New member`s 1st post-Civil war revolvers

Yes,the rammers on Colts are considered more robust.
I cant recall in which of gun mags I read that,but the author complained about a very little screw?/pin? on which the Remington`s rammer pivots,that it might bend or broke easily.
If you have a C&B Colt,could you describe the difference?

What is - the ''fool killer'' magazine problem?? :confused:

TIA
 
Sorry 'bout that. The Spencer had a tube magazine which was placed in the buttstock. So even when new or in good order, if someone slammed the butt of a Spencer down into the ground, the cartridges in the magazine would sometimes chain fire. When a Spencer became worn, or the tube magazine was worn,dented etc this problem became even more of a concern. The term "fool killer" came about...I guess...becuase only a idiot would handle a Spencer in that manner.
 
Sounds like the 1858 is getting kind of a bad rap in some of the posts. First off, I own three of them so I've had a fair ammount of experience with both the Remington and Colt pistols, in fact my first cap and ball revolver was a 58 Remington which I shot endlesselly. As far as the situation with cap jams I have to say I've never experienced this with a Remington style pistol, Colts have given me endless problems when the cap falls back into the frame and jams up the mechanisim (seems to happen quite frequently actually). I've heard that this was one of the real dangers with the Colts in combat and probably contributed to more than one poor soldiers demise in the civil war. The Remingtons seem to be able to bypass this problem since the hammer sticks through the frame enough where broken caps are more likely to fall out before they can be dragged back into the hammer channel where they could jam up the internals.

The second advantage over the Colts is that the Remington is a stronger pistol, the added top strap (thought to be a disadvantage by some) actually adds considerable strength to the overall design, you encounter loose Colts quite frequently, but never encounter this with the solid frame Remingtons. This was a nice plus in the days when steel was not quite what it is today and people still needed to be able to wring the most power possible out of pistols on occasion.

Lastly the Remington revolver actually shot close to point of aim rather than 6-8" high as in the case of the majority of Colt revolvers. One can argue that this was done on purpose by Sam Colt who felt that in distress an aim at a mans torsoe was most likely, he might have reasoned that in such a scenario the shot would still land in the chest. Still, plenty of old west gunfighters requested higher front sights, I've seen one of Hickocks 51 Navies in Cody Wyoming that had the sight changed from a pin to a higher dovetailed sight, so this must have bothered some of the men that actually used these guns in combat. I would imagine hitting one's mark was just as important to these people as it is to some of our modern day shooters. In any event the higher post front sight on the Remington was a standard factory item.

Lastily as to the fowling issue, I've never fired an original Remington, but I've had plenty of practice with the reproductions, when I was actually using real black powder I would generally end up cleaning up the cylinder pin and cylinder hole every 5 or six loadings. However, bear in mind this was when I was loading from the flask and not removing the cylinder. If I was actually removing the cylinder each time and replacing it with a fresh cylinder I don't think the problem would have been anywhere near as pronounced. Honestly, you can't really believe that being able to reload a gun more than five or six times without cleaning would have been all that important to most of these people. Battles would have seldom been encounterd that required this much firepower at one time and spending any ammount of time reloading a revolver during the heat of battle would probably have got you killed in relatively short order, this is reason for the popularity of multiple pistols and the original intent of this post. In defense of the Remington the Colts also are prone to cylinders locking up due to powder fowling, I've had experience with this situation on numerous occasions so I don't think the comparison is all that valid in proving one's superiority over the other.

The Remington had quite a following, largely because of the fire that destroyed the Colt factory in the later years of the war allowing Remington to supply large numbers of pistols to the Union army. Still, the Remingtons proved to be a worthy pistol in combat and it was said that at some points in the conflict a Remington was worth the same price as 2-3 colts in the minds of the soldiers and officers who used them on both sides of the line. I still love the Colts and have several of them, but let's not forget the significant role the Remingtons played in history and the numerous advantages they had over many of their competitors.

Darth, in answer to your question the screw the Remingtons loading lever pivots on is in the frame, it does on occasion work it's way loose if it is well worn. The Colt's rammer also has a screw right on the rammer assembly itself. I've found this screw is also prone to working itself loose. If someone was going to swap cylinders in combat the logical move would have been to completely remove the rammer assembly from the 1858 as it would be a hindrence in quick changes of the cylinders and of no use if this was what you intended to do. The only problem would have been if the cylinder pin (which is retained by the closed loading lever) was to work itself out during use, this wouldn't likely have been much of a problem however as long as the pin was a tight fit as it should be.
 
Interesting how our series of posts has a definite weapons partisan aura, for such old weapons. M. Johnson, good posting on the merits of the Remingtons. The '61 model, did have a slot cut into the rammer... so the cylinder pin could be pulled forward and the cylinder removed without dropping the rammer. It was dropped by '63 because the pin would move forward because of the jolts on horseback-and thereby bind up when needed. That might also account for some of the period criticisms of the Remingtons...by the 1863 model that slot was gone, so was the problem. It seems on the whole, the Remington was better suited to those who maintained a revolver well. The Colt's were a better gun for dropping in the muck as it were. And woe to the Colt owner who lost that wedge...although some did carry spares. And they're pretty rare today, but the Webleys and Adam's had a pretty fair following. Likely, in the 1860's these discourses also occurred. And really, these were an immature technology...so problems were likely for any make. Oh yeah, forgot..as noted, some preferred the Colt rammer as it generated more force.
The nitrated cartridges of the time used a picket ball, which is (was) bloody hard to seat if it started in misaligned. But then again, the round balls used today lesson the range that the old guns had when used in the 19th century.
 
Last edited:
This is a very interesting topic at many levels. I have owned several blackpowder reproduction revolvers and find it incredible that at one time, people depended on them with their lives. I haven't done much research on the subject and was interested in the comments about putting wax on the caps to keep them in place. I have found this to be my biggest problem with blackpowder firearms. On my revolvers, I have had the caps fall off just standing and firing them, let alone trying to carry them. I have had ML rifle caps fall off when deer hunting even though all I did was sit leaning against a tree with the rifle resting on my lap.
I often wonder about firearms ownership in the mid to late 19th century. I assume that people back then didn't have the disposible income we have today. They probably owned whatever firearms they had access to and whatever they could afford. Many were probably "bring backs" from military service. My first impluse with the original question would be to say I would carry an 1960 Army since that seems to be the most common thing from that time period, although I don't know that to be true. Common sense would tell you that those who used firearms back then would use the best thing available, but I am not so sure that is the case based on what I said previously. Still, I would have to go with the 1860 Army. I think it was a powerful handgun in it's day. They feel great in my hand and seem to be a natural pointer. My repo is surprisingly accurate (I don't know about the originals). I have had problems with cap jams however.
 
Don't know of a battle that was won exclusively by men armed with the Spencer lever action rifle. But I do know that a company or two of the 66th Ohio who were armed with that "damned Yankee rifle you load on Sunday and shoot all week" - Henry lever action - (Birge's Western Sharpshooters) did hold off the Georgia Militia when they (Sherman's Army) went on the "Great Picnic." Supposedly they dropped over 750 Georgians. Have to check with the Official Records to see what it says about that battle (and the O.R. isn't necessarily the fountain of truth either).

Returning to Booth's Deringer, I like it because of its historical significance. In battle, it would be good for putting oneself out of their misery. BTW, the bullet that killed Abe is suppose to be on display at the Army Medical School in Washington. The gun itself is at Ford's Theatre. Saw it myself two years ago when I was in Washington.

So yes, Darth44, for battle I would stick with the 4 LeMats.
 
Four Lemat revolvers would weigh a little over sixteen pounds. Add another half pound for ball and shot along with powder. The main disadvantage to the Lemat was it's extra weight (they tend to be a little front heavy) and the complicated innards that almost require special tools to break the gun down. I have one and I certainly would want it in a last ditch deal but on horseback I want light and accurate . A brace of .36/.44 caliber Remingtons or Colts weigh half as much and wouldn't tire me out so quick. They would also be more serviceable out in the field. Don't misunderstand please, I love the Lemat. Being completely honest with myself I know that I just don't have the strength to hold one at arms length and shoot straight for more than ten minutes whilst on a galloping horse with the reigns between my teeth dodging bullets. You have to remember the fatigue factor. It didn't always hold true but most engagements between heavily armed combatants in the days before modern warfare were short and alot of the casualties occured in the closing moments when everyone was near exhaustion. Try swinging an ax or a broadsword for a half an hour sometime.
 
Last edited:
Oh yes,oh YES! more excellent input.Thanks
There`s no doubt about it,the Savage revolver is a really freak-looking gun,and its ergonomics must have been horrible.
Talk about recoil control!:D
Surprisingly this 36cal. six shooter ranks as the fourth in production figures with around 12000 units sold under contract.

Chainfire in the Spencer rifle?:confused:
The Civil War Spencers fired 56-56 Spencer rimfire round.
Cartridges in the magazine were nose-to-center casehead position. How could they be ignited if the priming compound was situated within the rims?

DIXIE LINCOLN DERRINGER
Cal.41
Barrel. 2'' 8 lands 8 grooves
Weight. 7oz
Length.5,5'' overall
Stock. Walnut finish,checkered
Features. Authentic copy of the ''Lincoln Derringer''
Shoots .400'' patched ball.German silver furniture includes
trigger guard with pineaple finial,wedge plates,nose,wrist
side and teardrop inlays.All furniture,lockplate,hammer and
breech plug engraved.
From:Gun Digest 1995
IT `S SO SWEEEEEET!!:D But the Dixie Screw Barrel looks cool too.
The bullet that killed Abe is in Army Medical School in Washington?I wish I could watch it:(
Do they have there the 6,5mm Carcano bullet that killed JFK?
(I suppose the bullets fired by the ''unknown rest of the JFK assasins'' are still missing:rolleyes: )

We didn`t talk much about the STARR DA revolver.AFAIK it was of
break open design,where the upper frame was secured by a detachable screw.I suppose the Starr could also be reloaded by
a cylinder swap.Did the Starr have any weak points?
 
The only things I've noticed about Starr revolvers is that many times when I've seen them for sale the most common fault is a weak main spring. I don't know if this was an engineered fault or if it is the result of the steel used in the 19th century. They are a little more complicated than most and have more small parts but I've never heard anyone say that the Starr wasn't a fine firearm. It was popular for it's reliability and the fact that it could be easily loaded with prepared cartidges or with cap and ball.

I've fired a Savage revolver and while it looks ungainly and awkward it's really not bad. The revolvers that I would like to fire just once are mostly side-hammers like the Pettengill, Butterfield, Allen & Wheelock and so-on.
 
Bad day for the Spencer. Part of the problem on Spencers and the magazine problems may have been the cartridge cases. During that period, self contained cartridges tended to be balloon (sp) headed construction-a fairly weak setup. This made the case bases very, very thin (which they had to be for a rimfire anyway)-and these might bend enough to somehow impact the priming compound in the rims-especially if a rough,bent magazine tube was in the mix. So not quite like a modern day Winchester, where the bullet noses rested on a fairly solid cartridge base-with a center primer. Also, much of the equipage of the late 1860's was civil war leftovers...and during the war some suppliers didn't exactly take due care. Partially profitering (sp), partially (in the case of brass rifle cartridges) a new technology and wartime manufacturing pressures. Plus general wear and tear...most of the Spencers in the late 60's were either wartime takehomes/reissues or condemned government stores sold as surplus. Spencer Rifle co. really did themselves a postwar shot in the foot...their own wartime production cut demand for any potential peacetime sales.
 
I bought one of the Dixie Lincoln Derringer kits awhile ago and haven't had a chance to build it yet. The metalwork on the kit is acceptable, however the stock that was provided was basically ruined by poor machine inletting, would have been far better if they had just sent a roughed out blank of wood which is what I'll start with when I build the gun. In any event it should be a nice additon to my collection, I'll post pics when it's done.
 
As Cap n Ball mentioned Allen & Wheelock in his post I recalled I had seen that gun before.
Here it is!
March `99 issue of GUNS & AMMO magazine,article ''Civil War Revolver RARITIES'' by Phil Spangenberger.
The Allen&Wheelock shown there is a 44cal.SA with centrally located hammer and a loadding lever that alco forms the triggerguard.7,5''long barrel is part-round,part-octagonal. WOW! I like it.The gun seems to be built like a fortress.
Hmm...Did I say 4 revolvers,not 6 or 7?:D

I looked closely at the Colt Dragoon and found something what made me scratch my head and think hard.
Well,the Colt`s barrel is held to the frame by a wedge that passes through the cylinder axis pin.which is screwed into the rear of the standing breech.
Now,the Dragoon burns 50 grains of FFFg with every shot.(almost a musket load!)
The recoil forces will bear on the wedge,and repeated firings tend to compress it to such an extent that it will loosen and result in
the barrel and frame moving apart.
After this, things get out of line and accuracy and performance will start to suffer.The solution here is to either replace the offending item(if you have a spare) or flatten it out(if your friend is a blacksmith,lives nearby and IS home ;) )
But what if the slot in the cylinder axis pin gets deformed?
A spare wedge will not be much of a help in that case.Result:the gun is loose and unsafe to fire or in one word-useless.
No doubt,shooting reduced loads would slow wear,but it is
RANGE and POWER what made me put the Dragoon on the list in my original post.
I`m very curious of your comments of that problem.

Down with anti-gun laws!
 
Forgot to ask...

In one of the westerns(''The good,the bad and the ugly''IIRC) I saw a guy field stripping a Navy Colt.He merely pushed the wedge with his fingers and it popped out.Geeez...What kind of barrel-frame fit that Colt must have had!
Correct me if I`m wrong but I`ve always thought the wedge had to be as tight fit as possible to get the best accuracy and performance from the C&B Colts.
And to field strip one,you must use a non-marring malllet,right?
 
Yes, the cylinder wedge should be a fairly good fit. If the spring of the wedge is weak, or the wedge worn, than the whole barrel assembly moves a little when fired. At those times, than the two holes- pins down at the bottom of the barrel assembly while start to oval out. Tends to be a problem on the cheaper replicas. And on the Colt Dragoons, yes on the lesser quality guns, the wedges are too soft and tend to deform. Doesn't seem to be a problem on the Colt's or the Uberti's, as these are well made (and sometimes the same gun). Actually, the power/durability issue is why the Dragoon was (is) essentially a downgraded Walker. The Walker's took a slightly heavier charge, and on the 19th century guns...Colt's subcontractor had some QC problems. As for taking the wedge loose, use a plastic or leather mallet, it'll keep it prettier. In the old days, the wedges seem to have taken a bit of a beating (from the look of some surviving guns). Usually a tight fitting wedge was knocked clear with a saddle horn, knife handle etc. It seems to have been a fairly common practice to tap it out with the edge of the reload cylinder...wouldn't be in any hurry to do that one. All this stated, in most original uses, probably the only time these wedges were knocked lose was for cleaning. Many didn't seem to have extra cylinders...and some prefered to have 1+2 extra guns about if they had the means to get them. (although for some these cleanings were pretty frequent, needed to keep it in good order-and actually in some of the bigger western cities, there were people who made money carefully cleaning and loading these guns-especially the pocket stuff) And last, on the Dragoons, these seem to do well with rifle powder, since that's a bit harder to light, put a few grains in the cones...not very much or the cones will blow or cap fragments will be everywhere.
 
I have a repo Walker.
Now that, is a lotta gun.
Interesting to read about the potential problems with these repos. I seriously doubt that I will ever shoot mine enough to encounter them though. I probably take mine out once or twice a year each. I only do it when I have planned it ahead of time and have a full day to devote to shooting and cleaning. Afterwards I always tell myself that I shouldn't wait so long to shoot them again, it isn't really that bad.
On my repo Colt 1860 Army, the little screw just above the barrel wedge works it way out every time I shoot it. The last time, it fell out on the ground and I didn't realize it. As I shot, the barrel wedge started working it's way out. One of my shooting buddies had the same problem. So, when I ordered a new screw, I had them send me four.
Of course the ultimate black powder revolver is the Ruger Old Army, but it is not a repo and has no historical significance. I owned one years ago. In fact, it was the first pistol I ever bought myself. I was like 18 or 19 years old and wasn't old enough to purchase a modern handgun, so I bought the Old Army. I sold it because I couldn't get the sight elevation low enough. I certainly would like to have another one though. Having a BP revolver with adjustable sights is really nice, although I guess you could put that in the same catagory as in-line ML rifles.
 
I inherited my great grandpa's Colt navy and his Remington new army. Both have seen a ton of use and I rarely fire either. In fact I've only fired the Colt once. The barrels of both show evidence of them being used to twist wire in the job of mending fences. He must have lost the wedge because instead of the steel piece there is a ivory wedge that is attached to the trigger guard by a leather thong. It has a little pin you push though the far side after it's been inserted through the cylinder pin. It fits very snug. There's no doubt that this is a potentially dangerous modification but I think it might have been a common one. Most fellows didn't fire their revolver more than once or twice unless in a severe situation. Of course a real gun-slinger would have had top notch equipment but my great grandpa was an ordinary sort that kept his guns after the war, hoped he'd never need them again and lived on a farm with ten zillion kids to feed.
 
I`m glad to see this thread going on
I didn`t change anything in my 4-BPsixgun battery so far,but
I know a LOT more `bout those guns now :)
BIG THANKS to everyone who replied! :cool:
Now,what are the nominal powder charges per chamber for the following revolvers?Here`s what I know or suppose:
Colt Walker-------60 / 54 grains
Colt Dragoon----50 grains
Remington 1858-40? / 35? grains
Colt 1860 ---------30? grains
LeMat--------------??????????
Starr 1858--------??????????
Allen&Wheelock CenterHammer--??????????

And to be a little off topic: Wouldn`t it be cool to load a 40cal
165grain Gold Dot in a Dixie Lincoln Derringer and see what
penetration and expansion could be achieved with the standard
BP load?
Good shooting
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top