Preferred .44 BP revolver

Jmar,

You can read about Confederate irregular forces, who made up for the lack of breech-loading repeaters with multiple revolvers. It was not uncommon to see many of them with two, three, or four revolvers, either on their person or in pommel holsters. As opposed to multiple cylinders, the use of multiple revolvers is well documented. I imagine that a number of those were older, pre-war revolvers, or battlefield pickups.. As for regular troops, if they were at pistol range and emptied their pistols then they'd tend to draw a saber or withdraw. I personally have trouble imagining a man having an easy time of swapping cylinders whilst on a moving horse in the middle of a firefight.

As for the Remington not being that common, well over 200,00 were made during the war (the second most produced). It was certainly a common enough firearm during the conflict.

OP, sorry to get off topic, absolutely my bad.
 
One thing everybody always overlooks is that there was no CNC machinery in those days and cylinders were fit to each gun or rather each gun was fit to it's cylinder. It's all Hollyweird.
 
I much prefer a '60 Army as for me, it's better balanced and quick to point. As for cap jambs . . learn to do the "Colt twist" when cocking which will eliminate the majority of cap jambs.

As far as changing out cylinders . . . I'd also like to see some first person documentation of it. I think you'd find that those who had a particular need for more than six shots . . . such as Mosby's men and others such as them, usually carried more than one pistol. In fact, sometimes more than two. Those that come to mind especially would be Cavalry - regardless of what side. Yes, there were "Cavalry clashes" but more often than not, they dismounted and used their carbines. A good example would be Buford's cavalry at Gettysburg when they held off the Rebels until the Infantry could be brought up. A lot of the "two cylinder" stuff is pure Hollywood. For those that think that it was common practice . . . get on horseback sometime and try it out and see how well it works.

The same fallacy exists . . . especially among re-enactors . . . that Artillerymen carried pistols. Yes, some did . . . such as Non-Commissioned officers . . . who sometimes were forced to point them at their own men to keep "serving the piece" instead of abandoning it when faced with the enemy approaching in mass. The job of every Artilleryman was to "serve the piece" as well as to know what each position involved so if a man were killed, they could step in and keep the piece firing. An Artilleryman pulling a pistol and shooting it at an approaching enemy is about as worthless as a fly with no wings. A single load of canister . . . or a double canister load is much more effective than a .36 or .44 ball flying through the air.
 
If one were so inclined to buy multiple cylinders (modern day). Exchanging cylinders on the Colt's is not that difficult or really that slow. Sure you can't do it from horseback - nor is it as cool as Clint Eastwood but I'd argue it's almost as fast as the 1858.

Not my video but - 11 second cylinder swap...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWneVLah_0k

The Pietta 1860 I bought used off of Gunbroker came with a 45 Colt conversion cylinder only. I bought a 1860 Pietta percussion cylinder from Cabela's and it dropped right in.

Historically - from what I've read it didn't happen. Hawg's point of no CNC is the major reason. Everything was hand fit back then.
 
I completely agree with everything Trum4n1208 had to say about Remington cylinder swapping. Didn't really happen. Good luck finding an order from the Remington factory for spare cylinders to issue other than as a repair/replacement part to the armorer.
 
Back to the OPs question.As far as accuracy,not much deference The Colt looks better,and feels better in the hand.I have 12 Colts(3 1860 Armys), and 3 Remington's.My personal favorite is my Colt Whitneyville Dragoon. It is a beast,and deadly accurate with a .45 Long Colt conversion cylinder and Cowboy ammo. Shoots 8 inches high from point of aim. Same thing when using powder and ball. The grouping opens up some when using balls,but not a lot. Until I can find a more accurate and pleasing gun to shoot. I will stick with my Whitneyville/Hartford Dragoon as my favorite. The Walker is number 2. A BIG number 2 Just a note: I use a two hand hold, and never off the bags.I started shooting 55 years ago,and I just cant kick the habit. But I am working on it.
 
To the OP: There is nothing like holding a Colt 1860 Army cap and ball revolver in your hands. The perfect feel, the natural point of aim, the balance and style points, all are right on the money. The Colt 1851 Navy comes in second in my book. I have shot and owned numerous models of Colts over the decades but if I was going to introduce someone to cap and ball shooting, it would be the 1858 Remington model. Less hassle, ease of loading, operation, simplicity of design and clean up are all hallmarks of the Remington.

I started shooting Colts cap and ball revolvers back in the '60s before there was much information out there, but my journey would have been a lot easier if I had started with a Remington.
 
I find I enjoy that relative lack of hassle the 58 provides. I've owned both - the Remington model is the one that I've kept.
 
AWW, Just get Both! Or one of each Repro. That way no ONE pistol gets boring you will have a new experience with every trip to the safe. No cap and ball revolver shooter can have just ONE! I'm sure it's in some by laws somewhere, NMLRA maybe?? [emoji3] If not it's in the Slayer stable by laws. Another thing, I like a six o'clock hold and open tops afford me that. I like being able to see my target, the whole target. I still like the Remmy though. And it's probably simply because I load all 4 cylinders off the gun and they are ready to go.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
IMHO this "exchanging cylinders" is like the Pedersen Device. Sounds great in theory, looks nifty, but what a trained operator can do at a range and an ordinary soldier does under the stress of combat.....cf all those muskets that recovered at Gettysburg that had been loaded more than once. Lose that wedge or that screw.....
 
I myself prefer the oversize Pietta NMA's. Originally, I favored Colt repro's, but the more I've shot my Pietta Remingtons, the more I have come to appreciate them. Never had luck with Uberti percussion guns, and the grip to knuckle clearance on the more historically correct framed models is a little tight for my tastes.
 
Took my 51 navy and 58 rem out to stretch their legs today and the colt for me just feels good'r in the hand,
Of course it's a smaller caliber but still,,,;)
Mr Goon has my 1860 ,that will feel even better good'r when It comes home..:)
 
I'm with Fingers on this one. This is the second question I ever found hard. If you really want to mess with your mind, get a BP 1873. It really is the answer! You get the Colt grip with a solid frame. I carry two spare cylinders, because you can't load on the frame. I still love the Colt 1860. I recently added a Pietta Remington 1858 Target to the battery. It's really nice too.
 
The 1860 Colt Army is by FAR the better handling revolver! The Remington 1858 has too small of a space between the trigger guard and grip frame which binds the middle finger, and the 1858 has a long cocking stroke with very stiff internal resistance. The Colt Army is smooth as glass with a nice "rolling cock" and ample space between the trigger guard and grip frame.

The Remington 1858 is "easier" if you want to play with conversion cylinders, but it will NEVER bee the "pointer" the 1860 Colt is. IF you do a cylinder conversion to the 1860 and end up with a cartridge conversion you have the best of both worlds....great ergonomics, great pointability, yet the ability to load cartridges a bit faster than BP loading.

There was a time when I was "poor" that my "carry gun" was an 1860 Army cut to 6" barrel, stoked with 180 grain conicals over 30+ grains of FFFg. I carried that combination as religiously as one would carry a modern Glock because it was what I had at the time and I was supremely confident that it would do the job if called upon!
 
Well this is a topic where you'll never get a definative answer swaying heavily towards one side or the other. Both guns are well engineered for their time, and both fully capable of functioning extremely well. Both pose great advantages and disadvantages.

Personally - I shoot a Pietta 1858 New Model Army Target in 44. It's been modified slightly for ease of use and comfort. Otherwise it's nearly stock. I shoot this gun using 18 grains of FFFg Goex, Corn Meal, and a .454 lead ball with white lithium grease as a bullet lube. My .454 are my own hand cast. This past week I shot the national record during the 25 yard Limited Timed Fire Revolver target with a 100-7X at Friendship Indiana during the National Championship Matvhes. They shoot. Period. If well maintained they're reliable. Period. Even still - it has it's ups and downs and most will like one or the other. I like a Remington for its top strap, and the fact that the barrel doesn't come off. But a Colt has a more enviting grip angle. But at 25 or 50 yards I do not believe a colt out shoots a Remington. Of any maker.

Just my two cents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top