Preferred .44 BP revolver

'58 Remy

Better function and accuracy (look at what the MLAIC guys shoot with) and just a more modern but classic looking design.
 
If you are talking stock Pietta or Uberti, I like the Remington NMA both in strength, function, and looks. That said, I have a Goonerized Uberti 1860 Army that I would keep over all my stock Remmies except for my Remmie carbine.
 
Yes, but at the same token a Goonerized '58 Remy would be tops. :)

Also, no makers make a "match grade" deluxe target shooting version ala the Pedersoli '58 and Pietta Target Remys.

There's a reason for that.
 
I say this acknowledging that the Remington has some better features (top strap, ease of disassembly, resistant to cap jams, etc.) but I'd have to say the 1860 Army. It can handle powder fouling better and points better. I also think it's more of an 'attractive' pistol. Granted, if it were back in the day, then I would have been happy with either.
 
The Remington 1858.
All cap and ball revolvers are a pain compared to modern designs.
The 1858 is less so.
And you can look cool reloading with entire cylinders. :)
Although the Colt 1860 is definitely the pretty one.
 
The '58 Remys were also most often reloaded with spare cylinders during the "old days" which was extremely fast over reloading a Colt with loose powder and ball during combat.

It's a fun thing to do at the range today, and they sell repro cylinder holders to wear on your belt so you can carry loaded and capped cylinders ready to shoot.
 
Model12Win,

As a matter of curiosity, but is there any proof to that? As I understand it, there's no proof that swapping cylinders on a Remington Percussion revolver was done on anything beyond an individual level. No accounts or archeological evidence supports it (very few, if any, cylinders have been found on Civil War Battlefields, as far as I know). There's no mention of swapping cylinders in any issued manuals/tactics books from the period of the Civil War, and no mention is made is in diaries of folks who were engaged in major cavalry fights like Brandy Station or Wilson's Creek. I also tend to think that it would've made much more sense to just carry multiple revolvers instead of multiple cylinders. It'd take a whole lot less time to draw and cock another pistol than to swap cylinders.

Regards,
Trum4n
 
Last edited:
The Colt '60 Army is an absolutely beautiful pistol. Points naturally and is well balanced. I enjoy shooting both the Colts and the Remington. But I guess I shoot the Remington a little more I suppose.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
As a matter of curiosity, but is there any proof to that? As I understand it, there's no proof that swapping cylinders on a Remington Percussion revolver was done on anything beyond an individual level. No accounts or archeological evidence supports it (very few, if any, cylinders have been found on Civil War Battlefields, as far as I know). There's no mention of swapping cylinders in any issued manuals/tactics books from the period of the Civil War, and no mention is made is in diaries of folks who were engaged in major cavalry fights like Brandy Station or Wilson's Creek. I also tend to think that it would've made much more sense to just carry multiple revolvers instead of multiple cylinders. It'd take a whole lot less time to draw and cock another pistol than to swap cylinders.
Click to expand...
It can be done in less than 5 seconds. That alone should tell you that yes it was done. Sometimes you just have to disregard history books and understand that the people back then were humans with brains like us. If we choose and prefer reloading spare cylinders they would have had the thoughts as well. Especially if their lives depended on it.
 
Sheesh

CptPiccard.jpg
 
The Colt Dragoon for me-I like the heft and balance and firing full power loads is like firing 38 Specials out of an N-Frame. Of the two listed I prefer the Remington, the sights are better.
I suspect the swapping of the of the cylinders was done but not documented.
Like a local SOP in today's military.
 
Jmar,

I said it was likely done on an individual level, to a very small scale. It was almost certainly not done by large masses of men in battle. Nobody has found a bunch of Remington revolver cylinders littering battlefields of the Civil War. You mentioned that it could be done in less than five seconds, which I don't doubt, but is that under duress? Mounted on horseback, in what was, in most cases, very close quarters? Why carry an extra cylinder when an extra handgun was easier, more reliable and a helluva lot faster to put into action than fumbling around with an extra cylinder or, in the case of a Colt attaching a barrel? Again, it's not mentioned in any accounts or diaries from folks who were in battles or even a shootout back in the day.

My 2 cents on the subject, but I strongly believe that cylinder swapping is, by and large, a Hollywood invention.
 
How many first person accounts do we have from shooters back then ? How many could even shoot well ? The NRA was started because some veterans realized the Myth of "A Nation of Riflemen" was just that.
 
Jmar,

I said it was likely done on an individual level, to a very small scale. It was almost certainly not done by large masses of men in battle. Nobody has found a bunch of Remington revolver cylinders littering battlefields of the Civil War. You mentioned that it could be done in less than five seconds, which I don't doubt, but is that under duress? Mounted on horseback, in what was, in most cases, very close quarters? Why carry an extra cylinder when an extra handgun was easier, more reliable and a helluva lot faster to put into action than fumbling around with an extra cylinder or, in the case of a Colt attaching a barrel? Again, it's not mentioned in any accounts or diaries from folks who were in battles or even a shootout back in the day.

My 2 cents on the subject, but I strongly believe that cylinder swapping is, by and large, a Hollywood invention
Click to expand...
I rarely ever see Civil War photos of people with Remingtons, and almost never with a Remington on a horse. Maybe it just wasn't that common to begin which could be why there are not many cylinders lying around or any documentation. But i don't know much about the Civil War. Perhaps things like cylinders were even looted? I do know many soldiers were poor and most couldn't afford a revolver let alone two, so i don't know what a spare cylinder cost in contrast to a gun but it seems like a likely option. In my opinion i think carrying around 10 pounds of revolvers is more Hollywood than reloading. I sure wouldn't want to do it in battle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top