Most durable lockwork, Remington or Colt?

[DG45]

madcratebuilder, sorry, I can't buy it. I don't think the average joe could afford a second cylinder, and I don't think there was a lot of cylinder swaping due to cost, but there were lots of independently wealthy officers who could afford it and I'm sure some did. I think that the officers who could aford to do so were probably exactly the same people who pushed the Army to start buying Remington revolvers.

As far as changing cylinders being a recent romantic movie thing, it isn't. The first time a soldier cleaned his Remington revolver he would have discovered that its cylinder could be removed and replaced in seconds, and that the gun broke down into only two pieces in that operation. Can you imagine what a revelation that must have been to a soldier who'd previously, to change cylinders on his Colt revolver, had to hammer the wedge out of it (making sure not to lose the tiny wedge), then remove the barrel, then pull the spent cylinder off its arbor, giving him 4 seperate pieces cof metal to deal with, then put another cylinder on the arbor, replace the barrel and drive the wedge back in. That Colt cylinder was a cylinder that in reality rarely if ever got changed. But surely, every officer who'd previously felt the need to carry multiple heavy revolvers, and some surely did do that, immediately recognized they could lose about 5 pounds of gun weight and yet maintain the same firepower by simply carrying an extra loaded cylinder or two. You think that never happened? Of course it hapened. Can I prove it? No. I can't PROVE that OJ Simpson did the crime either but....
So why have none ever been found? Well, first of all, I don't know for a fact that NONE have EVER been found. What proves that? The guys on this forum have never found one, nor have I, but to say that one has NEVER BEEN FOUND is a hard statement to document. I would willingly yield the point that few, if any, have ever been found, but the Remington Revolver came along late in the war after many of the biggest battles had already been fought and there were comparatively few people who could afford to do this anyway. I have nothing else to add on this, and I'm sure the only thing that will come of all this is that we will agree to disagree.

 

[MJN77]

DG45,
Again, all you offer is conjecture and assumptions. No facts or proof of your claims. You have no idea what a soldier of the time would've thought, and to impose your own modern thought process on them is kinda "funny". You assume that "officers" in the war carried spare cylinders because it is a common practice today. Can you name one such officer? Just one? If not, what makes you assume they did? Because they "coulda"? The only original spare cylinders that I have seen were in cased sets. Mostly with the 1836 Colt Paterson revolvers. I have seen very few with later percussion revolvers, and I have never read even a single account of "cylinder swapping" in a historical context. I'm sure there were a couple dozen people with "spare" cylinders during the ACW, but I can't prove that either. Until you offer even the smallest piece of evidence to add weight to your claims, they are just meaningless speclation. I don't mean to ruffle your feathers, but show me one fact to support your claims.

 

[Hawg]

DG45, you're basing all this on something your grandfather told you. Maybe he believed it I dunno, but he was wrong. I know you find that hard to believe but it is true. Soldiers of the times loved to have their pictures taken with their weapons. Officers especially had them taken quite a bit. I've never seen a pic of anyone with what could be remotely considered a cylinder pouch. I haven't seen anything in museums, books or even online of anything that could be considered one. Surely at least one would have survived.

 

[Ferrari]

Since the Original Post...

Since the original question... Is one lockwork design better than the other in modern reproductions? has digressed into the typical Colt/Remington fanboy lovefest I'll offer a bit of circumstantial evidence to go with my own experience.

In my own experience I have had no problems with the lockwork of any of my replica pistols, so to date they are the same.

The guns lockworks are nearly identical in form and are virtually identical in function, the only substantial difference being that both the bolt and the trigger share a common pin in the Remington while they occupy seperate pins in the Colt.

In terms of performance, which is relevant in the discussion about which model "Civil War" veterans preferred, my 1858 will easily outshoot every one of my Colts in terms of "target" accuracy.

If I were headed home to the farm to try to keep foxes out'a my henhouse, or I was going to be riding the range punching doggies and popping off a round at a coyote every now and then, I'd prefer the Remington myself.

That said... the Remington is not what the "Pro's" went with. The two most famous gunfighters of the day, John Wesley Hardin and Wild Bill Hickok both carried an 1851 Colt Navy as part of their arsenal many years after the advent of the 1858 New Army model.

I said that my Remington is superior in a target application... that being slow deliberate fire... HOWEVER... were I to need to draw my weapon and fire it under pressure, I'd go with an 1860 Army or an 1851 Navy.

Those two pistols are absolutely the best in my entire arsenal, modern or historic in terms of the ergonomics of pointing and shooting... they make my 1858 Pietta feel like a claw hammer in my hand.

One other thing... the original poster mentioned "heavy loads". If I were using my pistol as a backup while hunting, or some other application where I might want some more punch, I'd go with an 1858 for two reasons... first off, Remmies simply hold more powder, and secondly even in an all steel Colt pistol, you're still battering your wedge and arbor pin when you shoot heavy loads.

 

[MJN77]

Since the original question... Is one lockwork design better than the other in modern reproductions? has digressed into the typical Colt/Remington fanboy lovefest

What thread have you been reading? The thread has indeed devolved into something different, but it is about making historical claims of "cylinder swapping" with no evidence. I have Remington and Colt replicas, and I love them both. In a "if I was alive back then" context, I would be happy with either model of revolver. Read the whole thread, maybe then you can characterize it more accurately.

 

[DG45]

MJN77, ruffle my feathers? Not at all, sir. I disagree with you, consider your argument hidebound, illogical in the extreme, unintelligent, and for the life of me I cannot fathom your reluctance to credit Civil War soldiers with enough sense to take advantage of what the military today would call a war-winning weapon; ie., a breakthrough weapon that brings great war-fighting advantage to whoever has it. The Remington revolver, with is great firepower advantage over Colt thanks to an easily interchangable cylinder was surely all that.

Nevertheless, I do realize there are people who can't cope with an outside-the-box thought and they don't ruffle my feathers, I consider them more to be pitied than censured.

 

[MJN77]

DG45,
Oddly enough, I feel the same way about people who take the claim of one old man (long after the fact) and what they see in Hollywood movies as historical fact. To blindly believe what you are told, without proof, is simply being a "sheep". Like P.T. Barnum said "There's a sucker born every minute."

Also, your over eagerness to believe that a man in the 1860s, would look at a piece of BRAND NEW equipment, the same way that a man 150 years later would, is astoundingly nieve in the extreme. Revolvers, in general, were less than 30 years old at the time Remington revolvers were produced. It was all new to them. It's old to us.

I realize that there are people that can't cope with the fact, that others won't swallow their claims, without proof. The ramblings of a beloved grandfather just don't cut it for the folks that need more than mere speculation.

It's sad when people get hostile and hurl insults, because they come up short on facts for their side of a discussion. For someone that says he's 68, you're a bit immature. Hope your day gets better.

 

[pohill]

The Remington revolver, with is great firepower advantage over Colt thanks to an easily interchangable cylinder was surely all that.

I can swap out a Colt cylinder as quickly as I can a Remington cylinder.
And due to the lack of grease grooves in the narrow Remington cylinder pin, it binds up faster than a Colt does.
Might it not be simply a matter of choice and preference?

 

[pvt.Long]

Mounted cav was not meant to engage in heavy combat. Its primary use was to be scouts, harass the rear and to disrupt supply lines. Their primary weapon was their carbine or shotgun, both have longer range then a revolver. Then next choice was the revolver, then if they got close enough they used sabers. The Cav charge was used as fear tactic,just like the infantry with bayonet charge. A brutal and frighting way to break your enemy lines and divide their forces. At no point did any mounted cav charge into infantry lines. One volley fired from an infantry line would obliderate any cav unit. Bullets went buried but simply thrown away if they were pulled from the weapon or there was a malfunction with the paper cartridge. There were far more companies producing revolvers involved in the Civil War then Colt and Remington. Colts design was so popular because it was the first single action revolver that worked, once the patent expired everyone that even tried to produce a revolver produced it from Colt specs. Infantrymen would discard everything they could to save weight. Shermans' troops while on their march through GA would measure how tall they were and cut the extra length off their blankets. Confederate troops would carry cartridges in one pocket and caps in the other so they didn't have to worry about the wight of the accoutrement boxes. For tents the men would use a gum blanket or poncho to cover themselves during campaign so they didn't have to carry a heavy half of canvas. If their coats were longer then to their waist they would cut the extra fabric off. Any cook wear would be discarded except their tin cup with two canteens. I have yet to see or read about an example where a soldier or officer changed the cylinder of his revolver during combat. the 6 shot revolver was a 7 round weapon. when you ran out of ammo, you grabbed the barrel and used it as a club. because by that time you've spent 6 rounds your ether dead or already in hand to hand combat. Case in point is the 1847 Walker, it was specifically designed by Walker to be a 7 round weapon that's one of the two reasons for it being so heavy, it can hold 6 .44 magnum rounds and be swung like a tomahawk.As well as weapon mas production was not exact.Weapons still had to be hand fitted together. One cylinder did not exactly fit on another weapon even if they were identical. the machining is not as precise as it is today.It was not a matter of choice it was a matter of necessity. If you really want to know what a soldier though, join the ranks of a truly authentic reenactment group. The groups called "stitch nazis" that do everything exactly like the soldiers did. They sleep in the dog tents, pack in all their equipment that they carry in their pockets, period correct packs or blanket rolls. Very sobering experience.

 

[ofitg]

Regarding cylinder-swapping.... in his book COMMERCE OF THE PRAIRIES (vol. 2), Josiah Gregg states that he and his brother each had a Colt revolving rifle and a pair of Colt pistols, so that they had "thirty-six already-loaded shots apiece". Sounds like one spare pre-loaded cylinder for each weapon.

If Gregg was cylinder-swapping in the 1840s, it's not hard to imagine that some soldiers did it during the 1860s..... it might not have been a common practice, but I wouldn't want to claim that it never happened.

 

[pohill]

In a letter written by "C. Downing" in what looks like 1840, he describes the advantages of a Colt's repeating rifle for settlers on the Seminole frontier.
"One cylinder holds ten shots; another is attached to the piece with as many more, which may be shifted in a twinkling, even in the face of death; thus giving to a man beseiged in his house twenty shots..."

 

[MJN77]

If Gregg was cylinder-swapping in the 1840s, it's not hard to imagine that some soldiers did it during the 1860s..... it might not have been a common practice, but I wouldn't want to claim that it never happened

I posted earlier that most of the original spare cylinders I have seen were in sets with the 1836 Colt Paterson revolvers. Texas Rangers of the 1840s carried "spares" with their Patersons. This was also before combustable cartridges were commonly available. I have seen very few extra cylinders with any of the later models, and when I have they were mostly in presentation (highly engraved, inlaid etc) cased sets. No one ever said it NEVER happened. With the added expense, added weight, extra burden,etc, how many common soldiers do you think would've bothered when combustable cartridges were easily obtained? Like I said before, each cylinder would've been custom ordered from the factory. Would've taken weeks, at best, to be delivered. Would've had to be hand fitted to EACH DIFFERENT REVOLVER. They would not work with other guns. I bet there were a handful of people with extra cylinders during the war. I have still not seen or read evidence of it though. Have you? I would love to see documentation of this, but I'm not ignorant enough to say it was common because "they coulda' done it", or "cause my grandpapy said so". I want facts, not speculation.

 

[ofitg]

I bet there were a handful of people with extra cylinders during the war. I have still not seen or read evidence of it though. Have you? I would love to see documentation of this, but I'm not ignorant enough to say it was common because "they coulda' done it", or "cause my grandpapy said so". I want facts, not speculation.

I don't think anybody claimed it was common during the war.

Oh well, at least we have documentary evidence of soldiers "squeezing chickens"

 

[MJN77]

I don't think anybody claimed it was common during the war

Soldiers did carry loaded extra cylinders too. Think about it. Who carried revolvers in battle? People who could afford an extra cylinder. Officers, and cavalrymen who generally came from the "gentry" ,at least they did in the south.

Comes off that way to me. "Officers and cavalrymen" takes in a whole lot of people.

 

[ofitg]

I guess you could read it that way... I read it a different way - it seemed that the writer was pointing out that the cost was not prohibitive, at least not for everybody, but it doesn't necessarily follow that all those people with the funds would avail themselves of that option.

I read that one of my ancestors got a $400 horse shot out from under him. Whew! If that story is accurate, I know where his money went!

 

[MJN77]

I guess you could read it that way... I read it a different way - it seemed that the writer was pointing out that the cost was not prohibitive, at least not for everybody, but it doesn't necessarily follow that all those people with the funds would avail themselves of that option.

The average private in the ACW made something like $8-$10 a month.(been a while since I've seen the actual amounts) A Colt revolver at the time was around $12-$17. A Remington was about the same. Now you figure a cylinder was likely a couple of bucks. That would be quite a bit of money to custom order one cylinder, let alone two or three. Then you would have to have the local gunsmith hand fit each of them. More expense. Unless you were an officer, the revolver you carried was not even yours. At war's end, theoretically, you had to turn them back in. That war was called a "rich man's war, fought by the poor man" for a reason. Not a whole lot of mllionaires on the battlefields. How many privates do you think would go through all that, with $8 a month pay? Officers made around $15-$20 bucks a month. How many officers do you think would do it? As I stated before, it's not like you could go to Cabela's and pick up a few extras, to fit all your pistols. They didn't have computer controlled machines, back then. There was a lot of cost involved, for not much gain. To me, it's a matter of practicality. Considering how little revolvers were used in combat, mixed with the cost and general PITA, you do not really gain much at all. Again, I'm sure a few men had them, but I'm also sure it wasn't that many. All this, not to mention that I seriously doubt that the Colt (CT) or Remington (NY) companies would've sold much of anything to the confederate states after 1860. This is my take on it anyway.

I read that one of my ancestors got a $400 horse shot out from under him. Whew! If that story is accurate, I know where his money went!

WOW! That would be a major bummer.

 

[Hawg]

One of my ancestors raised thoroughbred race horses but he walked three days to join the infantry.

 

[ofitg]

Yeah, I have my doubts about that "$400 horse" story..... don't want to disparage my forebears, but I wonder if somebody embellished the story by adding an extra "zero" to the number?

 

[Hawg]

A good thoroughbred might have run that much or more so I guess that's why my ancestor didn't join the cavalry. Confederates had to furnish their own horses.

 

[ofitg]

That's the real kicker, my ancestor was a Confederate, supposedly served 12 months in the 20th Tennessee Infantry, then joined a cavalry outfit in 1862..... where the heck did he get that kind of money?