1860 Colt Development
- Thread starter jvandy3
- Start date
Remington 1858 spurred Colt's development of the 1860
Regardless of the actual production dates, The Remington came before the 1860 Colt. Whether it was in production or just being patented. Whether Colt saw the patent application (very conceivable) or a prototype somewhere, he would have been aware of Remington's development and it's threat to the Colt market. Up to that point, Colt was presenting a 44 as a 4-pound saddle gun while a belt pistol of 2.5 lbs. as being limited to 36 caliber.
Regardless of the actual production dates, The Remington came before the 1860 Colt. Whether it was in production or just being patented. Whether Colt saw the patent application (very conceivable) or a prototype somewhere, he would have been aware of Remington's development and it's threat to the Colt market. Up to that point, Colt was presenting a 44 as a 4-pound saddle gun while a belt pistol of 2.5 lbs. as being limited to 36 caliber.
If you say so. Do you have evidence of this, or is it a theory? Apparently your mind is made up. I'm just wondering if it is based in fact or conjecture. Not being sarcastic, if you have proof of this I would be interested to see it. Colt had been working on a smaller .44 since complaints from some British officers about the navy revolver's lack of stopping power. During the Crimean War (1853-1856) some british officers carried privatly owned 1851 navys to battle. In combat, sometimes an attacker would take all six rounds from the .36 and still kill the shooter before dying. This was the first "test" of the 1851 in war. So, Colt was working on the concept of a "belt model" .44 for a few years before Remington even had a patent. Remington may have spurred them on a bit, but Colt had their own ideas going. You seem to believe firearm design was an easy thing in the 1850s. With the technology and metals they had to work with, it wasn't. Look at the Walker revolver. It was the first .44 colt and it was bigger and heavier than the Dragoons. Several of them blew up due to poor quality steel. After that experience I think Col. Colt would've been pretty cautious in the design of a smaller .44. You also have to take into account that this was a new field. The first revolver was only 22 years old in 1858. The first successful revolver was 11 years old. Colt wasn't dictating the size of .44 pistols, he was working with the technology of the time.
Last edited:
reply to MJN77
Well, I guess I did sound a bit stubborn there, but I am quite familiar with engineering progress and difficulty so I am under no delusions as to the difficulties involved. However, from the above discussion, there seems that Colt did some after the fact talking about metalurgy to make a light 44 to explain why they had not done so earlier. And Colt had not, to my knowlege, produced one until the appearance of the 1858 Remington 44. Looking at the 1860 Colt Army, it does appear to be a modified 1851 Colt Navy frame with a rebated Dragoon cylinder mated to it.
This is my theory that I am proposing as an iterrpretion of these facts. Although Colt was doing some experimenting with the idea, things did not come to fruition until the appearance of the Remington Army even if the appearance of the 1858 was only a patent application (although I think it may have been some early production). I know the Walker was really big and heavy but it was also firing up to 60 grains of powder (although probably more often less powder than that) whereas the 1858 Remington and 1860 Colts were rated for much less powder at maximum. I am just theorizing here to push out an idea that Remington came out with a much more advanced product that sort-of kicked Colt into responding.
Well, I guess I did sound a bit stubborn there, but I am quite familiar with engineering progress and difficulty so I am under no delusions as to the difficulties involved. However, from the above discussion, there seems that Colt did some after the fact talking about metalurgy to make a light 44 to explain why they had not done so earlier. And Colt had not, to my knowlege, produced one until the appearance of the 1858 Remington 44. Looking at the 1860 Colt Army, it does appear to be a modified 1851 Colt Navy frame with a rebated Dragoon cylinder mated to it.
This is my theory that I am proposing as an iterrpretion of these facts. Although Colt was doing some experimenting with the idea, things did not come to fruition until the appearance of the Remington Army even if the appearance of the 1858 was only a patent application (although I think it may have been some early production). I know the Walker was really big and heavy but it was also firing up to 60 grains of powder (although probably more often less powder than that) whereas the 1858 Remington and 1860 Colts were rated for much less powder at maximum. I am just theorizing here to push out an idea that Remington came out with a much more advanced product that sort-of kicked Colt into responding.
I think there is still a misunderstanding on the dates. Remington's .44 revolvers carried the Beals patent date of 1858, but none were actually made until 1861, after the Civil War began. So there never was a Model 1858 Remington, and Remington never used that term for any revolver. It is a modern term, taken from the patent date and today refers to about any Remington percussion revolver or imitation thereof.
As to the story that Remingtons were considered superior to Colts because caps didn't get hung up, the opposite is true. A fired cap in the Remington tended to fall into the mechanism, while one from a Colt would either fall out or could be shaken out by turning the gun upside down and shaking it. The common practice was to bring the revolver back over the shoulder and shake it while cocking it, then bringing it down. Incredibly, the Army taught troops to point the pistol up and back then bring it down on the target through WWII, even though the Model 1911A1 seldom jammed from fired caps.
One more point, Civil War cavalry did fight from horseback, or at least Union cavalry did. Some Confederate units fought on foot for the simple reason that they had muskets and shotguns and had no choice, since the unwieldly weapons could not be used from horseback. In general, Union cavalry fought dismounted only where horses couldn't go or where they had to dig in to hold a position. While Federal cavalry was (rightly) discounted in the early years, they learned the trade the hard way and were highly effective as cavalry by war's end. Breechloading and repeating carbines made them even more feared by their opponents.
Morgan's famous quote (which has been attributed to others as well) may have been true at the time and place, but his muzzle loading shotguns would not have been very effective against Spencers, and he knew it. (Mosby favored the ambush, where his men would have been effective almost regardless of the weapons carried by the Union forces since they never got a chance to use them.)
Jim
As to the story that Remingtons were considered superior to Colts because caps didn't get hung up, the opposite is true. A fired cap in the Remington tended to fall into the mechanism, while one from a Colt would either fall out or could be shaken out by turning the gun upside down and shaking it. The common practice was to bring the revolver back over the shoulder and shake it while cocking it, then bringing it down. Incredibly, the Army taught troops to point the pistol up and back then bring it down on the target through WWII, even though the Model 1911A1 seldom jammed from fired caps.
One more point, Civil War cavalry did fight from horseback, or at least Union cavalry did. Some Confederate units fought on foot for the simple reason that they had muskets and shotguns and had no choice, since the unwieldly weapons could not be used from horseback. In general, Union cavalry fought dismounted only where horses couldn't go or where they had to dig in to hold a position. While Federal cavalry was (rightly) discounted in the early years, they learned the trade the hard way and were highly effective as cavalry by war's end. Breechloading and repeating carbines made them even more feared by their opponents.
Morgan's famous quote (which has been attributed to others as well) may have been true at the time and place, but his muzzle loading shotguns would not have been very effective against Spencers, and he knew it. (Mosby favored the ambush, where his men would have been effective almost regardless of the weapons carried by the Union forces since they never got a chance to use them.)
Jim
"One more point, Civil War cavalry did fight from horseback, or at least Union cavalry did."
.....and as you mention until 1863, the confederate cavalry rode circles around them. Brandy Station, June 9 1863, is the first time man for man that the union cavalry held it's own against their southern counterparts.
"they learned the trade the hard way and were highly effective as cavalry by war's end"
This statment helps make my above point
Read about John Buford's fight with elements of Gen. Heath's division at Gettysburg. That was standard tactics. He fought dismounted and held off a much larger force of confederate infantry for a few hours. I say again, there were very few LARGE SCALE mounted cavalry battles.
Also, on the other side of the coin read about union Brig. Gen. Elon J. Farnsworth's death at Gettysburg. He died leading a failed mounted attack against rebel infantry from Hood's division..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_J._Farnsworth
Mounted attacks seldom worked against infantry or dismounted cavalry, unless surprise was achieved (rear/flank attack) or the infantry was beaten and demoralized and the cavalry was thrown at them to "hasten" their retreat or catch a few prisoners. The main use for mounted troops in the civil war, was scouting, screening, and skirmishing. They were no longer the "shock troops" that they had been in previous wars. The rifle musket saw to that.
"but his muzzle loading shotguns would not have been very effective against Spencers, and he knew it."
That's why he used them against sabers. Morgan's men adopted shotguns to replace only their sabers. They still had rifles/carbines and revolvers.
"Mosby favored the ambush, where his men would have been effective almost regardless of the weapons carried by the Union forces since they never got a chance to use them."
If you read the link I posted, you will notice that at Miskel's Farm it was Mosby that was surprised. He was caught and outnumbered more than 2/1. The "yankees" had the upper hand. He won because Capt. Flint decided to order a saber charge. Mosby's men fought back with revolvers. Flint was one of the first men to die (with 6 bullets in him I might add).
.....and as you mention until 1863, the confederate cavalry rode circles around them. Brandy Station, June 9 1863, is the first time man for man that the union cavalry held it's own against their southern counterparts.
"they learned the trade the hard way and were highly effective as cavalry by war's end"
This statment helps make my above point
Read about John Buford's fight with elements of Gen. Heath's division at Gettysburg. That was standard tactics. He fought dismounted and held off a much larger force of confederate infantry for a few hours. I say again, there were very few LARGE SCALE mounted cavalry battles.
Also, on the other side of the coin read about union Brig. Gen. Elon J. Farnsworth's death at Gettysburg. He died leading a failed mounted attack against rebel infantry from Hood's division..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_J._Farnsworth
Mounted attacks seldom worked against infantry or dismounted cavalry, unless surprise was achieved (rear/flank attack) or the infantry was beaten and demoralized and the cavalry was thrown at them to "hasten" their retreat or catch a few prisoners. The main use for mounted troops in the civil war, was scouting, screening, and skirmishing. They were no longer the "shock troops" that they had been in previous wars. The rifle musket saw to that.
"but his muzzle loading shotguns would not have been very effective against Spencers, and he knew it."
That's why he used them against sabers. Morgan's men adopted shotguns to replace only their sabers. They still had rifles/carbines and revolvers.
"Mosby favored the ambush, where his men would have been effective almost regardless of the weapons carried by the Union forces since they never got a chance to use them."
If you read the link I posted, you will notice that at Miskel's Farm it was Mosby that was surprised. He was caught and outnumbered more than 2/1. The "yankees" had the upper hand. He won because Capt. Flint decided to order a saber charge. Mosby's men fought back with revolvers. Flint was one of the first men to die (with 6 bullets in him I might add).
Last edited:
reply to jvandy3
"This is my theory that I am proposing as an iterrpretion of these facts"
Nothing wrong with that. Not everyone thinks the same. I agree that Remington may have spurred them on a bit, but I also think that Colt had the 1860 concept in the works before "1858". As I posted previously, the Remington wasn't produced until 1860/61. That's about the same time as the Colt army, although it was patented 2 years earlier. So I agree with you to a point. It doesn't really matter to me, I like them both
.
"This is my theory that I am proposing as an iterrpretion of these facts"
Nothing wrong with that. Not everyone thinks the same. I agree that Remington may have spurred them on a bit, but I also think that Colt had the 1860 concept in the works before "1858". As I posted previously, the Remington wasn't produced until 1860/61. That's about the same time as the Colt army, although it was patented 2 years earlier. So I agree with you to a point. It doesn't really matter to me, I like them both
.sergestorm
Inactive
The development of the Colt 1860 Army had to wait for better metalurgy and the engineering genius of Elisha K. Root. Colt could buy "crusible steel" from the Allen and Thurber Co who had a propriatary process but they were competitors. Root developed manufacturing shortcuts, improvements in metalurgy, and tooling. He also had to deal with the fact that certain design improvements (like center-hammer top-strap frame) were already patented by others.
You see, the Devil is in the details, it is allways the details in history that are important and that is why I really resent the simplified histories you so often find. Here we have information I did not previously have about developments by Elisha K. Root. This does raise the question as to whether or not the Remington Army was more than just patent drawings in 1858 or was there a prototype? Did Remington have the steel capable of doing the job as your history about Elisha Roots work suggests was necessary to the making of a light 44? If they did, how did they get it when Roots was working so hard to do so?
You imply Roots faced a patent for a top strap frame that blocked him from making one? Didn't Colt say at one time that his company would never make a top-framed revolver while he yet lived? (Maybe I remember wrong.)
Someone else wrote that the Remingtons had more trouble with spent caps jamming their works than Colts. I never fired a Colt but have read that the Colts had problems with the caps falling into the works between the hammer and the frame and that the Remington's had a much smaller gap and did not suffer that problem. However, have had a spent cap jam my Remington. Did also read an article in which the author insisted that the original pistols of the period had a cut or gap formed in the backing plate of the frame to guide the spent caps out whereas the modern replicas do not have it correctly copied. But I don't really know. Anyway, I seem to be getting fed some really good information on this thread.
You imply Roots faced a patent for a top strap frame that blocked him from making one? Didn't Colt say at one time that his company would never make a top-framed revolver while he yet lived? (Maybe I remember wrong.)
Someone else wrote that the Remingtons had more trouble with spent caps jamming their works than Colts. I never fired a Colt but have read that the Colts had problems with the caps falling into the works between the hammer and the frame and that the Remington's had a much smaller gap and did not suffer that problem. However, have had a spent cap jam my Remington. Did also read an article in which the author insisted that the original pistols of the period had a cut or gap formed in the backing plate of the frame to guide the spent caps out whereas the modern replicas do not have it correctly copied. But I don't really know. Anyway, I seem to be getting fed some really good information on this thread.
Ideal Tool
Moderator
Hello, This is an interesting post! There is another side to the .44 story, I haven't seen mentioned. Colt had a London factory, and was trying hard to obtain military contracts for it's revolvers...they were pushing the 1851 pretty hard. The Brits bought some, used them in the Crimea, & Indian Mutiny. There were reports of failure to stop...The british were using .45 &
.50 caliber double-action revolvers & liked the stopping power. One thing I read, the British stated the navy Colt had a range of 200yds. And that while they were more accurate & probably suited the American west better, again, it was lacking in stopping power, especially with the conical type bullet. It looks like the small & fast, vrs. big & slow, goes back further than the current 9mm vrs. .45 auto argument of today!
.50 caliber double-action revolvers & liked the stopping power. One thing I read, the British stated the navy Colt had a range of 200yds. And that while they were more accurate & probably suited the American west better, again, it was lacking in stopping power, especially with the conical type bullet. It looks like the small & fast, vrs. big & slow, goes back further than the current 9mm vrs. .45 auto argument of today!
Winchester_73
New member
I can tell you that the pale rider chose the remington over the colt and at the end of the movie, he needed the remington for the solid, closed top frame feature that it had.....
According to the movies they didn't have those problems; the Civil War was fought with Model 1873 Colts and Model 1892 Winchesters, with an occasional Model 1896 Krag, Model 1893 Mauser and Model 1903 Springfield thrown in for good measure. And they all wore white cowboy hats.
Jim
Jim
There were some Gatling guns used in the Civil War, but in the only CW movie I can recall seeing one used, it was some kind of fake, maybe a Browning 1919 with a fake sheet metal housing.
What is really funny is when the director or producer brags that the movie is absolutely authentic, even to using the correct button insignia, and then they use Great Western copies of the Colt SAA and 1892 Winchesters. Don't you love authenticity?
Jim
What is really funny is when the director or producer brags that the movie is absolutely authentic, even to using the correct button insignia, and then they use Great Western copies of the Colt SAA and 1892 Winchesters. Don't you love authenticity?
Jim
sergestorm
Inactive
The 1855 "Root" revolver manufactured by Colt got around the top strap-center hammer patent by mounting the hammer on the side of the frame and installing the cylinder pin in from the back. Both Remington and Eli Whitney paid a royalty for the use of the patent design. Sam Colt felt the open top design was better for the large bore Army revolver (Root psitols are all small caliber) because it was able to be broken down easily for cleaning and the ability to use a large diameter, spiral-threaded cylinder arbor. Most cavalrymen thought so too as it was preferred over the sturdier top-strap designs like Starr, Remington, etc.