film short research(1858/1863pocket/Rogers&Spencer)

P

parsley.farm

Inactive
I'm doing some research for a film...Which is the 'easiest' (read-most cinematic) to change cylinders, the Remington/Pietta New Model (1858), the Remington/Pietta 1863 Pocket, or the Euroarms Rogers & Spencer? I've handled a New Model Army by Pietta that seemed a little difficult to unlatch the ramrod but not allow it to go into the cylinder, half-cock it so the bottom 'dog' exits the notch in the side of the cylinder, and ? to get the spur to exit the back of the cylinder, all the while trying to pull forward on the 'wedge' of the spindle/shaft of the cylinder...all at the same time??? I've never touched the 1863 Pocket or the Rogers&Spencer.

-Jim
ParsleyFarmMotionPictures
 
Any of the 1858 pattern Remington copies can be swapped out in a few seconds, once they are broken in, and once the user knows how to rotate the cylinder into it's position. I can do it by feel with my Uberti copies in about five seconds (if I am not afraid to drop the old cylinder onto a blanket under my feet... it takes as much time to stow the old cylinder as it does to load the new one). Sadly I don't have a two-compartment cylinder pouch as would be needed to do this rapidly and have a place to put the old one.

I am sure you have seen the scene in Pale Rider where Clint Eastwood does this exact thing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQuKXGOoqUc

The key is a double pouch, with one empty compartment to receive the removed cylinder and the other with a prepared cylinder laying in wait. Otherwise you most certainly need three hands, or a pocket that you don't mind getting filthy with black powder residue.

NOBODY as far as I know has ever come up with any historical references to this actually being done though... We all just want to look like Clint.


If I were setting up a shoot for the screen, first... I would not use Pietta, as the barrel markings will be a giveaway if the lighting is not carefully done or if there are any close up shots. I'd use Uberti. Second, I would not hesitate to take said Uberti and stone a few of the surfaces to slick it up for smoothness. A brand new one will be stiff, and a few thousandths of an inch stoned off of the Hand (the part that rotates the cylinder) makes life a lot easier. A little crocus cloth on the arbor and some valve grinding compound spread on the meshing parts and then cycling it a hundred times before cleaning the valve grinding compound out of the thing will fit the moving parts about the same as a decade of hard use... ;)


Willie


.
 
I've handled a New Model Army by Pietta that seemed a little difficult to unlatch the ramrod but not allow it to go into the cylinder, half-cock it so the bottom 'dog' exits the notch in the side of the cylinder, and ? to get the spur to exit the back of the cylinder, all the while trying to pull forward on the 'wedge' of the spindle/shaft of the cylinder...all at the same time???
Click to expand...

I noticed the same problem with my new 1858 Pietta. The cylinder spindle shaft was difficult to pull out and difficult to re-engage. This seems to have loosened up after firing 100 or so rounds.

I find it best to cock the hammer just enough so that both the hammer itself and the hand are withdrawn into the frame of the gun. Then the cylinder drops out freely and installs freely. This is not half-cock but somewhat less than that I think.

It can be a bit fiddly to keep the loading ram from dropping into one of the cylinder bores during extraction, but I find it helpful to allow it to do so during re-installation as it helps align the cylinder for the spindle. But this is with an empty cylinder where the ram has someplace to go. This might not be true with a loaded cylinder depending on how deep your balls are set.

Steve
 
I find it best to cock the hammer just enough so that both the hammer itself and the hand are withdrawn into the frame of the gun. Then the cylinder drops out freely and installs freely.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, without doing so, you have to give the cylinder a little clockwise turn to "roll it into the hand" so to speak. Cylinder pouches as Willie suggests would make the process so much easier. I personally leave it in the half cock position, I've gotten used to just giving the cylinder a little turn to mesh with the hand. And Willie is right again, about the huge markings on Pietta Firearms. But another Suggestion is Cimmeron Firearms, the markings on those are so tiny they are hard to see even holding the pistol up close. They also have different finishes to pick from, depending on what look you may be going for.
 
But another Suggestion is Cimmeron Firearms



Which are just Uberti's... with a small additional marking "Address Cimmaron Fitchberg TX" on the top of the barrel.


The Uberti's that Taylors and Stoeger import are identical save for their being no visible external markings.


To summarize:


Two makers, Pietta and Uberti.


One importer of Piettas, and all of them are garishly marked on both sides of the barrel.

Three importers of Ubertis, one with a small marking on top of the barrel (Cimmaron) and the other two (Taylors and Stoeger) unmarked.


Willie

.
 
A Colt shooter could tap the wedge out with the front or side of the loaded cylinder. (Remember this is a gunfight. You won't be worried about scratching your pretty cylinder) A properly setup Colt wedge comes out easily. After swapping cylinders a gentle tap with the empty cylinder resets the wedge. Faster and more elegant than a Remington. Look at the clip again. About 3 min. and 30 sec. into it Hoss is fumbling with his clunky Remington. Who wants to see that?
 
Yeah, till you drop that wedge and it falls into a crack in the floorboards! :)

Who wants to take their gun to pieces to load it?

Steve
 
A properly setup Colt retains the wedge with the wedge spring and screw. My experience with Remingtons (both original & repos) is that a hammer is required to remove the cylinder pin due to fouling. A spare cylinder is worthless if you can't get the empty one out.
 
1863 pocket

Would the 1863 pocket be exactly the same to swap cylinders as the 1858? Also, on the Rogers & Spencer...Is it similar? I thought I read that it has a screw to turn out to swap. Anyone know how long that would take?
 
Would the 1863 pocket be exactly the same to swap cylinders as the 1858? Also, on the Rogers & Spencer...Is it similar? I thought I read that it has a screw to turn out to swap. Anyone know how long that would take?
Click to expand...

I can't help on the Rogers And Spencer, but yes the 1863 operates the same way as its big brother. Just a smaller scale and no trigger guard.
 
Little Joe was a Colt man. Hoss was a Remington guy. I don't know about you guys but when Bonanza was in first run I wanted to be like Little Joe. All the girls liked him. Hoss, not so much.
 
Let me muddy this up

I'd say the Starr revolver is quicker to swap cylinders than either a Remmie or a Colt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top