Remington Army and Navy Revolvers 1861 - 1888

F

Fingers McGee

New member
As a result of a couple of threads on this and other forums about Remington Revolvers, spare cylinders, etc. I did a search for information or books about Remingtons and found very little out there about Remington Revolvers - and most of what is posted is at least partially erroneous. I did find subject book listed on Amazon and ordered it. It came in last week and I have been slowly reading it.

Subject book dated 2007 by Donald L. Ware is a study of the history of Remington revolvers. One of the more interesting facts that I've read so far is what the 'standard appendages' were that were part of the 4 contracts that Remington had with the US Government during the Civil War.

Standard appendages per box of 50 pistols was:

Fifty Screwdrivers & Cone wrenches
Fifty extra cones
Twenty five bullet molds casting 2 balls each

The original 1st contract list included a six cavity gang mold; but it was deleted from the list by Gen Ripley early on.

One thing noticeably absent from the list are spare cylinders.

I'm only about a quarter way through the book; but it is giving me a new appreciation of CW ordnance and Remington revolvers. But, they still don't fit my hand as well as a Colt.
 
Last edited:
Anyone ever see the U.S. bullet molds or other appendages for sale?
It would be interesting to have a look see at any of those items. :)
 
Fingers McGee wrote:
But, they still don't fit my hand as well as a Colt.
Click to expand...

I agree Fingers. I like my '58 Remy, but just like you......to me my Colts just feel better and balance better in my hand. In stripping, cleaning, swapping cylinders, etc., the Remy surpasses the Colt. But to me the balance of the Colt is much superior and I also prefer the aesthetics of the Colt lines over the Remy.
 
Arcticap said:
It would be interesting to have a look see at any of those items.
Click to expand...

Do not recall ever seeing one for sale. Only ones I've seen are the ones pictured in the book.

The book does say that at some point (second or third contract IIRC) the requirement for supplying molds was dropped because soldiers were throwing them away instead of carrying the dead weight. The molds weren't being used because use of prepackaged cartridges was the primary method of loading the revolvers.

Another interesting point in the requests by the Navy for revolvers. They almost always included an order for 100 or more cartridges per revolver with a like or greater quantity of caps. The caps and cartridges to be packaged separately.

At the end of the CW, the Army had purchased, either through agents or through the four separate contracts, nearly 135,000 Remington revolvers of all types (Beals, Elliot, New Models, Army's and Navy's) in 36 and 44 caliber. The Navy purchased 6,300+ Navy model revolvers.

They also purchased some 27,000 rifles and muskets.
 
Last edited:
The Remington is a gun made to function whereas the Colt is more elegant and balanced. Like the difference between a nice handling 4WD pickup and a Land Rover. Both will get the job done (off road use) but the Land Rover is built more solidly to take more of a beating but drives like a tank. Maybe that's a bad analogy but it's all I could think of on the fly.
 
Fifty Screwdrivers & Cone wrenches
Fifty extra conesTwenty five bullet molds casting 2 balls each

The original 1st contract list included a six cavity gang mold; but it was deleted from the list by Gen Ripley early on.

One thing noticeably absent from the list are spare cylinders.
Click to expand...

What is also funny is that only 50 cones were supplied for a case of 50 revolvers. Each revolver needs six cones (nipples) to function at all. But they only supplied one spare cone for each gun?

Hmm, now that brings up a new observation: The items that come with each gun are like a starter kit sold with today's color inkjet photo printers. You get a set of ink cartridges included with the new machine, but they are only good for about 4 prints. You order supplies separately from the same company if you want continuous service.

So extra cones and spare cylinders probably had to be ordered separately from Remington.
 
I've owned firearms all my life but am new to c&b revolvers. I own two such guns now, one of which is a Pietta replica of a standard 8" barrel .44 cal. 1858 Remington New Model Army. It's really a pretty amazing gun. It's simple. It's rugged, it's powerful, it has no wedges to worry about. It's the authentic article for Civil War reenactors; It can be reloaded relatively quickly. It can do double duty as a cowboy cartridge revolver if you buy a conversion cylinder; then you can swap back and forth between standard C&B and cowboy cartridge.

So what's not to like? Well actually there is one thing that I think Colt had Remington beat on - well two things, because Colt's look better too - but I think Colt has a superior hammer design, or at least it seems to me that the "ergonomics" of cocking my Colt 1851 Navy-type hammer is superior to the the "ergonomics" of cocking a 1858 Remington hammer. This may be what other people have meant when they've said that a Colt feels better in their hand than a Remington does. Personally, I don't think my 1851 Colt feels any better in my hand until I try to cock the Remington, and then I realize its more awkward for me than cocking my Colt 1851 replica is. It took a little shooting and eventually noticing the gun was coming further off target when I was cocking it than the Colt replica was to realize this. I wondered if it was just my particular hand that made it more awkward. Then I looked at the difference in the hammers and its obvious that the Colt hammer spur is longer, so maybe that's it. Anyway I also watched the thread in this forum called "Video-Shooting The Ultimate Remington" and on one of the shots you can clearly see just how awkward cocking it was for him and I realized that cocking a Remington is probably just a little awkward for everybody. Watch that video and watch duelist 54 cock the gun before every shot, and see what you think.

PS. He's using a cartridge coversion cylinder and a short-barreled gun but it cocks the same as a standard c&b 1858 NMA. You need to watch right much of the video to see what I mean because the first time he fires the gun the camera is behind him and you can't tell much, and many times he's holding the muzzle upward when he cocks it and you can't tell much from that either, but it's very obvious how far off target the muzzle wanders when he's cocking it on one of the shots when this arm is extended forward in shooting position when the camera is almost in front of him and the muzzle wanders in the direction of the camera when he's cocking the gun. This is a very experienced shooter doing the firing, and the video just makes it obvious that cocking the Remington is a little awkward and not nearly as "intuitive" (I guess that's the word I'm searching for) as a 1851 Colt type revolver. Other than that, I think the Remington is the superior gun.
 
Last edited:
Rachen said:
What is also funny is that only 50 cones were supplied for a case of 50 revolvers. Each revolver needs six cones (nipples) to function at all. But they only supplied one spare cone for each gun?
Click to expand...

Remington supplied what was required by the Army contracts. The Army Ordnance Department determined what the normal appendages were. Apparently, they thought one spare cone per pistol was sufficient.

Other than possibly installing a set of Treso or stainless steel cones on your revolvers, how many have you replaced? I've put hundreds of rounds - (bordering on thousands?) through some of my C&Bs and have yet to replace a cone.
 
The "feel"...

The Colt pistol grip is configured to sit the barrel low in the shooters hand and the angle follows the natural curve of a closed hand's grip whereas, the Remington grip is more vertical and the shooter must literally make his hand conform to the grip angle. It still feels good once the hand grips it and controls the revolver adequatelly but it is a foreign angle to the hand.
The frame of the Colt has the damnable situation where a spent cap or fragment can fall between the hammer and the frame upon re-cocking.
The shape of the Remington frame is taller than the Colt and it puts the center of the cylinder about 1/4" higher above the hand. Due to this, the axis of the barrel is naturally a bit higher and the gun really "feels" different. Both are great guns but I tend to prefer the way the Remington dsign prvents the fragments from jamming the hammer against the frame. You still have chances for fragments to do harm though... Nothing is perfect.
Just my take,
ZVP
 
Let's see, don't the Remingtons have a tendency to bind up with fouling rather earlier in the session?
Click to expand...

I do believe that to be true. The original Beals models had a squared off breech on the frame that had a tendency to lock up the gun with fouling. The Elliots and New Model Armies and Navies had a releif cut in the frame that exposed the barrel threads to reduce the fouling. Didn't do much to keep the cylinder pin from binding up though.
 
Last edited:
I have two pairs of Euroarms Remingtons (36 & 44) that will shoot an entire match without fouling but my Ubertis need a drop of oil on the front of the cylinder/frame juncture between stages to keep turning well. 30 gr loads gum the Ubertis up faster than 20 gr loads but the 4 Euros aren't that bothered by fouling. I can't figure it out unless it is due to the tight gaps on the Ubertis.
 
I am a dyed in the wool 1860 Army shooter, BUT, I ran across the Prince of Pistoleers side match in the shoot of the same name last June. I found myself wanting the better sighting system of the Remington for the precision shooting required.
In a slow fire, deliberate aiming situation, the Remington outshines the Colt.
 
The precision shooters of the North/South Shooters Association almost exclusively use Remingtons for their target shooting. Many have tricked out accurized Remingtons just like the CAS shooters use short stroke kits etc..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top