Think the unmentionable Luger and you have pointability illustrated.
-
This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.
Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades -
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
Colt 1860 Vs Remington New Model
- Thread starter Walkabout
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
- Status
I really appreciate both guns . For me I found the remington ran smoothly right out of the box with just minor polishing. My uberti 1861 from Dixie was garbage it would bind up when you tried to cock it. Dixie offerd to refund I decided to send it back they sent it back after repair with a three click to cock. And the cylinder was completely buggered . My pietta 1860 .44 was way better but suffering from cap jams . The 1858 just works better with less tinkering but the colt navy is a beautiful gun to look at and when you get it prepared to function it is great to shoot
The flat spot is to retain the base pin from falling completely out when removing the cylinder. The loading lever pivot screw keeps it retained. From pictures that I have looked at it seems the originals were this way also.
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2018
- Messages
- 4,497
- Reaction score
- 5,608
That does make sense
Keep in mind, the surface with the "migration grooves" ( that link the fouling groove to the decreased diameter section) is also the forward bearing surface for the cylinder. Don't sand, clean up, polish or diminish that section ( migration grooves only!).
Use a good amount of Mobil1 grease and you'll not have any problems.
Mike
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2022
- Messages
- 771
- Reaction score
- 1,161
I do not think the flat spot on the bottom of the Remington cylinder axle is (deliberately) a grease groove - it is the mechanism that lets it slide back and forth in the frame without pulling all the way out.
You have to remove the loading lever pivot screw to install or remove the cylinder axle.
You have to remove the loading lever pivot screw to install or remove the cylinder axle.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2022
- Messages
- 771
- Reaction score
- 1,161
Here, this will show it:
Using the loading lever to capture the cylinder pin on the Remington was, I believe, patented, which is why other designs like the Spiller & Burr and the Rogers and Spencer require you to turn the pivot screw 90 degrees to unlock the cylinder axle.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2022
- Messages
- 771
- Reaction score
- 1,161
Before you go all crazy grinding on your cylinder axle, you might just put some grease over your bullets. Yes, it's messy, but in N-SSA competition I usually put 8 cylinders of ammo (48 shots) through the gun between individual and team shooting. All I do is brush the bore between cylinders. I never clean the axle or the cylinder and I have no problems with binding.
I grease my axle with High Pressure Grease from McMaster Carr (same thing I use on my Sharps breech block).
It is interesting to note that the Rogers and Spencer solved this problem (and gas cutting of the axle) by adding a boss to the front of the cylinder that intercepts the gas blast. The Ruger Old Army used this technique also.
I grease my axle with High Pressure Grease from McMaster Carr (same thing I use on my Sharps breech block).
It is interesting to note that the Rogers and Spencer solved this problem (and gas cutting of the axle) by adding a boss to the front of the cylinder that intercepts the gas blast. The Ruger Old Army used this technique also.
Must be the power of suggestion. Thinking of getting that 3rd model Dragoon I've always wanted.
What does the frame look like on the Old Army? Is there a window on one side to get the cylinder in and out? Wouldn't be too hard to counter bore the cylinder and press in a bushing to achieve this. Would have to modify the frame also of course. I usually don't hand grind BTW unless I have to as I have a lathe, mills, and a surface grinder! haha
I will say this. I inherited a Remmy from my Uncle's estate. He got it in a trade deal with other things. Someone neglected and abused it pretty badly. They dented up the frame in what looks like they were trying to get the cyl pin out with a steel hammer. The barrel is pitted as is the forcing cone. He scrubbed it out, oiled it and stuck it on the back shelf for many years. When I inherited it the cyl wouldn't turn freely as the pin was a little bent, straightened it out. I gave her a good cleaning and did what I could with the cosmetics (which was very little unfortunately). Fortunately the muzzle was like new. Went to the range and it shot more accurate as any CB revolver I've ever shot, it does have adjustable sights. She's kinda battered and unsightly but I will never let go of it. She also handles (just barely) 40gr fffg without a problem but I only load it like that when she comes with me in the SxS. It's a joy to have one CB revolver workhorse that you don't have to worry about scratching.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2012
- Messages
- 32
- Reaction score
- 29
Don't know if it's been mentioned or not and just my 2 cents worth I always heard Rogers and Spencer were better than both , I do like the feel of a 1860 Colt , but I know the 1858 Remington will handle some heavy loads with no problem.
Well, you don't have to be "crazy" to do a worthwhile modification! Lol!
As I said, it works rather well for the cowboy crowd and has been done to several State champion's Remingtons!! I never said you have to do this mod, just that it works very well for my customers. My folks don't like to " hope" it makes it, they gotta "KNOW" it's gonna make it!!!
Mike
- Joined
- May 28, 2022
- Messages
- 9,043
- Reaction score
- 21,747
- Location
- Louisiana & My camp in Mississippi
I've never shot a Rogers & Spencer, but yes, they're supposed to be very nice revolvers. There's been a few comments made on them.
Snake Pleskin
54 Cal.
I have no troubles running 6 cylinders fully loaded …. No sticking , no cap failures/jams to speak of etc .. I quit using various greases as well as soap when cleaning. I clean with hot water & use Ballistol . Accuracy might drift a bit or I just get tired of loading & shooting but at this point they are very reliable & fun. Correct fitting caps matters …. I try not to use plus or magnum caps …but I have good luck with Uberti , Pieta & Pedersoli Remington NMAs ….
- Joined
- May 28, 2022
- Messages
- 9,043
- Reaction score
- 21,747
- Location
- Louisiana & My camp in Mississippi
I know Euro Arms and Armi San Marco used to make them, but I’m pretty sure that was in the 70’s & 80’s. I’ve seen them come up for sale at auctions. I’m sure somebody here knows more about them.Difficult to find a good repo of one?
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2018
- Messages
- 4,497
- Reaction score
- 5,608
It's actually a good, rugged simple design, that I believe is a case where it functioned well enough in service to be effective, and it has advantages to Match shooters for off frame loading , and consistancy.
I honestly cannot completely blame the design because I fired 30 grains of OE 3f in it and a round ball , with no grease or lube and it gummed up. The cylinder pin is smaller and it's just physics, the fouling has to go somewhere . My use was outside of what it was designed for, which was a nitrate cartridge with a lighter powder charge and a conical that (sometimes) had grease grooves like a Kerr bullet, sometimes not like a Johnston and Dow but still, they worked under "normal" combat usage that usually didn't require more than 12 rounds or maybe 18. After that the user sometimes had to take corrective action to keep it running.
I just like to go back to the original design mindset when I think about repros , because it often answers a lot of questions
It may seem unrelated but to me it makes sense.....for example, Remington made contract Mosin rifles for the Russian Govt....the Russian Govt didn't like them because they were made "too well " with tight tolerances and good fitting, Remington made rifles like an American sporting arms gun manufacturer, they made them to Spec. The Russian arsenals made them "sloppier" and they functioned better dirty and in freezing conditions. Remington didn't account for this, they just made them and to the Russians they were unreliable because there were two different usage scenarios from two different ends of the transaction.
Modern shooters and casual "range plinkers" have been saying 1858 Remington repros "bind up too quickly" and original accounts show them as binding up more quickly than Colt but they still worked , when loaded with what was expected to be loaded in them , when Remington originally made them. It's just a theory that I had that maybe will make sense , maybe I'm just rambling
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2018
- Messages
- 4,497
- Reaction score
- 5,608
I'm trying to make sense of why for every person with a reliable 1858 that runs well, there is one that can barely get through a cylinder. Lighter charges, better quality powders? I actually find that most of my revolvers run better with Wano/Schuetzen 3f then Old Eynsford, and OE is supposed to be "better". If we can ever get Swiss again I'd love to try some in my 1858, I'd bet it functions better.
- Status
