Most durable lockwork, Remington or Colt?

Status
Not open for further replies.
MJN77, I didn't say cavalry never fought. I said they didn't fight much, which I think is true. I didn't mean to imply cowardice. It's just that cavalry was basically a recon arm and typically did things like scout, observe enemy movements, report back, etc. Yes, I know there were occasionally serious cavalry battles like Yellow Tavern, and cavalry was also sometimes called upon to skirmish against advancing armies to slow their progress, things like that, and occasionally in desperate situations a cavalry unit might actually be caught in a situation where it was vital for them to hold a particular position at all costs. Such a case happened at Gettysburg when Buford's cavalry did have to hold on until the Army of the Potomac could arrive on the scene in force, and if not for Buford's cavalry holding that ground, that battle may have turned out very much differently than it did. The cavalry arm also did things like ride around armies, rustle up beefsteak, cut telegraph wires, tear up railroad tracks, and attack disorganized retreating enemy, which is exactly what they were supposed to be doing.

This really ain't the forum for a Civil War argument.

But things had usually gone pretty wrong if a cavalry unit had to fight a pitched battle.

Having said that, I also think there was a great disparity between the casualties suffered by the typical infantry regiment in the Civil War as compared to the casualties suffered by the typical cavalry regiment, and the infantry troops suffered much greater casualties. I think the basic "unfairness" of that, if you want to call it that, was what brought on Gen. D.H. Hill 's bitter comment.

I don't have any statistics at hand to prove my point and if you disagree, so be it, I don't plan to do any research on it, but for anyone who wants to, the casualty statistics for just about every unit can be found.
 
Of all the replies only a couple address the original question about lock work strength.
I can only surmise with less experience than the first couple responses, both would be about equal.
However, these days, I would certainly explore the overall quality of the revolvers from different overseas manufacturers.
 
can you explain to me why a Remington has a stronger frame design over the Colt? Is it because it has a top strap?

In my opinion the Colt design is stupid, just my opinion there. I work with mechanisms every day and have done a lot of designing over the last 30 years, after a while it gets pretty easy to spot a strong design verses a weak one.

Now, before anyone gets all upset let me state again that this is all just my personal opinion and also (Again) that in practice it probably doesn't matter that much, and the seizure from powder fouling would be a real problem, but that's a problem that could have easily been rectified by making the pin larger in the Remington, or incorporating a baffle that would have stopped the gasses from getting to the pin, so it's not a Germane point. The reason the Colt cylinder axle pin is so large is because it has to be in order to work at all.
Hanging all of it, the barrel, rammer and all, on that cylinder pin is what I would call poor engineering since the Remington design is so natural. Why go that way when the strong way is so obvious?

For another design example; Is the solid frame design obviously stronger than the hinged design of the S&W top break revolvers? Of course it is! Does it matter? Probably not since the trade off accomplished a good purpose, faster loading. But Colt's pioneer design offers no advantage over the solid frame that makes sense to me, and I can hardly understand why Colt did it that way, there was no need for it.
Good designs are copied through long periods of time and design evolution, the Remington design is still being used in modern revolvers, Colt's design is not.

I apologize to anyone offended by the above. I have a lot of weird ideas, for instance, all revolvers were obsolete after 1911, :D
 
Oh, another question, how would you carry an extra loaded and capped cylinder without worrying about one of the caps hitting something? :confused:
 
You wouldn't. Only a fool would carry a loaded and capped extra cylinder - or maybe a soldier who was willing to risk it because he thought he might need more than six bullets -and might need them awful fast. (See Battle of Little Big Horn)

OOps, they were using cartridges there weren't they? But you get my drift.
 
Last edited:
Infantry soldiers didn't carry any more than they had to. Many were issued revolvers at the beginning of the war only to throw them away along with bayonets and other useless items. Cavalry didn't carry spare cylinders. Yeah they had cartridges at the Little Big Horn.
 
If you've ever done any relic hunting with metal detectors you will know , at least in Virginia that if you find a campsite or a good stopping point that 10-50 roundballs or minies would be dumped in a hole and covered up by the soldiers. These guys didn't haul around anymore than they had to. Back in the early eighties when I was relic hunting it was fairly common to find dumped and buried bullets but NEVER a cylinder. And I've never heard of a loose cylinder being found.:D
 
HisSoldier said:
In my opinion the Colt design is stupid, just my opinion there.

So that is why you think the top strap revolver is stronger? What was the most powerful revolver until S&W introduced the .357 magnum? Was it a top strap design?

Not really a fair question as the Walker wins by it's massive chamber volume of nearly 60grs.


No one carried extra cylinders until Josy Wales did in 1976. The surviving manufacturer sales records show very few extra cylinders were sold. Must extra cylinders went with cased sets as presentation models.
 
In my opinion the Colt design is stupid, just my opinion there
Why? For the powders used at the time, the open top design was plenty strong enough. Plus, when the wedge is removed, the revolver easily comes apart for cleaning. That was a big plus, over the single shot muzzleloading pistols that came before it. As has been pointed out earlier, the top strap only makes for a stronger gun when smokeless powder is used. Not attacking your opinion, just pointing out the other side of the coin.
 
Lemee see if I got this straight.

1. During the Civil War, Colt and Remington made tens of thousands of revolvers that no one carried.

2. Cavalrymen preferred sabers to revolvers.

3. Soldiers buried bullets to save weight.

4. Soldiers had no idea that they could increase their firepower many-fold by changing cylinders in a Remington revolver until 1976 when The Outlaw Josey Wales made that discovery. "You can just take one out and put another one in", he said. "Whodda thunk it?"

5. The reason for the Remington guns strange popularity among the soldiers who didn't use revolvers is still a mystery today because tRemington's were no better than Colts other than in the ease with which you could swap cylinders in them, but no one knew that til Josey Wales came along in 1976.
 
1. During the Civil War, Colt and Remington made tens of thousands of revolvers that no one carried.
Who said that?

2. Cavalrymen preferred sabers to revolvers.
Didn't say they were preferred, but as far as the cavalry regulations were concerned, the sabre was considered the primary sidearm.

3. Soldiers buried bullets to save weight
Some infantrymen were known to discard bullets from cartridges that became broken in their cartridge boxes, when they were able to get resupplied.

4. Soldiers had no idea that they could increase their firepower many-fold by changing cylinders in a Remington revolver until 1976 when The Outlaw Josey Wales made that discovery. "You can just take one out and put another one in", he said. "Whodda thunk it?"
An extra cylinder was extra weight that not many people cared to deal with. They were also a special order item (and considerable cost) from the factory, that needed to be hand fitted to the weapon they were to be used in. One could not be used in different guns. They were also not needed. You seem to think that revolvers were used all the time, when in fact they were not. Some union cavalry units weren't even issued revolvers at all. Major Leonidas Scranton of the 2nd Michigan Cavalry wrote, "Pistols are useless. I have known regiments that have been in the field over two years that have never used their pistols. At a charge, the SABRE is the weapon."

5. The reason for the Remington guns strange popularity among the soldiers who didn't use revolvers is still a mystery today because tRemington's were no better than Colts other than in the ease with which you could swap cylinders in them, but no one knew that til Josey Wales came along in 1976.
The Remington's popularity was based on the fact that they were considered more accurate and easier to disassemble than the Colt revolvers. Also some said that they "hit harder" (Frank James) than the Colt. Getting a "spare" cylinder "back then" wasn't like it is today. You didn't go to Cabela's and pick up a few. They would've been specal ordered from the factory, and would've taken weeks/months to be recieved (no FedEx/UPS, ya' know). They would've also, as I have already said, had to be hand fitted to your specific gun. How feasible and cost effective do you think this would've been. Show me an historic account about changing cylinders in the war, or after, instead of one account that you remember from your childhood, from someone long after the war. You make a lot of claims without evidence to back them up, sir.
 
Last edited:
I don't know about burying bullets to save weight. I've dug campsites from Ms. to S.C.and never found a hoard of buried bullets. I do know that during a retreat they'd bury whatever they couldn't carry, including ditching cannons in the nearest body of water. I know where (kinda/sorta) two confederate cannons are buried. One is public knowledge and has been hunted for years. It was dumped in a river and the river has now silted over. It would take an excavator to find it now. I'm probably one of only two people that know where the other one is and I ain't talking.:D
 
Re: MJN77's last post:

and you seem to have trouble recognizing tongue-in-cheek when you see it sir, or perhaps my post was not quite as cute as I thought it was.
 
2. Cavalrymen preferred sabers to revolvers.

The saber was considered the primary weapon. In reality they used what ever their commanding officer used, if he drew his saber they all drew sabers, like wise if he drew a revolver.


4. Soldiers had no idea that they could increase their firepower many-fold by changing cylinders in a Remington revolver until 1976 when The Outlaw Josey Wales made that discovery. "You can just take one out and put another one in", he said. "Whodda thunk it?"

They carried extra revolvers if they could afford to buy them. Changing cylinders is Hollywood romance.:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top