• 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

If you could own only one

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Well lonewarrior ., I guess youll need to decide for yourself which one youll try first..., you know the beauty of this .,is., after a while you can always get another..,. and another., and ? You only live once. With all these pros and cons., it seems personal prefrence is really the bottom line here. As far as balance goes., I have no problem gun spinning with an 8" 1858 Remmie I guess its what your used to., and how often you use it. All 3 are alot of fun.
 
there are just as many remingtons from the 1860's around as there are colts. after i learned how to lube the remington i have not had one lock up. i have done alot of shooting with the rem. never had a problem with the rammer. have seen some broken. but then those people were trying to use harder lead have broken them also seen the colts with the barrel dented fron the same thing.

that all said the roa with fixed sights would be the best of all three. if it were for field or defense use.
 
bob308 said:
i have a new in the box 60 lets talk about those remingtons

Nah. I like my Remingtons. I've got a fairly new 60 Colt. It's just that if I had to choose only one like the topic says it would be the 60.
 
I once owned (untill a burglarly) a 2nd model Dragoon. Purchased approx. 1974, perhaps made by Uberti. After major shooting intervals, it never seemed to lack for cylinder lubrication, although I used graphite grease. I would overload it with powder to the point of having to trim the excess of the ball overhanging the cylinder with my knife just to get it to turn into battery. It would also shoot double ball loads as if it had asked for them. If I had not been carrying that revolver in my vehicle on a certain day in 1983, I would have been robbed by undesirables with a .25 auto and also a shotgun(!!). Needless to say, I stood my ground at their peril, but I would not recommend that to you, the gentle reader, today, against, perhaps an AK. I no longer have this piece, but I may yet find an adequate replacement. The ease of dis-assembly was almost child-proof. You took out your knife and with the handle end you knocked out the key. Barrel and cylinder came off and you could just swab it and re-lube the cylinder pin. The key was retained by a screw and not the surrounding grass! My research indicates that this could be done on horseback with a loaded spare cylinder in the pocket of your jacket! I don't know about you, but I would fear to have a loaded cylinder (with caps on nipples, of course.) in the pocket of my jacket. Just my luck, I would "pull a cork" with some friends, have some equilibrium issues and lose a certain part of my manhood anatomy due to the fall and subsequent possible percussion occuring. I have shot this gun with 47g of FFFg most of the time, and my 11-year old daughter liked it, too. I think it was called a "Texas Arms". (Supposedly a replica of a Confederate replica of a Colt 2nd that only had 440 original items manufactured.) At the time that I bought it, I wanted a Walker but I was told that the cylinder latch was of dubious stature. This one was almost the size of a Walker and I lied to a bunch of people calling it a Walker and nobody ever doubted me. My only regret is not ever trying to shoot conical bullets with it, but I may yet do that if I ever obtain a suitable replacement. The 1860 is more aesthetically pleasing to me, almost streamlined looking, compared to the 2nd/3rd dragoon, but also seems a bit fragile in the side-by-side comparison. All things considered, I would get another 2nd, an 1860 would not hurt my feelings and I think that Remingtons are butt-ugly. But this just one man's opinion and if you disagree, this just means that you have a mind of your own. I wouldn't want it any other way!. Look for me when you see the smoke on the wind.
 
Actually, the point is that there are as many Colts around as Remingtons. It's the Remington guys who toss out the tired old garbage about the Remington being so much stronger. It is completely irrelevant anyway, since no one today is likely to shoot either one enough to wear it out.
The Ruger is a fine gun but of no interest here. The three revolvers in question are the '60 Colt, the Remington and the Rogers and Spencer--a very fine revolver in its own right.
 
Russ T Frizzen said:
The Ruger is a fine gun but of no interest here.

Why? The question was, "If you could only own one gun, what would it be?" There were no limitations placed on the answers; an AR-15 would qualify. My answer was an honest one; I'm disappointed to find out you aren't interested in what I think.
 
My reply was to bob308. The original poster asked about three specific revolvers that he was interested in. While the poster did ask if there different recommendations, these were the guns he had narrowed his choices down to. I took that to be a limitation to some degree. The Ruger wasn't on the list. I never said that I wasn't interested in what anyone thought--and certainly did not mean to imply any such thing. :surrender:
I'm not sure about that AR-15 though. It would seem to miss the requirements of the poster and this forum on a number of levels.
 
Russ,

I appreciate your response, thanks.

The forum rules would certainly eliminate an AR-15; it was a bit silly of me to make that reference.

I don't think lonewarrior intended to limit the choices to 3 guns - he said they were his choices for favorites and asked if we agreed or liked something different.

Yes, I do like something not on his list for my own personal 'one and only': the Ruger Old Army. I would also give strong consideration to the Rogers & Spencer. And although I wouldn't choose one as my 'one and only', I also like the 1860 Army and 1858 Remington, with an 1851 Navy getting honorable mention; if lonewarrior's three are the only ones I get to choose from, it would be the Rogers & Spencer, then 1860 Army followed by the Remington, and I'd be happy with any of them.

All that said, my personal favorite right now is a Walker, but I wouldn't choose it as a 'one and only'.
 
It was also my impression that the choices were limited to the 3 listed. the Colt, Remington, and the Rogers & Spenser. I have all 3 and it seems the one I use the most is the Remington for target practice, and for my civil war impression.
The ease of changing cylinders without tools is a big plus. I also carry the spare cylinders in a cylinder pouch (single or double). Try reloading loose powder in the cylinder while on the run chasing or being chased. And also try using a hammer and screww diriver while running. Accuracy comes down to practice on any of the 3 choices.
Gumming up the cylinder on the spindle has never been an issue for me on any of the pistols. I learned a long time ago from an old timer to make sure ther was plenty of lube and not to over charge each chamber.
here is my personal rating list:
1-Remington
2-Rogers & Spenser
3-Colt
 
if you had seen my first reply i said the remington. i added the roa after it was brought into the thread.

now as far as the colt being as strong as the remington. it is simple design anything supported by 3 is stronger then something supported by 2.

if the colt was so great why did they make the 73 with a top strap like the remington?
 
Remington would be my vote for just one. However, I would miss my Colt 'cause it's pertier ta look at. :grin:
 
bob308 said:
if the colt was so great why did they make the 73 with a top strap like the remington?

In my opinion just so you wouldn't have to break it down into three sections to clean it. :grin:
The open top frame has no limitations when it comes to bp loads. My 60 Colt isn't quite as accurate as my oldest 58 Remington but it's more accurate than my newest 58. You have to bench all of them to tell the difference tho. There's really not a lot of difference between the two Remingtons.
 
bob308 said:
it is simple design anything supported by 3 is stronger then something supported by 2.

Nope. That's true only if the total bearing area of the 3 supports exceeds that of the 2 supports. And the Colt base pin is one heckuva lot bigger than the Remington base pin. The superior 'strength' of the Remington design is a myth; both guns have more than enough strength to do their intended job.
 
I would have to agree about the Walker. It's just such a great revolver. There's something so American about it. Epic almost. I'd rather carry my Walker than a carbine. And with a proper holster, carrying it isn't a problem. Maybe a '60 Army in a shoulder rig for backup. :thumbsup:
 
Russ T Frizzen said:
My reply was to bob308. The original poster asked about three specific revolvers that he was interested in. While the poster did ask if there different recommendations, these were the guns he had narrowed his choices down to. I took that to be a limitation to some degree. The Ruger wasn't on the list. I never said that I wasn't interested in what anyone thought--and certainly did not mean to imply any such thing. :surrender:
I'm not sure about that AR-15 though. It would seem to miss the requirements of the poster and this forum on a number of levels.

I do appreciate everyone's input, including those models that were not on my list. Many different qualifications influenced the three that I listed. These will be used for plinking and self defense. I did have a chance to examine an 1860 and found changing the cylinder to be not complicated at all (using a pocket knife, something I carry at all times, not specialized). I'll be making my decision in a couple of weeks and do look forward to more spirited discussion.
 
:v I personally think the ROA is just out of the scope of this forum and a thoroughly modern gun nowhere in the realm of true repro's of past guns. However since I am not the moderator I presume that it hasn't apparently struck a wrong note with him---so be it. :surrender:
 
Pasquenel said:
:v I personally think the ROA is just out of the scope of this forum and a thoroughly modern gun nowhere in the realm of true repro's of past guns. However since I am not the moderator I presume that it hasn't apparently struck a wrong note with him---so be it. :surrender:

I don't like them either but if you throw them out you have to throw out the Cabela's Hawkens and the like too.
 
Back
Top