Which Cap & Ball revolver is better

D

duelist1954

New member
I’m writing a “Guns of the Old West” column about which cap and ball revolver is better, Remington’s New Model Army, or the Colt 1860 Army model. So I’d like to conduct an informal poll to use in the column. If you’re a cap and ball shooter please let me know what you think.

1. Which revolver is better:
a. Colt 1860 Army
b. Remington New Model Army

2. Why do you prefer it? (optional)

2. Do you own both revolvers?
a. Yes
b. No


Thanks for your help.
 
The first cap & ball revolver I owned was an original Remington NMA. I also owned a reproduction of the same model. This was back in the late 1960s and early 1970s. I got so frustrated having these revolvers seize up after just one or two cylinders of shooting that I literally swore off of black powder for 40 years!

A few years ago I saw that Cabell's had a sale on Colt 1860s and decided to try black powder again. The difference between the two designs was noticeable from the beginning. The Colt is a far superior weapon once it is set up properly. No more seizing of the cylinder after a few rounds fired. Cap jams are very rare with proper hammer to nipple distance. I can swap out a Colt cylinder far faster than a Remington cylinder. And the ergonomics of the Colt is great!

To sum it up, the Colt wins hands down.
 
My usual answer follows:

Most people agree that the Colt 1860 Army is a more handsome design, but I believe the Remington New Army is a technologically superior firearm.

Firstly, its solid-frame design means you do not have to take the firearm to pieces, and risk loss, to remove the cylinder. It is mechanically designed to remove the cylinder whereas in the Colt it is more of a disassembly operation.

Because of the solid frame, the cylinder-to-barrel gap is more consistent than it can be in the Colt. In the Colt, unless the arbor shaft bottoms out in the barrel pocket at the same time the barrel frame bottoms out against the pistol frame, the barrel will cock at a small angle depending on how severely you press the wedge in place. There are numerous "how-to" articles on the web on how to set up a Colt so that the arbor bottoms out simultaneously with the barrel bottoming out against the frame, but with a Remington this simply isn't an issue.

When it comes time to thorough cleaning, but not a full disassembly, many resort to "dunk" cleaning - dunking the firearm in soapy water. To do this with the Colt you must remove 3 screws to remove the backstrap, and then remove the wood. This also untensions the hammer spring, which can be a chore to re-tension. With the Remington, a single screw removes the grips and leaves the rest of the firearm untouched, making dunk-cleaning simple enough that I pretty much do it for every cleaning, and then just using compressed air to blast all the water out of the action.

Additionally, the Remington has an adjustable tension screw for the hammer spring, allowing the user to adjust the amount of effort required to cock the hammer and, to some extent, the trigger pull. This feature is not found on the Colt.

While both Colts and Remington will jam from spent cap fragments, the Remington generally seems to suffer from the problem less than Colts.

Finally, the Remington sight picture does not disappear when the hammer drops, unlike on the Colt where the hammer is the rear sight. I'm not sure it happens slow enough to matter, and even with the Remington as the hammer strikes the nipple it obscures the rear sight notch. But there it is.

I own a Pietta Remington New Army and a Pietta Colt 1860 Army.

Steve
 
1). Remington New Model Army.

2). While both models have their strong points and weaknesses, the solid framed Remington is a more self-contained unit with less parts to lose in the field. Lose the wedge on an open top Colt and it is useless.
That being said, I love my open tops, and they see 80-90 percent of my range time. I'm looking at the question from a purely logical perspective. As for cylinder binding, who would need more than five or six rounds on a normal day in the mid to late 1800's...? Granted, I can see where the military would have a need for multiple shots... but your average Joe out riding fences...?

3). I have Pietta replicas of each model and I love them all.
 
I have both a 2nd Gen Colt .44 and a Colt Signature .44 Army and they are both perfect pointing and beautiful pistols to look at. But I do have a lot of cap jams with them which is why I prefer my Pietta .44 Remington's, no cap jams, more accurate, and as maillemaker noted, easier to clean. A better all over design in my opinion.

I lube the cylinder pin on my Remington's with Young Country Lube 103 and am able to fire 100 shots with no fouling problems.

John Wesley Hardin, the famous Texas outlaw seemed to have no fouling issues with a Remington either. Writing in 1894, Hardin said:

"Bradley saw me and tried to cut me off, getting in front of me with a pistol in one hand and a Bowie knife in the other. He commenced to fire on me, firing once, then snapping, then firing again. By this time we were within five or six feet of each other, and I fired with a Remington .45 [this was in 1869, so it had to be a cap and ball .44] at his heart and right after that at his head. As he staggered and fell, he said, 'O, Lordy, don't shoot me anymore.' I could not stop. I was shooting because I did not want to take chances on a reaction."*


*The Life of John Wesley Hardin, as Written by Himself. University of Oklahoma Press 1961 edition, pg. 21.
 
Last edited:
I have both. I have I Uberti 1860, 2 Pietta .44 1858's and a Euroarms .36 1858. The 1860 fits my hand more naturally than the .44 1858's and is more of a natural pointer. The one I really prefer is my Euroarms .36 1858. It has a smaller frame(as the originals had) and is more Colt like. The shorter length barrel(5 1\2") helps plus the smaller frame. This is the best way I can describe it. I have conversion cylinders for the 1860, 1858 .36 and 1 1858 .44. The 1858's have less cap jams but I use the overhead and shake move in cocking all of them and don't have all that many cap jams.
 
Last edited:
I have both. I get fewer cap jams with the Remington, they hold more powder, and you can easily shoot conicals if needed. So, if I want reliability I shoot one of my (nine) Remingtons. However, all Remingtons are not alike. The Piettas are beefier with thicker grips whereas the Armi San Poalos have the smallest grips and are the lightest frames. The difference, to me, is almost as much as the difference between the Colt Army and the Colt Navy in feel but with Remingtons. So comparing Remingtons to Colts is like comparing oranges and grapefruit with apples (Colts being the apples).

I do like Colts though and used a pair of 44 cal "Navies" to become the top Oregon Frontiersman at this weekend's Oregon State SASS championship. I shoot 'em all at times.
 
I have both but I prefer the Colt. A colt feels better, points better and I shoot them better not to mention the Colt just looks better. I prefer the 51 over the 60 but I'd take a 60 over a Remington anytime.
 
Maillemaker + 1

Could not have said it better.

I own about eight Colt clones including a Second Gen and a Belgian Centaure (SN952).

I also own five 1858 clones Uberti, ASM, ASP and Pietta.

The feel and look of the Colt is offset by the user friendliness of the Remington.

On the Remington's side, shooting it is like shooting a shooting machine. But handling it is like handling a dead weasel or a dead chicken.

(Which means I also agree with Hawg.)

So, to answer Mike's questions:

1. I like the Colt better (As long as you admit that the word "better" is not very descriptive.)

2. Because the Black Powder Revolver shooting experience involves a lot of "handling" and the look and feel of the Colt makes it more esthetically pleasing, more awe inspiring to handle. (And maybe a little easier to point.)

3. Own both. Have shot both a lot but never for competition or at a sanctioned event.
 
I have three Colt Navy clones, a '51 from the old defunct Hawes, a '61 Pietta, and a '62 Uberti. A '60 is on the wish list, but I think I will build a Traditions Kentucky rifle first. I have purchased a '73 Pietta SAA (which can be used with black powder loads) that comes off California's 10 day hold tomorrow. Right out of the box it is almost perfect. A little trigger creep, a very small amount of grit on the hammer, but perfect lock up.

I have never cared for the Remington, stylistically, but have to agree that it is a more robust and powerful firearm. On the other hand, a .36 doesn't need to be robust at all to withstand 20 grains of BP/Pyrodex. And I am not so sure that a .44 with a steel frame really needs the top strap for strength unless one continually loads as much powder as possible (not a good idea for accuracy, so I don't know why people do so). After all, many survived the War and were converted to .45 cal. cartridge guns.

As an aside, I have a (very poorly written) period book about the Vigilantes of Montana during gold rush days, and I was surprised about the reported number of pistols that misfired during use, even by outlaws who presumable reloaded often. I wonder if that was the case elsewhere. As another aside, an article I read about Hardin said that his first gun was a '51 Colt; he upgraded to .44 for the greater firepower.

My Hawes has a (non-original) 5 1/2" barrel, a very heavy and robust frame, exquisite timing and a slick action. The '61 I bought from a gentleman in Michigan who tunes them before sale, and it is wonderful. But my favorite, although least reliable, is the '62 Uberti. The hand broke almost immediately after arrival (this was a "used" but never fired firearm), and the action was gritty, the hammer pull stiff, but it is light, slender, elegant, and fits wonderfully in my (medium) hands. All three shoot high at 15 yards
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top