Why not Remingtons?

[Niederlander]

Gentlemen,  I see a lot of people on here shoot Remington conversions, but does anyone shoot Remingtons as percussion pistols?  I've always like Colt open top patterns, but I've been playing with a '58 Remington lately, and it obviously has the open tops beat for strength.  I don't like the feel as well as the Colt, but that could be just what I'm used to.  They do seem to bind up sooner from fouling.  What you you folks think?

[Tequila Shooter]

I shoot the '58 NMA all the time for SASS.  If you've got binding it's most likely because your cylinder pin needs some relief cuts.

[River City John]

Yes, shoot '63 Remingtons in .36 cal. using both the cap 'n' ball cylinder and conversion cylinder.

I have two, one an early Uberti with the more correct small Navy frame, and one built on the same size frame used for the .44 Army. Nipples changed out to SlickShot. The nipple housing on the large frame cylinder I opened up to give more room for a capper. (Cash inline) The small Navy cylinder has a bit more space to get capper in.

The fit of the Navy grips is perfect in my hand, the Army feel a bit "fat" when held in hand. Still shootable.
Uberti pins have a flat milled on one side so no need for relief cuts.
One of the nice features of Remington, they sight better than that teeny post and hammer notch on a Colt. The continuous "V" trough atop the cylinder strap and front blade are much easier to acquire for my aging eyes.

I shoot both Colt and Remingtons and do feel the Colt has a tad bit better natural pointability for me, but practice and muscle memory makes shooting both no issue.

I do not have cap jams with the Remingtons, nor in truth very few with either now that nipples have been changed out to properly fit caps. One advantage of Remingtons is much easier to remove cylinder for cleaning, or if changing out to another loaded cylinder. I will often start with loaded and capped cylinder and switch to conversion if called for by stage instructions when a reload.

RCJ 

[Coffinmaker]

  Ah Yes . . Since You Asked   

NO.  I certainly do not.  Ergonomically, in comparison to Colt Pattern, Remingtons SUCK!!  Too little space between the grip frame and the Trigger Guard.  Shooting the Remington beats the bejabbers out of my social fingers.  Totally UN-FUN!!

Relative strength is not an issue actually.  Neither Colt nor Remington can generate enough OOMPF with BP and percussion cylinders to do damage.

Even though they started out in the Black Powder era, Remington never did solve their inherent fouling problem.  Insufficient gas ring/Bushing in front of the cylinder results in a rapid foul out.

I don't know if I have ever mentioned it . . . .. I Don't Like Remingtons.

[King Medallion]

Well, phhttt, I love my 75's, shoot them the most, alot more than my colt's. Never had any desire to shoot C&B. Altho I did have a Big A$$ Walker for a short time. That cured me of C&B.

[hellgate]

There is about as much difference between the Pietta NMA Remington and the Euroarms (ASP) Remington as there is between the Colt Army and the Colt Navy. The Remington repros are not all the same size compared to the more consistent Colt models. The Euroarms Remmies have much smaller grips, lighter frames and mine will shoot all day without fouling out. The Piettas I used to have were "klunkier" and not as easily pointing. The Ubertis are somewhere in between the Pietta and Euros. My Ubertis only need a single drop of oil at the front of the cylinder where it meets the frame at each reloading to keep them rotating freely for an entire match. Easy peasy. I believe the Euroarms/ASP Remmies are 1/4-1/2 pound lighter than the Piettas.

[45 Dragoon]

Well, the Remington is LACKING in strength as the Open Top design is "over kill" for its purpose!  The Remington or " top strap " design is easier to manufacture correctly (screw in barrel !!) than a correct open top design which is why THAT design is apparent today.

  That said, I am a fan of the Remington (never hurt my knuckle)  and is an excellent candidate for a conversion cyl in .45C !!! A rather accurate setup!! Along with an updated coil spring action, the  cap gun/ cartridge conversion/  cartridge ('75 or '90) shooter can be as tough as its Ruger counterpart !!!
I have had a couple of pairs of Remington's win state championships so, it's definitely a sound platform but it's not the "end all" design for revolvers. It's more a matter of what you're comfortable with.

Mike

[Niederlander]

As far as strength, SHOOTING them has never been a problem.  It was more about using them as a club, etc. that broke pistols.  Same with top break Smith & Wessons.  Sort of like Trapdoors.  They were more than strong enough for any of the cartridges they were meant to be used with.  Hotrodding these old guns with smokeless is what tends to lead to problems.

[45 Dragoon]

Not really, these "old timers" didn't really "know" what they were supposed to do so," over built" or not, did what they "needed" to do do to a certain degree. I have personally bent a Remington frame  (probably a combination of loading shooting ) but would never be able to bend an open top .  .  .  of any kind.  That said, I shoot cartridges in my dragoons that I wouldn't shoot in a Remington!! 

Mike

[Blair]

Hi all,
I like the Remington and the Roger & Spencer revolvers (when and if you can find them these days) for their accuracy and durability. The N-SSA also prefers these for the same reasons. Their matches are shot at 25 and 50 yards, both in individual and team matches. A much greater distance than any WAS matches deal with.
I have never been bothered with "knuckle knock", on them nor with the leaver action Riles, which is why I don't wrap my leavers with leather.
I guess it is just a matter of what you like?
I might add, I only shoot BP in all firearms, cap and ball or cartridge, original or reproduction.
My best,
Blair

[boilerplatejackson]

I was reading this thread, and I got to thinking about my frustrations shooting my 36 Remington in the past with only round ball. But I have since purchased an Eras Gone Bullet Mold, and found that the heel of this bullet will fit the smaller Remington cylinder bore quite nicely.  I want to take it out to the farm and try shooting 30 grains of powder with this bullet. I do own a Kirst converter cylinder for this Remington and love the idea it will shoot a full sized 38 special very accurately. The Pietta made Remington 36 does not require a 375 bullet. For some reason the .358 cast lead bullet bumps up in the barrel quite well.

[River City John]

Here's a pic of my two Uberti .36 cal. Navy's:
The older one manufactured in the 70's(on the right) has a more correct smaller frame and barrel length of originals. The one on the left was manufactured after Uberti went to using the same frame used on the Army .44 repros as a way to streamline production.

The fit of the smaller framed .36 feels absolutely perfect to my hand, while the larger frame seems a bit more clunky.

Oddly enough, the R&D conversion cylinder on the right fits both, but I won't shoot it on the earlier Remington because in my experience the hammer face always gets gouged because the metal in the hammer is softer than the metal used in the firing pins. I don't want to bugger up that pristine early production Navy Remington. Same reason I'm leaving the finish on the grip panels untouched, rather than stripping down to bare wood and using an oil finish.

[Mogorilla]

I use both.   I have 3 C&B cylinders for my Remington and a R&D cylinder.    I like them.  Fouling is more of an issue on Remingtons, but when switching out cylinders, I wipe down the pin and it works well.   If I have time I will put a shot of balistol down the center of the cylinder after firing.   When reloading, most of the fouling is gone.