Remington vs Colt, it never ends...

Smokin'Joe said:
The top strap design of a Remington provides absolutely no advantage for a black power revolver.
Click to expand...

The Remington top strap sports the rear square sight notch, or an adjustable rear sight on the reproduction target models.
Not that any of this matters anyway because who really cares about which guns another person prefers to shoot with?
I think that we're all just trying to offer a little bit of advice to others who ask for it. But only that other person can decide which type that they like better.
Since every gun that satisfies someone is a winner, it's not like there's any losers.
 
Last edited:
I purchased a Uberti Remington M1858 , the following are my comments on the Remington design.

It is clearly superior to any Colt caplock
Click to expand...

Clearly. That's why nobody debates/argues over which revolver is better.:rolleyes:

One reason the Remington cylinder is so easy to remove is because the face of the cylinder needs to be wiped off every little bit to keep the gun from binding up. The Colt, with it's large axel pin and spiral cut grease grooves, will hold enough grease to keep the cylinder turning free for a very long time. I own two Remington copies, and five Colt copies. I like all of them. The only advantage I see with the remmie is the fact that it has better sights. When black powder is involved, the topstrap doesn't matter a bit.
 
Last edited:
hoof hearted said:
Oh hell..........
Just buy them all and hang 'em on the wall, I did!
Click to expand...

I thought I had enough C&B revolvers, but look at you! Challenge accepted!

So far I "only" have 11. I think. Fairly sure.
 
I bought my S/A battery by the passions I had for each revolver. Got a standard and 5 1/2" '58 Remingtons, several Colt models and my favorite carry gun is the Piettia '36 caliber Police model.
I bought a 4 5/8" .357 Vaquero, I wanted the short barrel cause it just "Looks" right! and the chambering gives me the ultimate in medium bore power plus the economy of .38 Special reloads. (If I ever get all the guns together for CAS I will shoot full power .38 Specials in rifle and Revolver plus a .38 Cobra derringer for side matches), a economical choice as I am retired and on a fixed income.
I think that when you choose your "Classic"guns you should do it from the heart and buy the models that move ya! If a Colt Open Top does it then get one! If a .31 Remmie does it, pick it over the Colt, afterall it;s YOU that will be the shootist with it.
For Cap and Ball knockover power you can't go wrong with the .44 caliber but the .fully charged .36 can do the job so if you find a .36 that turns-you-on, by all means get it or you'll regret it later! I did that by not buying a Brass framed .44 Remington Shooters kit and to save a measly $20 I chose the Brass framed .44 Colt and have regretted it since...
I made the .44 Piettia into a shooter but somehow that big Brass framed Remington still stirrs my soul!
Most of all, shoot your guns as much as possible!
ZVP
 
As far as i'm concerned rems are more accurate but colts are easier to clean. Especially the barrel. you can take a colt barrel and look down both ends. Rems, you have to put your thumb nail between hammer and cone to check barrel. Am I right or is there something we need to know?

WBH
 
That argument started long before any of us was born, about 150 years ago.

But one reason the Colt was liked "in the day" was because fired caps could be gotten rid of by turning the gun over or throwing it back over the shoulder while cocking. With the Remington, fired caps kept getting stuck under the topstrap and hanging up the gun. No fun when an enemy trooper is riding straight at you and his saber doesn't jam.

Jim
 
I read somewhere that a civil war soldier would trade two colts for a remmy. May have been Remington propaganda though. All this talk about the cylinder pin on a remmy binding after a few shots hasn't been my experience. After a few cylinders, well, yeah if I don't wipe and lube the pin. Way I see it, both the colts and rems were for six rapid shots on the battlefield, and no more. After that - holster it, drop it, throw it or wield it for maximum blunt trauma on the enemy. I've never had a colt or a rem bind from fouling on the first cylinder.
 
Way I see it, both the colts and rems were for six rapid shots on the battlefield, and no more. After that - holster it, drop it, throw it or wield it for maximum blunt trauma on the enemy. I've never had a colt or a rem bind from fouling on the first cylinder.
Click to expand...

Then why did they invent combustable cartridges? If you never reloaded on a battlefield in a hurry, wouldn't loose powder and ball be all you need? I have read several accounts of reloading C&B revolvers on the field from the Texas rangers and their Patersons at Walker creek in 1844 through the Mexican and Civil wars, as well as several "indian" encounters. Colt put those deep grooves in the axel pin to hold enough grease to keep the cylinder spinning for more than six shots. Why do people think nobody reloaded a revolver in combat before 1873?
 
If you have time to reload something, it would probably be your rifle. Depends on the heat of action. I can just see men reloading a colt or rem on the field during the action. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
If you have time to reload something, it would probably be your rifle. Depends on the heat of action. I can just see men reloading a colt or rem on the field during the action.
Click to expand...

You would have to be hid out to relaod anything from the muzzle. You couldn't do it on a horse
Click to expand...

Actually, I have read extensively about Mosby's rangers in the ACW. There are more than a few accounts of reloading revolvers in combat. Even in the Mexican war, I have read about Texas rangers reloading their revolvers in a fight. In one account, "Jack" Hay's men reloaded their Walkers and Patersons on the run, on horseback, after emptying them into an overwhelming group of Mexican lancers that surprised them near Izucar de Matamoros. After reloading, the rangers then turned, charged the lancers and emptied them again, before repeating the scene a few more times. So it was done. Probably more often than you or I will ever know. I have also read about rangers reloading revolvers in the battles of Monterey, San Juan Teotihuacan, and Zacualtipan, not to mention countless fights with Mexican guerrillas. That's probably why combustable revolver cartridges have been around since at least the late 1840s or early 1850s. So, yeah folks did reload in battle, and they could do it on a horse.:eek:
 
Last edited:
Well let's scale it down a bit. We both start with empty revolvers. A colt for you, and a remmy for me. You start loading yours and I'll run directly at you and try to crack your head with the butt of mine. No cheating! Once and for all, that should prove the remmy is better.... :p:D:D
 
I count 61 revolvers up there.

At $300 a piece, that's an $18,000 wall of revolvers. Probably warrants an insurance rider.

Steve
 
From a mechanical point of view, I would imagine the Remingtons would take top honors for their solid frame and relative few parts.

It seems to me that increased frame strength+fewer parts=superior weapon.
 
That would be true if placing form over function.
But if putting function first, then its harder to judge which one actually functions better.

It could also be judged based on accuracy instead of strength, or accuracy instead of function.
So then what should the criterion be?
The criterion should be based on what's most important to each individual consumer. Then each consumer judges or votes using their own pocketbook when they decide which one to purchase.
And since every gun has its own quirks, then maybe one particular Colt is better than an individual Remington, and then yet another particular Remington is better than another totally different Colt than the 1st.
Some may just be better than others, but maybe not better than all of the them.
 
Last edited:
Acutully from the idea in 1865 was the rem is a total fail due to the soild frame. If its a .44 mag with 2400 for sure but BP its a total fail. The top frame deflects all the BP gunk down into the action and the things jam like a 1930 M-1 trial gun. Plus they are hard as all heck to cap so there is a reason why they surplused all of them in 1865-66. also you can tear down a gunked up colt faster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top