Colt revolvers in history...

[ffs1942]

What gave Colt the lion's share of the revolver market through the frontier period?

In the percussion era, the Remington seemed a far superior design, but both the Army and civilians preferred the Colt.

In the cartridge era, the Schofield Smith and Wesson seemed superior to the Colt SAA, but once again, Colt won out.

I have a few theories about this.

Colts pointed better and few frontiersmen used or desired the superior sights if the Remington.

Remingtons were made from inferior materials and were prone to corrosion.

Smith and Wessons had the same problem. Schofield also seem to be quite muzzle heavy, maybe due to all the mechanism ahead of the cylinder, but this could be an advantage on a horse or in deliberate, slow fire.

Colt was a much better salesman.

So, why was Colt so much more popular?

 

[Jim Watson]

One factor is that Remington and Smith & Wesson had lucrative foreign contracts that tied up a lot of their production capacity. Colt got a lot of the domestic market by default.

 

[maillemaker]

I have been reading a few books lately on the history of the Colt firearms while trying to track down a citation for the "Colt Walker was designed to shoot a horse" meme.

There is a lot of surviving correspondence of Colt's.

Colt was a good salesman. He was constantly seeking out and making contacts within the government of people who had the authority to buy his firearms. He also gave away firearms to these people as gifts. His Patterson revolvers made a reputation for him and so did his subsequent entries during the Mexican War.

So, the Mexican War came along at the right time for him, plus he was good at lobbying and bribing people who could secure government contracts.

Steve

 

[Smokin'Joe]

In the cartridge era, the Schofield Smith and Wesson seemed superior to the Colt SAA

The Schofield used a shorter cartridge than Colt and could only shoot that short cartridge. The Colt used a longer cartridge but could also shoot the S&W cartridge. The army really liked this fact because if somebody ordered the wrong ammo for a frontier outpost the Colt would always be able to shoot it. The S&W would be out of action if only Colt ammo was available.

 

[Kappe]

After the Civil War, soldiers bought more percussion Remingtons from the government than Colts.

Remington's Model 1875 failed because of bad decisions regarding the chambering. Had nothing to do with materials or corrosion.

 

[Lucas McCain]

All of what you have said is true, but the most important thing that Colt had was connections and political savvy.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Remingtons were made from inferior materials and were prone to corrosion.

Smith and Wessons had the same problem. Schofield also seem to be quite muzzle heavy, maybe due to all the mechanism ahead of the cylinder, but this could be an advantage on a horse or in deliberate, slow fire.

Excuse me? Smith and Wessons were made from inferior materials and prone to corrosion? Care to enlighten us on where you heard that? Or have you been taken in by Sam Colt's claims of the superiority of his 'Silver Steel'?

Along with being a great entrepreneur, Sam Colt was a terrific huckster too. When he was a young man he toured the country giving demonstrations of laughing gas. He billed himself as "the Celebrated Dr. Coult of New-York, London and Calcutta". His show was right out of the patent medicine era, he would have members of the audience come up on the stage, administer the gas, then have them make fools of themselves just like a hypnotist does. The point is, his advertising was full of the kind of hyperbole which was common in the 19th Century, including extravagant claims for the superiority of the steel he was using. Horace Smith and D. B. Wesson on the other hand were old fashioned, serious New England business men and did not play such games.

Yes, Smith & Wesson's production was mostly tied up with foreign contracts. From 1871 until 1878 Smith and Wesson produced about 150,000 Russian models, most of which were sold to foreign governments.

As to why you didn't see more Schofields, there simply were not that many made. Only about 9,000 were made from 1875 -1877. No more were ever made. In 1878 S&W came out with the completely new, redesigned New Model #3, the finest single action revolver that was ever made.

As for the Schofield being muzzle heavy, I just did a little experiment. I took my 7" 1st Model Schofield and compared it to my 7 1/2" 2nd Gen Colt. Could barely tell the difference. Not very muzzle heavy at all.

 

[SIGSHR]

Samuel Colt died on January 10, 1862. But he left an Organization.
The version I read said S&W was so tied up with the orders they received from the Russians that they couldn't meet domestic demand. The Remington, I'm not sure. It was sort of a Poor Man's Colt. A modern analogy is the Colt Python
and a Dan Wesson with the heavy vent shroud. The Dan Wesson is superbly accurate, with the heavy vent shroud it looks like a Python, costs a lot less, but shooters still prefer the Python. The Python has a cachet, a "mystique".

 

[Malamute]

The Remington percussion pistols didn't have a good reputation in the beginning. They tended to foul and seize up much sooner, and they had problems with cylinders bursting, and guns failing to work. Some correspondence from western frontier cavalry mentioned that half or more of the Remington revolvers were not functional, and the men didnt trust the remaining ones. The CO preferred to leave them at the fort than take them into the field.

The Colts worked for the most part. They were more reliable than most competitors, and people trusted them. Doesnt take much more than that.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

The Remington percussion pistols didn't have a good reputation in the beginning. They tended to foul and seize up much sooner, and they had problems with cylinders bursting, and guns failing to work. Some correspondence from western frontier cavalry mentioned that half or more of the Remington revolvers were not functional, and the men didnt trust the remaining ones. The CO preferred to leave them at the fort than take them into the field.

The Colts worked for the most part. They were more reliable than most competitors, and people trusted them. Doesnt take much more than that.

Well, that's interesting. I never read before about the Remingtons tending to foul and seize more, but I can attest to the fact that they do tend to do that.

There is no cylinder bushing on the front of the Remington 1858 Model. The cylinder is flat faced. A bushing on the front of the cylinder is what keeps Black Powder fouling blasted out of the barrel/cylinder gap away from the cylinder pin. The bushing shields the pin. With the Remington, fouling blasted onto the cylinder pin works its way down between the pin and the cylinder, causing the cylinder to bind. This is the main cause of binding with a Black Powder revolver. Here is a photo of a Remington replica and a Colt 1860 Army replica with their respective cylinders. Notice the Colt has a much larger diameter arbor, and there are helical grooves cut around the arbor. These grooves give any fouling that gets onto the arbor someplace to go, to prevent it binding against the cylinder. That fact and the fact that the arbor is a larger diameter helps keep a Colt shooting longer without binding. You can see I cut some grooves on the arbor of the Remington to help with the fouling problem, but it does not help much.

Colt learned this lesson well, and when the Single Action Army came out in 1873 it had a removable bushing on the front of the cylinder, to shield the cylinder pin against fouling. The SAA shoots very well with Black Powder and does not bind up quickly, owing to its cylinder bushing design.

This photo shows the bushings on the front of cylinders. Left to right they are Uberti Cattleman, Ruger Vaquero, and 2nd Gen SAA.

All the firearms makers learned this lesson. Here is the detail of the cylinder and arbor on a S&W New Model #3.

Remington learned the lesson too, and when their cartridge revolver came out in 1875 it too had a bushing on the front of the cylinder. But the 1875 and 1890 Remingtons just never caught on.

 

[Kappe]

I can tell you exactly why the Remington 1875 didn't catch on.

The design of the gun itself is sound. It's sturdy, handsome, and addressed some of the complaints with the old percussion model Remington. In addition to the cylinder bushing, the space between the frontstrap and the trigger guard was widened, where on the percussion Remington that space was slightly cramped and uncomfortable. The Remington design is also more modern than the Colt in that the grip is made integral to the frame, thereby using less screws.
One minor knock on the gun itself is the ejector rod. The spring is contained in the web below the barrel, but the rod itself is exposed to the elements. The reason for this is if you've ever looked up the three patent dates that are on the side of a Colt SAA, the first two from 1871 (US117461) and 1872 (US128644) both pertain to the ejector. Remington couldn't use an ejector assembly like the Colt's, so in a way the Remington ejector is rather clever.

The problem with the Model 1875 begins with the caliber it was introduced in - .44 Remington. It was proprietary, heeled, and NOT interchangeable with .44 Colt as is sometimes stated.
If it were, I suspect the gun would have sold a bit better as the .44 Colt was in wide distribution, while the .44 Remington certainly was not.

When Remington wised up in 1880 and chambered the gun in .44-40, they cut corners and reused the same .44 Remington cylinders, resulting is oversized chamber mouths and extremely poor accuracy.
.44 Remington was somewhere between .446" to .450". .44-40 is .427". Mike Venturino noted in Shooting Sixguns of the Old West that his .44-40 Remington keyholed every shot.

By the time they fixed it, if they ever did, the damage was already done to the gun's reputation.