im trying to decide if i should get an 1860 army, or 1858 remington copy

[jason41987]

im trying to decide right now if i want to get a remington 1858 or colt 1860 copy.. i had a remington copy before but i had to sell it for financial issues and i did like it a lot... but the colts are reported to have much better handling and balance

i heard that if you take the barrel assembly off the colt, and drive the wedge back in too far, itll put too much pressure between the cylinder and forcing cone, and not far in enough you wont have the forcing cone all that close... so im wondering if its an issue to get the wedge reinstalled just right or not?... one benefit i see to the remington is the forcing cone and cylinder gap wont change and its not something that has to be considered

at some point, id like to convert what i get to a cartridge revolver later on... im a fan of the conversion models prior to the cartridge only revolvers... i dont know why, just seem to like them better aesthetically... at some point, i want everything i shoot in revolvers, single or double action, or lever action rifles to be chambered in 44 special (or .44 magnum so i can chamber 44 special) or some shortened variation of the cartridge, like 44 russian, etc.. this way i can stock up on one type of brass, cast one type of bullet, etc

another thing im concerned with is the historical inaccuracies i hear people complain about with pietta, such as grip frame shapes not being close enough to what it should be, while ubertis are... and that piettas require a bit of clean up work to get rid of machining marks, burrs, etc... but i heard pietta had just started putting forth a better effort to improve quality and some people like them more... so if this is the case, i have no problem cleaning up machining marks, or smoothing up the mechanics...

so any information to help me make a decision would be appreciated

[FriscoCounty]

Now this is a can of worms.  In the end, it's a personal choice.  Even among colts, there is heated discussion as to whether the 1851 or the 1860 is better.  You have to decide which feels better in your hand.   If you do decide on the a colt, then go find a copy of Pettifogger's notes on tuning - it is a must read.

As for open tops and conversions.  I have an 1871 open top with the navy grip.  I fits my hand perfectly, to the point I claim it aims itself. It is chambered for .44 Special, but I like to shoot .44 Russian in it.

[jason41987]

hmm... im guessing your open top is a pre-made open top from uberti or cimarron or something like that? where the cylinder is enlarged and lengthened?... maybe it doesnt need to be lengthened.. COAL should be almost identicle for 44 special and 45 colt... and there should be plenty of meat on a standard size cylinder for the 44 special... checked with cimarron and even their richard-mason conversions use an enlarged frame reguardless of what the cartridge is

as for 1851 or 1860 i have some leftover components from when i had the 1858, so i wanted to go with .44 cal and wouldnt feel right getting a navy in anything but .36

[pony express]

If you want a conversion to .44 special or Russian, you'll have to buy one of the "ready made" conversions, the bore dimensions on .44 C&B is same size as .45 Colt, too big to use conversiopn cyl for regular .44 spl. You can convert to .45 or perhaps .44 colt, but with heel base .451 diameter bullets, so it won't match with your rifles unless you do some custom work on it.

I have a couple of Pietta 1860s, after many seasons of CAS use, I had to peen the wedge on one of them, to tighten it up, but none of the cylinder gap problems you mentioned.

[PJ Hardtack]

I've owned several 'wedgies' - '60 Armys, '51 Navys,  but the only one I kept was my 2nd gen 3rd Model Dragoon and four Remington .44s. The last one of them came with a Kirst 5 shot conversion to .45 Colt. It's a Pietta and has a slightly more comfortable grip frame behind the trigger guard.
After considerable use, the Armys and the Navys were getting loose with all the known problems - peening of the cylinder arbor by the wedge, end play, etc. You really have to keep up on your maintenance to keep a Colt 'wedgie' running well. I didn't have the knowledge or the experience.
I've yet to have any problems with my Remingtons, and all were 'previously owned' except for the last one which came 'new & unfired'. The best one was built up from a kit by someone who knew what he was doing.

If conversion is on your plans and you have other guns in .45 Colt, go with the Remingtons. While they don't have the cachet of the Colts, they have a solid, rigid frame and just keep chugging along. They also have less problems with cap fragments jamming the action.

"You pays you money - you takes you choice."

[Fingers McGee]

so any information to help me make a decision would be appreciated

Best advice I can give you is to try out as many as you can.  Basing what you buy on someone elses likes and dislikes can lead to disappointment.  Not every revolver will 'fit' your hands or feel comfortable shooting.  Type (open top ot full frame), caliber, barrel length, and  finish are all personal choices.  My current favorites (and most accurate) are a pair of Colt style 1861 Navies from Uberti; but, I have numerous other Colt's, a couple Remingtons and even a pair of ROAs.

[FriscoCounty]

hmm... im guessing your open top is a pre-made open top from uberti or cimarron or something like that? where the cylinder is enlarged and lengthened?... maybe it doesnt need to be lengthened.. COAL should be almost identicle for 44 special and 45 colt... and there should be plenty of meat on a standard size cylinder for the 44 special... checked with cimarron and even their richard-mason conversions use an enlarged frame reguardless of what the cartridge is

as for 1851 or 1860 i have some leftover components from when i had the 1858, so i wanted to go with .44 cal and wouldnt feel right getting a navy in anything but .36

The 1871 open top was Colt's first gun designed specifically for cartridges and was not a conversion like the Richards Type I or Richards-Mason.  It was chambered for .44 rimfire.

The Factory transitional conversions have chambers and barrels bored for modern cartridges. 

If you decide to do your own conversion, then for an 1860 Colt you will need to use .44 Colt heeled ammunition or bore out the cylinder to chamber a modern round such as .45 schofield.  The cylinder on a cap and ball has the same diameter as the groove of the barrel.  I am not a gunsmith so I can not comment on the safety of doing any modifications.

I do have an 1851 conversion using a Kirst converter, I use heeled .38 colt cartridges in it.