springfields and presented them to the Army, saying that they could take 'em or wait a long time for retooling. The Army took 'em. In fact, the "improved" rifle was an Enfield P53 guts inside of a Springfield shell. Colt already had the machinery to make them from an earlier contract with England.
I've got one of them from a Colt subcontractor, Lamson, Goodnow and Yale. It's definitely very P53-ish on the inside.
Colt really never turned down an opportunity to make money.
I'm pretty sure that by the late 1850s it was clear that push was coming to shove and there was going to be a need for guns for the Army.
A story goes that in 1861, the Army realized that the Springfield armory wasn't going to be able to produce enough rifles and Sam Colt stepped up and said that he could make an "improved" model for less money. The Army said that they didn't want an improved model, just a standard Springfield, thank you. Colt went ahead and produced 50,000 or so of his "improved" Springfields and presented them to the Army, saying that they could take 'em or wait a long time for retooling. The Army took 'em. In fact, the "improved" rifle was an Enfield P53 guts inside of a Springfield shell. Colt already had the machinery to make them from an earlier contract with England.
I've got one of them from a Colt subcontractor, Lamson, Goodnow and Yale. It's definitely very P53-ish on the inside.
Colt really never turned down an opportunity to make money.
The interesting thing about the Model 1860 is that it IS an 1851 Navy. The frames are the same, except for the cutout for the larger forward part of the cylinder in the .44 gun. The .44 cylinder is a bit longer, compensated for by the shorter rear end of the barrel, and the grip is lengthened.
The use of the terms "Army" for the .44 and "Navy" for the .38 goes back at least as far as Colt. The army wanted a larger caliber because of the need to shoot horses, a need the Navy generally didn't have, sea horses being much smaller. Today, of course, the idea of shooting horses is unacceptable, and even movies proclaim that no animals were injured. But in a less humane, or less squeamish, time, the horse was a bigger target and killing or wounding the horse put the rider down, plus a wounded horse disrupted a cavalry charge worse than a wounded rider.
So the Army wanted a light weight .44 and Colt "up calibered" the 51 Navy, giving the Army what it wanted with minimal changes to his production line and tooling.
Jim
The use of the terms "Army" for the .44 and "Navy" for the .38 goes back at least as far as Colt. The army wanted a larger caliber because of the need to shoot horses, a need the Navy generally didn't have, sea horses being much smaller. Today, of course, the idea of shooting horses is unacceptable, and even movies proclaim that no animals were injured. But in a less humane, or less squeamish, time, the horse was a bigger target and killing or wounding the horse put the rider down, plus a wounded horse disrupted a cavalry charge worse than a wounded rider.
So the Army wanted a light weight .44 and Colt "up calibered" the 51 Navy, giving the Army what it wanted with minimal changes to his production line and tooling.
Jim
madcratebuilder
New member
Step away from the coffee pot Jim.
Jim is right, of course. Cavalry charges were stopped by killing the horses, and you can see the means used to stop cavalry charges when you look at old arsenals of weaponry, be it with pikes, short swords, or chain shot.
Colt started out with much smaller caliber sidearms, the Patterson being a 36 caliber, and the Colt Pocket (the most numerous Colt revolver produced) being in 32 Caliber. Of course, everyone talks about the Walker (which Colt did not produce, they subcontracted it), the 1st and 2nd model Dragoons, and the Army models, these made Colt's reputation, as did the later 1873 "P" model. But Colt made a lot of small caliber sidearms prior to the 1861 Army model. It's just that between 1840-1865, there was a lot of development in the firearms industry due to the development of percussion caps, the so-called Indian Wars, and the Mexican-American War. And just about the same time, a few guys got together at Bull Run and kicked off The Big Game.
Colt started out with much smaller caliber sidearms, the Patterson being a 36 caliber, and the Colt Pocket (the most numerous Colt revolver produced) being in 32 Caliber. Of course, everyone talks about the Walker (which Colt did not produce, they subcontracted it), the 1st and 2nd model Dragoons, and the Army models, these made Colt's reputation, as did the later 1873 "P" model. But Colt made a lot of small caliber sidearms prior to the 1861 Army model. It's just that between 1840-1865, there was a lot of development in the firearms industry due to the development of percussion caps, the so-called Indian Wars, and the Mexican-American War. And just about the same time, a few guys got together at Bull Run and kicked off The Big Game.
colt's development of the 1860 Army
Jim Keenum said:
"So the Army wanted a light weight .44 and Colt "up calibered" the 51 Navy, giving the Army what it wanted with minimal changes to his production line and tooling."
But is that really what led to the 1860 Army .44? The .44 Dragoons already existed to do any job needed by a .44. I am contending that until Remington brought out the model 1858, a buyer had to accept that a .44 (Colt being the only big provider until Remington's 1858) was going to be three-and-a-half pounds. However, Once Remington got their contract, Colt was suddenly faced with a competitor who was providing an advanced .44 which was a light as their .36 Navy (which maybe made things look, in 1858, like Remington was going to be the future).
Jim Keenum said:
"So the Army wanted a light weight .44 and Colt "up calibered" the 51 Navy, giving the Army what it wanted with minimal changes to his production line and tooling."
But is that really what led to the 1860 Army .44? The .44 Dragoons already existed to do any job needed by a .44. I am contending that until Remington brought out the model 1858, a buyer had to accept that a .44 (Colt being the only big provider until Remington's 1858) was going to be three-and-a-half pounds. However, Once Remington got their contract, Colt was suddenly faced with a competitor who was providing an advanced .44 which was a light as their .36 Navy (which maybe made things look, in 1858, like Remington was going to be the future).
I've heard that Colt had been attempting to reduce the weight of the Dragoon revolvers for several years, but the metallurgy of the time didn't allow for thinner chamber walls and lighter frames.
Then came "silver spring steel", which was a stronger, lighter material. I don't get the feeling that pressure from Remington led to the 1860 as much as the availability of the better steel, although I'm sure that the competition didn't go unnoticed.
Then came "silver spring steel", which was a stronger, lighter material. I don't get the feeling that pressure from Remington led to the 1860 as much as the availability of the better steel, although I'm sure that the competition didn't go unnoticed.
I think the chronology here is mistaken. The Army had indicated well before the war that it wanted a light weight revolver that would have the same caliber (if not the same power) as the old Dragoons and Walkers. Colt submitted his Model 1860 (New Model Army) to the Army for evaluation in June of 1860, well before the war, and production was underway in early 1861. Remington never sold any guns to the Army before the war, and did not get its first contract until after war broke out.
So, I will still hold to the belief that Colt produced the Model 1860 primarily at the request of the Army, not in response to the production of a .44 by Remington for commercial sales.
And that rather than turning down the rear of a Dragoon cylinder (ever seen a Dragoon cylinder?) and "jamming" it onto a Navy frame, Colt very wisely made new .44 cylinders, smaller at the rear so he could get away with as few changes as possible to the Model 1851 frame.
Jim
So, I will still hold to the belief that Colt produced the Model 1860 primarily at the request of the Army, not in response to the production of a .44 by Remington for commercial sales.
And that rather than turning down the rear of a Dragoon cylinder (ever seen a Dragoon cylinder?) and "jamming" it onto a Navy frame, Colt very wisely made new .44 cylinders, smaller at the rear so he could get away with as few changes as possible to the Model 1851 frame.
Jim
madcratebuilder
New member
Jim has the time line correct. Metallurgy was the problem of the day. Colt experimented with various methods and developed what Sam Colt called "Silver Steel" It was this advancement in metallurgy that allowed Colt to manufacture the belt frame in .44 caliber.
I have been reading a book called "Fighting Iron", by Art Gogan, a metallurgist. He discusses "silver spring steel" at some length and casts doubt on the claim that Colt did any experimenation or development of that material, apparently buying his steel from Thomas Firth & Sons (as it was then) in Sheffield, England. Apparently, the steel contained no actual silver, but did have a carbon content such that it was somewhat stronger than wrought iron. The term "silver steel" was used in advertising not only by Colt but by other companies, but seems to have been more an advertising gimmick than any great improvement in steel quality. In any case, Colt's claim to have invented or developed it seems to have been pure hype.
The Colt frames were still wrought iron and remained so up to the smokeless powder era. That is the real reason frames and receivers in those days were case hardened. Iron cannot be hardened by heat treatment, and case hardening was used to reduce wear. Its decorative aspect caused its retention long after it had any practical purpose and its use on modern steel frames is purely for traditional and decorative reasons.
Jim
The Colt frames were still wrought iron and remained so up to the smokeless powder era. That is the real reason frames and receivers in those days were case hardened. Iron cannot be hardened by heat treatment, and case hardening was used to reduce wear. Its decorative aspect caused its retention long after it had any practical purpose and its use on modern steel frames is purely for traditional and decorative reasons.
Jim
silver spring steel
AHH, now we're gettin' to it. You guys are giving me info I did not have and I thank ya for it. I did not know the details of the metalurgy issue and I always thought that the "1858 Army" was first sold to the Federal government in a military contract. Now you tell me that Remington did not get the contract until after the war broke out altho they introduced their revolver in 1858.
I can accept that my idea was wrong because of lack of info which is why I proposed it as a theory in the first place. (Wasn't entirely sure I had all the facts and looks like I didn't.
Thank you.
AHH, now we're gettin' to it. You guys are giving me info I did not have and I thank ya for it. I did not know the details of the metalurgy issue and I always thought that the "1858 Army" was first sold to the Federal government in a military contract. Now you tell me that Remington did not get the contract until after the war broke out altho they introduced their revolver in 1858.
I can accept that my idea was wrong because of lack of info which is why I proposed it as a theory in the first place. (Wasn't entirely sure I had all the facts and looks like I didn't.
Thank you.
IIRC cavalry and dragoon SOP was to carry the revolvers on the horse, the notion of carrying one's revolver on one's belt hadn't taken hold yet. Also I read years ago that the 44/45 caliber was settled on because it produced "50 round balls to the pound (of lead)." And I am pretty sure that the M1858 Remibngton did not appear in any numbers until 1863 or so.
An interesting fact is that the U.S. had no cavalry until the Civil War period. The earlier mounted force was called Dragoons or Mounted Rifles, and there is a distinction between such forces and true cavalry.
Dragoons rode into the combat area, but then dismounted and fought as infantry. They generally carried heavy pistols and either infantry rifles/muskets or a long arm sized between the infantry rifle and the later cavalry carbine. Sabers, except for officers' swords, were not normally issued.
Cavalry, on the other hand, fought from horseback. That condition meant that a short weapon was needed, and the cavalry carbine came into use. Why a short weapon? Trying to manipulate a full length infantry musket or rifle on horseback would have presented many problems, not the least of which would have been the possibility of knocking an adjacent rider right off his horse with the long barrel.
And fighting from horseback also meant that the saber made sense; backed by both the strength of the cavalryman's arm and the momentum of the heavy horse, the saber packed a lot of punch and (in spite of various comments over the years) really was a formidable weapon.
In the Civil War, some "cavalry" units, especially on the Confederate side, actually fought like the old Dragoons, dismounting and using rifles and shotguns rather than fighting mounted.
In general, though, cavalry feared infantry. The massed fire and longer range weapons of the infantry meant that a cavalry unit simply could not stage a frontal attack against any sizable infantry force. Flank attacks and harassment were the best cavalry could do unless the infantry were either badly outnumbered or very inferior or demoralized. Against a strong and determined infantry, the cavalry would be cut to pieces. (Once, informed of enemy forces ahead, Sheridan asked if it was cavalry or infantry. Told it was cavalry, he responded, "Ride right over them." He could give such an order as head of a 10,000 man unit of three cavalry divisions, a column 16 miles long!)
But the infantry feared cavalry also, to some extent. The constant worry about a surprise cavalry attack led even to some changes in infantry equipment, including the use of a magazine cutoff on rifles, so a full magazine could be kept in reserve in case enemy horsemen suddenly appeared.
Jim
Dragoons rode into the combat area, but then dismounted and fought as infantry. They generally carried heavy pistols and either infantry rifles/muskets or a long arm sized between the infantry rifle and the later cavalry carbine. Sabers, except for officers' swords, were not normally issued.
Cavalry, on the other hand, fought from horseback. That condition meant that a short weapon was needed, and the cavalry carbine came into use. Why a short weapon? Trying to manipulate a full length infantry musket or rifle on horseback would have presented many problems, not the least of which would have been the possibility of knocking an adjacent rider right off his horse with the long barrel.
And fighting from horseback also meant that the saber made sense; backed by both the strength of the cavalryman's arm and the momentum of the heavy horse, the saber packed a lot of punch and (in spite of various comments over the years) really was a formidable weapon.
In the Civil War, some "cavalry" units, especially on the Confederate side, actually fought like the old Dragoons, dismounting and using rifles and shotguns rather than fighting mounted.
In general, though, cavalry feared infantry. The massed fire and longer range weapons of the infantry meant that a cavalry unit simply could not stage a frontal attack against any sizable infantry force. Flank attacks and harassment were the best cavalry could do unless the infantry were either badly outnumbered or very inferior or demoralized. Against a strong and determined infantry, the cavalry would be cut to pieces. (Once, informed of enemy forces ahead, Sheridan asked if it was cavalry or infantry. Told it was cavalry, he responded, "Ride right over them." He could give such an order as head of a 10,000 man unit of three cavalry divisions, a column 16 miles long!)
But the infantry feared cavalry also, to some extent. The constant worry about a surprise cavalry attack led even to some changes in infantry equipment, including the use of a magazine cutoff on rifles, so a full magazine could be kept in reserve in case enemy horsemen suddenly appeared.
Jim
madcratebuilder
New member
100% correct! Sam was a salesman first and always.
Thanks for the book title, I well get a copy.
mapsjanhere
New member
It was an oversized game of rock paper scissors. Infantry beats cavalry, cavalry beats artillery, artillery beats infantry.
If the infantry had time to form positions properly they usually defeated cavalry-cf the British "square". Watch the scenes in the movie "Waterloo" where the French cavalry attacks the British infantry after they have formed up. In the English Civil Wars the pikemen were to protect the musketeers-the pikes were usually 16 feet long so they had plenty of reach, the development of the bayonet eliminated the need for pikemen. And large bore-.69-.75 caliber-muskets were used to be able to down a horse. Cavalry was most effective against the enemy's cavalry or in attacking rear areas.
jvandy3
Hmm. Have thought more on it and think my original premise was the right one: Colt as a organization had gotten complacent due to market dominance and was shocked out of it with the sudden introduction of the 1858 new model Army by Remington and scrambled to produce the 1860 Colt Army. That stuff about metalurgy was Colt trying to cover its complacency; if it were really needed to produce a 2.5 lb. .44, then the Confederacy would have been unable to make copies during the war especially in a brass frame. I think that Colt dominated the market in the late 1850's and did not concern itself with any demand for a lighter 44. Instead, Colt more or less was telling people that if you wanted a handy side arm it would have to be a 36 because 44's were over 4 lb. period. When Remington produced it's 1858, Colt's engineers "bodged together" a competitive 44 by rebating the Dragoon's cylinder and fitting it to what was really a modified Navy frame. Nothing like competition in the market place to make things happen. I also note that the Remington was better at avoiding jams from spent percussion caps, having notches for the hammer between chambers so you could load all six and being actually held together with screws instead of old-fashioned wedges.
Hmm. Have thought more on it and think my original premise was the right one: Colt as a organization had gotten complacent due to market dominance and was shocked out of it with the sudden introduction of the 1858 new model Army by Remington and scrambled to produce the 1860 Colt Army. That stuff about metalurgy was Colt trying to cover its complacency; if it were really needed to produce a 2.5 lb. .44, then the Confederacy would have been unable to make copies during the war especially in a brass frame. I think that Colt dominated the market in the late 1850's and did not concern itself with any demand for a lighter 44. Instead, Colt more or less was telling people that if you wanted a handy side arm it would have to be a 36 because 44's were over 4 lb. period. When Remington produced it's 1858, Colt's engineers "bodged together" a competitive 44 by rebating the Dragoon's cylinder and fitting it to what was really a modified Navy frame. Nothing like competition in the market place to make things happen. I also note that the Remington was better at avoiding jams from spent percussion caps, having notches for the hammer between chambers so you could load all six and being actually held together with screws instead of old-fashioned wedges.
From what I have read about Remington revolvers, the patent was granted in 1858 but production was from 1860-1862 (Remington-Beals army/navy), 1862-1863 (1861 model army/navy), 1863-1875 (1863 new model army/navy). So, the Colt 1860 would've come out around the same time. The replica Remingtons that are popular today and are listed as "1858" models are actually replicas of the 1863 new model army revolver.
As for cavalry tactics in the Civil War, more often than not, cavalry fought dismounted with carbines. There were only a few actual mounted cavalry clashes other than small squad incounters, in the war. Mounted fighting was pure chaos. In the swirl of horses and men that was involved in close quarters combat, you were just as likely to cut down one of your own men or slice the ear off your horse, as hurt an enemy soldier with a saber. Sabers might have been formidable in the right circumstances, but by the time of the Civil War revolvers and carbines were employed more and more often. Confederate General John Hunt Morgan's cavalry threw away their sabers in favor of sawed off shotguns. On one occasion when Morgan's men were being charged by mounted union cavalry, Morgan laughed and said " look at those fools again with the sabers, let 'em have it". Morgan's men stopped the charge cold with devastating rifle fire. The confederates, then mounted up and charged the union survivors with shotguns. Mosby's rangers ruined the day of many union cavalrymen and they were only armed with revolvers. At the battle of Miskel's farm on April 1, 1863, Mosby's rangers were outnumbered more than 2 to 1 by union cavalry. The "yankees" mounted a saber charge. The rangers counter charged with revolvers. The "yankees" lost.....badly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skirmish_at_Miskel_Farm
Sabers are only formidable if you can get close enough. That's hard to do in the face of carbine and pistol fire.
I know that was off topic. Sorry.
As for cavalry tactics in the Civil War, more often than not, cavalry fought dismounted with carbines. There were only a few actual mounted cavalry clashes other than small squad incounters, in the war. Mounted fighting was pure chaos. In the swirl of horses and men that was involved in close quarters combat, you were just as likely to cut down one of your own men or slice the ear off your horse, as hurt an enemy soldier with a saber. Sabers might have been formidable in the right circumstances, but by the time of the Civil War revolvers and carbines were employed more and more often. Confederate General John Hunt Morgan's cavalry threw away their sabers in favor of sawed off shotguns. On one occasion when Morgan's men were being charged by mounted union cavalry, Morgan laughed and said " look at those fools again with the sabers, let 'em have it". Morgan's men stopped the charge cold with devastating rifle fire. The confederates, then mounted up and charged the union survivors with shotguns. Mosby's rangers ruined the day of many union cavalrymen and they were only armed with revolvers. At the battle of Miskel's farm on April 1, 1863, Mosby's rangers were outnumbered more than 2 to 1 by union cavalry. The "yankees" mounted a saber charge. The rangers counter charged with revolvers. The "yankees" lost.....badly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skirmish_at_Miskel_Farm
Sabers are only formidable if you can get close enough. That's hard to do in the face of carbine and pistol fire.
I know that was off topic. Sorry.
Last edited: