Remingtons vrs Colt open top revolvers

[Marshal Deadwood]

I don't want to start a war, just some thoughts on historic 'evolution' of revolvers kinda,,

I love the early Colt open top design,,,,I think they are graceful and well balanced,,,,but here's my question...

I have a .58Rem now,, and have been just sitting today and comparing the engineering between the Colts and the Rem,,,,

Is there an edge you guys would give the Remington over the Colts,,or visa versa ??

I like both,,as im sure ya'll do too,,,just looking for a comparsion ,,,,on the historic design between the two companies.

Marshal Deadwood

[Halfway Creek Charlie]

Two basic edges for the Remy...

1. Top Strap =  stronger design

2. Quicker cylinder changes with the Remy, due to the cylinder pin configuration(downside is that it easily fouls without Olive oil or a               like lubricant.)

Now two for the Colt OT
1. Classic looks
2. Great point and feel (Navy's and Army's)

[Marshal Deadwood]

Halfway Creek,,,I found that out,,my Rem 58 starts to 'bind up' much faster than my Colt 60Armies.

but, I still like the Remie,,very well,,,I can see extra cylinder in the near future.

Marshal Deadwood

[hellgate]

Great question. My father-in-law, an aerospace engineer, looked over one of my Colt's revolvers and just shook his head, smiled and handed it back saying he'd never want to rely on it citing the weak design (everything held together by a single wedge). I started out in SASS shooting my '61 Navy and a Ruger Blackhawk in 1992. I keep the RBH for team shoots, went to the Darkside and never looked back. I had not shot any Remingtons for about the first 5 years. The Colt Navy grips are just perfect for me and couldn't see any improvement necessary. I also had tweeked my guns and loads so I did not get cap jams. My still favorite guns are a pair of $99 44cal '51 "navies". They are like an extension of my arm. I figured the Remingtons were industrial grade ugly, clunky, and harder to clean (no 3 piece takedown). I had owned a couple of SS Pietta Remmies but they were klunky, froze up on my and were hard to cap on the clock. Since then I have discovered Ubertis and Euroarms Remmies and my opinion has changed dramatically. Let me sum up that I like them ALL (Colt's & Remington's revolvers).
Here's a comparison of pros & cons of each that pop into my mind:

Colt:

pro- easy to clean, cap, point (balance), good looks, takes longer to foul,

con- difficult to correct windage, lousy sights (can modify easily), holds less powder, Pietta navy grip shape not like other makes or original,

Remington:

Pro-holds more powder, easily accepts conicals, good sight picture, fewer cap jams, adjustable mainspring on Uberti,

Cons-variable weights & grips between makes, harder to cap in a hurry, heavier (except Euroarms), trigger guard raps big knuckles, some foul easily,


I think Colt recognized the advantage to screwing the barrel into a solid frame as quite a few of the original colts I've seen have dovetailed front sights which tells me the guns shot off to one side and needed correction by a gunsmith. The two Pietta Remmies I had needed their barrels turned to correct windage. The Ubertis & Euro Remingtons were fine out of the box. I've had several Colt repros that were WAAAAY off. On one (which was a "can't pass up deal" on the Wire) I resorted to bending the barrel considerably. It looks awful but it is one of my favorite match backup guns (in case of breakage or a 3rd gun reload stage) and shoots to point of aim. I love showing it off.
I don't think there is an edge in SASS. In the N/SSA hardly anybody shoots a Colt as they hold precision shooting matches with the pistols. You can buy "accurized" Remingtons but generally no one bothers with a Colt. So, if super accuracy is what you want, get a Remington but a Colt will shoot all day long. Some Remingtons will also but my Ubertis foul out in about 2-3 stages unless I put a drop of oil on the front of the cylinder at the frame contact point and jiggle it down onto the cylinder pin. That is no big deal and takes a couple of seconds.  It's mostly personal fit & preference. Hope I have helped.

[Montana Slim]

Remington has the advantage in the modern world.....at least for CAS. The cylinder is easily removed. Many take advantage of this by charging the chambers at their guncart using a loading press. This also allows easy loading with a minimum powder charge (less than the on-board rammer) and facilitates the cleaning the cylinder-pin and face of the cylinder that needs cleaning after each use....There are also the cartridge cylinders that allow one to swith to/from using them new-fangled catridges...In percsussion mode...in the the old-days or in a "real"    world, the Colt gets the nod.

Slim

[Fox Creek Kid]

I love both. Charlie pointed out well the pros & cons of each. I will add that I have an Uberti three screw '60 Army that shoots ragged one hole groups and it has been filed on, soldered and basically "duct taped" together and has lots of "slop" but it refuses to die! If I were to use a cap 'n ball in an Old West gunfight I would use a Colt for the pointability factor.

[Buffalow Red]

i have never shot a colt i picked the rem because of the weak look of the colt

[Major 2]

All do respect to the aerospace engineer....

The Colt design was strong enough to help win a War, strong enough to to be used & copied by the South to continue the conflict for 4 1/2 long years. In fact the design lasted nearly 50 years and during the CW was the most prolific revolver sold to the Military.
The design was good enough to be produced under contract in Europe, saw service in Crimean & later Boar Wars.
And be copied by other manufacturers... Manhattan & others.
The design was carried on well into the 1880's, and strong enough to be converted to both rim fire & center fire.
It worked, and worked well... yes the Remington's were stronger ,  Colt saw that and designed the 73, but continued the OT design some 9 more years they were quite strong enough.


Buffalow Red , your missing an experience.... try one and enjoy 

I imagine a Ruger Vaquero is stronger than a Remington...I'm not concern hot elephant loads.

I enjoy my Colt's and my Remington... 

[hellgate]

Hey major 2,
I agree with everything you said. They were plenty strong for what they had to do and the powders of the time. My main criticism is that Colts are more likely to not shoot to point of aim.

[Major 2]

I have two Type 1 Richards conversions ... both are dead nuts accurate @ 7 yards . I can put  5-6 shots in a ragged hole
about 1 1/2" off hand... they shoot better than I do...
One my  2nd Gen. 1860 Armies shoot better with it's R&D conversion Cyl., than as a C&B...go figure   
I've had it 30 years  and just dropped in the R&D about a 15 months ago.

One of the Richards has the slickest action I ever owned and is tighter group to POA than the Factory Conversion Remy.
But I've only had the Remington about 3 weeks and have not discovered the best load for it yet.